Another old video (with some minor changes) that I hope will be a good response to some of the legitimate questions (and shitposting) generated from the previous upload about alignments in D&D.
Thank you for showing how alignment has changed throughout the various editions. My comment on your previous video was intended to refute your idea of "alignment as guideline" by pointing out that since there was magic that interacted with alignment, it must be an absolute within the world of D&D. That came, largely, from a background of playing 3.5. I have played a 4th and 5th campaign, but I didn't delve that deep into 5th. I didn't even realize that WotC had removed a lot of the alignment interaction from 5th, making it less of an absolute. So, I apologize if you took offense to my previous comment. I suppose I should amend my argument to "if you play a game that includes magic that interacts with alignment, then alignment must be an absolute." It seems even WotC has taken a different approach to their designs, and while I probably won't play 5.5 or 6th or whatever they're calling the new version, I might be interested to see what they do with alignment. Also, I think this is the first time a RUclipsr has put one of my comments into their video, even if blurred. I'm not sure if I should be honored or insulted. :)
@@DyrianLightbringer Hey, if you were an issue I'd have blocked you. You're fine. Constructive feedback is always welcome and I'm here to educate not create enemies. I couldnt find the really bad ones because I blocked those accounts. I realize, and I hope everyone else does too, that communicating through posts can leave a lot of misunderstandings. I hope youre doing well.
@@welovettrpgs in that case, I am honored to have had my blurry avatar image featured in your video! I'm also glad that you took my comments as constructive and not just criticism. I actually wrote about alignments on my blog not long after your last video. I might go back and revise it.
When I started running DCC, I adopted Moorcock's view of alignment: its what side in the Cosmic Struggle you admire or serve rather than personal ethics. Law is cosmic order and stable hierarchies - be they for good or ill. Chaos is those with power "doing what thou wilst" - from rugged individualism to total dissolution of the universe. Neutrality moderates both and shelters the indifferent. You pick which grand archetypal urge your character sympathizes with, and your actions toward others shows if you're good or evil.
I prefer the 9-point system. For example, I can clearly understand was Lawful Evil means, and how if differs from Lawful Good, thus illustrating what the Chaotic axis means.
Most likely that was why the 9-point system was conceived in the first place. In order to provide clearer definitions of just what the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis was like and how to interpret its gradients.
I interpret the good vs evil axis as "having selfless vs selfish intentions" and the law vs chaos one as "respecting a set of rules you adhere by or not", being them the actual kingdom's law, your good/evil god's commandments or some own moral code or set of rules. I don't know if this is the intended idea, but it made sense to me this way. ANY definition, if constant within the same table, is good. No need for everyone in every game table to be of the same mind, but a clear definition is needed in every one for some things to make sense.
Another way to describe Lawful vs Chaos is 'Self Control vs Impulsive'. A chaotic person acts on their emotional impulses rather than stopping to hold themselves to account, while a lawful person will pause and question themselves before they commit to an action. Thus Lawful Good is altruism with self-restraint, and Chaotic Good is altruism through impulsive and reactionary behaviour, or 'Selfishly Selfless', if you will.
Great history of alignment. I've always enjoyed discussions about alignment. And I prefer the old idea of good and evil being real, detectable energies. But I also don't mind alignment-free worlds, where what matters is the current objectives, and the players deciding what their characters are willing to do.
Golden rule for all RPGs be them TT or Solo playing Fallout 4. Play like you want, you make the rules.Trash talking this gentleman for giving a history lesson is not what the game is about. Ok Maybe it is for the first two hours of every gaming session but after that its play time. Thank you for the history lesson Sir. Always a pleasure.
Alignment helps me particularly as a DM for roleplay. It makes my life as DM much easier. For roleplay purpose I sometime ad an alignment tendency to NPC to give myself a hint how I should play the NPC. Without alignment it would force me as a DM to give every NPC and every Monster a character description, to know how to play it.
As a forever DM, I find alignment a valuable at-a-glance tool to see how NPCs and monsters act and react without need to do a detailed backstory or PBIF.
Haha! I remember this one! It was the first video of yours I saw and subbed ever since. =) I remember watching it twice rather mind blown by all the dnd lore I was unaware of
This is a very thought-provoking video. I'd welcome further exploration of how ideas of alignment and its importance and effects on storytelling. We seem to be lacking good new stories, and it seems this might correlate with the lack of concern for alignment.
This is my soap box. I wrote 10 essays to be published on alignment, made several videos, and had no telling how many debates on this. Popcorn ready I haven't seen the original video in a while
A nice, concise introduction and overview of a complex topic. Your analogy of the light and dark side of the force is truly apt. I'd love to see further discussions along these lines--perhaps how they help you establish your world and how alignment actually helps your players give their characters voice and a sense of their priorities.
I have used an alignment tracking system. It was from this experience I derived my position that the structure set up for alignment was unwieldly and unhelpful. Nowadays, I use the moral and ethic perspective to view how any specific character is acting, but the only truly important usage is to ensure that the character's soul has an intended destination. If that character should be revived from death, they may gain a glimpse of the afterlife that awaits them. This is not a game mechanic for penalizing players for how they choose to play, but rather a role-play aspect that helps them better visualize the character's outlook. I find this to be the best use for alignment.
Alignment can be great. Look at the old stories, Elric of Melnibone for example. The fight between chaos and order featured heavily in those stories, forming a bit of a central tension. We can use that mechanic in ttrpgs to create stakes instantly, though I think it requires your players to actively consider their character’s worldview in order to function well.
This video explains the response to my comment I got yesterday. Great to hear more details about alignment's history in D&D. I typically discard what WOTC has talked about it and use my own interpretation of its materials, i.e. alignment. I think more fun can be had when you allow yourself to play the game as you want to and not what the publisher said. Their words are guidelines, not rules you have to follow.
I absolutely disregard what WotC says about anything beyond necessary game mechanics. I haven't read any official WotC "How to DM" or "How to Roleplay" advice since 3.5. (2 decades!)
I've played for 20 years and have always taken issue with the lawful alignment, specifically. Here's why: Many people, in game, attribute lawful to morality. It is not; This would be your Good-Evil axis. Your Lawful-Chaotic axis is better described politically, aligning with order and anarchy. Or, selflessness and selfishness. Although that pairs and overlaps with Good-Evil, which is why I don't use this idea - you need two distinct axie, not one overlapping one. I digress. My issue with lawful is that political order, customs, traditions and oaths change from location to location. As an example: George the Paladin is born and raised in the custom setting of Casmire. In Casmire, slavery has been abolished. George the Paladin swears an oath to uphold the tenants of Casmire, so when he ventures to Iskar where slavery is abundant, he takes issue with it. George does what he can to set their slaves free. But, Ronada is a Paladin who was born in Iskar. He too swore an oath to uphold the customs and ways of Iskar. To Ronada, slavery is just a basic part of life and is perfectly legitimized and legal in Iskar. So from an axial perspective, who is in the right? George, or Ronada?
Alignment is really a unique part of the flavor of D&D. By that, I mean the game itself has a point of view that is really unique. The game mechanic of alignment rests on the assumption not only that a player inherently subscribes to a defined worldview, but that worldview is an essential part of their being. If a person or creature is Lawful and Good then they are fully aligned with any weapon, magic, or effect that is also Lawful Good. They are also vulnerable to forces of Chaos and Evil. The reverse is also true. Neutral Good is just the sum of the things a player does, but is an attribute of their character the same as Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma. It leads to a discussion of Deontology and Virtue Ethics. Does a character do good because they intrinsically ARE good, or does doing good deeds make them good? This leaves very little room for nuance when considering Devils or Angels who are the literally embodiment of an alignment. When Lawful Evil takes physical form, a devil comes into existence. So a druid isn't just a person who rejects alignment, but is Neutral and is infused with that as part of their nature. I know I'm in the deep end of the pool, but there is a difference in the way the game DEFINES ethics, morality, and a beings nature - and nothing else out there does it quite the same way. I hope this was clear. The distinctions are somewhat subtle.
This is a very nice history of Alignment in D&D. Yet, I missed the great Dark Sun chart, pairing alignment conform behavior with desert survival strategies. Hope that one will come up in one of your future videos.
Sure. I have learned that if I go too deep ( in to modules and settings) it would double the length of the video and lose most of the viewers. However I can see value in a video only covering settings like DarkSun and Ravenloft.
@@ToesToJesus That felt like a bizarre design choice, but I can see what they were going for. For those not in the know, in D&D alignments of Law and Chaos used to have a secret language associated with them, which you would automatically know. Why? Presumably due to its wargame origins. You could have all kinds of strange creatures collected in your army, so surely they needed some way of communicating with each other (you couldn't enlist units of opposing alignments in your army, see). Hence, a shared language was deemed necessary. But then in AD&D there was an entire paragraph warning that if you were so boorish as to speak this alignment language intended to facilitate communication between likeminded creatures in public, then everyone would ridicule and ostracize you, and would never want to associate with you. Again, why? Presumably because the language works kind of like detect alignemnt spell. Speak to someone in Lawful tongue and if they don't understand you then they're probably not a very trustworthy person. It's heavyhanded and personally I don't agree with it at all, but at least I can understand the logic behind it.
Honestly i think you are right to say it is the hardest concept to get across to people. Alignment isn't a hard rule it can change over time. As for listings for most monsters, it is an aggregate, Are all drow or orcs evil? No, for course not. But as a group, yes. They do some odjectively evil things but that can change. Plus it is your game, run them as you want.
These are the kinds of discussions i like to see and have. Not power builds, not which game is woke or fascist, but substantive conversations on the core fundamentals of gaming. Well done
In my games I usually use a system of alignment that is Good = selflessness Evil = selfishness Lawful = prefers safety/stability Chaotic = prefers autonomy/freedom This cuts down on debates because it’s much easier to agree on a shared basis.
Mine is similar, although my law and chaos are more about stasis and change, I also tried to make capital g good and capital evil. Difficult for normal beings to achieve, or at least more extreme. So while you can be altruistic, being good is actually hard, and some people that are pretty crummy don't quite measure up to capital evil
Hmmm, I have a challenge for you: Character A saves character B from a burning barn. When B asks A why, he responds by saying "You'd do the same for me." Later, A asks B to give up a powerful magic item they have found, citing the rescue as a motivation of payback. It turns out that A never wanted to save B for anything more than bargaining for power and control. What alignment should A be determined to have?
@Ironoclasty LN, or LE based on this, if they would do what they demand of character B if their positions were reversed. The E/N is determined by evil acts they would be willing to do our of self interest. But I believe Good and Evil should be more extreme
The problem is morality is a gray area and depending on how you look at it is a bit of everything. For example someone tries to kill me and after a struggle I kill them in self defense. What am I? Good/sefless I guess no. Evil selfish I guess so I saved myself. Lawful = I guess not really. Chaotic prefers autonomy I guess so. So I'm Evil Chaotic for defending myself?
@@w4iph So here's the trick part of the question that you already knew was coming: in regards to the chart above, A has committed a selfless act for a selfish purpose in an unsafe manner in order to promote suppression of B's freedom. In doing so, A has ticked all the boxes from Good to Evil and Law to Chaos.
There's also the 34 point Alignment system that give degrees of adherence to one's views. Where you can for example be lower case lawful good or upper case Lawful Good or a mix like lawful Good.
7:10 "behavior determines actual alignment" This might be an interesting take on alignments: • Every character starts the campaign at Neutral/Neutral. • The DM keeps track of each character's general behavior, as well as individual notable decisions. • At each Level-Up the DM checks their notes and adjusts each character's Alignment based on their recent actions. So, instead of the player declaring which Alignment their character is supposed to have, it is now the DM who tells the player which Alignment they actually have based on what they did so far. For this purpose, it would be helpful to subdivide each point of the Alignment Compass into smaller steps. Let's say each Alignment direction has five steps, numbered from 0 to 4. As long as a character's score in any one Alignment is either 0 or 1, they are considered "Neutral" for rekevant rules purposes. If any Alignment falls into the area from 2 to 4, the character is considered to have that Alignment.
I'd have to look, but I think it was the 1E AD&D Greyhawk adventures hardback that had rules for starting with zero level characters. Starting at TN would be perfect for that. (I should look, it may even suggest that)
We never really put that much thought into it. Characters picked an alignment and pretty much stuck with it. I can’t remember a single time when we argued about what would be the ‘good’ action, or a ‘lawful’ v ‘chaotic’ action. It just never came up in the course of play. Obviously Paladins didn’t kill prisoners etc but that was about the extent of it.
I remember having a D&D supplement book called Den of Thieves. It had the nine alignments defined specifically for Rogues. I would have loved to see that done for all for the other classes.
It's interesting to see the history here. I know that I've previously considered alignment as part of how to integrate a character of mine into the larger party. For example I had a necromancer character I played with a group that contained mostly good characters. To make that work I made him extremely lawful evil. He was placed in the party by a patron of the group and then was just to damn useful for the party members that found him distasteful to get rid of him. They didn't like him, but knew his word could be trusted, and he followed strict rules that the party knew about their interactions. I don't think that character would have existed without the alignment system being in place (this was DnD 3.5). I'm not sure alignment is always useful from a rules perspective for the game. But at a minimum what is useful is players and the dm considering how different characters would react to each other and interact with each other. Alignment is a great tool for that when used constructively. When good/evil/law/chaos are almost elemental presences in the game it's almost like a cleric could cast "Detect Fire" just as easily as "Detect Evil" ... which now has me wondering if we could create an alternate alignment system where each element contains personality traits and characters are described with a level of 1-5 on each. For instance a water aligned character is adaptable when in stress, loves to travel and doesn't like to settle down. A fire aligned character would be quick to anger and change their mind. Good/Evil could also be on there. Effectively making one of those "taste charts" you see for whiskey and wine. The only question is if you set two as opposite's if the player can have "points" in both to represent the complexities of real life, or if it's best to exclude that possibility. And if any game effects could be created from this alignment system that could effect game play. I'll have to look around and see if any game does a personality/alignment system like this to look at.
I do like the mechanics of alignment that have to do with magic spells and magic items. It just kinda makes sense to me that a lawful good sword would be more effective if used by a lawful good character, or that a chaotic evil character might get harmed by trying to use that same sword.
My approach is to be chill about it -- use it, yes, but not sweat it unless someone is acting completely out of character, or argue over meanings of good or evil as long is it something that could reasonably be interpreted as such. Then, I'm running a BECMI campaign, so only law vs chaos exist mechanically, while the players add good vs evil as flavoring since its something everyone is familiar with and associates with D&D in general.
Yes. Pretty much the entire previous video is instructing everyone to be chill about it. (or as the shitposters described it, "NO! Another ignorant DnDtuber lecturing us on moral relativism! Research your topics before uploading!!!" But yes, be chill.
@@welovettrpgs Strange that they would bring up "moral relativism" -- its really not even close: One good character may focus more kindness and doing good deeds, while another might instead focus more on battling evil, but neither would murder a village of innocent peasants to see how many copper pieces they can loot. Also, a good character does not mean a perfect character; it would actually be strange for someone to be a literal embodiment of an alignment (unless they are something like a god, angel, or fiend).
In my own experience, monsters having alignment makes sense, but telling players that they have to pick one, and then expect them to stick with it; that's when they get grumpy, as I dare try to limit their range of behavior, especially when it doesn't grantvthem a mechanical advantage. They frequently say "I don't know what type of mood I, and thus my character, will be in!", and want the freedom to willy nilly choose to be an edge lord, a hero, or monster, as their preference shifts, and they interact with NPCs. I recall that White Wolf seemed to do it in a way a few more of my characters preferred, where they had their hidden truth (nature), and then their presented face (demeanor), but mostly, they just didn't want a constraint, when they might spontaneously want to shift from offering to help the poor to waterboarding the people who don't want to risk betraying the mean lord who mafe them poor, without consequences, because their overall character didn't really change? Of course, they can be the same people who want social Charisma checks to work the same as pass or fail Strength tests, and be able to say whatever they want; vague or vulgar, and then have the great check result they built around just make sure they get away with it, so I'm sure it changes from person to person. 😊
As a DM, my NPCs have Alignments that they adhere to because that is how I wrote them. PCs have the potential to change as they adventure, so I'm not that strict with them.
Got a little bent there Aton. And i agree, Alignment has have as much trouble understanding it's self as the players ( or vice versa ). I played one character in a system called Harn Master which had a similar system and my character's alignment was "Corruptible". Just screams nuance in Role-play. It was a one off so i never got to explore that, but it seemed intriguing. I still right my Advanced Alignment on my character sheet no matter what system I'm playing on my character sheet just to remind me to stay honest to my character concept.
I believe that alignment was originally intended to implement special magic items that could only be used by certain alignment choices and that by contradicting that alignment, it prevented the use of that particular item. In a worst-case scenario, that item may even do harm to you if you were of an opposed alignment. So, alignment is more a game mechanic for special items than a morality system for players to maintain or be penalized for. At most it should only restrict what classes you might play due to your choice of actions which is voluntary. As for the paladin, Dragon magazine had an article about paladins for every alignment which I thought made more sense. Always love to get others' opinions on this subject great video.
Where did you get the idea that it was tied to magic items? I found no evidence of that, only that the link between magic items came later as a secondary attribute of alignments.
This is yet another reason I like BX and think it's the best edition because I think the three point alignment system is the best. Don't get me wrong it can have problems but I think it offers the simplest and most flexible interpretation of the concept.
Okay, I'm just going to pretend my admittedly long comment about alignment being on a spectrum at my DMs table helped to inspire this video. Whether there's an ounce of truth to that is irrelevant. Jokes aside, this will definitely help me power through the last of my work day.
One thing I've noticed with the removal of the alignment system is people roleplay less. Before, everyone I've played with would actually play a characters with all kinds of personalities. Since D&D and Pathfinder have ditched alignment (and in games with no alignment system), people just play a sillier, exaggerated version of themselves if they lived in a world with no consequences.
A guy once got all condescending, puffed out his chest and said, "Alignment is so outdated. We've moved past that." I responded, "Yes, you want to play Chaotic Neutral but without admitting it so you can feel superior." Because that's really what it is.
Personally, i prefer to think of alignment as 2 separate scales, with Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic as one and Good, Neutral, Evil as another. For me, it's easier to explain. It also makes clear that Chaotic Neutral is not the alignment of "I do what i want with no regard for consequences."
Thank you for sharing the informative review! I was not aware of some of those parts, and the chapter markers are helpful to follow the narrative presentation. Here is a fun question = What is the alignment associated with people posting their strong opinions about alignment?
I recently had this concept for a major, extremely powerful, manipulative, secret and malevolent above-evil puppet master villain entity for a D&D Forgotten Realms for a story idea I've been imagining while playing Baulders Gate 3... that's described as the enemy of all things, regardless of alignments. Thus, it is supposed to have no alignment at all... it is supposed to be a being that is and of total nothingness, known as The Void, which wants to destroy all existence and feeds on existence itself... I didn't know that actually there used to be a No-Alignment thing...
Going all the way back to AD&D, as a DM I have generally treated the Lawful-Chaotic spectrum as how a character interacts with judicial systems, whereas the Good-Evil spectrum is their own moral judgement. I expect the Lawful-Chaotic to ebb and flow based on context, particularly in a large and varied setting, but I've found that a character's moral judgement rarely changes, only comes better into focus over time - barring some serious transitional event, of course. This is why I find the "paladin always lawful good" cliché silly, as, at least to my thinking, a holy warrior would generally be more likely than not to eschew mundane laws in favor of their moral judgement as guided by their faith.
I am thoroughly wedded to the Great Wheel cosmology, hence alignment will always be an inextricable element of any D&D game in which I am involved. The class-alignment restrictions in AD&D worked well enough and served to underscore the Western and Christian cultural norms which formed the framework of the social elements of the game. The people who most vituperatively oppose the alignment system are the ones who want to do what they want, when they want, without restrictions, while still claiming to be the opposite of what their character's behavior indicates. I scoff at them, point to the Great Wheel, and simply state that in this milieu alignments are both defined and real.
Moldvay's single axis alignment of Law, Neutral, Chaos makes the most sense to me. Good and evil can be subjective. For example killing is seen as evil but would a Paladin killing a monster to save a monk be evil or good deed? I guess is a bit of both depending on how you look at it. Is hard to think of the world in terms of absolute good and absolute evil. However you can definitely say that Paladins are lawful since they follow a moral code/set of principles that guide their actions. So there is such a thing as absolute lawful and absolute chaos. And not only that but you actually have 2 extremes that are both bad where as being closer to the mean is good.
The nine-point system is wholly playable for those of us with a literary D&D/fantasy background. But what do I know? I stopped at 3.5 and my half-elemental Bard remains in a bucket chilled by her White Dragon pet (yes, I tamed an orphan baby with a natural 20).
I have found that using Lawful, True, and Chaotic coupled with Good(Moral), Neutral, and Evil(Amoral) is the way to handle alignment that has worked best at my table. This is the general explanation I give for each one... Lawful: believes in respecting the laws of the land even when they are unjust. Chaotic: has no respect for systems of law. True: doesn't care about the law one way or another and only follow laws that already align with their moral code. Good (Moral): strictly adheres to a moral code of some sort. Evil (Amoral): does not believe in morality, has no conscience and/or is sadistic. Neutral: does not have a moral code that guides them but does still possess some sense of right and wrong, i.e. they have a conscience but don't necessarily listen to it. To them, doing what is necessary is more important than doing what is right. This eliminates the ethical/moral conundrum. As long as the character believes something is "the right thing to do" then they are acting morally under this paradigm. It makes it more about what is motivating a characters decisions instead of whether they are right/wrong or, how it often ends up getting used, to decide how nice/mean the character acts.
Atten or Aton ? Twitchy subject , and as you thoroughly described not well defined really at any stage of D and D Rules design. Over time , I and my friends eventually discarded the use of alignment. We found that players tended to play the same alignment anyway , perhaps even more regularly than Class. We also found that Referees (DMs) were able to curb adventure ruining sprees of ridiculous good or continuous evil when the Characters party didn't handle it themselves ingame , which they usually did. I kind of like the idea I got from Professor Dungeon Master recently of not having an alignment system per se , but rather keeping track of acts of vile evil on a numerical track on each character sheet. As the Character committed evil acts , the number rose. As each number is achieved there is a chance of an effect on their sanity which was applied in terms of specific character/game limitations. If the Character reached the end of the Evil/sanity scale , that Character was forfeit to the DM as a permanent NPC. I kind of want t try to implement this in my next campaign and see how that goes. I suspect that the effects will be minimal , as there are few purely bloodthirsty murder hobos in our group anyway.
I use psychic damage / sanity scale to curb a specific type of meta gaming - when a player blurts out game mechanics, names etc of something in game their character wouldn't know. We can't change that the player knows that info - but I can prevent them from blurting it out to ruin the fun of others. So a house rule I adopted is the character suffers psychic from "tapping into the universe." This has worked well to prevent experieced players from ruining surprises for new(er) players.
I would put alignment with personality, ideal, bond, and flaw. It's useful for character background, but it shouldn't be a straight jacket. Regarding clerics and the like there could be prescribes codes of conduct and taboos which I'd treat separately
I've always divided alignment in mundane and otherwordly. Mundane concerns the PCs, the NPCs, humanoid creatures and basic monsters. Otherwordly concerns devils, undead, demons and so on. In a mundane consideration: - Lawfull: act respectfully, keep the word given, try not to disobey the laws of a land or/and the rules of an organization. - Caotic: is a "maverick", don't likes rules or laws and tends to ignore them and is improbable that could work in a strict organization. - Good: has a tendency towards altruism and when does something is probably for someone else. - Evil: has a tendency towards selfishness and when does something is probably for personal interest. - Neutral: is in the middle and can act more or less toward a side or the other of the spectrum based on circumstances. In an otherworldly consideration the extremes are really extremes and for example an angel lawfull-good could exterminate a city (like in the biblical Sodoma and Gomorrah), and a devil could subjugate hundreds of souls with his contracts. I think alignment should be a guide for interpretation. A character could change alignment without a loss in xp because at the end of the day is a natural process (we can for instance become evil after a trauma, and then work to return in our old path if we choose to). There should not be, in my opinion, rules or systems attached to alignment.
This is pretty much my take on alignment - although the "unaligned" option is useful for unintelligent or animal-level intelligent beings. And, arguably, most people wouldn't necessarily "register" (strongly) to such spells as "Detect Evil"/"Detect Good" *unless* they're actively considering a particular course of action (at least, IMO).
@@mdpenny42 for what concerns the "detect" magic, I'm used to 5e, and in there those kind of magic detect types of creatures instead of alignment, and for me is the right way to handle that.
I prefer systems where a character has Motivations/Drives/Passions which have numerical value and impact on play. Behaviour according to or against these can provide benefits or drawbacks if the situation warrants it and these Motivations/Drives/Passions can change and evolve over time. This all makes it more personal.
In my games of DnD we skip over Alignment in character creation; as a GM, I keep track of each character's actions with tick marks into Evil and Good blocks. Not every action adds a tick, but narratively important ones certainly do. This score is how the gods and NPCs of the game react to their characters. It is an earned reputation, and a karmic sign they carry with them. They *know* why Cordri the Vile can't pick up the paladin's Holy Avenger without suffering disadvantage on their rolls... But it's not on the character sheet, and it's up to the players to choose actions which keep them in balance. Neutrality becomes a STRANGE thing to witness happening at the table. It works for us, and gets rid of all these debates and fuss over where the blame for being a dork lies. It falls firmly on the Player for choosing to do the reprehensible things they do. 🍪☕
Really a cosmic war between law and chaos is all that is needed for theming, but like everything in the hobby, everything is expanded to ridiculous levels of variety. Now the adults have decided that all the toys simply must be taken away from the children for their own safety.
Nicely researched! I try not to use alignment as a straightjacket but a means by which to roleplay the character? If someone does do something that might be out of alignment, such as torturing a goblin for information, I do ask them to justify this in regards to their alignment or change their stated actions? How could torturing a goblin be justified by, say, a lawful good character? Well, what if that goblin literally had information that would mean two hundred people in a village would live or die? What SHOULD the lawful good character do to get the information so the village can live? Is he still justified in the torture? I love those moments in game when players have to really look at their actions!
When choosing alignment I always have a hard time with it. The reason is VERY simple, alignment always has a cultural context. We can easily observe this in the real world when looking at the behaviourisms of various cultures, religious groups or just the "weird" traditions in the village over the next hill (at least in Germany). Example: While being a suicide bomber is condemnable in one culture/religion it is a sure way to haven and a great honour in another. It may be an extreme example, but it clearly shows why alignment always comes with problems. For exactly this reason I really like RPG settings that outline the cultural and moral beliefs of a group so that both, the player and GM, can incorporate the set of values and morals into characters. It simply is not feasible to me that a person would consider himself chaotic evil, instead, I think said person would deem his actions as appropriate and valuable thus the person would see those actions as "good". Alignment, regardless of 3,5 or 9 points can only ever work flawlessly as long as all players at the table (incl. GM) understand each other and agree. At least that is what I think.
Another very interesting video. The history of alginment is more complicated than I thought it was. I've never played D&D before 5e, because it always had that reputation of being somewhat simplistic in regards to ethics and wouldn't allow for complex characters. I do realize that this was never true, but that's the way D&D had always been described to me back in the 90s when I got into RPGs. I knew alignment had changed over time, but I didn't know that the question of alignment being descriptive or prescriptive had been adressed in the earliest rulebooks. Thank you for providing this overview. However I think your comparison to Star Wars is not quite accurate, as the light and dark side of the force aren't just 'meta-game' descriptions for the audience/players&DMs but first and foremost very important and clearly distinct factors in universe. None of the D&D settings I know puts that much emphesis on integrating alignment into the game world itself. 'Good' and 'evil' are of course very much terms characters in a story would use and see as opposing forces, but I think that many BBEGs wouldn't consider themselves evil the way Darth Vader considers himself to be on the dark side. Even Planescape isn't that on the nose with alignments as Star Wars is with the two sides of the force (at least not for what I know about the setting, which isn't just based on the meager 5e content but is also not nearly as much as an old school Planescape veteran would know). Still, I think the points you make based on this comparison do make sense overall. Congratz to 5k subs btw.
If it wasn't for alignments I'm not sure D&D would have survived the satanic panic. It allowed us to point to the (youlll see this in many articles and defenses of the game) struggle between good and evil. Sure you can play a character that isn't good - that's because D&D and games like it have so much flexibility but at it's core - just like all the ancient myths it was based on (same as Star Wars. Check out Joseph Campbell talking about Star Wars) we are still talking about good defeating bad.
@@welovettrpgs When it comes to ancient myths good vs evil is not as universal a trope as one might expect. The stories of Gilgamesh, Odin or Zeus don't fit neatly into this dichotomy. They do correspond with the axis of law and chaos to a much greater extend, with Gilgamesh representing civilization in contrast to the feral Enkidu or the Aesir representing order in contrast to the chaotic Jötunn. I guess the good/evil thing is mostly a monotheistic influence. Of course it's very much essential for high fantasy, but obviously high fantasy isn't as ancient as it pretends to be. That's exactly what I like about the two axis of alignment, though: they're able to describe both myth and fantasy in a simplified and thus approachable degree which still allows for a lot of nuances and interpretations. In my opinion this mix is perfectly suited for storytelling, character developement and creation of conflict. Also I din't say Star Wars wasn't about good defeating bad. I said it was way more on the nose about it than D&D and integrated it's alignment equivalents more explicitly into the fictional world.
I always loved the 9-point system and looked at true neutrals as those obsessed with keeping balance, whereas any other character, npc, monster, etc. falls somewhere along the spectrum. I attribute alignment to personality and current behavior. I believe alignments can change, on a whim. In fact, many BBEGs started out as LG. Take Count Dooku from Star Wars, as an example. Except situations concerning patrons, deities and certain npcs, I don't think alignment changes should be punished. They are just who the character is. However, in game behavior will always have consequences. Murder hoboing is a prime example. I see the whole system as an aid and guide toward making the decisions your character would, most likely, make. People are often roleplaying a character with a different alignment than themselves. How many relatively good people tried playing a Dark Urge in BG3? Alignment helps you think like that character, as opposed to thinking like yourself. That's it. It's just a tool to help you better roleplay and explains why some npcs and characters are doing what they do.
Brace for a longer post. I've always liked the 9 point alignments. When discussing alignments, I tell my players that true neutral is the hardest alignment to maintain. Neutrality on a specific topic can be maintained because you just don't care about that particular thing. I am neutral about football because I don't care about the outcome. I don't care who wins. I don't care who loses. I don't care if it exists or not. Everyday life(and society in general), however, is something that affects me, and I care about the outcome. I care about how my neighbors act not because I want to control them but because their actions affect me. The laws of the land affect me, so I care what they are. I tell my players that they are free to start off as neutral, but their actions over the course of the campaign will alowly alter their alignment accordingly. Many video games do this same thing. The first two Fallout games come to mind. In regard to Good and Evil, with the world of D&D clearly having real deities that created the various worlds and creatures, those concepts are determined by the deities, not the mortals. The deities decide what actions are Good and what actions are Evil. Because they are literally the higher powers. If the gods get to decide where your character's soul goes when it dies, then the gods also get to decide what actions are considered good or evil. Now, since everything is run by a Dungeon Master(including the gods), that DM gets to decide what good and evil mean. They should be open with those definitions before the campaign starts(which I make a point of doing). But some things are obvious. I once had a player start a fight with the owner of the inn. He just walked up and started hitting him "for the lols". He was playing a NG ranger. He got pissed off when I had the town guard try to arrest him, and the next morning, he was told to never come back to town by the authorities. During the incident, I gave him plenty of chances to back down, apologize, etc, but he wouldn't. After the session, I had a talk with him and told him that his actions weren't really in keeping with a NG character. After all, would a good person start a fist fight with someone just because they felt like it? I tried asking him if he was just having a bad day, but he said he was fine and didn't understand why it was a big deal. We had a discussion about alignment and character actions before he ever played in a session, and he still didn't grasp the concept. Sadly, I see this all the time, especially with the newer generation of players. So, to fully make my point, I don't feel like the rules are unclear or unfair. I'm firmly in the camp that it's people who don't understand the concept of good and evil. They don't understand that good and evil are set things that are not defined by them in both the game and real life(no, I don't want to discuss that here). It's true that a single action usually doesn't define you as a person. Going on a killing spree, whether in-game or real life, is an obvious exception. However, your overall attitude matters. Alignment is more than just flavor text. Actions have consequences. Sadly, there are a concerningly large number of people these days who want the ability to do whatever they want without consequences. I've met far too many people who act like jerks in a game, then get mad when that game(whether TTRPG or video game) has the game world treat them accordingly. It's not the rules set. It's the player. True, a DM shouldn't come down on a player for the slightest little thing, but there has to be limits, and that's what the rules are intended to do, set limits. No set of rules created by people is going to be perfect because we aren't perfect. However, you've got to have something. Sorry if this was a bit of a rant, but I've had this discussion both online and IRL way too many times.
ANY CONCEPT OF ALIGNMENT SHOULD HAVE ALIGNMENT RESTRICTIONS MAKE SENSE. Also, look at psychology. There are several psychological concepts that can seemingly match up with how alignment is actually used. I see good vs evil as being the focus of where one judges the outcome of events. A good person is highly concerned with how others are affected by events/actions, while an evil person is only concerned with themselves. Law vs chaos is about how judgements are made, with lawful being rational and taking belief and thought over feelings, while chaotic is acting on emotion regardless of beliefs. For a chaotic person, thought is generally determined by emotions but for a lawful person, emotions are determined by thought and belief. A different view pairs the ten motivations with the alignments, such as marking CE as the hedonist motivation.
Great video - but may I suggest to not use fixed subtitles? I don't use alignment but the concept is, of course, always in the back of my head. Greetings from Germany. P.S.: at a LARP 15 years ago my group (lawful good) had a conflict with the evil aligned groups of that particular convention and the neutral groups backstabbed us so we had to retreat. After that happening we said: "Next time, we will kill the neutral ones first (for they are the true evil)!" Still true to this day :D
Hi. The fixed subtitles has turned out to be a RUclips strategy. They have resulted in more views and longer watch time. I was about to quit RUclips but something turned around and the channel finally got noticed. I can't say 100% it was the fixed subtitles but RUclips teachers and my analytics do seem to suggest that is the case. I'll keep testing to see what works.
I do want to know why they made that rule about loosing xp if you change alignment. I know that the older games were not narrative games like fate but Gary, Holmes etc had to know that characters change over time and what a character arc is. So why punish players for changing?
The main problem I see with this (or any) alignment system is the potential for rigidity. When alignments are followed to their simplistic extremes, without any regard for the context in which specific actions take place, the result is the "stupid" alignments of internet memes, such as the lawful stupid paladin and the chaotic stupid rogue. People are complex, and situations are complex. Sometimes, it is necessary to act against one's alignment in an immediate situation in order to serve a greater goal. Sometimes, it is a "pick your battles" situation, and the battle that will result from acting strictly within the character's alignment is not worth picking. Situations like these present moral dilemmas that should make for a good story. Maybe that lawful good paladin has to do something nasty in order for the party to survive and ultimately vanquish the evil that infests the land, and he will feel guilty about it for the rest of the game. Maybe that chaotic rogue has to follow laws that rub her the wrong way, or else she will be ripped to shreds by the city guards who are far stronger than the entire party (and the others in the party don't want her to get them all into trouble). Some people are only weakly or moderately committed to their stated values and will treat individual situations with flexibility. A character with a weak or moderate attachment to a lawful good alignment would act within alignment the majority of the time but might steal in order to survive and only feel a little guilty about it as long as the victim of the theft has resources to spare.
The earliest version of alignment sound to me as though they are coming more from the point of view of a wargame or board game, stating that, in essence, good guys don’t bluff. Later versions, I’m thinking of the Planescape era, definitely are more of a philosophical discussion, and I think that continues with various degrees of fervor to the present 5E.
I think the beginning of the anti-alignment movement started at tables all over the world when a player decided that another player’s alignment was not between the character and the DM, but rather something that could be commented on for social leverage among players. If you’ve played long enough, I’m sure you’ve seen it in action.
Really the anti alignment movement came from gotcha DMs and people trying to push their perspective of morality onto others. Just like in real life. (People try to legislate their religious views onto others)
The spells detecting alignment are the only spells I ever forbid in games. Paladins can still detect evil within their immediate vicinity, but only if the evil character is actively considering an evil act at that moment. A paladin watching Hitler playing with his dogs wouldn’t see evil in him. I also don’t penalize shifting alignments. I only reward following alignments when doing so comes at great expense to the character. I was disappointed that you didn’t mention the Dark Sun mechanic that shifts all alignments to Chaotic Evil under extreme circumstances. Enough days without water and Lawful Good is Chaotic Evil.
@ I wouldn’t bother, honestly. That alignment in extreme conditions is only in Dark Sun, so it isn’t widely known. I was just shocked it didn’t get mentioned because you are normally extremely thorough.
I have heard a few times (one of them was on your channel if I'm not mixing stuff up) that alignments were intended as religions rather than as general inclinations. That would explain what "they *always* act this way" could actually mean. But the "Holly Bible" for any of them was never written, so it doesn't really solve the problem as a whole. Also, I believe something being in the game doesn't mean you have to use it. As well as you not using some specific thing doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the game. One example that always comes to my mind is trading rules in Traveler. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole, but if there are enough people who want to play an accounter simulator at their game night to warrant these rules being made - who am I to judge them? To clarify, neither of these is me disagreeing with you. It's equally valid to use alignment as a part of your character's personality, as their religion, or not to use it at all. Heck, even if you all want to play as a bunch of lawful-stupid fanatics... Well, if you are going to *really* dig into it - perhaps don't do it in public, but otherwise - whatever floats your boat
There’s only one true alignment chart: One axis is a line between ‘annoying rules lawyer who has to be the center of everything won’t deviate from the rules’ and ‘sociopathic murder hobo who never follows the rules and stabs everything’ The other axis is between ‘follows the DMs well prepped clues and complains about dice’ and ‘ignores everything the dm prepped and does something insane with a bunch of npcs the dm just had to make up because the character went off the plot ’ I call it the ‘player alignment chart’ 😂 This chart is brought to you by the guild of salty dms and the letter F
7:42 the definitions of that 1979 manual are wild, a "lawful evil" character would, broadly speaking, someone who "supports the group over the individual" while "not caring about the rights or happiness [of creatures]"? in what way would they be supporting the group then? feels like a huge contradiction (personally, the selfless/selfish "axis" makes more sense as good/evil than lawful/chaos, as some have already mentioned)
Again, thanks for well researched (really!) and presented video, but I still don't see any value of purpose for using an alignment system in modern D&D or other TRPG rules. And ditching out such system from rules certainly doesn't remove good an evil as concepts from adventure's story or from player's (or DM's) roleplaying and interactions with game's world. Those are universal concepts, that are rather subjective, and one doesn't need a note in a charsheet to use or observe them.
I was just about to leave a response on the other video. I fundamentally disagree with your view of alignment, but that's due to my concepts of definition and objectivity. Your method of course still has merits.
I feel my view on alignment comes from 40 years of DMing and the information I presented here. However, everyone can and should run games in the manner that works best for them. This is true of all parts of the game. I don't think that makes anyone objectively more right or wrong. We are all masters of our own opinions. Thanks!
@@welovettrpgs _D&D_ internet. Agreed. Categories and mechanics for ethics and/or morality can certainly have a place in ttrpg systems. It is that the execution on D&D was highly specific and poorly educated rather than the premise itself being untenable.
Alignment in OD&D and Chainmail suggests a wargame like division of the players into teams (team law, team chaos, and free agents). This sounds really fun for a Braunstein or whatever game. That's my suspicion, at least. I suspect alignment grew into morality/philosophy to match D&D's playstyle
I appreciate the concept of it. People get a notion that it's rooted in racism but coming from a Christian background see it as identical to something similar to original sin. I find it mechanically unnecessary, unnuanced, and limiting for class and spells. Healing others isn't an action working against evil, plenty of evil forces have used the promises and powers of health and healing to tempt and seduce people.
The AD&D Dragonlance book had the best take on alignment. Alignments changed between G-E-N-L-C as a consequence of player choices and character actions. That said, alignments suck. They demonstrate how unworkably stupid objective morality is.
Lol, I am always so entertained with how vehement poeple will defend their view on alignment view. Great vids! I enjoy the discord. I don't use the 9 point alignment, I simply need an indicated moral line the pc will abide by, that way I can know how to expect them to behave. I like your takes, keep it up!
The TT is redundant. Just call them RPGs if you are talking about games like D&D. Video games can't be RPGs, they can only borrow ideas from them. There's no GM to improv. The players can't attempt just anything that comes to mind. Baldur's Gate 3 is not an RPG. It's a video game that uses elements of RPGs. VTTs are not RPGs, they are tools used to facilitate RPGs. Talespire is not an RPG for the same reason a /table/ isn't.
I'm brutal af, if your only experience is 5e, your opinion is easily ignored by me LOL because 99% of the time these people are wrong but when it comes down to alignment, oh they are ALWAYS wrong.
A lot of tourists in 5E (which is fine) but then add in the Reddit influence where people who definitely don't know how to play are happy to tell others how to play.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Another old video (with some minor changes) that I hope will be a good response to some of the legitimate questions (and shitposting) generated from the previous upload about alignments in D&D.
You keep 'em coming... I'll keep watching! ^_^
^this man knows what's up 👏
Thank you for showing how alignment has changed throughout the various editions. My comment on your previous video was intended to refute your idea of "alignment as guideline" by pointing out that since there was magic that interacted with alignment, it must be an absolute within the world of D&D. That came, largely, from a background of playing 3.5. I have played a 4th and 5th campaign, but I didn't delve that deep into 5th. I didn't even realize that WotC had removed a lot of the alignment interaction from 5th, making it less of an absolute. So, I apologize if you took offense to my previous comment. I suppose I should amend my argument to "if you play a game that includes magic that interacts with alignment, then alignment must be an absolute." It seems even WotC has taken a different approach to their designs, and while I probably won't play 5.5 or 6th or whatever they're calling the new version, I might be interested to see what they do with alignment.
Also, I think this is the first time a RUclipsr has put one of my comments into their video, even if blurred. I'm not sure if I should be honored or insulted. :)
@@DyrianLightbringer Hey, if you were an issue I'd have blocked you. You're fine. Constructive feedback is always welcome and I'm here to educate not create enemies. I couldnt find the really bad ones because I blocked those accounts. I realize, and I hope everyone else does too, that communicating through posts can leave a lot of misunderstandings. I hope youre doing well.
@@welovettrpgs in that case, I am honored to have had my blurry avatar image featured in your video! I'm also glad that you took my comments as constructive and not just criticism. I actually wrote about alignments on my blog not long after your last video. I might go back and revise it.
When I started running DCC, I adopted Moorcock's view of alignment: its what side in the Cosmic Struggle you admire or serve rather than personal ethics. Law is cosmic order and stable hierarchies - be they for good or ill. Chaos is those with power "doing what thou wilst" - from rugged individualism to total dissolution of the universe. Neutrality moderates both and shelters the indifferent. You pick which grand archetypal urge your character sympathizes with, and your actions toward others shows if you're good or evil.
Always liked Moorcock’s perspective on this. Good idea porting it to tabletop. Think I may do this next time I run a game.
I prefer the 9-point system. For example, I can clearly understand was Lawful Evil means, and how if differs from Lawful Good, thus illustrating what the Chaotic axis means.
Most likely that was why the 9-point system was conceived in the first place. In order to provide clearer definitions of just what the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis was like and how to interpret its gradients.
Great stuff. Moreso than anything else in my 30+ year campaign, Alignment is critical. I couldn't imagine playing without it.
I interpret the good vs evil axis as "having selfless vs selfish intentions" and the law vs chaos one as "respecting a set of rules you adhere by or not", being them the actual kingdom's law, your good/evil god's commandments or some own moral code or set of rules.
I don't know if this is the intended idea, but it made sense to me this way.
ANY definition, if constant within the same table, is good.
No need for everyone in every game table to be of the same mind, but a clear definition is needed in every one for some things to make sense.
Another way to describe Lawful vs Chaos is 'Self Control vs Impulsive'. A chaotic person acts on their emotional impulses rather than stopping to hold themselves to account, while a lawful person will pause and question themselves before they commit to an action.
Thus Lawful Good is altruism with self-restraint, and Chaotic Good is altruism through impulsive and reactionary behaviour, or 'Selfishly Selfless', if you will.
@@Terralventhe I like that interpretation of the horizontal axis, I think I'll absorb it into mine from now on.
Great history of alignment.
I've always enjoyed discussions about alignment. And I prefer the old idea of good and evil being real, detectable energies.
But I also don't mind alignment-free worlds, where what matters is the current objectives, and the players deciding what their characters are willing to do.
Golden rule for all RPGs be them TT or Solo playing Fallout 4. Play like you want, you make the rules.Trash talking this gentleman for giving a history lesson is not what the game is about. Ok Maybe it is for the first two hours of every gaming session but after that its play time. Thank you for the history lesson Sir. Always a pleasure.
Alignment helps me particularly as a DM for roleplay. It makes my life as DM much easier. For roleplay purpose I sometime ad an alignment tendency to NPC to give myself a hint how I should play the NPC. Without alignment it would force me as a DM to give every NPC and every Monster a character description, to know how to play it.
You hit the nail on the head. Alignment is far more of a tool for DMs to run NPCs than as a prison for PCs.
Outstanding presentation, Sir. Thank you for your hard work, diligent research, and humble generosity.
Weird that it is so hard for people to grasp, calling it obscure. 10 year olds in the 70’s has no problem understanding alignment and applying it.
This reminds me, my car needs a front end alignment.
I love these. And all the videos! Thanks!!!
The eternal argument continues, a tool as well as a crutch.
I enjoyed the video.
As a forever DM, I find alignment a valuable at-a-glance tool to see how NPCs and monsters act and react without need to do a detailed backstory or PBIF.
Always love your videos! Thanks!
Haha! I remember this one! It was the first video of yours I saw and subbed ever since. =) I remember watching it twice rather mind blown by all the dnd lore I was unaware of
Thanks so much! I’m glad it got you on board!
This is a very thought-provoking video. I'd welcome further exploration of how ideas of alignment and its importance and effects on storytelling. We seem to be lacking good new stories, and it seems this might correlate with the lack of concern for alignment.
Have you watched the previous video? It may have addressed some of your questions. Thanks!
Oh, Evil Algorithmic Overlords, send notifications when videos post; not 22 hours later.
Keep the videos coming Aten.
I'm relatively new to TTRPGs and i think it's great to hear from you explaining all that stuff like a keeper of old lore.
Well researched. Well done!
This is my soap box. I wrote 10 essays to be published on alignment, made several videos, and had no telling how many debates on this.
Popcorn ready
I haven't seen the original video in a while
A nice, concise introduction and overview of a complex topic. Your analogy of the light and dark side of the force is truly apt. I'd love to see further discussions along these lines--perhaps how they help you establish your world and how alignment actually helps your players give their characters voice and a sense of their priorities.
I have used an alignment tracking system. It was from this experience I derived my position that the structure set up for alignment was unwieldly and unhelpful. Nowadays, I use the moral and ethic perspective to view how any specific character is acting, but the only truly important usage is to ensure that the character's soul has an intended destination. If that character should be revived from death, they may gain a glimpse of the afterlife that awaits them. This is not a game mechanic for penalizing players for how they choose to play, but rather a role-play aspect that helps them better visualize the character's outlook. I find this to be the best use for alignment.
Great job Aten! 🍜 I like this emoji but I don't know what I would use it for. Also the new intro with all the comments, loved it too.
Alignment can be great. Look at the old stories, Elric of Melnibone for example. The fight between chaos and order featured heavily in those stories, forming a bit of a central tension. We can use that mechanic in ttrpgs to create stakes instantly, though I think it requires your players to actively consider their character’s worldview in order to function well.
This video explains the response to my comment I got yesterday. Great to hear more details about alignment's history in D&D. I typically discard what WOTC has talked about it and use my own interpretation of its materials, i.e. alignment. I think more fun can be had when you allow yourself to play the game as you want to and not what the publisher said. Their words are guidelines, not rules you have to follow.
I absolutely disregard what WotC says about anything beyond necessary game mechanics. I haven't read any official WotC "How to DM" or "How to Roleplay" advice since 3.5. (2 decades!)
Great recap on alignment history.
I am so glad you enjoyed it!
I've played for 20 years and have always taken issue with the lawful alignment, specifically. Here's why: Many people, in game, attribute lawful to morality. It is not; This would be your Good-Evil axis. Your Lawful-Chaotic axis is better described politically, aligning with order and anarchy.
Or, selflessness and selfishness. Although that pairs and overlaps with Good-Evil, which is why I don't use this idea - you need two distinct axie, not one overlapping one.
I digress.
My issue with lawful is that political order, customs, traditions and oaths change from location to location. As an example:
George the Paladin is born and raised in the custom setting of Casmire. In Casmire, slavery has been abolished. George the Paladin swears an oath to uphold the tenants of Casmire, so when he ventures to Iskar where slavery is abundant, he takes issue with it. George does what he can to set their slaves free.
But, Ronada is a Paladin who was born in Iskar. He too swore an oath to uphold the customs and ways of Iskar.
To Ronada, slavery is just a basic part of life and is perfectly legitimized and legal in Iskar.
So from an axial perspective, who is in the right? George, or Ronada?
I agree. This is why I say "Lawful Good societies can do horrible things even if the people truly are good."
Alignment is really a unique part of the flavor of D&D. By that, I mean the game itself has a point of view that is really unique. The game mechanic of alignment rests on the assumption not only that a player inherently subscribes to a defined worldview, but that worldview is an essential part of their being. If a person or creature is Lawful and Good then they are fully aligned with any weapon, magic, or effect that is also Lawful Good. They are also vulnerable to forces of Chaos and Evil. The reverse is also true. Neutral Good is just the sum of the things a player does, but is an attribute of their character the same as Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma. It leads to a discussion of Deontology and Virtue Ethics. Does a character do good because they intrinsically ARE good, or does doing good deeds make them good? This leaves very little room for nuance when considering Devils or Angels who are the literally embodiment of an alignment. When Lawful Evil takes physical form, a devil comes into existence. So a druid isn't just a person who rejects alignment, but is Neutral and is infused with that as part of their nature. I know I'm in the deep end of the pool, but there is a difference in the way the game DEFINES ethics, morality, and a beings nature - and nothing else out there does it quite the same way. I hope this was clear. The distinctions are somewhat subtle.
This is a very nice history of Alignment in D&D. Yet, I missed the great Dark Sun chart, pairing alignment conform behavior with desert survival strategies. Hope that one will come up in one of your future videos.
Sure. I have learned that if I go too deep ( in to modules and settings) it would double the length of the video and lose most of the viewers. However I can see value in a video only covering settings like DarkSun and Ravenloft.
Now let's talk about Alignment Languages....
😎
You got it!
Yep...and how if you ever dared speak your alignment language in public, you were to be SHUNNED! Lol...
@@ToesToJesus That felt like a bizarre design choice, but I can see what they were going for.
For those not in the know, in D&D alignments of Law and Chaos used to have a secret language associated with them, which you would automatically know. Why? Presumably due to its wargame origins. You could have all kinds of strange creatures collected in your army, so surely they needed some way of communicating with each other (you couldn't enlist units of opposing alignments in your army, see). Hence, a shared language was deemed necessary.
But then in AD&D there was an entire paragraph warning that if you were so boorish as to speak this alignment language intended to facilitate communication between likeminded creatures in public, then everyone would ridicule and ostracize you, and would never want to associate with you. Again, why? Presumably because the language works kind of like detect alignemnt spell. Speak to someone in Lawful tongue and if they don't understand you then they're probably not a very trustworthy person.
It's heavyhanded and personally I don't agree with it at all, but at least I can understand the logic behind it.
oh spoony talked about years ago.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 would that make Esperanto a real life alignment language then
Great videos on a confusing topic!
Honestly i think you are right to say it is the hardest concept to get across to people. Alignment isn't a hard rule it can change over time. As for listings for most monsters, it is an aggregate, Are all drow or orcs evil? No, for course not. But as a group, yes. They do some odjectively evil things but that can change. Plus it is your game, run them as you want.
These are the kinds of discussions i like to see and have. Not power builds, not which game is woke or fascist, but substantive conversations on the core fundamentals of gaming. Well done
I too despise all those other types of convos.
I commented on your prior video. I have subbed and enjoy your discussion. great work.
Awesome, thank you!
In my games I usually use a system of alignment that is
Good = selflessness
Evil = selfishness
Lawful = prefers safety/stability
Chaotic = prefers autonomy/freedom
This cuts down on debates because it’s much easier to agree on a shared basis.
Mine is similar, although my law and chaos are more about stasis and change,
I also tried to make capital g good and capital evil. Difficult for normal beings to achieve, or at least more extreme. So while you can be altruistic, being good is actually hard, and some people that are pretty crummy don't quite measure up to capital evil
Hmmm, I have a challenge for you: Character A saves character B from a burning barn. When B asks A why, he responds by saying "You'd do the same for me." Later, A asks B to give up a powerful magic item they have found, citing the rescue as a motivation of payback. It turns out that A never wanted to save B for anything more than bargaining for power and control. What alignment should A be determined to have?
@Ironoclasty LN, or LE based on this, if they would do what they demand of character B if their positions were reversed.
The E/N is determined by evil acts they would be willing to do our of self interest. But I believe Good and Evil should be more extreme
The problem is morality is a gray area and depending on how you look at it is a bit of everything. For example someone tries to kill me and after a struggle I kill them in self defense. What am I? Good/sefless I guess no. Evil selfish I guess so I saved myself. Lawful = I guess not really. Chaotic prefers autonomy I guess so. So I'm Evil Chaotic for defending myself?
@@w4iph So here's the trick part of the question that you already knew was coming: in regards to the chart above, A has committed a selfless act for a selfish purpose in an unsafe manner in order to promote suppression of B's freedom. In doing so, A has ticked all the boxes from Good to Evil and Law to Chaos.
There's also the 34 point Alignment system that give degrees of adherence to one's views. Where you can for example be lower case lawful good or upper case Lawful Good or a mix like lawful Good.
As usual a very informative video. Thank you.
Thank You!
7:10 "behavior determines actual alignment"
This might be an interesting take on alignments:
• Every character starts the campaign at Neutral/Neutral.
• The DM keeps track of each character's general behavior, as well as individual notable decisions.
• At each Level-Up the DM checks their notes and adjusts each character's Alignment based on their recent actions.
So, instead of the player declaring which Alignment their character is supposed to have, it is now the DM who tells the player which Alignment they actually have based on what they did so far.
For this purpose, it would be helpful to subdivide each point of the Alignment Compass into smaller steps.
Let's say each Alignment direction has five steps, numbered from 0 to 4. As long as a character's score in any one Alignment is either 0 or 1, they are considered "Neutral" for rekevant rules purposes. If any Alignment falls into the area from 2 to 4, the character is considered to have that Alignment.
I'd have to look, but I think it was the 1E AD&D Greyhawk adventures hardback that had rules for starting with zero level characters. Starting at TN would be perfect for that. (I should look, it may even suggest that)
We never really put that much thought into it. Characters picked an alignment and pretty much stuck with it. I can’t remember a single time when we argued about what would be the ‘good’ action, or a ‘lawful’ v ‘chaotic’ action. It just never came up in the course of play. Obviously Paladins didn’t kill prisoners etc but that was about the extent of it.
I remember having a D&D supplement book called Den of Thieves. It had the nine alignments defined specifically for Rogues. I would have loved to see that done for all for the other classes.
It's interesting to see the history here. I know that I've previously considered alignment as part of how to integrate a character of mine into the larger party. For example I had a necromancer character I played with a group that contained mostly good characters. To make that work I made him extremely lawful evil. He was placed in the party by a patron of the group and then was just to damn useful for the party members that found him distasteful to get rid of him. They didn't like him, but knew his word could be trusted, and he followed strict rules that the party knew about their interactions.
I don't think that character would have existed without the alignment system being in place (this was DnD 3.5).
I'm not sure alignment is always useful from a rules perspective for the game. But at a minimum what is useful is players and the dm considering how different characters would react to each other and interact with each other. Alignment is a great tool for that when used constructively. When good/evil/law/chaos are almost elemental presences in the game it's almost like a cleric could cast "Detect Fire" just as easily as "Detect Evil"
... which now has me wondering if we could create an alternate alignment system where each element contains personality traits and characters are described with a level of 1-5 on each. For instance a water aligned character is adaptable when in stress, loves to travel and doesn't like to settle down. A fire aligned character would be quick to anger and change their mind. Good/Evil could also be on there. Effectively making one of those "taste charts" you see for whiskey and wine. The only question is if you set two as opposite's if the player can have "points" in both to represent the complexities of real life, or if it's best to exclude that possibility. And if any game effects could be created from this alignment system that could effect game play. I'll have to look around and see if any game does a personality/alignment system like this to look at.
I do like the mechanics of alignment that have to do with magic spells and magic items. It just kinda makes sense to me that a lawful good sword would be more effective if used by a lawful good character, or that a chaotic evil character might get harmed by trying to use that same sword.
My approach is to be chill about it -- use it, yes, but not sweat it unless someone is acting completely out of character, or argue over meanings of good or evil as long is it something that could reasonably be interpreted as such. Then, I'm running a BECMI campaign, so only law vs chaos exist mechanically, while the players add good vs evil as flavoring since its something everyone is familiar with and associates with D&D in general.
Yes. Pretty much the entire previous video is instructing everyone to be chill about it. (or as the shitposters described it, "NO! Another ignorant DnDtuber lecturing us on moral relativism! Research your topics before uploading!!!" But yes, be chill.
@@welovettrpgs Strange that they would bring up "moral relativism" -- its really not even close: One good character may focus more kindness and doing good deeds, while another might instead focus more on battling evil, but neither would murder a village of innocent peasants to see how many copper pieces they can loot. Also, a good character does not mean a perfect character; it would actually be strange for someone to be a literal embodiment of an alignment (unless they are something like a god, angel, or fiend).
In my own experience, monsters having alignment makes sense, but telling players that they have to pick one, and then expect them to stick with it; that's when they get grumpy, as I dare try to limit their range of behavior, especially when it doesn't grantvthem a mechanical advantage. They frequently say "I don't know what type of mood I, and thus my character, will be in!", and want the freedom to willy nilly choose to be an edge lord, a hero, or monster, as their preference shifts, and they interact with NPCs. I recall that White Wolf seemed to do it in a way a few more of my characters preferred, where they had their hidden truth (nature), and then their presented face (demeanor), but mostly, they just didn't want a constraint, when they might spontaneously want to shift from offering to help the poor to waterboarding the people who don't want to risk betraying the mean lord who mafe them poor, without consequences, because their overall character didn't really change? Of course, they can be the same people who want social Charisma checks to work the same as pass or fail Strength tests, and be able to say whatever they want; vague or vulgar, and then have the great check result they built around just make sure they get away with it, so I'm sure it changes from person to person. 😊
Check out my previous alignment video. I address Roleplaying Alignments. Thanks!
Three point alignment is the best option, it still gives players guidelines, but without the morals discussion.
As a DM, my NPCs have Alignments that they adhere to because that is how I wrote them. PCs have the potential to change as they adventure, so I'm not that strict with them.
Love love love ❤️
Got a little bent there Aton. And i agree, Alignment has have as much trouble understanding it's self as the players ( or vice versa ). I played one character in a system called Harn Master which had a similar system and my character's alignment was "Corruptible". Just screams nuance in Role-play. It was a one off so i never got to explore that, but it seemed intriguing. I still right my Advanced Alignment on my character sheet no matter what system I'm playing on my character sheet just to remind me to stay honest to my character concept.
well said
I believe that alignment was originally intended to implement special magic items that could only be used by certain alignment choices and that by contradicting that alignment, it prevented the use of that particular item. In a worst-case scenario, that item may even do harm to you if you were of an opposed alignment. So, alignment is more a game mechanic for special items than a morality system for players to maintain or be penalized for. At most it should only restrict what classes you might play due to your choice of actions which is voluntary. As for the paladin, Dragon magazine had an article about paladins for every alignment which I thought made more sense. Always love to get others' opinions on this subject great video.
Where did you get the idea that it was tied to magic items? I found no evidence of that, only that the link between magic items came later as a secondary attribute of alignments.
This is yet another reason I like BX and think it's the best edition because I think the three point alignment system is the best. Don't get me wrong it can have problems but I think it offers the simplest and most flexible interpretation of the concept.
You're going to use this info in your support of BX arent you? :p
Okay, I'm just going to pretend my admittedly long comment about alignment being on a spectrum at my DMs table helped to inspire this video.
Whether there's an ounce of truth to that is irrelevant.
Jokes aside, this will definitely help me power through the last of my work day.
Yay! Finally!
One thing I've noticed with the removal of the alignment system is people roleplay less.
Before, everyone I've played with would actually play a characters with all kinds of personalities. Since D&D and Pathfinder have ditched alignment (and in games with no alignment system), people just play a sillier, exaggerated version of themselves if they lived in a world with no consequences.
A guy once got all condescending, puffed out his chest and said, "Alignment is so outdated. We've moved past that." I responded, "Yes, you want to play Chaotic Neutral but without admitting it so you can feel superior." Because that's really what it is.
Personally, i prefer to think of alignment as 2 separate scales, with Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic as one and Good, Neutral, Evil as another. For me, it's easier to explain. It also makes clear that Chaotic Neutral is not the alignment of "I do what i want with no regard for consequences."
Thank you for sharing the informative review! I was not aware of some of those parts, and the chapter markers are helpful to follow the narrative presentation.
Here is a fun question = What is the alignment associated with people posting their strong opinions about alignment?
I recently had this concept for a major, extremely powerful, manipulative, secret and malevolent above-evil puppet master villain entity for a D&D Forgotten Realms for a story idea I've been imagining while playing Baulders Gate 3... that's described as the enemy of all things, regardless of alignments. Thus, it is supposed to have no alignment at all... it is supposed to be a being that is and of total nothingness, known as The Void, which wants to destroy all existence and feeds on existence itself... I didn't know that actually there used to be a No-Alignment thing...
Going all the way back to AD&D, as a DM I have generally treated the Lawful-Chaotic spectrum as how a character interacts with judicial systems, whereas the Good-Evil spectrum is their own moral judgement. I expect the Lawful-Chaotic to ebb and flow based on context, particularly in a large and varied setting, but I've found that a character's moral judgement rarely changes, only comes better into focus over time - barring some serious transitional event, of course.
This is why I find the "paladin always lawful good" cliché silly, as, at least to my thinking, a holy warrior would generally be more likely than not to eschew mundane laws in favor of their moral judgement as guided by their faith.
I am thoroughly wedded to the Great Wheel cosmology, hence alignment will always be an inextricable element of any D&D game in which I am involved. The class-alignment restrictions in AD&D worked well enough and served to underscore the Western and Christian cultural norms which formed the framework of the social elements of the game. The people who most vituperatively oppose the alignment system are the ones who want to do what they want, when they want, without restrictions, while still claiming to be the opposite of what their character's behavior indicates.
I scoff at them, point to the Great Wheel, and simply state that in this milieu alignments are both defined and real.
Moldvay's single axis alignment of Law, Neutral, Chaos makes the most sense to me. Good and evil can be subjective. For example killing is seen as evil but would a Paladin killing a monster to save a monk be evil or good deed? I guess is a bit of both depending on how you look at it. Is hard to think of the world in terms of absolute good and absolute evil. However you can definitely say that Paladins are lawful since they follow a moral code/set of principles that guide their actions. So there is such a thing as absolute lawful and absolute chaos. And not only that but you actually have 2 extremes that are both bad where as being closer to the mean is good.
The nine-point system is wholly playable for those of us with a literary D&D/fantasy background. But what do I know? I stopped at 3.5 and my half-elemental Bard remains in a bucket chilled by her White Dragon pet (yes, I tamed an orphan baby with a natural 20).
I have found that using Lawful, True, and Chaotic coupled with Good(Moral), Neutral, and Evil(Amoral) is the way to handle alignment that has worked best at my table. This is the general explanation I give for each one...
Lawful: believes in respecting the laws of the land even when they are unjust.
Chaotic: has no respect for systems of law.
True: doesn't care about the law one way or another and only follow laws that already align with their moral code.
Good (Moral): strictly adheres to a moral code of some sort.
Evil (Amoral): does not believe in morality, has no conscience and/or is sadistic.
Neutral: does not have a moral code that guides them but does still possess some sense of right and wrong, i.e. they have a conscience but don't necessarily listen to it. To them, doing what is necessary is more important than doing what is right.
This eliminates the ethical/moral conundrum. As long as the character believes something is "the right thing to do" then they are acting morally under this paradigm. It makes it more about what is motivating a characters decisions instead of whether they are right/wrong or, how it often ends up getting used, to decide how nice/mean the character acts.
Atten or Aton ?
Twitchy subject , and as you thoroughly described not well defined really at any stage of
D and D Rules design.
Over time , I and my friends eventually discarded the use of alignment. We found that players tended to play the same alignment anyway , perhaps even more regularly than Class.
We also found that Referees (DMs) were able to curb adventure ruining sprees of ridiculous good or continuous evil when the Characters party didn't handle it themselves ingame , which they usually did.
I kind of like the idea I got from Professor Dungeon Master recently of not having an alignment system per se , but rather keeping track of acts of vile evil on a numerical track on each character sheet. As the Character committed evil acts , the number rose. As each number is achieved there is a chance of an effect on their sanity which was applied in terms of specific character/game limitations. If the Character reached the end of the Evil/sanity scale , that Character was forfeit to the DM as a permanent NPC.
I kind of want t try to implement this in my next campaign and see how that goes.
I suspect that the effects will be minimal , as there are few purely bloodthirsty murder
hobos in our group anyway.
I use psychic damage / sanity scale to curb a specific type of meta gaming - when a player blurts out game mechanics, names etc of something in game their character wouldn't know. We can't change that the player knows that info - but I can prevent them from blurting it out to ruin the fun of others. So a house rule I adopted is the character suffers psychic from "tapping into the universe." This has worked well to prevent experieced players from ruining surprises for new(er) players.
I would put alignment with personality, ideal, bond, and flaw. It's useful for character background, but it shouldn't be a straight jacket. Regarding clerics and the like there could be prescribes codes of conduct and taboos which I'd treat separately
I've always divided alignment in mundane and otherwordly.
Mundane concerns the PCs, the NPCs, humanoid creatures and basic monsters.
Otherwordly concerns devils, undead, demons and so on.
In a mundane consideration:
- Lawfull: act respectfully, keep the word given, try not to disobey the laws of a land or/and the rules of an organization.
- Caotic: is a "maverick", don't likes rules or laws and tends to ignore them and is improbable that could work in a strict organization.
- Good: has a tendency towards altruism and when does something is probably for someone else.
- Evil: has a tendency towards selfishness and when does something is probably for personal interest.
- Neutral: is in the middle and can act more or less toward a side or the other of the spectrum based on circumstances.
In an otherworldly consideration the extremes are really extremes and for example an angel lawfull-good could exterminate a city (like in the biblical Sodoma and Gomorrah), and a devil could subjugate hundreds of souls with his contracts.
I think alignment should be a guide for interpretation. A character could change alignment without a loss in xp because at the end of the day is a natural process (we can for instance become evil after a trauma, and then work to return in our old path if we choose to).
There should not be, in my opinion, rules or systems attached to alignment.
This is pretty much my take on alignment - although the "unaligned" option is useful for unintelligent or animal-level intelligent beings.
And, arguably, most people wouldn't necessarily "register" (strongly) to such spells as "Detect Evil"/"Detect Good" *unless* they're actively considering a particular course of action (at least, IMO).
@@mdpenny42 yes, I forgot beasts... They are unaligned. Thanks for pointing that out
@@mdpenny42 for what concerns the "detect" magic, I'm used to 5e, and in there those kind of magic detect types of creatures instead of alignment, and for me is the right way to handle that.
I prefer systems where a character has Motivations/Drives/Passions which have numerical value and impact on play. Behaviour according to or against these can provide benefits or drawbacks if the situation warrants it and these Motivations/Drives/Passions can change and evolve over time. This all makes it more personal.
In my games of DnD we skip over Alignment in character creation; as a GM, I keep track of each character's actions with tick marks into Evil and Good blocks. Not every action adds a tick, but narratively important ones certainly do. This score is how the gods and NPCs of the game react to their characters. It is an earned reputation, and a karmic sign they carry with them. They *know* why Cordri the Vile can't pick up the paladin's Holy Avenger without suffering disadvantage on their rolls... But it's not on the character sheet, and it's up to the players to choose actions which keep them in balance.
Neutrality becomes a STRANGE thing to witness happening at the table. It works for us, and gets rid of all these debates and fuss over where the blame for being a dork lies. It falls firmly on the Player for choosing to do the reprehensible things they do.
🍪☕
Really a cosmic war between law and chaos is all that is needed for theming, but like everything in the hobby, everything is expanded to ridiculous levels of variety. Now the adults have decided that all the toys simply must be taken away from the children for their own safety.
Nicely researched! I try not to use alignment as a straightjacket but a means by which to roleplay the character? If someone does do something that might be out of alignment, such as torturing a goblin for information, I do ask them to justify this in regards to their alignment or change their stated actions? How could torturing a goblin be justified by, say, a lawful good character? Well, what if that goblin literally had information that would mean two hundred people in a village would live or die? What SHOULD the lawful good character do to get the information so the village can live? Is he still justified in the torture? I love those moments in game when players have to really look at their actions!
Re the example of the goblin - a good case of the "trolley problem", still being "discussed" IRL.
@@mdpenny42 Indeed. I think that, really, that's what alignment is for? To help guide players in such roleplaying situations.
@@ToesToJesus "It's what my character would do...!"
When choosing alignment I always have a hard time with it. The reason is VERY simple, alignment always has a cultural context. We can easily observe this in the real world when looking at the behaviourisms of various cultures, religious groups or just the "weird" traditions in the village over the next hill (at least in Germany). Example: While being a suicide bomber is condemnable in one culture/religion it is a sure way to haven and a great honour in another. It may be an extreme example, but it clearly shows why alignment always comes with problems.
For exactly this reason I really like RPG settings that outline the cultural and moral beliefs of a group so that both, the player and GM, can incorporate the set of values and morals into characters. It simply is not feasible to me that a person would consider himself chaotic evil, instead, I think said person would deem his actions as appropriate and valuable thus the person would see those actions as "good".
Alignment, regardless of 3,5 or 9 points can only ever work flawlessly as long as all players at the table (incl. GM) understand each other and agree. At least that is what I think.
Another very interesting video. The history of alginment is more complicated than I thought it was. I've never played D&D before 5e, because it always had that reputation of being somewhat simplistic in regards to ethics and wouldn't allow for complex characters. I do realize that this was never true, but that's the way D&D had always been described to me back in the 90s when I got into RPGs. I knew alignment had changed over time, but I didn't know that the question of alignment being descriptive or prescriptive had been adressed in the earliest rulebooks. Thank you for providing this overview.
However I think your comparison to Star Wars is not quite accurate, as the light and dark side of the force aren't just 'meta-game' descriptions for the audience/players&DMs but first and foremost very important and clearly distinct factors in universe. None of the D&D settings I know puts that much emphesis on integrating alignment into the game world itself. 'Good' and 'evil' are of course very much terms characters in a story would use and see as opposing forces, but I think that many BBEGs wouldn't consider themselves evil the way Darth Vader considers himself to be on the dark side. Even Planescape isn't that on the nose with alignments as Star Wars is with the two sides of the force (at least not for what I know about the setting, which isn't just based on the meager 5e content but is also not nearly as much as an old school Planescape veteran would know). Still, I think the points you make based on this comparison do make sense overall.
Congratz to 5k subs btw.
If it wasn't for alignments I'm not sure D&D would have survived the satanic panic. It allowed us to point to the (youlll see this in many articles and defenses of the game) struggle between good and evil. Sure you can play a character that isn't good - that's because D&D and games like it have so much flexibility but at it's core - just like all the ancient myths it was based on (same as Star Wars. Check out Joseph Campbell talking about Star Wars) we are still talking about good defeating bad.
@@welovettrpgs When it comes to ancient myths good vs evil is not as universal a trope as one might expect. The stories of Gilgamesh, Odin or Zeus don't fit neatly into this dichotomy. They do correspond with the axis of law and chaos to a much greater extend, with Gilgamesh representing civilization in contrast to the feral Enkidu or the Aesir representing order in contrast to the chaotic Jötunn.
I guess the good/evil thing is mostly a monotheistic influence. Of course it's very much essential for high fantasy, but obviously high fantasy isn't as ancient as it pretends to be.
That's exactly what I like about the two axis of alignment, though: they're able to describe both myth and fantasy in a simplified and thus approachable degree which still allows for a lot of nuances and interpretations. In my opinion this mix is perfectly suited for storytelling, character developement and creation of conflict.
Also I din't say Star Wars wasn't about good defeating bad. I said it was way more on the nose about it than D&D and integrated it's alignment equivalents more explicitly into the fictional world.
I always loved the 9-point system and looked at true neutrals as those obsessed with keeping balance, whereas any other character, npc, monster, etc. falls somewhere along the spectrum. I attribute alignment to personality and current behavior. I believe alignments can change, on a whim. In fact, many BBEGs started out as LG. Take Count Dooku from Star Wars, as an example. Except situations concerning patrons, deities and certain npcs, I don't think alignment changes should be punished. They are just who the character is. However, in game behavior will always have consequences. Murder hoboing is a prime example. I see the whole system as an aid and guide toward making the decisions your character would, most likely, make. People are often roleplaying a character with a different alignment than themselves. How many relatively good people tried playing a Dark Urge in BG3? Alignment helps you think like that character, as opposed to thinking like yourself. That's it. It's just a tool to help you better roleplay and explains why some npcs and characters are doing what they do.
Brace for a longer post. I've always liked the 9 point alignments. When discussing alignments, I tell my players that true neutral is the hardest alignment to maintain. Neutrality on a specific topic can be maintained because you just don't care about that particular thing. I am neutral about football because I don't care about the outcome. I don't care who wins. I don't care who loses. I don't care if it exists or not. Everyday life(and society in general), however, is something that affects me, and I care about the outcome. I care about how my neighbors act not because I want to control them but because their actions affect me. The laws of the land affect me, so I care what they are. I tell my players that they are free to start off as neutral, but their actions over the course of the campaign will alowly alter their alignment accordingly. Many video games do this same thing. The first two Fallout games come to mind. In regard to Good and Evil, with the world of D&D clearly having real deities that created the various worlds and creatures, those concepts are determined by the deities, not the mortals. The deities decide what actions are Good and what actions are Evil. Because they are literally the higher powers. If the gods get to decide where your character's soul goes when it dies, then the gods also get to decide what actions are considered good or evil. Now, since everything is run by a Dungeon Master(including the gods), that DM gets to decide what good and evil mean. They should be open with those definitions before the campaign starts(which I make a point of doing). But some things are obvious. I once had a player start a fight with the owner of the inn. He just walked up and started hitting him "for the lols". He was playing a NG ranger. He got pissed off when I had the town guard try to arrest him, and the next morning, he was told to never come back to town by the authorities. During the incident, I gave him plenty of chances to back down, apologize, etc, but he wouldn't. After the session, I had a talk with him and told him that his actions weren't really in keeping with a NG character. After all, would a good person start a fist fight with someone just because they felt like it? I tried asking him if he was just having a bad day, but he said he was fine and didn't understand why it was a big deal. We had a discussion about alignment and character actions before he ever played in a session, and he still didn't grasp the concept. Sadly, I see this all the time, especially with the newer generation of players. So, to fully make my point, I don't feel like the rules are unclear or unfair. I'm firmly in the camp that it's people who don't understand the concept of good and evil. They don't understand that good and evil are set things that are not defined by them in both the game and real life(no, I don't want to discuss that here). It's true that a single action usually doesn't define you as a person. Going on a killing spree, whether in-game or real life, is an obvious exception. However, your overall attitude matters. Alignment is more than just flavor text. Actions have consequences. Sadly, there are a concerningly large number of people these days who want the ability to do whatever they want without consequences. I've met far too many people who act like jerks in a game, then get mad when that game(whether TTRPG or video game) has the game world treat them accordingly. It's not the rules set. It's the player. True, a DM shouldn't come down on a player for the slightest little thing, but there has to be limits, and that's what the rules are intended to do, set limits. No set of rules created by people is going to be perfect because we aren't perfect. However, you've got to have something. Sorry if this was a bit of a rant, but I've had this discussion both online and IRL way too many times.
ANY CONCEPT OF ALIGNMENT SHOULD HAVE ALIGNMENT RESTRICTIONS MAKE SENSE.
Also, look at psychology. There are several psychological concepts that can seemingly match up with how alignment is actually used.
I see good vs evil as being the focus of where one judges the outcome of events. A good person is highly concerned with how others are affected by events/actions, while an evil person is only concerned with themselves. Law vs chaos is about how judgements are made, with lawful being rational and taking belief and thought over feelings, while chaotic is acting on emotion regardless of beliefs. For a chaotic person, thought is generally determined by emotions but for a lawful person, emotions are determined by thought and belief.
A different view pairs the ten motivations with the alignments, such as marking CE as the hedonist motivation.
Great video - but may I suggest to not use fixed subtitles?
I don't use alignment but the concept is, of course, always in the back of my head.
Greetings from Germany.
P.S.: at a LARP 15 years ago my group (lawful good) had a conflict with the evil aligned groups of that particular convention and the neutral groups backstabbed us so we had to retreat. After that happening we said: "Next time, we will kill the neutral ones first (for they are the true evil)!" Still true to this day :D
Hi. The fixed subtitles has turned out to be a RUclips strategy. They have resulted in more views and longer watch time. I was about to quit RUclips but something turned around and the channel finally got noticed. I can't say 100% it was the fixed subtitles but RUclips teachers and my analytics do seem to suggest that is the case. I'll keep testing to see what works.
@@welovettrpgs If it helps to generate views, keep it up 👍
I do want to know why they made that rule about loosing xp if you change alignment. I know that the older games were not narrative games like fate but Gary, Holmes etc had to know that characters change over time and what a character arc is. So why punish players for changing?
I doubt it was anything too deep. Probably just a way to prevent abuses of the game.
The main problem I see with this (or any) alignment system is the potential for rigidity. When alignments are followed to their simplistic extremes, without any regard for the context in which specific actions take place, the result is the "stupid" alignments of internet memes, such as the lawful stupid paladin and the chaotic stupid rogue. People are complex, and situations are complex. Sometimes, it is necessary to act against one's alignment in an immediate situation in order to serve a greater goal. Sometimes, it is a "pick your battles" situation, and the battle that will result from acting strictly within the character's alignment is not worth picking. Situations like these present moral dilemmas that should make for a good story. Maybe that lawful good paladin has to do something nasty in order for the party to survive and ultimately vanquish the evil that infests the land, and he will feel guilty about it for the rest of the game. Maybe that chaotic rogue has to follow laws that rub her the wrong way, or else she will be ripped to shreds by the city guards who are far stronger than the entire party (and the others in the party don't want her to get them all into trouble). Some people are only weakly or moderately committed to their stated values and will treat individual situations with flexibility. A character with a weak or moderate attachment to a lawful good alignment would act within alignment the majority of the time but might steal in order to survive and only feel a little guilty about it as long as the victim of the theft has resources to spare.
Check out my prior video on the topic if you haven't already. It should cover that. Thanks!
Oh I get it :D So I reckon my druid would be lawful neutral.
Unless you were playing AD&D :)
@welovettrpgs Not sure what Ad&D is.
The earliest version of alignment sound to me as though they are coming more from the point of view of a wargame or board game, stating that, in essence, good guys don’t bluff.
Later versions, I’m thinking of the Planescape era, definitely are more of a philosophical discussion, and I think that continues with various degrees of fervor to the present 5E.
I think the beginning of the anti-alignment movement started at tables all over the world when a player decided that another player’s alignment was not between the character and the DM, but rather something that could be commented on for social leverage among players. If you’ve played long enough, I’m sure you’ve seen it in action.
Really the anti alignment movement came from gotcha DMs and people trying to push their perspective of morality onto others. Just like in real life. (People try to legislate their religious views onto others)
The spells detecting alignment are the only spells I ever forbid in games. Paladins can still detect evil within their immediate vicinity, but only if the evil character is actively considering an evil act at that moment. A paladin watching Hitler playing with his dogs wouldn’t see evil in him.
I also don’t penalize shifting alignments. I only reward following alignments when doing so comes at great expense to the character.
I was disappointed that you didn’t mention the Dark Sun mechanic that shifts all alignments to Chaotic Evil under extreme circumstances. Enough days without water and Lawful Good is Chaotic Evil.
I will have to cover alignments from other non core rule book sources in a different video.
@ I wouldn’t bother, honestly. That alignment in extreme conditions is only in Dark Sun, so it isn’t widely known. I was just shocked it didn’t get mentioned because you are normally extremely thorough.
@@almitrahopkins1873 I was only covering core books here.
Funny how all those detractors proved my comment on that original alignment video 😉
Oh, I think I want to hear more!
I have heard a few times (one of them was on your channel if I'm not mixing stuff up) that alignments were intended as religions rather than as general inclinations. That would explain what "they *always* act this way" could actually mean. But the "Holly Bible" for any of them was never written, so it doesn't really solve the problem as a whole.
Also, I believe something being in the game doesn't mean you have to use it. As well as you not using some specific thing doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the game. One example that always comes to my mind is trading rules in Traveler. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole, but if there are enough people who want to play an accounter simulator at their game night to warrant these rules being made - who am I to judge them?
To clarify, neither of these is me disagreeing with you. It's equally valid to use alignment as a part of your character's personality, as their religion, or not to use it at all. Heck, even if you all want to play as a bunch of lawful-stupid fanatics... Well, if you are going to *really* dig into it - perhaps don't do it in public, but otherwise - whatever floats your boat
Not alignment. Alignment tongues.
There’s only one true alignment chart:
One axis is a line between ‘annoying rules lawyer who has to be the center of everything won’t deviate from the rules’ and ‘sociopathic murder hobo who never follows the rules and stabs everything’
The other axis is between ‘follows the DMs well prepped clues and complains about dice’ and ‘ignores everything the dm prepped and does something insane with a bunch of npcs the dm just had to make up because the character went off the plot ’
I call it the ‘player alignment chart’ 😂
This chart is brought to you by the guild of salty dms and the letter F
I always liked the nine-point system just fine, but now i keep to good, neutral, & evil, because that's all that really matters.
Aten! How dare you play make believe wrong!
"It's what my character would do!"
7:42 the definitions of that 1979 manual are wild, a "lawful evil" character would, broadly speaking, someone who "supports the group over the individual" while "not caring about the rights or happiness [of creatures]"? in what way would they be supporting the group then? feels like a huge contradiction
(personally, the selfless/selfish "axis" makes more sense as good/evil than lawful/chaos, as some have already mentioned)
Again, thanks for well researched (really!) and presented video, but I still don't see any value of purpose for using an alignment system in modern D&D or other TRPG rules. And ditching out such system from rules certainly doesn't remove good an evil as concepts from adventure's story or from player's (or DM's) roleplaying and interactions with game's world. Those are universal concepts, that are rather subjective, and one doesn't need a note in a charsheet to use or observe them.
I was just about to leave a response on the other video. I fundamentally disagree with your view of alignment, but that's due to my concepts of definition and objectivity. Your method of course still has merits.
I feel my view on alignment comes from 40 years of DMing and the information I presented here. However, everyone can and should run games in the manner that works best for them. This is true of all parts of the game. I don't think that makes anyone objectively more right or wrong. We are all masters of our own opinions. Thanks!
>Sees thumbnail
>Sighs
The Internet.
@@welovettrpgs _D&D_ internet.
Agreed. Categories and mechanics for ethics and/or morality can certainly have a place in ttrpg systems. It is that the execution on D&D was highly specific and poorly educated rather than the premise itself being untenable.
Thank You!
Following morality = convoluted.
Not surprising in this day and age.
Alignment in OD&D and Chainmail suggests a wargame like division of the players into teams (team law, team chaos, and free agents). This sounds really fun for a Braunstein or whatever game.
That's my suspicion, at least. I suspect alignment grew into morality/philosophy to match D&D's playstyle
I appreciate the concept of it. People get a notion that it's rooted in racism but coming from a Christian background see it as identical to something similar to original sin.
I find it mechanically unnecessary, unnuanced, and limiting for class and spells.
Healing others isn't an action working against evil, plenty of evil forces have used the promises and powers of health and healing to tempt and seduce people.
This video discusses nuance: ruclips.net/video/VjBgoOBSN70/видео.html
The AD&D Dragonlance book had the best take on alignment. Alignments changed between G-E-N-L-C as a consequence of player choices and character actions.
That said, alignments suck. They demonstrate how unworkably stupid objective morality is.
Lol, I am always so entertained with how vehement poeple will defend their view on alignment view. Great vids! I enjoy the discord. I don't use the 9 point alignment, I simply need an indicated moral line the pc will abide by, that way I can know how to expect them to behave. I like your takes, keep it up!
Glad you enjoyed! Art imitates reality. "You MUST believe what I believe or you are BAD!" So exhausting.
I've always viewed Sturm Brightblade's death as a pointless alignment thing. Kinda opened my eyes to the flaws of the D&D alignment system.
The TT is redundant. Just call them RPGs if you are talking about games like D&D.
Video games can't be RPGs, they can only borrow ideas from them. There's no GM to improv. The players can't attempt just anything that comes to mind.
Baldur's Gate 3 is not an RPG. It's a video game that uses elements of RPGs.
VTTs are not RPGs, they are tools used to facilitate RPGs. Talespire is not an RPG for the same reason a /table/ isn't.
You'll need to take that up with popular culture jargon and go edit Wikipedia. Best of luck! Thanks!
Technically, 5th Edition is a 10-point system, since it has Unaligned for nonsapient creatures like beasts and constructs.
That's valid. Most don't think of it that way. Thanks.
I'm brutal af, if your only experience is 5e, your opinion is easily ignored by me LOL because 99% of the time these people are wrong but when it comes down to alignment, oh they are ALWAYS wrong.
A lot of tourists in 5E (which is fine) but then add in the Reddit influence where people who definitely don't know how to play are happy to tell others how to play.
@welovettrpgs oh the reddit, geez that place is big yikes to me