Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[jsaving]

To me, a character that is self described as honourable and follows a code if conduct is lawful.

I'm actually surprised that this is contentious.

A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes. But being self described as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

As for adhering to a code of conduct and honour being Lawful, you're right, but you're focusing on that single trait in a vacuum outside the character's other traits and actions. A character who believes they should be allowed to do as they please because they can, and despises attempts of outside authourity to restrict his behaviour is still Chaotic (in my mind) even if he has a personal code of honour he adheres to.

Hang on though. Alignment has nothing to do with what's in the player's head. It is 100% determined by actions. The mechanics are very clear on that. Thinking good thoughts does not make you good. You actually have to perform good acts to be good.

If the character follows his code, his feelings about such are largely immaterial. They don't matter, as far as determining alignment goes. The fact that he is following this code makes him honourable and thus, lawful.

A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes. But being self described as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.

True. But, I'm also presuming here that the character is actually following the code. That is Imaro's argument after all - that a character can follow a code but not be lawful. To me, once you've set out a codified set of behaviour, and you follow that code, you just became a lawful character.

But, again, this is all besides the point. In this example, I'm the DM. It is my absolute right to determine alignment in my game. That has been repeated over and over and over again. But, apparently now, I'm only supposed to determine alignment if the player agrees? Isn't that how I've been advocating alignment since the beginning? Let the players determine their own alignment?

You can argue that I'm wrong until the cows come home, but, it doesn't matter. Players are supposed to be exploring my interpretation of alignment according to some alignment advocates in this thread. Their interpretations are not what we're looking at, only mine.

But, suddenly, because someone doesn't actually agree with an interpretation, that's out the window? Can you not understand why i'm having problems following the train of thought here? I have made an interpretation of alignment - having a code of conduct and following that code is a strongly lawful trait and thus characters who follow these codes are honourable and Lawful in alignment. Again, this is a pretty easily supportable position within D&D. There's a plethora of examples from every edition where having a code is equated with Lawful alignment, so it's not like I'm pulling this out of my posterior.

So, why am I now not supposed to enforce my interpretation? Isn't that the whole point of mechanical alignment to have a codified, singular view of alignment in the game that everyone follows?

 

[JamesonCourage]

But there's the point though. Being honourable and having some sort of code of conduct is pretty easily supportable as a lawful trait. Just about every single example from deities to NPC's to cultures to magic items- anything described as honourable is lawfully aligned in DnD.

Imaro claims that being honourable is alignment agnostic. I disagree. But now I should let the players determine alignment? When that was so strongly argued against?

So are we now at the point where DM's should only determine alignment when it happens to agree with what the players want?

I'm not going to say it again after this, man:

I'm not going to debate whether or not / how Hussar should implement alignment. Because Hussar shouldn't.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not going to say it again after this, man:

Oh, so, mechanical alignment only works for those who truly understand it and I don't have the secret decoder ring, so, I shouldn't use it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Nice. "Mechanical alignment improves the gaming experience, but only for those of us who are elite enough to use it properly."

I think you've nicely proven my point. Thanks.

 

[Hussar]

A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes. But being self described as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.

A later thought occurs.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant self described by the player not the character. If the player comes to me and tells me that his character is honourable and follows a code, then I would assume that he is, in fact, honourable and follows a code and the player is not mistaken about his own character.

Which, in my mind anyway, makes the character lawful. I certainly would never expect a player to come up with a character and say, "Yes, my character is an honourable barbarian from the northern tribes who follows the strictures and taboos of his people and he's Chaotic".

Having a code and adhering to that code makes a character lawful in my interpretation of alignment.

 

[jsaving]

On your broader issue of who determines alignment, it seems to me that it is the DM's job to be the ultimate arbiter of fact in his campaign, including but not limited to alignment determination. I tend to give players substantial deference in my own campaign, as it sounds like you do (characters much less so, because for RP reasons they may well not be telling the truth). But at the end of the day, they don't get to unilaterally "decree" their alignment except at character creation.

As to what alignment does, I think it is supposed to be a universally understood shorthand for character behavior that gives any D&D player in any campaign a sense of how any character behaves. I would argue it actually does a pretty good job of that overall, despite its many flaws. But where there is disagreement, alignment should at least provide a shorthand for character behavior that is understood by everybody around a particular gaming table. And this can't happen without DM involvement.

In fairness, though, I think at least part of the problem stems from the multi-pronged definition of Law. Whereas Good gives only one unique fundamental principle -- helping others -- Law is a mishmash that includes being honorable, having a code, respecting authority, following tradition, valuing social order, disliking change, lacking creativity, etc. Some of these things imply that you want to freeze society in amber and fight anything that would make things different. Some of them imply that you take orders from whatever source rather than acting on your own impulses. Some of them imply that you want to uphold universal behavior principles like not lying or using poison. And some of them imply that you want a highly structured and regulated society where everybody sticks to their proper place.

In my judgment, "fighting to keep things the way they are" and "taking orders" just don't work as summaries of a character's ethos, because they don't tell me the values for which a character is willing to suffer (at least not without a supplementary listing of exactly which sources of authority the character accepts and which he rejects, which nullifies alignment's value as a shorthand description of character outlook). On the other hand, valuing social structure and believing everyone has their proper place in that structure is a readily understandable foundational principle that can be used in much the same way "altruism" can to provide a sense of what a character will do in a particular situation. Neither altruism nor order provide cookie-cutter solutions to every problem, of course, and fervent partisans on either issue can strongly disagree on how best to bring them about. But they at least provide objective principles that aren't dependent on whoever happens to be in power at the time, or what society happens to be like at a particular point in time. So I tend to focus on Law-is-order in my campaign, though YMMV.

I wonder to what extent some of the disagreements in this thread have been caused by people just genuinely seeing different pieces of the Law writeup as being the foundational aspect of Law?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Oh, so, mechanical alignment only works for those who truly understand it and I don't have the secret decoder ring, so, I shouldn't use it? Is that what you're trying to say?

First, you're the one that said you're confused.

Second, see my sig for my thoughts on why you shouldn't use it. But don't come in accusing me, of all posters, of badwrongfunning again. Because then I'm done with you.

 

[Bluenose]

Alignment is a net indicator of behaviour. A character who's largely Chaotic but has one or two Lawful traits (being honourable, keeping to their word) is still Chaotic, they just aren't at the extreme of Chaotic behaviour. I use a numeric scale -15 to +15 for Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, a character declares their alignment at creation and from there their actions and traits are measured and added or subtracted. A Chaotic Neutral Barbarian starts at -15, 0 giving the character a code of honour they adhere to bumps them closer to Law depending on how rigid it is (no more than +3 in my experience). The character isn't in danger of an alignment shift until they hit -6, but over the course of play they'll probably bounce around within a 5 point spread (Lawful actions and Chaotic actions). Once a player who's supposedly playing Chaotic looks to be in danger of crossing over to Neutral I discuss with them, out of game, what actions they're regularly taking that are largely Lawful, and discuss if they want to change to Neutral or adjust their play to be more Chaotic. If you're curious I've had this conversation with players twice in over a decade of gaming, most players keep alignment in mind when they know the GM is doing the same.

What you're describing doesn't make alignment useful for predicting how people will behave. The various personality traits may add up to a particular alignment for PCs, but not for NPCs. How does a GM tell how a CN Barbarian is going to act if they've got a random selection of personality traits? Either the particular behaviour traits of this barbarian are expressed (and if so, the alignment description is superfluous) or they're not (in which case it's fairly clear that they don't matter at all and this NPC is another stereotype). Writing, "Reckless, Rude, Honest" may take more space than writing "CN", but it's also far more likely to get across the personality of a character (PC or NPC). Which presumably is part of the point of a role-playing game.

 

[pemerton]

An action can be the correct action to take and still be Evil. For example a group of good aligned characters has taken the Big Bad prisoner, do they take him in to face justice knowing he may well escape, or do they execute him here and now knowing the act of killing a helpless opponent in cold blood is an Evil one?

This is where I have a fundamental problem. As a piece of English, "This action is Evil but is nevertheless morally correct" is contradictory in nearly all cases.

If, in fact, for whatever reason, it is morally permissible to kill the prisoner, then doing so is per se not evil. If it is morally obligatory to do so, then doing so is good. That's what the words "good" and "evil" mean!

To tie this back to the 3.5 SRD definitions:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.​

Nothing there tells us, without interpretation and application, that killing the prisoner is evil (it is not motivated by a lack of compassion, nor sheer convenience, nor sport; and D&D has never taken the pacifistic view that all deadly violence is evil as such). To reach that conclusion we have to reach the conclusion that doing so shows a lack of respect for life and a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

I assume that the reason for killing the prisoner here and now is that the balance of interests in respect of life favour killing him/her now rather than taking him prisoner, and risking escape and therefore the lives of those the escaped prisoner might take.

There are of course well-known arguments against such a process of weighing up the interests in play and deciding what is the right thing to do (see, for instance, any criticism of strictly consequentialist moral theory) - but those argument are arguments that it is not correct to kill the prisoner, that to do so would be evil. Rebutting those arguments is rebutting the claim that to do so is evil. What counts as proper respect for life and dignity is precisely what is at stake in the debate between the consequentialist and his/her opponent.

Alignment has nothing to do with what's "right" unless the GM decides that Good is always right and Evil is always wrong.

This is like saying that 2 x 2 <> 4 unless the GM decides that it is. At a certain point the logic of ordinary usage has to be given priority or the game terminology becomes unworkable. "Good" and "evil" are defined using other evaluative notions like "respect", "dignity", "altruism" etc. You can't just ignore these words and suppose that it is up to the GM to decide whether or not it is a good thing to be good. Of course it's a good thing! It's practically tautologous that this should be so!

A character who's largely Chaotic but has one or two Lawful traits (being honourable, keeping to their word) is still Chaotic, they just aren't at the extreme of Chaotic behaviour.

I am somewhat curious what's left of the largely "Chaotic" character who is an honourable promise-keeper.

Per the 3.5 SRD:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. ]

<snip>

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.​

A person who is honourable, trustworthy and a promise-keeper is also going to be reliable (that's a consequence of being honourable and keeping your word) and also probably obedient to authority (at least once that authority is acknowledged, perhaps by way of promise). Where is the adaptability and flexibility? The irresponsibility?

Whereas Good gives only one unique fundamental principle -- helping others -- Law is a mishmash that includes being honorable, having a code, respecting authority, following tradition, valuing social order, disliking change, lacking creativity, etc.

I personally don't see them as a mish-mash at all. They capture the classic conservative value of respect for tradition. Whereas chaos is (among other things) transformative.

My problems with law and chaos are not that they are hard to pin down, but that (i) they aren't really oppositional at the individual level (as I've said, the monk and the bard can generally get along fine), whereas D&D wants them to be, and (ii) in real-world moral argument they are not orthogonal to good and evil, but rather candidates for being labelled good or evil depending upon broader moral perspective (eg JS Mill, together with the other classical utilitarians, clearly thinks that D&D-style "law" - respecting tradition, valuing social order, disliking change, etc - is a social evil which impedes progress).

 

[pemerton]

I asked Hussar this, and I'll ask you the same... what other consumables?

I noted some in my post upthread. Alchemical fire (to gain an area burst attack). Holy water (works well against paradigmatic paladin targets, and gives a minor action attack).

Of course, that brings up another point. The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill. You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him. So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way? How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not? After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.

So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword? Where does it stop? Is any magical weapon dishonourable? Why not? Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword? How is it justifiable under the alignment system?

At its most base functionality, poison efficiently facilitates the expiration of life, same as any other weapon. It can't be the virulence of poison that is the problem. I'm pretty sure your average Holy Avenger bears out a much greater life-snuffing capacity than your average vial of poison. Presumably for a Paladin, within an unwritten protocol of armed conflict, poison would be deemed dishonourable due to its inherent nature of circumventing a (knightly) promise to observe direct, overt, symmetric warfare (its underhanded or asymmetric). One wonders what else would a Paladin (to remain consistent) need to observe and what sort of strategic asymmetry (in warfare) would he need to castigate/outright forbid to retain his honour (not his alignment and powers...simply his honour by his own evaluation) and properly observe those unwritten protocols of armed conflict?

These are interesting questions.

In the classical literature, a knight is not "cheating" if the divinity is on his/her side. That is part and parcel of being a pure warrior. Hence any magic item that expresses that divine connection is OK, I think. Whereas a simple weapon +2 is rather "cheaty" unless the enemy has one too.

In 4e this is fairly easy, because bonuses that the system flags as magic items can be worked out in the fiction in a variety of ways eg inherent bonuses, or (in my own campaign) divine blessings to weapons and armour. In classic D&D it's a bigger issue, though the expectation is probably that a higher level paladin is mostly fighting ogres, giants, demons etc who have the advantage of sinews and magic that means the paladin using a +2 sword isn't cheating.