Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Dannorn]

Perhaps you've missed my point. The notion that an action is immoral but right is verging on contradictory. (There are arguments to the contrary: say, dirty hands arguments; or the sorts of arguments that Raymond Geuss runs in Outside Ethics; but you are not running such arguments.)

What do you mean by "good reason"?

And for that matter, what do you mean by "evil act"?

Evil Act - Any act which, in isolation, would be considered immoral, ex. killing someone in cold-blood, intentionally inflicting excessive harm on another person.

Good Reason - Any rationale that the good being achieved justifies committing an Evil Act.

This is part of what I'm talking about when I say an Evil action can be right, the action being taken is evil but it's for good reasons. The other part is where the action may not be morally justified but is none-the-less correct. For example if a group of characters has taken an enemy prisoner who's bothered them for some time and decides that if they take him in he'll just escape and come back to pester them again, so they just kill him.

Of course anyone agrees that the world would be a better place if no one ever had to kill in self-defence. In that sense, killing in self-defence is a necessary evil. But that doesn't mean that a soldier (or, in D&D, a paladin) is doing something evil when s/he kills in self-defence. On standard, non-pacifistic analyses of defensive violence, s/he does something justifiable - the balance of reasons favours killing, because the perpetrator of the threat has forfeited his/her right not to be killed.

In the standard terminology of criminal law, self-defence is a justification, not a mere excuse, for perpetrating violence. There is no evidence at all that D&D departs from this standard approach at all, given how central defensive violence is to the standard tropes of fantasy fiction (and genre fiction more generally).

When have I ever suggested that killing in self defense, or even in combat, is evil. Every example I've given of evil kills have been a character, after calm deliberation, choosing to kill a bound and helpless prisoner.

 

[jsaving]

Evil Act - Any act which, in isolation, would be considered immoral, ex. killing someone in cold-blood, intentionally inflicting excessive harm on another person.

Good Reason - Any rationale that the good being achieved justifies committing an Evil Act.

According to your definitions, I can see how someone who is good could do something evil for a good reason. But you might consider using words other than "good" and "evil," because people are liable to confuse your terms with the definitions given in the PH.

Let me explain what I mean by that. In the PH, selflessness and altruism define Good while selfishness and predation define Evil. There is no division between motivations and actions, or between good and bad justifications for those reasons -- either one acts out of genuine selflessness or one does not, end of story. If the former then one is Good, if not then one is Neutral (or Evil if one takes it a step further and actually preys on the innocent).

That said, there is ambiguity over exactly how to translate altruism into actions. In your example where a villain is captured and made helpless, and there is reason to believe he will threaten the party or other innocents in the future, different Good-aligned members of the party may reach different conclusions about the proper course of action. Some may believe it is their role to pronounce final judgment in the name of protecting the innocent, while others may see hints of repentance and wish to release the villain, while still others may agree that recidivism is likely yet be uncomfortable taking on the mantle of executioner. All three are valid expressions of Goodness as (A)D&D defines the term provided all party members are coming from a place of genuine altruism in making their determinations.

(Which is not to say each evaluation of what the future would hold is equally likely to be correct -- but that is about something other than alignment.)

 

[pemerton]

The battalion of Haradrim that they decimate in the second book? I want to say that the ambush volley was simultaneous.

I had a look. From Tolkien's narration one can't tell - there is a ring of steel on steel and volleys of arrows described simultaneously. But it certainly does seem to have guerrilla dimensions too it.

The Raven Queen paladin in my 4e game would certainly disavow "cowardly" tactics, but in practice it doesn't come up that often - there is an archer-ranger, but he rarely uses stealth as a tactic, preferring his orbital battle station (sorry, that should read flying carpet!).

I would have hated for such a rich situation, that may have been provacative and interesting for both players and their characters, to basically have been a fait accompli because Thurgon would have had to have supported the death sentence (at least as I see it) to maintain his LG status.

My only correction to this would be that Thurgon, if forced to be labelled in alignment terms, would be LN. The possible arc to LG or NG would be part of the scope of play, though as you know I personally don't see the benefit of framing a character arc in mechanical alignment terms.

 

[pemerton]

Evil Act - Any act which, in isolation, would be considered immoral, ex. killing someone in cold-blood, intentionally inflicting excessive harm on another person.

The issue here is you "in isolation". In effect you are saying that the killing of the helpless prisoner is prima facie evil. Then you are going on to consider whether there are further reasons that push the other way.

Good Reason - Any rationale that the good being achieved justifies committing an Evil Act.

They justify it by showing that, while perhaps prima facie evil, it is in the circumstances not evil.

When have I ever suggested that killing in self defense, or even in combat, is evil. Every example I've given of evil kills have been a character, after calm deliberation, choosing to kill a bound and helpless prisoner.

But the analysis of defensive violence plays out the same way. Killing is prima facie evil, but when done in self defence is in fact justifiable and hence not evil. In D&D killing in self-defence is probably neutral, but killing in defence of others is good.

If someone is committing an evil, however necessary, is it not still an evil? The fact that it is justifiable does not change the nature of the act, does it?

It depends. Is killing pro tanto evil - so evil even when done with justification - or is killing prima facie evil - so evil, everything else being equal, but not evil at least in certain circumstances of justification? Standard analyses of defensive violence (and the criminal law treatment also) take the second view.

A related matter: in killing someone in defence of self or others, does one wrong that person? Standard treatments of self-defence answer "no" - the aggressor has forfeited his/her claim not be attacked, and hence in attacking him/her you do no wrong. So killing in self-defence is different, on such accounts, from breaking a promise out of pressing need (eg I can't keep my promise to meet you for lunch because I had to rescue people from a burning house). In the latter case my breaking of the promise, on standard accounts, is still a wrong to you, and the fact that I will have to break my promise to rescue the people from the house counts as a reason not to rescue them (though a reason that is easily outweighed). So it seems to me that the standard D&D paladin who kills an orc in defence of others has done nothing wrong and need not do penance; but a paladin who breaks a promise out of need, even if having obviously done the right thing, nevertheless should do penance for having broken the promise.

(The paladin I described upthread, who regarded killing even in self-defence as morally wrong, was in the same sort of situation as the promise-breaking paladin: he accepted that his killing by way of defensive violence was, on balance, the right thing to have done, as otherwise he could not have complied with the overall balance of reasons that was binding upon him, but he nevertheless had, in his view at least, committed a grave wrong and so had to undertake penance.)

A further complication, perhaps related to the point made by [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] a post or two above this one, is that "evil" can refer to an outcome and an action. An outcome is an evil one if the world would be better without it. In that sense, all killings are probably evils. But an action that engenders an evil need not itself be evil, if morally permissible. Defensive violence again provides a standard example.

For example if a group of characters has taken an enemy prisoner who's bothered them for some time and decides that if they take him in he'll just escape and come back to pester them again, so they just kill him.

To me that looks like they are not considering a good reason. So it looks to me like it is, in D&D terms, evil both prima facie and on the overall balance of reasons.

 

[Campbell]

While he is not strictly a paladin in the D&D sense of the word, my current Scion PC - Reinhardt (son of Baldur, brawler, metal singer) definitely shares some conceptual similarities to D&D paladins. He definitely views the other PCs as cowards, but doesn't make a big deal of it. For him, the journey to Valhalla is a personal. At the end of the day the other PCs are his friends and if they wish to live a lesser existence it's up to them.

It's not lost to him that his boisterous symmetric warfare often provide opportunities for the other PCs to engage in asymmetric warfare. He did have words with the son of Loki played by my real life best friend when he dropped a malotov cocktail on Reinhardt while he was engaged in a fight against several enemies (all human cultists). For Reinhardt it was more about him missing the opportunity to prove himself in battle and less about the Scion of Loki's cowardice.

On the other hand it's fairly easy for Reinhardt to judge others because he is really good at symmetric warfare. There have only been a couple times where he seriously sweated when face to face with his enemies (both times involved the offspring of Fenrir). Between his ability to shutdown his enemies by calling on his command of the sun and the way he utilizes Epic Appearance to dazzle his enemies while he pummels them fair fights aren't really that fair. He struggles primarily in situations where being straight forward cannot win the day. Sometimes being likable, good looking, and amazing in a fight does you no good. Luckily his friends are among the most duplicitous, double crossing, lateral thinking people to ever walk this earth. They mean well for the most part though - he thinks. Impending end of the world and all that jazz.

 

[Pickles JG]

Campbell that's much more interesting than alignments.

The fact this thread is 150 pages long is illustrative of why IME alignments diminish my gaming experience. This sort of debate over honour or paladins codes or what is evil crop up at the table & do not in anyway enhance the experience, especially as we are retreading the same ground we were covering 30 years ago.

 

[Manbearcat]

I had a look. From Tolkien's narration one can't tell - there is a ring of steel on steel and volleys of arrows described simultaneously. But it certainly does seem to have guerrilla dimensions too it.

The Raven Queen paladin in my 4e game would certainly disavow "cowardly" tactics, but in practice it doesn't come up that often - there is an archer-ranger, but he rarely uses stealth as a tactic, preferring his orbital battle station (sorry, that should read flying carpet!).

I suspect hardly any of us have any real anecdotes of our player's Paladin's quarreling with our player's Rangers over their guerrilla tactics. I suppose the Gentlemen Warfare theme isn't terribly relevant to most (all?) of us.

My only correction to this would be that Thurgon, if forced to be labelled in alignment terms, would be LN. The possible arc to LG or NG would be part of the scope of play, though as you know I personally don't see the benefit of framing a character arc in mechanical alignment terms.

Yup. Same as Kord. I was just momentarily stealing Thurgon away into the realm of pre 4e D&D in order to place his upcoming decision under those alignment constraints and fallout (and resent that prospect as GM).

 

[Imaro]

Campbell that's much more interesting than alignments.

The fact this thread is 150 pages long is illustrative of why IME alignments diminish my gaming experience. This sort of debate over honour or paladins codes or what is evil crop up at the table & do not in anyway enhance the experience, especially as we are retreading the same ground we were covering 30 years ago.

It's funny because I don't take this thread as illustrative of anything that happens at the actual table. In other words I spend more time by magnitudes arguing with people on the internet about alignment than I ever have at the actual table... YMMV of course.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny because I don't take this thread as illustrative of anything that happens at the actual table. In other words I spend more time by magnitudes arguing with people on the internet about alignment than I ever have at the actual table... YMMV of course.

Well, of course you have Imaro. Presumably you play with people who agree with your play style. So, it becomes pretty easy to not have these arguments. In groups where these arguments do crop up, it's generally because of incompatible play styles and the group doesn't last long enough. Someone walks.

Try regularly changing groups - say one completely new group every year for the next ten years, and then get back to us about how alignment is used in games.

I've been gaming for a smidgeon over thirty years. The longest any group I've ever gamed with has stuck together is my current one at about three years. And even then, it's three of us that have gamed together that long. The other three in the group are more recent additions. And, for me, that's always been the way. One, maybe two year groups. Over and over and over again.

So, yeah, when you start playing with a lot more players and a lot more DM's, you really get to see just how much fun alignment can really be.

 

[Imaro]

Well, of course you have Imaro. Presumably you play with people who agree with your play style. So, it becomes pretty easy to not have these arguments. In groups where these arguments do crop up, it's generally because of incompatible play styles and the group doesn't last long enough. Someone walks.

Incompatible play styles seems like a much bigger and broader issue than liking or disliking alignment.

Try regularly changing groups - say one completely new group every year for the next ten years, and then get back to us about how alignment is used in games.

So is it that I play in groups that suit my play style (Which is something I think everyone is striving to do)... or that you're assuming I haven't played with multiple groups? Not sure where you've gotten the assumption that I've only ever played with my current group but it is incorrect. I have played in organized play games, meetup games and with a few different regular groups when I was younger and had more time to devote to the hobby... and again, we never had these blow out, all encompassing arguments about alignment and it's arbitration by the DM... But then from your posting history, I also haven't had the type of experiences with bad DM's that seem to shape alot of your views...

I've been gaming for a smidgeon over thirty years. The longest any group I've ever gamed with has stuck together is my current one at about three years. And even then, it's three of us that have gamed together that long. The other three in the group are more recent additions. And, for me, that's always been the way. One, maybe two year groups. Over and over and over again.

So, yeah, when you start playing with a lot more players and a lot more DM's, you really get to see just how much fun alignment can really be.

Ok, not sure how your experiences in any way have any bearing on mine, but I get it you don't play with a regular group on average more than a year or two... I have to ask though, if these groups don't stay together (especially with modern technology like skype, virtual tabletops, and google hangout)... could there be deeper issues than alignment at play here?

And again, where is this assumption that I've only ever played with the same group since I entered the hobby coming from? I've never made such a statement.