Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Hussar]

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.

So we're back to the paladin stepping outside for a moment so the party can torture or kill the prisoner.

I'd have a very big problem with a character whose player decided that X was evil but it was ok to assist.

 

[billd91]

So we're back to the paladin stepping outside for a moment so the party can torture or kill the prisoner.

I'd have a very big problem with a character whose player decided that X was evil but it was ok to assist.

No, we're not there but thanks for jumping to that conclusion and putting words in my mouth. I was beginning to forget how pointless participation in this thread is.

 

[N'raac]

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?

If you have stated that your character believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society, how does he deal with a man who has stolen from a bakery to feed his starving family? The Law says he should be executed. Compassion does not. Is it Justice? This is the same dilemma you are telling me the character can have only one LG option, and must choose that or break character. How is it different when we have a character whose moral views come into conflict and aren't labeled with the Alignment terms?

Now, the GM could say "The only right choice is compassion and if you do not spare him, you are breaking character." or that "The only right choice is the law and if you spare him, you are breaking character.", or even "Since you cannot both spare him for compassion and execute him for justice you have no choice but to break character and are stripped of your Paladin powers". That seems to be the game you envision. In that game, the GM is a certain part of the anatomy which I prefer not to discuss.

In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation. If the GM is going to take the stance that there are only nine possible personalities, then the game will have problems whether they are named LG, etc. or not. The problem is the gamers, not the game.

If, when you ran games with alignment, you interpreted alignment as you suggest it should and must be interpreted on this thread, then I suggest you were a crap GM in that regard, and I am glad you stopped ABusing alignment in your games as it could only improve them. That seems inconsistent with your overall statements of how you GM, here and on other threads, but we all grow over time.

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.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. I wonder whether there is some reluctance to acknowledge that, perhaps, when a GM made the game poor with alignment, that was bad GMing rather than a bad rules set.

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?

So is it OK for your character who believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society to nail the doors of the orphanage shut and roast marshmallows in the flames while listening to the cries of the children, or is that just as out of character for someone outside an alignment system as within it? It seems to me that, whenever someone has suggested an action that is out and out contradictory, the anti-alignment posters have suggested that can only happen if the players are unreasonable. What out and out contradictory actions are you thinking are, in fact, in character, whether the character is LG or simply believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society in a game with no alignments?

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

As far as I can see, Hussar thinks the GM will rule anything he wants to do "out and out contradictory" to his alignment, but really it will be perfectly in character. Because all GM's are sadistic jerks, with him being the sole enlightened exception. At least that is the image I receive from his posts here and on other threads.

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.

To clarify, you are asking "What if your GM declares burning down the orphanage and roasting marshmallows in the flames while serenaded by the shrieks of dying children to be a good act"? Then he is just as unreasonable as a player who asserts this is a good act. I think we have established many pages ago that not playing with such unreasonable players is a pretty decent idea, so why would we not apply the same solution to a GM who is this crappy. Or one who thinks that everyone of a given alignment can have only one possible response to any given situation and deviating from that One True Way causes immediate alignment shift and loss of all alignment-based abilities? Why is the solution different for a lousy GM than it would be for a lousy player?

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.

It seems like Lawful executions being Evil would indicate the State itself is non-Good (neutral or even evil) itself, setting the stage for role playing within the game to change or overthrow the system.

 

[Luce]

I do not thing Law and Good have to be mutually exclusive. In the case of the man stealing to feed his family: find him a job, then garnish some of his pay as compensation to the baker. After all one of the goals of Law (as I see it) is to prevent re-offending. And I think even fantasy churches may have something similar to a community outreach programs (those associated with gods of Good, Civilization, Healing, Trades, Redemption etc).
Also the alignment is not always used as a straight jacket by RAW, but as a general baseline. For example, 2e DMG chapter 4 Limits of NPC alignment:
"...Just because a merchant is LG does not mean that he will not haggle for the best price or even take advantage of some gullible adventurers who are just passing through. Merchants live by making money and there is nothing evil in charging as much as a character is willing to pay."

The way I use alignment in my games is just that- a shorthand to give me a starting point about the character on which to build on as necessary. Fully fleshed out characters, that is the important NPCs and the PC can and will have a lot more nuances. In that I say to OP -"Yes, alignment descriptor statistic being in the game helps improve my experience."

Now I also see that mechanic as part as host of others things that need to be discuses amongst the group before starting a new campaign (or at least before bringing a new character heavy based on a given thing) as a way to create acceptance. So we are all on the same page.
For example, a dwarf paladin from the Underdark(or other scarcity enviroment) who while will not go hunt sentient creature, or kill prisoners of war; see nothing wrong with eating things that tried to eat him first. Such as purple worms of mind flayers. As long as this is brought up beforehand, the group is usually accepting such things a little quirks that become just one of the distinguishing characteristics that define a given PC.

A DM who is looking for a ways to make a players violate his alignment* will eventually succeed. For example, "The elders of the village who the PCs save invite them to celebratory dinner. The paladin partakes and does not ask what is on the menu. He has just eaten balut (may be even a harpy's balut, it is a fantasy setting after all). DM rules the paladin has loosen the status thereof. If it wrong to kill children, then the unborn should count. I am no interested in participating in those kind of games.


* Now I have nothing against moral dilemmas, as long as everyone is on board.

 

[jsaving]

In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation. If the GM is going to take the stance that there are only nine possible personalities, then the game will have problems whether they are named LG, etc. or not. The problem is the gamers, not the game.

Perfectly stated! All Lawful Good characters would agree that order and compassion should be the underlying principles behind the decisions they make, but this doesn't mean they'll always agree on the best way to apply those principles in any given situation.

 

[Oldehouserules]

I'd say they provide a game play experience and have certain benefits...

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s point. What I took him to be saying is that "good" and "evil" aren't simply labels for personality traits. They are evaluations - of approval, and condemnation, respectively.

Even your framing of it as "compassionate" vs "selfish" reveals this. If the selfish character concedes that s/he is selfish rather than compassionate, then how can s/he nevertheless claim to be doing the right thing? In the real world, defenders of economic and political systems based on self-interest (i) don't treat self-interest as equivalent to selfishness, and (ii) include other-regarding desires (including compassion) among the potential components of a person's self-interest.

If you look at actual, real-life attempts to understand matters like balancing compassion with community protection, you don't see anything like D&D-style LE vs LG. You find essays like Max Weber's famous "Politics as a Vocation", or Michael Walzer's work on "dirty hands", or Isiah Berlin's defence of Machiavelli as a virtue theorist: that is, various attempts to explain why certain approaches to compassion or similar values are in fact naïve and dangerous. You don't find mere assertions of selfishness or ego-privilege.

If you have stated that your character believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society, how does he deal with a man who has stolen from a bakery to feed his starving family? The Law says he should be executed. Compassion does not. Is it Justice? This is the same dilemma you are telling me the character can have only one LG option, and must choose that or break character. How is it different when we have a character whose moral views come into conflict and aren't labeled with the Alignment terms?

<snip>

In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation.

I have two responses to this.

First, actual real-world attempts to resolve these sorts of conflicts of morality and value are far more enlightening than Gygax, who was not himself trying to solve them, and did not provide us a very good framework for thinking about them.

Second, in the sort of "good game" you describe, how is alignment improving the game experience? It seems to be irrelevant to it.

2e DMG chapter 4 Limits of NPC alignment:
"...Just because a merchant is LG does not mean that he will not haggle for the best price or even take advantage of some gullible adventurers who are just passing through. Merchants live by making money and there is nothing evil in charging as much as a character is willing to pay."

That quote from the 2nd ed books is so obviously wrong (perhaps naive is a better word) that all it tells us is that the author has not read much philosophy, nor much serious fiction, nor much history, nor much economics.

For instance: a character whose children are starving will probably pay anything to obtain food for them, even selling him-/herself into slavery or servitude. Is a merchant who will charge such a parent as much as s/he is willing to pay evil? You need to tell me something else pretty special about the situation to stop me answering "Yes, absolutely!"

EDIT:

It's obvious why the 2nd ed rulebook contains that passage. It's intended to block a potential move by the players along the lines of "We're LG, and so is the merchant, so we should get all the stuff we need for free (or at least at a discount)." In other words, a worthless comment about the morality of trade is put into the book as a cure for a problem that wouldn't arise if the game didn't have a mechanical alignment system in the first place!

Hardly an advertisement for alignment - especially in the 3x3 version - improving the game experience!

 

[S'mon]

Perhaps I misunderstood [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s point. What I took him to be saying is that "good" and "evil" aren't simply labels for personality traits. They are evaluations - of approval, and condemnation, respectively.

You understood correctly, of course. Labelling a viewpoint Evil is the same as labelling
that viewpoint Bad, or Wrong. If we accept that one view is Bad and one Good, there is no
possibility of any interesting debate as to which viewpoint is better!

You can have an interesting debate on the relative merits of eg compassion vs community
protection, but only if you first accept that both ends are good and that the people
seeking them are seeking the Good as they see it. If the Compassionate get an LG label and the Protectors get an LE label then you've already got your answer which is Good, and which is
Bad. As Gygax said, "there is no Evil Good" - Evil ends can't be Good. If you want a moral debate,
make both Dirty Harry and his Bleeding Heart Liberal boss Good, make the boss less of a straw man
than in the movie, and go from there.

 

[S'mon]

"...Just because a merchant is LG does not mean that he will not haggle for the best price or even take advantage of some gullible adventurers who are just passing through. Merchants live by making money and there is nothing evil in charging as much as a character is willing to pay."

I could see a LG merchant driving a hard bargain, but not misrepresenting the quality of
goods. It will depend on cultural norms, but eg naming a high price and taking that if the
adventurers cough up would not be un-LG in my book. Claiming the wand had 50 charges when it had 3 would be un-LG though. Reliability & trustworthiness even to strangers would be features
of LG IMC. (I have dealt with 'LG' merchants like this IRL, eg when buying jewelry - the difference between them and the knaves who sold us our second-hand car pretty clear!)

 

[S'mon]

For instance: a character whose children are starving will probably pay anything to obtain food for them, even selling him-/herself into slavery or servitude. Is a merchant who will charge such a parent as much as s/he is willing to pay evil? You need to tell me something else pretty special about the situation to stop me answering "Yes, absolutely!"

Well they could be Neutral IMC. The Evil merchant would enslave the parent and connive to let the children starve anyway! The LG merchant probably wouldn't charge above his standard
asking rate, the NG merchant might give a discount, and CG merchant might give away the
good for free. I don't think CG merchants would be in business very long, though.

Edit: AIR Gygaxian Evil is very Evil indeed, while it's not hard to be Gygaxian-Good, and you
can be as murderous as REH-Conan and be Neutral. This got changed a fair bit in 2e & 3e, in
2e Evil became Selfishness rather than an active desire to cause harm. And of course there's
pretty well no concept of in-group vs out-group in post-Gygax D&D morality; the normal RL approach of treating others differently according to their relation to you is at most an indicator of likely N
alignment. In Gygaxian alignment it seems to be fine to be nasty to the out-group, hence killing the goblin babies is an entirely post-Gygaxian conundrum.