Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[S'mon]

And do you believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people?

Well, yeah. Hitler, Che Guevara & Castro, Stalin, Mao - I'd say they all had sincere beliefs, as well as a desire for personal power (and in Mao's case a harem and other fittings of a traditional Chinese emperor). I'll peg them all as Evil if I have to use Alignment, but that
doesn't mean I don't think they believed what they professed to believe. All of them
pursued the Good as they saw it, none thought "Hm, how do I achieve Maximum Evilness?"

 

[S'mon]

How about the number who profess to have high regard for the welfare of others but are, in fact, deceiving others and possibly even themselves?

That's often how people handle NPC Alignment, I think - the NPC thinks he's
a great fellow, but really he's Evil and doesn't know it. But I think this is an example of Alignment getting in the way, as Pemerton argues; Know Alignment/Detect Evil spells makes most sorts of real world bad guys unlikely: "OK Hitler, I accept you sincerely believe that your sincere concern for the welfare of the German People makes you Lawful Good. However Know Alignment says..."

 

[S'mon]

Putting them back in the straightjacket again, I see. Evil guys can't help little old ladies across the street? Maybe they won't in general, but what if it's his grandmother?

Personally I'd peg Tony Soprano as LE(N) or in 4e E(N), and I'm sure he'd help his granny
cross the street. I don't claim to be using D&D Alignment RAW, though.

 

[Imaro]

BTW, who cares whether they will ever take prisoners if they simply kill them shortly thereafter? What's the gameplay benefit of "we string him up after taking him prisoner in combat" and "we kill him in combat"?

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... This was very similar to my first thought upon reading your example... especially given the fact that in 3.x edition you have to make an active choice to subdue someone and take penalties in trying to do so... why would a paladin do this in order to capture someone so he can then murder them after the battle? IMO, it's much more likely that the paladin would end the villains life in honorable combat as opposed to knocking him out and then murdering him...

 

[Imaro]

That's often how people handle NPC Alignment, I think - the NPC thinks he's
a great fellow, but really he's Evil and doesn't know it. But I think this is an example of Alignment getting in the way, as Pemerton argues; Know Alignment/Detect Evil spells makes most sorts of real world bad guys unlikely: "OK Hitler, I accept you sincerely believe that your sincere concern for the welfare of the German People makes you Lawful Good. However Know Alignment says..."

I disagree... I think most NPC's in this situation believe the ends justify the means but don't necessarily look at themselves as good... in fact some may even feel as if they have to take on the burden of doing evil to achieve what they think is a greater good. To these sorts registering evil is ok, because they accept what they are doing may not be considered good and that no matter the ends they are being tainted by these actions... but feel it must be done anyway.

The other question I often ponder when these spells are brought up is why should anyone take the word of someone else that they are "evil", if they don't think they are? Any guy can walk up light some incense, mumble, wave his hands and declare something as "evil" it even happened in the real world... which is actually kind of interesting, could fake clerics, holy men, inquisitors, etc. just declare that they have cast detect or know alignment and declare people "evil"?

 

[jsaving]

Well this is where I don't really understand how 2-dimensional alignment is meant to work. Obviously some Communist leaders were just thugs, but some were sincere. If you don't like Stalin or Mao in that role, stick in Lenin or Trotsky instead. They had a genuine concern for the dignity of all sentient beings - the pursuit of universal emancipation is what drove them! They weren't selfish, and endured great hardship in the pursuit and accomplishment of revolution.

This is where I disagree. Being "sincere" in your convictions is one thing, and I'd certainly grant that any of the leaders you mentioned were sincere in the sense of being true to their core beliefs. But I wouldn't at all agree that the pursuit of universal emancipation drove any of them, or that any of them had a genuine concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Thus, if those individuals were in my campaign, deciding whether they're Good or Evil wouldn't be among the tougher challenges I've experienced as DM.

If you as a DM are more inclined to take these leaders' selfless/compassionate claims at face value, however, I can see why you'd find the system unsatisfactory. And I'd suggest that what you already seem to have concluded is correct -- that alignment is a hindrance rather than a help to your DMing style, and that for you, the best course of action is to drop it from your campaigns.

 

[Olfan]

So this thread is definitely TLDR for me, but simply responding to the initial post; I feel that D&D and it's ilk easily support and improve the game experience when the game is conducted in the manner originally conceived.

Ok, so obviously I'm talking pure opinion here cause I have no idea what Gary was thinking when he made the game, but I imagine it was with the players playing heroes and being do-gooders and punching the bad guys right in the face in mind. So in this fantasy I've made up about Gary's intentions, I see the players kind of like silver age comic book heroes. There is no gray, only Superman and Captain America and the like. Very much a good vs evil fight.

In this view of alignment, some characters can deviate from the LG and CE mold by altering their allegiance to law and chaos or good and evil. In this simple view of the world, alignment is mostly an early comic book styled constraint, nothing complex, the paladin's choice is always easy. It may be hard for him to do, but he knows WHAT to do. Bad guys are always bad, not misunderstood.

It's my opinion that games that take a more realistic or gray approach to morality don't serve the purpose of alignment well. The definition of each term has to be analyzed and it breaks apart, just like in real life. If a paladin has to ask "what is good?" he's not a paladin. A paladin knows what good is. So the answer to the question for me is that it depends on the agreed upon view of morality that the gaming group comes to.

I followed a too long thread with a too long post.

TLDR: alignments improve morally simplistic games, not morally complex games.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... This was very similar to my first thought upon reading your example... especially given the fact that in 3.x edition you have to make an active choice to subdue someone and take penalties in trying to do so... why would a paladin do this in order to capture someone so he can then murder them after the battle? IMO, it's much more likely that the paladin would end the villains life in honorable combat as opposed to knocking him out and then murdering him...

Nice dodge.

So, because of mechanical alignment, the entire group becomes murder hobos. An enemy can never surrender in your world? Who cares if the party ever takes prisoners after all, we don't need all that pesky role playing stuff. It's better just to kill every opponent outright. Saves on all that unimportant stuff like talking and whatnot. Why bother giving players the choice?

The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that I can never, ever execute a prisoner. Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.

You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.

 

[pemerton]

do you believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people?

Being "sincere" in your convictions is one thing, and I'd certainly grant that any of the leaders you mentioned were sincere in the sense of being true to their core beliefs. But I wouldn't at all agree that the pursuit of universal emancipation drove any of them, or that any of them had a genuine concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Not every wrongdoer is a hypocrite. If you won't except Lenin or Trotsky, what about (to pick someone who is less likely to trigger immediate accusations of hypocrisy) LBJ?

Or to come at it in another way: if you think it obvious that none of these people was genuinely compassionate, then the alignment debate has simply moved from "what's good?" to "what's compassionate?" or "what counts as respecting the dignity of a sentient being?" Which doesn't really strike me as a major breakthrough.

Perhaps this is why Good and Evil are judged by actions, not simply words.

The thing is, how can you judge whether a political compromise is good or evil - compassionate or not - without taking a view about social order, the permissibility and desirability of sacrifices and tradeoffs, etc - which are ostensibly elements of the orthogonal dimension of Law/Chaos?

The other question I often ponder when these spells are brought up is why should anyone take the word of someone else that they are "evil", if they don't think they are? Any guy can walk up light some incense, mumble, wave his hands and declare something as "evil" it even happened in the real world... which is actually kind of interesting, could fake clerics, holy men, inquisitors, etc. just declare that they have cast detect or know alignment and declare people "evil"?

It is comparatively trivial for the person in question to cast the spell him-/herself, eg from a magic item. A king who was worried that s/he was doing the wrong thing would simply test 1x/day with his/her intelligent sword +1.

 

[N'raac]

So, because of mechanical alignment, the entire group becomes murder hobos. An enemy can never surrender in your world? Who cares if the party ever takes prisoners after all, we don't need all that pesky role playing stuff. It's better just to kill every opponent outright. Saves on all that unimportant stuff like talking and whatnot. Why bother giving players the choice?

The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that I can never, ever execute a prisoner. Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.

You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.

This seems much less like an alignment issue and much more like a role playing issue. The player wants to be able to kill helpless prisoners on a whim, and does not want anything precluding him from doing so. Like that pesky role playing of someone who actually respects life and considers slitting the prisoners' throats to be a morally repugnant act. I just bwant my character to do whatever is most tactically effective and/or practically expedient at any given time.

Sorry, but, to me, "whatever is best or easiest for me, regardless of the impact on others" is neither heroic nor Good.

Not every wrongdoer is a hypocrite. If you won't except Lenin or Trotsky, what about (to pick someone who is less likely to trigger immediate accusations of hypocrisy) LBJ?

Who said we don't accept that Lenin or Trotsky might sincerely wish the best for the people as a whole? We accept that a Paladin who goes to war against an uncaring monarch is Good, which seems much like a freedom fighter who goes to war against a government which does not act in the interests of the people. Bringing real world history into it colours the issues, undoubtedly. Are you suggesting that other world leaders of the time who vilified the Communist regime out of concern for protecting their own positions of power and privilege also had the best interests of the people at heart?

The thing is, how can you judge whether a political compromise is good or evil - compassionate or not - without taking a view about social order, the permissibility and desirability of sacrifices and tradeoffs, etc - which are ostensibly elements of the orthogonal dimension of Law/Chaos?

"Compromise" implies neither 100% one thing nor 100% the other. The possibility that a choice could be nether good nor evil (or neither lawful nor chaotic), having elements of both, seems to completely escape your framework.

It is comparatively trivial for the person in question to cast the spell him-/herself, eg from a magic item. A king who was worried that s/he was doing the wrong thing would simply test 1x/day with his/her intelligent sword +1.

Does he believe that intelligent sword (which, being intelligent, has motives of its own)? Does it matter? If he has taken matters to the point that his alignment has already changed, he's already done quite a bit of "the wrong thing", hasn't he? He may very well be looking at the overall picture and deciding that he knows what is best for his people, and if the people of a neighbouring land must suffer for the benefit of his people, then that is an acceptable sacrifice. It's well and good for these philosophers or higher beings to look down from their lofty towers, but he is right here in the thick of matters, and must deal with reality, not ethical philosophical theory. And so he can rationalize his actions, just as we can rationalize ours.

Does it matter how sincerely he believes that genocide is the morally right action to pursue, or is the pursuit of genocide in itself evil?