|
Post by coffee on Jul 30, 2009 13:56:56 GMT -6
I wonder if perhaps we're over analyzing the whole alignment business. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'm quite certain I'm not. Alignment plays a peripheral role, at best, IMC and serves mainly as a tool for the referee (who would be me). Would you care to elaborate? What I mean by that is: What do you use this tool for, as a referee? If you can give specific examples, that would help. It's this way with most gaming ideas, really. I think I understand something, and then somebody comes along and says something that shows me that I might not. So I ask questions (or sometimes just ramble on, hoping that I might make some sense sooner or later). Many times, I did understand the thing, but sometimes I didn't. And then I get to learn something.
|
|
benoist
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
OD&D, AD&D, AS&SH
Posts: 346
|
Post by benoist on Jul 30, 2009 14:18:32 GMT -6
Now give me a good reason not to do so. Don't muddy it up with the burdensome post LBB interpretations It really comes down to what you think is appropriate as a role-playing tool for your and your players. If you feel alignment (or any component thereof) adds something to game play, use it. If you feel it doesn't, just throw it overboard and be done with it. Why keep rules you don't use or don't like, after all? I like alignment, and my players do as well. I treat it as a role-playing tool, not a hardcore rule, and as DM, my calls override the letter of the rulebook. I've been using both law-chaos and good-evil parts of the alignment in my OD&D/S&W game, though I'm increasingly tempted to get rid of the good/evil part to promote a more Swords & Sorcery, morally ambiguous, type of game reminiscent of Moorcock's cosmic struggle between the two evils of ultimate Law and ultimate Chaos. My wife likes a more Tolkienian approach, with clear-cut good guys, bad guys, and heroic deeds to be done, which explains why so far I have kept the dual-axes approach in the game. Anyway. Maybe I'm just wandering off-topic here. My bottom-line is that it's really about the way you understand the role of alignment in your game, and what you feel it accomplishes by tweaking it to your needs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 14:54:40 GMT -6
Would you care to elaborate? Sure. I don't have players declare an alignment, although they are free to do so if they desire. What they write on their character sheets, however, has no effect on gameplay. As referee, I note the player's actions in the game world and make my own decisions as to what the player's alignment is. I should state I don't use alignment languages IMC*, so there is little minute-to-minute evidence of a player's alignment outside his actions. An example: a fighter decides to declare his alignment as lawful, but constantly displays behaviour more befitting a neutral character. A magic sword is found and is subsequently identified a Lawfully aligned weapon. The fighter claims it as his own and confidently draws the weapon, taking damage from the sword. "But, I'm lawful!" he may protest. "Show me," says I. Does that help, or did I miss the point of your question? * Which is currently dormant. I am not currently refereeing but I am participating in 3 different FRPGs that meet regularly.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 30, 2009 15:02:57 GMT -6
Does that help, or did I miss the point of your question? Yes, that helps immensely. I like it. I've always seen alignment as a player thing (most of my D&D career I've been a player; it tends to color my thinking). It's a part of your characterization. You choose the alignment you intend to play. But I've never had a DM actually do what you do, and specifically track someone's actual alignment as opposed to their stated one. As I indicated above, my gripe with alignment is usually because somebody else decided to slap me around with it. "Sure I screwed over the whole party! I was playing my character! What part of Chaotic Evil don't you understand?" I imagine I'm not the only one to hear that kind of thing. I probably am overthinking the whole alignment thing. I guess I really just want in-game permission to kill Chaotic (and/or Evil) characters before they screw me over, without having to justify it. Ah, well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 15:13:18 GMT -6
Yes, that helps immensely. I like it. Glad to be of help ... and thanks! Well, the player still does that, but just a little less directly. If a FTR wants to be Lawful (or LG), he probably has a pretty good idea of how to do that and can play the game accordingly. I've been flamed for stating this, but I don't mind repeating it and to (censored) with the consequences: I don't allow evil characters as PCs in my game. Oh ... and I should also state Clerics are required to state an alignment and consequences of not following same take a variety of forms. Some deities allow a bit more wiggle room than others but the players don't know that until they step out of line.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 30, 2009 15:42:05 GMT -6
Oh ... and I should also state Clerics are required to state an alignment and consequences of not following same take a variety of forms. Some deities allow a bit more wiggle room than others but the players don't know that until they step out of line. And then the Blue Bolts from Above! Gawd, I miss that. I haven't seen that in probably 20 years. (We had this one Paladin who just didn't get it, not even after the third time he got Blue Bolted. Sucked to be him, but funny as all get-out for the rest of us!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 15:47:39 GMT -6
Heh! I had a cleric sneak a scroll case out of a treasure hoard instead of notifying the rest of the party what he'd found. I told him when he moved the case, he heard a rattling sound. Puzzled, he opened the case and took out a 1/2" hardened steel bolt, painted a royal blue.
He blanched, quickly put the case back together and announced, "Hey guys! Look what I found!"
I let him slide, but the way he kept stealing furtive glances at me for the rest of the session made me crack up several times.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 30, 2009 16:10:07 GMT -6
Heh! I had a cleric sneak a scroll case out of a treasure hoard instead of notifying the rest of the party what he'd found. I told him when he moved the case, he heard a rattling sound. Puzzled, he opened the case and took out a 1/2" hardened steel bolt, painted a royal blue. He blanched, quickly put the case back together and announced, "Hey guys! Look what I found!" I let him slide, but the way he kept stealing furtive glances at me for the rest of the session made me crack up several times. That made me laugh out loud. Have an exalt for that!
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Jul 30, 2009 22:36:29 GMT -6
Good responses. Kesher I apologize for glossing over your post earlier. I did read it and am interested in how things develop, alignment wise, in your future games.
As I stated earlier, the more I dwell upon the subject of alignment, the more I wonder why?
Part of me thinks it was included in OD&D only because of the game's Chainmail roots. That bothers me.
When I don't dwell on it, it's a non-factor in my games. So then I ask myself why is it there?
It's a vicious cycle for this referee. One compounded by my absolute dislike for the AD&D 1E take on the convention which, like many other "improvements", just grew in all the wrong directions from there.
edit: And yes, I can confirm Will's assertion that the original Law/Chaos theme, in so far as it inspired Gygax, began with Anderson's Three Hearte and Three Lions. Moorcock has admitted that it inspired his Eternal Champion "Cosmic Balance".
3H3L also provided the inspiration for two other iconic D&D offerings: the Troll and the Paladin.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 31, 2009 13:36:46 GMT -6
I think it is more sensible and useful the more the campaign resembles the kind of setup Arneson and Gygax had. If someone wants to be a "chaotic evil" back-stabber, then he can take his chances with others of his kind -- you are not obligated to invite him to join your adventure.
A lot of things might not work so well in the context of "the party" being pretty much a constant. That change, I think, is central to a lot of critiques and revisions of rules. In a sense, one is playing a different game when the broader structure is changed.
It's sort of like playing Diplomacy with only three players, or using Rise and Decline of the Third Reich for just one campaign (in the military sense, such as the North African or Italian front). It was not really designed for that (unlike, say, Victory in the Pacific, which was designed with "zooming in" very much in mind).
Fortunately, OD&D is very easy to adapt to different circumstances!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 31, 2009 14:36:09 GMT -6
I think it is more sensible and useful the more the campaign resembles the kind of setup Arneson and Gygax had. If someone wants to be a "chaotic evil" back-stabber, then he can take his chances with others of his kind -- you are not obligated to invite him to join your adventure. A lot of things might not work so well in the context of "the party" being pretty much a constant. That change, I think, is central to a lot of critiques and revisions of rules. In a sense, one is playing a different game when the broader structure is changed. It's sort of like playing Diplomacy with only three players, or using Rise and Decline of the Third Reich for just one campaign (in the military sense, such as the North African or Italian front). It was not really designed for that (unlike, say, Victory in the Pacific, which was designed with "zooming in" very much in mind). Fortunately, OD&D is very easy to adapt to different circumstances! That provides some very good food for thought. If you have one party in your campaign, and "Bob" plays the guy everybody hates, it's pretty easy to take "Bob" aside and tell him to shape up and fly right. If you have a wide open campaign, with multiple groups and power levels, and "Bob" has worked his way up to being one of the "powers" in the world (has his own stronghold, men-at-arms, etc.), well then it's a whole different story. I hadn't thought of that. Hmmmm. Now I'm gonna have to go off and have a think.
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Jul 31, 2009 15:01:37 GMT -6
As I stated earlier, the more I dwell upon the subject of alignment, the more I wonder why? Part of me thinks it was included in OD&D only because of the game's Chainmail roots. That bothers me. When I don't dwell on it, it's a non-factor in my games. So then I ask myself why is it there? I really just think it's there as device to define good guys and bad guys - to give a "simplistic" justification for conflict. I quote simplistic, because as you note, it only got more complicated. I mean, alignment could have been presented as "Player Character" and "Monster" for a totally simple difference, and the same effect if desired. Why was it included in the game from the start? The aligned magic sword - the evil high priest - the opportunity for characters to pick a side that has ramifications in the proto-setting of the game, to become a part of the setting in that sense. (It drives me crazy too - always has) Why? Because "Good" and "Evil" seemed too simplistic to Gygax, Law and Chaos provided more wiggle-room? Ethics are a little safer a subject in a game than morality perhaps. One thing, though - with the number of players that original campaigns had, and apparently the not-uncommon Player-vs-Player - I think someone mentioned making all characters choose law or chaos at 7th level instead of just clerics. This sounds interesting - like the low-level grunt's opinions and attitudes (and actions?) don't matter, then once they have survived long enough they have to 'pick a side'... This conversation has made me want to experiment running a game where alignment factors in heavily (I normally ignore it). I would think that most players would choose neutral...
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 31, 2009 16:35:40 GMT -6
One thing, though - with the number of players that original campaigns had, and apparently the not-uncommon Player-vs-Player - I think someone mentioned making all characters choose law or chaos at 7th level instead of just clerics. This sounds interesting - like the low-level grunt's opinions and attitudes (and actions?) don't matter, then once they have survived long enough they have to 'pick a side'... That actually seems to me to have some merit, as far as AD&D went. I remember any number of discussions (probably in The Dragon) regarding the "Detect Evil" spell. Players were trying to use it to find out if their party members were evil, but the official line was that the character had to be "steeped in evil, and eighth level or above" (or words to that effect) for such a thing to work. In other words, lower level characters "weren't evil enough" to show up on a detect evil.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 31, 2009 16:40:40 GMT -6
I think that the number of "bad alignment stories" is often similar to the number of "bad GM stories." :-) For some reason, alignment is one of those ways that some GMs railroad players.
For example, years ago my wife and I were Law-Good players in a campaign with a bad GM. I was a ranger and she was a mage. We snuck into a Dark Wizard's lair to try to figure out some clue as to where we were supposed to move the storyline, when we encounted a library with a spellbook in it. Naturally, being low level, my wife decided that any chance to add to her own spell list was a good thing so we grabbed the book and started to make our departure. Then the GM had a fit, saying that LG characters would never steal anything. So basically, he said we couldn't do it or we'd lose our LG status. Lame.
|
|
benoist
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
OD&D, AD&D, AS&SH
Posts: 346
|
Post by benoist on Jul 31, 2009 17:17:04 GMT -6
Lame indeed.
That seems to be a clear example of a DM who just didn't think his wizard's lair's layout through and just tried to get away from the prospect of giving tons of spells to the mage in the group.
I agree with the wider point as well. Arguments over alignment are very often symptoms of issues of plain bad gaming instead (from DM, players or both).
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Aug 1, 2009 16:41:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 1, 2009 17:32:22 GMT -6
The thing about the "conceit of the common tongue" is that it isn't a conceit. In most areas of human endeavor, there is one primary language that is used, and that becomes the "common tongue" of that endeavor.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the language of diplomacy was French. In air travel today, the language is English -- because it was mostly Americans who set up the flight paths. Among medieval churchmen, it was Latin.
Having a "common tongue" in the campaign area makes more sense to me than alignment languages ever have. (Although it may not be the same common tongue in all areas of your campaign!)
But I really need to follow your example and blog more -- it might help prevent me derailing these threads, as I just seem to have done again...
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Aug 1, 2009 17:46:55 GMT -6
Agreed - totally impractical - real strict interpretation of languages in gameplay is something I tend to avoid also - I guess I meant conceit just in the sense that language is something defined in the game rules, and so is alignment. I didn't mean it in a negative way - and language is a way more practical and useful part of the game to me than alignment's been... All right. *sound of taking deep breath*.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Aug 1, 2009 21:42:40 GMT -6
One must first embrace Alingment in order to even give any credence whatsoever to Alignment Tongues. After 30 years I can say I have done neither.
I'm completely redoing Languages in my games. They will take a more Underworld - Overworld tone in the future. Overworld tongues will be arranged by something simple like Elf, Dwarf, Hoblit, Common, Foreign (Other).
The high INT fellows will have the luxury of possibly learning the Tongue of the Underworld along with specific Monster languages.
Knowledge of specific Monster languages might provide a Parley bonus in certain situations, even though Underworld will allow conversation.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 15, 2009 19:13:07 GMT -6
In any game I have ever DM'd, alignment was ignored. I never bothered to ask my players to pick one and never felt it added anything to the game. In fact I always thought it took away player creativity and created 2 dimensional characters and NPCs. Regarding Clerics, as long as they followed the same sort of behavior their god did, and stuck to their priestly requirements, all was well. In fact this allows some creative developments in various religious factions because both "good" and "bad" clerics might be serving the same god (like Odin or Zeus) and both be in the gods favor. My sense of Alignments is that it was one of those fundamental Gygaxian things. As I understand it, Gygax's own belief, based on his Christian values, was that players should be heros bent on destroying evil, hence the need for alignments. The idea of portraying a world of amiguous and muddied characters seems to have gone against his grain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2009 19:46:32 GMT -6
As I understand it, Gygax's own belief, based on his Christian values, was that players should be heros bent on destroying evil, hence the need for alignments. The idea of portraying a world of amiguous and muddied characters seems to have gone against his grain. This does not square with what I've heard Gary say, both in person and on-line. I'm not claiming to be an authority on all things Gygax, by the way, but I have heard him discuss alignment at length. It doesn't matter, though. While Gary's methods for playing D&D may certainly carry a lot of weight, by no means is his (or anyone else's) way of doing things the only way. Play the game in a way that brings you and your players entertainment. Roll the dice! Have fun! If having alignment hinders your fun, ignore those rules or alter them to suit your style of play.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 18, 2009 20:54:00 GMT -6
Well, I'll defer to your experience here dubeers regarding Gygax and alignments. I was making an assumption based on the prominence he gave it in the game and the level of complexity he took it to in AD&D. We all know about what happens when we assume... Alignments were a part of Arnesons Blackmoor campaign so we can praise or blame him for the concept in the first place. As I understand it though, he largely used it as a gage for who could use which magic items and for who should be enemies with whom.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 18, 2009 21:12:41 GMT -6
And I believe Arneson got the whole Alignment thing from Chainmail, so we're back to Gygax (I'm pretty sure he wrote the fantasy supplement which introduced alignment, but I'm even more sure if he didn't someone will be able to set me straight.)
In the First Fantasy Campaign, where there were forces of Law and Chaos, Arneson also called them Good and Evil, respectively, so it's pretty clear what his views of those alignments were (and Gygax reiterates this about his own views in "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in D&D", in either The Dragon or The Strategic Review, I forget which now.)
|
|
|
Post by gkaralunas on Oct 26, 2009 12:49:50 GMT -6
RE: Alignment
Please remember I'm talking OD&D & AD&D from the reference of playing in the '70s.
I referred to my Paladin losing his Paladinhood in a earlier posting, but the kicker was that he was out'd by a Cleric of the same diety (i.e. Jacob) which I also ran as my 3rd PC.
Alignment played from 0 Level, since in the 3 campaigns I played in the GODs 'were just next door' so to speak and were watching/playing (via the DM) in all our adventures.
If you didn't 'Toe The Line' you were notified very quickly (Can you say Blot From Above"<grin>).
But again this was in the '70s and in OUR Campaigns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2009 21:56:11 GMT -6
Alignment languages made sense to me once I started studying philosophy, theology, and canon law. Drawing on a real world example, there are conversations that Orthodox, or Calvinists, or Lutherans could have that I can't participate in because I don't speak the language. Likewise if I start talking Thomistic philosophy while in the presence of those unschooled in it. The abbreviated "text" lingo, or the "jivetalk" of certain contemporary "youth" subcultures might also be examples of alignment tongues.
I still, as a DM, ignore alignment for the most part, but alignment tongues make a lot of sense, once you have some real world context.
FWIW
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 22, 2009 7:46:58 GMT -6
As an aside, Gary wrote an article in Dragon #9 which had an interesting passage where he discusses the problem of characters of other alignment joining an already established game group.
I thought the notion of listing a misleading alignment on a character sheet, but intentionally playing another, was interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2009 11:52:26 GMT -6
I thought the notion of listing a misleading alignment on a character sheet, but intentionally playing another, was interesting. It also gives some insight to the sort of Byzantine treachery that seems, according to the stories I've heard, to have been the hallmark of the early days in Gary's basement. There are certainly more possibilities than some (many?) of us have actually ever considered.
|
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Nov 25, 2009 17:06:24 GMT -6
As an aside, Gary wrote an article in Dragon #9 which had an interesting passage where he discusses the problem of characters of other alignment joining an already established game group. I thought the notion of listing a misleading alignment on a character sheet, but intentionally playing another, was interesting. Nice find! Will be used!
|
|
|
Post by bobjester on Nov 26, 2009 13:23:29 GMT -6
Although I've lurked here for awhile, I've not posted much here before. I'm also in other forums regarding alignments and I like where this particular thread is going. For simplicities sake, I've printed out my legally obtained PDFs of the LBBs and hope to play in a friend's Oe game or one of my own devising. So getting Alignment 'right' in the first go-round is important, as all of the players have come from an AD&D background, and the over complications of the 9 way alignment system that have cropped up over the years.
I am reading 3 Hearts & 3 Lions for the first time, although I haven't really gotten far enough in the book to determine exactly what the Law-Neutral-Chaos alignment balance truly is. When I get to it I can post it here, unless someone gets to it before I do. (After all, I am a slow book reader...)
From reading this whole thread from the first to the last, I can say that I do like the idea of no one revealing their alignments, if they don't want to, and playing a misleading alignment until obtaining a higher level is equally appealing to me, even as a DM; I haven't really grasped the ideas of alignment languages as it would apply to my game, but I do understand theological/philosophical talk as a 'languages of their own'. I still don't see a place for it in my game, as I would equate 'Thieves' Cant' as an alignment tongue when I look at it through that set of lenses.
|
|
|
Post by longcoat000 on Dec 1, 2009 17:39:14 GMT -6
OD&D Character Alignment per Vol. 1: " Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take – Law, Neutrality or Chaos." Terms: Alignment: an arrangement of groups or forces in relation to one another, Stance: intellectual or emotional attitude. Law: For It. Chaos: Against It. Neutrality: The unaligned in regard to It. I agree with Will that the referee should define what It is, and make his players aware. It can vary from campaign to campaign, but with Clerics and Anti-Clerics it becomes clear what It is in OD&D. My two bits pretty much agree with the above. Previously, I've pretty much been stuck in the Morality vs. Ethics quagmire, but right about the time I started getting interested in OD&D, I read something about Jeff Rients' game and how he defined alignment for a campaign that was basically the movie Pathfinder. It all boiled down to this: Evil, tentacled Cthuloid things from the far reaches of space and time are coming to tear s**t up. Do you: A) Stand fast and fight off the nightmares. B) Join them in their orgy of destruction C) Find a nice place to hide and try not to get swept up in the battle. If you answered A, then congratulations! You're lawful. B would be Chaotic, and C is Neutral. It doesn't matter what you do in the meantime, but when Ragnarok comes, your alignment determines what side you'll be fighting on. The mystic It, in this case, is a choice regarding which camp you'll fall in during the end of the world. It can just as easily be a question of morality (good vs. evil), ethics (alturism vs. selfishness), creation vs. destruction, faith vs. science, light vs. dark, dogs vs. cats, or whatever other dominant theme the DM decides the campaign will revolve around. In other words, nothing more than a shorthand for conflict and where the characters stand in relation to that conflict.
|
|