D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?

[Warbringer]

As always, conversations with you seem to end up at a higher level, which in case there is any doubt is a good thing

(Another objection to AD&D alignment, of course, is that it requires that evil people judge what they do as not being good, which verges on irrationality - it's true that Milton's Satan says "Evil be thou my good!" but he is clearly using the word "evil" in some sort of ironic or "inverted commas" sense.)

As Anscombe suggests, answering for Satan: “ the good of making evil my good is my intact liberty on the unsubmissiveness of my will.” He (Satan) maintains credible as an agent as a pursuer of value, by substituting evil for good in his own goal of action.

This general line of criticism (influenced in part by Aristotle) emphasises the importance of values, and of a virtuous character that exemplifies those values, over compliance to universally binding rules.

On that note, the return by Moral modernists to Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, while arguably avoiding any attempt to create a final universal account of moral rationality, do return us the concept of morality have teleological roots, a perfect form for any idea or virtue. (Note, it is of course far more nuanced than this.)

First, as I replied to [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] upthread, your statements of "absolute morality" are going to require interpretation, and it is very easy to come up with plausible situations that might arise ingame that apply interpretive pressure. This will be all the worse because it's likely that some of the words that require interpretation will carry, as part of their ordinary language meaning, ideas or elements that get their content from ordinary evaluative languages and practices - so the process of interpretation will undo the decoupling.

Agreed, ultimately any meaning associated to terms or values used in evaluation of “Alignment” will by reduction (interpretation) devolve at the edges. But all models are subject to that proviso which I readily accepted above.

Second, decoupling means that the paladin is no longer an examplar of truth and goodness. Rather, s/he is an examplar of X and Y, where X and Y are some fictional constructs at best related in some fashion to the GM's conception of truth and goodness. Which, for me at least, pretty much defeats the purposes of having PCs ilke the paladin in the agme (as [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] pointed out).

This one I disagree with on multiple levels. To rephrase, the Paladin is the form of A and B, but where A and B are bounded by description and formula they are no longer A and B, but derivatives A’ and B’ that cannot be the perfect representation of A and B. Therefore the Paladin cannot exist in the purpose she was created for.

Defining truth and goodness within the alignment system does not preclude the character aspiring for truth and goodness.

Well, I play a game in which some of the issues are to be overcome by the players, using their PCs as vehicles. And I know from experience that I can have a perfeclty good game which "allows for the dramatic and thematic impact of actual real questions of good and evil" provided only that I drop AD&D-style mechanical alignment rules.

This may be true of your game. It is not true of mine, though. Moral issues arise at my table all the time; they are "resolved" by the players playing their PCs.

I’m not criticsing your game in any fashion, indeed there are many game elements that you have discussed that I hold in the highest regard towards what I consider advanced roleplay. It does not surprise in the least that your table resolves moral conflicts at the game table and moves on with their goals, but there are many tables where this is not the case, especially with new players or new groups still finding their dynamic.

The whole point of this discussion has been to call for a system that better articulates what the intent of Alignment is in the system and to provide better guidelines and rules around the execution of the game.

For what it’s worth, I do use alignment, but it is very different from as published. Players choose 4-6 traits that they feel describe the core of their character. The traits are scored to the 9 alignments. The player wants to introduce a new trait, they score it and the table tweaks it. During roleplay, the character can gain and lose traits as the player wishes to reflect his changing attitude about the world and their actions in session. Changing these traits causes alignment drift, but it is the playing of the traits that is the importance, not adherence to their “alignment”

Thanks again for a great discussion

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you had a system like that what would be the point of having a whole separate alignment system that is effectively redundant to it?

Are you trying to convince me to not like the nine alignments for D&D? Because that's just funny.

Personally, I think the nine alignments are restrictive. I think getting rid of them opens up the game. However, when I play D&D, I want that restriction. The long 3.5 campaign I played used the nine alignment system quite often, and it made our campaign a lot more fun. Without it (and the Great Wheel), D&D would feel a little more generic, I think. Now, I like generic fantasy, but my group absolutely loved that 3.5 game. I'd probably still be running that same campaign if I didn't get disillusioned with a lot of 3.5, and the fact that they're so high level (30-31).

Now, I'm not saying that you can't dislike, or even hate, the alignment system. Feel free to hate it. But, trying to convince me to not want it? That's funny. You're not going to. I'm very intelligent, and I know what I like about it, and why I like it in D&D. I also understand why other people dislike it, for the most part. Like I said, I even think getting rid of it makes for a less restrictive game.

But, at the end of the day, I want it there as an option. And you continuing to reply to me, in some bizarre attempt to show me how bad that is, just isn't going to work. So, keep that in mind when you click that reply button. Your system has its merits, and I don't mind it being explored. But, personally, I need that stick approach for the Paladin. Sure, give him carrots, too. But, if he can't lose his powers, he's not a Paladin to me. Same for the Paladin being Lawful Good, too; if he's not Lawful Good, he's not a Paladin to me (though I'm totally okay with Anti-Paladins, Blackguard, Holy Liberators, etc.).

Again, feel free to advocate what you want. Just don't expect me to change my mind based on your preferences. I get that you have them, and I get the merit for the carrot over stick approach. But, to me, both have their place in design, and I hope both get used when appropriate. And, since the version of the Paladin I want to see loses his powers when he violates his code in the fiction, I expect the mechanics to represent that. Again, it can be optional, and it probably should be. But, your carrot approach just doesn't work for me. Add it to the stick, though, sure. I don't see why not.

So, feel free to keep hitting reply, but -and this is just a heads up- you aren't going to convince me. Sorry. I have enough experience to know what I like in a game, especially a D&D game. So, I'm open to talking about options. I'm open to talking about carrots. I'm open to talking about points to spend to use / enhance Lay On Hands, or whatever. What I'm not open to is leaving the nine alignments out as an option, or leaving the fall mechanic out as an option. So, keep that in mind when hitting reply. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

Defining truth and goodness within the alignment system does not preclude the character aspiring for truth and goodness.

Exactly where I stand (can't XP). As always, play what you like

 

[jrowland]

Alignment, to me, means a measure of how well your morals and ethics "align" to some ideal. I may be moving NNE, but I am "aligned" with North, eg. If I move NE for a day, no big deal, as long as over the months trek I move mostly North.

I think the 9 alignments are a little too much resolution. Good (Selfless), Evil (Selfish), Law (Authoritarian), Chaos (Libertarian) are probably enough (my shorthand in parenthesis. YMMV). Neutral is just another way of saying "not-aligned" and doesn't need to be codified. This makes for 4 strong flavors: LG, LE, CG, CE with a lot of grey in between. Then, when a player writes LG on their character sheet, we recognize it to mean "mostly" LG, and "mostly not" CE. From a RP perspective, if the player plays a "LG" character such that someone else might see it as LG, NG, or LN, we won't need to quibble. It's close enough. If we start seeing it as CG, LE, or NN we might provide a warning (ie DM as deity) or some such, but really let it slide on individual acts only get concerned if its a steady pattern of behavior. However if a LG player plays his character such that CE, CN, or NE behavior, even in a singular incident, a warning is certainly justified (singular event) and divine retribution for persistent behavior.

Keeping the number of alignments "small" means being a lot more lax in trying to "fit" actions. If these are then more broadly defined, I think restrictions for the paladin are less problematic. A LG character, no matter how broadly defined, would do CE acts persistently.

Which brings me to my final point. If we assume an alignment system, and alignment-based penalties. There needs to be some kind of leeway for one-off behaviors and persistent behaviors. Maybe not codified as a mechanic, but certainly some guidance for DMs to adjudicate.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I mean, would you accept playing a wizard if the DM got to determine what spells you get? You have no control over what spells you get, only the DM decides. The DM decides what a "wizard" should look like in his game world, same as he gets to decide what a "paladin" should look like in his game world.

Would any player accept that?

Ok, let's change it to cleric then. Would anyone play a cleric if the DM dictated exactly what spells you go per day so that your cleric fit with his image of cleric?

Yes, on both counts. Then again, I am one of those funny people who enjoy the challenge of making lemonade out of lemons.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are you trying to convince me to not like the nine alignments for D&D? Because that's just funny.

Personally, I think the nine alignments are restrictive. I think getting rid of them opens up the game. However, when I play D&D, I want that restriction. The long 3.5 campaign I played used the nine alignment system quite often, and it made our campaign a lot more fun. Without it (and the Great Wheel), D&D would feel a little more generic, I think. Now, I like generic fantasy, but my group absolutely loved that 3.5 game. I'd probably still be running that same campaign if I didn't get disillusioned with a lot of 3.5, and the fact that they're so high level (30-31).

Now, I'm not saying that you can't dislike, or even hate, the alignment system. Feel free to hate it. But, trying to convince me to not want it? That's funny. You're not going to. I'm very intelligent, and I know what I like about it, and why I like it in D&D. I also understand why other people dislike it, for the most part. Like I said, I even think getting rid of it makes for a less restrictive game.

But, at the end of the day, I want it there as an option. And you continuing to reply to me, in some bizarre attempt to show me how bad that is, just isn't going to work. So, keep that in mind when you click that reply button. Your system has its merits, and I don't mind it being explored. But, personally, I need that stick approach for the Paladin. Sure, give him carrots, too. But, if he can't lose his powers, he's not a Paladin to me. Same for the Paladin being Lawful Good, too; if he's not Lawful Good, he's not a Paladin to me (though I'm totally okay with Anti-Paladins, Blackguard, Holy Liberators, etc.).

Again, feel free to advocate what you want. Just don't expect me to change my mind based on your preferences. I get that you have them, and I get the merit for the carrot over stick approach. But, to me, both have their place in design, and I hope both get used when appropriate. And, since the version of the Paladin I want to see loses his powers when he violates his code in the fiction, I expect the mechanics to represent that. Again, it can be optional, and it probably should be. But, your carrot approach just doesn't work for me. Add it to the stick, though, sure. I don't see why not.

So, feel free to keep hitting reply, but -and this is just a heads up- you aren't going to convince me. Sorry. I have enough experience to know what I like in a game, especially a D&D game. So, I'm open to talking about options. I'm open to talking about carrots. I'm open to talking about points to spend to use / enhance Lay On Hands, or whatever. What I'm not open to is leaving the nine alignments out as an option, or leaving the fall mechanic out as an option. So, keep that in mind when hitting reply. As always, play what you like

There's no need to go off on some long diatribe. The only reason for this exercise is so that people can come to an improved understanding of RP gaming concepts and techniques. I'm simply pointing out that a much more general system can provide all of the things the alignment system now does, and can with suitably named descriptors emulate it (and do a lot more on top of that). I have not the slightest clue how that threatens your gaming preferences. AFAICT a system like what I outlined would both entirely obviate the need for a separate alignment system to satisfy you vs some other thing to satisfy me. You'd just use traits called "law-chaos" and "good-evil" and I'd do some other different thing with traits in my game, and Pemerton and etc can do some third thing if it pleases them, all without needing to write 86 different modules and sidebars.

 

[pemerton]

Good (Selfless), Evil (Selfish), Law (Authoritarian), Chaos (Libertarian)

Is the Cato Institute Lawful - because they are advocates for the rule of law - or Chaotic - because they are libertarians? Is the Cato Institute Good - because they advocate policies that will, in their view, increase aggregate welfare - or Evil - because, following a certain interpretation of Adam Smith, they believe that the policies that will increase aggregate welfare are policies that permit each individual to pursue his/her self-interest largely unfettered, provided (a fairly minimal) law is complies with?

I'm not actually asking you to answer this question - which would be a violation of board rules. I'm asking it rhetorically - my point is that the L/C/G/E axis is not helpful for classifying or understanding many (if any) actual, real world moral or political viewpoints.

 

[jrowland]

I'm not actually asking you to answer this question - which would be a violation of board rules. I'm asking it rhetorically - my point is that the L/C/G/E axis is not helpful for classifying or understanding many (if any) actual, real world moral or political viewpoints.

I almost removed the parenthetical descriptions for this reason. You are right. L/G/C/E is not helpful to describe the real world. However, I think real world examples can help describe a make believe viewpoint, thus their inclusion (and my disclaimer). I am sure you recognize that the point of analogy isn't to draw direct one-to-one maps, but to show relationships. You don't like the analogy, that's fine, its probably "sensitive" to put it mildly. However, the analgous relationships stand. And just like political viewpoints can be nuanced in the real world (Pro-Life Democrats, Pro-Choice Republicans, eg), so can alignment be nuanced despite broader dichotomies.

 

[pemerton]

As always, conversations with you seem to end up at a higher level, which in case there is any doubt is a good thing

<snip>

Thanks again for a great discussion

Thank you.

I do use alignment, but it is very different from as published. Players choose 4-6 traits that they feel describe the core of their character. The traits are scored to the 9 alignments. The player wants to introduce a new trait, they score it and the table tweaks it. During roleplay, the character can gain and lose traits as the player wishes to reflect his changing attitude about the world and their actions in session. Changing these traits causes alignment drift, but it is the playing of the traits that is the importance, not adherence to their “alignment”

Out of curiosity, then, what is the point of alignment in this system?

It does not surprise in the least that your table resolves moral conflicts at the game table and moves on with their goals, but there are many tables where this is not the case, especially with new players or new groups still finding their dynamic.

I think I'm generally more optimistic about new players and new groups being able to work out what they want to do with the game, without needing GM force to get them there.

An interesting approach which I think has some merit is the Burning Wheel "trait vote" approach - at the end of X sessions (where X has been agreed in advance based on an overall sense of campaign pacing), the whole table votes to add traits to or remove traits from each PC. Any player can lobby in respect of his/her PC, or another's PC. This way a PC can gain or lose the Faithful trait, gain or lose the Evil or Generous or Hopelessly Confused trait, etc, but not unilaterally. Interpretation of PC personalities and morality is given to the custody of the group as a whole.

As Anscombe suggests, answering for Satan: “ the good of making evil my good is my intact liberty on the unsubmissiveness of my will.” He (Satan) maintains credible as an agent as a pursuer of value, by substituting evil for good in his own goal of action.

That's an interesting analysis. It has something like the same structure I suggested above for a paladin confronted with a greater good that requires violating the Code (which, as I said, is different from a geas).

Suppose that the "greater good" in question is justice. So then the paladin has to choose between honour/truthfulness (by adhering to the code) or justice (by breaking the code in pursuit of that "greater good").

On your Anscombite reading of Satan, the choice is between doing good (by complying with God's plan for all things), or the "greater good" of free agency (by defying God and pursuing evil).

If that came up in an RPG situation - say, the player realises that all his/her PC's "choices" are really moves in a fore-ordained plan, and in pursuit of genuine agency the player decides to turn against that plan, whatever the cost - how should it be handled? I'm not sure that a paladin can make that choice and remain a paladin - because "free agency" is not one of the virtues of paladinhood, and so within the strictures of paladinhood that PC made an impermissible choice - but I don't think a big GM stick would be helpful either. (Whereas I have played under GMs who take the view that once a PC drifts into territory that the GM labels as evil, that PC must be abandoned to become an NPC.)

 

[pemerton]

I almost removed the parenthetical descriptions for this reason. You are right. L/G/C/E is not helpful to describe the real world.

But my argumenative strategy is to use this thin edge to drive in the whole wedge!

That is, once we recognise that alignment isn't a portable, universal, catch-all system for describing moral/political outlooks, then the focus turns (or, at least, should turn) from alignment to the particular cosmology, mythic history etc of the campaign world in front of us.

Which is why I think that linear alignment (L-N-C or LG-G-U-E-CE) is superior - because it makes alignment a descriptor for a cosmological position-taking, and doesn't purport to have any resonance or heft outside that particular cosmological framing.