Post by VemuKhaham on Aug 26, 2004 17:24:13 GMT -5
I got inspired to start this thread cause I just read something about alignments and the problems they - in my opinion - tend to create in the thread d20modern. I wanted to know if anybody around here thinks the same, or if I'm really alone in my opinion and why? You see, all my D&D-playing friends say alignments are necessary. I say they are not. Why? I will tell you here.
(I hope we could have a nice discussion on the subject. I do confess this has become rather long...)
I personally think alignments are simply the worst idea written in the core books. Well, it's great if they put in a chapter giving basic help with character development and such, but then suddenly they come up with nine categories in which they claim all characters can be divided. I disagree.
For creating alignments in the first place, I can see no single reason why it would be necessary. The only real argument my friends can come up with, is that it supports the magic-system. I say yes, that is true: currently the alignments have been, wrongly, weaven into the rule system, so it does support it. But I can also provide one simple sideway to circumvent this problem, and which will rid the world of D&D of thousands of discussions on 'wether paladins may destroy orc babies' and 'can I play a neutral good thief?'. This could be achieved by saying: spells like detect alignment or detect evil should be changed to revealing wether the target is friendly to the PC's cause or not. This will provide sufficient information, not shortcoming to the power of the current detect-spells of this kind. And by these simple means, I have completely untied the alignment-system with the rule-system of the game.
What other reason is there which should indicate the alignment system is not obsolete? Simply none. Some would say the alignment-system helps people create their characters, especially new players. I would say a simple chapter contributed to character creation is enough to achieve that, and that chapter certainly is in no need of alignments.
But why remove what has settled into the game by now, you say? Because everywhere I look, I see alignments restrict freedom. Freedom in the creation of characters, freedom in the choice of style of playing and freedom in character development. Many players tend to make their characters after they choose an alignment, which is in my view a wrong start to begin: it already implies you will skip a large part of character creation. In a way, what alignments do is set up a trap and make it more probable you will create a stereotype player, simply because when players decide they will play good, they forget to think about possible tendencies of a character that do not fit in that category.
Next to that, DM's are in their right of changing alignments of a player, and strangely enough, some players detest that. Why? I see no viable reason; I only see they have indeed made their character after choosing an alignment.
On a sidenote, there is an exeption to this: classes sometimes have actual alignment restrictions... The word says it all: restrictions. Why can't I play an extremely lawful barbarian, who refuses to do anything then obey his clan leader's will? That's rather lawful isn't it? Only because he uses reckless ways to persue those goals doesn't mean he can't be lawful. Only with clerics and paladins I can find a good excuse, as evil gods would not sponsor a good cleric: but this can be entirely played out without the use of alignments. After all; god refuses to give power? Well, what are you gonna do, cleric? I just find myself attroced when I would think of a neat character ruined because of such an intervention, if done because of reasons that are not role-played.
Furthermore, I often see a DM note that he will not accept a player when he has a player of any particular alignment, most often evil. In my opinion, what he should be saying is something like: "you can make any character you want, from an insane barbarian to a blood-thirsty rogue, but you'd better make sure your character has a reason to play my campaign and stick to it, lest I'm truly forced to interfere." Again, all of this can be arranged without any implication without using alignments, in opposition to when I would be using that system. So again, alignments restrict, and have no further purpose.
To top it all, the current alignment-system is folly. It has nine impossible categories, not even close to cover all the holes and at the same time overlapping each other annoyingly. I mean, the fact that there are so many discussions (I have already mentioned a few examples before) all around us about wether characters are lawful good or chaotic evil explains the insurmountable amount of loopholes this unnecessary system brings with it. I mean, I once heard someone explaining why he could classify Hitler as Lawful good through this system, and in many ways I could not dissagree with him. And even if these discussions can be interesting sometimes, they do confirm the fact that some players care about their alignment more then the event he roleplayed, in which he was 'accused' of acting contra-alignment. I mean, why else make such a hassle of it?
This brings me to conclude that reasons to maintain the alignment-system can be easily overthrown with a little more role-playing (which can never be bad). There are, however, numerous reasons why it would be best to remove them, and in the occasions when referring to character motivation (which in fact alignment represents) is needed, you can simply take it to the game itself and roleplay it out, and not simply point to those two capital letters on the character sheet.
(I hope we could have a nice discussion on the subject. I do confess this has become rather long...)
I personally think alignments are simply the worst idea written in the core books. Well, it's great if they put in a chapter giving basic help with character development and such, but then suddenly they come up with nine categories in which they claim all characters can be divided. I disagree.
For creating alignments in the first place, I can see no single reason why it would be necessary. The only real argument my friends can come up with, is that it supports the magic-system. I say yes, that is true: currently the alignments have been, wrongly, weaven into the rule system, so it does support it. But I can also provide one simple sideway to circumvent this problem, and which will rid the world of D&D of thousands of discussions on 'wether paladins may destroy orc babies' and 'can I play a neutral good thief?'. This could be achieved by saying: spells like detect alignment or detect evil should be changed to revealing wether the target is friendly to the PC's cause or not. This will provide sufficient information, not shortcoming to the power of the current detect-spells of this kind. And by these simple means, I have completely untied the alignment-system with the rule-system of the game.
What other reason is there which should indicate the alignment system is not obsolete? Simply none. Some would say the alignment-system helps people create their characters, especially new players. I would say a simple chapter contributed to character creation is enough to achieve that, and that chapter certainly is in no need of alignments.
But why remove what has settled into the game by now, you say? Because everywhere I look, I see alignments restrict freedom. Freedom in the creation of characters, freedom in the choice of style of playing and freedom in character development. Many players tend to make their characters after they choose an alignment, which is in my view a wrong start to begin: it already implies you will skip a large part of character creation. In a way, what alignments do is set up a trap and make it more probable you will create a stereotype player, simply because when players decide they will play good, they forget to think about possible tendencies of a character that do not fit in that category.
Next to that, DM's are in their right of changing alignments of a player, and strangely enough, some players detest that. Why? I see no viable reason; I only see they have indeed made their character after choosing an alignment.
On a sidenote, there is an exeption to this: classes sometimes have actual alignment restrictions... The word says it all: restrictions. Why can't I play an extremely lawful barbarian, who refuses to do anything then obey his clan leader's will? That's rather lawful isn't it? Only because he uses reckless ways to persue those goals doesn't mean he can't be lawful. Only with clerics and paladins I can find a good excuse, as evil gods would not sponsor a good cleric: but this can be entirely played out without the use of alignments. After all; god refuses to give power? Well, what are you gonna do, cleric? I just find myself attroced when I would think of a neat character ruined because of such an intervention, if done because of reasons that are not role-played.
Furthermore, I often see a DM note that he will not accept a player when he has a player of any particular alignment, most often evil. In my opinion, what he should be saying is something like: "you can make any character you want, from an insane barbarian to a blood-thirsty rogue, but you'd better make sure your character has a reason to play my campaign and stick to it, lest I'm truly forced to interfere." Again, all of this can be arranged without any implication without using alignments, in opposition to when I would be using that system. So again, alignments restrict, and have no further purpose.
To top it all, the current alignment-system is folly. It has nine impossible categories, not even close to cover all the holes and at the same time overlapping each other annoyingly. I mean, the fact that there are so many discussions (I have already mentioned a few examples before) all around us about wether characters are lawful good or chaotic evil explains the insurmountable amount of loopholes this unnecessary system brings with it. I mean, I once heard someone explaining why he could classify Hitler as Lawful good through this system, and in many ways I could not dissagree with him. And even if these discussions can be interesting sometimes, they do confirm the fact that some players care about their alignment more then the event he roleplayed, in which he was 'accused' of acting contra-alignment. I mean, why else make such a hassle of it?
This brings me to conclude that reasons to maintain the alignment-system can be easily overthrown with a little more role-playing (which can never be bad). There are, however, numerous reasons why it would be best to remove them, and in the occasions when referring to character motivation (which in fact alignment represents) is needed, you can simply take it to the game itself and roleplay it out, and not simply point to those two capital letters on the character sheet.
