Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

As I was discussing not far upthread with @jsaving, one of my problems with 9-point alignment is that it decouples moral concerns of the sort obviously in play with Good and Evil from social theoretic conceptions, in ways that make no sense at all - for instance, I'm supposed to imagine that it can be true that both a person who is committed to dissolution of all social bonds, and a stalwart conservative, can both be equally serving "the dignity of all sentient beings". That makes no sense at all: whoever has the right of it in an imagined debate between (say) Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman about what is the best way to serve the dignity of all sentient beings, they can't both be correct.

OK, I'll put aside my reservations on real world ethical philosophy for the moment to pose one basic question. If the two have different viewpoints, which stand in radical opposition to each other, and it seems clear they do, and if they cannot both be correct - one must be right, and the other wrong - how is it that the debate persists? Why have we not determined who was categorically wrong, and who was undeniably correct?

This frames Law and Chaos in the 9 box grid in the fashion of "which will best enable delivery of the moral right"? The LG character sees order and structure as best suited to deliver the greater good, while the CG character perceives freedom and independence as the best means of establishing Good. The LN and CN characters see the two as an end unto themselves, and not a means to achieving some other purpose (be it good or evil). And the LE character sees laws and order as a structure through which he can best achieve his own aims - the strong rule and the weak serve, and that is the way of things - where the CE character sees no constraints "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

To the rest of your post, you have ignored the entire point. I don't want my Heroic Fantasy Game to accept that providing for my family and dropping a few bucks in the plate at church each Sunday is Heroic Good. I want Captain America Good for my Heroic game, not some ambivalent "well, we'll try to fight off the Goblin horde if it doesn't place us at too much risk, but we expect to be paid and I want 25% in advance". I want characters who make real, heroic sacrifices to help people to be Fantasy Good, not characters who might volunteer one evening a month at a local community group and otherwise spend their time on their own enrichment and enjoyment. It's not good enough to be just "Good enough" to meet the Heroic tenets of Good.

 

[Imaro]

I guess a 4e GM might think that wishlists are great for magic items, but that when it comes to placing poisons, potions, residuum, scrolls etc they would do that without regard to whether members of the party are paladins, ritual casters, multiple leaders, etc.

But I don't see why a GM would do that. It's not like there is some deep and inherent distinction between the relevance of a magic item to some particular PC (whether that be in mechanical terms, story terms or both) and the relevance of a poison, a potion or some ritual component.

Because the DM is running a simulationist-style game (which I don't believe is the same as a Gygaxian skill game) and the treasures have been placed to represent what the monster/NPC/etc. would have irregardless of who comes knocking. So going back to our example with the paladin again, if he is helping to bring down something like an evil assassin's guild, then some of the treasure he finds may very well be poisons. My larger point is that there are other styles of games (like some simulationist games) in which a paladin could discover poison as a treasure, outside of Gygaxian skilled-play.

 

[N'raac]

Because the DM is running a simulationist-style game (which I don't believe is the same as a Gygaxian skill game) and the treasures have been placed to represent what the monster/NPC/etc. would have irregardless of who comes knocking. So going back to our example with the paladin again, if he is helping to bring down something like an evil assassin's guild, then some of the treasure he finds may very well be poisons. My larger point is that there are other styles of games (like some simulationist games) in which a paladin could discover poison as a treasure, outside of Gygaxian skilled-play.

By contrast, why would the Paladin find a Holy Sword held by a Cult of the Dark One? Why would they not seek to destroy such an affront, or if they lack the resources to destroy it, to hide it away that it might never be used to oppose their vile aims?

Let's say the Paladin does take the poison, believing its use is not inconsistent with his virtuous and honourable beliefs, surprising the GM? Does that mean that the treasure packet the GM was planning to place for the Paladin, let's say some Evil Bane weapon, is now not placed, and not found (as his treasure has to be kept level with the campaign expectations), or that his existing treasure packet somehow disappears (the poison somehow corrupts his existing Holy Weapon)? I assume not, since that would mean we are penalizing the Paladin/player for choosing a path the GM considers less than honourable by keeping the treasure the GM felt would be inappropriate to the Holy Warrior. But then, doesn't he gain a mechanical advantage by getting both his Honourable treasure and the use of the Dishonourable treasure? Seems like a circle game to me.

 

[pemerton]

Because the DM is running a simulationist-style game (which I don't believe is the same as a Gygaxian skill game) and the treasures have been placed to represent what the monster/NPC/etc. would have irregardless of who comes knocking.

But why would such a GM be using wishlists at all? Or confining him-/herself to treasure parcels?

And alternatively, why couldn't such a GM use wishlists and simply place the wished-for items in logical places (that's what I do) while not counting against the treasure parcel budget those things which the PCs don't actually treat as treasure (such as a poison or unholy symbol or whatever else the paladin rejects/destroys)?

It doesn't really seem to me on either approach that the player of the paladin has a reason to treat the poison as treasure.

 

[pemerton]

Let's say the Paladin does take the poison, believing its use is not inconsistent with his virtuous and honourable beliefs, surprising the GM? Does that mean that the treasure packet the GM was planning to place for the Paladin, let's say some Evil Bane weapon, is now not placed, and not found (as his treasure has to be kept level with the campaign expectations)

Correct! Just like a Gygaxian GM, after the players find the Hammer of Thunderbolts hidden in the giant's secret compartment, might think twice before placing a vorpal sword in the next dungeon.

 

[Imaro]

But why would such a GM be using wishlists at all? Or confining him-/herself to treasure parcels?

Because that's what the game (4e) suggests that he do... as far as magic items go. Ultimately I'm not sure the relevance of this as to my larger point being that there are other play styles where a paladin can gain a benefit from using poison outside of Gygaxian skilled play.

And alternatively, why couldn't such a GM use wishlists and simply place the wished-for items in logical places (that's what I do) while not counting against the treasure parcel budget those things which the PCs don't actually treat as treasure (such as a poison or unholy symbol or whatever else the paladin rejects/destroys)?

Because, unless the DM is controlling where the PC's are going next... there may not be a "logical" place to put the tailored magic items.

Why are you assuming the paladin would reject/destroy poison (Say Bloodstinger poison) when there is nothing that says he can't use it? Why would he reject a mechanical advantage to increase his damage? Especially when the use of poison is not explicitly forbidden by his alignment in 4e and carries no disadvantage for it's use? You're assuming a paladin wouldn't use poison but you haven't given a reason for why he wouldn't use it...

It doesn't really seem to me on either approach that the player of the paladin has a reason to treat the poison as treasure.

The player of the paladin chooses to use the poison because it increases his damage output, he has no restrictions around it's use and Bloodstinger poison at least, is relatively inexpensive. There are some resaons, now what I haven't seen is you give a reason for the player to reject the poison, as far as I can tell in 4e there isn't one so why would he?


EDIT: Earlier your point was that the mechanical build of the paladin in 4e would make it so that he wouldn't benefit from the use of tactics/items/powers that conflicted with his archetype but we've already shown that's not true... now we seem to be shifting to a totally different point in which the GM/DM shouldn't offer him poison or anything he could use for a benefit that doesn't reinforce his moral stance... how is this not just a well disguised stick to keep him playing and acting in a particular way by denial of the choice not too? And if alignment is not objective why is it wrong or undesirable for the LG paladin to use poison?

 

[N'raac]

Correct! Just like a Gygaxian GM, after the players find the Hammer of Thunderbolts hidden in the giant's secret compartment, might think twice before placing a vorpal sword in the next dungeon.

I'm obviously missing something, as it seems you are now saying 4e play is pretty much the same as Gygaxian skilled play, which I'm pretty sure is the opposite of what you intend to say.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think Gygaxian Skilled Play suggests that, if the players are clever enough to find the extra loot, bully for them. Pure "Gygaxian Skilled Play" might go so far as to say the GM places such treasure as the random rolls on the monster's treasure type calls for, no more and no less. But I'm not sure anyone but you knows precisely what you mean by "Gygaxian Skilled Play". I'm assuming it to mean "extrapolate from the rules we see in 1e AD&D, and perhaps other EGG writings, as being the Gygaxian ideal of game play".

 

[N'raac]

Because, unless the DM is controlling where the PC's are going next... there may not be a "logical" place to put the tailored magic items.

Well, one reference [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] used was "a gift from the Gods", so I suppose he could just find it lying on his bedroll after a blissful dream of his deity's congratulations for serving the faith. Of course, that also seems like reinforcement that what he has done was consistent with his faith, so he has been morally judged. It seems tough for the Dwarf to suggest the Paladin isn't true to his ideals when a Holy Sword materializes at his feet in the night...

Why are you assuming the paladin would reject/destroy poison (Say Bloodstinger poison) when there is nothing that says he can't use it? Why would he reject a mechanical advantage to increase his damage? Especially when the use of poison is not explicitly forbidden by his alignment in 4e and carries no disadvantage for it's use? You're assuming a paladin wouldn't use poison but you haven't given a reason for why he wouldn't use it...

The player of the paladin chooses to use the poison because it increases his damage output, he has no restrictions around it's use and Bloodstinger poison at least, is relatively inexpensive. There are some resaons, now what I haven't seen is you give a reason for the player to reject the poison, as far as I can tell in 4e there isn't one so why would he?

To me, this is that "hive mind". All my players just *know* poison is dishonourable and they would therefore never use it. We don't need alignment rulings because we all share a common vision and playstyle that renders alignment rules superfluous. And we have played that way for so long that we can't see any other possibility.

 

[pemerton]

If the two have different viewpoints, which stand in radical opposition to each other, and it seems clear they do, and if they cannot both be correct - one must be right, and the other wrong - how is it that the debate persists? Why have we not determined who was categorically wrong, and who was undeniably correct?

In part because they value different things - they have different conceptions of welfare. And in part because we lack the relevant evidence and methodology to settle the question.

D&D doesn't have room for differing conceptions of welfare, because it is all packaged into the notion of "Good" - so LG and CG characters have the same conception of welfare ("goodness") while disagreeing over . . . (something? - I'm not sure what). And LE characters, who to my mind are most naturally thought of as having a different conception of welfare (eg it seems natural to me that hobgoblins would regard hobbits and elves as overly sentimental), are presented as repudiating welfare as a value at all. It's all very weird to me.

This frames Law and Chaos in the 9 box grid in the fashion of "which will best enable delivery of the moral right"? The LG character sees order and structure as best suited to deliver the greater good, while the CG character perceives freedom and independence as the best means of establishing Good.

Which enlivens the question - why not just ask the gods for the answers? In the real world, Friedman and Burke have different conceptions of welfare as well as different views about social causation and consequences, but D&D doesn't seem to have room for the former.

The LN and CN characters see the two as an end unto themselves, and not a means to achieving some other purpose (be it good or evil).

I can read the words but they don't make any sense to me. Why would someone value order as an end in itself? It sounds like a fetish or pathology to me.

When I see LN characters actually presented in scenarios or in play, it turns out that (if they're not just self-disciplined monks, who as I've argued needn't fight with a bard at all) they do in fact value order because of its contribution to welfare - they just object to the LG character's conception of welfare. But in D&D this isn't viable, because a LN character can't contest with a LG character over what genuine altruism or dignity requires - rather, they have to express a level of disregard for those things.

I don't want my Heroic Fantasy Game to accept that providing for my family and dropping a few bucks in the plate at church each Sunday is Heroic Good.

Yet if you look at the MM you'll see that hobbits, elves and dwarves are all good characters because they do roughly this. Are you advocating for alignment as its written, or as you want it to be?

 

[pemerton]

I'm obviously missing something, as it seems you are now saying 4e play is pretty much the same as Gygaxian skilled play

No, I'm saying that even Gygax advocates placing treasure for future discovery having regard to the treasure that it is already in the game and being used by the PCs.