Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

I discussed this upthread. The fact that D&D is a game is relevant only if you get some advantage by (for example) being a baby-throat-tearing paladin.

In classic D&D there was an advantage to being chaotic, because of the wider range of tactics permitted. Hence alignment was another part of the challenge mechanics: being lawful invaded trading of tactical options for healing/negotiation options.

Wait so there's no advantage to being a paladin of say Bahamut, that can call on aid from those who follow him... speak to the followers of said deity with some (if not necessarily absolute) authority and assumed validity, seek healing from the clerics of said deity (who should be helping him for little to no cost since he is a champion of their god) and so on... The fact that you are a champion of a deity with followers and an organized religion is an advantage in and of itself that is only fictionally guaranteed for certain classes... because they follow the edicts of said deity.

But at least in my game, there is no tactical advantage in being willing to tear the throat out of babies. So there is no conflict of interest in letting the player play his/her PC as s/he judges ap

So in your game a paladin or cleric can't leverage fictional positioning to call on the resources of the religious organization that they belong to?

Do fighter's automatically have an organization built into their fiction that they can use to their advantage if not what's the balancing factor of this?


EDIT: Perhaps I am speaking to a strategic advantage as opposed to a "tactical" advantage... but either way it is still an advantage.

 

[Imaro]

You like your games limited to being morally simplistic. That's fine. However, many of us have been exploring the grey areas for decades in D&D.

Well if you've been doing it for decades... apparently alignment didn't stop you so...

 

[Imaro]

LOL, do your subtle-not-so-subtle snide remarks usually offend people? Herschel I love you anyways, go on, give me a kiss

But purely out of interest since I enjoy good source material, please elaborate on one of these more nuance/deep/inner conflicts your group has had the pleasure of experiencing that my morally unambiguous adventures can't touch sides on - give me some pointers as a fellow rpger to another.

XP'd... This, count me as another who'd like to hear an example from [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]

 

[Herschel]

But purely out of interest since I enjoy good source material, please elaborate on one of these more nuance/deep/inner conflicts your group has had the pleasure of experiencing that my morally unambiguous adventures can't touch sides on - give me some pointers as a fellow rpger to another.

Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.

The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.

A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.

Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."

 

[Imaro]

Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.

The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.

A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.

Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."

What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts? Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this?? Are you saying that a party using alignment couldn't take on a situation like this? Are you saying only by running without alignment could a situation like this be resolved??

Seriously I am confused by this "example" it seems to just be a stated situation that could arise irregardless of alignment... and then two different perspectives on whether it would be enjoyable to play through or not. What I'm missing is how alignment ties into the two preferences at the end of the post???

 

[Sadras]

Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.

The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.

A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.

Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."

Herschel I like the premise, but an adventure like this would still not give great pause to my gaming group regarding whether their actions during it were good or evil within the adventure. To be honest, we ran two campaigns within the Grand Duchy of Karameikos and if you are familiar with the setting, you would know there is a similar-type scenario there with Baron Ludwig von Hendriks (related to the Duke) and the halflings. I might have an adventure be published in a fan-based mag within a few short months - I will direct you to it should it happen, and then you may judge for yourself if my group and I explore these gray areas of morality.

 

[Herschel]

I might have an adventure being published in a fan-based mag within a few short months - I will direct you to it should it happen, and then you may judge for yourself if my group and I explore these gray areas of morality.

I'd be happy to. I'm also always on the lookout for new source material.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts? Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this?? Are you saying that a party using alignment couldn't take on a situation like this? Are you saying only by running without alignment could a situation like this be resolved??

Seriously I am confused by this "example" it seems to just be a stated situation that could arise irregardless of alignment... and then two different perspectives on whether it would be enjoyable to play through or not. What I'm missing is how alignment ties into the two preferences at the end of the post???

The situation presented is an opportunity to explore what the various alignments actually mean both in the context of the game and perhaps in the context of real life. To some it might be pretty straightforward for whatever reason, but for others who want to delve deep into morality it certainly has potential to be more than meets the eye.

I believe the two preferences at the end are meant to represent those people who find exploring alignment and/or morality interesting ("Heck yeah...!") versus those who would rather not bother with something that loaded ("What a convoluted mess!") The main issue is of course that it's not black and white like that and thus representing it as a binary choice without any kind of subtlety is a disservice to both the situation and to the players.

 

[Imaro]

The situation presented is an opportunity to explore what the various alignments actually mean both in the context of the game and perhaps in the context of real life. To some it might be pretty straightforward for whatever reason, but for others who want to delve deep into morality it certainly has potential to be more than meets the eye.

I believe the two preferences at the end are meant to represent those people who find exploring alignment and/or morality interesting ("Heck yeah...!") versus those who would rather not bother with something that loaded ("What a convoluted mess!") The main issue is of course that it's not black and white like that and thus representing it as a binary choice without any kind of subtlety is a disservice to both the situation and to the players.

I guess when someone is claiming that, because a person can in the game of D&D easily decide what is evil vs. good (notice this still leaves plenty of moral degrees between these two broad categories), they must in fact be playing a morally simplistic game... I was kind of expecting more. I can see people who use alignment, as well as those who don't, playing through the scenario presented without much trouble. Not sure how it makes a case for people at a particular table who can differentiate between the broad umbrellas of good and evil in the context of D&D alignment necessarily having to play a morally simplistic game.

I guess I also don't subscribe to the notion that using alignment as it is presented in most editions of D&D precludes it's exploration by those who want to... A fighter has no restrictions on alignment that would stop him from exploring and/or forming his own ideas of what the different ideas mean. The difference is that some classes (paladins, clerics, etc.) have accepted a pre-defined definition of what these alignments mean already, these classes are for people who want a different play experience concerning morality in the game. Now if every class in D&D was structured like a paladin or cleric, I could get behind removing alignment but they aren't and there are options for both playstyles depending on the class on choses to play...

 

[N'raac]

See, you tell me not to raise straw man issues about bad DMs, but here you are again painting a terrible picture of a DM using alignment, so excuse me if I don't take your objection to my supposed "strawman" argument seriously. A bad DM is a bad DM period.

Quoted for truth.

I suggest you read the thread in the Next Forum "PvP Class Comparison" - you will see PCs have often enough turned on each other for whatever reason. Paladins don't have to eat babies to be evil, just maim or murder a few of their companions for selfish reasons would suffice. I'm not saying they were Paladins but PvP happens, and if one is a Paladin and is able to turn on their companions and do evil one can certainly and easier turn on NPCs and do evil too.

Ignoring PvP, are there no NPC Paladins and Clerics? What strictures are they guided by? Or does the GM also get to define NPC morality by whim?

BTW, one example of "great gaming that would be impossible if we used alignments" was a PC sacrificing another PC to a Dark God. It may not have been PvP (no indication from the specific discussion, and I suspect not given @permerton's view of his players), but it's definitely PC v PC.

Like I said, you like your games a certain, morally unambiguous way, there's nothing wrong with that. For many of us though we like more nuance/depth/inner conflict. Alignment as a general guideline is great, as an actual moral compass it sucks.

OK, once more with feeling this time NO ONE IS ADVOCATING ALIGNMENT AS A STRAIGHTJACKET That is the biggest and most common straw man presented in this thread in opposition to alignment.

Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.

The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.

A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.

As others have noted, there is no reason this would not work with alignments just as well as without. Do we compromise Law in the name of Good or Good in the name of Law is a question any LG character needs to confront. "Respect for life" is easy to say - which lives are most deserving of respect in this case? Now, let's say our hypothetical team of paladins and clerics (with or without alignment) ride in, sees this and decides "Hey, you're all at fault here - so we will kill off the villagers, the bandits, the sheriff and his men and, what the heck, the caravan guards and the retinue as well. The ruler too, given the chance.

By the way, who decided the ruler "is not evil" in this game of no alignments?

Since all share the blame, all will share the consequences. What could be more morally correct (or Lawful Good) than that?

Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."

So why does making them goblins mean that the moral issues go away? Are goblins automatically evil without possibility of redemption? Let's try an experiment (changes bolded):

Goblin bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the human ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been human guards and retinue killed in the raids.

The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the halfling peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". Besides, Goblins are evil. A Halfling[/I/] village is struggling with a crop failure and the goblin bandits are giving some of the spoils to the halfling villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The Goblin bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens. Besides, they're just humans - humans are always trying to kill Goblins!

A local Dwarven sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the halfling villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (human guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the goblin bandits.

That doesn't seem to have any different moral issues than if all involved are humans, at least to me. Nor would mixing and matching the various races set out above.

What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts? Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this?? Are you saying that a party using alignment couldn't take on a situation like this? Are you saying only by running without alignment could a situation like this be resolved??

Seriously I am confused by this "example" it seems to just be a stated situation that could arise irregardless of alignment... and then two different perspectives on whether it would be enjoyable to play through or not. What I'm missing is how alignment ties into the two preferences at the end of the post???

Agreed.