Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Bedrockgames]

Oh I totally agree that it's subjective. But of alignment mechanics aren't there to enforce players behaviour then what is it there for?

To create the sense that your character inhabits a world with objective moral cosmological forces. Good exists and it is real. Evil exists and it is real. At times this will affect player behavior but i do not see that as the final purpose of alignment.

 

[S'mon]

For similar reasons I much prefer classic L/N/C alignment to AD&D-ish 9-point alignment. I think it serves that same potentially helpful descriptor role - Where do these guys fit in the cosmological struggle? - while leaving plenty of scope for GM elaboration and nuance as required.

Still, I think it is somewhat telling that the only basis for war between two LG countries can be epistemic obstacles to determining whose control over what resources would better facilitate their collective welfare. That doesn't sit well with the idea that they might be "mortal enemies" for instance, as opposed to (say) trade rivals.

I also find that the linear models - L-N-C, and 4e's LG-G-U-E-CE - seem to work much better than the twin-axis model of 1e-3e. I've been running Pathfinder recently and I'm a bit worried about Alignment problems, especially with a new player playing a Paladin and immediately saying she was looking for an opportunity to Fall!

I think I have to agree that war between two perfectly knowledgeable Utilitarian-LG countries would be pretty much impossible. Either knowledge must be imperfect, or the countries are imperfectly LG,or a different interpretation of LG is used. In practice I think few GMs use Gygax's definition of
LG; Gygax certainly didn't IMO - his LG societies tend to be quasi-medieval-Catholic, inasmuch as they're defined at all. Personally I certainly don't think of D&D Paladins as act-Utilitarians, or Bentham as LG. NG, maybe. And I guess by D&D standards the Lockean tradition is indeed more or
less CG - but these are not decisions I particularly want to have to make in-game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For me, the notion of "good" as a "cosmological force" interpreted by the GM is like the game rules that say "In this game geometry is Euclidean but pi = 3, and also it is possible to square a circle with compass and ruler". I can read the words but they don't actually describe a scenario I can make sense of. In the case of the weird geometry, perhaps if I could understand it I might enjoy it - it might be gently Lovecraftian. But in the case of "cosmological forces", to the extent that I do understand it I don't want it. Apart from anything else, why are they being labelled "good" and "evil"? Why not just call them Team A and Team B, if they're not actually intended to instantiate the values that those words describe? If the Cosmic Alignment Judge of goodness is not actually good, then in what sense is that being a judge of goodness at all? S/he's a judge of some other value, or perhaps - depending on how s/he is being played by the GM - of no value at all.

I definitely do not have this issue when i use alignment. For me it is like accepting the conceit that dragons fly and breath fire.

I see some people speak of them as team A and Team b, and i do not view different alignments this way, i view them as forces that represent different moral positions and values. Those values are labeled lawful god, chaotic good, etc.

I get that you might personally object to their charcaterization of good. On the other hand, i know lots of people who generally agree with them. I don't feel the need myself for my own views of wthics to enter into my assesment of alignment. To me, alignment is like all the other thought experiments you hre in the fantasy genre (what if there was a world where x was the case). Most of these thought experiments break down under logical scrutiny eventually. Most of my favorite fantasy books and films are riddled with these kinds of issues. But i am okay with that if the coolness and interesting factor is there for me.

There are a couple of approaches here. One the gm simpky uses th text as a guide and interprets it (i.e. In faerun good means x, even if it isn't my own personal view), the other is to take your own understanding of the key terms into the reading. Both can work. Both will have the gm be the final arbiter.

 

[billd91]

But that really only applies to 3e. Alignment based damage isn't really part of any other edition outside of very few spells like Holy Word.

It's not really just damage and it's not really just spells. I mentioned spells as an example, but there are others including paladins, evil clerics capable of turning paladins, intelligent swords with special purposes and powers devoted to destroying evil, holy avengers and spells like dispel evil and protection from evil. 3e has more of them, sure, but it wasn't like the others didn't turn up in D&D campaigns dating back to at least 1st edition.

 

[billd91]

Isn't that agreeing with me, then? If you're LG - and therefore Benthamite in the way S'mon described - you don't have any political goals other than the greatest good of the greatest number. There is no glory, no honour, no "place in the sun". (Hence Weber's dismissal of utilitarianism as a morality for shopkeepers!)

Why would all LG nations be Benthamite only without any other prejudices or priorities? Why wouldn't they have other agendas that conflict? Why wouldn't they have rivalries that they'd exploit? Alignment isn't a straight jacket into a particular utilitarian philosophy any more than it governs all aspects of a person's behavior. They could still be democrats, oligarchs, aristocrats, monarchists, whatever, and still have to manage other interests from within their specific political prejudices.

 

[Cadence]

I also find that the linear models - L-N-C, and 4e's LG-G-U-E-CE - seem to work much better than the twin-axis model of 1e-3e. I've been running Pathfinder recently and I'm a bit worried about Alignment problems, especially with a new player playing a Paladin and immediately saying she was looking for an opportunity to Fall!

I like the PF version of keeping the Cleric's feet to the fire more than the Paladin's... could just make it keeping to the deities code than to LG.
And if the character is looking for the full fall-experience, I say give it to her. Have the rest of her order hunt her down with extreme prejudice if she does and isn't truly remorseful (like the Jedi hunting the Sith... except this time all the clones won't turn on them when they're unprepared).

 

[Imaro]

Why would all LG nations be Benthamite only without any other prejudices or priorities? Why wouldn't they have other agendas that conflict? Why wouldn't they have rivalries that they'd exploit? Alignment isn't a straight jacket into a particular utilitarian philosophy any more than it governs all aspects of a person's behavior. They could still be democrats, oligarchs, aristocrats, monarchists, whatever, and still have to manage other interests from within their specific political prejudices.

Emphasis mine... this has been repeated by numerous posters (and even cited in passages from various editions) by the side that believes alignment can enhance or improve their games... Yet for some reason those who don't like or want alignment can't accept this as truthful for us and continue to paint alignment as a straight jacket. I don't think there's any real understanding or even conversation to be had until they are willing to listento this point and accept that we, as well as the books, are not lying or mistaken about this... and that regardless of the fact that they continue to see alignment in this manner, they are the ones mis-representing what alignment is. I know I'm tired of repeating it.

 

[Imaro]

...especially with a new player playing a Paladin and immediately saying she was looking for an opportunity to Fall!

Wait... so you have a player who chose the paladin with the intention of not playing the archetype in the manner it's meant to be played in? Are you still up for playing with this person?

 

[TwoSix]

Wait... so you have a player who chose the paladin with the intention of not playing the archetype in the manner it's meant to be played in? Are you still up for playing with this person?

I don't know, I think playing with a paladin who's up front about his desire to explore the mechanics and storyline ramifications of falling would be quite interesting. Maybe even have a Vader-esque redemption at the end of the game.

(And if you time it so you fall at 11th level, making you a ex-paladin 1/blackguard10, well, who's counting?)

 

[Imaro]

I don't know, I think playing with a paladin who's up front about his desire to explore the mechanics and storyline ramifications of falling would be quite interesting. Maybe even have a Vader-esque redemption at the end of the game.

(And if you time it so you fall at 11th level, making you a ex-paladin 1/blackguard10, well, who's counting?)

Oh, I think so too... it's just that there were some who couldn't/didn't understand why anyone would pick a paladin and then not play to the paladin's archetype... and even went so far as to say it was the type of player they wouldn't want in their game.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that this player is using alignment but still actively taking their character's personalty into their own hands by deciding to fall and accept the consequences as opposed to claiming that they shouldn't be "punished" by the DM.

IMO, that's what I find interesting in the paladin archetype... how much are you willing to sacrifice in following your own desires/beliefs/etc and, if the player decides later, how much are you willing to give/do/sacrifice in order to have that state of grace reinstated after you have lost it.