Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Manbearcat]

This, to me, comes down to interpretation in play. When presented with a hard choice, my view is that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed. The fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers. Given that, I consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice made. The Paladin should not fall because he was forced to make a hard choice, and rank his priorities. He should fall when he fails to make an obvious choice, even where that choice may be disadvantageous. But the campaign ground rules should be discussed at the table, no different from a ruling on mechanics. If Orcs in our game are irredeemably evil and fair game for slaughter by the forces of Good, this should be made known to everyone, and they should get reminded when the player forgets what their character would clearly know. If, on the other hand, they are sentient beings capable of moral choice, then the players should know/be reminded of that as well, and treat Orc prisoners no different than human prisoners. To me, the problem is much less "alignment as a concept" than it is an adversarial, "gotcha!" style of play where the GM considers it his job not to set interesting challenges for the Paladin (since he is the example we keep coming back to) but to trick him, or place him in untenable situations, driving him to fail.

If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter? In 1e, a UA Fighter is pretty much the equal of a Paladin and a 2e (especially C & T) Fighter is comprehensively a beast. They're both terrible in 3.x (and easily multi-classed out of) so it doesn't really matter. In 4e, the two characters are extremely distinct but there is no girding alignment.

I don't think we disagree too terribly much (except perhaps for what it means for roleplaying to be "hard" and/or its importants to functional D&D play). However, I just have found that the D&D alignment system is the least useful (and prone to potential detriment or obstruction) of all tools I've found in RPGs to explore thematic premise and challenge an ethos system (such that it must make hard choices or prioritize [sometimes competing] ideals).

Hang on. I think I have a moment of pithy clarity:

"Less, with specificity, is more. More, with generalities, is less."

 

[Celebrim]

Only if the character is the most shallow, superficial, cardboard character ever created. I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play. All of my characters, and with very few exceptions all of the characters of all of the players in my group, are considerably more deep than the superficial, shallow, arbitrary and ridiculous alignment system can possibly convey.

Well, if your writing is any example of your depth and nuance, I'm not convinced that your characters are really less "shallow", "superficial", and "cardboard" than those of us that don't find the alignment system "arbitrary" and "ridiculous".

 

[Dwimmerlied]

If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter?

Hey man, not everyone who wants to play an Anderson style knight in shining armour who fights for honour is interested in method-acting deep , morally ambiguous existential crises every session, and however it's read, or characterized on a messageboard forum, it's not, and doesn't have to be trivial to find the alignment system adequate.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Despite how mentally undone you might become by the notion that someone might want to play a paladin within the context that you oversimplified, strap yourself in tight when you read this; I have written for many years many compelling, involving and entertaining stories, and never found the alignment system lacking.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, if your writing is any example of your depth and nuance, I'm not convinced that your characters are really less "shallow", "superficial", and "cardboard" than those of us that don't find the alignment system "arbitrary" and "ridiculous".

Luckily, the chances of us playing together are so remote, that I'm not very concerned about you having to bear my attempts at nuance and depth, and I'll never have to bear your non-stop condescension, pretentiousness, smugness and insulting demeanor.



PLONK

 

[Umbran]

Well, if your writing is any example of your depth and nuance...

...I'll never have to bear your non-stop condescension, pretentiousness, smugness and insulting demeanor.

And you guys thought making it personal was a good idea because....?

That was a rhetorical question, of course. You both know you shouldn't make it personal. You both know you should address the content of the post, not the person of the poster.

So, you know, do what you should do, instead of what you did here. Thanks.

 

[Umbran]

I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play.

Now, to pose a question - is it that alignment is impeding depth, or is it your mindset about alignment that is impeding depth?

If you are stuck in the mindset that alignment is prescriptive - "My character is Lawful Good, and so they must behave in accordance with that." - then yes, alignment will tend to impede depth.

If, however, you get in the mindset that alignment is descriptive - that how you behave on the long average determines your alignment, not the other way around - then there's no impediment. Act as you will, and let the alignment fall where it may.

This even goes for clerics and paladins. If you're a paladin, of course the first thought is about how they are restricted - that is part of the point of the class! But, you can phrase that either as, "I must be lawful good," or you can phrase that as, "This character has taken vows he or she holds dear."

 

[Imaro]

Only if the character is the most shallow, superficial, cardboard character ever created. I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play. All of my characters, and with very few exceptions all of the characters of all of the players in my group, are considerably more deep than the superficial, shallow, arbitrary and ridiculous alignment system can possibly convey.

Could you expound on this? I mean I understand not liking alignment but I have a really hard time seeing how it could impede depth with every character in every game you've played... unless you are trying to use alignment to define the totality of your character's personality (which it was never meant to do)...

 

[Imaro]

If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter? In 1e, a UA Fighter is pretty much the equal of a Paladin and a 2e (especially C & T) Fighter is comprehensively a beast. They're both terrible in 3.x (and easily multi-classed out of) so it doesn't really matter. In 4e, the two characters are extremely distinct but there is no girding alignment.

I think you're making a mistake here... I don't think most players sits down with the intention to play a paladin without the thematic trappings... that said once the game starts, a paladin may find himself in a situation where it is more expedient, safe, etc. to go against those trappings depending on the in-game circumstances, and since it is still a game and one can suffer loss and even death in-game, a player could easily be tempted to ignore those thematic trappings when convenient or when their back is against the wall.

EDIT: In the model you (and I believe [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]) propose, nothing stops this from happening and, I have to ask, why would a player not choose the most expedient or optimized route if it is available and there are no repercussions for it?

 

[Desdichado]

Now, to pose a question - is it that alignment is impeding depth, or is it your mindset about alignment that is impeding depth?

It's alignment.

If, however, you get in the mindset that alignment is descriptive - that how you behave on the long average determines your alignment, not the other way around - then there's no impediment. Act as you will, and let the alignment fall where it may.

I agree. However... because I agree, alignment becomes useless to me. It's not nearly as useful at defining or describing a character's philosophical approach as a couple of sentences... maybe even a small paragraph or so... about my character is going to be.

On the other hand, I tend to allow character's character (ahem) develop organically, based on what seems like the right response to stimuli throughout play. So, alignment is completely descriptive... but what exactly have I gained by attempting to describe these actions? In what way does alignment become useful to me? At best, it's trying to pigeonhole complicated stimulus/response patterns into poorly fitting and somewhat arbitrary buckets. At worst, it devolves into philosophical wrangling between the player and DM about what is or is not appropriate for an alignment, or is used in an attempt to bludgeon player behavior.

I've never once had a good experience with alignment. At best, it's merely superfluous and pointless. At worst, it's an active detriment to having a good time at the table. Luckily for me, the way I play tends to push towards making it superfluous. And also luckily for me, the group I game with the last few years tends to be more or less on the same page as me about it.

But that hasn't always been the case, and I've been frustrated by interpretations of alignment esoterica and what it means for *my* character on more than one occasion throughout my gaming career.

Could you expound on this? I mean I understand not liking alignment but I have a really hard time seeing how it could impede depth with every character in every game you've played... unless you are trying to use alignment to define the totality of your character's personality (which it was never meant to do)...

Hopefully answered above.