A structured attempt at alignment

[Scrivener]

Actually, no.
You have suggested that there is a superficial problem with an assumed implementation of alignment. It's an easy mistake to make, but that's why you need to actually break things down as step one.
Occluded Sun has responded by defending a non-conformant solution, which is also unhelpful.

Superficial? Not knowing what an axis if your bi-axial system means seems more than superficial. If you have anything that can be boiled down to a sense of Good, Justice, or Warm fuzzy feelings, you have a serious issue.

I suppose you could have law and chaos, represented by dapper vs scruffy, or some other sensical interpretation, and your other axis could be Belgian vs Congolese, or some other nonsensical, unintutive system that parses clearly to good and evil once you consider how it is applied to the planes and dieties. Here's a big hint, if all Angles are X and all demons are opposite of X, then X is good in practice and in everyone's mind.

I would agree that I'm being unreasonably hung up on Good being a problem, but your rules require a good-evil axis. Rule 1 requests it, rule 2 requires it and rule 5 demands that outsiders can be classified by an axis, once again making good-evil needed. These three rules are in direct conflict with rule 4. You cannot achieve your goal because your rules contradict each other.

[Username17]

Scrivener's argument can be simplified further:

You cannot do 4 and 5 at the same time. To be compatible with 3e, you need to support Paladins. Paladins lose their powers if they do stuff that is incompatible with their alignment. Therefore, alignments need to define what stuff is and is not compatible with them. No simple system of ethics exists or can exist. There are probably not actually infinite numbers of possible actions a character could take, but there are certainly a very very large number of such, and it is impossible to exhaustively categorize them with a simple rubric. People have fucking tried. For at least six thousand years, and almost certainly longer than that.

-Username17

[tussock]

And tussock set up an alignment that is a Friend of Foe identifier not an alignment system.

That's what "alignment" means. What you're aligned with. The only useful thing about D&D alignment is that Bad people use Undead, summon Fiends, and truck with horrible monsters, and Good people don't do any of that.

The way we describe people in those team-jersey bins (as folk here have struggled to make sense of for many years, as does everyone) is simply an attempt to make sense of what someone was thinking when they summoned a fucking Type IV Demon. That person must have been pretty fucked up, not cared about who they hurt, not cared about property damage and consequences and rules from on high.

But it's bullshit. We don't have to care what they're thinking, we just need to know they're in the team that summons Demons. And it helps if they wear some gods-damned insignia so we can play with those ideas in game. So the Wizards in the red robes are immediately evocative and story-driving without making up endless shit about their homelands and culture that no one even cares about and the PCs don't have good in-game reasons to know anyway. Fuck all that mystery bullshit.

Team red: Baddies. Right there. Game on. Same as the FR, same as Dragonlance.

[Username17]

The only useful thing about D&D alignment is that Bad people use Undead, summon Fiends, and truck with horrible monsters, and Good people don't do any of that.

Congratulations. You've just recreated the problem fantasy has been gripping with since Tolkien: Good is Racist. The forces of Evil have Southrons and Orcs and shit, and the forces of Good don't. But the forces of Evil also let in Elves and Numenoreans and whatever the fuck else it is that team Good has. That means that Evil is more ethnically diverse, which in turn makes Good look a lot more like the Axis than the Allies.

It bothered Tolkien, and it should bother you too. Defining "Good" simply in terms of what skin colors aren't allowed really doesn't feel "Good" in the modern era.

-Username17

[animea90]

But it's bullshit. We don't have to care what they're thinking, we just need to know they're in the team that summons Demons. And it helps if they wear some gods-damned insignia so we can play with those ideas in game. So the Wizards in the red robes are immediately evocative and story-driving without making up endless shit about their homelands and culture that no one even cares about and the PCs don't have good in-game reasons to know anyway. Fuck all that mystery bullshit.

Team red: Baddies. Right there. Game on. Same as the FR, same as Dragonlance.

The real reason for alignment is to let more casual action oriented players know who they can kill while still remaining on Team Good, which means less uncertainty and investigation on their part and an easier time creating quests for the GM. The GM can make Orcs Evil(so players can attack it on sight) and the friendly wizard not Evil. Then players know to team up with friendly wizard and kill orcs.

Alignment has never been intended for people who think too seriously about it. Lots of game mechanics will break down if you think about them(see Peasant Railgun).

[hyzmarca]

And tussock set up an alignment that is a Friend of Foe identifier not an alignment system.

That's what "alignment" means. What you're aligned with. The only useful thing about D&D alignment is that Bad people use Undead, summon Fiends, and truck with horrible monsters, and Good people don't do any of that.

The way we describe people in those team-jersey bins (as folk here have struggled to make sense of for many years, as does everyone) is simply an attempt to make sense of what someone was thinking when they summoned a fucking Type IV Demon. That person must have been pretty fucked up, not cared about who they hurt, not cared about property damage and consequences and rules from on high.

But it's bullshit. We don't have to care what they're thinking, we just need to know they're in the team that summons Demons. And it helps if they wear some gods-damned insignia so we can play with those ideas in game. So the Wizards in the red robes are immediately evocative and story-driving without making up endless shit about their homelands and culture that no one even cares about and the PCs don't have good in-game reasons to know anyway. Fuck all that mystery bullshit.

Team red: Baddies. Right there. Game on. Same as the FR, same as Dragonlance.

Not really. The thing is, mixed alignment parties are a staple of D&D. An A Ranger, a Druid, and an Assassin walk into a Tavern and all that. You're Good, Neutral, and Evil characters team up because the Alignment system is supposed to be a roleplaying behavior guideline and enforcement mechanism, not an indication of whose team you're on.

Alignment doesn't tell you what a characters goals are or his affiliations. At best it tells you what methods are acceptable to him.

Lawful? Lying, cheating, and stealing are off the table.
Good? Lets try to keep the stabbings to a minimum.
True Neutral? Can justify anything.
Evil:Some people need killing.
Chaotic? Imposing rigid hierarchical systems is right out. Other than that I have no clue.

The thing where Paladins can't associate with Evil people is supposed to be a huge restriction because mixed-alignment parties are pretty normal and the restriction greatly limits the games that the Paladin can play in. (which, ultimately, makes the restriction stupid counterproductive, but there you have it).


But the thing is, Alignment isn't all that useful as a behavior predictor. It is, at best, a limited behavior restricted. It tells you the things that a character probably won't do. But even that isn't certain.

The other problem is that shifts toward Evil don't add new restrictions, they merely remove the old ones.

So while you know that an Evil person could murder you, you don't know that he will murder you. And for that matter, a Neutral person could also murder you. And so could a Good person under the right circumstances. So not all that useful.

So basically picked Good and/or Law gives you a big list of things that you can't do and the other Alignments don't. Neutral situational morality is fundamentally indistinguishable from Evil situational morality.

For that matter, Chaotic situational ethics is fundamentally indistinguishable from Neutral situational ethics.

Yeah, the WW humanity system was also attempting to use its evil meter as a general indicator of impulse control--get too low, and the MC was supposed to take away the character from player control for being too much of a sicko. That subjects the whole system to all the usual speculative biases people have about crime.

White Wolf was trying to make a game in which you're a brooding goth bemoaning your damned existence. That just happened to be the exact opposite of what most people wanted to play.

The only useful thing about D&D alignment is that Bad people use Undead, summon Fiends, and truck with horrible monsters, and Good people don't do any of that.

Congratulations. You've just recreated the problem fantasy has been gripping with since Tolkien: Good is Racist. The forces of Evil have Southrons and Orcs and shit, and the forces of Good don't. But the forces of Evil also let in Elves and Numenoreans and whatever the fuck else it is that team Good has. That means that Evil is more ethnically diverse, which in turn makes Good look a lot more like the Axis than the Allies.

It bothered Tolkien, and it should bother you too. Defining "Good" simply in terms of what skin colors aren't allowed really doesn't feel "Good" in the modern era.

-Username17

But it does let you feel good about joining team evil.


Vote Sauron.

[Occluded Sun]

Nobilis has a four-alignment paired-opposite system: Heaven and Hell, Light and Dark. There are other 'alignments' which aren't part of the system proper but still exist in the game world, like the Wyld.

Each alignment is defined by a 'Code' or set of precepts / value judgments. Each Code is fairly short, consisting of a few sentences.

I see no reason why the system couldn't be made to work with the D&D traditional poles of Good, Evil, Order, and Chaos.

[Occluded Sun]

Philosophers spend tens of thousands of hours trying to find some way to define some things as good and others as evil without any sort of consensus.

When has philosophy reached consensus on anything? In the modern usage of the term, which excludes mathematics and the other sciences - when has it accomplished anything?

We're trying to create an alignment system. What philosophers say really isn't relevant to that.

[Grek]

Each alignment is defined by a 'Code' or set of precepts / value judgments. Each Code is fairly short, consisting of a few sentences.

Post them.

[Occluded Sun]

It bothered Tolkien, and it should bother you too.

No. What bothered Tolkien about the forces of Morgoth and Sauron was that he believed that creatures had free will, and yet needed all the orcs - ALL of them - to be vile, destructive, malicious fiends.

He thought it was entirely possible for an entity to make so many bad choices that they could no longer seek redemption or benefit from attempts to help them. For example, by the end of LoTR, Gollum has lost whatever remnants of virtue and wholesomeness he possessed, and is effectively self-damned. But it bothered Tolkien immensely to have an entire race/species of entities be damned.

Of course, Tolkien had also suggested that evil wasn't merely an individual choice but could overwhelm and consume individuals even against their will - that Morgoth's song didn't merely seduce but actively corrupted. The cursed Ringwraith blade that nearly kills Frodo would be another example of the principle. Fragments in The History of Middle-Earth indicate that while the good powers were capable of directly perceiving an entity's spiritual essence and thus 'read minds', they rejected the idea of altering the essence of others. The corrupt powers had no such objections.

[animea90]

It bothered Tolkien, and it should bother you too.

No. What bothered Tolkien about the forces of Morgoth and Sauron was that he believed that creatures had free will, and yet needed all the orcs - ALL of them - to be vile, destructive, malicious fiends.

He thought it was entirely possible for an entity to make so many bad choices that they could no longer seek redemption or benefit from attempts to help them. For example, by the end of LoTR, Gollum has lost whatever remnants of virtue and wholesomeness he possessed, and is effectively self-damned. But it bothered Tolkien immensely to have an entire race/species of entities be damned.

Of course, Tolkien had also suggested that evil wasn't merely an individual choice but could overwhelm and consume individuals even against their will - that Morgoth's song didn't merely seduce but actively corrupted. The cursed Ringwraith blade that nearly kills Frodo would be another example of the principle. Fragments in The History of Middle-Earth indicate that while the good powers were capable of directly perceiving an entity's spiritual essence and thus 'read minds', they rejected the idea of altering the essence of others. The corrupt powers had no such objections.

No, Tolkien was also bothered by how easily connections could be made between his stories and RL racist arguments. A common RL racist position was that blacks were corrupted with the curse of Ham, which overwhelmed their good nature and made them savage beasts. Which is very similar to "Orcs were corrupted by Sauron and made into savage beasts".

However, Tolkien needed orcs to be Evil in order to make the good guys paragons of Goodness. When Gimli and Legolas have a competition to see who can kill more orcs(with each of them killing dozens over the course of the battle), it only works because nobody empathizes with orcs. If orcs were just regular soldiers forced to work for an evil king, we would think of Gimli and Legolas as monsters for turning war into a game for their amusement.


DnD has Evil races for more or less the same reasons. Nobody feels bad when you slaughter a bunch of trolls in over the top ways. We can laugh at the dumb evil trolls because they deserve it.

[hyzmarca]

Foiled Axis
Go-Kart - Next Scheme - Revenge

Princess Axis
Protect - Marry - Execute


Okay, there's my two axis alignment system for villains and antagonists.

[tussock]

Paladins lose their powers if they do stuff that is incompatible with their Paladin's Code of Honour.

I fixed your post.

Note that you don't have to follow the Paladin's code of honour to be in team blue, don't have to be in team blue to follow the Paladin's code of honour, and Paladins can work just fine. By default, the game assumes the Paladin magic comes from both being in team Blue and also following the code, but 4e didn't do that and no one really cared.

You've just recreated the problem fantasy has been gripping with since Tolkien: Good is Racist.

WTF? No. If you want CE Elves who aren't purple-skinned underworld folk, just do that. If you want CG Orcs, do that too. The norm is that most Orcs wear black and most Elves wear green, but Demons always wear black and Eladrin always wear Green.

Only real problem with colours is it can't match the Dragons and Slaadi. Meh.

An A Ranger, a Druid, and an Assassin walk into a Tavern and all that.

So let's say CG, NN, and LE. The Ranger and Assassin are from enemy cultures. Their kings have fought a few battles in recent years when their respective allies the Elven Deacon and Hobgoblin Prefect came to war over forestry practices. They are both loyal to their lieges.

They're also fast friends. So both avoid their homeland's intrigues (at least openly) and work with the Druid to bring a balance of power to the conflicts, hoping to end the threat of open warfare and stop the constant pillaging of Neutral lands. Instant plot.

For that matter, Chaotic situational ethics

No. You're begging the question, making an argument that Alignment can't work because you just defined it in a way that doesn't work. Stop that.

[Foxwarrior]

Tussock: Would you say that your jersey alignments would benefit from having alignment languages?

[tussock]

I think the game benefits from having regional languages in very minor ways that aren't generally worth the hassle of keeping track of them. If your regions are strongly aligned (like Cheliax or Thay), they could serve as another useful hint about teams.

But I'd want, need, folk to be able to change teams without doing a mental reboot. You just decide one day that undead aren't worth the risk after all and the king is actually a reckless madman, and you swap teams. Then alignment languages are terrible.

True Neutral (grey) can serve as the guys that are always on the winning team just as well as the guys who don't want anyone to win and thereby impose anything on them. Also animals, who don't know anything about teams in the first place. Unless dogs and horses are spooked by undead and demons and become team Goody by default, which could be interesting for balance (and spread around the fantasy mounts a bit more).

[Desdan_Mervolam]

True Neutral (grey) can serve as the guys that are always on the winning team just as well as the guys who don't want anyone to win and thereby impose anything on them.

Wait, are you actually bringing up that Protected Balance bullshit where Neutral characters were required to change sides mid-conflict if the side they're on began to win? Because that was horseshit when it was the status quo in D&D and should in no way be encouraged to return.

[Chamomile]

Foiled Axis
Go-Kart - Next Scheme - Revenge

Princess Axis
Protect - Marry - Execute


Okay, there's my two axis alignment system for villains and antagonists.

I'm a big fan of this alignment scheme in general, but I don't understand how Next Scheme and Revenge are meaningfully distinct.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Foiled Axis
Go-Kart - Next Scheme - Revenge

Princess Axis
Protect - Marry - Execute


Okay, there's my two axis alignment system for villains and antagonists.

I'm a big fan of this alignment scheme in general, but I don't understand how Next Scheme and Revenge are meaningfully distinct.

Revenge is "Gentlemen, How do we kill Superman?"
Next Scheme is "Well, that didn't work, so how am I going to rob the First Bank of Metropolis THIS time?"

[Grek]

Next Scheme: "Curses! My bank robbery has been foiled. Oh well, let's try extorting the president with a giant death ray pointed at the moon."
Revenge: "Curses! My bank robbery has been foiled. I must make Superman pay for this affront to my dignity!"

E: That is startlingly eerie.

[RobbyPants]

did anyone ever just do 'evil' actions that were shocking and ostentatious but didn't actually cause that much harm? You know, stuff like snatching candy from children, making bigoted remarks in public, spitting in the beggar dish, etc.?

I ran a dread necro in a game that strongly held to the notion of undead and anything associated with them was [evil]. My character would animate all sorts of things and frequently break rules to obtain interesting corpses, but she would use them largely to good ends, all things considered. So, she mostly had to hide her actions to keep from getting murdered by clerics and paladins.

The DM green-lit the character and I had this assumption that she did not consider herself evil in any meaningful way, despite the fact that a Holy weapon would deal objectively more damage to her and spells like Unholy Blight would have no effect due to cosmic rules.

It was a fun little mockery of the alignment system, and probably one of my favorite characters in the 20 years I've been playing the game.

[Occluded Sun]

No, Tolkien was also bothered by how easily connections could be made between his stories and RL racist arguments. A common RL racist position was that blacks were corrupted with the curse of Ham, which overwhelmed their good nature and made them savage beasts. Which is very similar to "Orcs were corrupted by Sauron and made into savage beasts".

It's noteworthy that Sam wonders about the motives of the dead Southron he encounters. But no one has any empathy for the orcs because the orcs are universally foul. They're not just marching under a banner labeled 'evil', they are so needlessly cruel and destructive that any halfway decent person loathes them. There's nothing good about them - they possess barely enough virtue to refrain from slaughtering each other all the time.

The orcs are also, as Tolkien himself noted many times, a representation of Tolkien himself and his fellow soldiers during WWI. Which puts rather an interesting face on attempts to read them as a racial statement.

[OgreBattle]

Here's my alignment axis

Scruffy<--->Dapper
Gentleman<--->Hooligan

Orcs are an example of Scruffy Hooligans. Aragorn is a Scruffy Gentleman, Sauromon is a Dapper Gentleman, Bilbo was a Dapper Hooligan.

[Occluded Sun]

But philosophers have argued for centuries over what it means to be truly dapper. Therefore you cannot justifiably assign Bilbo to 'Dapper Hooligan' nor deny that he belongs there.

Nothing further can be said on this matter, which is why I will now talk about it without end.

[animea90]

Here's my alignment axis

Scruffy<--->Dapper
Gentleman<--->Hooligan

Orcs are an example of Scruffy Hooligans. Aragorn is a Scruffy Gentleman, Sauromon is a Dapper Gentleman, Bilbo was a Dapper Hooligan.

Aragorn was quite dapper at the end of the story. In fact, i would argue Aragorn always possessed the inherent quality of dapperness, he simply chose to be scruffy to hide his dapper nature(he was hiding his right to be king).

So when we choose between scruffy and dapper, do we go off of the characters inherent characteristics or displayed characteristics?

[Scrivener]

Here's my alignment axis

Scruffy<--->Dapper
Gentleman<--->Hooligan

Orcs are an example of Scruffy Hooligans. Aragorn is a Scruffy Gentleman, Sauromon is a Dapper Gentleman, Bilbo was a Dapper Hooligan.

This is a good description method, and says a heck of a lot more than Good/law. The only issue is it doesn't work with the rules. Detect Gentleman, while a funny spell name, doesn't make any sense in context.

Also how do you handle extraplanar alignments? If Devils are Dapper Hooligans, and Demons are Scruffy Hooligans, while Angels are Dapper Gentlemen and so on, then you've just renamed good and law and such. As such it runs into all of those problems.

(On a side note I use this as the short hand for my games, I've removed alignments, but when it becomes and issue this is a great short hand)