An alignment system that works? Maybe? PEACH

[Larrx]

Subjective ethics might be fun, but they don't work as a game mechanic. So . . . ethics are objective. Okay.

There are three popular frameworks upon which to hang ethics.

Virtue ethics (think Aristotle and the golden mean), claims that good behavior is achieved by trying to embody virtues. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you aspire to courage, and a sense of duty, and kindness, and what not. This leaves the player in complete control of what alignment they decide to be. Not very interesting as a mechanic, so we'll discard it.

A teleological framework (think Bentham and the hedonic calculus) is troubling in the opposite way. If ethics are based on the end result, which can never be known for certain, then alignment is completely controlled by the GM (and maybe simply the dice!).

So we're left with a deontological approach (think Kant and the categorical imperative). Acts are in and of them selves good, lawful, neutral, etc.

For example . . . accepting an enemy's surrender is good. Stealing (if the theft doesn't cause critical hardship) is neutral. Killing is evil.

Of course, 3.5 is primarily a combat engine, so we have to relax the no killing rule. Killing to defend life is a good action, and the player's own life counts. Self defense is okay.

There are still a few problems. A good player may accept a foes surrender because it's the right thing to do. A neutral character might do the same because they fear legal repercussions. An Evil guy might want to let him live so that he can torture him for information. We don't want the neutral or evil character to fall (bounce?) for this action. I know that this harkens back to the virtue/intention framework I already discarded (here is a good place to yell at me), but I think there is a solution.

Aligned acts are exclusive. An evil character can perform as many good acts as he wants with no effect on their alignment. A good character cannot perform neutral or evil acts without risk. This brings up two big problems. First, how do evil characters find redemption if everyday good deeds aren't sufficient? That one is fairly easy to solve, there simply has to be a new category of acts beyond good. I'll call them 'exalted' in honor of a terrible book. These would include thinks like contrition, amends, and reparations.

The other problem is a little trickier, and I don't have a solid answer. Why would anyone play a good or lawful character if a chaotic or evil one could do all the good stuff they want with no repercussions, and also have the freedom to do anything else? Relaxing alignment prereqs helps (I've never understood why we can't have lawful bards or chaotic monks . . . they're ubiquitous in media) so that an alignment shift doesn't kill class features. As a DM it's possible to give good characters more trust, so that's a perk. In a perfect world players would choose an alignment based on who they want to pretend to be, and I'm not sure this accomplishes that, but otherwise I think it's pretty solid. Thoughts?

[rockdeworld]

I don't see the alignment system.

Also, check this post dealing with exactly what you want to deal with: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828

Specifically, Ctrl+F to find "Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?"

[Bucky]

There's one other option: External ethics. Actions are judged based on which of the four (or 5 if you want True Neutral represented) Gods of Alignment approve of them.

This *does* allow an action to be both Good and Evil for different reasons, but since the character's motivation is to keep their own GoA happy rather than to annoy the opposing GoA, it won't cause a problem.

[elonin]

I'm generally opposed to having alignment systems in place at all. The biggest issue that I can think of is that it pwns some classes' abilities, but those can be adjusted with a little work. I just have an opinion that alignment debates derail too many games and become a crutch that hampers real role playing.

[Thealtruistorc]

What I do in place of alignment is a homebrew ruleset I have dubbed Allegiance. Essentially, you dedicate yourself to a certain ideal or state, and it falls to you to defend or expand upon it. Each allegiance has some spells it is attuned to (for example, rigid societies may have some traditionally law-oriented spells), and smites and the like work against opposition to your allegiance (for example, a paladin aligned to say, Dorne or the Martells could use his Smite ability on Tyrell or Lannister allies, or a cleric dedicated to the Roman Empire could use Holy Smite spells on Goths or other groups who directly oppose the empire. Likewise, the latter could fall by failing to live up to the statutes of honor expected of an imperial leader). It not only opens up more interesting opportunities for Roleplaying but also removes many of the complicated issues that usually come with arguing over alignment (hence, it "works").

[Brova]

Morality is a heavily debated subject in the real world. The idea that there is sufficient confidence in what good means to declare that doing things or that thing is good is somewhere between misinformed and offensive. Now, the whole debate about what good is and associated issues is complicated because of the way D&D works. Y'see, D&D is at its core about breaking into the homes of sentient beings, brutally killing them, and taking their stuff. And while very few ethical standards can agree on what is good, almost everyone will tell you that doing those things is evil.

So there are basically two problems. First, how do we reconcile our desire to kill dragons and loot their hordes with the fact that we are personally opposed to killing? Second, how does morality work for people in D&D?

The first one basically means you need to radically rework and rethink D&D. That's a lot of work, and I suggest that you just don't do it. But the second one is actually kind of easy. The thing is there are a lot of moral philosophies that exist and are basically consistent. So you can use those. People who are chaotic good could easily have a utilitarian "maximize good" outlook, while people who are lawful good might be Kantians. For people who are nominally evil it's a bit harder. One thing I've seen that was interesting was the Rakshasa in Lord of Light. While they were generally evil tricksters, the loved gambling and always honored debts for fear that people wouldn't gamble with them. You could do something similar with devils and the iconic deals with them.

[Evolved Shrimp]

A teleological framework (think Bentham and the hedonic calculus) is troubling in the opposite way. If ethics are based on the end result, which can never be known for certain, then alignment is completely controlled by the GM (and maybe simply the dice!).

One could use this kind of framework by expecting a "best guess" approach by characters – do what you honestly think leads to the desired result. So saving the orphan is a good act, even if he later turns out to have grown up into Charles Manson. (Assuming the character had no information foreshadowing that outcome.)

The other problem is a little trickier, and I don't have a solid answer. Why would anyone play a good or lawful character if a chaotic or evil one could do all the good stuff they want with no repercussions, and also have the freedom to do anything else?

I can think of two reasons off the top of my head: First, evil characters do not get to do all the same stuff, neither in the crunch nor the fluff. There are classes and options that aren't available to evil characters (for example, Paladin), and there are gameplay options that wouldn't work either (for example, becoming a member of the Harper's, associating with angels). Conversely, an evil character doing good too often will get into trouble with her evil associates, so that has in-game consequences, too, even if the alignment itself may not be lost.

Secondly, many players choose character specifics because they want to play a particular archetype. They choose chaotic evil because they want to play a Caligula (as portrayed in media; the real guy may or may not have been different) who follows his every whim without any concern for the well-being of others or remorse for their suffering. They choose neutral good because they want to play a beloved hero who is looked upon in the game world as a beacon of hope.

---

I think the alignment system is fairly easy to work with (as ethics go) when you assume that good/evil refers to the overall goals and lawful/chaotic to the preferred methods:

• Good wants to maximize the total amount of well-being over all creatures. This probably includes weighting some creatures higher than others, such as sentients vs. animals. It provides a justification for killing certain creatures because allowing an unreformed evil creature to live would cause a constant drain on the overall well-being level.
• Evil tries to maximize the personal well-being, where “personal” can also mean “my organization”, without regarding the resulting well-being of others as worthy of consideration.
• Lawful tries to achieve their goals in a rules-oriented way and often in a structured organization.
• Chaotic tries to achieve their goals in a way that emphasizes personal choice and preference, often acting as individuals. (This does not exclude following laws or working in an organization, but such things are done as a reasoned personal choice, not because it is the right and proper thing to do.)

The main issue I see with this approach is that it requires an objectively true definition of “well-being” to be useable for an alignment system. There is no such definition in the real world, which is why one person’s good can be another person’s evil, but it shouldn’t be too difficult to come up with a reasonable definition for a game world and declare that to be the objective definition of well-being for purposes of judging alignment in that world.