Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

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.

This is an example of what I referred to in my post upthread - the idea that evaluatively meaningful choices can only arise if canonical labels are given to the options and the actors in those choice situations.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Is it though? Fate basically says the scene ends when your players are no longer interested in the scene or their goals have been achieved... my players continuously surprise me with what they come up with and thus I don't think it's easy for a GM to claim something is an automatic scene ender... leaving certain extreme examples (like "rocks fall you die") out of the conversation of course.

@Imaro - 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?

Well Umbran's example is negotiating a GM's compel, which would have to take place before it is accepted and yes, would then result in the player only getting a single Fate point...

My example is of the player having already accepted the GM's compel then in turn choosing to compel himself with a new complication that cannot override any complications that he has already accepted... I also think, now with the snake chasing the character we have reason to bring in other action resolution mechanics to determine whether the character is caught by the snake... which may not be so bad since he has 2 Fate points now... or perhaps the GM (or player) could offer another compel, auto-enabling the snake to catch him (for which the player would receive another Fate point and certainly be in a better situation than he was at the start of this encounter to face the snake in combat...

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I do not believe this is the case. I want this to be a possibility. The source of consistency, for me, is the GM. I am not worried if two different GMs make opposite rulings for the same situation. I am more concerned that the individual GM be consistent with his own ruling and be reasonable and fair in application of the rules. But I think it is a feature of the game that something that can happen in one person's campaign, might not occur in another. I think that points to the role of imagination and the human referee element.

 

[Umbran]

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?

No, for a simple reason - in the "you flee" scenario, the character is actually removed from the scene! Unless the character is capable of spooky action from a distance, they have completely lost ability to interact with the scene. I the "stand back" scenario, the only thing he cannot do is step into short range of one creature, but the rest of the scene is still open to the character.

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).

The difference is the amount of narrative space the player has to work with. There isn't a lot of wiggle room for the player told the character must flee, and it is very, very easy for them to infer there is *no* wiggle room. The player is within rights to ask for a modification of the compel, but if they don't think of it, right then and there, the player's pretty much hosed.

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?

Ah, but you see, in FATE, the player always has a way out - the player can always Concede in a conflict. The player doesn't win, and has to take a consequence. But, he gets a Fate point, plus an additional Fate point for every other consequence taken in the scene.

“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.

Yes, but the game includes discussion, negotiation, and mutual agreements as part of it's basic operating principles. It isn't expected to be an airtight tactical system with no ambiguity. If that's what you're looking for, FATE would not be a good engine for you.

 

[Cadence]

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"?

Human beings naturally stereotype and label: http://nyuad.nyu.edu/academics/faculty/quadflieg/03.publications/2011Quadflieg_ERSP.pdf
But I like your point that category labels matter and could lead to (what I would call) bad things at a table or among friends.

[t]he 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.

Would calling the acts acceptable/unacceptable to the lords of light/dark/entropy/far realms/consistancy/stasis make it less odious at the table (although not necessarily making it more useful)?

---

[t]hen 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.)

<snip>

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?

The key word here strikes me as being "authoritatively". If there is a single really powerful deity in the mythos then it seems like they would indeed get to define a straightjacket definition that was backed up by a battery of really picky spells and outsiders.

Say there were 8 really powerful beings who all staked out a corner or middle of a side on a square in a not totally contradictory way and labeled them (going clockwise) as LG, NG, CG, CN, CE, NE, LE, LN. Then it seems like one might have to define L, C, G, and E in terms of what the deities with those letters shared in common and the definitions would authoritatively go with those. In this case each of the eight would certainly be straight-jacket and I might wonder why they only came up with those four flavors of alignment spells and not eight of them.

I think both of these could easily lead to the DM being forced to label the player's own morality in ways that don't make a harmonious table or friendship.

On the other hand the D&D take seems to me more like - there's this big circle divided into 8 slots around the outside with a circle in the middle (granted AD&D actually had a wheel with 18 slots and a center) where all of the gods had to sort themselves based on who they would get along with best in terms of what kinds of actions their worshipers should find acceptable or objectionable. Being rather uncreative they decided on a list of 500,000 actions that sentient creatures might do and had to rate them from 1=acceptable to 5=unacceptable. They threw all of their responses into the standard mathematical machinery to project them down onto two dimensions and went to where-ever seemed to match them best. The sides of the paper the circle was drawn on were labeled good, chaos, evil, and law (going clockwise). The rare questions that were almost uniformly endorsed by the deities on each side were something like "helping others if it doesn't hurt other helpful people", "thinks following the rules is generally annoying", "make others hurt for your own pleasure", and "thinks things should be governed by smart rules that everyone should follow". A few of them had responses that seemed contradictory and didn't fit at all (frog is not a number from 1 to 5!), so the other divinities got together and kicked them out of the circle and made them live in the far realms.

Under this final system, a person's alignment goes with wherever they seem to fit best on that survey (well our best guess of where they would go anyway, since we don't have it or the results). A lot of actions are probably represented in several squares and probably depend on the motivation and consequences. In practice (ok the general gist, not the exact story), this seems like it removes almost all of the cases that would lead to someone at the table being called evil. A lot of folk find themselves non-good though, so an alternative less-loaded labeling system might still be preferred.

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.

Does "When do the ends justify the means?" work under this last set-up?

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.

Is pointing someone in the general direction still guidance?

---

I want to use the core 4e cosmology as set out in the PHB, MM and DMG;... 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."
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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".

I am totally lost now. Given the first and second snippet... what is there to talk about with the player?

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.

If one of the returners was a Cleric of Vecna, would having Vecna strip them of their divinely given gifts until they atoned be something that you would have considered?

 

[N'raac]

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."

It has been note that many spells act on an alignment descriptor, as do some magic items. These mechanics are also a baseline set by the designers. Should you choose to toss alignment, you need to decide whether those spells remain and, if so, what they actually do. This also extends to PC abilities (how does a Paladin Detect or Smite Evil if we make no judgment on whether any given NPC is, or is not, evil?)

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.

Each specific example of adjudication of magic items will not come up all that often. Unless we stick to the Big Six (items that provide numerical bonuses to existing stats), there will be a need to adjudicate magic items, just as there is a need to adjudicate spells.

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.

The requirements to use a skill is a rules interpretation issue. Whether a GM is “adjudicating rules” or “screwing over the players” is a subjective question (any call that does not go your way is, from your historical posts, “screwing over the player” in your eyes). A GM using alignment as a straightjacket is just as much a GM issue as any other poor GM use of any other rule, skills, spells and wealth included.

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.

In the examples I posed, there was no “right” or “wrong”, only interpretation, so each and every one of those reflects situations where two GM’s (or players) look at a situation and reach mutually exclusive, or even exact opposite, interpretations.

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?"

To me, it is about exploring how Pemerton’s game actually works. What you see as a “moral judgment of the PC actions” and what I perceive that term to mean seem not to coincide precisely.

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

To some extent, sure. People rarely move in 100% lockstep. At the same time, people with polar opposite views on numerous issues, especially issues they are passionate about, are rarely friends, much less the “best friends” you initially indicated.

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

We were, however, exploring how your game works, including how PC’s get built in your game, because you were using your game to set out your views on the question of alignment. And your statement that, in your game, the approach is “building a PC together” provides further information in that regard. As I read that, much as the PC’s deity moves from a GM resource to a shared player/GM resource, the PC is a player/GM creation, not a “player alone” creation.

When you first tell me “I do not judge the characters’ morality – that is for them alone” and then tell me “If you want to play a character who believes the Undead are OK, why would you pick a follower of the Raven Queen”, I see a significant inconsistency. I could just as easily say “If you did not want to play an LG character, why did you choose to play a Paladin?”

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.

To whom did the mariners of ancient Greece pray to guard them from storms and other disasters at sea? Unless I am sadly misinformed, it was the God of the Sea, who presided over those very disasters.

You seem to think it consistent with a god being the sworn enemy of Orcus, demon prince of undeath, that she should like undead.

Both Athena and Ares were gods of war. How well did they get along? You might also note that, over the course of our discussion, I have removed any undeath references in respect for your backstory that RQ’s enmity with Orcus extends to enmity with the undead. If I am a follower of RQ, can my character cast Animate Dead, even if he uses those Undead to beat back Orcus? Will RQ even grant that spell (presuming I draw my abilities from RQ’s divine grace?) Nothing in that brief description says that the RQ passionately opposes Undeath. It says that she is viewed as one who might guard one’s loved ones against undeath (and it is the mourners in that passage who view undeath as a curse – RQ’s viewpoint on the matter is not stated – nor is her view on much else, consistent with the mystery she seems intended to evoke). And it is noted that the Prince of Undeath covets her throne – whether that is because she loathes the Undead, or because her position as Goddess of Death provides her with significant power over the Undead, power that Orcus covets, is not stated.

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.

I guess those Greek mariners had no sense, then.

t 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.

They ask the Raven Queen to guard their loved ones against the threat of undeath. They do not thank her for protecting the dead in general against the curse of undeath, but rather invoke her to bless these specific dead against Undeath. Further, it is the mourners, and not the RQ, who refer to “the curse of Uneath”. Finally, where is it written that Deities do not bestow Curses? Not in any mythology I’m familiar with, but I lay no claim to vast expertise in that regard.

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?

We have the read of what, half a dozen people in your group, and we have my read. I’m curious whether anyone else out there finds your interpretation the only rational one, finds mine reasonable as well, or even leans towards mine. However, rules discussions on this site make it pretty clear how easy it is for people to read the same words and reach differing conclusions as to their meanings.

I am, of course, disadvantaged by my lack of familiarity with 4e. I am going entirely from the brief missive you posted which was stated to be the relevant info, but there may be other writings with which I am not familiar which better support your interpretation.

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.

But this is entirely the point you seem to miss – “Good” creatures can differ widely in their interpretation of “Good”. The “moral adequacy or inadequacy” of any given action is not, in the majority of cases, dictated by that ‘G’ on the character sheet.

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.

You seem to think that a game with alignment would either have the Gates of Heaven open to the PC’s for their noble and righteous action in returning the sword, or that they would be swallowed up by the Pits of Hell on the spot. Whether it was right or wrong (Good or Evil) depends heavily on the context. If I offer Kas the return of his sword in exchange for slaughtering a rival nation, that seems like an Evil act. If I offer him the return of his sword in exchange for sparing them, that seems far less Evil. The one specific action, taken in isolation, is not so clearly righteous nor so blatantly immoral as to be clearly and obviously classified in and of itself. A great many choices are not moral or ethical choices mandating the huge exercise in classification which you seem to consider implicitly required if we use alignment.

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.

As noted above, such an issue cannot be worked out with no context. You seem to feel that, somehow “throwing dice with ogres” must either be a clearly Good or blatantly Evil action, at least if we are using alignment. With no context, it is neither, or it could be either, or it may contain elements of both. The exact same result you seem to consider an example of the pinnacle of Role Playing could occur just as easily in a game with alignments.

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.

To me, this highlights not a flaw in alignment, but a flaw in your interpretation of alignment. The GM is in no way required to judge whether the Samurai dicing with the Ogres was Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. That one action, in and of itself, is none of these. Only with context might (and I stress might, not is or must be) that decision have any bearing on his alignment. If they were rolling dice to see whether kidnaped children go with the Samurai to be returned to their parents or go into the stewpot, that could certainly add some alignment connotations. If the Samurai’s order is sworn to slay Ogres on sight, or simply sworn never to gamble, there’s a Lawfulness issue here. But from the facts you provided, I don’t see any alignment issue (which would be a synonym, under alignment rules, for a moral dilemma).

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.

This is, to me, a problem in your interpretation of alignment rules, and not in the alignment rules themselves. And I agree that, if by adding alignment, you will feel obliged to classify every action along the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis, agonizing over each such decision, lying awake at night trying to assess whether choosing mutton over fish at the Inn should cause an alignment change, then I agree alignment would detract from your game. But that isn’t how I see alignment used, nor do I think it is what the designers intended. And it is certainly not what anyone I see posting here is supporting.

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"?

I think most would suggest the former are evil, and that is why they merit opposition. You now seem to have moved right to a polar extreme of removing “good” and “evil” from the game vocabulary entirely, which eliminates the classic fantasy trope of Good versus Evil.

The language and mechanics of alignment seem utterly otiose.

That description could be easily ascribed to the entire discussion.

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.

Are the words good, evil, lawful and chaotic banned from your game? You seem to shift from a hard and fast alignment terminology usage to any form of evaluation at all. I find it difficult to believe that anyone operates in such a vacuum that they cannot see any action as “good” or “evil”. You certainly expressed a view as to how one likely would see killing random people or tearing out a baby’s throat with one’s teeth. Those were, it seems, so obvious that their classification would never be in doubt, yet now you tell me that, absent alignment, there can be no assessment of any action.

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.

RuneQuest, not Raven Queen, I assume . The words “good” and “evil” crop up a lot, in my experience, in games lacking mechanical alignment. Why? Again, because the struggle of Good versus Evil is quite common in the source material, and makes its way to fantasy games as a consequence.

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.

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

Seems to me that you had to set the DC the players had to meet in order to persuade the Angel to abandon her post and allow herself to be killed to further the PC’s agenda. A sufficient roll on the player’s skill check, therefore, would be the circumstances under which the Angel would change its views. If you did not set those circumstances, who did?

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).

Emphasis added. Clearly, you DID interpret the circumstances under which her views could be changed.

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.)

Having a person behave in character is not, in my view, a straightjacket.

Who is "we"? I don't get into this, because I don't use mechanical alignment.

“We” has to be the people around the gaming table. What values are set by the game system itself? Are certain spells, acts, states of being, etc., deemed by the game setting to be “good” or “evil”? If they are, then it does not matter what the player, GM, PC or NPC thinks - these are defined by the game cosmology. Real world ethics don’t enter into the picture any more than real world physics suggesting bat guano and a few words and gestures do not create a huge ball of flames.

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?)

In the D&D cosmology, NO. A single evil act – even one which is clearly, incontrovertibly evil, does not make a person evil. The rules for Paladins make that CRYSTAL CLEAR – if a single evil act made one evil, we would not need to state that one such act results in loss of Paladinhood – it would already be lost due to loss of that LG alignment.

Thor (generally classified as CG) believes in solving problems by violence. Aphrodite (also typically considered CG) does not. Both are “authoritatively good”, yet they can disagree. There is not one single voice of Good, and all others are Evil. No one but you is arguing this.

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.

Embrace, sure. Love the sinner, hate the sin, sure. Grant him powers to be used to oppose him, and continue to do greater and greater wrong (as the grantor perceives ‘wrong’) in the world? Not so much.

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 needless suffering cannot be good (a proposition I can certainly agree with), and

Deity X is defined to be completely, uncompromisingly Good (which is not automatically the case – Good encompasses a spectrum; as well, Law and Chaos can temper it in many instances), and

Deity X permits certain suffering to continue,

Then it logically follows that this suffering cannot, in fact, be needless. There must be a reason, albeit one I as the character do not understand.

But in myth and FRPG’s, deities are imperfect, just as their mortal followers, so he could be Good without being completely, uncompromisingly good. His Goodness could be tempered by Law (those who do not come to me, I cannot take action to save, for example, or crimes merit punishment) or Chaos. And the deity could be doing what he can, but lack the power to end all suffering.

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.

For ANY choice to be meaningful, there must actually be reasons to take one choice or the other. I choose to tie my shoe. Why? It’s untied and shoes are supposed to be tied. I don’t have a deep seated moral debate with myself, “To tie or not to tie, oh woe is me that I should be beset with such painful and difficult choices – for might I not break my shoelace in attempting to tie it, and what would then become of me? Yet shall I not tie it, might I not trip and fall, and where might such pain and suffering end?”

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.

You have asserted that these great instances of play you cite could not have happened if we were using alignments. I didn’t see it then and I don’t see it now. But what I seem to see is that you would be trapped in an endless cycle of ascribing a moral and ethical compartment to every action within the game which would prevent you enjoying it. To me, those issues are completely academic – there is no need to ascribe a moral context to tying my shoe, eating breakfast or a myriad of other more significant acts carried out in game – I don’t need to ponder whether each and every choice I make might cause me to be “struck down for choosing to turn the vile Left, rather than the Good and Righteous continuance along the straight path, and woe betide he who should pause at the doorway.”

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?)

The Resolute Defender (or LG) Angel will not lightly abandon her post, will require evidence that greater good is served by doing so, and will still be difficult to persuade – guideline. The Resolute Defender (or LG) Angel will not ever consider abandoning her post – Lawful means “will never abandon her post, however significant or trivial, for any reason or under any circumstances”, and to do so would mean immediate alignment change to Chaotic - straightjacket.

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.

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?

So if we cannot classify everything, it follows that nothing whatsoever can be classified? That appears to be your interpretation of alignment – I rather hope it is, instead, a straw man, but I am seeing no evidence you can see any possible alignment system besides “each and every choice made by the character has only one possible right answer under each alignment”.

If you truly cannot see any possibilities between “everything fully classified” and “no guidance whatsoever”, then clearly there is no point whatsoever in continuing the discussion. That seems quite strange to me, as I don’t think any philosophy of ethics has ever established clear right and absolute wrong for a wide array of, much less every, choices made in our lives, yet that seems to be the standard you set for a mechanic of a game. I might also add that “using alignment” also need not mean “examining each and every aspect of the game in microscopic detail under the lens of alignment”.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how anyone can provide a better explanation. I am not certain whether you are actually incapable of seeing beyond your interpretation, or just wholly unwilling to do so, but it ultimately makes no difference, as it makes the discussion entirely futile either way. Perhaps someone else can provide a modified explanation, but clearly I am incapable of providing an explanation you are capable of grasping. Cadence has made a good stab at the issues above – maybe his presentation will click better than mine.

Perhaps it’s the old adage For those who understand, no explanation is needed. To those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. I’m sorry you and Hussar, among others, have had such poor experiences with bad use of alignment rules that you are blinded to any possible benefit they might provide if implemented more reasonably, if not skillfully.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Hang on. Please stop with the "Oh, Hussar's just bashing poor DM's again" schtick. I'm certainly not.

I've repeatedly pointed out how two good DM's, in this thread took completely opposite and mutually exclusive positions looking at the same situation, and they were both right by the alignment rules.

This has nothing to do with bad DMing practices. Bad Dming just makes an already bad situation worse. But, before we even get to the quality of the DM, we have the fact that the mechanics produces mutually exclusive results. Again, it's not about DM's roleplaying NPC's differently. That's fine.

But, it would be like two DM's roleplaying Darth Vader, where one proclaims him a force of good and righteousness in the universe and the other a force of darkness and evil and they are both right by the rules of the game.

 

[Hussar]

I do not believe this is the case. I want this to be a possibility. The source of consistency, for me, is the GM. I am not worried if two different GMs make opposite rulings for the same situation. I am more concerned that the individual GM be consistent with his own ruling and be reasonable and fair in application of the rules. But I think it is a feature of the game that something that can happen in one person's campaign, might not occur in another. I think that points to the role of imagination and the human referee element.

What about groups with multiple DM's? I've played in many campaigns where DM'ing is shared. How do you maintain consistency in these cases?

Addtitionally, you've just made problems for organised play.

To me, I find it rather strange that people would applaud rules that give mutually exclusive interpretations that have wide ranging, campaign world altering consequences. We're not talking about something that only really affects one single scene here. Alignment interpretations will impact virtually all parts of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What about groups with multiple DM's? I've played in many campaigns where DM'ing is shared. How do you maintain consistency in these cases?

Do you mean shared as in each person runs separate campaigns or shared as in each GM takes turns running the same campaign.

If the latter I think it is somewhat rare approach. I have played in groups where there were two GMs who split duties, and those were regarded as highly unusual. Most games have a single GM and for the duration of that game at least, the consistency comes from the referee being the single source of judgment. If you desire a different approach than that, one downside is you may run into less consistency in rulings. But since 1 GM is the norm, I don't think we want to design rules because these exceptions exist.

In terms of shifting GMs from one game to the next or one campaign to the next, that doesn't really bother me.

Addtitionally, you've just made problems for organised play.

I dont engage in organized play and never have. I think if you want tournament rules and organized play rules, those ought to be a separate thing from the rules used at regular gaming tables. I think it is a mistake to design with organized play in mind rather than the kind of play the vast majority of players will use the game for.

To me, I find it rather strange that people would applaud rules that give mutually exclusive interpretations that have wide ranging, campaign world altering consequences. We're not talking about something that only really affects one single scene here. Alignment interpretations will impact virtually all parts of play.

We give that power to GMs all the time. It is part of the game. I can understand not liking it. But saying one likes alignment is hardly a radical posiition and saying one considers it a feature that different GMs can interpret alignments differently is also hardly a radical statement. Is it really that strange to you that I hold this position? Because I don't find your position needs that sort of dismissive label. I can see where you are coming from and appreciate your point of view, but at the end of the day my tastes are different and I genuinely enjoy games that allow this. Things like alignment almost demand it. You are talking about vague moral concepts. People will have very different attitudes and views about what constitutes altruism or respect for life in a given situation. I like that. I think it works great and produces interesting play. There may be some variation from table to table, but I don't see that as a problem. In fact, one of the things I like about D&D is how different it is from one group to the next. It is always interesting playing with a new group or GM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, it would be like two DM's roleplaying Darth Vader, where one proclaims him a force of good and righteousness in the universe and the other a force of darkness and evil and they are both right by the rules of the game.

Even without alignment you will have people playing Vader differently. That is going to happen. Star Wars has the force, with the light and the dark side. That is wide open and general. I've played in countless star wars campaigns and every GM down to a man has ruled differently when it comes to crossing over to the dark side, in terms of what acts fall under it. I have also played tons of Ravenloft campaigns where powers checks are a monumental part of the game, and have a huge impact on individual characters. With those the GM decides if a player has committed an evil act worthy of the attention of the dark powers. Every GM handles this differently, because they will bring their own ideas to the table. Some are going to be more forgiving under certain circumstances, others less so. Some will even view an act that might be considered heroic by another GM as crossing the line. I think this is okay. It is a feature. The GM is playing the dark powers and as long as there is consistency across the campaign, that is what matters. The point for me is to feel like I am in ravenloft and at the mercy of these mysterious forces. I can achieve that as long as one person is calling the shots on powers checks, even if they make rulings that differ from my previous GM.