Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

I would think this would have worked much better with a one dimensional L-N-C axis.
With 2-axis, "How much compassion should the laws show?" is already answered for you
by the Alignment system - the system tells you that whatever the LG say (presumably 'lots of compassion') is morally right; whatever the LE say is morally wrong.
This kind of debate is only interesting if both sides have strong moral claims, rather than
slapping an Evil alignment on Dirty Harry because he wants to blow away the bad guys -
presumably the 'other' bad guys (CE vs his LE).

"Morally" right does not equate to the correct choice when the rubber hits the pavement. A LG person might want no death penalty since that's the ultimate expression of compassion... but is that the right choice in the case of a murderer, how about one who is released and murders again? A traitor or spy who feeds information to enemies of the settlement? A thief who has stolen food from the granary to feed his family but has shorted the militia protecting the settlement on food for the winter...

I'm not seeing how knowing what the lawful good answer to this is makes it any easier in deciding since we're not talking about some idealized settlement in an idealized state where everything is perfect and can be judged outside of context. In other words it's not strong because of the moral claims to "good"... it's strong because those idealized moral claims can rarely be successful in the "real world" of the game without certain compromises... the interesting part is what and how does one compromise without going to far.

 

[Hussar]

Because Imaro, if I'm playing in a mechanical alignment world then deliberately choosing the nonLG option is breaking character.

Why would I choose to do something deliberately that violates my stated alignment?

 

[Imaro]

Because Imaro, if I'm playing in a mechanical alignment world then deliberately choosing the nonLG option is breaking character.

Why would I choose to do something deliberately that violates my stated alignment?

A character is not defined in totality by his alignment... It is not a straight jacket... not sure how many times this has to be repeated in this thread.

 

[jsaving]

I would think this would have worked much better with a one dimensional L-N-C axis.
With 2-axis, "How much compassion should the laws show?" is already answered for you
by the Alignment system - the system tells you that whatever the LG say (presumably 'lots of compassion') is morally right; whatever the LE say is morally wrong.
This kind of debate is only interesting if both sides have strong moral claims, rather than
slapping an Evil alignment on Dirty Harry because he wants to blow away the bad guys -
presumably the 'other' bad guys (CE vs his LE).

If you had a one-dimensional L-N-C alignment system, you'd still have divisions between "compassionate lawfuls" and "selfish Lawfuls" -- you just wouldn't have a shorthand for summarizing why they tend to make different choices. Being able to put more precise labels on outlooks doesn't affect, as far as I can tell, how "interesting" the interplay between those outlooks might be.

I do agree that both sides need to have strong arguments for their point of view, but I don't follow why both sides need to be able to claim to be virtuous. Of *course* a selfish Lawful is less virtuous in his orientation than a compassionate Lawful, for example, but it isn't a LE label that makes him so -- it's the fact that he is selfish. The selfish Lawful wouldn't somehow develop a more powerful moral claim just because you drop the label and pretend there is some sort of equivalence between the selfish Lawful and the compassionate Lawful.

That said, if I were participating in the kind of campaign you are envisioning, where the DM puts an Evil label on anybody with whom he has a political disagreement, I would agree with you that alignment is being used to stifle debate rather than enrich the campaign. Good means making sacrifices for other people, not necessarily making the objectively correct choice that will best result in people being helped by those sacrifices. Choosing to disregard due process of law in order to protect the innocent, as a number of "anti-heroes" like Dirty Harry do, doesn't make one Evil in a D&D context even though it is something about which many LGs would strongly disagree.

And I think that's the real point of this thread (to the extent it still has a point after 150+ pages). Alignment can greatly enrich campaigns, but can also be a real albatross when used to stifle debate and/or enforce the DMs own agenda by him decreeing that only certain expressions of sacrifice/altruism will be considered "validly" Good. As I think I mentioned a while back, I once participated in a campaign whose DM saw disrespect for the legal system as inherently selfish and "knew" that everyone who claimed to be CG was just using notions of freedom as a way to cloak their self-centeredness. That would be an example of what you seem to dislike about alignment, and I'd agree that in that context a campaign is better off not using alignment at all.

 

[Hussar]

A character is not defined in totality by his alignment... It is not a straight jacket... not sure how many times this has to be repeated in this thread.

True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?

 

[Imaro]

True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?

Who said something about an out and out contradictory action??

 

[billd91]

True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?

If you've picked a moral outlook for your character, even in game without a mechanical alignment system, wouldn't this still be the case? If I want to play a character who's chivalrous and kind, burning down the local orphanage after locking everyone inside is still going to be out and out contradictory and out of character.

 

[Hussar]

If you've picked a moral outlook for your character, even in game without a mechanical alignment system, wouldn't this still be the case? If I want to play a character who's chivalrous and kind, burning down the local orphanage after locking everyone inside is still going to be out and out contradictory and out of character.

I agree.

But what if your DM declares that a good act? Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.

So again, why would I act out of alignment?

 

[billd91]

I agree.

But what if your DM declares that a good act? Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.

So again, why would I act out of alignment?

You can engage in non-good acts just fine without taking a hit to your powers. I would expect them to do so quite often - eating lunch, taking a crap, taking a nap, etc. I would argue that any GM who rules performing lawful executions an always evil act is really a GM incompatible with the typical fantasy setting, the standard tropes of D&D adventuring, and needs to recognize that and discuss it with his players before surprising a paladin with a fall.

And even if performing a particular lawful execution would be ruled evil by the GM, the paladin would just have to decline from being the executioner. Bring them to justice those who deserve it, but leave it to the state and its professional executioner to do the dirty deed.

 

[Imaro]

I agree.

But what if your DM declares that a good act? Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.

So again, why would I act out of alignment?

I didn't declare it an evil act, and as long as it's not evil you will not loose any powers...