Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Dannyalcatraz]

In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate. I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.

Been doing this for 25+ years, in what I call my "Old Testament/New Testament" discussion.

If you're playing a PC with mechanics tied to RP like a Paladin, I ask the player if their "G vs E" concept for the PC is like you'd see in the Old Testament, namely talion law and acting as the Divine's judge, jury & executioner, or if they're going to embody the more modern ethical constructs that place a higher emphasis on mercy, rehabilitation, etc...and how OTHERS in the csmpaign world might react to that.

Usually, but not always, I have organizations and institutions PCs can be members of that support either view. It depends on the campaign.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You are ignoring my other premise:

Yes. Yes I am.

If a player accepts as a premise for the play of his/her character that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil; and if it is true that only the GM can determine what counts as Good or Evil; then the player is dependent upon the GM to know what actions his/her PC has a reason to perform.

IOW, within the game, it is functionally no different than the other formulation, to whit: the GM tells the player the consequences for acting one way or the other; the player decides the course of action his or her PC will take.

The GM (along with some help from the game designers) has already decided where the gameworld's continents are, where the waters flow, when volcanoes blow, which species dominate the world and why...but setting up the guidelines for the setting's ethical compass is a problem?

 

[pemerton]

Yes. Yes I am.

OK then. I'm not sure what the point is, though, of telling me that A does not entail C, when I have not asserted that A entails C, but rather that the conjunction of A and B entails C.

IOW, within the game, it is functionally no different than the other formulation, to whit: the GM tells the player the consequences for acting one way or the other; the player decides the course of action his or her PC will take.

The difference is that if the player has decided to play a character dedicated to Good, and the GM decies what Good is, the player's choices are anchored to the GM's decision.

The GM (along with some help from the game designers) has already decided where the gameworld's continents are, where the waters flow, when volcanoes blow, which species dominate the world and why...but setting up the guidelines for the setting's ethical compass is a problem?

As far as I know there is no character class in D&D defined as "Never departing from the bank of a stream is meat and drink to the [whatever class this would be]." Whereas the PHB (p 22) tells us that "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins".

If there were a class which had, as a defining feature, never departing from the bank of a watercourse, then I would have the same issue, yes. Though I think the GM defining what counts as Good and Evil raises additional issues, because these are more intimately tied to character and personality than external geographic matters.

Oriental Adventures did have bamboo and river spirits, but they were allowed to depart from their groves/streams, and I also would assume that the player as well as GM would have some say over the location of the geographical feature to which the PC is inherently tied.

 

[pemerton]

there is only so far we can go to save you from yourself.

I don't need to go any further than not using alignment rules. The problem that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes won't arise in (for instance) Runequest, Rolemaster, or AD&D played without mechanical alignment.

Which is basically what [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION] said.

I don't think the comparison to FATE is all that strong. In FATE it is in the interests of all participants for aspects to be pushed to the hilt, therefore driving play. "Fail forward" is a further component of this.

Whereas in a game with mechanical alignment, the player of the paladin simultaneously wants morality to be foregrounded (why else would you play a paladin?) ands wants it to be subordinated (so that the GM doesn't have to judge whether or not the player loses his/her PC - no fail forward for alignment violations!). The latter is a recipe for conflict and instability which FATE's design deliberately avoids.

 

[Umbran]

I don't need to go any further than not using alignment rules. The problem that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes won't arise in (for instance) Runequest, Rolemaster, or AD&D played without mechanical alignment.

Yes. So, if it is so simple to get, why 160 pages on it?

I don't think the comparison to FATE is all that strong. In FATE it is in the interests of all participants for aspects to be pushed to the hilt, therefore driving play.

Not quite. If that were the case, you'd just always say, "Every aspect *always* applies," and not worry about the details. But that turns out to be boring, and doesn't generate interesting play.

FATE requires that use of Aspects makes sense within the narrative. Their applicability must be bounded, but they are written in natural language, not game-mechanic jargon. That means sometimes there will be disagreements as to whether they apply. I've seen this in play myself, and if you check the text of the FATE-based games, they explicitly bring up the point that sometimes player and GM will have to negotiate. So I have exactly zero doubts that it happens.

Whereas in a game with mechanical alignment, the player of the paladin simultaneously wants morality to be foregrounded (why else would you play a paladin?)

Stop right there. There's a reason to play a Paladin without wanting morality foregrounded: power. Traditionally, Paladins have a habit of being pretty darned potent. If you're playing with a GM that you expect to use lots of antagonists that are evil-aligned, those interested in mechanical performance (or, colloquially, kicking butt and taking names), might be interested in playing a paladin, but having the moral issues overlooked - so they can have all that mechanical performance without restrictions.

 

[Dannorn]

Between reading the rules in two editions of AD&D rulebooks and the 3E SRD, and reading all the posts on this thread, I have come up with two pictures of how alignment works.

The one that seems to be run most strongly on this thread - eg by @N'raac and @Imaro and I think also@[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16726"]jsaving[/URL][/U][/B][/I] - is that alignment is a series of labels for sets of things that might be valued. Those who value authority and innocent life are LG. Those who value freedom and lack compassion are CE. And so on.

On this picture, it makes sense for a character to decide that the right thing to do is something which is labelled evil - for instance, the right thing to do is to kill an innocent person, thereby "debasing or destroying an innocent life" - because the character decides that, on balance and in these circumstances, there are other things more important than valuing compassion.

1And from the point of view of the universe, on this approach, there is no answer to whether or not that character has done the right thing. Of course if s/he is a paladin s/he will fall, for knowingly and wilfully committing an evil act, but that might just show that his/her god is mistaken, and needlessly fetishes compassion for the innocent over other, potentially more important, things. 2(There is a puzzle, on this approach, as to only why authority-and-compassion fetishists bestow their warriors with divine power, but we'll let that pass.)

3This cosmological approach makes the paladin archetype impossible as soon as it becomes known, because on this approach the universe itself is essentially uncaring. There is no providence. There is no reason, ultimately, to be LG rather than CE.

1: I agree and this is the basis for interesting character moments. Conflict, doubt, crises of faith are all the roots of interesting stories for the character. A Paladin kills a man in cold blood to prevent him from committing further crimes, and finds herself stripped of her powers. She then attempts to win back the favour of her deity through good works to make amends, or seek out an atonement spell, or instead turn her back on her fickle master and declare that she will continue to fight for what she believes in with or without a deity's blessing, or seek out the favour of some other deity.

2: There is no puzzle because they don't. Evil deities have clerics, blackguards, and others they bestow their dark power on.

3: I'd disagree. The Paladin doesn't need providence on their side, they don't need to know that the universe has got their back (I'd argue the character is all the more impressive in a world where it doesn't) all they need is their sword, their god, and the courage to stand against evil til their last breath. You mentioned modern fiction and the character I feel best reflects what a Paladin is, to me, is Lan Mandragoran from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. Here is a man who has lost everything to the spread of Evil; his nation consumed, his family killed, and his people divided. No one has more reason than him to believe providence does not exist, that the Creator either can't or won't intercede on behalf of the people of his world against the Dark One and his Shadowspawn but still he stands, and he fights, and he is pledged to continue fighting until the forces of the Shadow have ground him to dust, because that is his duty as the Last King of Malkier.

"To stand against the Shadow as long as iron is hard and stone abides. To defend the Malkieri while one drop of blood remains. To avenge what cannot be defended."

That is a Paladin I want to play, a warrior who knows, full well, that the universe doesn't give a damn, that the balance of the universe is not tilted in their favour, but stands and fights anyway because they believe it is the right thing to do.

An alternative approach to understanding alignment is my default understanding.@S'mon and, at least as I have read him, @Hussar have articulated similar views in this thread. On this approach, it is taken for granted that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil, and hence that the Evil are doing the wrong thing. This is also the worldview of the paladin, although (i) the archetypal paladin has a different sense of what is good from the typical modern person (eg more militarist, and less democratic) and (ii) the paladin also has providential convictions which are probably less common among modern people than they once were.

Here's my problem with this outlook. If there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil then any non-good characters in your world must be insane or mentally handicapped in some fashion. If there is always a reason to be Good than Good is ultimately, objectively, right in all cases, and no rational person consciously does the wrong thing. Example, no rational person walks up to a door that says push and genuinely thinks to themselves, "I'm going to pull that door." Because that's the level of integration you're talking about when you say, there is always a reason to be Good, someone who sees push and either genuinely interprets it as pull, or makes a conscious decision to pull knowing full well it won't open that door.

The difference, as I see it, is that in a world in which there is no inherent reason to be Good rather than Evil - these are just two approaches to valuing order and compassion for the innocent, which one picks and chooses between as seems right - then the code is essentially a contract: the paladin promises to do X and refrain from Y in return for power.

Whereas the true paladin archetype, as I see it, answers a providential call, and thereby honours those values which are the only true values, departure from which simply betrays a misunderstanding of the demands of honour and duty, and of the ways of providence.

Fair enough, though it is important to remember that in a game with mechanical alignment it is a reflection of behaviour not a dictator. A character doesn't hold to a code of honour and ethics because they're Lawful Good; they're Lawful Good because they hold to that code. This, in my opinion anyway, eliminates that kind of mercantile approach to the class. The character was Lawful Good before they were a Paladin, their actions in life up to the point of character creation has made them Lawful Good, so it is more in line, to me, to consider it as, because the character has adhered to values X and refrained from actions Y they are being blessed and rewarded by being granted the powers of a Paladin, for as long as they remain worthy of them.

You characterisation of Blackguards and Evil Clerics treats them as basically symmetrical with the paladin, in cosmological terms. In my view, once the game overtly affirms such a cosmology, it has ruled out the paladin archetype as I understand it. For instance, if the correct way to think of a Blackguard is as blessed, like a paladin, but just by a different god, then the paladin's conviction that providence is on his/her side is revealed as objectively mistaken. S/he is simply playing for a different team.

Ok but that's not my characterization, it's the game's characterization. An Evil Cleric functions no different from a Good Cleric or even a Neutral Cleric except for the use of negative vs positive energy, similarly a Blackguard is presented as essentially an Evil Paladin (to the point I question why it was a Prestige Class in 3e.

I don't fully understand where temptation comes from in a mechanical alignment system.

Temptation -> the player and character are given the option, and an incentive, to act outside the confines of their alignment; this can be for expedience, out of conflicting values a character holds, personal interests, etc. sky's the limit. The point is that if the character does choose to act against their ideals it leads to...

Corruption -> the small alignment adjustments, leading the character towards an alignment shift, with only regular violations leading to...

Fall from Grace -> the player has acted out of alignment repeatedly and consistently enough to warrant an alignment shift. For many characters this is not a major issue but for those it is they're now faced with an option, strive to regain their alignment (not particularly difficult immediately after a shift, they're at the borderline between alignments) or press on with their new alignment and either find a new source for their existing abilities or choosing to walk a different path (level in a different class).

 

[Ratskinner]

The issue at hand is having character abilities linked to RP. It will happen in any game in which they are tied together. It can happen frequently, for example, in FATE, where interpretation of character Aspects is required to figure out if they apply in a given situation. In FATE, it can happen for *any and all* characters. For D&D, it only comes up with characters who get powers of alignment or behavior restrictions.

In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate. I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.

I think there are three factors in play:

First and foremost are the stakes in play. That is, in Fate your character isn't crippled when you and the GM disagree, but in D&D you can get de-paladinized or de-clericized. In Fate, you're dickering (sometimes literally) over how much an aspect means to you, not universal truths about right and wrong. That makes the argument part of the story-authoring part of Fate, rather than the "I went to a D&D game and a philosophy class broke out" gamestopper that alignment disputes can turn into.

Secondly, D&D has historically presented it as a "gotcha" opportunity for the DM in his role as adversary/arbiter, rather than a negotiation. D&D's Gamist origins work against it here.* The alignment restrictions on paladins, for instance, are clearly meant as a behavioral "balance" for his abilities. Since Fate is much more open about its group-storytelling agenda and doesn't share a gamist antagonism between GM and players, its also much more open about the idea that the player/GM are in a position to negotiate things like compels and invokes.

Thirdly, Fate aspects are generally/usually more specific and use less charged words than D&D alignments. That is, if you have Devoted Crusader of Pelor as one of your aspects, then we are clearly going to be asking ourselves the question "What would Pelor Do?" rather than "Is doing that good/evil or other?" or "Are you being Lawfully Good enough?"

Anyway, that's how I see it, IME.

*Or don't, depending on your preferences.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The difference is that if the player has decided to play a character dedicated to Good, and the GM decies what Good is, the player's choices are anchored to the GM's decision.

The GM also decided which gods/faiths are present. Deciding the campaign world's treatment of ethical issues is just part of worldbuilding, IMHO.

So the GM decides how Good & Evil are defined, and Paladin players have to choose one set of options consistently or lose power...so what?

Like the Paladin, my profession has a code of conduct. I didn't create it, someone else did, but I accepted it when I entered the field. My say in its nature is minimal- unless I am part of the committees that revises and redrafts the rules, I have almost no say at all beyond voicing ways I think it could be improved. Ultimately, I have to abide by the rules, or I lose my (legal) powers. That loss can be temporary or permanent.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate. I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.

I think the issue is that no edition of D&D (that I am aware of) suggests that, so people have to come up with it independently - indeed, on the contrary, various D&D writers have attempted to "lay down the law" on what LG (for example) is, or go with "the DM is the law", which isn't highly compatible with a negotiated approach.

EDIT - Also Ratskinner's points re: "gotcha!" and power-stripping are well-made. FATE doesn't have you becoming an inferior character, and indeed, iirc, it actually pays you off (I forget how, despite owning so much FATE stuff!) when your aspect is invoked. Further, as Ratskinner says, virtually all pre-3E sources all-but-encourage the DM to treat the Paladin's power as something to be taken for the slightest deviance, and encourage him to keep an eye on that. That's a really problematic situation and encourages adversarial attitudes from both people.

Stop right there. There's a reason to play a Paladin without wanting morality foregrounded: power. Traditionally, Paladins have a habit of being pretty darned potent. If you're playing with a GM that you expect to use lots of antagonists that are evil-aligned, those interested in mechanical performance (or, colloquially, kicking butt and taking names), might be interested in playing a paladin, but having the moral issues overlooked - so they can have all that mechanical performance without restrictions.

I think this is a losing argument, Umbran. Very rarely are D&D Paladins actually powerful, mechanically, certainly not MORE powerful than PCs without moral restrictions. I'd like to see solid evidence otherwise if you disagree, because from 2E onwards, I see a mid-range character, power-wise, not high. Even low in some cases.

 

[Hussar]

The GM also decided which gods/faiths are present. Deciding the campaign world's treatment of ethical issues is just part of worldbuilding, IMHO.

So the GM decides how Good & Evil are defined, and Paladin players have to choose one set of options consistently or lose power...so what?

Like the Paladin, my profession has a code of conduct. I didn't create it, someone else did, but I accepted it when I entered the field. My say in its nature is minimal- unless I am part of the committees that revises and redrafts the rules, I have almost no say at all beyond voicing ways I think it could be improved. Ultimately, I have to abide by the rules, or I lose my (legal) powers. That loss can be temporary or permanent.

This is only true in groups where world building is the sole realm of the DM/GM.

I am not interested in playing games where that is true.

Unlike your professional code of conduct, you paladin has a player outside of reality who can (and IMO, should) come up with codes of conduct that make for interesting games.

Again, just to be absolutely clear, this is a play style issue. I'm simply not interested in games where the DM rules from on high on ethical issues and expects the players to act in accordance to that singular view. It's simply not to my taste. It don't want to DM that way. I want players who are far more engaged in the campaign world than passively accepting whatever interpretations I put forward. I want players who challenge my views and are empowered to do so without me holding a sword of Damocles over their heads to strip their character away from them whenever I feel it's appropriate.

That others feel that this is a good way to play is obviously true.