Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Sadras]

Simple or simplistic?

I'm having a senior moment, what would be the difference in context for the word usage in my sentence?

If Goodness is not absolute, if different cultures might disagree as to whether an individual was good, then how is one supposed to adjudicate the effects of spells like Unholy Word or Protection from Good? And since 2nd edition defines Evil as the antithesis of Good and subject to interpretation across cultures as well, we have the same problem with the more conventional versions of those spells. So, lets imagine a case of cultural differences where an npc which considers itself good would be considered by you to be evil - does your Holy Word blast them

What if you didn't know anything about the npc, didn't even know that they were there? Say you cast Holy Word at some mindflayer not knowing that within the area of effect, unseen by you, was a bound prisoner (the npc) that the mindflayer was saving for a midnight snack. I balk at the notion of a spell which, in an instant, could rifle through the npc's mind to assess both everything they have ever done as well as the tenets of their personal philosophy and then compare these to the standards of the caster to decide whether the npc is someone that the caster would not approve of and would want smote. That's asking a bit much, even for magic.

I suspect the first counter argument to the situation where two cultures each think themselves good and the other evil will be that one actually is good while the other only *thinks* it is good but is in fact evil. This approach has its problems though. What happens when members of that evil culture make use of alignment detecting/effecting spells? Would they not, upon any kind of self introspection, find their own self contradiction? Or do we have the full Gygax/Orwellian thing were they actually define "Good" as bad and "Evil" as good and run around proclaiming things like "we shall deliver this land from the tyranny of Good and bring to it the beneficence of Evil"? Or do they somehow, by accident or whatever, just have it all backwards and whenever they cast Detect Evil they're really casting the reversed version Detect Good, but just don't realize it?

This is very simple or should I say simplistic? The Detect Evil and the Holy Word are channeled by presumably an agent of a Deity, the agent of course being a cleric, paladin..etc The concepts of evil and good are then measured up against the code/ethics of the source of the divine power. If the targets of the divine power are in antithesis to the deity, for instance the deity is "good" and the targets are "evil" according to the deity - then I would adjudicate Detect Evil and Holy Word would work, but that' just my opinion.
One could also base it on current intent as stipulated in 2e (page 199 PHB) "might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions"

Frankly, I see no reason to get all philosophical on the issue. At this point I would like to ask do you request this level of detail from hit points or do you only seek to analyse alignment thus?

I've attempted to answer the thread's basic question, with regards to the crunchy bits, to show that they do not improve the gaming experience. They can limit the type and style of campaign that can be played.

I have failed to see where you have proven any of the above, if anything you have proven the opposite with your above examples as now I see additional uses which you have highlighted for the alignment spell mechanics within my campaign.

There's also the problem of there being many different interpretations of how alignment should work.

Do not see it that way, I tend to view it as a feature in the same instance how magic works differently in different settings.

That the description of alignment has changed from version to version I think proves that.

Well, the ENTIRE game has evolved as well and will keep on changing. Assuredly Gygax was no god, was not infallible and definitely did not have all the answers. The players too have evolved.

Even within one version of the system I think there is still legitimate debate over, for example, whether ethos alone can set ones alignment or whether it is actions that truly matter.

Actions certainly matter for PCs since it is a roleplaying game. I'm sure there was a contingent of Drizzt fans who wanted to roleplay a good Drow, ethos alignment mattered a big zero! Ethos alignment is utilised as a backdrop for setting purposes usually: Drow = Evil, Gold Dragons = Good. Its the mythology of the game. I fail to see the confusion. Certainly I have not seen any threads in Enworld regarding the great debate of whether Trolls have been terribly stereotyped as evil in D&D or whether why Kender do not end up in the abyss once they die.

Remove those mechanics and you remove opportunities for disputes over alignment to create conflict among the participants.

Perhaps in your previous games you suffered from alignment disputes, not mine.

 

[pemerton]

The Detect Evil and the Holy Word are channeled by presumably an agent of a Deity, the agent of course being a cleric, paladin..etc The concepts of evil and good are then measured up against the code/ethics of the source of the divine power. If the targets of the divine power are in antithesis to the deity, for instance the deity is "good" and the targets are "evil" according to the deity - then I would adjudicate Detect Evil and Holy Word would work, but that' just my opinion.
One could also base it on current intent as stipulated in 2e (page 199 PHB) "might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions"

What does "appropriate"mean?

And does this mean that when a cleric of (say) Set casts Detect Evil, s/he detects the servants of Osiris? And is herself Lawful Good (after all, Set approves of what s/he is doing)? At this point, I've lost track of the function of the alignment system.

 

[Hussar]

And considering you haven't actually needed a diety to be a cleric since 1e, (2e allowed clerics of a philosophy as do 3e and 4e), what NPC Deity are we actually talking about?

How do you justify "I'm only playing the NPC" when there is actually no NPC in play?

 

[Sadras]

And considering you haven't actually needed a diety to be a cleric since 1e, (2e allowed clerics of a philosophy as do 3e and 4e), what NPC Deity are we actually talking about? How do you justify "I'm only playing the NPC" when there is actually no NPC in play?

Whether one follows a philosophy or deity, divine spells originate from a divine source. So whether a PC knows about the deity or pantheon of good deities he/she serves or whether he serves just an idea (philosophy) it matters not, there is always a divine source behind his/her power, i.e. someone/somethings. 3e page 179 PHB "Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from divine sources. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces."

These divine forces would have to follow some code/alignment.

 

[Sadras]

What does "appropriate"mean?

Well I didn't write it, but If I had to take a stab I would surmise it relates to the good of evil intentions and that the actions desired would have to be significant (appropriate) in nature to reflect good or evil - as in not tying seeking to tie ones shoe laces, but wanting to slay an innocent.

And does this mean that when a cleric of (say) Set casts Detect Evil, s/he detects the servants of Osiris? And is herself Lawful Good (after all, Set approves of what s/he is doing)?

If you are a follower of Set you have to be evil, its one of the requirements as far as I can tell for 2e and 3e D&D books, so in order to detect signs of servants of Osiris you need to cast Detect Good, it is that simple. The nature of good and evil does not change depending on which side you are. You are what you are, no high-philosophy needed. Good is good, evil is evil.
Even in 3e its states under Detect Good (page 219) "This spell functions like Detect Evil, except that its detects the auras of good creatures, cleric and paladins of good deities..." So of good deities, this seems pretty self explanatory to me.

 

[Hussar]

Whether one follows a philosophy or deity, divine spells originate from a divine source. So whether a PC knows about the deity or pantheon of good deities he/she serves or whether he serves just an idea (philosophy) it matters not, there is always a divine source behind his/her power, i.e. someone/somethings. 3e page 179 PHB "Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from divine sources. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces."

These divine forces would have to follow some code/alignment.

But, you're missing the point. The argument goes that the DM is not directly interpreting alignment - alignment is being interpreted for the PC through the lens of the Deity in question and that Deity is telling the player what that interpretation is. But, if there is no actual NPC, since the PC worships a philosophy, not a Deity, then there is no one to do the telling. The DM has to directly tell the player what the DM believes is the correct interpretation. He can't really hide behind "I'm just playing a character here" when there is no character at all.

In other words, how exactly does a "divine force" tell me that my character is following his alignment?

 

[Sadras]

But, you're missing the point. The argument goes that the DM is not directly interpreting alignment - alignment is being interpreted for the PC through the lens of the Deity in question and that Deity is telling the player what that interpretation is. But, if there is no actual NPC, since the PC worships a philosophy, not a Deity, then there is no one to do the telling. The DM has to directly tell the player what the DM believes is the correct interpretation. He can't really hide behind "I'm just playing a character here" when there is no character at all.

You are presuming that all deities communicate in 'skype' like sessions with their priests telling them their motives, plans and goals? In the same manner that some deities do not communicate with their priests so can the 'divine force' not be required to communicate with its mortal agents. And since it is up to the individual DM to define these divine forces within the setting the DM has created it is therefore also acceptable that the DM can determine if a priests strays from behaving like an agent of that 'divine force' and this can be explained through the narrative fairly easily.
A fallen Paladin who is not worthy to be an agent of the divine force might find himself unable to access the divine powers previously granted to him by the divine unknown.

In other words, how exactly does a "divine force" tell me that my character is following his alignment?

If you're following your alignment everything is just fine, you're following your 'good' code you have access to your abilities....etc use DM fiat

If you're not well then there is an endless list of possibilities the DM might throw at you... you struggle to access your divine powers: maybe it takes a round longer, maybe you lose them for a day, maybe your powers are limited, maybe you take damage accessing/chaneling divine energies, maybe you receive cryptic visions/dreams, maybe a fellow priest notices a grey aura surrounding you, maybe your celestial steed refuses you, maybe an invisible physical force blocks you from entering your church, maybe you fall ill, maybe you have nightmares, maybe you wake up to the smell of death every morning....etc

 

[Hussar]

You are presuming that all deities communicate in 'skype' like sessions with their priests telling them their motives, plans and goals? In the same manner that some deities do not communicate with their priests so can the 'divine force' not be required to communicate with its mortal agents. And since it is up to the individual DM to define these divine forces within the setting the DM has created it is therefore also acceptable that the DM can determine if a priests strays from behaving like an agent of that 'divine force' and this can be explained through the narrative fairly easily.
A fallen Paladin who is not worthy to be an agent of the divine force might find himself unable to access the divine powers previously granted to him by the divine unknown.



If you're following your alignment everything is just fine, you're following your 'good' code you have access to your abilities....etc use DM fiat

If you're not well then there is an endless list of possibilities the DM might throw at you... you struggle to access your divine powers: maybe it takes a round longer, maybe you lose them for a day, maybe your powers are limited, maybe you take damage accessing/chaneling divine energies, maybe you receive cryptic visions/dreams, maybe a fellow priest notices a grey aura surrounding you, maybe your celestial steed refuses you, maybe an invisible physical force blocks you from entering your church, maybe you fall ill, maybe you have nightmares, maybe you wake up to the smell of death every morning....etc

So, pretty much the stick then. If I obey the strictures handed down to me by the DM through the DM's interpretation of alignment then I get to keep playing my character. Is that pretty much how alignment is supposed to work?

Yeah, no thanks. I am perfectly capable of playing my character thank you very much. I don't need the DM to police my behaviour. And, as a DM, I have zero interest in doing that to my players. I trust that my players are mature enough to be able to play their own characters without me standing over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil.

I've said this many, many times, if you place your trust in your players, they will shine. A campaign, IMNSHO, is much, much better for allowing players the freedom from the DM hammer (in any form) and making everyone at the table responsible for the game. For me, N'raac's example paladin just would never happen at the table, because players who are responsible for the game won't make characters like that. It just ruins their own fun. I don't play with people who pee in their own pool. I certainly don't need some mechanical stick to force them back into line.

In fact, IMO, if the only thing stopping the paladin player from eating babies is the alignment mechanics, then you will have far more problems than mechanics can solve. That's just a bad player in need of some attitude adjusting. The basic premise of alignment - a tool to maintain character behaviour - again IMO - fails because any player who is so out of touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing will disrupt the table in a thousand other ways. Any player who is in touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing, doesn't need alignment to stay in character and portray an internally consistent PC.

 

[N'raac]

It seems just as reasonable to assert that, if players and GM's are in tune with their archetypes, significant alignment issues do not arise. Again, however, that does not mean alignment will necessarily improve the game, only that they will not detract from it.

 

[Sadras]

So, pretty much the stick then. If I obey the strictures handed down to me by the DM through the DM's interpretation of alignment then I get to keep playing my character. Is that pretty much how alignment is supposed to work?

Yeah, no thanks. I am perfectly capable of playing my character thank you very much. I don't need the DM to police my behaviour. And, as a DM, I have zero interest in doing that to my players. I trust that my players are mature enough to be able to play their own characters without me standing over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil.

I've said this many, many times, if you place your trust in your players, they will shine. A campaign, IMNSHO, is much, much better for allowing players the freedom from the DM hammer (in any form) and making everyone at the table responsible for the game. For me, N'raac's example paladin just would never happen at the table, because players who are responsible for the game won't make characters like that. It just ruins their own fun. I don't play with people who pee in their own pool. I certainly don't need some mechanical stick to force them back into line.

In fact, IMO, if the only thing stopping the paladin player from eating babies is the alignment mechanics, then you will have far more problems than mechanics can solve. That's just a bad player in need of some attitude adjusting. The basic premise of alignment - a tool to maintain character behaviour - again IMO - fails because any player who is so out of touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing will disrupt the table in a thousand other ways. Any player who is in touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing, doesn't need alignment to stay in character and portray an internally consistent PC.

For the record I also do not play with players that pee in their own pool and even though we have alignment floating in the background, as I have said before I have never had to use the proverbial 'stick', police any behaviour, use the DM hammer or stand over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil and what is more the players in my group do not just mind alignment, they actually prefer it.
We pretty much use it as a descriptor.