Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

Well, let us look at a couple of them.The rules do allow a player to invoke their own aspects to assist others, yes. IIRC, in essence that means that the others get a bonus, rather like the player would if they invoked for themselves. So, the innocents can get a +2 on the "sneak away" roll. But it is by no means a done deal. Just as the compel shouldn't end the scene, neither should the invocation.Also, this leans on the fact that the character has a specific aspect - it does not give us a general solution to scene-ending compels.

But I'm not using it to give a +2, I very clearly stated what use (as described in Fate core which may be different from Dresden as it is a later incarnation of the Fate rules) I am initiating with my Fate point (listed below), I'm not sure why you are changing my action with the Fate point and then using that as a basis to argue against it... Also I believe the +2 is for other characters, not NPC's...Declare a Story Detail: To add something to the narrative based onone of your aspects, spend a fate point.

The player can suggest an alteration to the original compel. The GM says, "You flee." The player then asks, "Okay, but can the snake chase me?" is a perfectly valid request by the player. But, the fact that the player *might* (if they happen to think of it) save the two of you from the mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake! If you *need* the player to suggest a modification for it to not be scene-ending, you have messed up, IMHO.

Again this is wrong per the most current Fate rules... the player can create his own compel off the situation as it stands (him fleeing from the snake) as long as he does not mitigate the act of fleeing from the snake. The great thing is that he will get another Fate point if the added complication of the snake chasing him is accepted as a valid compel.

There are good reasons why the rules strong suggest that compels not impose an action on the PC, but instead impose restrictions on PC actions. We could continue to discuss hypothetical situations in which we can narrowly wiggle around the bad effects of such, but that'd be a series of anecdotes, rather than an actual proof that everything's going to be okay in play. Or, we can accept that maybe the designers have a good point on this one.I know, to some it is a funny idea that the designers might be right, but there it is.

Could you provide some reference for where the designers in Fate core say this? I've seen you assert it numerous times, but in re-reading Fate core I haven't found this advice stated anywhere. There are compels suggested where a specific action and its consequences are asserted upon a PC... Here are some examples from the core book...

Zird has Not the Face! when he gets challenged to a barfight,so it makes sense that he’d decide to back down from the challenge.This goes wrong when the rest of the patrons decide he’sa coward and throw him unceremoniously out into the street.

Cynere has Tempted by Shiny Things while touring an ancientmuseum, so it makes sense that she’d decide to, ahem, liberatea couple of baubles for her personal collection. This goes wrongwhen she discovers that the artifacts are cursed, and she’s nowbeholden to the Keepers of the Museum if she wants the curselifted.

Here is some relevant information about Scenes and their purpose/ending... My take is that, as I said before, it is up to the players to decide when a scene ends by whether they can or cannot still achieve their goals and seems to suggest that your assumption that fleeing the snake meant the goal of saving the innocents was impossible was a mistake on your part... and as a player you ended the scene at that point. As a GM, and knowing their were ways to still save them, I wouldn't have ended the scene there unless the player chooses to.

...scene revolves around resolving a specific conflict or achieving a specificgoal—once the PCs have succeeded or failed at doing whatever they aretrying to do, the scene’s over. If your scene doesn’t have a clear purpose, yourun the risk of letting it drag on longer than you intended and slow the paceof your session down.Most of the time, the players are going to tell you what the purpose ofthe scene is, because they’re always going to be telling you what they wantto do next as a matter of course.

 

[Nagol]

<snip lots>

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.

<snip>

That's my preferred mode for D&D (as well as a bunch of other games). The initial alignment is aspirational/guideline for initial play that has about as much thought put into it as the starting class choice. Back story is what develops as the PC adventures and earns reputation and history. I consider the PC's pre-adventuring time short and mostly outside the scope of my interest.

Other games rely more heavily on background like CHAMPIONS and Pendragon. In those systems PCs work better if histories pre-exist and are integrated with the environment.

 

[N'raac]

What it comes down to is this:

A compel, "You flee," is pretty much a scene-ender. The character cannot generally interact with the scene as given, and it will resolve without his or her input. As far as the character is concerned, the scene is over, and they are moving into a different scene.

Yet it seems like it makes perfect sense given the aspect itself. Could the player not perceive “you cannot approach within striking distance” as a scene ender (he can only stand and watch as the snake consumes the helpless innocents) rather than a complication?

The player can suggest an alteration to the original compel. The GM says, "You flee." The player then asks, "Okay, but can the snake chase me?" is a perfectly valid request by the player. But, the fact that the player *might* (if they happen to think of it) save the two of you from the mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake! If you *need* the player to suggest a modification for it to not be scene-ending, you have messed up, IMHO.

Why is it bad form to make the player think of a way he can impact the scene while fleeing, but OK to require him to think of a way to defend the victims without approaching close enough to strike the serpent? Both force him to think of a means of affecting the scene other than his first, preferred approach (and the approach he considered appropriate to his vision of the character).

What if he had chosen to flee, and been instead Compelled to attack the snake by his Defender of the Innocent aspect? Is it OK to force the scene to continue, but not to force it to end (either being against the wishes of the player)? If so, why?

There are good reasons why the rules strong suggest that compels not impose an action on the PC, but instead impose restrictions on PC actions.

That seems largely like semantics. If I simply reset the scene, the player can be tracking down those poor innocents when the trail of a huge serpent merges with their tracks. “Oh no!” says the player “I must find these innocents quickly to defend them!”, using his last Fate point in order to enhance whatever roll he needs to make to catch up to them in the chase. The GM then Compels his “Why did it have to be snakes?” and restricts his actions – clearly, he cannot try to approach closer to this huge serpent! He has no Fate point left to resist, and he cannot spend the one he receives to mitigate his inability to get closer to the snake.

“Restrict actions rather than require actions” seems a pretty fuzzy demarcation, in other words. Or, in the context of this thread, a rule which requires interpretation in its application. And anything requiring interpretation can lead to disagreement and argument.

 

[Cadence]

I read this as implying that you actually did have control after the initial backstory stuff - albeit informal control. Have I misunderstood?

The two PCs discussed why we thought it should work, and the DM might have changed what was going to happen based on that discussion. Is that similar to another thread I saw where the GM was asking if he should change what was going on in a mystery based on what the characters' hypothesis was (since he thought it was better than what he had planned)? Between adventures many of our DMs will also ask for extra input on what the players would like to try next, but that seems similar in concept to initial backstory.

I really think this is something of a red herring. I don't play with strong player authorship of the Fate variety (or even the Burning Wheel variety). The key issue with alignment mechanics, at least for me, isn't backstory/world creation.

I could be miss-remembering some previous posts, or might need to go revisit them to see what the different levels of player authorship are. At times this feels like a debate between a political moderate slightly left of center and one slightly right of center where they're actually almost the same on everything policy wise but have a different language and baseline so they think they're worlds apart.

But I can't really envisage this happening for a core detail, out of the blue as it were, like "What's the basic connection between my world view and that of my patron deity?"

But if each player is developing their own relationship with the same deity then it seems like a conflict could arise. That could be fine in a campaign with low levels of active divine revelation. (Is having rare, at the most, divine revelation necessary to have any schisms or conflicts within a single denomination?)

It's about the place of evaluative and expressive response in the game. You can have the most vanilla methodologies you like for backstory creation (and by all standards but the most traditional my game is pretty vanilla), but still not want it to be part of the GM's job (or anyone else's, for that matter) to make those judgments that alignment mechanics require.

Certainly.

It seems to me that alignment is not playing much of a role in either episode. For instance, your gnome seems to be entertaining the conclusion that the "LG" creator god is not really good - which strike me as contrary to the traditional canons of alignment.

I just let the matter drop in that game since the "LG" god seemed to match the theology of DMs actual religion enough to make it seem like the discussion wouldn't end well...

It sounds like you were taking the challenges of the situations that confronted your PCs very seriously. What I'm missing is how alignment fitted in.

<snip>

In an alignment free game I think the same situation could be set up - certain classes can be associated with reverence for certain gods without mediation via alignment (which I think is often the de facto approach for druid PCs, especially 3E-style druids with their watered-down neutrality), and then the challenge for your gnome would be the question of worship.

Echoing @N'raac (post #447) a bit, we probably could have done many of those particular things in a game without alignment. I feel like having alignment in the game left the option for it to have been a focus if I had wanted it to be. By choosing a not culturally accepted deity and a tortured background I was choosing to have her deal with the complications they brought. If I had decided to make the priestess lawfull then I would have also been deciding that part of the conflict she would face was to what extents she was allowed to hide what she was. If I had decided to make her good then I would have had a conflict with whether selfishly(?) keeping the girl with her was better than giving her the safer option of being with the priestesses. The other player's character in the Norse-ish game chose to be good. I think that added a layer of extra complication for him in how he could carry out his vengeance against the clan that was involved in destroying his home town when we had them helpless but the previous influence of an evil god (that may or may not have been a mitigating factor in their guilt) was lifted.

--

Related to a response of yours to @N'raac ,

Why would I waste my time as GM with any of the above? How does it add anything to my game? 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.

As long as neither you nor any of your players wants to explore the boundaries of alignment in a world that has it, and as long as you don't find any use in the various alignment spells or its use as a brief two word descriptor, then I don't think it adds anything for you.

I wonder if taking a big tent approach to alignment would make the time interpreting the label a non-issue though -- kind of like leaving the views of the Raven Queen not nailed down until needed. That is, instead of having a world where there are 8 gods who are all define what that alignment means as a foundational property of the game universe, the alignments each contain a wide range of views so that arguments are only at the extremes (and maybe they overlap some). If the characters belief that all Orcs are evil and will grow up to do monstrous things to other sentient beings hasn't been contradicted by any widely accepted evidence, then murdering the young ones seems like it might pass as the best (if not good) option. If it has been established in game that alignment is nature and not nurture then is it controversial to say it's bad to murder helpless children when you have the alternative just because you don't like their parents and they don't look like you? Even in a world with no alignment, wouldn't the vast majority of people treat the killer like a villain? The world with alignment gets to keep the detect spells and the overarching conflict between those splashes of light and dark (and however law and chaos are colored). Without alignment is everything just shades of gray? (I'm not expecting a philosophical discussion of that here, but suggestions of a favorite general-audience-book on the topic would certainly be appreciated).

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.

I don't think I would have much trouble adapting my playing style (as a PC) to the DMing styles of most of the posters in these threads... and I think that makes it hard for me to really internalize why it would be so difficult for some of y'all to play in the kind I would run by default. Maybe one of the most valuable things I'm getting from all of this (and other threads on a variety of issues) is an awareness of the kinds of questions I should run by the group of prospective players when I DM next. Because even though a lot of the things that are brought up are my default preference, they aren't particularly strong preferences.

 

[Hussar]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with mechanics and styles that vary from table to table.

However, let's not compare apples to oranges though. The level of magic items in a game world isn't the same thing as alignment. But, that's not the big issue.

Ask ten DM's about how much magic there should be in a campaign world, and you'll get ten different answers, sure. But, ask ten DM's about alignment, and you'll get ten different answers, some of which are actually mutually exclusive. Very few DM's would say there should be no magic items in a game world. Less or more? Sure, no problems. But none at all? That's a pretty rare sight.

But, it's very common, and seen in this thread more than once, that two DM's, looking at the same situation, will interpret the alignment rules in mutually exclusive ways, and both be right under the mechanics.

That's some pretty poorly worded mechanics right there.

 

[N'raac]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with mechanics and styles that vary from table to table.

However, let's not compare apples to oranges though. The level of magic items in a game world isn't the same thing as alignment. But, that's not the big issue.

Ask ten DM's about how much magic there should be in a campaign world, and you'll get ten different answers, sure. But, ask ten DM's about alignment, and you'll get ten different answers, some of which are actually mutually exclusive. Very few DM's would say there should be no magic items in a game world. Less or more? Sure, no problems. But none at all? That's a pretty rare sight.

"Magic can be purchased as a commodity" is mutually exclusive from "magic is rare and exists only where placed in the game". My choice of a Fighter specialized in a very exotic weapon will play out very differently at a table where 70% of magical weapons are longswords, and you get what you find, then at a table where I can have a magical Dire Flail custom made with the precise magical properties I want to further my build.

But, it's very common, and seen in this thread more than once, that two DM's, looking at the same situation, will interpret the alignment rules in mutually exclusive ways, and both be right under the mechanics.

That's some pretty poorly worded mechanics right there.

How fortunate, then, that no one disagrees on how spells should be interpreted (whether the micro of what each spell accomplishes, like whether Mirror Images stay in the caster's square or each occupy their own space, or the macro, such as whether verbal components may be expressed in a hushed whisper rather than a strong, clear voice), how monster descriptions should be interpreted (say, for example, the ease of persuading a Glabrezu to grant a wish), how magic items work (a discussion on whether opening a bag of holding underwater means it is destroyed comes to mind) and how skills function (such as whether a target can refuse to listen long enough for an unpenalized diplomacy attempt), among many other mechanics, right?

 

[Hussar]

There is a difference though N'Raac, with your magic item example. The rules state something to the effect of, "This is the baseline that the designers assume and all design is based on that baseline. If you deviate from that baseline, you will have different results in your game." 3e D&D presumes fungible magic items and everything in the game is based on the idea of character wealth by level. If you deviate from that, you will change the balance of your game.

The other stuff you list has more to do with difference in interpretation, but, very few of them are mutually exclusive. Is a bag of holding destroyed when opened underwater is a situation that probably isn't going to come up in a game all that often. Will the DM screw over his players by having his NPC's refuse to listen to the players in order to preserve his carefully crafted plot is more of a DM issue than a rules one.

However, when two DM's look at a situation, come up with exact opposite interpretations, AND THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT, is a problem with the mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Why is it bad form to make the player think of a way he can impact the scene while fleeing, but OK to require him to think of a way to defend the victims without approaching close enough to strike the serpent?

<snip>

“Restrict actions rather than require actions” seems a pretty fuzzy demarcation, in other words. Or, in the context of this thread, a rule which requires interpretation in its application. And anything requiring interpretation can lead to disagreement and argument.

Am I right in thinking you have little or no familiarity with Fate? Whereas [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] actually plays the game.

Some demarcations are fuzzy when stated but reasonably intuitive in play. I think the difference between a scene-ender and a scene-complicator in play is generally pretty clear.
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - am I right in thinking that if, as per Umbran's take, the compel is modified via player input ("As I run the snake chases me") then the player gets only the one fate point and gets to keep it, whereas on your approach of the player's "compel in reply" ("I make the snake chase me") earns the player a second fate point?

 

[Sadras]

However, when two DM's look at a situation, come up with exact opposite interpretations, AND THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT, is a problem with the mechanics.

Not necessarily, both DMs are roleplaying the deities which are in essence NPCs, and every DM plays NPCs differently for whatever reason. Your only argument is the "judgement" of the PCs actions by the DMs according to the code of their deity which may lead them to lose their abilities making the class "unplayable"
There are many factors to be considered / steps to be made for such a drastic action to occur and I believe you dismiss these too quick in your approach to chastise Alignment while aligning it with poor DMing.

We never said the use of Alignment was an easy thing to DM. Perhaps it should be a modular advanced option. But to completely discount its value is ridiculous - it can be a tool for interesting narrative purposes, meaningful choices with heavy consequences. Think of it as a gritty ethical/morale system much like using a harsh combat system where PC can lose eyes, arms and legs permanently.

 

[pemerton]

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).

Try rereading this paragraph. What is "the issue"? As far as I can tell, the issue is "Is pemerton telling the truth about how his game works?"

You can believe me or not - frankly, I don't care that much, as you are someone I've never met nor am likely too - but do you seriously expect me to entertain as a topic of investigation that I'm lying, or perhaps fundamentally confused, about my own play experiences?

“Best friends” to me connotes similar attitudes and preferences

Perhaps, then, you move in narrower circles than me. In my experience people can be good friends but have different attitudes.

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.

There is more apparent confusion here. We are not playing a game together. Nor are we building a PC together.

Nor have I ever claimed to run a strictly no myth game. I've posted multiple times that my 4e game started with three instructions to the players: I want to use the core 4e cosmology as set out in the PHB, MM and DMG; I want you to give me a reason your PC is ready to fight goblins; and I want you to tell me one loyalty that your PC has. That is not a backstory-free game. It has gods, for instance, including the Raven Queen, described in the PHB as being a god to whom "Mourners call upon . . . in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath."

You seem to think that it is consistent with people praying to a god to guard their dead loved ones from being turned into undead that that god would like undead. You seem to think it consistent with a god being the sworn enemy of Orcus, demon prince of undeath, that she should like undead. As a matter of ordinary English usage, it makes no sense to pray to the source of a threat in the hope that it will guard you against that threat. You might hope to guard against a threat by asking the source not to inflict it on you, but that sentence has a different syntax from the one occurring in the PHB that I quoted upthread. It is not the mourners who guard: they ask the Raven Queen to guard their deceased loved ones. Ie she protects people from the curse of undeath. Perhaps what my players and I all have in common in having come to a non-collusive agreement on what that implied for her hatred of undead is that we can all agree on the meaning of ordinary sentences of English?

If you wanted to pitch a character based on the fact that popular beliefs about the Raven Queen are wrong - that in fact she does not guard deceased mortals from the curse of undeath, but inflicts it upon them - then were you a player in my game I'd say "Let's talk about it". But as I've mentioned several times you are not a player in my game and hence I'm not really interested in talking about it with you.

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.

Bully for you. That is not what I am interested in doing in my RPGing. Or rather, I am not very interested in evaluating the PCs' actions and outlook against the opinions of being whose own actions and outlooks whose moral adequacy or inadequacy is already stipulated by the language of alignment.

In other words: when the PCs in my game returned Kas's sword to him, I was happy to draw the conclusion that Vecna was angry with them. But I am not remotely interested in asking the question whether or not what they did was good or evil, where those notions are identified by stipulation with the opinion of certain NPCs run by the GM.

Was it the right or wrong thing to return Kas's sword to him? Answering that is a matter of evaluative and expressive response. It is not part of administering the game as GM.

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.

I've told you how alignment would have detracted - because it would require me to ask and answer questions that are of no relevance to me - such as the question you are now asking me to answer! (Namely, did the samurai face a moral dilemma? And did he do the right thing?)

It's not true that I don't wish to discuss the example. What I am not going to do is share my moral opinions with you. Which is what you are asking me to do, in asking whether or not the samurai faced a moral dilemma. You work it out.

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.

I have never said that this is why alignment would be an obstacle. That is a view you have imputed to me. As I just repeated above, the reason I do not use mechanical alignment is because it is a needless epiphenomenal device, that requires the GM to make judgements using morally loaded language about the choices that the players make for playing their PCs.

I see no reason that equal play could not arise in a game where alignment is utilized.

You're not obliged to. I suspect that for you, it wouldn't have. You seem to have a very different approach to aesthetic and evaluative response from mine. That is fine - people are different. But it doesn't make it less true that, for me, the application and adjudication of mechanical alignment would detract from that episode of play, because for both GM and player it would change the focus of play from the PC and the situation, to a needless and (it increasingly seems to me) largely arbitrary process of tracking movements on the alignment grid. And that activity has no interest for me.

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”.

I am at a loss here as to what work is being done by alignment mechanics.

If you think that people who eat children and use their body parts to make furniture merit opposition, perhaps death, what does it add to that judgement to mediate via the mechanical label "evil"? If you think that sentient beings who are "different" but otherwise harmless in order to steal their food and land would be wrong, then what does it add to that judgement to say "Oh, and by the way, they're not Evil"?

The language and mechanics of alignment seem utterly otiose.

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?

What does this question even mean? I DON'T USE MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT. The whole point of that is that, in the game context, devil worship is not an X act, where X ranges over the various traditional D&D alignments. It is not a Lawful act, nor a non-lawful act, nor a chaotic act, nor a non-chaotic act. Nor good nor evil nor non-good, nor non-evil. Nor neutral. That is what it means to not use mechanical alignment. It means that acts, in the game, do not have a mechanically or GM-assigned moral character.

Ask a RQ player or GM whether, in the game context, a particular act of worship is an evil or non-evil act, and they should stare at you blankly. That question is meaningless. Because they don't use mechanical alignment. Likewise for me.

I myself have quite rich views about the significance of devil worship within the gameworld, and what sort of significance - moral and otherwise - it can carry. But as I've already indicated, I do not intend to share those views with you, even if I thought I could do so without violating board rules.

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?

No, I didn't interpret the circumstances under which it would change.

The phrase "resolute defender" is my present summary of a vague recollection of how the module author described her personality and divine mission. I used that summary to guide my adjudication of the action resolution in the scene (mostly, the setting of difficulty levels for the task of persuading her). At the end of the episode, was the module author's description of her still true of her? I don't know, and to be frank I don't really care. As has been said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!

As something of an aside: if you are now suggesting that alignment descriptors are in fact mere shorthand personality shorthands, and nothing more, then you're not talking any more about mechanical alignment in the traditional D&D sense. For instance, under that approach (i) alignment becomes a straitjacket, which I though you rejected; and (ii) the notion of "lawful good" act has no meaning other than "the sort of behaviour a lawful good person would engage in". (And I think the notion of "good" act, independently of being either lawful or chaotic or neutral good, would have no meaning at all.)

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).

All I will say is that I consider this quite contestable, and refer you to both Michael Walzer's work on "dirty hands" and Max Weber's essay "Politics as a Vocation".

Here we get into “hidden backstory”.

On what basis do you say that? How do you know that this element of backstory was used to determine the outcome of some episode of action resolution. For all I've said, it could have been stipulated by the GM as part of the consequences of action resolution (perhaps a failed Religion check by the player of a divine PC).

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.

Who is "we"? I don't get into this, because I don't use mechanical alignment. (I also don't quite see how this fits with alignment not being a straitjacket. If a particular god is authoritatively good, and you disagree with him/her on some fundamental point, then aren't you ipso fact evil?)

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.

Here is just one possible reason: the god continues to embrace the apostate out of love. I'm sure, in the right context, there could be others.

If causing needless suffering is “good” in this setting, then the meaning of “good” does not match its meaning in ordinary usage.

I barely understand this sentence. Gygax defines "good" by reference to human rights and the alleviation of suffering, the 2nd ed PHB says that "good beings are just that", and the 3E SRD defines "good" by reference to altruism and avoidance of harm. So how could needless suffering by "good"? This isn't just an issue of ordinary usage, although D&D clearly means to piggyback on ordinary usage in its alignment definitions. It's an issue of the statements in the game texts.

If we're talking about a GM's house rule: a GM can tell me, too, that the king in his game has a table that (i) exists in Euclidean space, and (ii) is exactly 21 feet around and 7 feet across; and furthermore, (iii) his sages can square the circle with nothing but compass and ruler. It doesn't mean I can makes sense of any of it.

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.

I don't agree with this at all. You seem to be focusing on the AD&D 2nd ed approach to play: that part of the challenge of roleplaying is being true to the character's alignment (or personality more broadly). Hence if the values to which the PC is committed via that alignment or personality description comes into play, there is a difficult choice.

That is not the sort of meaning I am getting at in describing an "evaluatively meaningful choice". I am talking about the player's evaluative and expressive responses, not the PC's motivations.

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.

By "play experience" you seem to mean "occurrence within the fiction". That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the experiences - emotional, aesthetic - of the participants at the table. Especially me.

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.You seem to be arguing alignment detracts from the game.

I am asserting that it detracts from my game. If others love it, more strength to their arm! May they have many more years of fun playing with alignment.

But that won't be changing how I play the game.

But those rules can and do help guide the game.

<snip>

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.

I don't remotely agree. I've never encountered the issue of a new player seeing the PC as "just a bundle of mechanical stats", because I find new players are very excited about the fictional positioning of their PC, their PC's history and motivations, etc.

I also don't understand what the difference is, here, between "guide" and "straitjacket". Obviously in the literal sense there are guides that aren't straitjackets, but given that "straitjacket" here is metaphorical, what does the metaphor mean other than a GM-enforced guide. (And if the guide is not GM-enforced, in what way do you see it as guiding those wayward new players?)

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.

<snip>

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.

I don't see how this rebuts my contention that alignment takes the view that all value commitments can be summarised on the 2 axes. You haven't actually given an example of something which is (i) an important value commitment over which characters might conflict and is (ii) something that falls outside the domain of alignment. If in fact you can find such an example, then I think you've thereby shown alignment to be problematic even by your own lights, haven't you, because it now fails to provide the guidance that you say is its primary function.

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.

If it doesn't, then what is its purpose? How is it guiding anyone? How do we know the difference between what a LG and a CE god would do? How can we ever tell that a paladin has committed an evil act, and hence should fall?

But anyway, this is orthogonal to my contention that it is a premise of the alignment system that all value commitments and all value conflicts can be measured on the 2-axis alignment graph. That is a premise that I reject.