Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

4th Edition oversimplified everything. So to say they did Alignment correctly when it was merely an afterthought is proof that some people don't have the ability to play games beyond WoW.

4th edition's alignment system is very close to the system found in original D&D and Moldvay Basic. It thus predates WoW by some decades.

 

[pemerton]

The minute a being is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnipresent... it is fallible.

How so? A pocket calculator is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent - but it is infallible in its domain, namely, of doing 8-figure arithmetic.

When Descartes ran the cogito argument - which takes as a premise that a person is infallible in the rather narrow domain of knowing whether or not s/he is thinking - he wasn't thereby posting that people are omniscient. (As it happens I think the cogito argument, and the premise I have mentioned, are suspect; but the point still stands as an illustration that there is no general connection between fallibility in a domain and omniscience.)

Here's the defintion of evil... and not once does it mention the disregard of things that are valuable or a misunderstanding of valuable things

It's there in numbers 1 and 4: moral wrongness resulting (in the context of a god described as "evil") from bad character.

so you were tracking the concordance level of the artifact and it reached a zero, is that what you are now claiming because you made no mention of that whatsoever?

No, the concordance was actually around 12, from memory - there may be a drop for opposing Vecna but I haven't done my bookkeeping to factor that in. (And reading on through your post I see there is no such drop.) The point of quoting that passage was to indicate the general capabilities of the artefact.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to be hounded for being too flexible in my setting of stakes and consequences in a skill challenge by a poster who is fairly well known for posting how narrow and inflexible 4e is.

for the record Kord does not have athleticism as an actual domain

Seriously, I could post that "a" is the indefinite article in English and you'd dispute it.

From the 4e PHB, p 22:

Kord is the storm god and the lord of battle. He revels in strength, battlefield prowess, and thunder. Fighters and athletes revere him. . . He . . . commands . . . [his followers to b]e strong.​

What is your threshold of evidence for accepting that a god is the god of athleticism? For me, that threshold is more than reached by the above.

Or is your point that, in the chart on p 62 of the PHB, and in Divine Power, the domain is labelled "Strength" rather than "Athleticism"? (What does the Strength domain give its adherents who take the requisite feat? Oh look, a +2 bonus to Athletics.)

 

[pemerton]

So it's OK to deny access to one or more class features for some period of time, but not a period that makes it "ongoing", however long that may be.

Allow me to reiterate - there is no usage of the phrase "deny access to one or more class features" that encompasses dealing 1 hp of damage to a target. Which is what we are talking about in this particular case.

I mean not "By fiat, your familiar is not available", but an actual rule you can cite by which the familiar is removed as a consequence of an action taken by the player in the skill challenge.

I quoted the relevant skill challenge rules upthread. They expressly encompass the taking of damage in various ways as a possible consequence or stake in a skill challenge. In order to further satisfy your interrogatories, I post here the notes I had made for the particular skill challenge in question prior to the session:

This is a L25 comp 5 skill challenge (21/29/38, 8M+4H before 3F, 6 Adv).

In the first stage the PCs must sweep through the Soul Abattoir, freeing souls while destroying shrivers and torture machinery. Each failure costs either 6d10+8 to the failing PC, or 3d10+9 to all the PCs, depending on fictional positioning.

• To charge among the shrivers and fall upon them, Athletics or Acrobatics (+2 to check if use close burst power), or Stealth if enhanced in some way, or Intimidate if prepared to take damage as per a failure (max 4 successes);
  
• To free souls (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Religion (+2 to check if use Turn Undead-type power) (max 2 successes);
  
• To destroy machinery (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Arcana or Dungeoneering (max 2 successes).

After 7 successes, the PCs have a final confrontation with the shrivers (see over).

If the shrivers are defeated, the Soul Abattoir will start to collapse. This is the second stage, and requires:

• Escape (Group Athletics and/or Acro vs M difficulties, max 2 successes);
  
• Holding back the energies (Arcana, max 1 success);
  
• Prayers to the Raven Queen (Religion, max 2 successes);
  
• Withstanding the energies and dust (Endurance, if done as solo H then can grant others +2 to escape; otherwise group; max 1 success each);
  
• Insight can reveal the presence of Vecna (no success, no failure) via Malstaph’s imp.

If the Challenge is failed, Vecna takes control of the Soul Abattoir as the imp, under the control of the Eye, breaks free from Malstaph. (If this happens before reaching 7 successes, the shrivers converge on the PCs as they are driven back.)​

In fact it didn't end up playing quite like that. For instance, as best I recall the Insight check was counted as a success. Also, at the climax I decided it would be more dramatic if Vecna was going to get the souls unless the invoker, who was controlling the soul energies (via a Religion check - another departure from how I had anticipated it might play out), deliberately chose to divert them to the Raven Queen. That choice had a cost - namely, the suffering of 1 hp of damage by the imp familiar. (Though at the time I didn't describe it that way - what the player cares about is not that his imp has taken 1 or 10 or 100 hp of damage, but that it is shut down.)

The Paladin’s play may lead to him engaging in combat, wherein a d20 is rolled, an attack bonus added, it exceeds his AC and hp damage is rolled. What mechanic was engaged against the Invoker?

You seem to have in mind some rather narrow version of action resolution mechanics, in which damage can only be inflicted as a result of an attack roll in combat. (Perhaps a failed save as well? I would imagine that's an element of the version of D&D you play.)

I play a version of D&D which has action resolution mechanics for non-combat as well as combat situations, and has rules for handling the dealing of damage in those situations (I refer you to the passages I have already mentioned and quoted upthread, starting with p 42 of the DMG).

The sense I got from your writeup is that you decided, since the choice was made to redirect the souls, Vecna punished the invoker. Not that the player rolled, and his roll determined that his familiar took damage, but he still succeeded in redirecting the souls. Not that he failed by 1 and invoked a power that said “add a +2 bonus to a roll at the cost of your familiar taking 1 point of damage; this can be done after the results of the roll are determined”. That the GM said “because you redirected the souls, Vecna is angered and injures your familiar” with no use of the action resolution mechanics.

The sense I got from my writeup is that it's about setting stakes. The invoker has deliberately positioned himself in a dangerous way in relationship to Vecna. He has implanted the Eye in his imp, in part because he wants to use Vecna's penchant for secrets to counterbalance the imp's role as a watcher for Levistus; in part because he wants the powers of the Eye, which include some nice bonuses to Arcana and Perception, among other things, but he doesn't want to have to implant the Eye in himself to get those powers.

When I, as GM, then tell the player that he has to choose between Vecna, who is using his imp as a conduit to take control of the souls, and the Raven Queen, the stakes are set - the imp is in play. And the player is not surprised that the imp is in play! He knows why - he knows that he has set this up! He chooses, knowing the stakes, and the consequences follow: Vecna shuts down the imp, technically by dealing 1 hp of damage to it.

Did the player fail a skill check to cause the familiar to be harmed? Did he deliberately accept harm to the familiar in order to obtain a bonus in the skill challenge?

He deliberately accepted the prospect of harm to his familiar by thwarting Vecna's attempt to use it as his conduit for the soul energy.

So there is no mechanic around this? The GM can simply declare the owner of the Eye dead at his sole discretion?

From the DMG, p 165:

When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . . .

A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment (for instance, ripping itself from the character’s eye socket during a battle).​

In that case, why is the Imp only incapacitated?

Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps its because, as a GM, I'm not a big fan of making unilateral changes to my players' PC builds.

 

[pemerton]

So only evil gods are not perfect exemplars? Why?

So, wait, a 25+ INT and WIS Good or Neutral (or Unaligned) deity has unquestionable judgment, but the same scores possessed by an Evil deity leaves them inherently flawed with an erroneous understanding?

Yes, they are not perfect exemplars of values. I hadn't realised that that was contentious! What do you think "evil" means? I think it means - drawing on Imaro's posted definitions upthread - of bad character, or perhaps prone to wrongdoing. If so-called "evil" gods pursued values without error or corruption, then they wouldn't be evil, would they?

What is the source of the corruption? Let's have a look at the 4e account of "evil" first, from the PHB p 20: "It is my right to claim what others possess." That is a proclamation of selfishness. And selfish desire is one major source of distortion or corruption in the recognition of and response to value.

The 3E definition of "evil" isn't a million miles away on this point either (from the 3.5 SRD): "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. . . A neutral evil villain . . . is out for herself, pure and simple. . . A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do."

It's not a radical claim in moral psychology to suggest that these are descriptions of psychological orientations that produce distortion or corruption in the appreciation of value.

RPG’s require a GM to evaluate success.

But I know from experience that they do not require a judge to determine evaluative adequacy or success at pursuing values.

So, once sole responsibility for assessing consistency with the code is assigned to the player, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code. Just ask the player. Whatever the character does is in perfect compliance, absent the player’s decision that it is not.

"Decision" is probably not the right verb there - for instance, it is possible for a person to arrive at a judgement without choosing to do so. I would therefore rephrase "Whatever the character does is in perfect compliance, absent the player's judgement that it is not." I could also rephrase it "Whatever the character does is in violation, absent the player's judgement that it is not."

So Vecna judges, but Kord does not.

I don't know why you say that. I've already given an example upthread in which a player might regard Vecna as exemplifying the truth about secrecy (and, as I said, presumably therefore doesn't regard Vecna as evil). In those cases, I would not - as GM - second-guess the player's conception of what true secrecy requires.

It is also possible to imagine a PC who serves Kord much as the invoker in my game serves Vecna: the PC regards prowess as a value, but thinks that Kord has a deficient conception of that value (eg perhaps Kord fails to see how prowess is valuable primarily as a means to other ends, rather than an end in itself). In such a case the player would, presumably, not regard his/her PC's choices as necessarily giving voice to Kord's distorted conception of prowess. In which case difference could open up between the PC and Kord.

Of course, that still wouldn't be analogous to what actually happened with Vecna in my game, because the invoker in my game did not purport to be serving the value of secrecy by thwarting Vecna.

You seem to expect that all will agree that your play examples are above reproach

No. I just expect people to post with a modest degree of respect, and as part of that to make a good faith effort to understand my approach and reasoning as a GM.

For instance, instead of saying "Ha ha, you were inconsistent!" you might ask "What difference do you see between deciding that Vecna is angry and deciding that a PC has acted immorally". And then I would explain - that in the first case the player himself chose to have his PC thwart, and thereby anger, Vecna whereas the second case involves telling the player that his/her evaluative judgement of his/her PC's conduct is mistaken.

you were judging a PC's actions based on whether or not they were crossing Vecna and imposing a consequence. And frankly the difference between doing that and judging an action based on alignment doesn't exist. It's a player crossing some line and the GM adjudicating the consequences.

How many times you express a contrary view is unlikely to change our interpretation – no more likely than these repetitions are to change yours.

I'm not inviting you to change your interpretation. I'm just inviting you to notice that someone might draw a distinction that you don't, and care about it.

The distinction is between embracing and reinforcing a player's conception of his PC as thwarting Vecna and thwarting and undermining a player's conception of his/her PC as loyal to and upholding the values of his/her deity. I get it that you, [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] don't care about this distinction in your GMing or your play. But it is pretty crucial to mine.

Both involve imposing consequences on the player’s ability to impact the fiction based on the moral judgements his character makes

<snip>

That was why you indicated denying the Paladin’s powers due to failure to comply with his alignment was inappropriate.

That's not what I have said. It's barely close to what I've said. I have said that I do not want to have to adjudicate the adequacy of the players' evaluative responses expressed via the play of his/her PC. Having Vecna punish the PC for getting in his way is not doing this. It is affirming the player's conception of his PC. Not thwarting or contradicting it. And it says nothing about whether or not the player made the right choice: that is up for them to decide, taking into account - among other relevant bits of information - that it is a choice that angers Vecna.

Whereas telling a player that his PC has violated his/her PC's code because failing to be true to his/her commitments and his/her deity is (i) denying the player's conception of his/her PC, and (ii) telling her that his/her conceptions of what the relevant values require is mistaken. And these are the things that I do not want to do.

The GM is not, once again, evaluating the player, or character’s response. He is assessing its result within the larger context of the game world.

I know that this is what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] does with alignment, and I gather what you do. I have explained why it is not desirable to me: it requires either or both of (i) subordinating the player's evaluative judgement to that of the GM, or (ii) of pretending that some values defined and interpreted loosely by the GM, that may or may not be real values that really are valuable, really do have value, and making those imagined values as interpreted or defined by the GM the focus of play. These features of the activity make it unappealing to me: I personally don't see the point of exploring the implications, as determined by the GM, of the GM's conception of some imagined value.

My interest in creative endeavours, however trite or banal - and including RPGs in that category - is in encountering ideas about real value (moral, aesthetic, whatever - there are many domains of value, both in general and engaged via RPG play). For instance, what makes the movie Hero very moving to me is not that it starts from an assumption that peace by way of unification is more important than loyalty; nor that it starts from an assumption that one can persuade another by being willing to die for a cause; but that it makes a powerful case for both those contentions. The work is committed, and (because of the skill of the artists involved) communicates the commitment with power.

Not all works of art are as didactic as Hero. But worthwhile ones, or those which aspire to be worthwhile, engage with reality and the reality of value.

I find that real world ethical philosophy has about as much place in a fantasy RPG as real-world legal principals applied to RPG adventuring contracts

I quite agree - both are important, though not for exactly the same reasons.

Real-world legal principles (of the relevant culture and historical period) are important to me for the verisimilitude of the setting, to the extent that they come into play. For instance, if a setting is roughly feudal Europe, than I expect the legal norms to roughly reflect those of feudal Europe.

Real values also contribute to verisimilitude. I expect the protagonists and antagonists in a fantasy world to be motivated by the same sorts of motivations, and have the same sorts of relationships to value, as one finds in the real world.

But real value matters in another way, too: it underpins the worth of the creative endeavour. The value of a player's portrayal of an honourable warrior, for instance, is in exploring what honour requires, not some stipulated and gerrymandered alternative to that notion that has no actual significance to anyone in the real world. Or when a player has his PC sacrifice a friend and a companion to a dark god, I am not interested in thinking about the significance of that within some stipulated framework in which friendship and death don't matter; I am not interested in having a GM define a set of notions that have no meaning outside the fantasy of the gameworld and then telling me all about the character using that fantasy language. Friendship and death, in fact, do matter, and that truth of value is what makes the episode a significant moment in play, and a significant choice for the character and his player. It tells us something real about the character - for example, about his ruthlessness - and also reminds us of something real beyond the character and the game itself.

As I've already mentioned, my game is not an example of great art. Most of the events that occur are not of much interest to anyone but the participants. But that doesn't mean they don't connect to reality. It's like when I get out my my guitar to play for myself or my family - no one else is going to want to listen to me play and sing, but that doesn't mean that I'm not aspiring to real value in my performance.

Can Lancelot’s player declare that adultery is a virtue, and thus it is so?

Huh? Lancelot knew that adultery was a vice. That's the point of the story: it wouldn't be at all tragic if he and Guinevere were just confused as to what morality required.

What would be interesting, if one were roleplaying out this sort of episode, is to frame it in terms of fidelity: which is more important, fidelity to husband? fidelity to lord and king? or fidelity to one's true beloved? That could be interesting to play out. (I have GMed an episode of play that touched on elements of this question, but not quite as immediately as the Lancelot story does. I have, too, played a paladin - well, technically a fighter-cleric - who fell in love with another PC, and had to decide whether love or chastity was the higher virtue.)

 

[pemerton]

When did Arthur or Aragorn heal with a touch, or show evidence of being warded by the divine from evil magic?

Aragorn - "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer". Arthur I don't know off the top of my head - but other examples of the trope include King Edward the Confessor, who was reputed to heal with a touch.

As for being warded from evil magic by the divine? The whole of Arthur's reign, and the blissful period of Camelot - until it was riven by sin, of course. Aragorn's survival throughout his adventures, up to his realisation of his destiny to become king.

BTW, how did the Ranger of the North become one of your top choices for the inspiration for the Paladin class? I seem to dimly recall there might be another class which he inspired, but the name escapes me. Was it Northerner? Was it OfThe? It’s right on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t seem to place it…

<snip>

Anyone know of any fictional characters that might have inspired the Ranger? D&D was influenced a lot by Tolkein – any chance there was someone in Middle Earth that somehow was connected to a class like a Ranger?

OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is modelled on the classic trope of divinely bestowed kingship?

 

[pemerton]

And if he/she regularly bravely runs away with coconut-clattering minstrel in tow and makes it clear they think that running away has nothing to do with bravery...

An extreme example which, as expected, is dismissed.

This is some new use of "dismissal", is it - according to which around 700 words of reply, including an extended actual play example to provide at least one illustration of how such a scenario might actually unfold in play, is dismissing someone's question?

Was there anything that was unclear to you about those posts in reply?

So what happens when the Paladin runs away and the berserker/Cleric stands and fights (somehow surviving), after which he berates the cowardice of the Paladin. Which of them has been true to the principals of their deity? Both insist that they are right. Both are bound up in the tenets of Kord. Both are PC’s. One is adamant that fleeing was cowardice, and the other that it was not. One of them has to be wrong.

Guess what - this is what actual play is for. Why would it be the GM's job to step in and sort it out for them?

These things actually happen in my game. Two (or more) PCs differ over what the Raven Queen requires. Two (or more) PCs differ over what decency requires. Two PCs, both committed to relieving the compassion of all sentient beings, disagree over what course of action will best achieve that, in part because they disagree over what counts as suffering and as relieving suffering (one is more worldly, the other more esoteric).

Let’s build on it – both were killed in battle, the Berserker/Cleric battling to the bitter end and the Paladin caught fleeing from the battle and slain. They now stand face to face with Kord, awaiting his judgment (just as your Dwarf met his God and discussed his own actions). Neither character has any doubt they were correct – each player believes his character was played perfectly within conception and the tenets of Kord.

And?

For a start, I wouldn't frame such a scene if I didn't know how to handle it. If I did, who know - perhaps Kord has them duke it out to see who is more worthy. Perhaps Kord reveals that the cowardice of one served some higher purpose, or taught him a lesson, or even - if Kord is feeling light-hearted - illustrated the virtues of being able to run quickly!

These constant hypotheticals in fact remind me of a further reason why I don't like alignment - it tries to answer all these question in advance, whereas my preference is that they be addressed and answered in play.

Can you cite a page reference that indicates the activities which are undertaken by a dead character? To the extent this is how you run your game, and not how the game rules provide for action resolution on the part of dead characters, then it is outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics. Was there a roll to determine whether the PC was, or was not, perceived by RQ as acting consistent with her wishes? If the player is the sole arbiter of his code, how is it that you, through the RQ, assessed his compliance with it? Or is the player the sole arbiter only if he chooses to be, and can delegate that right and responsibility to the GM, in whole or in part, at his sole discretion.

<snip>

The fact that this is a single unique occurrence or a routine feature of your game has no relevance in assessing whether it is, or is not, is outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics.

I'm not sure I understand. I'm now a bad GM, or an inconsistent GM, or something, because I have framed scenes in which dead PCs meet their makers, and I didn't have the express permission of the rulebooks to do so? (Which may not even be true - looking at p 161 of the DMG I see that "When mortal creatures die, their spirits travel first to the Shadowfell before moving on to their final fate", while p 160 tells me that "the Raven Queen’s palace of Letherna stands in the Shadowfell".)

If you're saying that, when a player whose PC is dead wants to play out a conversation with his immortal mistress - in circumstances where that mistress is also the god of the dead, and the PC is one of her marshals (a Marshal of Letherna) - it's bad GMing to frame and resolve that scene, then our conceptions of what makes for good RPGing are even more different than I thought.

The player, playing his PC, expressed doubts about his resolution and sought advice. I, playing the Raven Queen, offered some advice. How is that thwarting or denying the player's conception of his/her PC. It is affirming it, and building on it.

And why would I roll dice to decide what the Raven Queen thinks? The player wants a scene in which he expresses his doubts, explores them and (hopefully) has them resolved. That seems to me to call for a sensitivity in GMing which is pretty much the opposite of rolling dice.

 

[pemerton]

I'm trying to picture what changes would need to be made in PF's handling of alignment so that it wasn't hamstringing the fun for about 1/2 the posters in this thread. I can picture an optional alignment system that handles those issues, is pretty straightforward, doesn't require rewriting all kinds of creatures, domains, magic items, and spells, and probably wouldn't change the actual play of the game for lots of parties.

I'm not 100% sure what the context is. If I was running PF, I would probably ignore alignment. And if a demon or anti-cleric used a Blasphemy against the PCs, I imagine it would target all of them.

So, if the enforcement of the class penalties was up to the player (they decide if their violation deserves a warning or loss of power or whatever), and if there was some remediation available to those who lost a huge swath of power (maybe some training program to convert them into combat feats or whatnot that is about the difficulty of an atonement spell and quest?), and if the cosmology of fallen succubi were dealt with in a reasonable way,... what were the other deal breakers on alignment?

Just want to make sure I'm not leaving out any other big sticking points. (For example, are there concerns that detecting alignment of non-outsiders/undead makes it too easy to ruin some types of mysteries or something like that...)

Am I still envisaging that every NPC has an alignment tag, and the paladin (or cleric, or whomever) can walk around casting Detect X and work out who has what tag?

That's a deal breaker for me, and not so much because it wrecks mysteries - that's a broader issue with mind-reading magic - but because it forecloses the very sorts of issues that I am wanting to put into play.

I've now reread your earlier post 652 and my reply 756. If you're confining "Detect X" to "Detect outsider or divine caster who serves Lord of ABC" that's less of an issue for me. I'm personally not sure that I want to play that game - it has the potential to be a little black hat/white hat for my taste, unless the various Lords are handled very deftly both in establishing the setting and in adjudicating it. The reason I say this is that, by framing your lords in that way, you are making it very easy for everyone's thinking to just slip back into stereotypes - whereas a framing that treats alignment as purely a metagame shorthand (ie part 1 of your 3 proposals in 652) doesn't constantly reinforce those stereotypes in the same sort of way.

And to give an example of what I have in mind as needing "deft GMing" - how do we handle a servant of the Lords of Chaos turning out to be a good guy? (Yet still not registering to Detect Good, but only to Detect Chaos?) That's not just a hypothetical for me, either - this issue is in the process of arising in my 4e game, as the drow chaos sorcerer/Demonskin Adept/Emergent Primordial continues to profess his loyalty to Corellon as well as to Chan, Elemental Queen of good air elementals, and his opposition to Lolth. Having ingame events continually produce these divinely ordained labels has the potential - not the certainty, of course - of making these tricky situations even trickier but for no real payoff that I can see, other than not having to rewrite whole swathes of the system.

A question, too: if only a limited range of beings have cosmological alignment, how does your proposed reform handle Holy Word and its siblings/cousins? From the purely mechanical point of view, those spells seem to rely on everyone having a relevant label.

EDIT: [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], maybe you should just skip this whole page!

 

[Sadras]

A couple of questions. First, if Roghar carried out Baern's instructions why did Baern kill Roghar's wife? Or are those meant to be alternative possiblities?

Alternate possibilities.

Second, is this an actual play example, or is it a hypothetical?

Hypothetical.

If it's a hypothetical, and you're asking me how I would handle it, then I don't have an answer. This is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves. What are you expecting the GM to do?

I was assessing your involvement as a DM, with regards to the flagrant breaking of the paladin code by characters, although justified through great roleplay.

If I were DM I would personally take a more active involvement - perhaps beginning with messages through dreams before any murder had taken place when the feelings of betrayal first started brewing, perhaps a temporary loss of powers, perhaps the celestial horse unwilling to seat the kidnapping paladin - at least not with ease...etc before having to take a heavier handed route - where the accessing of divine powers opened wounds on the "fallen" paladin and then finally when the murderous act was done, the paladin would suffer a loss of powers - a complete disconnect from his deity...but all this would be roleplayed out. This all at the top of my head. Preferably I would like to think it over and have the "fall" done more tastefully/be more dramatic, especially the moment the heavy act was done, something worthy for the great roleplay by the players.

I would furthermore award experience points for the roleplaying.

I have no idea about what has happened to take this to this point. Why is one paladin acting as a kidnapper and forcing another to act as an assassin? Why is he not challenging the other to a duel, for instance? Why is he not denouncing his father in pubic, and perhaps raising an army to depose him? It sounds to me like the story you describe is at the 11th hour, and without any information on what happend in the preceding 10 hours and 59 minutes you're asking me to decide how it should resolve.

You might sincerely be confused, I cannot honestly deny you this, but you are the only poster which is demanding more details for what I believe was a decently drawn hypothetical. Perhaps he already denounced his father in public, perhaps he already tried to raise opposition - hence the reason for his banishment from the kingdom. How does any of that change your answer of

I don't have an answer. This is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves. What are you expecting the GM to do?

I do not believe more details would change it (your answer), then why do you even bother making these kind of statements about the 11th hour...and so on?

 

[Sadras]

The below to me is the greatest proof that the anti-alignment posters decide what to qualitatively evaluate, which reflects a degree of inconsistency and a preference to a certain level of consequence-free settings.

If a Paladin does a good deed and is rewarded by his deity (and thereby judged by the DM) why isn't that admonished? Why is the good deed not a problem for the anti-alignment crowd? Is it easier to evaluate a good or lawful deed? Or is the only safe or acceptable approach a fail-forward approach?

Which is absolutely fine, to each their own, IMO it just means they prefer a less grittier and traditional version of your D&D settings and we all do in some way - I mean we still use hit points.

 

[Grydan]

First: Apparently you didn't read my post that well because I even stated that these rules can be overlooked in instances of wise or intelligent creatures. Dumb demons kill without regard for survival as they generally don't care as long as they are serving a "higher purpose" usually in the form of a Greater Demon or cause. Greater Demons are usually going to use "disposable minions" to serve their needs. I'd say the point makes itself but as evidenced by prior posts, I'm having better luck convincing a wall to stand aside.

Purpose and hierarchy are, again, concepts at odds with chaos. Chaos is purposeless and unstructured. Purpose and structure are the hallmarks of order.

Also, intelligence and wisdom seem to be carrying the workload of telling us how creatures behave here to a much greater extent than alignment (or at least, the Law/Chaos axis). That stupid characters do stupid things is entirely consistent. That chaotic characters behave predictably is not.

Second: Basically you just said that anytime some form of entity acts a certain way that can predictably be noted, it is no longer Chaotic. Demons can't be Chaotically Aligned because they quite predictably murder and bring darkness into the world? Are you daft or is it you don't know what you are talking about?

As I believe I've indicated before, I do not use mechanical alignment. Whether something can or cannot be 'Chaotically Aligned' is irrelevant to me.

I am definitely not saying that no creature can follow the set of behaviours that you have described: it's a perfectly reasonable set of behaviours to use (well, in the sense of having a game character behave that way: I certainly wouldn't endorse them as a set of behaviours for use in real life).

What I'm saying is that to call that set of behaviours 'Chaotic' is unhelpful to anyone not steeped in D&D lore (and in agreement with your interpretation thereof), because it's at odds with what chaotic means in natural language.

Any common-use definition of chaos, as well as more formal definitions used for scientific applications (chaos theory) include the idea of unpredictability. Behaviour that follows a predictable pattern isn't chaotic. It might be 'Chaotic' with a capital C in game jargon, but that just means it's poorly labelled. I mean, the game might also say that items dropped fall Diagonally Up towards the Wall, by which it actually means what in natural language we'd call 'down towards the floor', but however well experienced players understand what's meant by the game terms, it's still obscure to an outsider.

If I needed a blanket term to describe "characters who, when given the choice, would rather break the law than obey it, given that they believe they can avoid being punished", I'd perhaps label it 'unlawful' ... but I don't think I particularly need such a blanket term.

Take an open road, free of traffic, free of speed traps, with a posted maximum speed limit. Take four drivers.

The first observes the posted limit and sets their speed a little under it (to allow themselves room for error), and then maintains that speed.
The second observes the posted limit, notes that there's nobody there enforcing it, checks the time, and then accelerates to a speed in excess of the legal limit, but within their ability to maintain control and avoid obstacles.
The third observes the posted limit, scoffs, and immediately floors it, trying to find the upper limits of their car's performance and their ability to maintain control.
The fourth observes the posted limit, and then proceeds to accelerate above the limit, then go below the limit, then suddenly brake as if to avoid an obstacle that isn't there, then signals a left turn but backs up in a straight line, then drives in circles for a while before accelerating to precisely the legal limit ... perpendicular to the road.

One of these drivers is driving in a manner that might be described (by someone uninitiated in the vagaries of the 9-point Alignment grid) as chaotic. Hint: it's not the one who is making the considered and rational cost/benefit analysis that lets him get to his destination faster without penalty. Nor is it the one with the need for speed, despite their blatant disregard for lawfulness (or their own safety).

I should note that in addition to finding 'Chaotic' as you define it rather unchaotic, I feel similarly about Poul Anderson's use of the terms Order and Chaos in Three Hearts and Three Lions (which is mentioned in Appendix N and is a very clear influence on the D&D conception of the Paladin and the troll). The forces of Order seem utterly disorganized, while the forces of Chaos have a rather strict hierarchy where there's no doubt about who is in charge, and the real world faction that gets labelled chaotic is a frequent exemplar of Lawful Evil when people attempt to apply the nine-point grid to the real world.

And I don't need an alignment label to tell me that demons like to kill, destroy, and bring about darkness. The fact that they're demons pretty much covers that sufficiently, and if not (given that D&D considers devils and demons as separate types of creature that can meaningfully be lumped together into those two categories, rather than synonyms as the terms often are in other material), the phrase "demons like to kill, destroy, and bring about darkness" is far more useful and informative in terms of how I should run them as a DM and how I should expect them to act if I encounter them while playing.

Third: I should have stated "innocent" in my prior post and for that I apologize. Hopefully this clears things up.

That would improve things, certainly, though I suppose where you put it would be rather significant.

Fourth: 4th Edition oversimplified everything. So to say they did Alignment correctly when it was merely an afterthought is proof that some people don't have the ability to play games beyond WoW.

It oversimplified everything? One of the complaints frequently voiced by those who dislike the system is that the fighter isn't simple, as it traditionally was. I'm not interested in engaging in an edition war, because it's no skin off my nose which editions you like or dislike, but hyperbole is rarely helpful.

I also didn't say it "did alignment correctly", I said that Unaligned is more coherent than True Neutral, and gave reasons why I believe that to be so (admittedly more on the side of 'True Neutral is incoherent' than on the side of 'Unaligned is coherent', but I didn't feel much needed to be said about the coherency of Unaligned).

I've never played WoW. I'm unsure of its relevance to the topic at hand.

I also think that the people I've been playing RPGs with over the past few years would be quite astonished to find that I am, apparently, unable to play RPGs. I'll have to make sure to inform them at the next session.

Fifth: Again, you apparently didn't read what I had written in my prior post. I said EQUALLY balanced. It doesn't mean as simply kill one then don't kill another. It means that all things even out in the end. If a Neutral person went around murdering everyone in sight, they wouldn't be Neutral or "Unaligned" as they'd be EVIL. Same thing goes if they gave every gold they ever earned to charity, they'd be GOOD. "Unaligned" is a simple way to say that they don't do enough on ANY AXIS to be regarded as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. It is the same F-ing thing.

Apparently you didn't read my post either, so perhaps we're even in that respect. For clearly the hypothetical Neutral murderer I posited doesn't murder everyone in sight. Just half of everyone. They have to not-murder someone for every one they murder, after all. You know, for balance.

Kidding aside, you're the one who said that they have to break an equal law for every law they follow. What law is the neutral person breaking to make up for following the 'don't murder people' one? How about to make up for not committing treason? I mean, I find it terribly easy not to commit treason (the combination of lack of motive and lack of opportunity makes it quite effortless to obey the law), but it's also considered one of the gravest offences I could possibly commit, so obeying the law must require some pretty big law being broken to keep me in balance if I want to stay Neutral, right? Or is it based on the difficulty of following the law, rather than the severity of the punishment? And is it civil laws, or also religious strictures? Because that's a minefield. What about unwritten societal taboos?

Clearly, I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by the phrase "for every law followed, an equal one must be broken", because I'm having a great deal of trouble figuring out how anyone can stay Neutral at all under that stricture. For every law followed (in this case, I follow the law against committing murder), an equal one (please define a law that is equal to the law against committing murder) must be broken (in order to intentionally break it, I first must know what it is ... and here's where I pass my save to resist going off on a tangent about ignorance of the law). What heinous things are all of the True Neutral people who aren't serial killers doing to make up for their obedience to the law? Or is it that there simply are no True Neutral people, and the 9-square grid has a hole in the middle, like some kind of square donut? Or is True Neutrality an inherently temporary state that one travels through when shifting from Evil to Good or Law to Chaos, where only if caught in the exact moment of transition can a character aptly be described as Truly Neutral?

And what's this about evening out in the end? Is someone who's blatantly 'Chaotic Evil' for the first half of their life, and then gets redeemed and lives out the rest of their life as a sainted paragon of virtue, the noblest of Lawful Good Paladins, somehow actually True Neutral (which would mean they can't actually be a paladin, under systems where only LG Paladins are permissible)? Surely things have to remain even (or nearly so) all along, or else the character isn't being Neutral at all.

Perhaps you can provide examples. Feel free to use other laws aside from those against murder and treason (though I'd love to see what one does to balance out obeying those). Care to give me an example of a character obeying a law, and then breaking another to balance it out and not slide away from True Neutrality and towards Lawful Neutral?

And no, Neutral as you've described it here (a balancing act between good and evil, chaos and law) is not the same thing as Unaligned. An Unaligned character doesn't worry about whether they've committed enough evil acts to balance out their good ones, or broken enough laws to make up for the ones they followed. They're not committed to an ideal of Neutrality. In fact, it's entirely possible for someone who has never performed an evil act in their life, and never broken a law, to be Unaligned. Alignment in 4E is about commitment.

If you choose an alignment, you're indicating your character's dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil. In a cosmic sense, it's the team you believe in and fight for most strongly.

​

Note the 'if'. Unaligned represents not choosing, not being dedicated to one of those sets of moral principles. Not "being dedicated to not being dedicated".

If picking an alignment is like supporting your favourite team in [insert pro sport here], Unaligned isn't supporting Team X, and it's not hoping that everyone else's favourites play equally well, it's not caring about the sport at all. (Horrible metaphor if you try and extend it any further ... just try and figure out salary caps, trading deadlines, and team relocations ...).

One can be a good person, who is kind to others, obeys the law, gives to charity, and is a general pleasure to be around, without being a Good person, dedicated to the values of good.
One can be a quite wicked person, who mistreats others, breaks the law, steals from the needy, and is generally a pain in the ... neck, without being an Evil person, dedicated to the values of Evil.

Both of those people could be Unaligned, on the 4E scheme. Or, without changing their behaviour in any way beyond making a commitment to continue it, could easily relabel themselves Good and Evil respectively.

But in one sense, I do agree with you that the 4E take is too simplistic. But that's not because I think the 9-point grid is an improvement over it, but because real-world people and systems of morality and ethics map incredibly poorly onto either scheme. It's not a black and white world, or a five shades of grey or nine points of grey world, or a Fifty Shades of Grey world, it's a swirl of colours that blend into each other and form intricate patterns and gradients. People are complex, and pigeon-holes obscure real and meaningful differences, lumping together people who may in fact have radically opposing viewpoints while separating those who differ only on minor details.

Sometimes I want a black and white world, with good guys and bad guys. I don't need mechanical alignment for that, I just tell the players (or make it clear through how characters act) "These guys are EVIL, and killing them is not only permissible but morally required". And sometimes I want a more realistic world, where players have to decide for themselves what their character's beliefs tell them about what is permissible, what is forbidden, and what is required. I don't think I've ever found myself wanting a world where there are N categories (where N is greater than 2 and less than 'as many categories as there are things to put in them') to slot people into and magic and cosmological structures that care about those categories.

Sixth: You, sir, should get your facts together and straightened out before attempting to debate over something you quite clearly know little to nothing about. It makes you look like a simpleton.

It's always a pleasure to have a nice, polite, rational conversation with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, isn't it?