I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the paladin and the player of the paladin interchangeably, since in the context of a player advocating for his particular character I don't see much practical difference
I guess I do. A player can advocate for his/her PC and decide that s/he is fallen and in need of redemption - I know this because I've seen it in play. That is not about the character authoring his/her own standards, even if the player is authoring them.
You seem to assume everyone wants or likes playing ion your style where there is no gamism
On the contrary - you seem to be assuming that how others play their games is relevant to whether or not alignment is an impediment to my play experience. But I don't really see why it would be. That others enjoy playing with alignment, or find that their games go bananas with exploitative, baby-throat-tearing paladins when they don't use it, doesn't change the reasons I don't like alignment when I play and when I GM.
I don't disagree with this, of course my D&D game could have spaceships with advanced technology and dimensional warp drives (to use an extreme example) but I am talking about the assumptions of the base game
I don't really see starships and wizard guilds as being on a par in terms of deviation from the default assumptions of D&D. For instance, I think it's inherent in traditional D&D that the wizard has a mentor who helped the low level wizard write up a first spellbook.
But whether or not that is true seems tangential. Why are the assumptions of 3E - a version of D&D which I have barely played - relevant to whether or not alignment is an impediment to my play experience? And why are they relevant to whether or not paladins and clerics in my game enjoy an "organisational advantage" which brings with it the price of having to be played partly in accordance with the GM's dictates as to what counts as proper play?
Please go read what the purpose of alignment is.
I have. In 2nd ed AD&D its purpose is to create a "roleplaying challenge" - part of the challenge of playing your character is playing him/her within the bounds of his/her alignment.
In 1st ed AD&D there are hints of this too, though the earlier Gygaxian rationale is also present: that being Lawful and/or Good confers mechanical benefits (like better hireling loyalty) but also restrictions (like no poison, less sneaking and skulking, etc).
A variant on the 2nd ed AD&D approach also mentioned in this thread is to explore the GM's conception of the moral framework of his/her gameworld.
The 3.5 SRD tells me that "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." That implies something like the 2nd ed purpose: alignment sets parameters for your PC's behaviour, and you're then expected to play within them. An alternative reading of alignment in 3E would be that it's a tool the GM uses to work out how PCs are affected by aligned spells, though I don't think the game actually spells that out.
Again we're back to either alignment is pointless with total freedom or a straight jacket
<snip>
Of course another option is... that this scenario does not represent a scenario in which alignment plays a big part
I don't get the significance of the whole "it's not a straitjacket" thing. Either alignment provides guidance on any given occasion, or it does not. If it does, then the fact that there are other times when it doesn't strikes me as pretty irrelevant. If it doesn't, then apparently we have players making decisions without reference to it. Playing without alignment is just like that only all the time!
But anyway, while you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] obviously think this is a big deal, it's irrelevant to me. Whether alignment is a straitjacket or a gossamer jacket, using mechanical alignment requires me to do something I don't want to do, namely, evaluatively judge the actions my players declare for their PCs as part of adjudicating their resolution.
I also don't get the idea that [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]'s scenario does not represent a scenario in which alignment would play a big part. I mean, it looked to me like a fairly rich and complex political/moral setup. What
would be an example of a scenario in which alignment plays a big part?
I've seen some similar (though not as extreme) examples of this general behavior when playing in pick-up games or with people I don't know... I'm curious, how long have you gamed with your particular group, and how often do you game with others outside of it?
Into the 25th year for the group, though not that long for any individual member (the longest there is about 16 years).
I used to play with a fairly wide range of people back when I was a student ie 15 to 20 years ago. Now I play every two to three weeks with my group. (Plus in [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s
play-by-post towards the end of last year.) I never found the throat-tearing paladin to be a big deal back in the 90s, but maybe things have changed. In the last 2nd ed AD&D campaign I played (late 90s), I was able to play a pretty devout cleric, who experienced plenty of morally dificult choices, without the GM enforcing mechanical alignment. (I think I had LN written on my sheet.) In Manbearcat's game I was able to play a paladin, and [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] an avenger, with religious and related evaluative questions being at the forefront of play, without alignment mechanics needing to be deployed. And this despite the fact that none of us had ever played together or (as far as I know) even met.
