All right N'raac, you want an example of alignments being a direct impediment to the game?
How about our own conversation in the rather lengthy Fighter/Caster power thread where I gave the example of a PC wizard using Planar Binding to summon a Glabrezu to gain a wish. You decided that a wish will never be granted, because no wish could ever be "evil enough" for the Glabrezu. I mean, I gave an example of the wizard using the wish to destroy an orphanage, kill a high priest of a good temple and I believe a couple of other pretty thoroughly evil examples.
Your response was to simply brush all examples aside as not evil enough. The wizard could never gain the wish from the Glabrezu without paying for it directly, because no wish could ever be evil enough.
I didn’t actually find that an “alignment dispute”. At the risk of reopening the can of worms, let’s review that discussion briefly. You started with the presumption that a character could simply and easily access as many wishes as desired by Planar Binding a Gabrezu, which would clearly grant a wish immediately to spare it the hassle of being bound for a few days or weeks. The text of the rules was pointed out:
Once per month, a glabrezu can fulfill a wish for a mortal humanoid. The demon can use this ability to offer a mortal whatever he or she desires—but unless the wish is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation.
The point was then made that, if it were so easy to get a wish from a Glabrezu, there was some possibility it had granted a wish within the preceding month. You ranted and railed against the unfairness of it all, and how mean and inequitable this was to the spellcasters you were asserting were vastly and uncontrollably overpowered.
The point was then made that there were criteria the Glabrezu used to assess whether to grant the Wish, so you offered up some vague wishes you felt, on their face, clearly met the requirement to “create pain and suffering in the world”, since you were asserting there was no need for the character to provide any service or reward in exchange for receiving the Wish.
To the specific examples, it was noted that destruction of the orphanage freed the souls of the orphans, so they could not be corrupted by the temptations of the world (perhaps if you offered to assume control over the orphanage and corrupt the orphans, that might get more traction, but that would be work for the PC) and the death of the high priest risks galvanizing, rather than corrupting, good souls. At no point was there any background as to why these specific wishes would be desired by the PC, to back up the original premise that the spell allowed easy and unlimited access to wishes, though.
This, to me, is a perfect example of how alignment plays out at more than a few tables. The DM has a very specific outcome in mind and will simply use the vagueness of the alignment system to channel play into whatever the DM finds acceptable. It has nothing to do with "improving the game experience" or "presenting a believable world" and everything to do with the DM forcing his vision of the game onto the players and using the mechanics to bludgeon them into following.
To the alignment issue, your discussion of the wishes either started with the presumption the Wizard was evil or quickly moved there, and you also seemed to assert that the Glabrezu would be thrilled to grant a wish to a fellow player on Team Evil. To me, that’s a misuse of alignment far more than any you are suggesting here. If we remove alignment, the Glabrezu still wants souls in general, and specifically the creation of pain and suffering in the world or great sacrifice from the person to which it grants a wish.
Finally, its goal is to “tempt victims into ruin”. It strikes me also as a greedy, conniving beast – so it would be looking at how much it can extract in exchange for its great service of granting a wish. To the extent that its personality is a reflection of its alignment, then its choices are alignment-driven, but the removal of the alignment descriptor would not lead me to be any more likely to rule that Glabrezu are the Wish Fairy, cheerily doling out wishes to any caster capable of summoning them.
So you have changed your mind about the compelled flee being scene-ending?
I can see some potential for the scene continuing. However, it is not about whether the scene ends or continues. It is about whether the player’s vision of his character is compromised by the compel being forced upon him. Just as, under your argument, the player is forced to play his character in a manner he considers inappropriate to avoid the threat of an “alignment deviation” as judged by the GM, who disagrees with what appropriate “lawful and good” behaviours would be in this situation.
Thus do you show that a game that (as far as I can tell) you have never played, is in fact impossible to play in the way that its authors and advocates actually say that it is to be played! That in fact alignment - the focus of endless arguments for 30-odd years about GM/player conflicts - is actually a better tool for a player-driven game than Fate, a game where I have never heard of alignment-style problems arising.
Funny…the Fate players seem to be debating quite a bit on the appropriateness of the specific aspect, whether the Compel was valid or appropriate, at what point the player becomes entitled to a Fate point, etc. As well, Fate has the advantage of being an indie game, which tend to attract more experienced gamers. Those gamers are aware of a much wider variety of game options, and will gravitate to those that suit their playstyle. Those more prone to find that alignment degenerates into arguments, and who will likely see similar results arguing over Aspects, are likely to select a different game.
Now perhaps its just the case that crappy GMs only run D&D. Or perhaps there's something about alignment as a mechanic that explains the difference. I guess it's hard to tell . . .
I think D&D is much more widely played and much more likely to attract players and GM’s of widely different playstyles and interpretations of the rules, alignment being just one of them. Ask a group of D&D players whether magic items should be freely available for purchase and see what consensus emerges. Are hp meat or skill is another great question. Pick a D&DNext thread and I expect you have a better than 50% chance of finding an area of disagreement between D&D players. Pick a 13th Age, or Fate, Burning Wheel, etc., thread, and my guess is you will find much less debate, since those players have chosen a specific niche product which, presumably, was selected over numerous other choices (that many D&D, including Pathfinder, gamers have never considered) because of its perceived compatibility with that group’s gaming style. And I bet you find a few where one or more players doesn’t like the system because it’s not consistent with his style.
You seem to be under some sort of misapprehension as to the nature of our discussion. I say this because you seem puzzled that I am not engaging in a sincere way with a discussion about how you might pitch a character for a game.
As I said upthread, I am not going to engage you in a sincere discussion of that.
I don’t really see how we can examine the issues in a vacuum. You told us “this is how my game works”. If your response to any questions on how your game actually works is simply “well, I don’t want to discuss that”, then I quite agree that you have no intention of engaging in a sincere discussion (to use your words).
The reason I am not going to do that is the reason I stated upthread - that I am not particularly interest in having my actual game, that I - an actual person - run, with actual people who are among my best friends as the players,
I have suggested on several occasions that the reason(s) there are very few disputes at your game is that the players and GM are familiar to one another, agree on the style of game and share similar opinions. “Best friends” to me connotes similar attitudes and preferences, as well as long-term association and familiarity, so this seems to support my interpretation in this regard.
What I will say, in response to what I have extracted above, is that you are running together backstory and evaluation. The question of whether or not the Raven Queen can be honoured by animating the dead is primarily a question of backstory. It is not about evaluative or expressive response in the course of play.
I cannot count the number of times you have railed against pre-set backstory in favour of discovery through play. Now it’s all about the backstory. There I can certainly see a key issue, in that you and your players will have a much greater shared backstory than the few paragraphs the game rules might include about a specific deity. To me, that backstory is unavoidably hidden, where it may well be all open to your players.
I will also repeat that you have no idea about how a pitch of your character would end up going in my game, because you have not pitched a character for my game nor ever participated in or observed a pitch from someone who is playing in my game. I therefore would prefer it if you stopped imputing to me opinions or behaviours that I have not asserted or demonstrated.
In my view, you assert or demonstrate opinions or behaviours by your response to my questions about a hypothetical character. We all assert or demonstrate opinions merely by posting, even when we do not consciously recognize the opinions we demonstrate.
"Evaluation" here is being used in the same sense as taking a count of the day's earnings might be described as evaluating those earning. When I talk about "evaluative or expressive response" I am using "evaluative" insofar as it pertains to values - aesthetic, moral and ethical considerations. The stuff that you'll find under "value theory" in any standard philosophy textbook.
Here we come to that “real world ethics and values” discussion which, to me, carries the greatest risk of violating board rules and which I am not in any way interested in discussing, as I have stated a few times above. I am not arguing about evaluating the PC or player’s moral choices against the writings of great (or deemed great) philosophers whose philosophies do not produce any consensus amongst themselves, nor within those who study them. I am discussing the evaluation of the PC’s actions and outlook against the standards set by another being, not against a (nonexistent) standard of what is truly “good”, “evil”, “moral” or “ethical” from a purely philosophical basis. My goal is to play the game, not obtain a PhD in Philosophy (or in RPGology – which I note some posters seem to believe they possess, despite the absence, to my knowledge, of any organization granting degrees in this area).
Why would I answer this question? First, it is against board rules to discuss matters of politics and religion. Second, even if it wasn't, why would I share my opinion with you? I have described the situation the samurai was in - you work out for yourself whether or not you think he faced a moral dilemma.
Because it sets the context for the discussion of whether alignment actually had an impact here? You raised the example as one where alignment would clearly and obviously have detracted from great play. I challenged your assertion of whether this was accurate, much less clear and obvious. You now no longer wish to discuss that example. To me, that markedly reduces its weight as an example of clear, obvious problems with alignment in play. To be clear, it in no way reduces the possibility (strong, in my view) that it was great play, and that it may have challenged the PC’s beliefs. However, I see no reason that equal play could not arise in a game where alignment is utilized.
I think you're projecting. The only value-laden word I used was "treacherous". You seem to equate treachery with evil. I have not asserted such an equation. Nor do I intend to share my opinion on that point with you, for reasons already stated.
Treachery is a word which has negative connotations. Are you prepared to state that, in the game context in which the matter arose only, you do, or do not, consider devil worship an evil act (or a non-good act, or an act which has moral connotations, positive or negative)?
Thankfully, you don't have to agree for it to be true.
Neither does your disagreement render it false. Nothing I am aware of is capable of converting subjective opinions into objective facts.
Instead of playing my angel NPC, you would have me sticking a needless label on her - Lawful Good - and then spending time on interpreting that label, and under what circumstances it changes, instead of just playing her.
Playing her based on what? You classify LG as a “needless label”. But she already came with a label you cited yourself – “Resolute Defender”. Did you not interpret the meaning of that label, and under what circumstances it would change, in order to play her? I don’t believe she entered the game as a tabula rasa – a complete blank slate – but rather as an Angel who is a Resolute Defender, all labels which carry certain connotations which must be interpreted when she interacts with the PC’s.
Or with the ogres. Why do I care whether the ogres are "evil" or "not evil" and what my play of them means for that purpose. It's pointless labelling. It adds nothing to the game. It doesn't help the player engage the scene. It doesn't help me resolve the scene. So why would I do it?
As a player, it makes a great deal of difference to how I would engage the scene if I see evidence that the ogres regularly eat human children, torture other beings for enjoyment or otherwise engage in evil acts. You provided two great, evocative examples of the chair made from human skin and sinew, and the stack of small children’s skulls in the kitchen. If, instead, I see a group of sentient non-humans who are just trying to eke out a living and survive, the same as the human settlers I have come here seeking to protect and defend, this presents a very different picture for my character to engage with. Are they “evil”? Or are they painted as evil because they are different, and because acknowledging our similarities might require harder choices. “Slay the evil ogres to protect the helpless children” is a lot different from “Kill off the ogres because we want their food and lands to make our lives easier”.
In the last of the above-quoted sentences, you say that I am not right that alignment could add nothing to my game. What could it add? You apparently know me and my game so well - tell me what I'm missing out on?
What I say is that, given your view that alignment is so much a straightjacket that it would prevent the play examples you provided, it would be detrimental to your game. But that is because of the way you view alignment as a straightjacket, not because that is the only way alignment can be viewed under the rules.
First, let me stipulate the following meaning for the phrase "evaluatively meaningful choice." A choice is evaluatively meaningful if it is hard not because of epistemic uncertainty, but because of value conflict: for instance, it requires sacrificing prudence to honour, or sacrificing love for the greater good, etc.
Here I agree entirely. It is not when our choices are between something we clearly consider Good and clearly consider Evil that these decisions are difficult, but when there are conflicts between two or more choices we would consider Good (to choose Good and Evil). Prudence or honour? Law vs Chaos. “I have sworn to defend this pass, and defend it I shall” “You’re an idiot then – you’ll die for nothing.” Two viewpoints on the same action, both defensible and neither unassailable.
“Violence is wrong” is pretty easy in abstract. It’s a lot tougher when violence is a means to preventing a greater evil. You provide a number of great examples below, so I’ll leave any I would suggest out.
Whereas deciding whether or not to stake the vampire through the heart, who also happens to be your lover;
Here again, the backstory matters. If it is known that vampires are lost to evil, or is it possible to save her? In the former case, she’s already dead, which makes the answer a lot easier. In the latter, I am choosing between respect for her life, which might still be saved, and preserving the safety of the lives she might take should she escape before being cured. Which is the greater good? A fine question – and one that the alignment system does not resolve. I would see the G character able to make either choice, as both are motivated by an aspect of Good.
deciding whether to continue honouring your god when you find out that s/he is responsible for the seemingly needless suffering of mortals
Here we get into “hidden backstory”. Is that suffering in fact needless, or only “seemingly”? Now we get into the values set in the game system – if it is a certainty within the game’s cosmology that this deity is, in fact, Good, then that suffering must only seem needless, and the virtue is faith. If this is not a “known certainty” within the game, then the character’s choice becomes more interesting.
However, regardless of “objective goodness”, if the character draws his abilities from faith, devotion and service to that deity, and chooses to cease honouring him/her, then it makes no sense to me that the character would retain those abilities. The possibility of regaining or retaining those abilities, or gaining different abilities, through devotion to some other power (or through personal training and effort) seems much more reasonable in game. This is not a judgement over the “goodness” or “rightness” or “morality” of the character’s choice – it is a consequence of the choice which arises logically based on the fiction, with the evaluation made by the deity based on its own standards.
If causing needless suffering is “good” in this setting, then the meaning of “good” does not match its meaning in ordinary usage.
deciding whether to stay and defend the doorway so that your friends can escape, though it will probably cost you your life - those are evaluatively meaningful choices.
True. But then, am I truly “good” if I accept that I am dead either way – flight or staying will not alter my fate – and I choose to stay? I have sacrificed nothing - there was no hope either way. Of course, in most games, there is probably still a chance I will survive. To me, a much more difficult moral dilemma involves the teammate. My friend shouts “Go on – I will hold the passage and buy you time to escape”. Do I argue with him, press him to flee while I stay, press that we can all escape and I’m not leaving without him, or accept his sacrifice and save my own skin? This is another tough one where I can’t see any choice being “non-good” or a penalty to that Paladin (mind you, if he’s a devoted follower of a Defender deity, leaving someone else to die in his place seems pretty inappropriate from the deity’s standards, if not his own).
But really, who’s the selfish one here? The guy defending the doorway knows – as his teammates do that this sacrifice will secure him a place of honour in the afterlife, while those staying behind must deal with the pains and temptations of the mortal world, and don’t get the same exalted place in the afterlife. Why that inconsiderate so-and-so, using our continued pain in the mortal realm as his stepping stone to Valhalla!
The context sets the evaluative framework.
Now, with that definition ready-to-hand, I will state my contention: there seems to me to be a reasonably widespread belief that a character in an RPG cannot face an evaluatively meaningful choice unless the options are canonically labelled with the values at stake, and the character has also been canonically labelled in his/her orientation towards the various values.
Is it a meaningful choice whether to defend the door for one’s teammates if the character has already been established as a selfish coward who cares for no one but himself? The characters do not, and should not, exist in a vacuum. The rules of the game should also be known. I recall a great article some years back (pre-TNG, actually) on a Star Trek RPG which commented that, true to the source material, the characters should be unhesitating in their willingness to sacrifice themselves for their friends. There would never be a pause between an offer to trade other lives for the Captain’s and the Captain’s acceptance of the terms. But there is an equal onus on the GM to honour the genre and provide the ability of that sacrificing Captain to emerge victorious and alive.
It seems like a lot greater a sacrifice when the player knows he’ll be rolling up a new character in 5 minutes than if the game table discussion reflects on “My character’s L8 special ability to escape certain death once per week, if he heroically sacrifices himself to defend his friends under hopeless odds”, or even “Yeah, but the game rules say that my heroic sacrifice gains my new character a gain of one level above the sacrificed character”. Sure, the scene looks good and heroic, but that “get out of death free card” (or the “new pawn is tougher than the old pawn”) cheapens the sacrifice greatly, at least in my view.
Anyway, as is obvious in my use of the phrase "mistaken theory", I think this belief that seem to me reasonably widespread is mistaken. In particular, I know from experience that a character in an RPG can face an evaluatively meaningful choice without the options needing to be canonically labelled, and without the character being canonically labelled either.
I agree, but only with a caveat. For there to actually be a meaningful choice, there must be previously established personality traits to the character which cause the choice to be difficult. That might be because the choice places two or more values in conflict, or because following the character’s personality will carry negative consequences. “Yes, I know it’s an obvious trap. My character can probably see that, too. But he also sees the bait – an innocent man who may actually be in real danger if this is not a trap. He would never walk away from that.” It doesn’t matter whether the personality that leads to that decision is that “Sir Gallice is a noble defender of the innocent”, or “He’s LG – that’s what he would do” or “I walked away from my responsibilities once and my Uncle Ben suffered for it – I won’t ever let that happen again” (although I vastly prefer the first or last as detailing the “LG” from the middle). Bad play? That would be “He’s just an NPC – who cares what happens to him?” Good play might well be “Sucks to be him – I’m not risking MY neck”, but that’s not much of a heroic game, and leads to pawn play in my experience. “Sir Albert always carefully weighs the risks and benefits and takes whatever approach will benefit his quest for power and wealth the most. He never lets anything distract him from his personal well-being, wealth and power. He has no attachments or emotions.” – that character adds nothing to the game.
I'm not saying that everyone who plays RPGs should care about evaluatively meaningful choices, let alone prioritise them as a focus of play. But I care about them. They matter in my game. Alignment isn't necessary for them to be part of the game, and in my long reply to Umbran upthread I explained why the GM making alignment judgements can be an impediment to a game that focuses on them.
Emphasis added. Here is where we seem to disconnect. I agree that alignment isn’t necessary, and I agree that it can be an impediment. I do not agree that alignment cannot be useful, or that it will always be an impediment to such a game. You seem to be arguing alignment detracts from the game. You have asserted numerous great play experiences could not happen if alignment rules were used. I disagree with you – I have seen lots of similar great play experiences that happened with alignment rules in use. I’ve seen lots of others that occurred without alignment rules (disadvantage rules under Hero cover many), and most could have occurred without any specific alignment/ disadvantage/ whatever rules. But those rules can and do help guide the game. A character could be a defender of the innocent who is afraid of snakes with no Aspects to reward or penalize those character traits as well. But incorporation of rules which guide players, especially newer players and GM’s, towards seeing the character as more than just a bundle of mechanical stats are, in my view, valuable in establishing the role playing (these are characters, not pawns) aspect, not just the game (do what it takes to win shall be the whole of the law) aspect.
Another assertion I have heard, though not on this thread, is “I want the character to just develop in play”. This means the player wants to enter play with no alignment, no backstory and no personality traits whatsoever, and figure it out as he goes along. I’m curious how many of us are OK with that playstyle entering into our current games – no one knows anything about the character as he comes onstage, and everything is developed in play.
There is an additional feature of D&D alignment, though, beyond the insistence on the necessity of canonical labelling. There is also the apparent conviction that all value commitments and all value conflicts can be helpfully summarised in a grid defined by two 3-place axes.
This is your view, and not a universal belief of the alignment system. This is what creates an “alignment is a straightjacket” mindset and play. Just as it is possible for some actions to have no alignment relevance at all. Is tying my shoe Good? Evil? Lawful? Chaotic? No, it’s just tying my shoe so I don’t fall on my face. Some result in conflict within alignment. Does “respect for life” mean sparing this murderer to live out his days, or do I respect the lives of his victims and execute him so he can never repeat his crimes? Either could be chosen by a Good character, including a NG character, and two characters of the same broad alignment could well come to different decisions. One may be “right” to a Good deity of Mercy, and another right to a Good deity of Justice. No one is arguing that nine alignments should mean only nine possible views of the world. That’s more a boardgame mechanic to me.
There are not three points on each scale (G,N,E and L,N,C), but a wide continuum between the two extremes of Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil. LG characters are in the upper left corner of the square, but there are a lot of different points in that corner of the square. Paladins are in there, closer to the top (Good – as a single Evil act costs them their grace) but along the spectrum from left to right of that square (varying degrees, but all Lawful).
“Alignment requires each act be specifically categorized” is, to me, straightjacket play which demonstrates a poor or lacking understanding and/or implementation of the rules. It is, in fact, a strawman in the alignment debate. Show me ONE PERSON, one single post, which has suggested this is the way alignment should work in a game - not “this is why alignment should be removed”, but a supporter of the alignment system suggesting it would categorically determine whether the Vampire lover gets staked, the character continues to honour a deity who causes needless suffering, a character sacrifices himself to buy time for his friends to escape, the murderer is imprisoned rather than killed or the Angel can be persuaded to abandon its post for the Greater Good.
You are the one who is raising the assertion Alignment requires such categorization, then using that assertion to oppose the use of alignment. No one is actually supporting such a straightjacket. So how about addressing the real questions, rather than your strawman. [Apologies for anyone offended by the term “strawman” – I rarely use the term, but I cannot see any other valid description for this assertion.]
