Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Hussar]

This seems much less like an alignment issue and much more like a role playing issue. The player wants to be able to kill helpless prisoners on a whim, and does not want anything precluding him from doing so. Like that pesky role playing of someone who actually respects life and considers slitting the prisoners' throats to be a morally repugnant act. I just bwant my character to do whatever is most tactically effective and/or practically expedient at any given time.

Sorry, but, to me, "whatever is best or easiest for me, regardless of the impact on others" is neither heroic nor Good.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page158#ixzz31E9tuveq

And we're back to players can never be honest in their interpretations. Players will only do whatever is expedient and it's up to the DM to force them to recognise the morality of their actions.

Yeah, for someone who keeps telling me that the DM is deserving of trust, your first interpretation is always to show that the player is the one who cannot be trusted at the table.

Never mind that you can certainly make a pretty strong argument that executing a punishment is viable under Lawful and Good. That doesn't matter. The player cannot be trusted to act morally, so, we must make sure to bring in those alignment mechanics to keep them on the straight and narrow.

 

[Imaro]

Nice dodge.

Let me understand this... a paladin in 4e who uses poison or dirty tactics is something that would never happen in a "real" game... but a paladin who goes through the necessary penalties to subdue an enemy then kills him afterwards is a realistic situation. I don't see a dodge I see a situation that makes no sense anyway you look at it. You want to revise the situation you created, fine... but don't call it a dodge because I call you out on it.

So, because of mechanical alignment, the entire group becomes murder hobos. An enemy can never surrender in your world? Who cares if the party ever takes prisoners after all, we don't need all that pesky role playing stuff. It's better just to kill every opponent outright. Saves on all that unimportant stuff like talking and whatnot. Why bother giving players the choice?

Where did you mention a prisoner surrendering? That's a different situation than what you presented

The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that I can never, ever execute a prisoner. Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.

These leaps of Hussar logic grow tiring. Here is the defintion of murder...

noun

• 1.
  the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

verb

• 1.
  kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Now exactly how does what you described not fall under one of these definitions? The paladin subdued an enemy then later thought about it and killed him without being sanctioned to do so by the law of the land... Again, how is it not murder? Now whether that murder was justified or even a good act depends on the situation... but you've created a definition for murder that somehow categorizes it as having to be "evil"... I think this is untrue in the D&D milieu...

You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.

Well I am glad one of us got the point of your post because I really didn't understand what you were arguing...

 

[Hussar]

Umm Imaro, I said they captured the bad guy. Where did I say they dealt subdual damage? If someone surrenders, isn't that capturing? Or heck, beat him into negative hp and bind his wounds.

Why would it be different anyway?

 

[Imaro]

Umm Imaro, I said they captured the bad guy. Where did I say they dealt subdual damage? If someone surrenders, isn't that capturing? Or heck, beat him into negative hp and bind his wounds.

Or they could deal subdual damage since they don't want to accidentally kill him... Of course then why kill him afterwards... In other words your "example" is so vague as to be kind of worthless without context...

Why would it be different anyway?

Just one reason off the top of my head is that if the prisoner formally surrendered and the paladin formally accepted his/her surrender then it may be a question of good vs. evil but there is also the fact that the paladin broke his word and murdered the guy. So yeah it does kind of matter how the situation went down.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's often how people handle NPC Alignment, I think - the NPC thinks he's
a great fellow, but really he's Evil and doesn't know it. But I think this is an example of Alignment getting in the way, as Pemerton argues; Know Alignment/Detect Evil spells makes most sorts of real world bad guys unlikely: "OK Hitler, I accept you sincerely believe that your sincere concern for the welfare of the German People makes you Lawful Good. However Know Alignment says..."

I disagree... I think most NPC's in this situation believe the ends justify the means but don't necessarily look at themselves as good... in fact some may even feel as if they have to take on the burden of doing evil to achieve what they think is a greater good. To these sorts registering evil is ok, because they accept what they are doing may not be considered good and that no matter the ends they are being tainted by these actions... but feel it must be done anyway.

I gave a couple examples a while ago of NPCs in my game.

One was an Evil Monk. He certainly didn't think of himself as Evil, and he explicitly rejected any magical interpretation that identified him as Evil (an exceptionally trusted NPC Paladin identified him as Evil in front of the party when they first encountered the Monk). The Monk went well out of his way to only attack "evil" people, beating, torturing, or brutally murdering them. He'd only torture and murder the worst out there (the rapists, murderers, etc.), but he'd break bones and beat down the con artists, swindlers, thieves, etc. His methods and mindset certainly fell into Lawful Evil as I saw it on the alignment scale, but this NPC would never accept that he was actually Evil; after all, he's only going after the bad guys. Screw any magic that can't tell right from wrong.

On the other hand, I also mentioned my take on Asmodeus (as of high epic level play). He was consciously Evil, and knew that he had to be. He honestly found enjoyment in killing people, psychologically torturing them, etc. On the other hand, he was only Evil, and leader of the Nine Hells, in order to keep Evil in line, and continue the everlasting was of balance between Good and Evil (as commanded to him by Ahriman, who was voluntarily sealed away to prevent the multiverse from ripping apart). Asmodeus consciously chose to be Evil for "the greater good", purposefully keeping the lesser devil lords in line, continuing to fight the Blood War, never invading the heavens or attempting to overthrow Good, etc.

So, I can see it going both ways, honestly. And I have more examples from actual play experiences. Cilten would fit into the "Evil for the greater good" category. Herades would reject that he was Evil, despite two separate Evil auras emanating from him. Gateon would admit he's Evil (as of a certain point, as his alignment changed a number of times), but would claim that it didn't matter as he was basically only targeting Vecna and his followers. I can expand more if necessary.

 

[N'raac]

And we're back to players can never be honest in their interpretations. Players will only do whatever is expedient and it's up to the DM to force them to recognise the morality of their actions.

I find that equally likely to GM's who use everything in their arsenal, alignment in the examples on this thread, as a bludgeon to ruin the game for the players. However, I also find your example bizarre, as Imaro has already noted. They either took special steps to keep the prisoner alive (attacking to subdue, binding his wounds, whatever) or accepted his surrender. Then they decide "Nahh, let's kill him instead". Perhaps after getting what they wanted from keeping him alive.

You're referred to the players learning that taking prisoners is just another good way to let the GM screw them over (and let's not kid ourselves - the GM needs no extra tools if he is out to screw the players over). Once word gets out that the PC's kill their prisoners, why would any NPC ever surrender again? Why would any prisoner co-operate knowing he's just going to die? For that matter, since your read of alignment is that there can be only one acceptable answer, then if killing the prisoner is the right action for an LG character, then it should be pretty well known to the opponents that they will be killed anyway if taken alive, so there's no benefit to surrender or co-operation as a prisoner.

Whether it is Lawful and Good to execute a punishment again depends on the facts. Is the Paladin a lawful representative of the powers of the land, entitled to render a verdict, impose a sentence and carry that sentence out? If so, then he has the Lawful right, and perhaps duty (again, depending on the setting) to do so. Or is he more like a civilian making a citizen's arrest, or a police officer, with the villain having a right to a fair trial, rather than summary execution by his captors?

Then we get into the question of Good. Is it Good to kill him because of what he might do? Or is a pre-emptive strike a less than good act?

I wonder how the players would react if their characters were defeated/surrendered and the NPC's summarily executed them, maybe after some interrogation. Or do the rules of warfare apply to the NPC's, but not the PC's?

You referred to murderhobos - the actions you describe sounds a lot like we've reached that point in the game in question.

 

[Hussar]

I could think of a dozen different ways they could take this guy prisoner without beating on him. He surrenders. Charm Person spell. Hold Person spell. Power Word Sleep. Pretty much any Charm type spell. Single human vs party=monkey pile grapple attack. Good grief, there are any number of ways.

And, let's not forget, in the example, he's caught red handed. He's got his hands inside the victim's chest cavity and has just murdered the victim. Guilt is pretty clear here. And, he really is guilty.

But summary justice isn't an option in your games. Which is perfectly fine. It just means that your players will almost never take prisoners. This is hardly a rare case. Most parties i've seen won't take prisoners for exactly this reason.

I find it funny though, that the paladin cannot dispense summary justice, even knowing that he is 100% in the right to do so, but, he can deliver up the prisoner to someone else who is going to execute the prisoner based on the Paladin's testimony. IOW, the paladin just has to leave the room and let other people do the evil stuff, and that's ok. Why is it justified that the magistrate can hang the prisoner but the paladin can't?

Actually, strike that question. I'll ask another. Why is it okay that your interpretation must automatically over rule mine? Can you honestly not see that both interpretations are valid? If it's not okay for the paladin to execute the prisoner, then how can the paladin hand someone over for execution?

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I have never liked the alignment systems in RPGs. The only time I enforce them is when the player is running a character who is a member of a class that gets benefits from sticking to a particular alignment.

im more concerned with the player keeping the characters sense of ethics mostly consistent. Ethics and morality don't fall into a neatly defined 9 variant system, particularly because the actions taken can be situationally dependent, and few people can agree on exactly what is "good" or "evil" in a particular circumstance.

i have never seen the need to turn everything into a trait or rollable attribute.

 

[Dannorn]

I could think of a dozen different ways they could take this guy prisoner without beating on him. He surrenders. Charm Person spell. Hold Person spell. Power Word Sleep. Pretty much any Charm type spell. Single human vs party=monkey pile grapple attack. Good grief, there are any number of ways.

And, let's not forget, in the example, he's caught red handed. He's got his hands inside the victim's chest cavity and has just murdered the victim. Guilt is pretty clear here. And, he really is guilty.

But summary justice isn't an option in your games. Which is perfectly fine. It just means that your players will almost never take prisoners. This is hardly a rare case. Most parties i've seen won't take prisoners for exactly this reason.

I find it funny though, that the paladin cannot dispense summary justice, even knowing that he is 100% in the right to do so, but, he can deliver up the prisoner to someone else who is going to execute the prisoner based on the Paladin's testimony. IOW, the paladin just has to leave the room and let other people do the evil stuff, and that's ok. Why is it justified that the magistrate can hang the prisoner but the paladin can't?

Depending on the circumstance. If the Paladin is just some guy walking the street, with no official authourity, it is unlawful for him to apprehend and execute the criminal (no matter how just it might be). He does however have a duty to stop this man because of his code, and he either A) attempts to take him alive and submit him to the proper authourities which is both Lawful and Good, or B) decide his obligation to Good supersedes his obligation to Law and engages the criminal in a fight to the death.

He'd take a hit to Law but likely wouldn't result in an alignment shift and might (should the GM decide) lose some or all of his Paladin powers for a time. Depending on the values of his deity (as described in the books) I'd rule he loses his powers for the rest of the day or spends 4 hours in prayer.

Now if the Paladin has been granted authourity to dispense summary justice then he's perfectly in line to kill the criminal he's caught in the act of murder.

The issue with killing prisoners is mainly this, unless a character is dead set on performing certain last rites before executing the prisoner, or going through some other process ("By the authourity of Bob you have been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.") what is the point of taking them prisoner if you're just planning on killing them? Now if the character's goal is to question him before carrying out sentence for the crime he's committed that's one thing, but if they're just killing him because he's of no further use, or they don't want him interfering later, that's another.

 

[pemerton]

Who said we don't accept that Lenin or Trotsky might sincerely wish the best for the people as a whole?

Well, [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] said this above. And you implied it, I thought, in post 1570, in which you asked me whether I "believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people".

"Compromise" implies neither 100% one thing nor 100% the other. The possibility that a choice could be nether good nor evil (or neither lawful nor chaotic), having elements of both, seems to completely escape your framework.

I've lost track of what your reply is to me.

Are you saying that the American Revolutionaries were in fact Neutral, and neither Lawful (despite their admiration for the rule of law) nor Chaotic (despite their obvious moral and political individualism)?

If everyone interesting ends up Neutral, then I am again left with the question, how is alignment improving the game experience? How is it contributing to the framing of moral conflicts and debates?

Does he believe that intelligent sword (which, being intelligent, has motives of its own)? Does it matter? If he has taken matters to the point that his alignment has already changed, he's already done quite a bit of "the wrong thing", hasn't he? He may very well be looking at the overall picture and deciding that he knows what is best for his people, and if the people of a neighbouring land must suffer for the benefit of his people, then that is an acceptable sacrifice.

<snip>

Does it matter how sincerely he believes that genocide is the morally right action to pursue, or is the pursuit of genocide in itself evil?

I've lost you.

Let's agree to put to one side the idea that the ruler can't know his/her own alignment. In AD&D, for instance, s/he automatically knows in virtue of alignment language fluency. In other versions of nine-point alignment, s/he can cast a spell or use an item. The knowledge is not that hard to acquire.

The real issue is, should a character care that s/he is evil? Well, in the real world nearly everyone does. Very few wrongdoers defend their actions on the basis that they were wrong but justified. They argue that they were right. If we have to radical change moral psychology to make alignment work, why are we bothering? Why not work with a common-sense moral psychology (in which most people, rightly or wrongly, think of themselves as more-or-less good) and drop the alignment rules that cause the problem?

Here is the defintion of murder...

<snip>

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

<snip>

kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

<snip>

Now exactly how does what you described not fall under one of these definitions? The paladin subdued an enemy then later thought about it and killed him without being sanctioned to do so by the law of the land

I don't follow. In the situations [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is describing the paladin is acting as a justiciar, and hence the killing is lawful.

Also, your definitions of "murder" are too narrow. You're missing out those which refer to killing "inhumanly, barbarously or brutally". And the paladin, in Hussar's scenario, is setting out not to kill in such a fashion, but rather to kill in a formal way giving effect to a duty of retribution. The paladin (at least as conceived of by the player) is not killing inhumanly, barbarously or brutally.

They either took special steps to keep the prisoner alive (attacking to subdue, binding his wounds, whatever) or accepted his surrender. Then they decide "Nahh, let's kill him instead". Perhaps after getting what they wanted from keeping him alive.

It's not very strange to me. The PCs in question wanted to punish the prisoner for wrongdoing. So they capture him (using one of the many means that the game provides for such things), pronounce a verdict and then kill him.

This is how the real world often works as well.

Depending on the circumstance. If the Paladin is just some guy walking the street, with no official authourity, it is unlawful for him to apprehend and execute the criminal (no matter how just it might be).

Is the Paladin a lawful representative of the powers of the land, entitled to render a verdict, impose a sentence and carry that sentence out?

This is strange to me, though. The paladin serves the divinity. S/he does not depend upon temporal authority to exercise the power to dispense justice - that power is granted by a higher authority!

You both seem to be putting forward a very Lutheran (in the literal sense, as in espoused by Martin Luther) conception of the relationship between spiritual and temporal authority - which is fine, but seems to leave the paladin archetype somewhat stranded.

Compare LotR - when Denethor asks Gandalf whether or not he (Denethor) has the power to command his servants, Gandalf rebukes him by saying that he does, but he has a duty to give proper commands. The lawfulness of his orders is not self-justifying - it is grounded in their conformity to higher law. Likewise for the paladin: it is the higher, divine law that is determinative.

I also mentioned my take on Asmodeus (as of high epic level play). He was consciously Evil, and knew that he had to be. He honestly found enjoyment in killing people, psychologically torturing them, etc.

<snip>

Asmodeus consciously chose to be Evil for "the greater good", purposefully keeping the lesser devil lords in line, continuing to fight the Blood War, never invading the heavens or attempting to overthrow Good, etc.

Asmodeus, Satan etc are difficult cases (consider Milton's Satan's "Evil, be thou my good"). What you describe in the second para I've quoted is close to a "dirty hands" style justification. This is an interesting phenomenon, but in my personal view is not one that D&D alignment is very well placed to grapple with.

It also gives rise to genre problems. For instance, if dirty hands scenarios are really justified, then in my view it follows that paladins (and others who believe in providence) are fundamentally mistaken. Conversely, if they are not mistaken then Asmodeus is, in the end, self-deluded and not justified at all. I think it is very hard if not impossible for a fantasy RPG to walk both sides of this street (and that is why modernist fantasy like eg REH does not have paladins and clerics as characters, only wizards and warlocks of various stripes). Conversely, Tolkien - who is obviously a very strong believer in providence - treats all those who plead dirty hands as self-deluded and self-serving (see eg Saruman, Denethor and Boromir, though the latter redeemed himself in the end when the presence of the halflings provided a providential opportunity to do so).