Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

Hussar said:

Which I can't do in a mechanical alignment setting because, in mechanical alignment, one of those two HAS to be wrong. They can't both be right. Either it's honourable, thus in keeping with alignment adjudication, or it isn't. There cannot be any ambiguity.

Click to expand...

This is where your logic breaks down for me...

Mechanical alignment has nothing to do with whether one is honorable or not... there is no honorable alignment... there are alignments which place more or less emphasis on traits some would consider honorable (of course what is or isn't honorable is dependent on numerous factors such as culture, one's order or religion, codes or oaths sworn, etc)..

As far as classes are concerned being honorable is, IMO, is centered mostly around a paladin's code (since in most editions he can loose his powers for not following it) as opposed to alignment and that is something that should be well defined enough (whether by player or DM) that a player and DM know when a character has done a dishonorable deed (per the code).

EDIT: In other words while 3.x gives a baseline code for the paladin... I'm not seeing why a paladin in either a game with mechanical alignment or without cannot decide what is and isn't honorable according to his own code (and I believe that 3.x and 2e do allow for alternate paladin codes)... as opposed to what is or isn't LG?

Hussar said:

Which I can't do in a mechanical alignment setting because, in mechanical alignment, one of those two HAS to be wrong. They can't both be right. Either it's honourable, thus in keeping with alignment adjudication, or it isn't. There cannot be any ambiguity.

Click to expand...

Imaro already nailed it. Two orders with two different conceptions of Honour. Alignment does not dictate whether you may, or may not, use magical weapons. Of course, the fellow that disdains magical equipment (and gets mechanical bonuses instead) can't read the game rules to know that he should not get an equal share of any treasure, so I guess he can invest in a whole bunch of magical items that don't offend his honour. Perhaps healing magic to aid his friends, for example. I'm sure we can think of lots of things to buy that help the party without being dishonourable in single combat!

Mallus said:

The idea that players will always choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so is really sells the community short. You've never seen gamers playing honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PCs just for the fun of it?

Click to expand...

Sure, and alignment didn't inhibit that one bit.

Imaro said:

This is where your logic breaks down for me...

Mechanical alignment has nothing to do with whether one is honorable or not... there is no honorable alignment... there are alignments which place more or less emphasis on traits some would consider honorable (of course what is or isn't honorable is dependent on numerous factors such as culture, one's order or religion, codes or oaths sworn, etc)..

As far as classes are concerned being honorable is, IMO, is centered mostly around a paladin's code (since in most editions he can loose his powers for not following it) as opposed to alignment and that is something that should be well defined enough (whether by player or DM) that a player and DM know when a character has done a dishonorable deed (per the code).

EDIT: In other words while 3.x gives a baseline code for the paladin... I'm not seeing why a paladin in either a game with mechanical alignment or without cannot decide what is and isn't honorable according to his own code (and I believe that 3.x and 2e do allow for alternate paladin codes)... as opposed to what is or isn't LG?

Click to expand...

I dunno. I'd say honourable is certainly a Lawful trait. I can't really see Chaotics being terribly concerned with concepts of honour since that would require them to submit to a higher authority of some sort. Having a code of conduct and sticking to that code of conduct is pretty much part and parcel for a Lawful AFAIC. I mean, the 3.5 SRD does have this to say:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

...

Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Click to expand...

Certainly sounds like honourable is a Lawful Good trait to me. Thus, doing something which is dishonourable would be out of alignment for a lawful good character. Granted, poison use is specifically called out in the 3.5 Paladin's code, which is something of a holdover from earlier editions where poison use was specifically evil. After all, in 1e, good clerics were forbidden from using poison and rangers could only use it if the DM allowed, despite the fact that neither class comes with a code of conduct similar to a paladin's.

But, since poison use isn't actually specifically evil in 3e (the Poison spell lacks the Evil descriptor after all - so if I can inflict a lethal poison on someone with a spell and it's not called out as evil, I'm not sure why stabbing someone with a poison weapon would be), why is it a problem for paladins to use poison? Yup, it's called out in the Paladin's code, but, why? It's not evil. And since you're claiming that no alignment has honour as an element, then why is it being called out?

Hussar said:

I dunno. I'd say honourable is certainly a Lawful trait. I can't really see Chaotics being terribly concerned with concepts of honour since that would require them to submit to a higher authority of some sort. Having a code of conduct and sticking to that code of conduct is pretty much part and parcel for a Lawful AFAIC. I mean, the 3.5 SRD does have this to say:

Click to expand...

I'd say you are wrong since the 3.5 SRD also has this to say...

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Emphasis mine, this would imply that an individual aligned with chaos can in fact be honorable... if he feels like it or if his conscience demands it. So it doesn't seem that honor is intrinsically tied to one's alignment though individuals of a lawful bent are certainly, on the whole, more likely to be honorable... even if it's not what they personally feel like doing...

Hussar said:

Certainly sounds like honourable is a Lawful Good trait to me. Thus, doing something which is dishonourable would be out of alignment for a lawful good character. Granted, poison use is specifically called out in the 3.5 Paladin's code, which is something of a holdover from earlier editions where poison use was specifically evil. After all, in 1e, good clerics were forbidden from using poison and rangers could only use it if the DM allowed, despite the fact that neither class comes with a code of conduct similar to a paladin's.

Click to expand...

Sounds like honor and compassion are traits that are usually associated with those of the LG alignment... It also seems that individuals who are LG would be willing to decide whether honor or compassion is held in a higher regard, or whether both are considered equally... though I still don't see how this in any way nullifies those of a different alignment being honorable... Again there is a flaw here... claws are often associated with cats does not equate to no other animal but cats can ever have claws.

Not sure what your point is as far as whether poison is "evil" or not since we were discussing whether its use was honorable, not whether its use was evil, this feels like we are now switching goalposts or are we turning to a different discussion...

Hussar said:

But, since poison use isn't actually specifically evil in 3e (the Poison spell lacks the Evil descriptor after all - so if I can inflict a lethal poison on someone with a spell and it's not called out as evil, I'm not sure why stabbing someone with a poison weapon would be), why is it a problem for paladins to use poison? Yup, it's called out in the Paladin's code, but, why? It's not evil. And since you're claiming that no alignment has honour as an element, then why is it being called out?

Click to expand...

Because dishonorable does not equate to evil... and the paladin's code specifically calls this out as separate from him having to behave in a LG manner because, as I stated before, honorable does not (necessarily) equate to LG.

Abraxas said:

Sure, and alignment didn't inhibit that one bit.

Click to expand...

Never mean to suggest it would. Just commenting on how alignment is unnecessary for some groups.

(and, I suppose, commenting on how toxic an idea it is that players won't play real characters without a stern, paternalistic DM watching over them and making sure they take their PCs seriously enough)

Mallus said:

The idea that players will always choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so is really sells the community short. You've never seen gamers playing honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PCs just for the fun of it?

Click to expand...

Where did someone, anyone in this thread posit the idea that all players will always choose anything?
Where did anyone say they've never seen a gamer play an honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PC just for the fun of it?
Quote please... or is this just hyperbole?

On the other hand are you claiming that no players whatsoever choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so and that some players won't play an honorable, self-sacrficing, not-at-all greedy PC just for the fun of it?

Be careful with that broad brush you keep slinging around...

Actually Imaro it's been said numerous times in this thread that mechanical alignment is needed because players will choose expedience over stayin in character.

And you realize you added that bit about conscience into chaotic don't you? That what you said isn't actually in the books.

Mallus said:

Never mean to suggest it would. Just commenting on how alignment is unnecessary for some groups.

(and, I suppose, commenting on how toxic an idea it is that players won't play real characters without a stern, paternalistic DM watching over them and making sure they take their PCs seriously enough)

Click to expand...

No more toxic than the idea that mechanical alignment is only used by dictatorial DMs to stifle player creativity.

Hussar said:

Actually Imaro it's been said numerous times in this thread that mechanical alignment is needed because players will choose expedience over stayin in character

Click to expand...

As have numerous other reasons... and that isn't what @Mallus actually said... he made a sweeping generalization about all players and their choices which no one, as far as I know made... but again if you have a quote I'd be more than happy to see it.

Hussar said:

And you realize you added that bit about conscience into chaotic don't you? That what you said isn't actually in the books.

Click to expand...

Wow, really... No I didn't, it's a cut and paste from the 3.5 SRD... It's on pg. 104 of the 3.5 PHB... and I know for a fact it's in the 3.0 PHB as well...

EDIT: In fact the part about their consciences is in the post you quoted...