Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

the label "good" means compassionate/selfless/altruistic in D&D, and those are qualities that many players and GMs would endorse. And yes, the label "evil" means hurting/oppressing others in D&D, and those are qualities that many players and GMs would condemn. But there is nothing inherent in the alignment rules that says good is to be praised and evil condemned -- that value judgment would come from the players/DMs themselves.

But no one in the real world condemns compassion. Nor does anyone in the real world embrace hurting or oppressing others.

For instance, to use an example which hopefully won't get me in too much trouble, the Soviet government didn't frame its policies by reference to "hurting" or "oppressing". They framed them by reference to compassion and other-regard: communism was intended as, or at least characterised by its proponents as, a mode of human liberation and a cause of human welfare.

Likewise when it comes to killing the dangerous prisoner. It's not that the executioners don't have compassion. They claim that they feel compassion towards future victims; and that the "do gooders" who can't take the hard decision and who let the villain go are naïve and self-indulgent, even precious about their so-called "compassion" that is actually a cloak for a type of moral vanity. (And in case you think such arguments aren't run in the real world - the newspapers and radio commentary in my country, Australia, are full of them, although not in relation to the death penalty.)

the D&D alignment system has never set out to describe morality in a comprehensive way. All it has done is provide shorthand descriptors for two attributes: the degree to which one is compassionate and the degree to which they value order. Those who find those attributes useful will find D&D's alignment rules similarly useful, and those who don't, won't.

Are the authors of the US Constitution, who took the view that the best way to preserve individual liberty was by way of a robust rule-of-law framework, lawful or chaotic? Did they value order over freedom or vice versa?

Even within the limits that you set, I don't find alignment a very helpful tool.

I find alignment provides a convenient shorthand, and an indication of a heroic motivation, or a villainous outlook, quiet consistent with fantasy source material. I do not need to agonize over real world ethical philosophy to play the game.

Thank you. That is a clear statement of how you see alignment improving the gaming experience. (It looks to me like "descriptive" rather than mechanical alignment, at least when put to this particular use.)

Needless to say that I don't find the shorthand at all convenient. Nor does this have anything to do with having a PhD in moral philosophy. My dim view of alignment dates back to when I was a high school student and read "For King and Country" in Dragon 101. It accurately diagnosed a range of problems I had been experiencing in my game, and I have never had reason to doubt the proffered solution - namely, abandoning alignment and going for ordinary conceptions of motivations, value and the like in describing characters (both PCs and NPCs).

 

[N'raac]

But no one in the real world condemns compassion. Nor does anyone in the real world embrace hurting or oppressing others.

Really? You've never heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" applied to those who favour a stronger social safety net? The US has not, in fact, had huge debates over ObamaCare providing better medical coverage for less wealthy members of society, rather than forcing them to do without medical treatment or drive themselves into bankruptcy? People do not argue for stiffer sentences for criminals, rather than compassionate reform? No one will argue that "Compassion in and of itself is bad" or "Hurting and oppressing others is great" in isolation. But look at the real world - at some point, compassion is replaced with pragmatism, and people are oppressed, hurt and even killed, and this becomes acceptable.

For instance, to use an example which hopefully won't get me in too much trouble, the Soviet government didn't frame its policies by reference to "hurting" or "oppressing". They framed them by reference to compassion and other-regard: communism was intended as, or at least characterised by its proponents as, a mode of human liberation and a cause of human welfare.

How they frame the terms is semantics, not reality. If one actually reads Marxist communism, it has never actually been adopted. It is based on a premise that everyone will contribute to the best of their ability and take enough for their needs rather than their greeds. Once that comes up against basic human nature...forget it!

Likewise when it comes to killing the dangerous prisoner. It's not that the executioners don't have compassion. They claim that they feel compassion towards future victims; and that the "do gooders" who can't take the hard decision and who let the villain go are naïve and self-indulgent, even precious about their so-called "compassion" that is actually a cloak for a type of moral vanity. (And in case you think such arguments aren't run in the real world - the newspapers and radio commentary in my country, Australia, are full of them, although not in relation to the death penalty.)

And here we see a willingness to compromise compassion in the face of harsh reality.

Are the authors of the US Constitution, who took the view that the best way to preserve individual liberty was by way of a robust rule-of-law framework, lawful or chaotic? Did they value order over freedom or vice versa?

"robust rule of law" says it all. We want individual liberty to the extent we can achieve it within an ordered, structured society. Some would assert the income tax system is oppressive. It forces people of good conscience to, in one example, fund the military machine that oppresses, hurts and kills others. Is that Good? Does it promote freedom? At its very basic, "My right to seeing my fist ends where my neighbour's nose begins" is an example of compromise of freedom and liberty for compassion, is it not?

namely, abandoning alignment and going for ordinary conceptions of motivations, value and the like in describing characters (both PCs and NPCs).

I find setting out those motivations, values and the like provides me a good sense of who my character is, which then allows me to assess which of the alignments best suits his nature. For grey areas, a discussion with the GM works quite well. If I am looking at this character and thinking "he promotes liberty and freedom through a strong social order and governance structure; now is that Law or Chaos", it strikes me that I have found a character who may be Neutral with respect to the two. So let's see what the GM thinks.

 

[jsaving]

But no one in the real world condemns compassion. Nor does anyone in the real world embrace hurting or oppressing others.

For instance, to use an example which hopefully won't get me in too much trouble, the Soviet government didn't frame its policies by reference to "hurting" or "oppressing". They framed them by reference to compassion and other-regard: communism was intended as, or at least characterised by its proponents as, a mode of human liberation and a cause of human welfare.

But this is precisely the point -- people with the same alignment are expected to reach different value judgments about whether specific ways to implement their values will work effectively. Of *course* compassionate people can disagree about the relative merits of the Soviet system or any other while remaining Good; that is a feature rather than a bug of the D&D alignment writeup. If it were otherwise, then alignment really would be the personality straitjacket that some in this thread have (in my view wrongly) accused it of being.

You keep trying to say alignment is a failure unless it can assign objectively verifiable labels to specific policy regimes like the Soviet system, and I agree with you that it is grossly inadequate for that purpose. What it can do, though, is provide a shorthand for understanding why individuals would support or oppose such a system.

Let me explain what I mean by that in the context of your example. People have innumerably different takes on the degree to which the Soviet system fulfills its stated goals of liberation and compassion, and those differing evaluations of empirical evidence will lead people with similar values to reach different conclusions about the system. Those who decide the Soviet system helps the weak will support the system if they are Good but oppose it if they are Evil. Those who decide the Soviet system oppresses the weak will support the system if they are Evil but oppose it if they are Good. In this way, different people who are equally compassionate could wind up on opposite sides of the Soviet debate, with each accusing the other of making naive or even dangerous assessments about just how benevolent/oppressive the Soviet system actually is.

I see that as adding richness to my campaigns; I rather suspect you see it as exposing inadequacies that render alignment useless for yours.

Likewise when it comes to killing the dangerous prisoner. It's not that the executioners don't have compassion. They claim that they feel compassion towards future victims; and that the "do gooders" who can't take the hard decision and who let the villain go are naïve and self-indulgent, even precious about their so-called "compassion" that is actually a cloak for a type of moral vanity.

Yes, people of the same alignment can reach different verdicts based on differing perceptions of how dangerous the prisoner may be, how many future victims could be saved, or even how many people might be inspired to carry on the prisoner's work if he is (not) spared. But I would again see this as adding richness to the game rather than exposing deep failings.

Needless to say that I don't find the shorthand at all convenient. Nor does this have anything to do with having a PhD in moral philosophy. My dim view of alignment dates back to when I was a high school student and read "For King and Country" in Dragon 101. It accurately diagnosed a range of problems I had been experiencing in my game, and I have never had reason to doubt the proffered solution - namely, abandoning alignment and going for ordinary conceptions of motivations, value and the like in describing characters (both PCs and NPCs).

I too feel that the focus needs to be on ordinary conceptions of motivations, values, and the like in describing characters -- I just find Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil labels to be more useful than you do in summarizing those motivations and values. But as long as alignment has no mechanical consequences whatsoever, either as a balancing tool or to determine when characters "fall," then I think Next can comfortably encompass both of our playstyles.

 

[Hussar]

But this is precisely the point -- people with the same alignment are expected to reach different value judgments about whether specific ways to implement their values will work effectively.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page156#ixzz30ykAOcaA

Totally agreed. But, how is that possible when the DM is telling you that X is good/not good? Which is, to me, the heart of this discussion. After all, it's been argued multiple times that both cannot be good. That you cannot actually have different value judgments while still holding to the same alignment.

After all, one of the primary values of mechanical alignment is exploring the DM's interpretation of alignment, at least according to many in this thread. So, if two different value judgements are in play, the DM has to rule one of them good and the other not-good. So, again, why would someone choose the not-good option, knowing that it was not good?

 

[jsaving]

Your question contains its own answer (though I suspect you designed it that way).

Of *course* you can have people with the same alignment making different value judgments when they have different understandings of the "facts on the ground," not because one is less compassionate than the other but because they disagree over how best to promote the core principles they both share. And it is neither necessary nor appropriate for a DM to rule one chain of reasoning Good and the other Evil.

Doing so goes light-years beyond the uses for which D&D alignment was intended. And when the DM does it anyway, you end up in exactly the situation you are hinting at, with the DM constantly decreeing which actions/beliefs are Good and the players then forced to follow the DM's decrees lest they "fall". And it's those kinds of campaigns that give the D&D alignment system a bad name.

 

[Hussar]

Hang on though. I've pointed out multiple times that alignment interpretations can be mutually exclusive and contradictory. I was told that it is the DM's job to insure that all interpretations are resolved.

Thus it is absolutely necessary for the DM to rule one more or less good that the other. After all, they can't both be true if they are mutually exclusive.

Is it good or evil to execute a prisoner? The DM must make a ruling. I don't think we can say that it is amoral and thus neutral.

And, once the DM has ruled, the player's choices become pretty clear on way or the other. There can be no ambiguity.

Which is what I want in the game - moral ambiguity.

 

[jsaving]

All I can say is that I disagree with whoever is telling you that is how alignment has to be.

 

[Hussar]

Well, take it a step further then.

The party catches the evil doer red handed. The bad guy is standing over the bloody corpse, screaming, "I did it and I'll do it again!" There's no doubt here. So, a fight ensues, the party captures the bad guy. The paladin throws a rope over the nearest tree branch and announces he's going to execute the prisoner on the spot.

Now, according to Imaro, there is no "aha gotcha" moments. The Dm is obligated to tell the player if the DM thinks the player is out of line. So, the DM announces, "Hey, that's an evil act - you can't execute prisoners. You have to take them back to face justice". Not a unreasonable interpretation of alignment at all. It's perfectly reasonable. The paladin player argues for a bit, but, the DM stands firm.

Now, what choice does the paladin player have here? He can execute the prisoner, which he feels is the good and just course of action, knowing the whole time that he's going to become a fighter afterwards, or he can drag the prisoner back to civilisation.

I don't know what that player will decide, but I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that group will never take prisoners again.

 

[jsaving]

People keep insisting that every action, philosophical system, and government be categorizable as either Good or Evil, with some going so far as to say the PH contains the guidance necessary to make these determinations. But no book in the universe could contain such information, and even if it did, no DM in the universe would have the wisdom to apply it. Nor does the PH ever claim this is what the alignment system is *supposed* to do.

What it does -- all it does -- is provide a shorthand for labeling how much individual people value compassion and order. That's it. There is no such thing as an action that is objectively "Good" or "Evil" regardless of circumstances -- it always depends on the motivation of those undertaking it. If a Good-aligned person inadvertently hurts innocents through an action he believed would help them, the action was compassionate and therefore Good for him to take. But give that same person the foreknowledge that the action will hurt people, and it becomes uncompassionate and therefor Evil for him to take. This simple example illustrates why it is both pointless and counterproductive to insist that the alignment system be able to categorize things like "killing a prisoner" or "loving the Soviet system" as inherently Good or Evil regardless of the context in which those actions/feelings occur.

It's hard for me to even *imagine* playing the type of game some people seem to be envisioning, where the DM weighs the arguments of party members who are for and against the execution of a prisoner and then decrees Good the side he perceives to be the most compassionate. I completely understand your antipathy for such a campaign and would have no desire whatsoever to be a part of it.

 

[Hussar]

People keep insisting that every action, philosophical system, and government be categorizable as either Good or Evil, with some going so far as to say the PH contains the guidance necessary to make these determinations. But no book in the universe could contain such information, and even if it did, no DM in the universe would have the wisdom to apply it. Nor does the PH ever claim this is what the alignment system is *supposed* to do.

What it does -- all it does -- is provide a shorthand for labeling how much individual people value compassion and order. That's it. There is no such thing as an action that is objectively "Good" or "Evil" regardless of circumstances -- it always depends on the motivation of those undertaking it. If a Good-aligned person inadvertently hurts innocents through an action he believed would help them, the action was compassionate and therefore Good for him to take. But give that same person the foreknowledge that the action will hurt people, and it becomes uncompassionate and therefor Evil for him to take. This simple example illustrates why it is both pointless and counterproductive to insist that the alignment system be able to categorize things like "killing a prisoner" or "loving the Soviet system" as inherently Good or Evil regardless of the context in which those actions/feelings occur.

It's hard for me to even *imagine* playing the type of game some people seem to be envisioning, where the DM weighs the arguments of party members who are for and against the execution of a prisoner and then decrees Good the side he perceives to be the most compassionate. I completely understand your antipathy for such a campaign and would have no desire whatsoever to be a part of it.

Hey, you don'T have to convince me. Like I said, I don't mind alignment as a handy short hand description. But, as an actual mechanic with mechanical impact? No thanks. Completely unnecessary and actively hinders the kinds of games I want to play. I have a sneaky suspicion that the primary impetus behind this defence of mechanical alignment has more to do with edition than with actual game play. I never heard anyone talk about how the lack of mechanical alignment harmed game play in any other system, nor in systems prior to 3e like B/E D&D.

I have, on the other hand, seen umpteen thousand threads talking about how mechanical alignment has brought nothing but problems to the table.