Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Manbearcat]

The key disconnect here seems to be Good and Evil as cosmological forces. The character (or the player) is not judged against my personal standard of Good or Evil, but against the standard set by those cosmological forces, as described in the game rules, and as interpreted, possibly even modified as house rules, by the GM.

I see the key disconnect slightly differently.

The key disconnect I see is that:

1) These cosmological entities do not exist but as words on a page.

2) These alignment invocations are general rather than specific and where they are specific they may be, specifically, at tension with one another. Where there is tension there is not just tension of the 1st order, but of the 2nd and 3rd (and perhaps beyond).

3) Given that the cosmological entities of 1 above do not exist, then we have in their stead a very fallible (even if highly proficient) GM intervening and serving as oracle, understanding the prescriptive aspects of the divine but having to read the signs of the tea leaves/bones/chicken blood spatterings, et al.

The GMing principles of an alignment system, combined with the realities of the above, mandate a litmus test that must be performed by the GM to determine instantaneous alignment shifts or latent alignment shifts. It is not reasonable or productive to perform this evaluation in-situ as the introspection, negotiation, and overt evaluation inevitably brings play to a sputtering halt, rendering all tension and pacing disjointed and sucking all life out of the gaming experience.

As such, the GM must perfectly recall the PC's actions, and the context of those actions, that took place in the preceding session, have infallibly internalized the canon (Deity Domains/Portfolios and the ethos examples - eg respect for legitimate authority, respect for tradition, et al), and apply some kind of preconceived (hopefully not too fallible) litmus test, that I proposed upthread, post-hoc. Hopefully the "party to be tried" (in my experience this is very often a Paladin being evaluated on the C <=> L axis) is present for their evaluation and is able to make transparent their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order reasoning for their "teetering on N or possibly C behavior" and defend their case.

The person may not be judged on your standard of Chaos versus Law. But the cosmological entities do not exist. They are words on a page. Of which must be comprehended and applied, with all prejudices and fallibility in reasoning along for the ride, by a mediator; the GM. So while there are words on a page as a constant, there are variables of prejudice, fallibility of reasoning, human perception that can widely diverge from reality, very imperfect information that must be in-filled (see prejudice, fallible reasoning, and human perception), much lower resolution of understanding of player reasoning (especially 2nd and 3rd order/long view intent) than we would like to admit, possible gaps in memory of events that transpired (or their context), some form of litmus test (be it algorithm or seat of your pants).

Butchering, throat-tearing Paladins are absurd anomalies (I've never heard of one let alone played with one) that are easily resolved without the above process. "Bob, you're obviously an idiot or you don't understand the implications on the tin where it says 'Paladin.' Play this blood-thirsty savage Barbarian or this war-torn Fighter and lets call it a day." Being arbiter of alignment shifts (and imposing instantaneous shifts or advising of latent shifts) on the other 99.5 % of issues (especially C vs N vs L) is where this conversation has real teeth. And those cosmological forces do not exist. There are only words on a page. A GM. A moral quandary. And imperfect reasoning, prejudice, widely diverging human perception, fallible memory, lower resolution understanding than we would like, and some form of litmus test. And the stakes are typically not low.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is an echo of @Hussar's point: if the player doesn't believe s/he is violating the code, and the GM does, due to a difference of interpretation, why should the GM's interpretation be preferred? @Bedrockgames has offered one answer to that question: because a key rationale for play is exploring the GM's world. @Sadras has offered another answer to that question: because complying with the GM's interpretatation is part of the challenge of play. But if neither of those reasons applies to a given game - for instance, because the game doesn't emphasise exploration of a GM's world, nor does it emphasis roleplaying as a challenge (instead emphasising, perhaps, the creative or expressive dimension of playing a character) - then I don't think there is any reason to prefer the GM's interpretation.
t.

EDIT: Never mind, misread your post.

Might as well make use of this post though.

I would respond to the last portion of the post here with one observation. A game doesn't need to emphasize something for it to be important to some of the players at your table. I think this is actually why there was so much shock on all sides when 4E came out, and some people freaked and others were wondering why they freaked. So if you take out objective alignment in D&D because your campaign doesn't emphasize my rationale for playing, and I am a player in your group, to me that is still an important part of why I am there, and the sudden loss of alignment disrupts my sense of the game. I bumped into this constantly with wish lists and other aspects of play that started to emerge in 3E. I wasn't really sure at first what it was, I just noticed bits of things entering the game were rubbing me the wrong way for some reason, and I found it very frustrating that the assumptions of play that i went in with seemed to be losing support with each new release from WOTC (and it was some years into 3E before I really started noticing this). So I think with alignment the risk is, if you take it out, or make it more subjective, a huge swath of players like myself who play for the reason I do, will find it ugly disruptive that its no longer there. Putting a system like that back into a game is a lot harder than just not using it. Whereas before, alignment was one of those things people either used as written because they liked it,or they just ignored it in their games if they didn't. It is pretty easy to ignore alignment. I know GMs who do so, and their games run fine.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think I'll just post one more thing and (likely...I reserve the right to reconvene at a later date!) bow out.

Alignment likely works and may improve the gaming experience when:

1) You have a GM that is unequivocally peerless in the group. Not by his estimation. But theirs.

2) The players want a metaphysical moral needle that moves mechanical units; Divinations primarily, but also Abjurations, Evocations, magic item attunement, and entry/maintenance in certain classes.

3) Players want to play Paladins and see if they can abide by the GM litmus test/interpretation of Lawful and Good (typically the hard thing to do is to remain Lawful).

4) The GM is ok with the mental overhead and handling time required to responsible and accurately adjudicate affairs of alignment.

If your group meets those parameters, then alignment would seem to improve the gaming experience.

My group doesn't meet any of those parameters. I do not want that overhead nor do I want that handling time. I am not peerless in my group. Certainly not be my estimation and regardless of what they think, I know that they are brilliant, thoughtful people with major accomplishments (morally and in their professions/disciplines) in life, easily my equal (or better). Further, they are interested in the physical outcomes of morality plays. I mentioned Dogs upthread. They want that physical fallout and they trust me (and I trust myself) to immediately and correctly frame that physical fallout in the way of knock-on conflicts. I enjoy that myself and I'm quite good at it. I'm not remotely as confident in adjudicating alignment.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know BRG, that's a point. And a good one really. If mechanical alignment gets yet again rammed down our throats, I'll simply ignore it again.

But the original question was does it improve the gaming experience. Which I still believe it does not. It fosters a sense that the DM must police the players who are incapable of playing consistent characters. It's based IMO on the outdated belief that players only want to "win" and it is up to the DM to protect the game from the players.

 

[Abraxas]

Having followed along thus far I had to comment.

In reply to OP. In my experience they can either improve the gaming experience or detract from it - much like numerous other things - depending on the players & DM.

If the players & DM trust each other, it can improve play, if they don't it may harm play. This in no way requires exceptional players or DMs - just people who aren't jerks to each other.

If the players & DM want the reasons behind/methods of a character's actions to have mechanical effects/affect mechanical resources available (similar to the artifact rules in 4E) it can improve play. This is no more difficult to adjudicate than any other number of things we ask the DM to adjudicate if we want the game world to respond to our characters actions. If you don't use alignment, but still have the reasons behind/methods of a character's actions impact mechanical effects/resources you're not doing anything different than that done in a game with alignment.

If a DM is going to use alignment to tell a player what his character can do, it really doesn't matter that alignment is in the game, take it out and that same DM will use other game elements to tell a player what his character can do.

Ultimately I prefer that it be left in, It's part of what makes D&D for me, and It's easier to remove it than add it back in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Y'know BRG, that's a point. And a good one really. If mechanical alignment gets yet again rammed down our throats, I'll simply ignore it again.

But the original question was does it improve the gaming experience. Which I still believe it does not. It fosters a sense that the DM must police the players who are incapable of playing consistent characters. It's based IMO on the outdated belief that players only want to "win" and it is up to the DM to protect the game from the players.

Except whether it improves the game experience is a bit subjective, and a large number of posters are telling you it improves the game for them. And most of those of us who like it, don't see it as part of some kind of conflict between GMs and players, where its there to enforce playing characters consistently. For me, that isn't the purpose of alignment.

 

[Hussar]

Oh I totally agree that it's subjective. But of alignment mechanics aren't there to enforce players behaviour then what is it there for?

 

[S'mon]

On this point, [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]: I know that Gyagx's DMG stipulates that LG peoples might be mortal enemies, but it also stipulates that 'Good' entails respect for human rights, and that 'Lawful" entails respect for beneficent systems of social organisation.

Gygax DMG pg 23 says that "the tenets of good are... creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness" but under Lawful Good it says that LG creatures believe "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest".

So according to this, LG types are Utilitarians but with a value set restricted to 'decent creatures' and an emphasis on the need for order. To me this doesn't bear much resemblance to Kantian
conceptions of human rights or creature rights. The LG creature would have to sacrifice the
one to save the many.

Under Neutral Good it says "law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life,
happiness and prosperity to all deserving creatures" - which still sounds a bit Utilitarian, but lacks a 'most benefit' calculus, so is perhaps less directly opposed to 'creature rights'.

The Chaotic Good alignment is the only one that does not refer to 'decent creatures' or
'deserving creatures' - it says "The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness".

Chaotic Good is the only alignment without a value-set restriction, and therefore AFAICS the only one at all compatible with modern or Kantian notions of human or creature rights. All those threads
about the morality of killing orc babies or genociding goblins would be meaningless to a Gygaxian LG or NG if orcs and goblins are not 'decent' or 'deserving' - and Gygax certainly intended that they weren't.

 

[billd91]

Oh I totally agree that it's subjective. But of alignment mechanics aren't there to enforce players behaviour then what is it there for?

So that there are weapons (including character classes) armed for the fight between good and evil. Sure, you can use fireballs and all that, but having a spell specially target something evil is that much better for a campaign in which that particular opposition is important.

 

[pemerton]

Gygax DMG pg 23 says that "the tenets of good are... creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness" but under Lawful Good it says that LG creatures believe "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest".

So according to this, LG types are Utilitarians but with a value set restricted to 'decent creatures' and an emphasis on the need for order. To me this doesn't bear much resemblance to Kantian conceptions of human rights or creature rights. The LG creature would have to sacrifice the one to save the many.

I agree that is a possible reading. To me, it doesn't help alignment, though, to point out that it is incoherent: that a LG PC is, qua good, committed to respect for rights while at the same time, qua LG, committed to denying rights as "nonsense on stilts".

Under Neutral Good it says "law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness and prosperity to all deserving creatures" - which still sounds a bit Utilitarian, but lacks a 'most benefit' calculus, so is perhaps less directly opposed to 'creature rights'.

The Chaotic Good alignment is the only one that does not refer to 'decent creatures' or 'deserving creatures' - it says "The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness".

Chaotic Good is the only alignment without a value-set restriction, and therefore AFAICS the only one at all compatible with modern or Kantian notions of human or creature rights.

Which creates an oddity I noted upthread: that some of the greatest proponents of the rule of law (Kant, the founders of the American Republic, etc) end up being CG. Whereas the so-called LG types end up being, at best, instrumentalists about the rule of law, but potentially far more supportive of a modern administrative state approach, with its sacrifice of a traditional rule-of-law approach in favour of benevolent flexibility.

In other words, I don't dispute your analysis but it's not saving alignment for me! (Also, in relation to my original comment: how could two Benthamite LG nations be at war? Just use Commune to get an answer to the factual question of how to settle the dispute between them so as to maximise their collective welfare. To the extent that they keep fighting, it turns out they're not really LG after all!)