Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

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.

Are you saying that every judge or jury which has imposed the death penalty, and every person in the justice system who had a part in carrying it out believes taking a life to be morally correct? How about every soldier or police officer who has ever fired a weapon? I suggest, rather, that they are taking an action which, in isolation, is not morally correct ("Thou shalt not kill") in a context in which it is considered morally correct (defense or protection of the innocent, for example).

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!

Now we are getting to specific contexts. And here we can have one character who considers the risk to the innocent is outweighed by the right of the prisoner to live, and another who considers the opposite is true. Both making their decisions based on Good reasons, and weighing the various aspects of Good to come to a conclusion. It doesn't make either, or both, "evil", or "non-good" because they must choose a compromise when all ideals of Good cannot simultaneously be met.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

I think what is mostly interesting is how a Paladin himself (and the player) might orient themselves toward a Ranger companion. Consider the exchange up in the Eyrie where Bronn defeats the knight. Bronn is a classic Ranger/Rogue and does not fight with honour. He uses asymmetrical warfare to derive conquest and was indicted for it in this conflict ("you do not fight with honour"), but he couldn't care less ("nope...he did"). That is pretty standard for the Ranger trope of commando.

I'm trying to think back on the number of times in my campaigns I've had a chaotic good (commando) Ranger and a lawful good Paladin and what, if any, conflicts ensued due to that question regarding the ethics/protocols of warfare. Maybe once?

I think that might be an enlightening angle for the conversation to take: the asymmetric warfare of the Ranger versus that of the poison and why a Ranger may be a divine ally, justifying his position in the Paladin's company/arsenal, while a poison may not. I certainly accept this as coherently informing the genre fiction we are emulating when we play, but I'm not sure if its a visceral acceptance or a cerebral one.

 

[Dannorn]

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.



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?

Addressing your response to me you're right, a character's thoughts and feelings don't matter with regards to alignment (at least until the GM asks about them). However like you I'm presuming the character exhibits these feelings through play.

To the rest of your posts you're right that as GM you can choose to run the game as you wish and if that is how you and your players want to play more power to you. However the way you present your example gives the impression you're trying to discredit the use of mechanical alignment by taking it to its most ridiculous extreme.

 

[jsaving]

I'm trying to think back on the number of times in my campaigns I've had a chaotic good (commando) Ranger and a lawful good Paladin and what, if any, conflicts ensued due to that question regarding the ethics/protocols of warfare. Maybe once?

Same here -- the battlefield implications just aren't that great. On the other hand, when the conflict is over and the paladin begins to build the regulatory superstate that will slot everyone into their proper position in society, you may perhaps begin to see more significant conflicts emerge, even as both insist their diametrically opposed positions best serve the good of all.

 

[pemerton]

I'm trying to think back on the number of times in my campaigns I've had a chaotic good (commando) Ranger and a lawful good Paladin and what, if any, conflicts ensued due to that question regarding the ethics/protocols of warfare. Maybe once?

I think that might be an enlightening angle for the conversation to take: the asymmetric warfare of the Ranger versus that of the poison and why a Ranger may be a divine ally, justifying his position in the Paladin's company/arsenal, while a poison may not.

The paladin doesn't deploy the ranger - the ranger is an independent free-willed responsible agent - whereas the paladin does deploy the poison.

I also think that there are different forms of "asymmetric" warfare. It's one thing for the ranger to sneak around and thereby take the fight to the enemy; it's another thing for the ranger to attack from behind or shoot from cover like an assassin.

In LotR, when Faramir's rangers attack the Easterlings do they make themselves known at the same time as unleashing arrows from cover? I will have a look tonight when I get home.

 

[Dannorn]

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.

I think you've missed my point. My entire point is that an action need not be morally correct to be right. For example in the Dark Knight, Batman creates a system that allows him to spy on the entire city and it's expressed that neither he nor Lucius Fox find this action to be morally correct, but it's still the right course of action to take.

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!

An evil act doesn't stop being evil because you've got a good reason for doing it, especially not in a world where Evil is itself a tangible force. It may be justified, but it's never good. It's right in the practical rather than moral sense of the word.

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?

Given that the code of honour presented was rather vague (and more a code of prestige than anything), there's plenty of room for flexibility and adaptability. There's also a matter of how strictly they adhere to the code. As for irresponsibility they could always resort to violence as a first resort, or rush into battle while the party face is trying to negotiate.

 

[pemerton]

I think you've missed my point. My entire point is that an action need not be morally correct to be right.

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.)

An evil act doesn't stop being evil because you've got a good reason for doing it

What do you mean by "good reason"?

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

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).

 

[N'raac]

What do you mean by "good reason"?

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

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.

Emphasis added. You are the one placing significant weight on the word "good" as "morally right" and evil as "morally wrong". 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? Now, in my parlance, that otherwise evil (when taken in isolation) act is justifiable because it supports other tenets of Good. That moves the action up the spectrum - it is no longer an "evil act" as it blends elements of both good and evil. It is potentially a neutral act on the spectrum of good and evil (not sufficient, in and of itself to cause the Paladin to fall, and possibly not even sufficient to nudge him closer to neutral alignment himself) and, depending on the weighting of other Good aspects of the act, taken in context and as a whole, may even be a Good act.

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).

Thank you for this discussion, as I think it adds better terminology. The Paladin took a life justifiably, not simply because it was an easier course of action but because the balance of other Good tenets demanded he do so. Justification versus excuse is a nice (albeit still far from objective) measure.

 

[Manbearcat]

The paladin doesn't deploy the ranger - the ranger is an independent free-willed responsible agent - whereas the paladin does deploy the poison.

I also think that there are different forms of "asymmetric" warfare. It's one thing for the ranger to sneak around and thereby take the fight to the enemy; it's another thing for the ranger to attack from behind or shoot from cover like an assassin.

In LotR, when Faramir's rangers attack the Easterlings do they make themselves known at the same time as unleashing arrows from cover? I will have a look tonight when I get home.

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

They were notorious for their ability to slaughter entire companies at unawares.

One thing that got me thinking was Gentlemen Warfare and the disdain that the British Regulars had for the "Yankee Scoundrels" (Minutemen) at Lexington when they "slithered on their bellies" (and fired from behind trees, walls, general cover, etc) rather than amassing in an infantry line to exchange volleys until one line broke. The American forces were not professional soldiers and struggled to observe the Gentlemen Warfare protocols/code. Their militia especially (tantamount to Rangers) ignored it, fighting a guerrilla war against the British forces during their marches; ambushing from cover, targeting officers etc. They were widely reviled by the Regulars and their officers/commanders as scoundrels and worse.

Then there were the deviant forces inside of the British military that used brutal counterinsurgency tactics (targeting of civilians and property, using ambushes, giving no quarter for example) to crush the rebels, which were denounced by other field commanders (and General "Gentleman" John Burgoyne) because they were trying to observe the code and "win the hearts and minds" of the colonists, hoping that a gentle hand in the swift routing would quell the rebellion. The two tactics and strategies were obviously utterly incoherent and worked against one another.

In some ways, we're talking about Paladin knightly/gentlemen ethics in warfare vs Ranger guerrilla ethics in warfare and the tension that fealty to code creates (within the scope of warfare itself and within the ranks observing the code).

 

[Manbearcat]

Same here -- the battlefield implications just aren't that great. On the other hand, when the conflict is over and the paladin begins to build the regulatory superstate that will slot everyone into their proper position in society, you may perhaps begin to see more significant conflicts emerge, even as both insist their diametrically opposed positions best serve the good of all.

Yeah. It doesn't seem to be the case that my players historically have felt like it was a relevant thematic conflict worth engaging. I certainly haven't made it central too many times that I can recall.

However, the above being said, I was setting the stage for some diametric opposition on some grounds relevant to this thread (and somewhat relevant to what is being discussed above in the quoted text). It would have had no cosmological fallout for the characters in question (as of course 4e doesn't have the mechanical alignment we have been discussing in this thread), but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] were playing two holy men of very different ethoi, backgrounds, and interests. They were going to be placed at odds against one another when the state (of which Thurgon supported its king) mandated the execution of Lucann's lost, now reclaimed, lover who turned out to be a villain. The kingdom would likely need the support of the Eladrin of the Feywild for the coming battle. Lucann would have been central to that. Whats more, there was evidence that the villain's seduction to the dark side may have been, at least in part, compulsory by a dark power. In the end, she broke free of it.

Regardless, the charges against her were grievous enough such that, in a typical D&D game with mechanical alignment, cosmological fallout for the characters would have to be in play (or the system would mean nothing). 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.