Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Nagol]

By "odd" do you mean "true to what people at the time believed"?

Absolutely not and I dispute that there was any such belief attached to the noble promotion to knight. It was the least form of nobility assignable and existed to handle a combination of multiple sons and limited land, assignment of loyalties through subinfeudation, a safety valve for class mobility. In fact, the two ideals most commonly attached to the non-Church orders are the Code of Chivalry -- an aristocratic warrior code with deference to God pretty far down the list (and pretty much every group had that form of clause in it somewhere) and Courtly Love -- which focused on the here and now in ways while not opposed to the Divine not aligned with it either.

I find it odd anyone would think the promotion to knight meant a stronger association with the divine than say entering the lay clergy, becoming a friar, entering a monastery, entering the Church, or joining one of the holy orders of warriors that exist. It meant you were a guy to be respected, who could mete out some forms of temporal justice, was allowed to bear arms and armour, appear at court, and get hospitality as you travel.

Is the goal of fantasy RPGing to emulate Tolkien - ie to present a world that expresses the pre-modern conceits of "fairy stories", Arthurian romance and the like? Or to emulate REH, and present an essentially modern outlook located within the tropes of historical and fantastic fiction?

If the latter, then no doubt notions that the feudal hierarchy is divinely established and sanctioned will be scoffed at. But as I have suggested multiple times upthread, a paladin has no place in such a gameworld. It's not a coincidence that REH's Conan contains no paladins or saints. (The closest I can think of is in The Phoenix on the Sword.

If the former, then of course the knights that don't belong to holy orders are nevertheless participants in a divinely ordained hierarchy, and draw such divine inspiration as is suitable to their tasks. Mediaeval kings were annointed, after all - like bishops - although they did not themselves take holy orders. Paladins, and other knights called to divine service, are the highest exemplar to which other knights aspire.

Peasants also participate the divine hierarchy, your point? Knights were anointed as a ceremony of attainment and that ceremony (and the religious aspect) varied considerably from region to region. In all cases, however they swore loyalty to the lord investing them first -- not to God. They swore to maintain the Church but so did the guildsmen and men-at-arms.

Please tell me one feature of Galahad or Gawaine that makes them more paladin-like than Arthur or Lancelot?

Galahad is the only knight proved pure enough to be worthy to find the Grail. Gawain is one of the greatest of the round table (possibly the best before the arrival of Lancelot). He does not suffer from Lancelot's failings, however such as killing innocents who try to wake him in his tent and sleeping with his lord's wife (a pretty unforgivable sin at the time that is mitigated only because the French added Lancelot to the stories much later) that drove Lancelot insane for a few years. Lancelot is the better horseman and with lance and sword. In short, he is a better Fighter.

 

[Nagol]

IOW, you're a proponent that mechanical alignment is required to make players play characters in a manner consistent with your views of what that class should be. Or to put it another way, alignment is necessary as a stick to enforce player behaviour.

No. alignment is a mechanism in the game that helps the players and GM understand world norms and acts a form of shorterhand for describing a character's general outlook and expected range of reaction.

In some cases, it is a used by the designers as a limiting factor for classes that allow those classes access to abilities with strings attached. My view of the classes doesn't come into it.

It is not a stick any more than a player choosing a psychological disadvantage under Hero is handing me a stick -- he is handing me a set of norms for his character. I'll let a player know if the words on his sheet need to change after extended play in a different alignment, but that really reflects how forces outside the PC interact with it (such as the various detect spells, Holy Word etc.). In other words, I adjudicate player action and the world reaction just as I do for any other form of environmental involvement. The only time I "police" alignment is when there are strings that can be severed that the player attached to the PC all by himself.

Again, totally not interested in policing my players.

I note your paladin torture example has now taken a rather hyperbolic twist - the paladin is considering torture, not because it is the only available choice, but, because it's more convenient and players will always choose convenience over playing their characters. You are absolutely right and I would also find such a narrative uninspiring. But, then, I play in a group where the entire group would find your paladin uninspiring and thus, it would not happen at my table.

The original example had two paladins arguing about whether to take this road -- implying there is another. If PC A wants to do something and PC B says no because that is a bad road, then there is probably another path. There are different possibilities as to why A wants to go down this path; convenience is one, desperation is another, perhaps the player wants to instigate a fall. The reasons don't matter to me. The action and the environmental reactions do.

 

[Arduin's]

Per the English language, saying what you are CURRENTLY doing in NOT telling a story. One MAY incorrectly label it as such but, by definition it is simply announcing what one is doing. Doing it with a group of people doesn't change that fact.

 

[N'raac]

Irrelevant. Governed by the mechanics of the game which was agreed to before play began. There are systems where things work that way, but, D&D isn't one of them. The Intimidation rules are pretty clear on how this sort of thing is resolved in D&D.

The alignment rules are also rules incorporated in the mechanics of the game. Those that choose not to use mechanical alignment are removing a mechanic of the game. The stated basis for doing so, at least for some opponents of mechanical alignment, is that it detracts from the player’s ability to create and realize his vision of the character, and his vision of the character should not be overridden by any other vision which might be imposed by a game mechanic.

The GM sets the DC of the Intimidate check, interpreting the facts of the game world into the mechanics governing the PC’s interaction with that game world, and the success or failure of his chosen actions. The GM similarly interprets the mechanical alignment rules to assess the success or failure of the PC in maintaining his stated ideals and, if his abilities are derived from devotion to that ideal, whether he has demonstrated the devotion needed to maintain those abilities.

Well, I'd say that if the paladin goes through with things, and the DM simply says, "Nope, he didn't know anything", that would violate the whole "interesting story" part. That's just a dick move by the DM. And, since the guy being tortured here (how did he become a bomber?) is an NPC, then he falls under the DM to run. No one has questioned that.

So the fact that the player chooses a person to torture (say, the sister of the bomber, as that example shows up elsewhere) because he thinks that person knows something she is not sharing. It is not possible that the sister has, in fact, not seen her brother for many weeks/months/years, as she claims, and knows nothing of his whereabouts? OK, the player gets to dictate the knowledge of NPC’s now. How did we decide that what an NPC knows is in the PC’s purview here, but the skills of the bomber, say, are not within his purview.

Governed by the mechanics. Again, Intimidate rules apply. The players know that and would act appropriately

Please refer me to the core rules for Torture as an intimidation technique, as my quick SRD/online search found a lot more questions on whether torture is a form of intimidation (none from any SRD) than rules for using torture, whether as intimidation or for some other mechanic. The threat of torture is much more often linked to Intimidate (which makes some sense – that high CHA makes your threats more vivid and seem more real). The fact that Bluff is a synergestic skill also reinforces the expectation that intimidation is more about making a threat than carrying it out.

The Intimidate rules indicate the target is considered friendly, but only while it remains intimidated, after which it changes. It does not state what information will be shared – much like alignment, “friendly” is a GM interpretation. Changing another’s behaviour requires a minute of interaction, but torture doesn’t seem like a 60 second process.

Presumably, the player also knows a failure by 5 or more will result in false information (she “cracks under torture” and provides random information because she really did not know the answer, but was so terrified that she picked something out of the air to make it stop).

Because we all sat down to play a game and we agreed, in sitting down, that success and failure is governed by the mechanics and the dice. For the same reason you don't get to declare that your attack hit or miss.

And, under the alignment rules, you don’t get to declare that your actions are consistent with your stated alignment or moral code. If we are not using alignment rules, we all sat down to play a game and we agreed, by sitting down, that the alignment rules governed moral codes. Or we agreed to deviate from those rules – just as we could agree to deviate from the usual rules on GM interpretation and/or the dice dictating the success or failure of other actions.

You defend every rule you wish to retain with “the rules dictate this”, but you are modifying the rules to remove the alignment rules. Why is that the only rule which can safely be removed? I envision a persuasive and intimidating fellow whose combat prowess is incredible, but I must still roll the dice to determine the success or failure of my efforts to intimidate or battle. The GM interprets the rules to set the DC of my rolls, and the modifiers which apply to them. My character’s success in carrying out my vision is governed by mechanics. He feels less than persuasive when his targets always resist his charms or his threats; he doesn’t feel like a great combatant when he continually gets Worf’d due to powerful enemies and/or poor die rolls. He’d feel a lot more persuasive if the DC’s were low enough to guarantee success, or the opponents were less powerful, or he received more bonuses. Yet he does not. The GM sets these based on his interpretation of the rules, and whether my character lives up to my conception is largely up to luck and the GM’s choice of what elements to introduce.

So how is a GM interpretation of alignment, or removal of alignment from the game, markedly different? It does not involve die rolls – the choice of whether to follow the morals and structures of my alignment is mine alone. But the requirements are governed by GM interpretations, just as those interpretations determine my required skill and luck to realize my vision of the character in other regards.
@pemerton has noted quite clearly that he does not wish to make these interpretations, and so he removes these mechanics from his game. You seem to feel that these are not mechanics in any remotely similar sense. I grasp his logic much more easily than yours.

How is it arbitrary? Or, rather, any more arbitrary than simply following the rules of the game? The game rules don't allow the player to force a reaction from the Forces of Good, nor do they allow Player 3 to add powers to his character sheet.

Nor do they allow him to dictate that his actions are consistent with his alignment, forcing a reaction from the Forces of Good of doing nothing. It is arbitrary in that you are choosing which areas to retain mechanics for, and which to eliminate them. Your comment that, having chosen to torture some poor bystander, the player is somehow able to dictate that his victim has valuable knowledge seems similarly arbitrary.

But, of course there are limits on what the player controls. That's never been in contention. Players don't get to dictate NPC behaviors, for example. They generally don't get to dictate scenario elements. They certainly don't get to contradict previously established facts.

Yet, as stated above, they get to dictate the views and actions of the Forces of Good (who must accept their vision of morality), and scenario elements (I choose to torture the sister, so therefore she must know something). If they don’t get to contradict previously established facts, how do we establish them? If Player 2 refused to torture someone last month because “such an evil act would offend the Great Powers of Righteousness and Justice”, is that now fact? If so, what happens when Player 1 insists it’s OK to torture the sister this week?

They don't do that because it would run counter to "creating an interesting narrative".

Who decides what constitutes “an interesting narrative”? Maybe “Screw this investigation – I’m going to skin the sister and roll her in salt – maybe that will make her more cooperative” is not an “interesting narrative” to some at the table.

I have addressed this multiple times upthread and you have not responded.

The conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's action is successful is obvious. It removes the dynamic of challenge from the game. Likewise the player authoring backstory around big reveals removes suspense.

Where is the conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's behaviour answers to that PC's professed ideals?

I would suggest the decision to torture the prisoner is motivated by a desire to succeed in locating the Mad Bomber – that is, to succeed in the game. The player is prepared to depart from his respect for the rights of the sister in the interests of improving or hastening his success at taking in the Mad Bomber. Thus, he is motivated to consider this to be an acceptable act.

Please tell me one feature of Galahad or Gawaine that makes them more paladin-like than Arthur or Lancelot?

To do so, one must agree on the features which are, and are not, important to Paladinhood, which seems the crux of the discussion. Neither Galahad nor Gawaine sleep with someone else’s wife, much less with the Queen. They don’t kill innocent people. @Nagol sums these up as well.

Galahad is the only knight proved pure enough to be worthy to find the Grail. Gawain is one of the greatest of the round table (possibly the best before the arrival of Lancelot). He does not suffer from Lancelot's failings, however such as killing innocents who try to wake him in his tent and sleeping with his lord's wife (a pretty unforgivable sin at the time that is mitigated only because the French added Lancelot to the stores much later) that drove Lancelot insane for a few years. Lancelot is the better horseman and with lance and sword. In short, he is a better Fighter.

Especially as you are relying on Deities and Demigods (with its instances of Hiawatha and Theseus) to contest my characterisation of paladins as ideal knights: in D&DG both Lancelot and Arthur are presented as paladins (as, unsurprisingly, is Galahad), while Gawaine is presented as a fighter.

Could this mean there is NOT 100% agreement on which of these Knights is, in fact, a Paladin? I suggest that one’s choice also depends largely on which aspects of myth and legend one chooses to focus on, and which aspects one chooses to downplay or ignore.

(I assume you realise that the Random House Dictionary gives, as the first two meaings of the word "paladin", "any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne" and "any knightly or heroic champion.")

Funny how there are so many definitions of a term whose meaning you find to be clear and obvious. It seems that you are seeking to impose your interpretations of the words – your judgment of what ideals make one a Knight, or a Paladin - on the rest of the Board.

The fact that a black knight is a villain doesn't show that paladins aren't ideal knights. Indeed, the villainy of a black knight is particularly evident because of the degree to which they fall short of that ideal.

No. It shows that the Crusaders were knights - an identity that you denied upthread. I have now established that the crusaders were knights

Are they Knights? Are Knights mounted soldiers with no particular moral ideals, or are they individuals whose combat training is of less importance than their dedication to the ideals of Knighthood? You seem to present both, switching between them in a manner I find less than predictable.

Oddly, the term “Paladin” in popular culture has also taken on a relationship to a hired soldier (Have Gun, Will Travel and the Marvel comic character, for example). These characters fit poorly with Charlemagne’s Knights, or the D&D concept of a Paladin.

In any event, here is the relevant dictionary definition (entry 4 in the Collins World English Dictionary, according to dictionary.reference.com): "a heroic champion of a lady or of a cause or principle". Part of the point of the legend of Joan of Arc is that she exemplifies this definition better than those who are knights purely in the formal sense (of having been knighted).

So it is your selected dictionary definition (selected from the numerous possible definitions under various dictionaries; the fourth in the dictionary you selected) which is the only relevant one? So do Knights exemplify the virtues of Knighthood without actually being Knighted (Joan) or are they Knighted but need not exemplify those virtues (the Crusaders; the Black Knight)? The definitions seem to twist and change to suit the argument you wish to advance.

There is a notion, perhaps unfamiliar to modern Canadians but intimately familiar to mediaeval persons, that externally bestowed office is intended to correspond to innate or divinely ordained capacities, such that a person who is knighted but is false or inadequate will, in the end, have that corruption show through; and conversely, someone who is by external measure ignoble or humble, but is in the eyes of the divinity noble or worthy, will eventually have that worth manifest itself in material form. (This is the logic of such stories as Cinderella, the Princess and the Pea, the Bronze Ring etc. It is also expressed by Tolkien's poem about Strider, put into Bilbo's pen and mouth - "All that is gold does not glitter" - but of course, in the end, Aragorn does glitter as inner nature and external trappings are reconciled. Likewise for Saruman, in a converse fashion.)

Have I mentioned that I don't use mechanical alignment?

To the extent that I have a conception of what LG is, its because I know its the alignment of paladins, and I know what a paladin is because I know those stories. To the extent that I have a conception of what LN is, its because I know that is the alignment of the quintessential martial artist, and I know that trope. To the extent that I have a conception of what CG is, its because I can imagine Robin Hood and his merry man, jolly outlaws who only rob from the rich and who give to the poor.

My comment, to which you provided the above response, replied to your statement that YOUR VISION of the LG alignment is shaped by its being the alignment of a Paladin, and this is shaped by your vision of a Paladin. Are you now saying you do not have such a vision of the alignments you are arguing about?

I've discussed extensively upthread the logic behind a paladin of a god of beauty (Corellon), fate (the Raven Queen), love (Sehanine), prowess (Kord), truth (Ioun), civilisation (Erathis) and nature (Melora). That covers all the gods labelled in 4e as unaligned.

A paladin of Bane (war) or Asmodeus (tyranny) strikes me personally as fallen or self-deluded; even moreso a paladin of Tiamat (greed), Zehir (night), Vecna (secrets) or Torog (imprisonment). If a player wants to show me I'm wrong, go to town! Gruumsh is a god of barbarism - I don't think he is served by knights in shining armour. The Chained God is in a special category again. He doesn't even have angels serving him (see The Plane Above, p 34).

Yet you also tell me your vision of a Paladin is shaped by their devotion to Knightly ideals. Fate and Death? Nature and Civilization? I note you also pick and choose which aspects to list. From Wikipedia (which may not be accurate – feel free to correct – I left the evil ones off, although it seems one can be a Paladin of an evil deity, and the GM chooses whether this alters his powers – not the player, which seems odd under your model):

[h=3]

th[/SUP] ed deities] Good and Lawful Good deities

[/h]

• Avandra - Good Goddess of Change, Luck and Travel, Patron of Halflings.
• Bahamut - Lawful Good God of Justice, Protection and Nobility. Patron of Dragonborn.
• Moradin - Lawful Good God of Family, Community and Creation (as in smithing). Patron of Dwarves
• Pelor - Good God of Sun, Agriculture and Time. Seasonal God of Summer.

Unaligned deities

• Corellon - Unaligned God of Beauty, Art, Magic and the Fey. Seasonal God of the Spring and Patron of Eladrin.
• Erathis - Unaligned Goddess of Civilization, Inventions and Law.
• Ioun - Unaligned Goddess of Knowledge, Skill and Prophecy.
• Kord - Unaligned God of Storms, Battle and Strength.
• Melora - Unaligned Goddess of Wilderness, Nature and the Sea
• Raven Queen - Unaligned Goddess of Death, Fate and Doom. Seasonal Goddess of Winter.
• Sehanine - Unaligned Goddess of Illusion, Love and the Moon. Seasonal God of Autumn and Patron of Elves.

Some of the Good ones have pretty un-knightly spheres of influence. Many of the unaligned have some consistent and some inconsistent spheres of influence. “I serve the Goddess of Death, Fate and Doom” does not seem to accord well with Knightly principals, yet seems a hallmark of your game.

What do you mean by "the ends do not justify the means"? As Bertrand Russell famously asked, What else would?

If we accept that the means can be justified only by the ends, it does not follow that all means can be justified at all. It follows only that nothing else can justify the means.

Do you mean that people are under duties not to do certain things, even if they believe that doing such things might realise other values?

I believe the alignment system sets this out. “We cannot accomplish good by doing evil” seems very consistent with the Good alignments, although ultimately the question is how much Evil will we tolerate in pursuit of Good.

In that case, how can the "alignment system" take such a position, given that one of the alignments that it defines is Chaotic Evil, which recognises no notion of duty at all, and indeed no motivating principle but unconstrained self-regarding passion? Or Neutral Evil, which recognises no notion of duty at all, and no motivating principle but rational self-regard?

Funny how the “do whatever you must do to achieve your goals” alignments are all evil, isn’t it?

In real life

Again, not interested in discussing real life philosophy of ethics. It is no more relevant to the game than the real life physics of giants, fire breathing dragons or magic.

I said that to second-guess the torturing paladin's retention of divine abilities would be a sin of pride. The sin of pride consists in judging the divine - and it's decision to leave the torturing paladin vested with divine power - not in applying the determinations of the divine to the mortal.

We have established that, in the 4e D&D world, Paladin powers can be granted by deities of any alignment, so perhaps my judgment is that Orcus is now empowering this deluded fellow, the better to sow confusion amongst the populace about the true values of the Raven Queen. If I slay him, and retain my Raven Queen granted powers, then it must be so, mustn’t it?

Come to think of it, 4e’s “Paladin powers invested by ceremony involving knighthood can never be removed” seems a lot more oriented to rank of knighthood making one a Paladin than any link to adherence and dedication to the virtues and ideals of Knighthood. Joan of Arc underwent no ceremony, but the Black Knight did. Only the latter meets the description of a 4e Paladin.

Again, totally not interested in policing my players.

Both you and @pemerton seem to come back to this a lot. Yet you both indicate you are very selective as to who sits at your table, and that you have no players who would play out of genre/out of character when running a Paladin. I suggest the player selection process itself is a means of policing your players. If the fellow sitting at your table turns out to play largely out of genre and out of character, how long will he be sitting at your table? Will he get a warning that his play is not in accordance with the expectations of the group, and that failure to change his behaviour will result in sanctions?

I can’t recall any real issues with alignment ever cropping up with a player who our group kept playing with for very long.

I note your paladin torture example has now taken a rather hyperbolic twist - the paladin is considering torture, not because it is the only available choice, but, because it's more convenient and players will always choose convenience over playing their characters. You are absolutely right and I would also find such a narrative uninspiring. But, then, I play in a group where the entire group would find your paladin uninspiring and thus, it would not happen at my table.

So, then, such a player would be policed. You simply have a group which, at present, requires no policing. So do I. Maybe that’s why alignment disputes don’t come up, despite the fact that the rules are certainly there.

 

[N'raac]

It does occur to me (and it has before) that the debate has largely become one of whether alignments detract from the gaming experience, rather than whether they improve it. I think they provide a framework which can be useful to newer players, or to players who might need this extra guidance in role playing their characters. At its extreme, as @Hussar consistently indicates, it can be a stick, but I don't think that stick is commonly used, or needed, in situations where the player will be in the game for long, as such a player won't just have issues with the alignment system. In fact, I would suggest a player who challenges and argues alignment calls likely also challenges and argues numerous other rules calls in various aspects of the game, and either will be tolerated despite this, or will simply be removed from the game - no longer sitting at the table.

I suspect that many of our groups are not all that different. The players by and large have a consistent vision of "good and honourable characters", and run characters intended to reflect such ideals consistently. At such a table, alignment doesn't really crop up all that often (my, and I think other proponents of alignment's, experience) and its removal does not have any real adverse result (@Hussar and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s experience). But that kind of lay, I believe, typically comes with experience. No one at my table has not gamed (and gamed with me) for less than 20 years. A new player would almost certainly be known to at least one existing player, so would likely not be invited were that player not familiar with them if they are an experienced gamer. If they were a new gamer, then they would learn gaming at our table, so learn our playstyle. In the last case, alignment may be a useful guide for them, but they would likely learn similarly through play.

But if the game - and the hobby itself, overall - is to survive, grow and thrive, it can't be made up entirely of the 20+ year veterans who have not yet dropped the hobby. It needs to replace its losses and attract new players to grow. The play of a character as a CHARACTER, rather than a bundle of statistics and abilities, is a prime difference, at least to me, between computer games and tabletop gaming. Alignment, or aspects, or psychological disadvantages/complications, or whatever model one wants to choose (and all have their strengths and weaknesses) assist in reflecting the character as more than just a pawn whose role is limited to whatever move will be most strategically and tactically effective at "winning the game" - accomplishing whatever objectives have been set, internally or externally, as "victory conditions". They tend to fade to the background (like many mechanics) when playing with skilled and experienced role players.

 

[pemerton]

Per the English language, saying what you are CURRENTLY doing in NOT telling a story.

But per the English language, saying what an imaginary person is currently doing may well be telling a story. (I'm not saying that it has to be, but it's certainly a good candidate.)

And this is what RPGing, at its base, involves.

 

[pemerton]

for me, if the players can do things that establish setting material (for example decide whether Yom God of Yams is angry or not at the pcs for taking a particular action) that both is likely to lead to inconsistency in the setting (one day Yom is happy the pkayers eat his sacred yams, the next day he is furious)

Why? Why are players less consistent in their depiction of setting elements (such as PCs, gods, family members, etc) than GMs?

makes these things that are supposed to be external to my character feel less external because players are influencing how they behave.

To me, this doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with consistency. It doesn't really seem to have much to do with believability either, unless by "believability" you mean something like "prone to generate a certain sort of immersion".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why? Why are players less consistent in their depiction of setting elements (such as PCs, gods, family members, etc) than GMs?

because five people each deciding these things for the god, will produce more inconsistency than one person deciding these things. I just find when you have the GM calling the shots on things external to the players it tends to be more consistent and feel more objective. If i am letting the players decide when grok is angered it is different than if the GZm is the one making that call.

To me, this doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with consistency. It doesn't really seem to have much to do with believability either, unless by "believability" you mean something like "prone to generate a certain sort of immersion".

Well clearly we disagree and that is fine. If you find that stuff believable or find it doesn't impact believabilitym that is great. For me it does impact believability.

Pemerton, i think it is really time for us to just accept we do things differently, we like different things, we find different things believable and not worry about convincing each other.

 

[pemerton]

It's hard for me to comment on 4e specifically. From what I do know, there are fewer built-in checks on the 4e paladin (since they cannot fall) thus there are fewer genre expectations assigned to them.

4e paladins, in my experience, are the most genre-expressing version of the class. Because of the mechanical build of the class, the only way to play an effective paladin is to play a selfless warrior who valiant hurls him-/herself between his/her friends and the enemy.

There is no need for genre expectations, because the natural play of the class delivers. (Much like we don't need genre expectations or alignment enforcement to keep an AD&D wizard out of melee - the natural play of the class delivers that result for us.)

I know I and about half my current group would not consider that an improved narrative.

So why do you need alignment restrictions to refrain from declaring such actions for your PC, then?

In the real world, the torturer believes that things will be better if s/he extracts the information by way of torture. But what is the corresponding belief in a player of an RPG that makes him/her declare that her PC tortures the suspect, if s/he believes that that would ruin the narrative?

That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. It is key to the whole contention (by [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and now, I think, you) that departing from alignment generates some sort of advantage for the player. I haven't yet been shown what that advantage is, unless I am playing a game within a rather Gygaxian "skilled player, gold-as-XP" framework.

"Dude, we had that discussion. It is an evil act. Is this the point you wish to fall? No? After struggling with temptation, what is the character going to do?" It does not limit the player from method acting -- it helps the player method act the PC originally chosen consistently and in accordance with the group understanding for world norms.

<snip>

there is the potential for conflict when more than one person (multiple PCs OR NPCs) shares the same ideals but take radically different approaches that leave them diametrically opposed.

Unless I am misundertanding, you are taking quite a bit of what I regard as play and either (i) making it pre-play, or (ii) substituting GM (or perhaps majority participant?) decision-making?

If the person who is diametrically opposed to your conception of certain ideals, and so would play the torturing paladin, is able to have his/her mind changed by stipulatig that that is evil, I personally don't really see why you can't just tell them "By the way, I don't want your paladin to be a torturer". I'm not really seeing how intermediating the construct of alignment changes the basic dynamic here, which is that those who think the torturing paladin is bad for the game are shutting down the preferences of those who disagree.

What you are doing to reducing the number of potential stories (the fall of a paladin, the faithless cleric, the civilisation of a barbarian).

How so?

 

[pemerton]

Both you and pemerton seem to come back to this a lot.

That's mostly because you and others sometimes assert that a key funciton of alignment is to police the players, and other times deny that. I'm curious as to which it is.

Yet you both indicate you are very selective as to who sits at your table

I haven't indicated that at all. I've said that my current group consists of long time friends. Many of them I met by inviting them to join an ongoing RM game when I was a university student.

I have said I'm not interested in playing with people who aren't sincere, but that doesn't strike me as much of a threshold for selectivity.

If the fellow sitting at your table turns out to play largely out of genre and out of character, how long will he be sitting at your table?

Why would someone agree to join a group, agree to play in (say) a 4e game based around the core books, and then break that agreement? You are positing a player who is basically a liar. If not wanting to play with liars is your threshold for selectivity, then I'm happy to say that yes, I'm on the other side of it!

As for playing out of character, if a player decides what the characer of his/her PC is, then why/how is s/he going to end up out of character? This is ultimately the same question - if a player signs on to play an honourable character, why wouldn't s/he tackle that task sincerely? Or, conversely, if s/he wants to play a different sort of character - say, a cutthroat roguish type - why wouldn't s/he just change to that, either by changing PCs or transitioning the existing PC?

The whole assumption here seems to be that players have some sort of incentive to spoil the game; and that it is somehow difficult to stick to a character and to an agreed genre without being a spoiler.

Perhaps that is so in 3E - I don't know it's mechanical or play dynamics well enough. I certainly have not found it to be so in the games that I run, though.

I suggest the player selection process itself is a means of policing your players.

I suggest that this is nonsense. If I start a jazz quartet, do you think I'm not going to care about who I play with? But that doesn't mean I'm dictating how they play their improvisations.

If I start a book club, do you think I'm not going to care about who I read with? (Just to give one example, I am not going to sit down to read The Human Factor with a white supremacist.) It doesn't follow from that that I am dictating how my fellow readers respond to the books we read.

The notion of sincerity is a something that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have repeatedly reiterated as (i) what we are looking for from fellow participants, and (ii) the reason why we are not interested in alignment-policing. This has nothing to do with selectivity. It has to do with attitudes towards a shared creative endeavour. If you want to understand why we don't like alignment, I'd suggest that you focus on that, rather than ignoring or dismissing it.