I do see your point guys. I'm just not 100% convinced. If you're doing mostly the same things, and the only major difference is the color of your hat while doing it, is it really a big difference?
Is there a difference between how a CG party approaches things and a LG party? A group of dwarves versus a group of elves? I'm going to say, "Yes, a big difference." You will never see the same adventure played the same way twice. Good characters and evil characters have different approaches to similar problems.
The example of the knight vs the assassin rescuing the princess isn't a question of alignment in my mind. It's a question of totally different character types. What about a good rogue and an assassin? Would their tactics really be all that different? Or the good knight and an evil knight?
Yes. Let's go back to the servant girl who helps the princess escape (for whatever reason that motivates the poor girl). The good rogue is not going to murder her as a witness; the assassin might. The evil knight might murder her, while the good knight is not going to murder anyone at all. Good characters have less problems with making enemies, but more problems with avoiding "collateral damage." Good characters attract more loyalty, evil characters can more credibly generate fear.
Two lawful good paladins can play completely different. Imagine one, we'll call him Sir Clark of Smallville, is a shining knight. He believes in fair play, honor, mercy, and just punishment. He rides bravely into battle, affords his opponents every opportunity to surrender, and looks forward to either glorious death or the rewards of noble service. There is another equally honorable paladin of his order, named Dame Diana of Hespera. She believes in order, the law, mercy, and just punishment. She regards the battle against evil as serious business and would never give an opponent an opportunity based on a misguided sense of fair play as if combat were some kind of game. She is extremely cautious about endangerous her companions or bystanders, and looks forward to a quiet retirement, although she is resigned to the likelihood of dying in battle against the forces of evil.
Sir Clark might very well challenge the evil Baron to a duel, or threaten to simply lay siege to his castle. Dame Diana might look for an opportunity to ambush him while hunting, or failing to discover an opportune time to attack, might try to challenge him as well, as a less desirable option (she lives by the maxim of Sun Tzu that first you must become victorious, then you enter battle).
There is so much potential difference between two characters of the same alignment with similar codes of conduct, that the differences between Good and Evil are truly vast.
Both knights would likely go through the front door and demand that princess. If they were attacked (which they most likely would be) they'd kill everyone attacking them until they stopped getting attacked. They then ride off with the princess (after looting the bodies of course).
One just uses more foul language in the process.
True. Lawful Good fighters might get very frustrated with all the idiots intent on dying for their worthless Baron and let loose a few choice expletives.
Like I said, I do see where you're coming from. It's just my recent experience speaks differently. When presented with (mostly) the same situation, a good PC and an evil PC does pretty much the same thing - applies violence.
Every romance novel has pretty much the same story... people fall in love, and attempt to be together. Complaining that both good and evil PCs apply violence is pretty much the same as admitting that a fighter or wizard can be either good or evil.
Nonetheless, the decision to apply violence is never the same in its application. Both good and evil characters can have honor, but it's a different kind of honor. Both good and evil characters might think of collateral damage, but for different reasons. There is a difference between a good rogue using Stealth to avoid unnecessary battles in order to take out the evil Baron, versus an evil Assassin using Stealth to get close to as many members of the Baron's family as possible in order to execute them all, down to the youngest child.
Hussar said:
Again, I'm thinking that D&D just isn't the right vehicle for this. The game is not designed to explore this sort of thing IMO. Like I said, the whole Kill-Loot-Level Up cycle that D&D promotes is too amoral to really delve into this without a whole lot of reworking.
My experience suggests otherwise. In the 3.5 campaign I've been running, the party is mainly good and neutral, and they have really wrestled with some decisions. Characters have taken great measures in order to preserve or restore their good alignment. I don't make it easy. In many situations, I offer an obvious alternative to the right thing, and the only immediate consequence of choosing evil is that the characters become evil. And yet time and again, players will look for ways to avoid the evil option.
Star Wars is another game where many problems are solved by the application of violence. And yet, the Light Side and Dark Side are important themes in Star Wars.
D&D need not be amoral, and if it is, individual characters need not be amoral. The fact that many people choose to run it as a morally neutral maze game does not mean that's the only way to run it... or even the simplest. At its heart, D&D is a game about fortune seekers, each of whom is empowered to make any decision in a fashion they choose. In Monopoly, you cannot suddenly decide to burn down the Shoe's hotels in an act of arson, but in D&D arson is a possibility.
In fact, my players had a run-in with a powerful druid, due to their wanton forest-burning during a series of running battles.