Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

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.

Why do you assume every game I might play or run to be identical? The question here is whether the Paladin (or the Lawful Good party, etc.) has the Lawful right to convict, sentence and execute a criminal. In some games, they may have that right by virtue of the game's premise (they are representatives of a legal system within the game world). In others, they may actively pursue and perhaps attain this status. In still others, they may be typical adventurers with no special relationship to the legal system. Where they stand in regards to their legal right to dispense justice determines the appropriateness of their actions.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] regularly describes a situation in his game where the characters interrogated a prisoner before turning him over for lawful justice. The argument was whether, and to what extent, they would use their influence to mitigate the sentence likely to be handed down. At no point do I recall them ever considering just killing the prisoner and having done with it. That sounds like a much more interesting scenario than "well, we've got all the info we're going to get - "Prisoner, the verdict is guilty, the sentence is death, cut his throat and go through his pockets."

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?

Funny...that is precisely how our justice system works. The police can gather evidence that is 100% proof positive, know that this vile scum deserves the death penalty under the law of their jurisdiction, but they must turn him over to the justice system, where their testimony will be used to convict and sentence the criminal. If they just kill him outright, they will be facing a trail themselves. The Rule of Law is why it's OK for a court to sentence someone to death, but not acceptable for a civilian, a police officer or a mob to do so on their own initiative.

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?

I can see that either can be valid. I cannot see both being valid simultaneously. The game will require a decision. Your characters may choose to pursue recognition and authority within the system and obtain the right to carry out summary justice. We may discuss the campaign beforehand and decide that the players want their characters to have that right, so we build the campaign around that. Or they may lack that right in this setting at this time. You seem to chafe whenever there is a ruling you don't like at that specific moment, so it hardly surprises me you don't like the idea that someone else gets to decide any detail of the setting whatsoever.

We come back, as we have many times before, to the lack of consistency when each player gets 100% freedom to define "lawful" or "good". Your character can carry out a summary execution. The question is whether taking the law into his own hands and taking the life of a helpless prisoner is considered Lawful and/or Good in this setting. Your character does not get to make that decision, any more than I decide it is OK to imprison my neighbour in my garage for three days because he ran his lawnmower at 7 AM on Sunday morning.

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.

And there we have it - depends on the setting. No hard and fast rule. We could even have a setting where it is expected that the PC's bring their enemies back alive to face justice, so having captured them, they are not allowed to cut their throats. Perhaps they are cast in the role of police officers, and their use of force subject to careful review.

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.

A echo the question. What is the point? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] comments on the group "never taking prisoners". If the fate of prisoners is execution shortly thereafter, then I suggest the group does not actually "take prisoners", they just delay the final hit of the combat before killing their opponents and moving on.

Well, @jsaving 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".

So do you believe a dictator who ruthlessly purges his enemies and pursues genocide is a sincere, benevolent person who wants only what is good and right for everyone?

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)?

I am saying I am not writing a thesis for my Ph.d. in gaming morality, and do not have an intention or a need to classify everything in the real world into game terms. I am also saying that a balance of Lawful and Chaotic means and values generally means Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos. Pure chaos is anarchy. Pure law is totalitarian. Some chaotic traits may still be Lawful if Law predominates, and vice versa. I'm not running a game of American Revolutionaries, so I have no need to assess the situation. For a game in a fantasy setting, I will likely not look for real world historical accuracy anyway.

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?

Do they care about being evil? If so, why would they actively pursue evil acts? Or do they care about being perceived as evil, which leads to the acts being committed and rationalized away?

I don't follow. In the situations @Hussar is describing the paladin is acting as a justiciar, and hence the killing is lawful.

Only if the Paladin has the lawful authority to act in that capacity. Lacking that legal backing, he is a vigilante, and the killing is not lawful.

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.

Since you are so set on real world examples, show me how that works in the real world. I, and a few buddies, decide that the accused need not wait for a trial, so instead of calling the police to deal with the guy we caught red-handed (assumed for the sake of discussion), we string him up in the back yard. Are we Lawful because we say that was the right thing to do?

Assume we're not just gamer buddies, but police officers. Now is it OK? Or have we violated, rather than upheld, the law?

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!

In which case we have a setting where dispensation of summary justice is acceptable. But this requires the higher authority grant that power. Perhaps that power is not granted in this setting.

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.

The Paladin is not himself that higher authority, at least in my games. In yours, it seems he can decide that it is divinely vested in him to execute jaywalkers and litterbugs and since it's his character, he gets to unilaterally make that call. Maybe my character has it divinely vested in him to slaughter all those who Fate decreed should die but Fortune spared their lives, or to destroy those who dispense Justice based on Church rather than State, so it's OK for me to kill at random for the former, and kill the Paladin for the latter.

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).

Which genre? Are you assuming we are playing an REH and Tolkein game, or selecting between an REH and a Tolkein game? These two aspects of the genre do not appear reconcilable. Conan is a poor fit on Middle Earth, and Frodo would not fit well in Hyperborea. The setting will dictate some of these decisions, and the player must operate within the setting.

 

[jsaving]

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)?

In the case of the Founding Fathers, I don't think it's especially tough to do the analysis here. The Federalists were by and large Lawful, seeing Order as the main objective and government as the way to achieve that objective. The Anti-Federalists were by and large Chaotic, seeing Freedom as the main objective and minimalist government as the way to achieve that objective. Both compromised as the document was written and ended up with something that sees a legitimate role for both Order and Freedom. And isn't that what being Neutral is all about?

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?

OK, I am now slightly confused, because some of us were arguing a few pages ago that most historical tyrants are as Evil as they are commonly believed to be, and you were arguing the contrary. Who is it that is saying everyone ends up Neutral?

The real issue is, should a character care that s/he is evil? Well, in the real world nearly everyone does.

This is an assertion, and one I personally think is mistaken. (They care about being perceived as evil, but that's a different issue.)

It doesn't make sense in an alignment context to say that someone is Evil but regrets it, because the Evil label isn't something that is randomly placed on people. Rather, it is a description of the underlying compassion/altruism the person possesses. If someone wishes to hurt people, then they will receive an Evil label because they wish to hurt people, and will only care about the label to extent it makes potential victims warier of their motives. And if someone wishes to help people, then they won't merit an Evil label and hence won't be placed in the situation you describe.

Very few wrongdoers defend their actions on the basis that they were wrong but justified. They argue that they were right.

Of course when people are called upon to explain their actions, often because they face sanctions of one type or another, they will feign altruism or at least ineptitude to avoid their true motives being discovered. What I have trouble understanding is why this has any bearing on their alignment.

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?

I think this lies at the heart of our disagreement here. You see a situation where philosophers, rulers, and ordinary people claim to be benevolent because they genuinely believe themselves to be, and you find uninteresting a world where lots of people who think of themselves as more-or-less Good would receive alignment labels with which they would disagree. I see a world where people of all alignments routinely claim to be benevolent because it gets them what they want, and find interesting a world where lots of people who claim to be more-or-less Good would receive alignment labels with which they would publicly disagree but privately know to be correct.

There's no point debating which world-view is "right" but I certainly think D&D's alignment rules are more useful to the latter than the former...

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I'm don't think I'd say that alignment isn't really good or bad at getting in the way of grappling with moral problems in general. I could see it limiting debates if people use it that way, but that wasn't my experience.

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

Well, that's where the debate of "right versus wrong" trumped "Good versus Evil" came in at my table. Is this the right thing? The "moral" laws of the multiverse seemed to say no, but those laws did not in any way hinder exploring morality in my campaign. In fact, it often spurred it such discussions. By no means is mechanical alignment necessary for this, of course (again, I didn't include any morality-focused mechanics in my RPG), but I don't think it inherently hurts such discussion, either (though it might very well for a good many groups).

I don't have much investment in this discussion, but I thought I'd throw in some real play examples to show what things were like at my table.

 

[Manbearcat]

In the case of the Founding Fathers, I don't think it's especially tough to do the analysis here. The Federalists were by and large Lawful, seeing Order as the main objective and government as the way to achieve that objective. The Anti-Federalists were by and large Chaotic, seeing Freedom as the main objective and minimalist government as the way to achieve that objective. Both compromised as the document was written and ended up with something that sees a legitimate role for both Order and Freedom. And isn't that what being Neutral is all about?

I don't want to get too enmeshed in this conversation as I'm not seeing the needle moved in any direction that intrigues me (eg moves me from my position or captures my interest enough to illicit a post). However, I think something here is apropos to some of the annoyances that some folks may have with mechanical alignment; a nuanced view or a nuanced portfolio of actions inevitably leads toward the white flag of True Neutrality being raised (without anything interesting happening except possible mechanical fallout if you shift away from Law/Chaos or Good). I don't like that at all.

For instance, take John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. During the American Revolution, both of them espoused the classical liberal revolutionary ideals of freedom from tyranny. However, during their presidential tenures, Adams (reluctantly and later, ashamedly) signed into law The Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson seized unprecedented executive power (of which he routinely argued against) when he (basically) unilaterally undertook The First Barbary War. These would be egregious (alignment altering) offenses in an alignment system that adjudicates their ethos (and then determines fallout). Lincoln has similar earmarks of his pre-power and post-power political career.

Stuff happens. Situations on the ground change. The disparate paradigm of easy (philosophical) luxuries inherent to being a revolutionary versus actually being in power/ruling (and all the responsibility that comes with it) polarize. People change. Then they change back. Or they soften. Or they reconfirm in the crucible of revolution or rule. This is the natural course of things with extraordinarily thoughtful people placed in the impossible pressure cooker of being head of a vast, human social system. That shouldn't make them True Neutral, less (or more) classically liberal, hypocrites, or failed philosophers. Only if life existed in a vacuum or as a controlled thought experiment would this be true (and then the guiding principles of philosophy would be never-changing; and ultimately useless).

TLDR; capturing and adjudicating the profound depth, nuance, and human experience of men like Adams, Jefferson, and Lincoln is a task massively beyond the functionality of the D&D alignment system. If I'm playing a "Greatest American Revolutionaries" game, I'm using something much more akin to BW's Beliefs or DitV conflict resolution (internal and external conflict and its fallout) or MHRP's Distinctions and Milestones to get something that reasonably hews to the organic evolution of ethos (and the feedback/fallout on the ruler and his people/nation) when moving from revolutionary to rulership.

 

[pemerton]

You see a situation where philosophers, rulers, and ordinary people claim to be benevolent because they genuinely believe themselves to be, and you find uninteresting a world where lots of people who think of themselves as more-or-less Good would receive alignment labels with which they would disagree.

I don't that I find it uninteresting so much as incoherent. "Good" is the generic English word of commendation. People, absent weakness of will, pursue what they take to be good (= commendable).

If someone could just cast Know Alignment on Lenin and prove him to be (say) LE, I think that would bring popular support for the Russian Revolution to a grinding halt. As it is, there are still dozens of well-meaning people right in my own city who think that the Revolution (together with its offshoots in other places) was a thing of great value that still needs defending against various sorts of betrayal and counter-revolution. (That's not to express a view on the Revolution itself. I'm just using it as placeholder. The American or French Revolutions could equally stand in its place. Or the colonisation of Australia or the Americas. Or any of hundreds of other world-historical political events.)

Furthermore, because what is commendable depends upon social considerations, I don't see how goodness can be divorced from the ostensible subject matter of law/chaos. (And I agree with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s comment, that is rather unsatisfactory to see all the real-world conflicts blend

And I also don't see why the GM's view of all this should trump a player's view, when it comes to that player's own character. This is a largely separate reason from the above two (which are reasons to favour a Law-Chaos system along the lines of pre-AD&D or 4e), but tends to run the same way.

 

[pemerton]

pemerton regularly describes a situation in his game where the characters interrogated a prisoner before turning him over for lawful justice. The argument was whether, and to what extent, they would use their influence to mitigate the sentence likely to be handed down. At no point do I recall them ever considering just killing the prisoner and having done with it.

Then you need to re-read it. At least two, probably three of the PCs - the drow, the wizard and the paladin of the Raven Queen - would have favoured immediate execution, at least in part to conceal the somewhat duplicitous means whereby information was extracted. This outcome was precluded, however, by the other "paladin" in whose name assurances had (perhaps, or by implication) been given, turning up on the scene and hence being bound by those assurances. Though he would rather that she had been killed as (at least some of) the others had planned.

So do you believe a dictator who ruthlessly purges his enemies and pursues genocide is a sincere, benevolent person who wants only what is good and right for everyone?

I believe that Lenin and Trotsky were basically sincere, yes. (In this I am influenced by the leading Australian critic of Marxism and Communism, Martin Krygier.) The essence of Marxism is realising the inherent dignity of all human beings, and this is also the measure of "good" in 3E (Gygax's AD&D uses slightly different, but roughly comparable, formulations). The violence they engaged in they regarded as a form of necessary violence to achieve that goal - in some ways, not unlike the violence that "good" PCs routinely perpetrate in D&D play. Gygax, discussing LG, frames it as "whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest" - Lenin and Trotsky did not regard counter-revolutionaries as decent, and hence did not regard them as entitled to anything but the least woe - which in some cases might nevertheless be death. In 3E, "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." Lenin and Trotsky punished those guilty of counter-revolution.

I can easily imagine a D&D game in which the question of what is permissible in the interests of upholding and furthering ideal government is a focus of play - because I have in fact run two such campaigns (my present 4e game, and my previous RM game). Deciding how much suffering it is permissible to overlook, or even engender, in the pursuit of the ideal is an important aspect of such play. I don't see how alignment helps me with this - if it is possible to frame Lenin and Trotsky as LG, then how are the alignment rules contributing to resolution of the moral question whether or not to support their social vision? And if the alignment rules, through some other interpretation that hasn't really been spelled out by either you or [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION], paints them as Evil, then I already know they are not worthy of support.

Do they care about being evil? If so, why would they actively pursue evil acts? Or do they care about being perceived as evil, which leads to the acts being committed and rationalized away?

I don't know - you tell me. (Are your questions purely rhetorical?)

I think most people care about doing the wrong thing, as they conceive of it. Hence the reason that political actors try to persuade people that things are good or bad.

For a game in a fantasy setting, I will likely not look for real world historical accuracy anyway.

I want accuracy to my own experience. I have described actual games I have or am GMing. And the questions they throw up. If alignment cannot address those questions, how is it improving my game experience?

Only if the Paladin has the lawful authority to act in that capacity. Lacking that legal backing, he is a vigilante, and the killing is not lawful.

Where does this come from? No part of "lawful", in any version of the game, precludes vigilantism. In 3E, for instance, lawful characters "respect authority . . . and judge those who fall short of their duties." When authorities fall short of their duties, for instance by acting unjustly (and LG characters "speak out against injustice"), then they may need to be judged. And even opposed. In such circumstances a LG character could be a vigilante, seeking to establish a just social order and restore a legitimate ruler.

Since you are so set on real world examples, show me how that works in the real world.

I don't think real-world policing and judicial norms have much application in a game whose social structures are typically pre-modern, and informed by the reality of divine beings and (for you, at least) "cosmological forces" of good and evil.

In some ways the Lockean state of nature is a better model, and in the state of nature (says Locke) each has a natural right to apprehend and punish wrongdoers. The right of the state to do so, if lawfully constituted, is a purely conventional right, and not a natural one.

The Paladin is not himself that higher authority, at least in my games. In yours, it seems he can decide that it is divinely vested in him to execute jaywalkers and litterbugs and since it's his character, he gets to unilaterally make that call.

What have jaywalkers got to do with anything? I thought we were discussing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s example, which was about mala in se, not mala prohibita.

Also, your comment makes no sense - the paladin is not the paladin's character. The paladin is the paladin. The paladin is also the paladin's player's character. The higher authority in the gameworld is not the paladin, nor the player (who is not part of the gameworld but rather of the gameworld). The higher authority is the divinity.

Seriously, if you're going to be snide then try not to produce incoherence in the same paragraph.

Which genre? Are you assuming we are playing an REH and Tolkein game, or selecting between an REH and a Tolkein game? These two aspects of the genre do not appear reconcilable.]

No, they're not. That's why I asserted that they're not. Your explanation of the alignment system presupposes an REH world, in which sometimes it is "right" to do "evil". That is a world in which clerics and paladins make no sense. (Hence they are not found in REH's writings.)

In wanting to use both alignment as you describe it and clerics and paladins you are trying to combine REH and Tolkien. Which as you have noted doesn't work.

Conan is a poor fit on Middle Earth, and Frodo would not fit well in Hyperborea. The setting will dictate some of these decisions, and the player must operate within the setting.[/QUOTE]

 

[N'raac]

I can easily imagine a D&D game in which the question of what is permissible in the interests of upholding and furthering ideal government is a focus of play - because I have in fact run two such campaigns (my present 4e game, and my previous RM game). Deciding how much suffering it is permissible to overlook, or even engender, in the pursuit of the ideal is an important aspect of such play. I don't see how alignment helps me with this - if it is possible to frame Lenin and Trotsky as LG, then how are the alignment rules contributing to resolution of the moral question whether or not to support their social vision? And if the alignment rules, through some other interpretation that hasn't really been spelled out by either you or @jsaving, paints them as Evil, then I already know they are not worthy of support.

I don't see the alignment riles answering every decision point, as you seem to insist it must. That would remove any purpose of play. The debate between, say, Marx and Adams becomes one of the best means of bringing the greatest good to the greatest number. Adams felt that was the enlightened self-interest of capitalism. Many years later, Marx (with the benefit of seeing the unbridled excesses of capitalism, in large part possible because the assumptions inherent in capitalist theory do not perfectly materialize in reality) developed a different theory of the best means of bringing the greatest good to the greatest number. No truly communist society (as Marx envisioned it) has ever, to my knowledge existed on a large scale, or for an extended period. Human nature tends not to accept "contribute to the maximum of my ability and take the minimum required for my needs".

I think most people care about doing the wrong thing, as they conceive of it. Hence the reason that political actors try to persuade people that things are good or bad.

I think people have to balance various aspects of "right" and "wrong" to make decisions, some of which they may later regret and some of which they may later rationalize. Few condemned criminals believe they truly deserve the sentence passed down on them. Many convicted criminals believe they were firmly in the right. It does not mean they are correct.

I want accuracy to my own experience. I have described actual games I have or am GMing. And the questions they throw up. If alignment cannot address those questions, how is it improving my game experience?

If I cannot resolve every issue by rolling a d20, does this mean the d20 system is a failure as a gaming tool, or that no one tool answers every question and resolves every issue? If the standard you require is that alignment be the foundation of the game, and decide each and every issue within it, then I do not believe there is any game rule, or even game system, which can approach the standard you have set. And, once again, I am not arguing for the premise that alignment would improve your gaming experience, but against your assertion that alignment can only serve to detract from it.

Where does this come from? No part of "lawful", in any version of the game, precludes vigilantism. In 3E, for instance, lawful characters "respect authority . . . and judge those who fall short of their duties." When authorities fall short of their duties, for instance by acting unjustly (and LG characters "speak out against injustice"), then they may need to be judged. And even opposed. In such circumstances a LG character could be a vigilante, seeking to establish a just social order and restore a legitimate ruler.

You are here assuming a corrupt social order. The Lawful character would seem more likely to seek to modify or replace the existing authority where the Chaotic one will be happy tearing it own and leaving no structure in its place.

I don't think real-world policing and judicial norms have much application in a game whose social structures are typically pre-modern, and informed by the reality of divine beings and (for you, at least) "cosmological forces" of good and evil.

Fair enough - I have applied the same logic to your constant use of real-world moral philosophy and real-world politics. Do we agree that neither are overly relevant to a pre-modern fantasy setting informed by the reality of divine beings and, possibly, cosmological forces of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos? To me, we again come to setting structure - the social structure of the specific game will dictate the extent to which those real-world norms are relevant. Zietgeist, for example, presumes a Constabulary which has rules for law enforcement, which differs from many D&D settings.

In some ways the Lockean state of nature is a better model, and in the state of nature (says Locke) each has a natural right to apprehend and punish wrongdoers. The right of the state to do so, if lawfully constituted, is a purely conventional right, and not a natural one.

Individual rights or societal order - which takes precedence? I suppose that would depend on whether one is Chaotic or Lawful, wouldn't it?

Also, your comment makes no sense - the paladin is not the paladin's character. The paladin is the paladin. The paladin is also the paladin's player's character. The higher authority in the gameworld is not the paladin, nor the player (who is not part of the gameworld but rather of the gameworld). The higher authority is the divinity.

Deftly dodged. The player decides that it is the Paladin's divine right to take what he will in the service of his deity, slay those who oppose or offend him and let none gainsay his divine right on penalty of death. The player has spoken, so this is the definition of LG. In my games, the player does not get to dictate what "LG" means, he gets to dictate the morals and values of his character.

No, they're not. That's why I asserted that they're not. Your explanation of the alignment system presupposes an REH world, in which sometimes it is "right" to do "evil". That is a world in which clerics and paladins make no sense. (Hence they are not found in REH's writings.)

I find the Cleric and Paladin are much less common in fantasy literature than the Wizard, Warrior and Rogue, actually. Religious fantasy characters? Leaving aside Tolkein, I suppose Solomon Kane springs to mind, but does he succeed through his own strength and ability, through divine providence (working in mysterious ways) or through some combination of the two? Unknown.

 

[Hussar]

DnD clerics I'll give you. But paladins? Holy warriors charged by some sort of divine power to bring good and justice to the world?

You need to read more fantasy if you think that's not common.

 

[jsaving]

if it is possible to frame Lenin and Trotsky as LG, then how are the alignment rules contributing to resolution of the moral question whether or not to support their social vision? And if the alignment rules, through some other interpretation that hasn't really been spelled out by either you or @jsaving, paints them as Evil, then I already know they are not worthy of support.

The alignment rules aren't designed to say whether any particular person's social vision is worthy of support. All they are designed to do is say whether the person promulgating the vision is motivated by a desire to help/harm people or free/order them -- that's it. Multiple people with the same alignment can have conflicting visions of how to achieve their objectives, some of which may have unanticipated side-effects that cause the vision to inadvertently achieve the opposite of its intended effect. Having these differences emerge without an "answer" from the alignment system is a feature rather than a bug, so the game will not devolve into the DM decreeing at every decision point which action the PCs must take if they are to do the right thing.

If you do not accept this premise of the system because you want the alignment writeup to help you discern whether Lenin or Trotsky or anyone else laid out a moral "vision" worthy of "support", then you need something no alignment system could provide and you are best served by dropping it from your game. This is not to say your goals aren't legitimate or interesting, because they are -- only that the alignment system can't help you resolve them.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

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)?

There are no 9-point alignments in real life. Real world morals and ethics are much too complex for that.