Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

How can there be a coherent and consistent adjudication of alignment if the DM refuses to decide if something is good or evil?

Everything need not be specifically “good” or specifically “evil” for the system to function. Tying one’s shoes and brushing one’s teeth are neither good nor evil. Injuring a man to prevent him beating a child includes elements of evil (intentionally inflicting harm on another person) and good (protection of the innocent).

This can also be viewed as the GM deciding that something is neither good nor evil. Kind of like the alignment rules themselves note for animals.

Another common misconception the anti-alignment team clings to is that alignment can either be eliminated entirely or must permeate every moment of the game. This makes about as much sense as suggesting we must either remove combat entirely or we can never have a game session that focuses on problem solving by other means, such as social interaction.

First, how is the player of a fighter free to form his/her own ideas about alignment? Won't a quick Detect Evil or Holy Word set him/her straight?

If you read the 3e alignment descriptions, each ends with the reason that this is the best alignment – that is, the morally right choice. Society calls this “good”, the spells even call this “good”, but my character knows with certainty that HIS WAY is truly “good” regardless of the labels others attach. That 25+ INT and WIS deity of Law and Goodness? He’s wrong! My 25+ INT and WIS CE patron has the right of it!

The point I took away is that alignment has nothing to contribute to running that scenario.

And combat rules have nothing to contribute to running a scenario where the solutions are negotiation, not violence. Should we remove the combat rules? Or, since a battle against an undead horde cannot be won by negotiation, should we remove all of the interaction rules?

If alignment doesn't provide any answers, then it is not doing its job of providing guidelines. Hence on that assumption it is redundant, and those who use alignment would play through the scenario no differently from those who don't use it.

I agree if the scenario plays no differently, alignment is not adding anything to this specific scenario. But it is also not detracting from it, as you claim it would from your games.

Conversely, if answers to the scenario are simply read of alignment descriptors as interpreted by the GM, then the GM has resolved the scenario before the players even engage it. Hence, on this alternative assumption, alignment makes the scenario pointless from @Herschel's point of view.

A simplistic and, in my view, misguided or wrong, approach to applying alignment in game in no way makes it a poor rule system. We could also assert the players can resolve everything by just making Diplomacy rolls (one for each group) to convince them to mend their ways and be one big happy family. Given all we do is read the diplomacy rules and roll a few d20’s with no actual lay, it seems clear the skill rules make the scenario pointless, so they have to go, right?

If alignment makes no difference to the players' choices for their PCs in engaging the scenario, then it is redundant.

I do not expect any other aspect of the game to be the focus in each and every scene throughout the course of a campaign. Why would I expect this of alignment? Maybe every scene in your game is resolved by rote in exactly the same way, but I don’t believe that is true of many games.

If alignment does make a difference - if the GM has to give the player of the paladin advice on how his/her PC should or should not engage the scenario - then the scenario itself fails to serve the point that I think @Herschel intended, namely, of forcing the players to make certain sorts of evaluative choices.

To me, the answer to that guidance depends on the options being considered. “Perhaps we should slay everyone in the nation, burn all structures, leave not one stone standing upon another and salt the earth” is probably something inappropriate to a Paladin, and the GM might want to suggest that (I would hope he does not need to). But a number of different choices which are no more or less plainly and obviously consistent seem to exist, and there the answer would be “there’s no compelling answer in the scriptures/dogma/holy teachings/whatever”. Again, we are back to the straw man that alignment means the GM dictates every choice to be made by the characters.

Not really, no. I don't really accept that someone can understand my claim that alignment is an impediment to my play experience yet disagree with it. Because how would you know better than me what I enjoy in RPGing? How would you know better than me what is the nature of my experience? How would you know better than me whether or not it is a burden on my enjoyment of the game to use a mechanic that obliges me to judge whether or not my players' play of their PCs adheres to some evaluative standards that I am stipulating and applying?

What I see is that alignment as you (mis)interpret and (mis)apply it would certainly be an impediment, but that the great scenes you highlight would be just as likely to occur, and just as great, in a game where alignment is used, rather than misused or abused. And your claim certainly puzzles me viewed in that light. So I continue to disagree with your contention that alignment would, without a doubt, detract from or even prevent entirely those great gaming moments. Or that they could come about only through

an extreme railroad, for instance, the GM might simply bring them all about via fiat and dominant narration.

What you sneeringly dismiss as my "great moments in roleplaying" are fond memories for me not simply because of the fiction that was created but because of the manner, the dynamics, the experience of its creation. The surprise. The shock. The tension. The horror. And all those things - the emotional response that make roleplaying a pleasure for me - would be different were mechanical alignment in play.

First off, I do not “sneeringly dismiss” the play experiences themselves. I DO sneeringly dismiss [pauses to sneer at computer screen and make dismissive hand gesture] the contention that they would be utterly ruined or impossible if a game included alignment.

You keep using this term “mechanical alignment”. If that means “alignment which is used as a straightjacket, such that the GM dictates every decision made by the characters”, then I agree this would detract from the game. But no one supporting alignment is asserting such a use of alignment, so might we agree that this would, indeed, be bad for the game and end that aspect of the discussion once and for all?

As you yourself indicated upthread, I would have to do things like decide whether or not the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion was evil.

Actually, no you would not. You would have t assess whether the sacrifice of his friend and companion was an evil act, but a single evil act does not make a person evil. No one is “without sin”. Even the Paladin is cast down only if he knowingly commits an evil act.

And I've told you that having to make that judgement as part of refereeing the game undermines my pleasure in the game. So unless you think I'm lying about that, you yourself have to concede that, for me, the use of mechanical alignment would be an impediment to my play experience.

OK, I’ll stop short of “you’re lying”. I will, however, state that I believe you have an opinion of whether or not the action in question was, in fact, evil. In other words, you made that judgment. Apparently, sharing your opinion with your group would make the game less enjoyable for you, so I will accept that you do not want a system where your opinion would have any meaning on the game, or even mandate being expressed in the course of the game. However, having alignment in the game would not in any way have prevented the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion, so the gaming moment would not have been prevented.

Or are you telling me that, had you paused and said “Gosh that sounds like an evil action”, the player would have stopped, then announced his character was releasing his friend, and they would have hugged and gone home?

As I have mentioned several times, although you have not really acknowledged let alone engaged with it, one major pleasure for me in playing RPGs is seeing the players play their characters. This includes expressing and acting upon their evaluative conceptions of what it is fitting for their characters to do. I don't want to interfere with that. Hence I don't use mechanical alignment, which mandates that I interfere, by forming a view on whether or not the actions of the PCs are fitting from an evaluative point of view.

Again, the only ways I see alignment interfering with players laying their characters is when someone(s) applies alignment as a straightjacket. For me, if my character’s personality, views and beliefs suggest actions contrary to the usual mores of his alignment, then those are the actions he will take. This may not be extreme enough to be more than a “bad thing done by a good person” – one deviation does not mean alignment has changed, nor does a single belief out of step with the norms of the alignment. Perhaps that means the wrong alignment has been reflected on the sheet, and it should be changed. Perhaps it indicates that his own beliefs have changed to the extent his alignment has changed. So what? I’m playing my character – if his alignment has changed, so be it. Why is this such a huge impediment, in your eyes, to role playing?

I don't accept the premise of the question, because when I play D&D the moral evaluation of the conduct of a cleric or paladin PC does not carry a significant mechanical implication. That's a huge part, though not all of, not using mechanical alignment!

So, again, is your contention that alignment itself is problematic, or only to the extent it is used to de-power characters? If we accept [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s proposition that every character has a network he can leverage for support, then any time that network decides they are displeased by the character’s actions, the character loses leverage in the fiction – does he also get to define their responses to his actions? When gear is destroyed, stolen, or otherwise unavailable, this also depowers characters – should that possibility also be removed? Ultimately, however, if we can remove every mechanic that could impede the character’s power or progress, would this make a better game?

So asking whether Rick's conduct is honourable or not is no different from asking whether the paladin PC's conduct is honourable or not. Everyone can have an opinion; the player - as author of the PC - gets to actually write the character, though.

Sure. But he does not get to unilaterally decide whether the character’s conduct was, in fact, honourable, does he? The character certainly does not – he gets to define only what the character himself perceives as appropriate behaviour, honourable or otherwise. The author does not – he will, of course, have an opinion, but he cannot impose it upon his audience. It is, in fact, the audience who draws the conclusion. And whether or not George Lucas thinks Han Solo should, or should not, have fired first, it’s the audience that ultimately assesses whether George was right about his own character. George certainly gets to decide whether Han shot first – it’s his character, after all. He does not, however, get to tell the audience (other players and the GM in a game setting) whether Han was right to do so.

The player has his PC flatter a dragon; it turns out that the dragon is pleased. That is an example of the player's decision for his PC fitting into the broader gameworld. It is determined by way of the action resolution mechanics.

Who determined how susceptible the Dragon is to flattery (did the player set the DC, or did the GM)? Who determined whether the Dragon would listen to the attempt at flattery, or immediately attack (probably not the player…). Who determines whether the Dragon’s pleasure translates to “The Dragon leaves and lets you take his hoard”, “I will give you a reward from my horde and safe passage out”, “You amuse me – I shall keep you as a pet”, or “Your appreciation of my Dragonly virtue pleases me so much that I shall eat you last of all your comrades”?

But whether it was good or bad, fitting or improper that the player flatter the dragon; that is a metagame matter. It is something on which each particpant is free to form a view, and to which each participant is free to respond. Including the GM, of course: perhaps the next time the PC meets an angel, it chides him or her for flatterig the dragon! And of course, if the player remains confident that his/her PC did the right thing, s/he can choose to have his/her PC chide the angel back. That flows from the fact that each participant is free to evaluate and respond.

So that Deity of Law and Good forming and expressing an opinion is a gamewrecker, but it’s OK for the angel, a being of Light and Good, to have and express an opinion? I’m seeing a less and less bright line to your evaluative criteria for who in the game gets to apply evaluative criteria.

Of course I've evaluated it, in the sense of forming an opinion! But not in my role as referee. Not as part of the mechanical adjudication of the player's action. An onlooker might evaluate it to, but that wouldn't have any meaning from the point of view of the game rules.

Nor is anyone suggesting, I believe, that the character may not take whatever action the player sees fit. Only that the player does not also get free rein to determine the results of that action within the game.

I think you intend the question to be rhetorical, but my response is Why not? If a player wants to play a paladin with the conviction that capital punishment must be stamped out because it's an evil, why would I want to stop that?

Why not, indeed. Most D&D paladins not only reside in a state where capital punishment is the norm, they commonly mete it out themselves as judge, jury and executioner. Is the taking of life inconsistent with the ideals of Good? Sure. But the ideals and the reality are not always consistent, and the character has room to maneuver within them. Just as we might regret the need for capital punishment, yet still consider it a necessary “evil” for the greater Good.

It doesn't strike me as obvious that the character thinks what s/he did is justified. But that's probably a tangential point.

I thought we relied on player integrity – if the player says he thinks it was justified, then it must be so. The character took the action – that seems to make it pretty obvious the player thought it was justified, even if the player says “I as a player think it was not justified and was a moral failing on the part of the character”.

The puzzle for me is why you think my opinion as GM is more important than that of the player. You seem to suppose that the player thinks what was done might have been unjustified. If that's so, why not let the player play out the consequences?

First, as I said, I am a fan of discussion around the table, so everyone’s opinion is heard. Why? Because everyone’s opinion is important. Second, the loss of favour is just one more possible consequence of the actions of the character. It is a consequence you are quite insistent should not be played out unless the player wishes to do so. Why can’t the same player exert his will on the Duke, the Church or anything else in the game setting, as you insist he should be able to do on the deity or forces that grant him their power. “The cosmos” has enough of an opinion to grant powers to clerics and Paladins – how can it reasonably follow it has no opinion on who should receive those powers, or whether they should continue to be granted?

Tolkien gets to decide what counts as admirable for Aragorn, and gets to make his case.

And the player gets, or should get, to make his case as well. He does not, however, get to decide whether his case is successful. In Tolkein’s case, the audience makes that decision. BTW, where in LoTR does Tolkein state his opinion of whether Aragorn is admirable or reprehensible? He writes the actions of Aragorn (player roe) and the reactions of the rest of the world (other players and GM role). He does not, however, evaluate whether Aragorn is, in fact, admirable. Mechanically, he only sets what the others in the story believe. Since Aragorn does not derive any special powers from the deities of the LoTR world, or cosmic forces, etc., he stands no risk of losing those powers if these forces disapprove of his actions, and/or the use of the powers they have granted.

The bookclub example screams out for the simple rejoinder that books are books, and games are games. You insist on bringing in comparisons that are not truly comparable. The book club doesn’t get to decide that Aragiorn is not restored to the throne after all, even if they reach a consensus that he’s really not admirable at all. By the way, is Aragorn a PC, or just an NPC in our game of Hobbits on the Road?

For a PC to remain true to his/her principals may often have a cost, yes. This is a staple of drama. But it doesn't follow that playing a PC who remains true to his/her principles should be more costly (= less fun?

It does not strike me that having a cost of adhering to a character’s principals automatically makes the game “less fun” for the player. A lot of the fun is in playing out the challenges. Do your players get to individually dictate the resolution of all challenges in your game, or only the moral ones?

I also don't see why predestination can't be a very important part of an RPG plot. It seems likely, in my current 4e game, that the whole raison d'etre of the deva/invoker's long existence is to do something significant with the Rod of Seven Parts. Of course, what exactly that might be isn't clear yet because the game is still going, but that doesn't mean that whatever it ends up being wasn't, within the fiction, predestined!

Fiction is predestined in that the author knows, at least in broad strokes, precisely what will happen and how we will get there. There is no possibility that Siegfried will not take precisely the correct actions desired by Wagner to bring the story to its desired conclusion. Simply calling it “predestined” after the fact does not make it predestined. Can Siegfried say “A frickin’ DRAGON? To hell with the Rhinegold – I’m going after easier prey?” Your players can, or I assume they can, decide to chuck the whole Rod of Seven Parts aspect of their quest. The fact that this will make it predestined that they did so, retroactively, is not even comparable.

Shrug, I've seen some similar (though not as extreme) examples of this general behavior when playing in pick-up games or with people I don't know... I'm curious, how long have you gamed with your particular group, and how often do you game with others outside of it?

I second this question. Clearly, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you are aware of lots of games and gamers that play differently than you and your group.

No, that's all trickery and mumbo jumbo to the fighter... how does the fighter know it was really detect good or detect evil cast on him? How does he know it wasn't a trick? How does he know the spell granted by this particular deity isn't biased, or the magical formulae on that scroll isn't flawed?

Or the caster simply lied. Charlatan!

In fact, just as you have told us you have no interest in playing in the style we like for D&D when it comes to alignment, let me say I don't care if it's an impediment to your style, especially since in this very thread you commented on how people have been removing it and getting on with their games for decades. I'm not trying to convince you of anything anymore, you've made it clear that your argument boils down to I don't like it and nothing you say can convince me to... so really at this point I find it an interesting enough discussion... for now... but I am really not trying to convince you to see things my way anymore...

Ditto.

And this assumption is based on what exactly? For a paladin the broad guidelines of alignment could help him deal with the situation while for a sellsword with no allegiances alignment might contribute very little to the scenario... In other words only play with and without alignment would actually show us what the differences would be. I'm curious though, since you don't use alignment are you basing your assumptions on?

This is a good point – a group of LG characters (whether by name in a game with alignment or by personality and principal, and the latter is more important than the former, IMO) will struggle with the right thing to do. Where the Sellsword, morally ambivalent, doesn’t give a damn. The Ruler said Kill the bandits. He’s handing out the gold. He calls the shots. Kill the bandits. If the villagers have to be tortured to find the bandits, it’s torch to the groin time. Screw the villagers – the ruler’s not paying us to look after them.

Which group will create a better story out of the scenario [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] has painted?

Or do you believe that two paladins can never be in conflict?

No. Only someone who (mis)interprets alignment as a straightjacket would come to that conclusion. And that (mis)interpretation and erroneous conclusion seems to be shared by most, if not all, those who find alignment is an impediment, based on the posts on this thread.

Seriously, have you ever worked in an organization? People with common goals and objectives disagree ALL THE TIME. It doesn’t mean that any co-worker who disagrees with me is Chaotic or Evil (or Lawful or Good if I’m CE.

To those who "don't apply moral judgment in their games", it seems strange to me that you then tell us that you have never seen a player suggest some extreme action (the baby-killing Paladin, say) taken because you game with reasonable players. By extension, you seem to be saying no one reasonable could envision a Good person carrying out such an action. Thus, you have already made a moral judgment about the action in question, have you not? Your suggestion that you don't. and won't, game with unreasonable players further suggests that this moral judgment does, in fact, make its way to your game, not in the form of judgment at the table, but in the form of who even receives an invitation to sit at that table.

 

[Cadence]

Digging for quotes for an unrelated thread, I stumbled upon this. Given it's position in the text I must have read it multiple times, but I honestly have no recollection of ever seeing it before...

It is incumbent upon all DMs to be thoroughly conversant with the PLAYERS HANDBOOK, and at the same time you must also know the additional information which is given in this volume, for it rounds out and completes the whole. While players will know that they must decide upon an alignment, for example, you, the DM, will further know that each and every action they take will be mentally recorded by you; and at adventure's end you will secretly note any player character movement on the alignment graph.

[Apologies if it was already quoted up-thread. If it was, maybe my brain is just trying to block it out.]

At first blush, it certainly seems a bit at odds with what comes two pages later...

If personality traits are forced upon PCs, then participants will be doing little more than moving automatons around while you, the DM, tell them how their characters react to situations. It is therefore absolutely necessary for you to allow each player the right to develop his or her characters as he or she chooses!

 

[Nagol]

Digging for quotes for an unrelated thread, I stumbled upon this. Given it's position in the text I must have read it multiple times, but I honestly have no recollection of ever seeing it before...



[Apologies if it was already quoted up-thread. If it was, maybe my brain is just trying to block it out.]

At first blush, it certainly seems a bit at odds with what comes two pages later...

Not really at odds. The player is the one controlling alignment choice. The player is the one controlling PC choice.

The DM is acting as an independent passive observer of the PC actions and comparing with player-stated expectations. At no point in the quote is the DM encouraged to interfere with player choice.

The player reaps the consequence of claiming one alignment whilst playing another should that be the case.

 

[Cadence]

Not really at odds. The player is the one controlling alignment choice. The player is the one controlling PC choice.

The DM is acting as an independent passive observer of the PC actions and comparing with player-stated expectations. At no point in the quote is the DM encouraged to interfere with player choice.

The player reaps the consequence of claiming one alignment whilst playing another should that be the case.

The DMs, and only the DMs, interpretation of the alignment...

Such a drift should be noted by you, and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment.

... that comes with severe penalties for violating...

Change of alignment will have an adverse effect on any class of character if he or she is above the 2nd level.

Immediately upon alignment change, actually occurring, the character concerned will lose one level of experience...

... that the player's don't even know could happen.

It is recommended that you do not inform players of the penalty which will occur with alignment change...

So, apparently, heaven help you if the personality you are free to choose doesn't fit neatly into one of the 9 silo's as interpreted by the DM! (I think if the notes on alignment hadn't been softened in 2e, 3/3.5, and PF I'd have to switch to @pemerton 's side completely... hoping there was no XP penalty for the change.)

 

[Manbearcat]

To those who "don't apply moral judgment in their games", it seems strange to me that you then tell us that you have never seen a player suggest some extreme action (the baby-killing Paladin, say) taken because you game with reasonable players. By extension, you seem to be saying no one reasonable could envision a Good person carrying out such an action. Thus, you have already made a moral judgment about the action in question, have you not? Your suggestion that you don't. and won't, game with unreasonable players further suggests that this moral judgment does, in fact, make its way to your game, not in the form of judgment at the table, but in the form of who even receives an invitation to sit at that table.

I'm mostly disconnected from much of this conversation but I was reading [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]'s rumination upon the 1e DMG below when this caught my eye at the top of the screen. So much of this conversation is so broad and winding that its hard to pin down and dissect component parts. But on this I think I can provide clarifying, focused commentary. I'll start from the bottom and work my way upward.

1) In the same way that everyone makes (or at least attempts to) informed decisions on whom to allow into their intimate inner circle (based on judgements, moral and other), I'm sure most everyone does the same for their home table. I don't think that, due to this extra-game reality, it then follows that a an examination of their position on alignment in-game bears out fallible self-examination generally or hypocrisy and/or a lack of self-awareness specifically. Prioritizing and/or mandating values amongst chosen friends in real life seems to share little in common with what position one takes on ethos governance mechanics (and how those mechanics, or lacktherof, might expand or contract narrative dynamism and player agency) in TTRPGs. If I'm wrong then good deal, but it seems as though your implying that one must follow the other to maintain internal consistency?

2) I'm certain that GMs apply moral judgements in their games, with or without ethos governance mechanics. Even if the metaphysical world doesn't respond (such as by a mandated cosmological "soul shift" so that new abjurations or evocations affect the party in the physical world), the physical world surely will. Consider the PBP that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned above. In that game, [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s long, lost lover turned out to be the antagonist that was destabilizing the kingdom from within. Due to the dark, possessive force of her patron (she "turned to the dark side" at some point in the uncanvassed backstory), the Unseelie Agent delivered unto the world many terrible acts, up to and including assassinating Thurgon's former Lord Commander and recently arranging for a the assassination of the King and Queen by a Night Hag (making it look like natural deaths in their sleep). During play, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and Campbell "turned her from the dark side", purifying her spirit and bringing her back into the fold of her former deity (Campbell's current deity). However, make no mistake about it, she would be facing a death penalty by the King's hand. If Lucann (Campbell's character) stood in the way or created conflict, he would immediately be cast an outlaw in defiance of the King's Justice. I would have framed this situation to challenge the old bonds (between elves and men) that Lucann was looking to renew. What would come of this conflict would be relevant to his character and how it would unfold would be decided in play.

I'm certain that none of the PCs at the proverbial table would have protested this "physical" moral judgement. What's more, this is precisely the type of conflict that Lucann's backstory asked for. Its precisely the kind of conflict that Thurgon, as a protector of the realm, should be entrenched in. It would make their lives hard and it would certainly be a moral judgement with repercussions. But they would enjoy the play and I would surmise that they would expect that "physical" moral judgement.

 

[Nagol]

The DMs, and only the DMs, interpretation of the alignment...



... that comes with severe penalties for violating...



... that the player's don't even know could happen.



So, apparently, heaven help you if the personality you are free to choose doesn't fit neatly into one of the 9 silo's as interpreted by the DM! (I think if the notes on alignment hadn't been softened in 2e, 3/3.5, and PF I'd have to switch to @pemerton 's side completely... hoping there was no XP penalty for the change.)

The DM is the only one to interpret alignment in much the same way as the DM is the only one to adjudicate anything in the game world. Imaro has given sound justification for such earlier in the thread.

The are penalties if your alignment change happens sometime other than the early stages of a PC's career. A player likely has several sessions and many situations to stabilise the character's personality and hence alignment before any penalty is applied. And the penalty -- although severe on the surface -- is no worse than being touched by a wight once (IOW other in-game effects are at least as bad and although it is a setback, it leaves the PC playable). Additionally, there are tools available to the gaming group that can help ascertain alignment drift ahead of time (though some of that is limited by DM willingness to bring them into campaign play).

The players may not know the penalty initially, but it is certain they will remember it if it strikes someone in their group. IOW it is part of the exploration of the game engine.

I did appreciate the softening of alignment conversion under 2e, truth be told. I felt 1e was too draconian in its take.

 

[pemerton]

the more I read your replies the more I realize neither one of us is going to convince the other as far as whether alignment adds to or detracts from our gameplay.

You don't have to convince me of anything - you've told me you like alignment, and I believe you.

As neither you nor [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] has posted any actual play examples or explanations of how you use alignment in your games, I'm not 100% sure how exactly you use it - I'm assuming either similar to [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] or similar to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], both of whom did explain how they use alignment (respectively, to explore the GM's conception of the gameworld/cosmology, and as a roleplaying challenge adjudicated by the GM). Based on my own play experience with various players and GMs I can at least roughly envisage what your use of alignment might look like.

But upthread someone asked whether alignment had ever been an impediment to anyone's play experience, and I answered. And have since explained why, I believe in som detail.

D&D is one of the few/only (if you don't count clones separately) FRPG's to use alignment in a mechanical sense, as a role playing tool, as cosmological forces and as a moral guideline for it's campaign worlds, gods and planes. With the multitude of FRPG's out there that have no alignment in them or even alternate ways of dealing with personality and/or belief such as your often cited BW or Heroquest... why is it important that D&D become like the multitude of other games out there and remove the effect of alignment?

I assume that D&Dnext will ship with alignment written in as the default. I would be surprised, though, if they build in the strong mechanical effects of alignment that begin with AD&D and culminate in 3E. I would expect it to be more like B/X or 4e, in which alignment is presented as something like a personality descriptor combined with a team label, but has no mechanical effect. (Or almost none: 4e has a couple of powers, both PC and NPC/monster, that are alignment-based, but they are trivial to ignore and I imagine the majority of 4e players have never encountered them in play; Moldvay suggests that if a player is not playing his/her PC's alignment properly, the GM may suggest a change of alignment or impose a punishment or penalty, but there is no elaboration. Neither has any mechanical systems around fallen or ex-clerics/paladins.)

For instance, looking at the current playtest: clerics and paladins have alignment-typed damage (radiant or necrotic) but no strict alignment restrictions (there is a sidebar suggesting that clerics are normally within one of their god's alignment, and paladins of devotion get their powers by praying in temples of good and lawful gods). They can Smite whomever they want; there is no alignment constraint as per 3E's Smite Evil. Even monks are described only as mostly lawful. I didn't find any discussion of alignment in the How to Play or DM Guidelines documents. The only place I found it discussed was under Creating a Character.

The reasons for adopting the approach I just described I think are fairly straightforward: those who don't use alignment, or use it only as a light-touch personality shorthand, can easily cope with the above description. While those who want something mechanically heavier, along the lines of AD&D or 3E, can easily incorporate the mechanical and adjudicative techniques with which they are familiar.

And I am pretty sure that the number of people who don't use alignment, or use it only a very light touch way, is pretty big. I would suspect it's the single most-ignored mechanical element of traditional D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Digging for quotes for an unrelated thread, I stumbled upon this. Given it's position in the text I must have read it multiple times, but I honestly have no recollection of ever seeing it before...

The DMs, and only the DMs, interpretation of the alignment...

... that comes with severe penalties for violating...

... that the player's don't even know could happen.

So, apparently, heaven help you if the personality you are free to choose doesn't fit neatly into one of the 9 silo's as interpreted by the DM! (I think if the notes on alignment hadn't been softened in 2e, 3/3.5, and PF I'd have to switch to pemerton's side completely... hoping there was no XP penalty for the change.)

Cadence, I don't think those passages have been quoted upthread, but they're definitely the ones I've had in mind in talking about why mechanical aligment is an impediment to my preferred style of play.

And I am not being snide (or not meaning to be) when I say that I don't fully follow the "softening" in 2nd ed AD&D (or 3E, which has some similar language about not being a straitjacket).

For instance, on p 49 the 2nd ed PHB says

It is possible for a player to change his character's alignment after the character is created, either by action or choice. Howeer, changing alignment is not without its penalties. . .

Several occasions of lax behaviour are required before the character's alignment changes officially. . .

Although the player may have a good idea of where the character's alignment lies, only the DM knows for sure. . .

Changing the way a character behaves and thinks will cost him experience points and slow his advancement. . .

Ultimately, the player is advised to pick an alignment he can play comfortably . . . and he should stay with that alignment for the course of the character's career. . . [F]inding th right course of action within the character's alignment is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying.​

I don't have, and have never read, the 2nd ed DMG so I don't know what, if anything, it says to temper the above. But just reading that I don't really see the great difference from the passages you quoted from Gygax (right down to "only the DM knows for sure"). And I don't really understand what is mean by saying "alignment is not a straitjacket" if the player is also being told (i) to stick with a single alignment for the course of a PC's career, and that (ii) only the DM knows whether or not you are following this stricture properly. In these circumstances, isn't the player reliant upon the GM's guidance to play his/her PC properly?

And for clarity: I fully appreciate the varieties of actual play are very different from the above and from one another. For instance, in [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] I get the impression that players can ask the GM what a particular alignment requires or expects, which means it's not the case in that game that "only the DM knows for sure". And of cousre many people don't use alignment at all once it's writtn down on the PC sheet. (As in the last 2nd ed game I played some 17-odd years ago.)

In the paragraphs above, I'm just trying to make sense of the text.

 

[pemerton]

Another common misconception the anti-alignment team clings to is that alignment can either be eliminated entirely or must permeate every moment of the game.

<snip>

To me, the answer to that guidance depends on the options being considered. “Perhaps we should slay everyone in the nation, burn all structures, leave not one stone standing upon another and salt the earth” is probably something inappropriate to a Paladin, and the GM might want to suggest that (I would hope he does not need to). But a number of different choices which are no more or less plainly and obviously consistent seem to exist, and there the answer would be “there’s no compelling answer in the scriptures/dogma/holy teachings/whatever”. Again, we are back to the straw man that alignment means the GM dictates every choice to be made by the characters.

<snip>

a group of LG characters (whether by name in a game with alignment or by personality and principal, and the latter is more important than the former, IMO) will struggle with the right thing to do. Where the Sellsword, morally ambivalent, doesn’t give a damn.

You haven't really answered my question - if alignment is not relevant as a guide in the situation [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] described, when is it relevant? What role does it play?

If the answer is "Only when the player of the paladin suggests genocide as a solution to one corrupt local offical", then how often does it actually matter in play. (I'm assuming that particular suggestion doesn't come up very often.)

Also, if the players are free to make their own choices 90% of the time, why is it so important that the GM judge them the other 10% of the time? And why should the players of those LG PCs be penalisd (eg by XP lost, as AD&D suggests in both editions) because they decide that on this occasion the sellsword is right?

The only answer to that I can construct from your posts is that this is important for the GM to play the gods and comparable cosmological forces. If that is the answer, I would find it helpful if you would state it straight out.

If you read the 3e alignment descriptions, each ends with the reason that this is the best alignment – that is, the morally right choice.

No it doesn't. CE, LE and NE end with a description of why they're the worst.

Society calls this “good”, the spells even call this “good”, but my character knows with certainty that HIS WAY is truly “good” regardless of the labels others attach. That 25+ INT and WIS deity of Law and Goodness? He’s wrong! My 25+ INT and WIS CE patron has the right of it!

And this is the cynical relativism of Planescape, or else the Nietzschean self-creation of REH Conan, which is fine as far as it goes but in my view makes paladins and traditional clerics impossible, because the game rules tell them that their worldview is, of necessity, wrong. (Because nothing could be more antithetical to that worldview than the symmetry of good and evil that is part and parcel of this approach.)

There's a reason that REH's Conan stories have no clerics in the D&D-style, only various sorts of sorcerers.

I continue to disagree with your contention that alignment would, without a doubt, detract from or even prevent entirely those great gaming moments.

<snip>

You keep using this term “mechanical alignment”. If that means “alignment which is used as a straightjacket, such that the GM dictates every decision made by the characters”, then I agree this would detract from the game. But no one supporting alignment is asserting such a use of alignment, so might we agree that this would, indeed, be bad for the game and end that aspect of the discussion once and for all?

By mechanical alignment I am referring to the passages [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] quoted upthread, and the ones I quoted from the 2nd ed PHB: the rules that say that the GM must judge his/her players' action declarations, and track the alignment of their PCs - with "only the DM know[ing] for sure".

It is this mandate to judge, as part of the role of the referee in adjudicating the game, that I object to. No amount of reiteration that "alignment is not a straitjacket" (whatever exactly that means - as [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] explained upthread, Gygax doen't suggest that the GM should tell the players what to do either, so nor is he advocating alignment as a straitjacket in the sense yu seem to mean) is going to change my mind on that. Player can be free or unfree - my point is that I don't want to have to judge their choices.

I will, however, state that I believe you have an opinion of whether or not the action in question was, in fact, evil. In other words, you made that judgment. Apparently, sharing your opinion with your group would make the game less enjoyable for you, so I will accept that you do not want a system where your opinion would have any meaning on the game

Are you aware of what you're running together here? Of course I make judgements, and I cheerfully share them with my players. But they aren't part of the adjudication of the game. I might comment that a player's voice is raised, or whispering, too, or that an item of clothing is very colourful, or that I like the name s/he chose for a PC. But none of that is part of refereeing the game. They're remarks from one participant/audience member to another.

However, having alignment in the game would not in any way have prevented the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion, so the gaming moment would not have been prevented.

I've posted multiple times - the fictional events are not in and of themselves the great gaming moment. What would be an impediment to my participation in that gaming moment would not be alignment preventing the PC sacrificing his friend and companion - who thinks alignment prevents players declaring actions? - but that it would require me to judge the action and potentially impose a new ingame state on the PC as part of my refereeing responsibilities. And of course the player would know I was doing this, and respon appropriately to that knowledge in his playing of his PC.

And that's what I don't want.

You would have t assess whether the sacrifice of his friend and companion was an evil act, but a single evil act does not make a person evil.

As I posted a page or two upthread, this is the very thing that is an impediment to my play experience. And you yourself acknowledge that using alignment requires me to do it. So why do you keep telling me that alignment would not be an impediment to my experience. Why are you so confident that I'm wrong in saying that I don't wish to engage in that process of evaluative judgement as part of refereeing the game?

If we accept Hussar’s proposition that every character has a network he can leverage for support, then any time that network decides they are displeased by the character’s actions, the character loses leverage in the fiction – does he also get to define their responses to his actions?

<snip>

So that Deity of Law and Good forming and expressing an opinion is a gamewrecker, but it’s OK for the angel, a being of Light and Good, to have and express an opinion? I’m seeing a less and less bright line to your evaluative criteria for who in the game gets to apply evaluative criteria.

If the relationship is part of the suite of resources the player has bought with PC building currency - which is what in my view a cleric or paladin's god is - then yes, the player does get a say. (Just like, if Superman's player has spent build points on Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, the GM isn't free just to kill them off willy-nilly.)

The difference between the god and the angel is that the player is free, in character, to judge the angel wrong. This is an example of those "physical" moral consequenes that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] described about half-a-dozen posts upthread.

 

[Cadence]

I don't have, and have never read, the 2nd ed DMG so I don't know what, if anything, it says to temper the above. But just reading that I don't really see the great difference from the passages you quoted from Gygax (right down to "only the DM knows for sure").

I hadn't remembered there being an entire six page chapter (number four) on alignment!

Even though it definitely echoes 1e in spots, it seems to have a huge shift in that it actually has the DM talking with the players and not springing surprise penalties on them. The last paragraph in the section on Role-playing alignment seems especially important (the bolding is mine, ellipses indicate where I cut things out - several sections of the chapter are not quoted below at all).

Alignment is a shorthand description of a complex morel code. ... In sudden or surprising situations, it guides the DM's evaluation of NPC or creature reactions. By implication, it predicts the types of laws and enforcement found in a given area. ...

... It is not a hammer to pound over the head of player characters who misbehave. It is not a code of behavior carved in stone. It is not absolute, but can vary from place to place.

During play, pay attention to the actions of the player characters. Occasionally compare these against the characters' alignments. Note instances in which the character acted against the principles of his alignment. Watch for tendencies to drift toward another, specific alignment.

If a character's class requires that he adhere to a specific alignment, feel free to caution him when a proposed action seems contrary to that alignment. Allow the player to reconsider.

Never tell a player that his character cannot do something because of his alignment! Player characters are controlled by the players. The DM intervenes only in rare cases (when the character is controlled by a spell or magical item, for example).

Finally as in all points of disagreement 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 our game, the campaign world is not yours alone - it belongs to your players as well.

... Let players make their own decisions and their own mistakes. The DM has enough to do without taking over the players' jobs, too.

Despite this prohibition, the DM can suggest to a player that an action involves considerable risk, especially where alignment is concerned. If the player still decides to go ahead, the consequences are his responsibility. Don't get upset about what happens to the character. If the paladin is no longer a paladin, well, that's just the way things are.

Such suggestions need to be brazen. True, the DM can ask, "Are you sure that's a good idea, given your alignment?" He can also use more subtle forms of suggestion woven into the plot of the adventure. ... That night, he has a nightmare...

...

There are two possible effects of changing alignment, depending on the situation and circumstances of the change. The first results in no penalty at all. This effect should only be used when the player and the DM mutually agree that the character's alignment should be changed to improve the play of the game.

... As DM, try to accommodate the desires of your players, if those desires won't hurt the game.

In the second type of voluntary change, the case cannot be made that the alignment change would be for the good of the game. This generally involves more established characters who have been played according to one alignment for some time. Here, the effects of alignment change are severe and noticeable.

The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-classs characters) is doubled...

[Insert 8 paragraphs on how the penalty is modified in various cases]

I think if it ever came up we would have stopped with the bolded part (my bolding again) in this last section and skipped the penalties, unless we didn't want the player in the game anymore.