Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Jacob Marley]

Now, in a mechanical alignment based game, the answer is simple.

No, it's not.

Orcs are evil...

In 1st Edition, "[alignment] is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered." The general behavior of an orc is Lawful Evil.

In 3.5 orcs are "often chaotic evil." Often, as per the rules, means a plurality - 40-50%, with exceptions being common.

...therefore they can be killed with impunity. Doesn't matter what they are doing, they're on team evil, so, slay with glee.

Not really, see above.

In addition, both editions state in the descriptions for the various good alignments that a high value is placed on life. It seems incredibly ridiculous to state that someone who values life can wantonly kill.

In fact, it even goes farther than that. Aiding the orcs in any way is an evil act - after all you are helping evil creatures. So, even finding a peaceable solution would not be a good act, under alignment rules.

I'd love to see the quote on this.

That's why I don't really like mechanical alignment. It leads to shallow interpretations, IMO. There can be no ambiguity because someone (the DM) will decide if an act is evil or not. He is actually obligated by the rules to do so.

I'd much rather that alignment was truly descriptive and a means of giving some hooks to the character. My character is X, so, by and large, he's going to act in a certain way. It's a good shorthand and I find that its helpful to get people into character. But, when you add in mechanically significant alignment, it's no longer descriptive but prescriptive. It has to be. If I perform an act that the DM deems to be evil, then I am punished. That's prescriptive.

And very much not to my tastes.

I can understand not liking alignment. I can respect certain reasons for disliking alignment (@pemerton's dislike of being required to adjudicate, for example). But the application you posted above appears so draconian that it is farcical to me.

 

[billd91]

What's the difference? You're discounting people who have played D&D without alignment. That's your idea of inclusiveness?

You want alignments, include them at your table.

See how that works?

Yeah, not like that. Excluding rules is pretty easy. Including rules that don't exist, isn't so easy. Your attempt to turn it around simply doesn't work. The equivalence isn't there,

 

[N'raac]

What Odnd paladins?

The ones introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, along with Thieves (and its own combat system, rather than the Chainmail system, and variable weapon damage).

Rolling this back around to the original topic again, here's another example of how alignment has had a negative impact on my experience.

Thank you for another fine example of poor use of the alignment rules passed off as the way alignment is expected to work in play. The problem I see here is a clash of playstyles. The game sounds like a hack & slash, kill the monsters and take their stuff game. You wanted something with more role playing and ethical depth. Did the rest of the group want that, or were you the only guy out of step with the playstyle?

The fact that a poor game included alignments does not make the alignment rules the cause of a poor game. I would not expect a lot of moral dilemmas and complex ethical issues in a generic pickup game either.

BTW, if they were demons instead of Orcs, would it matter that they were there first? It seems like, in this game, orcs are utterly, irredeemably hard coded to be 'evil', which makes them equivalent to demons in respect of their alignment. In such a game, we have adopted a very simplistic morality from the outset, in which case the inclusion of the moral dilemma (encroachment on the original settlers and stealing their land) is not appropriate.

BTW II - I also find it odd the guy who played D&D for 20+ years with no alignments states that he likes playing Paladins.

 

[Imaro]

As far as I know 4e is the only fantasy RPG that uses the power mechanic for both martial and magical PCs; or that uses healing surges as a mechanic to integrate in-combat and trans-combat pacing.

So should D&Dnext be preserving that too?

I don't think roll dice and apply effect based on roll... or self-healing are unique mechanics. In fact now that I think about it more... what is the "power mechanic"... aren't different powers resolved differently as far as mechanics go? Are you speaking to presentation? Because if so that's not a mechanic...

 

[Imaro]

But, in any case, @Imaro was arguing that alignment is a quintessential D&D element since only D&D really uses alignment. The problem with that argument is that a lot of D&D doesn't actually use alignment. Is someone playing OD&D not playing D&D? Are they not getting a quintessential D&D experience? If I'm playing Molvay Basic and Expert, I'm not really playing D&D, or I'm not getting the full D&D experience?

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] please stop adding to, embellishing and/or mis-representing what I am saying. I haven't spoken to alignment being some quintessential D&D element... I have (for the second or third time directed towards clarifying what you interpret me saying) merely said it is unique to D&D. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's ridiculous to argue that mechanical alignment is necessary for the D&D experience when there are significant swaths of D&D that doesn't use mechanical alignment. If I want to get the 3e experience, sure, I need to use mechanical alignment. If I want to get the AD&D experience, yeah, I should probably use it. If I want to play B/E D&D, guess what? I don't need mechanical alignment.

Show me where I ever argued this???

All versions of D&D have had alignment. They all have. But, it was AD&D that added in the good/evil axis and then 3e which deeply embedded alignment into the mechanics. There is nothing wrong with playing D&D with purely descriptive alignment.

Wait, earlier you claimed mechanical alignment wasn't in the first 20 years of D&D (Which I and others have disproved)... now you're nit-picking the specifics of the type of alignment and/or how much mechanical alignment was a part of any particular edition... can we stick to one point please?

 

[Manbearcat]

Again, we are back to "preordination" being the only way alignment can be played. I think both characters are faced with situations where their beliefs are tested. I would not expect the factors you cite to dictate the only possible/acceptable game result. However, I would also find play pretty crappy if the answer is just "Well, once she was good, now she is evil. Kill her and take her stuff."

To me, that is the level of GM imposition which alignment detractors seem to assume is the only way alignment can exist in the game, and is not supported by anyone as making for a good game anywhere in the hundreds of posts on this thread.

But that imposition is a real thing. It is my responsibility as a GM to (i) examine the suite of potential ethos decisions to be made in a given scenario and allocate them (L, C, N, G, E), (ii) consider the context of the player's decision with respect to the "facts on the ground" and the foundational presuppositions of their alignment, (iii) compare the potential ethos decisions with those actually made by the player, (iv) determine any movement toward a shift or an outright shift, (v) then advise the player of fallout with respect to movement or outright shift. 1, 2 and 3 are my authoritarian examinations and associations while 4, 5 are my authoritarian decrees. It is fundamental that it is an authoritarian imposition of my ideas which serve to adjudicate the alignment system's synthesis with decisions made (the fruits of play) and the fallout of the marriage of these things.

Consider pemerton's Paladin character above, Thurgon, and the plight that he was in. If this was 3.x, consider my responsibility as GM in monitoring the Paladin code, alignment restrictions and fallout:

3.x SRD
[h=4]Ex-Paladins[/h] A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Consider Law vs Chaos

3.x SRD

Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Consider Good vs Evil

3.x SRD


Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Now this was 4e so Alignment was irrelevant but let us just consider the scenario as contrived as a 3.x game. Thurgon worshipped an Unaligned God of Battle (Kord) who is sort of a Tempus/Zeus deal. Nonetheless, I think its fair to say that, in the short period of play, pemerton played Thurgon (and proposed a backstory) that exuded Law: "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." He certainly exuded Good: "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Now consider the scenario we have above. On the line are the Lawful precepts of (a) adherence to/honoring tradition (b) respect for authority, (c) judging those who fall short of their duties, and the Good mandates of (d/e) respect for life + a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

- What if pemerton's character Thurgon personally felt that the King ultimately fell short of his responsibilities to honor tradition and maintain an authority worth respecting.

- What if he felt the King's overwhelming love for his Queen rendered his respect for the lives of his subjects insufficient to the task of protecting them.

- What if the once great King's frailty in his venerable state rendered him impotent to properly rule the kingdom and lead its defenses?

- What if, given his advanced state, he doesn't feel the King is fit to take the measure of his subordinates and thus delegate authority to strong, competent leaders impermeable to the seductions of evil?

- What if he doesn't feel the King's Justice should be applicable in this scenario because it comes out that the Dryad was ultimately possessed thus merely a vessel for evil (but not evil herself) but not fully exorcised of that evil...yet none of it is provable? What if he wants to invoke a milennia old right (almost lost to the ages) for the Knight Commander of the Iron Tower to subordinate the King's Justice to take on the condemned as a vassal to bulwark the Iron Tower.

Remember, Thurgon also has the Beliefs of:

*When the usurpers are overthrown, and the proper succession reestablished, then peace will come to the land.

*When the world is in chaos it is no wonder so many are easily misled - but I can lead them back to righteousness.

Maybe he believes that "the proper succession" is a King who can and will lead his kingdom out of this darkness. Maybe the world is now in chaos and it is his time to lead them back to righteousness. Maybe being a King is about "the right of action" and not "the right of blood." Kord could certainly get behind that.

Personally, I can defend all of these things along the precepts of Lawful and the mandates of Good above. However, I can also find holes in each of them, specifically when certain lines of evidence are currently less transparent than others. Whats more respect for life, the dignity of sentient beings and respect for authority and tradition are very much all at tension when you consider the potential execution of the Dryad (presumably this Court Mage was appointed by the King...not sure at this point as it wasn't canvassed in play) for the destabilization of the Kingdom and the murder (direcly or by proxy) of multiple subjects and the Queen herself. What if she was legitimately possessed? Her Pact with the Dark Power (maybe possession?) was undone during play in the climactic scene. The King's Justice is a deep tradition and his authority is complete on this matter.

What if pemerton's Paladin invokes his controversial (perhaps long forgotten) right and demands the Dryad be pardoned, that she now is a vassal of the Iron Tower and under his jurisdiction...for the defeat of the dragon and the betterment of the Realm. What if the King vehemently disagrees and things get ugly. What if Thurgon feels this is the irrational actions of a weathered old man who would put his wife before his duties as King? What if Thurgon feels the King is no longer fit to take the battlefield at the point of the vanguard, to be a shining example and lead his people in defense of the kingdom? What if this all leads to a complete estrangement of the Kingdom and The Iron Tower and due to this destabilzation things immediately get worse (for the people inside the Kingdom and the farmlands outside)...but ultimately may become much better with time (eg the Dryad's redemption, the Dragon's defeat, and Thurgon's corronation leading to a new age of promise and prosperity for all)?

What if my examination and association of alignment factors with decisions completely disagrees with him. What I don't believe he is respecting life allowing all of those lost souls to go avenged and no one being held to account. What if I believe he is grossly disrespecting authority without enough multiple lines of independent evidence to support this insubordination. What if I feel that he is putting too many poor souls immediately at risk with his long view considerations and hard line?

What if I tell him after the game:

"Look, here is <this, this and this>. You've certainly not done anything overtly evil but you're disrespect for all of these lost lives by letting this murderer go free is almost unconscionable. You're still Good, but be careful...I'm paying close attention. And oh yeah, more importantly. You call yourself Lawful? I think you've probably violated every basic precept here. I cannot let you keep your Lawful status. This is the kind of Chatotic frontiersman spirit befitting a Ranger, not a Paladin. You don't get to disrespect legitimate authority and insubordinate merely because you think you have the right of things. You have grossly violated your code of conduct, you lose all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of your mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies), and you may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin.

Now lets talk potential atonement."

There is no imposition there? Do you think the player, in this case @pemerton, would feel that way?

 

[N'raac]

Consider pemerton's Paladin character above, Thurgon, and the plight that he was in. If this was 3.x, consider my responsibility as GM in monitoring the Paladin code, alignment restrictions and fallout:

Now this was 4e so Alignment was irrelevant but let us just consider the scenario as contrived as a 3.x game. Thurgon worshipped an Unaligned God of Battle (Kord) who is sort of a Tempus/Zeus deal. Nonetheless, I think its fair to say that, in the short period of play, pemerton played Thurgon (and proposed a backstory) that exuded Law: "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." He certainly exuded Good: "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Now consider the scenario we have above. On the line are the Lawful precepts of (a) adherence to/honoring tradition (b) respect for authority, (c) judging those who fall short of their duties, and the Good mandates of (d/e) respect for life + a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

- What if pemerton's character Thurgon personally felt that the King ultimately fell short of his responsibilities to honor tradition and maintain an authority worth respecting.

- What if he felt the King's overwhelming love for his Queen rendered his respect for the lives of his subjects insufficient to the task of protecting them.

- What if the once great King's frailty in his venerable state rendered him impotent to properly rule the kingdom and lead its defenses?

- What if, given his advanced state, he doesn't feel the King is fit to take the measure of his subordinates and thus delegate authority to strong, competent leaders impermeable to the seductions of evil?

- What if he doesn't feel the King's Justice should be applicable in this scenario because it comes out that the Dryad was ultimately possessed thus merely a vessel for evil (but not evil herself) but not fully exorcised of that evil...yet none of it is provable? What if he wants to invoke a milennia old right (almost lost to the ages) for the Knight Commander of the Iron Tower to subordinate the King's Justice to take on the condemned as a vassal to bulwark the Iron Tower.

Maybe he believes that "the proper succession" is a King who can and will lead his kingdom out of this darkness. Maybe the world is now in chaos and it is his time to lead them back to righteousness. Maybe being a King is about "the right of action" and not "the right of blood." Kord could certainly get behind that.

Personally, I can defend all of these things along the precepts of Lawful and the mandates of Good above. However, I can also find holes in each of them, specifically when certain lines of evidence are currently less transparent than others. Whats more respect for life, the dignity of sentient beings and respect for authority and tradition are very much all at tension when you consider the potential execution of the Dryad (presumably this Court Mage was appointed by the King...not sure at this point as it wasn't canvassed in play) for the destabilization of the Kingdom and the murder (direcly or by proxy) of multiple subjects and the Queen herself. What if she was legitimately possessed? Her Pact with the Dark Power (maybe possession?) was undone during play in the climactic scene. The King's Justice is a deep tradition and his authority is complete on this matter.

What I see from the above, particularly the emphasized aspects, is that your review of the issues finds that there is no "right" answer, in that the situation requires prioritization of various aspects of Law and Good. Now, if his choice were "I backstab the King and declare myself rightful Monarch in his place", I find this problematic. For him to assess that his duty must override his misgivings about the appropriateness of the execution of the Dryad, or that his views on the excess of such a sentence must override his duty, I would say he has made a decision consistent with his alignment.

I find alignment issues are too often presented as "no win scenarios". No decision honours all aspects of Law and Good, so no more Paladin. I see it as the exact opposite - the Paladin's restrictions do not apply unless there was a true, clear, better choice. In this case, a lot of different choices present themselves as defensible under the precepts of Law and Good. None exist that we cannot find holes in. Then they are all acceptable.

What if pemerton's Paladin invokes his controversial (perhaps long forgotten) right and demands the Dryad be pardoned, that she now is a vassal of the Iron Tower and under his jurisdiction...for the defeat of the dragon and the betterment of the Realm. What if the King vehemently disagrees and things get ugly. What if Thurgon feels this is the irrational actions of a weathered old man who would put his wife before his duties as King? What if Thurgon feels the King is no longer fit to take the battlefield at the point of the vanguard, to be a shining example and lead his people in defense of the kingdom? What if this all leads to a complete estrangement of the Kingdom and The Iron Tower and due to this destabilzation things immediately get worse (for the people inside the Kingdom and the farmlands outside)...but ultimately may become much better with time (eg the Dryad's redemption, the Dragon's defeat, and Thurgon's corronation leading to a new age of promise and prosperity for all)?

What if my examination and association of alignment factors with decisions completely disagrees with him. What I don't believe he is respecting life allowing all of those lost souls to go avenged and no one being held to account. What if I believe he is grossly disrespecting authority without enough multiple lines of independent evidence to support this insubordination. What if I feel that he is putting too many poor souls immediately at risk with his long view considerations and hard line?

What if I tell him after the game:

"Look, here is <this, this and this>. You've certainly not done anything overtly evil but you're disrespect for all of these lost lives by letting this murderer go free is almost unconscionable. You're still Good, but be careful...I'm paying close attention. And oh yeah, more importantly. You call yourself Lawful? I think you've probably violated every basic precept here. I cannot let you keep your Lawful status. This is the kind of Chatotic frontiersman spirit befitting a Ranger, not a Paladin. You don't get to disrespect legitimate authority and insubordinate merely because you think you have the right of things. You have grossly violated your code of conduct, you lose all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of your mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies), and you may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin.

Then I think you have failed to discuss and consider the reasoning behind the player's decisions. You've also ignored all of the aspects you clearly noted further above which support these decisions from the perspective of Law and Good. To me, a disagreement like this doesn't get presented as "Your alignment has changed" after the game, but gets discussed either during the game, before decisions are made, or after the game where the actions are clearly not sufficient to result in an immediate penalty.

IOW, I think your recognition of the variable interpretations of appropriate lawful good actions in this case (likely supported by table discussion as the players work out how they wish to proceed) reflects good GMing, and your unilateral "one true wayism" example at the end reflects poor GMing. Once again, the alignment system is not the problem - poor GMing is.

So the question really becomes "is poor GMing so rampant, and so difficult to address in the rules, that alignment needs to go to prevent these incidences of poor GMing?" But I don't see a GM unilaterally assessing severe penalties without discussion or careful consideration being very likely to make good calls in many other areas of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I also find it odd the guy who played D&D for 20+ years with no alignments states that he likes playing Paladins.

Why is that odd? When I play D&D I generally play paladins or comparable clerical types. I don't see how not using alignment is relevant to that preference. The paladin/saint achetype, as an element in literature, has a many-centuries headstart on D&D's alignment rules!

I was playing a paladin

<snip>

orcs are threatening the human settlers on the borders between their lands and raiding and pillaging

<snip>

We then learn that the orcs are actually the original settlers of the area and are trying to protect their lands from the encroaching humans.

The problem I see here is a clash of playstyles. The game sounds like a hack & slash, kill the monsters and take their stuff game. You wanted something with more role playing and ethical depth.

I don't see the clash of playstyles, to be honest. What I see is that Hussar's GM has set up an ingame situation in which choices have to be made and alignment gives little actual guide to those choices, but nevertheless hangs over the situation somewhat like Damocles's sword.

Are evil creatures entitled to enjoy their homelands, or are they subject to colonisation by the righteous? Why pose the question - which is hardly a novel one, or one with no historical or cultural resonances - if the GM already knows the answer via the alignment rules? But if the players are free to work out the answer themselves, then how are alignmen rules adding anything to the game? They're spinning idly.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] brings this out nicely in his post above this one: if the alignment rules are actually being used, then they regard the GM to go through the various rules steps that he describes. And if, in the scenario that Hussar outlines, the GM forms a different view about the morality of colonialism from that formed by Hussar in playing his paladin, then the sort of clash that Manbearcat describes, and that Hussar objects to, seems inevitable.

 

[pemerton]

the Paladin's restrictions do not apply unless there was a true, clear, better choice.

I think you have failed to discuss and consider the reasoning behind the player's decisions.

<snip>

So the question really becomes "is poor GMing so rampant, and so difficult to address in the rules, that alignment needs to go to prevent these incidences of poor GMing?" But I don't see a GM unilaterally assessing severe penalties without discussion or careful consideration being very likely to make good calls in many other areas of the game.

if his choice were "I backstab the King and declare myself rightful Monarch in his place", I find this problematic. For him to assess that his duty must override his misgivings about the appropriateness of the execution of the Dryad, or that his views on the excess of such a sentence must override his duty, I would say he has made a decision consistent with his alignment.

N'raac, it baffles me that you cannot see the issue here.

It has nothing to do with good or poor GMing. It is about the notion of the GM being authorised to insist that there was a "true, clear, better choice": as you yourself do in the third paragraph that I have quoted.

If one believes that the player will also see that the "true, better choice" is clearly that, then GM enforcement of it - and hence mechanical alignment - becomes redundant. But if the player doesn't regard it as clearly true and better, then the GM enforcing aignment is exactly the sort of imposition that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] describes.

 

[Hussar]

II - I also find it odd the guy who played D&D for 20+ years with no alignments states that he likes playing Paladins.

Why?

That's your presumption that the only way to portray morality in game is through the lens of alignment. It really isn't.