I also agree there's no reason to expect any problematic inconsistency, most players are not douche-bags, in most instances a DM will kindly point out the inconsistent behaviour that is about to happen, and the player will generally agree and take-back the said action he proposed or he might provide a motive the DM never thought about and play will continue.
This is the bit where I think we have differences of approach. It would never occur to me, as a GM, to suggest to a player that some declared action should be withdrawn because it is out of character.
If I think the behaviour is outrageous I might say so, as might anyone else at the table - "You're doing what?!" - but that's an invitation to the player to think about what's at stake, not to ensure fidelity to a pre-established character.
Alignment reaffirms how the PC should behave in a generalist sense.
<snip>
I view Alignment as a character descriptor mostly - similar to having the race or class as a descriptor of one's character on their character sheet
I don't have any conception of how the PC should behave in a general sense. That is up to the player. Hence I don't need a tool - alignment, personality descriptors, or anything else - to do that.
I don't mind mechanics like the Fate mechanics being discussed which push players towards certain sorts of action declaration for their PCs: for instance, the mechanics of a 4e paladin push the player towards declarations of valiant rather than sneaky actions - but that is the player buying into that archetype by building that sort of PC. If it turns out they want to take their PC in a different direction I would expect them to change the relevant mechanical components (in the extreme case, by doing a complete rebuild). And in the meantime it's up to the player to do what they want to do with their PC and its mechanics: I don't have to get involved.
Do not play to your class's strengths - and you will get punished within the mechanics
As I said, with the second of these I don't have to get involved. The player gets to play as s/he likes. If it turns out s/he's chosen the wrong class, rebuild!
The 2e PHB (page 49) says "Alignment is a tool not a straight jacket."
The 2e DMG (page 24) says "Never tell a player that his character cannot do something because of his alignment. PCs are controlled by players. The DM intervenes only in rare cases (when the character is controlled by a spell or magic item, for example)."
The same advice is reiterated on page 27, and goes on further to say "Let players make their own decisions and their own mistakes. The DM has enough to do without taking over the players' jobs."
My concern is that, if the GM then forms the view that the player has changed alignment, this has ramifications straight away for a paladin and cleric, and potentially for any player if the GM is running a (quite common, in my experience) "no evil PCs" campaign. Allowing the players to choose their PCs' actions but then rendering their PCs unplayable in the campaign as a result of an alignment adjudication is precisely one of the things I'm concerned about.
In the 2e PHB "Good" is described as
- honest, charitable and forthright
- People are not perfect, so few are good all the time.
- There are always occasional failings and weaknesses.
- Goodness has no absolute values.
- Differing cultures impose their own interpretations on what good and what evil is
I think everyone can all agree the above is a simple definition, it is not astrophysics.
It seems to me that basically all the work is done by "honesty, charitableness and forthrightness". (Which are not absolute values?)
On the face of it, the commander of the hobgoblin army, who doesn't lie, who is forthright, and who looks after the hobgoblin widows and children, could be good by these lights. I assume that's not what is intended, though. I assume that 2nd ed good is also meant to pick up the stuff in 1st ed AD&D and in 3E about regard for the welfare and lives of others. (Perhaps charitable is meant to cover that - in which case the same issues arise. Is killing the orc babies to stop them growing up to be orc warriors charitable or not? It strikes me as pretty forthright at least!)
since the setting is the DM's as are the differing cultures populating that setting and the deities loitering in that setting's sky, I think its only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM. The only responsibility of the DM in that regard is to inform the players of said interpretations so they can make informed decisions.
<snip>
2e DMG (page 24) "Finally as in all points of disagreements with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs. Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone - it belongs to your players as well."
Informed decisions are fine - this is the players knowing the backstory. My concern is with who gets to interpret what actually happens in play. Once the players have read the backstory and are playing their PCs on the basis of it, is the GM allowed to tell them that they've got it wrong?
I'm also confused as to why you quote the DMG saying that "the campaign world is not the GM's alone" yet also say that, "since the setting is the DM's, it is only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM". You seem to be disagreeing with what the DMG says.
Play your dwarf un-dwarvern like - your dwarf gets ostracized from the dwarvern community.
This strikes me as another one of those things where "the campaign world is not yours alone". If the player has chosen to play a dwarf, presumably part of what s/he is interested in is contributing to "dwarfiness" as understood in the game. If we want certain preconceptions of dwarves to be guaranteed, then build them in mechanically (eg I have no objection to the group agreeing that there are no dwarf wizards, or elven assassins).
From this we can agree that a Paladin does not fall from grace for something minor. It has to be rather identifiable or a significant lapse in ethical actions over a continuous period.
<snip>
Page 27 gives examples were the DM reflects concern of a PCs actions - the DM can be brazen or subtle weaving warnings through the storyline. It's not "Bam! I got you! You are forever a fighter now!"
In this respect the advice in 2nd ed AD&D is different from the advice in Gygax's books.
It also seems different from 3E, which says:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. . .
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities . . . [and] may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin.
That makes it clear that you don't need to change alignment to lose paladinhood, and that it is sufficient to wilfully commit an evil act.
Both 1st ed AD&D and 3E also have the phylactery of faithfulness as an item, which somewhat implies that it is generally up to the player to anticipate the GM's reaction.
Even if the GM warns the player, there is still the point that it is the GM, not the player, deciding what sort of conduct the PC must engage in order to keep his/her class abilities.
As a Paladin play contrary to your alignment - and you may have your divine power denied by your deity, and given that later editions "balanced" their classes more - you're not gimped, you just gain fighter abilities.
My concern is that, first, if the player wants to keep playing a holy warrior, why should s/he not be allowed to just because, were the GM in his/her shoes, s/he would play it differently? That is to say, my concern is with the player who
wants to play a paladin or cleric. Why should the GM be sitting in judgement over the adequacy of their evaluative choices in playing that character? It would be like the GM telling the player of the fighter how to tactically engage the monsters, or telling the wizard which spell to use - namely, the GM is taking over the very thing that the player chose the class to do.
We don't do let the GM strip class abilities from the player of the thief because s/he thinks not enough theft is going on; of from the player of the bard because the PC is perceived as having the wrong taste in music. Why should religiously devoted PCs be treated differently? This is the core of my objection to alignment, though it generalises to issues of valuation more broadly.
(Also, on the gimped point: in 3E you don't suddenly get a slew of bonus feats. In AD&D you don't get to go up levels to reflect your greater XP total. But the more fundamental issue is you're no longer playing the PC you wanted to play.)
I truthfully cannot foresee two reasonable individuals disagreeing over classification of an act as Evil or non-Evil
This isn't my personal experience, but each to his/her own! My main concern with alignment is that, as a descriptor, it either (i) gives the GM a tool to tell the players how to play their PCs (or else suffer the consequences of alignment change, falling from grace, etc), or (ii) if the GM changes his/her mind to agree with the player, requires a needless discussion about the alignment question before the player's action declaration is resolved, and either way (iii) invites the GM to sit in constant moral judgement over the actions of the PCs. To what end? I personally don't see one.
From the 2e PHB the 2e Fighter has additional attacks per round and followers. On the other hand a Paladin had detect evil, +2 saving throws, immunity to disease, lay on hands, cure diseases, aura of protection, use of holy sword, turn undead, summoning war horse, casting priest spells.
But also a higher XP requirement, moreso because - in 2nd ed AD&D - I think the paladin doesn't get +10% XP for high stats. (Or am I wrong on that last point?)
The healing is 2 hp per level, but the fighter gains HD more rapidly due to needing fewer XP. In my experience both the immunity to disease and the cure disease are somewhat boutique as benefits (others may have had different experiences). And the priest spells and holy avenger become relevant only at high levels.
The turning and the detect evil I find hard to evaluate. Clearly stronger than the stuff I've mentioned so far (it seems to me) but somewhat situational. The big power up for the paladin, in my view, is the +2 to save (especially because fighter saves tend to suck a bit at low levels) and the aura of protection. I don't know the AD&D maths well enough off the top of my head (XP charts, typical AC and to hit bonuses for NPCs/monsters, etc) to work out how these compare mechanically to weapon specialisation. But I think the fact that the paladin has to put high scores into two non-physical stats - CHA and WIS - is a significant power-down. Even with 4 18s (plus a 10 and an 11) you'd still notice that, because the fighter would have 18 STR, CON and DEX whereas the paladin would have to forego one of those.
Okay with regards to the advantage gained by a dishonourable Paladin "min-max LG bad roleplaying" I have answered it up-thread re 2e Paladin vs Fighter.
Sorry, I'm not sure what the answer is. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a LG paladin is balanced. Why is a non-LG paladin more powerful than a LG one? In other words, what advantage does the player of the paladin gain in having his/her PC act in ways that the GM would judge to not be LG?
