Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Dannorn]

D&D didn't invent the paladin archetype. Romantic authors of the high middle ages did, and it has been reinforced and perhaps in some ways developed over time since then.

When I play a paladin I have zero interest in playing a divinely powered mercenary. In fact that is the interpretation I place on the sort of paladin you and others have described upthread, one who receives divine power only provided that s/he sticks to a code that is, from the point of view of the universe, arbitrary - arbitrary because, from the point of view of the universe, there is no reason to be LG rather than (say) CE.

When I play a paladin I play a character who believes in the reality of providence, and hence disavows all dishonourable and unjust conduct. Claims that evil must be done so that good can ultimately triumph are, for the character I am interested in playing, flawed for two reasons: first, they are empirically false; second, they are betrayals of faith in that divine providence which ensures that those who act morally will not be betrayed.

In what way are these ideas different? Is it because one has a hard written list of rules they must abide by (The Paladin's Code) while the other presumably does not? Yes the code is arbitrary but so are all codes of conduct, they all draw lines at particular points for various reasons. The Paladin subscribes to a code of conduct and is blessed by divine providence for it, however there are also Blackguards and Evil Clerics who are also blessed by divine providence for their behaviour.

Unless you're running a game where only Good gods exist, or at least only they bestow blessings on their faithful, the Paladin must accept that he lives in a world where Evil has power, where there are rewards for being dishonourable and cruel, and he must stand by his code in spite of that.

This is where mechanical alignment makes Paladins and Clerics more interesting (to me) because there is now the possibility for temptation, corruption, and ultimately a fall from grace. This can't happen in a descriptive alignment system because either A) the player never accepts that their character is acting out of alignment and refuses to change, or B) it's a scripted event and loses any kind of tension or drama.

In mechanical alignment you can force a player to weigh the benefits of holding to their alignment against practical concerns. Do we poison the duke to end a battle before it starts or do we meet them honourably on the field? Do I grant mercy to my enemy knowing he might go on to do evil again or do I take it upon myself to be judge, jury, and executioner*? You can't give these decisions any weight in a descriptive system because the players is never in any danger of losing anything from acting out of alignment.

*This assumes the enemy has stopped fighting and pleaded for mercy.

These are the sorts of characters I want to play. The D&D paladin captures them very well mechanically - a warrior who is divinely bless, can heal with a touch and smite his/her enemies - except that the alignment mechanics get in the way, by either ruling out from the get-go the cosmological world view that underpins the class, or (on a different approach to them) turning the character more-or-less into the GM's puppet.

In what way does it rule out the cosmological world view? As for turning a character into a GM's puppet, the GM has much better tools than alignment if that's what they're going for.

 

[N'raac]

The irony between these two paragraphs is striking. Complaining that I put words in your mouth while at the same time claiming that I find killing prisoners in a whim to be in keeping with alignment.

I'd have to say you don't find killing prisoners in a whim to be in keeping with alignment. From your comments, you demand the right to kill prisoners on a whim and you take great umbrage at alignment because it could impose negative consequences for such a decision. For example:

So, a fight ensues, the party captures the bad guy. The paladin throws a rope over the nearest tree branch and announces he's going to execute the prisoner on the spot.

Now, according to Imaro, there is no "aha gotcha" moments. The Dm is obligated to tell the player if the DM thinks the player is out of line. So, the DM announces, "Hey, that's an evil act - you can't execute prisoners. You have to take them back to face justice". Not a unreasonable interpretation of alignment at all. It's perfectly reasonable. The paladin player argues for a bit, but, the DM stands firm.

I think most of the opposition has been that it is an Unlawful act, rather than an Evil act. But I can certainly see an argument that killing a prisoner in cold blood is an Evil act. That is the sentiment which leads many people to oppose capital punishment. Lack of respect for the prisoner's life certainly has Evil overtones.

You chafe at the GM making the decision that it is an Evil action, but I note there is no criticism of the player for imposing his vision of Good and Evil on the rest of the table by insisting it is a Good (or a "not Evil") action. If there is a disagreement over whether your Paladin is acting in a manner consistent with a Good alignment, your position seems to be that this disagreement must either be resolved in the player's favour or not resolved at all. If we have two Paladins, both claiming to be Good, one insisting the only appropriate action is to execute the prisoner and the other opposing that as Evil, how is the matter to be resolved?

They cannot both be right. That there can be no resolution can only mean that True Good to which both aspire, or claim to aspire, does not actually exist.

I don't know what that player will decide, but I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that group will never take prisoners again.

and

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.

In other words, I want to be able to kill the prisoners in the interests of simple expediency because it's "nothing but a huge PITA to actually role play issues related to taking prisoners. At least that is the way I read it - perhaps you have some other explanation why killing the prisoners because dealing with them otherwise is a "huge PITA" is something other than letting expediency override morality.

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

Have I got those right? Some or all of:

-There are actual standards to which the behavior of a self-claimed Paragon of Justice and Righteousness will be held?

- Being granted powers for adherence to a strict moral code actually requires adherence to that code to keep the powers?

-Role playing will sometimes trump tactical expedience?

- Someone other than Hussar gets to adjudicate the game, or at least have their viewpoints influence the adjudication, on occasion?

That's what I'm seeing from your posts, but you (or anyone else who sees something different) can feel free to clarify.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wow, i left for like two months and this conversation is still happening. What did I miss?

Very little.

Yeah, more than 1600 posts between my first & second ones in this thread, and it's gone pretty much as expected.

 

[Hussar]

Have I got those right? Some or all of:

-There are actual standards to which the behavior of a self-claimed Paragon of Justice and Righteousness will be held?

- Being granted powers for adherence to a strict moral code actually requires adherence to that code to keep the powers?

-Role playing will sometimes trump tactical expedience?

- Someone other than Hussar gets to adjudicate the game, or at least have their viewpoints influence the adjudication, on occasion?

That's what I'm seeing from your posts, but you (or anyone else who sees something different) can feel free to clarify.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ove-the-gaming-experience/page164#ixzz326wbFj

Umm, did you miss the part where I said the DM was perfectly reasonable? I'm not sure how you missed it since you went back and quoted it again, so, I'm not really sure where the "great umbrage" and whatnot is coming from.

These "actual standards" that you talk about. Are they only possible if they come from the DM? Can the players not have actual standards? Are "actual standards" only valid if they originate from the DM and/or have the DM's seal of approval?

Now, as to the second point, yup, got no problems with adhering to a code. That's what being a paladin is all about.

As to the last two ad hominem attacks, well, that's enough of that don't you think? If that's what you're taking from me saying that it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to interpret alignment, then, well, I don't know what more I can say.

Just because I play differently than you do, doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Just that I play differently than you do. I've posted numerous examples of where alignment gets in the way of play. Where alignment is detrimental for my play experience. The only thing I've recalled you doing in this thread Nagol is repeatedly telling anyone who disagrees with you is that they're just doing it wrong, and if we were just better gamers, we'd be able to appreciate the beauty of alignment.

Then again, that's generally how all these kinds of threads go. It cannot possibly be a problem with the mechanic itself. It must be user error. Problems with LFQW? Learn to play better. Problems with HP? Learn to play better. Problems with alignment? Learn to play better.

I'm perfectly content in my self imposed mediocrity thanks.

 

[Umbran]

1600+ posts later....

I see folks are being snippy. The questions you need to ask yourself are: Do we need to give this topic a little rest? Are we in the situation where folks are continuing to post because they just can't let a statement go uncountered? If so, I can close this, and we can let it go for a while. Because rehashing basically the same points a thousand posts later isn't constructive.

Please consider that we'll be thinking along those lines as we watch the thread from this point on. Thanks.

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] -- I didn't write what you quoted.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] -- I didn't write what you quoted.

I know. N'raac did. Did I out your name in there somewhere? If I did, sorry. Stupid autocorrect.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc0V_o-IzME&noredirect=1

 

[Hussar]

Lol.

 

[pemerton]

I said your comment that role playing is reduced because the players cannot simply kill prisoners on a whim struck me as ludicrous.

<snip>

I see no game improvement between "kill the enemy in combat" and "kill any survivors/prisoners".

I have never said killing the prisoner is always evil, and my concerns have run more to law/chaos

There are a few things here.

First, I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ever talked about players killing prisoners. He talked about the players declaring that their PCs kill the PCs' prisoners.

Second, Hussar didn't talk about killing prisoners on a whim. He talked about killing the prisoners by way of doing justice upon them.

Third, the category of Good/Evil seems to me absolutely relevant here. The d20 SRD says that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." If executing the prisoners is debasing innocent life, then it is evil. If it is a proper response to the harm they have inflicted upon other innocents, then it may be Good and certainly is not Evil. Hence the moral status of the prisoner - as innocent or not - and the retribution to which this justly exposes them, absolutely is at play in the scenario Hussar has described.

I personally think play is more interesting if the players are able to meaningfully debate whether retributive killing is good or evil, without the gamerules or the GM's application of the gamerules already deciding the matter. (And this is a case in which saying "it is all a dispute within the boundaries of good" won't work. Those who oppose capital punishment typically oppose it on the grounds that it is a great evil.)

Fourth and finally, in the real world there is a big difference between killing in combat, which is typically a species of defensive violence, and executing someone in the name of justice, which typically has a quasi-ritual element and aims at declaring and enforcing norms of just punishment. This difference has played an important role from time-to-time in my RPGing, and I don't see why the same difference couldn't make an RPG more interesting for others. Including, perhaps, Hussar.

That you don't find it interesting tells me something about what you are looking for in RPGing, though to get a fuller picture I would need to know why you think it would add nothing to your game.