Should alignments be purged from all RPGs or are they a useful thing to keep around for whatever reason?

Esper.

I like something like motivations from Eclipse Phase(unless they are riped off from Shadowrun).
Three simple ideas that players can base their characters on, and they get rewarded for following them. Also, gives GM a system to distribute fate points as he sees fit.
For all the meh thigs in the system, motivations are pretty damn great.

fpbp.

Now, I argue that he actually has a complete lack of black in his psyche. His underlying motives for being Batman could be seen as selfish at times, but they've always come out of a desire to bring order and control where there is none, both in his life and in the world. That's Azorius to me.

But he's also incredibly reactive and passionate about his motives, to the point that it's driven him to become Batman. He's the kind of person who would let this Bat complex and his Parents' death shape his entire life, to the point that he would absolutely function outside of the law. That's Red. Even the brooding, dark mentality is just his cynical reaction to what's going on around him.

On top of all of this, he's nothing if not resourceful or innovative. His utility belt, his ability to think in the moment and adapt on the fly, all his gear... that's nothing if not Izzet artificery and casting.

White, blue and black. I would say in that order but it varies between stories.

He's a vigilante that opposes criminals and injustice worldwide and in Gotham in particular. He also has a stron code against killing and turns defeated opponents in to the police. I'd say that makes him primarily white.

He's also the worlds greatest detective with a huge information network and could take down almost anyone with enough preptime. So he's clearly blue as well.

His methods are to use fear and intimidation (and a few well placed batarangs) since criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot. He also has trouble trusting his allies and has plans for taking them down, just in case. So there is a lot black as well.

He's also crazy in some depictions which is a red trait and dresses as an animal which is green, bats are black though so idk.

Black

>the DARK knight

:^)

It should be redone into an "us vs them" system

>lawful

Followers/enforcers of the law

>neutral

Follows/breaks the law when it's convenient for them. So thieves/murderers and other criminals are neutral.

>chaotic

Seek to destroy our society, breaks not our laws just when it makes their lives easier but also just to spite our society at large. They're stuff like terrorists and demons.

Good/evil will be based more on what a person does when they have power. Being a slave-owner in a country which allows slaves would make you lawful/evil but being a rebel fighter that goes against an oppressive regime makes you chaotic/good.

But the good/evil thing still runs into the whole "But he's a good guy in my eyes!" problem the alignments currently have.

That form of Law / Neutral / Chaotic has already been done, and its called OD&D.

At Rules they are Group. They are more something like "guidelines".

Colorless

Alignments are fine when they're used correctly; something that creates more options instead of restricting them. It defines things on a cosmic scale while giving you general idea where your character is currently standing. No need to get rid of it.

Depends on the setting.

>They're moderately useful to show a character's temperament at a glance
This
They are characterization shorthand (and an unrelated meta-physical property in some D&D editions) and that is it.

Any use beyond that is so deeply flawed as to be worthless.

>They are characterization shorthand
no

Alignments are a pretty useful tool, but thanks to the average intelligence of RPG players they cause far more harm than good. In the ideal timeline, it would be the latter getting purged.

This.
Stupid players make alignments something they are not, and complain that alignments are the problem.
Get rid of the stupid players, then Veeky Forums would be so much better.

>enemy" colors
Blue and red?
White and Black?
Every color has two opposites and two similarities for personality traits.
Its somewhat difficult to try to justify someone who might try to put themselves down as black-white-red.

Depends on the RPG. In a game system with paladins in it (with source of power from good) then yeah, it makes sense.

Depends on the run, mainly Azorius

Magic has had many characters and groups who exemplify what it looks like to be two enemy colors at once. For an easy example look into half the guilds of Ravnica.

palladium alignments are okay, the rest can go.

>BWR

Say hello to the most complex villain in Disney. Follow is absolutely based Mardu colors:

>White, strict belief in order, both religious and state law.

>Black, quick to justify his own misdeeds and choices for personal gain and power, also prejudiced. Only ever felt remorse when religious law and judgement would have affected him.

>Red. Passionate, even to the point where he's willing to imprison or massacre an entire race of people to lay claim to the woman he lusts after.

Alignments are fine. Like literally everything else the Veeky Forums grognard hivemind has just decided they don't like the concept. Never listen to posters here.

I think the Tides work better as a 5-point alignment for RPGs, because they don't have the elemental affiliations that MTG's colors do, and are purely philosophical.

Yes

Alignments as they are tell me nothing about a character other than what box they're categorized into. I preferred how 5e did it with Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws, as they actually tell me what a character actually wants and how they'd reasonably act.

I don't think alignments have actually done anything for 2 editions now. There's not really anything to even complain about that isn't someone thinking they mean more

Eh, mostly they're a guideline to prevent someone from being a randomshit at the table, but then that's why randomshits usually play chaotic neutral. As an idea most alignment systems aren't a bad idea, it's what happens when you put them into practice where it goes sour. It's like having a "The paladin falls" discussion.

>Alignments as they are tell me nothing about a character
Good, they're not supposed to.

Eh, I should add D&D has had the flaw of looking at a lot of things through black and white, and while not bad for some adventures, if you try to get into the complexities of things you start asking yourself "how can an entire race/society be simply classified as evil" and then you start seeing many things the old D&D alignment system is a little to rigid for.

>Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws system
I always loved to read about these to understand the background options' better when I make my characters, but I've also played with a handful of people who hate the 3 tiered system for being restrictive when they would go for concepts

>>They are characterization shorthand
>no
Actually, yes.

>They are relatively poor characterization shorthand
Also yes.

"A CE bard" tells you more about the characterization of the PC than just, "a bard".

>"A CE bard" tells you more about the characterization of the PC than just, "a bard".
At best, it tells me that this Bard is most likely going to be a disruptive asshat who will try to murder-fuck the party (or any NPC's they come across) and they have little to no characterization beyond being evil just for the sake of being evil for no discernible reason, which also conflicts with the nature of the game being a cooperative RPG.

At worst, it basically tells me that the player is a disruptive asshat who gives no fucks about the actual campaign and is more interested in sharting in his pants going on about memes and forced humor rather than in the narrative that I, and the rest of the party, is attempting to create.

Worst, it doesn't tell me WHY he's CE, WHY he's with the party, or even WHY he was allowed to survive to the age of whatever-the-fuck considering how self-destructively stupid he is and how any rational person would've hung them from a noose or something.

The ninepoint is a useful blocking tool for people who are new the concept of roleplaying and benefit from a guide on how to keep their character idea tight and within the lines they originally set up.

It's not perfect and I think people with even a little experience can manage without, newbies can probably even manage without in some cases, but it's still a useful tool starting out.

Honestly, there are much better alternatives to the alignment system presented in 3.PF and its existence has caused more harm than good.

Like think about it, think back to every character that you've seen in your party and think back to how a LG Paladin played by player 1 was distinguishable from another LG Paladin played by player 2. In most cases, there's few differences and the reason is because when people think of alignment in games, they think about how a stereotypical character of that alignment acts.

It's why CE, CN, and NE are notorious red flags for most groups, it's because rarely will a player actually utilize the subtle nuances of these alignments to generate solid roleplay between party memebers and will instead use these alignments as a means to fuck with the party "guilt-free," like people playing dickass Rogues or Kender.

I'm not sure what those people mean by restrictive, they're broad enough that pretty much every concept can be at least communicated via them.
Ideals are what moral code your character looks up to, or aspires to follow. Bonds are a way to situate your character in a setting. Flaws describe the weaknesses in your character's personality.
Unless they think you're forced to only choose from the options presented on the tables, in which case slap them.

>At best, it tells me that this Bard is most likely going to be a disruptive asshat who will try to murder-fuck the party
Okay, if that's your interpretation.
See how that's more than just "a bard" though?

>Worst, it doesn't tell me WHY he's CE, WHY he's with the party, or even WHY he was allowed to survive to the age of whatever-the-fuck considering how self-destructively stupid he is and how any rational person would've hung them from a noose or something.
At this point, I think the problem is that you don't know what the term "shorthand" means.
The fact that you assume anyone in an alignment must be an extreme example is a much lesser, and ultimately unrelated, issue.

>See how that's more than just "a bard" though?
I don't know about you, but I'd have my character be seen as "a bard" since that at least doesn't carry as many negative connotations that will piss off other members of the party, as well as my DM.
>The fact that you assume anyone in an alignment must be an extreme example is a much lesser, and ultimately unrelated, issue.
The reason I assume that most individuals of a specific alignment will be an extreme example because most individuals within the hobby are too autistic (as in medically diagnosed) to understand the subtle nuances that give each alignment a unique flavor or will only pick the class just so they can get away with being cocks to the party because "it's what muh character would do."

It's the same shit with Kender, even though it's possible to play a Kender well, too many people have had to deal with THAT GUYS who played them wrong and nowadays, playing one will earn you a red flag by default.

Ah yes, my alignment is "Jund 'Em Out"

Blue + Red is literally music and musicians.

Each to his own but I'd never touch a campaign where the players are supposed to pick an alignment.

I fucking HATE this image. Malcom Reynolds is not Neutral Good. He's CG. He has a personal code of honor and ethics that he follows, but he otherwise refuses to operate in the confines of the law, no matter how moral or just they are, because he despises the Federation for Serenity Valley (and they're hyper LN totalitarian dicks who couldn't give half a fuck about the outer colony worlds, but w/e.) Nothing about him is Neutral.

your arguing against players being CE, not alingment as a whole, if anything you are arguing in favor of alignment because CE is clearly telling you something

>I'd have my character be seen as "a bard"
Irrelevant, it's still less info

>if anything you are arguing in favor of alignment because CE is clearly telling you something
This

Darth vader isnt even evil

It's not that the characters don't exist. I'm saying the color combination isn't very descriptive of their nature. A WB character could be a lot of things. Maybe they're a moral person, but with a lot of ambition. Or they could be your typical "Lawful Evil."

I think it's possibly worse than the alignment chart because at least the axes don't contain outright conflicting behavior, unlike the color wheel.

>Honestly, there are much better alternatives to the alignment system presented in 3.PF and its existence has caused more harm than good.
Which I don't dispute, but this: >in most cases, there's few differences and the reason is because when people think of alignment in games, they think about how a stereotypical character of that alignment acts.
was my exact point. For a newbie, at least in my experience and I'm talking about someone totally new to the concept of TTRPG's, having a type to play into is helpful, it was for me. There are other ways of doing the same thing, but we aren't talking about alternatives we're just talking about nuking the nine-point, and my position was that for all it's flaws it has it's uses.

>It's why CE, CN, and NE are notorious red flags for most groups...these alignments as a means to fuck with the party "guilt-free," like people playing dickass Rogues or Kender.

This I won't try to defend, you're on the ball with that criticism, but at the same time I think it's utility to new players stands regardless.

Play GURPS

Fucking esper.

>if anything you are arguing in favor of alignment because CE is clearly telling you something
Is the bar so fucking low for you that you'd take all the bullshit that alignment causes just because it "tells you something?"

Making players come up with motivations, personality quirks, and backstory tells you shit about their characters too without arbitrarily shunting them into a tiny little box that may in fact limit their roleplay by a significant margin.

>think back to how a LG Paladin played by player 1 was distinguishable from another LG Paladin played by player 2
The only time I've ever seen more than 1 paladin in the party, the one paladin was a jerkass who only cared about killing dragons and smiting shit. The other gave away all his money constantly, kept dragging the rest of us into stupid politics bullshit, and was some super snowflakey multiclass nonsense.
The DM made one of them an angel. Guess which one.

>Making players come up with motivations, personality quirks, and backstory tells you shit about their characters too without arbitrarily shunting them into a tiny little box that may in fact limit their roleplay by a significant margin.
That is only the case if you (erroneously) think that alignments prescribe your actions, rather than all of the above things you mentioned determining your alignment.
You are not good because your alignment is Good, you are Good because you act like a good guy.

Here's the thing though, even if having a type helps you with roleplay when you're first starting out, it can also create a situation where newbies never bother to dig deeper into what makes their character unique beyond going "oh, he's a [alignment][race][class]."

Then when they're playing in games that require a bit more thought as far as character detail, newbies in the dust with no idea as far as how shit's supposed to work.

I haven't seen this in 20 years of gaming save from people who didn't give a shit about roleplaying in the first place.
It's one of those "arguments" that isn't really an argument because it doesn't come up.

>You are not good because your alignment is Good, you are Good because you act like a good guy.
Yet at the same time, you can also be punished by being unable to gain levels in your class because you acted too far out of your alignment and the DM thought it was necessarily to backhand you back into your place while also teaching newbies "if you decide on your character's alignment, you should NEVER do anything that goes beyond that alignment, lest you get punished for it in a meta-sense."

>I haven't seen this in 20 years of gaming
Congrats, I've seen this happen multiple times throughout multiple campaigns though, so I suppose we're at an impasse.

And what you said applies to a fairly small selection of classes in the entire line, and aren't even the only classes that have such restrictions on them, all of which are explained well in advance. Further, you are treating the DM as some manner of malevolent opposition, which is a poor start to begin from in any regard.
It's disingenuous to treat the openly outlier classes as though they are the rule, user, if you are trying to make a coherent argument.

>I've seen this happen multiple times throughout multiple campaigns though
From players who understood what was expected when it came to roleplay, who had their beliefs both challenged and affirmed by the DM, and who actually desired to roleplay their character?
What you are saying is that you had a lot of shitty players who were satisfied putting in the bare amount of work to roleplay a caricature, trope or stereotype, not a character, and are putting the blame for poor players on alignments.
I've had players who openly asked me what they should do according to their alignment, and the answer I've given, and my DMs have all given, is that you do what your character would do, keeping in mind that you say you are a good person, and it's up to the player to act like a good person.
Be what you say you are, in all facets.

>And what you said applies to a fairly small selection of classes in the entire line, and aren't even the only classes that have such restrictions on them, all of which are explained well in advance.
It also sets a poor precedent for games where characters are expected to change and grow as a result of their experiences throughout the campaign.
>Further, you are treating the DM as some manner of malevolent opposition, which is a poor start to begin from in any regard.
How so? Would it be better if we pretend that nothing bad ever happens because alignment?

>What you are saying is that you had a lot of shitty players who were satisfied putting in the bare amount of work to roleplay a caricature, trope or stereotype, not a character, and are putting the blame for poor players on alignments.
As opposed to you, who is pretending that alignments are actually a good method of fleshing out characters for newbies even though it generally teaches them bad habits that they employ throughout other fucking campaigns?

If alignment was so good then why the fuck is it that even in D&D post 3.PF, WotC took a wild step back from how alignment works in favor of creating the background system?

>It also sets a poor precedent for games where characters are expected to change and grow as a result of their experiences throughout the campaign.
You can learn and grow without throwing away the core part of your personality and the ethics you hold dear, user. Change != destroying your psyche.
>How so?
Because few DMs held to the idea of the "Opposition DM" even in it's heyday, and it's an ideal that is soundly buried, only lifted up and trotted around online by people so misanthropic they need an "enemy" to hold as a strawman, as in your example.
I never saw these arguments playing Basic and 2e, they arose in 3e from people trying to game the system.
>who is pretending that alignments are actually a good method
Never said that. In fact, my post was , and I hold to it. It is a feature, not even a major feature, and means more to the DM and to the overarching campaign than anything else.
>If alignment was so good then why the fuck is it that even in D&D post 3.PF
It is, 4e just didn't base mechanics around it precisely because it led to fuck ups and stupid arguments, like this thread. It was scaled back because players were doing it wrong, then complaining it didn't work because they were doing it wrong.

>You can learn and grow without throwing away the core part of your personality and the ethics you hold dear, user.
>Change != destroying your psyche.
Thanks for proving my point.
>Because few DMs held to the idea of the "Opposition DM" even in it's heyday, and it's an ideal that is soundly buried, only lifted up and trotted around online by people so misanthropic they need an "enemy" to hold as a strawman, as in your example.
I wish I could live in your fantasy land but unfortunately that shit still happens to this day.
>means more to the DM and to the overarching campaign than anything else.
Then wouldn't it make sense to use a system that actually helps people figure out what they want their character to be?
>4e just didn't base mechanics around it
Neither does 5e. Hell, even older editions only made passing reference to it during play. Alignment was only meant to tally where your loyalties lied on the cosmological scale, not whatever they fuck it became in 3.PF.

thank you for being awesome

>tell me what a character actually wants and how they'd reasonably act.
THAT'S NOT THE POINT
alignment is here to represent what kind of god you're compatible with in terms of worship or favor, what kind of energy from a fundamental plane you're affiliated to, if holy water soothes or burns you et caetera.
You know what kind of stuff already exists and is a really good way to describe your character? THE FUCKING BACKSTORY

Alignment is not ethics, a hateful murder of a peaceful evil being is a good act.

Bring back racial alignments!

>you'd take all the bullshit that alignment causes just because it "tells you something?"
>arbitrarily shunting them into a tiny little box
Yeah, you really don't know what "shorthand" means or is used for, do you?

>may in fact limit their roleplay by a significant margin.
It's a shorthand descriptor of their character useful for summing it up in a few syllables.
It never needs to be used and if it is used it wouldn't affect roleplaying at all, let alone "by a significant margin", unless the player is a horribly impressionable idiot, in which case that would be the core issue.

I think you might require medication.