Why is it a problem to list Character Alignment on Character pages?

I'd just love to know why it seems to be so offensive to list Character Alignment tropes on a CHARACTER page.

Seriously, I've run into this problem on several other pages, and I usually get a response that goes something like this:

"Unless the Character Alignment terms are directly alluded to in the work, they should not be mentioned."

Okay, that does seem logical, but since the terms originated in Dungeons and Dragons, and I've never heard Character Alignment terms referenced IN UNIVERSE in Dn D (I could be wrong though), I don't see the problem with outlining someone's CHARACTER ALIGNMENT on a CHARACTER page.

In fact, below is something I posted on the discussion page for Character Alignment that I hope reasonably outlines my concerns:

---

Actually, I would figure putting a Character Alignment in a character profile would just be information about them, much like putting Boisterous Bruiser or Genius Ditz would be a descriptor.

In fact, I must emphasize that you don't see trope terms blatantly spelled out in most works, but since we tropers use them to describe characters in a said works anyway, so why is it Character Alignment terms are the odd man out?

Yes, they ORIGINATED from Dungeons and Dragons, but they are at their base a generic descriptor for a certain shade of morality, which would be useful information in explaining some of their motivations as a character, so putting one (or more) Character Alignment terms in a description with added clarification tacked on if need be would give whoever reads the character profile a general overview of a character's moral compass, and the other tropes like Boisterous Bruiser or Knight Templar would emphasize in what respect said morality is applied.

Without the morality descriptor, describing a character as a Knight Templar doesn't explain if they are one for a good or evil cause. With a moral descriptor, we know the moral focus of their Knight Templar behavior, even if the reader of the description has never seen the work, so it can be a useful primer for what the character of a work stands for a newcomer to whatever fandom they are from.

---

The above said, I also have another question:

Who decided this (apparently arbitrary) policy in the first place? I've been looking for anything that specifies how Character Alignment tropes should be listed, and the only words on the subject that directly address this (that I can find) can be found on the Character Alignment page, and they are:

"Please don't list this on a work's page as a trope. Examples can go here, on one of this page's subpages, or the work's YMMV tab."

So far, I'd like to believe I've been Lawful Good as a troper and following the above requirement, but if one of the moderators of this website posted something about this that is against the above, I respectfully request clarification so I can continue to be a troper without running into this problem.

If what I have been troping goes against official policy, I will accept that without complaint, but until then, I just want to know who implemented this policy against using Character Alignment tropes and why, and if there is nothing official against using them, then I would like to know why my listing of them is being removed time and again as if I violated some law that so far I have yet to find exists.

.....I hope the above was not inflammatory or rude, but seriously, I would like to know what I seem to be doing wrong.

Also, if nothing official has been said clarifying this, I would like to request something official be said to clarify this matter for future reference.

Is Belkar Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral?

Funny, Word of God on the issue doesn't end the debate. Nor does explicitly stating it in the comic.

Now imagine the vast majority of situations, where the character doesn't live in a Dungeons And Dragons-based world, and there is no Word of God or other explicit statements.

she her hers hOI!!! i'm tempe

It's a problem because they cause arguments, edit wars and Natter. The alignments are too loosely defined to apply to complex characters.

Is Robin Hood Lawful because he only began robbing people after he was outlawed (set outside the law) by the official rules of the society, and he recognizes King Richard as the rightful King and regards King John as a viceroy who is overstepping his authority at best and an outright usurper or worst; or is he Chaotic because he ignores the rules? Is he Good because he gives to the poor and opposes the oppressions of the Sheriff or is he Evil because he ROBS PEOPLE?

As soon as a character is given anything more than the very flattest characterization, he becomes too complex to fit neatly into any D&D-style alignment except maybe Neutral-Neutral.

That's why we don't want them on the character pages unless the alignment is identified in-work.

edited 16th Jan '11 10:53:58 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Okay, the arguements against natter and edit wars make sense (which is why I asked the question, as I don't want to perpetuate either), but I do have a counterpoint:

Character Alignment is, yes, a generic term. According to Dungeons and Dragons' own rules, it is guideline, not a shackle, for moral behavior. There can be penalties attached for acting outside one's alignment, but it is not an absolute.

For example, Ichigo Kurosaki from Bleach is a fairly uncontested Chaotic Good, but this would not bar him from doing something out of character once in awhile, much like how in real life a cop can enforce the law, but run a red light in the middle of the night with no one around and figure Screw the Rules, I Make Them!, and thus rationalize it away in a moment of Lawful Evil, which of course would not preclude a later sense of guilt over voilating his Lawful Good ethics.

In short, listing a morality that would be fairly uncontested (i.e.- Word of God and the in universe characters themselves back up Ichigo as a Chaotic Good character with a large amount of certainty) by Word of God and the in universe characters would simply give a broad overview (which is why after listing a Character Alignment trope it would be wise to add supplementary details explaining the exact ramifications of said alignment in regards to the character's GENERAL actions).

Again, the term would be a guide, but NOT an absolute, so unless it would be hotly contested (like Lelouch's alignment in Code Geass, where it makes sense not list anything other than possibly Broken Base) both in and out of universe, I don't see where this would be that much of a problem.

I'm not sure that a statement of character alignment has ever gone uncontested. I've never seen one uncontested, but it could be possible. It just isn't useful for doing anything but starting a conversation.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

I would argue that Ichigo isn't Chaotic Good for the simple reason that Bleach doesn't use the D&D alignment system, and therefore applying that label would be meaningless.

^I would say that Robin Hood's uncontested, but Image Pickin' had a lengthy debate about that awhile ago.

edited 16th Jan '11 11:33:05 AM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Sorry, I'm confused (and probably a bit thick) here, are character alignments not even supposed to go on character sheets if the work does not use the D and D system (or other explicit equivalent)?

Okay, I understand the reasons why listing character alignment can cause potential problems, so I do have a request:

What is the official policy on this? Is it allowed or not allowed by official fiat? I really don't want to offend anyone or cause an edit war by listing Character Alignment tropes on character pages only to have them taken off again and again, so I was wondering if an official statement could be made on this issue to codify things.

^Pretty sure it's not allowed. I know the Star Wars character sheet has a comment at the top saying that anyone who adds alignments will be banned.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Oh yeah, it's on an admin note when you go to edit.

Is there an actual policy note somewhere to point people at though? 'Cause the way that is written, it could be taken to apply only to the Star Wars page (which is a really contentious fandom) for special circumstances. If it is broad policy then it should really be clarified on the Character Alignment main page, which implies it is only for main pages right now.

Okay, thanks for that information, INUH.

That said, could someone with officially binding authority over the website (i.e.- a moderator) set this issue in stone for the rest of us tropers?

I hope that isn't too much to ask, but since there seems to be some sort of unwritten rule on the subject, I merely request someone with official authority pass a binding judgment on this matter to resolve this issue for future reference.

If nothing else, it would hopefully settle this issue decisively.

You're not really supposed to have any of the subjective tropes listed on the character pages, (so Lawful Good is as verboten as The Scrappy and Complete Monster) but I was somewhat confused by this issue myself, since the banner says it's okay to put them on "one of the subpages". I thought the character sheet was a subpage...

^So's the YMMV, which is where subjective stuff goes.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

The pages themselves have the "don't use this on works" banner. That's supposed to be sufficient.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

...and then there're characters that have different versions of them, like Batman. There's a picture out there that shows that he could fall into all nine of the Alignments.

Fighteer, I agree 100%, but if you raise that point the response that comes straight back at you is "Character sheets aren't works pages". So, I think it just needs to be that bit more explicit.

It just tells people not to stick the subjective tropes on the main page work. That puts character sheets in a gray area. I was initially surprised to see people harvesting subjectives from character pages too. I know the rules now, but I had to go to the forum for confirmation.

To be honest I think they shouldn't even go on the YMMV pages. The Character Alignments should be only for works that explicitly use an alignment system. Everywhere else, wipe them.

All the above said, this is why we need some official guideline on the subject all the more, to avoid arguments and confusion.

What Cryptic Mirror said is the official guideline, in as much as we have one. FYI, character sheets are an extension of works pages and have the same rules.

edited 16th Jan '11 12:21:47 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I do have one question in response to the idea "anything that doesn't explicitly use an alignment system should have alignment tropes wiped".

If good/neutrality/evil and Law/Neutrality/Chaos are universal concepts that get brought up in any work that features moral decisions, doesn't that mean ALL works in which morality is a factor at all have alignment concepts?

They may not use the specific words to identify morality, but if the decisions made in the universe by any of the characters involve the use/understanding of morality, then wouldn't Character Alignment be a valid concept to acknowledge?

Okay, now I'm even more confused. So, alignments should not even be used in YMMV tabs for works without an alignment set within them? I feel so thick today.

In response to Fighteer, thanks for your input, but I was wondering if a moderator could set something in stone for all parties concerned, as Character pages are subpages (i.e.- they branch off of) main works pages, hence they fall outside the logic you presented.

I could be wrong, which is why I would like official authority to clarify things.

^Fighteer is a mod.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

I did not know Fighteer was a mod.

Please forgive my ignorance.