Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ratskinner

Adventurer
This is a trivialization of the position of those who utilize alignment. I expected more of you, @Ratskinner .

Sorry to disappoint, I guess.

IME, all the "good" things that alignment supposedly does for the game are handled far better by newer mechanics from other games. Alignment also doesn't seem to provide those good things without a great deal of "massaging" at the table...reducing its value as a solid mechanic. I mean, that's what all the arguing is about, isn't it? At table, I've seen far more of Lawful Dwarves doing questionable things to Chaotic Humanoid captives or Paladins getting tripped up by disagreements on what exactly they should do than I have of any other alignment-y thing. For the most part IME, someone's character acting "Lawful Good" (however one wishes to interpret that) has less to to with them having that written on the sheet than their decisions to act in such a manner regardless.

Also, I've observed that with exceptions for the extremes, most groups generally ignore alignment for the other characters. For most of the characters I've seen...I'd be hard pressed to guess their alignments. Was he NG or CG?...maybe NN? Then there's that Batman alignment poster...

There is, to my knowledge, exactly one "good" impact that alignment has on the game: Putting the (Old School) Paladin in opposition with the thief/assassin. That forces a crises of theses that drives Narrativist play. However, it does so very briefly (usually) and in a not-that-interesting manner (since it usually comes down to the Paladin choosing to execute his chum or not).

Now, I used to think there might be something to alignment debate, and got into the arguments. Then a frustrated player (after an at-table argument about alignment) granted me clarity by presenting basically the position I outlined (including my final paragraph, which you omitted). He came to play D&D in order to escape a world which for him was muddled with all sorts of grey ethical areas. He wanted a D&D world with clearly defined teams and the ruthless simpicity that implies. That's what it does well. It just about useless for anything more sophisticated.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Darth Quiris

First Post
I have never played a game of D&D that used Alignments that didn't devolve into some form of Alignment War between players at some point because every player see's them, and interprets them, differently despite the clear wording of how they are described in the PHB and this is, IMO, the inherent problem of Alignments as used in D&D. Since they are so subjective and different people can interpret them in so many different ways what's Lawful Good to one person might be Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good to another... this is why I never abide by them and ignore them whether I am a player or a GM when it comes to mortals in the Prime Material Plane.
 

Dwimmerlied

First Post
I don't see why communication and reaching a table-wide agreement about what "good" means in this campaign is stronger than not insisting on a table-wide usage of "good". The latter allows everyone to play their characters, and for the GM to handle backstory and setting, as s/he thinks is appropriate - and the collisions between these things help drive the actual play of the game.

Good point. I can't say stronger, because I don't know, and if you are saying in your judgment and experiences you have found the system you now use is strong, well it seems you've reflected a lot on this, and I take that at face value. To clarify what I think, good communication skills are a very strong solution to many of the problems that I've seen offered as evidence that the alignment system is poor, weak, or should be abandoned.

For me a comparison would be this: the PCs meet a dragon and decide to try and defeat it in combat. Do they succeed or not - ie is it true or false in the fiction that the PCs beat the dragon? One way would be for everyone to sit around, think hard about what the PCs can do and what the dragon can do, communicate frankly about this, and reach agreement. Another way would be to play the game. I prefer playing the game to work out what happens to the dragon; and I prefer playing the game to work out whether or not a particular player's evaluative conception of his/her PC, as expressed through the play of that PC, is viable/worthwhile/good/bad/admirable/despicable. In my experience the results can be interesting.

I don't think this is a good comparison; your example options aren't mutually exclusive, and neither, necessarily, are methods for working inside the alignment framework. I've given examples of in-world devices I would use in previous posts, as has, IRC has [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]. Further, it wouldn't be difficult for anyone to conceive of many other in-game devices. There is such a plethora of mechanical devices, entities, monsters, NPCs, spells and other mechanics to ensure the experience never need be as bland as your analogy suggests that I imagine for most DMs it happens organically without ever even needing to contemplate what the system intended on a gaming forum.

And yes, completely out-of-game discussion is also an option, which can be so effective and simple that I would happily use it even being mindful of your comparison, and not feel for an instant that the exchange was bland, because I believe that although organic, in game devices are great, all gamers, whatever their preferred mechanic or opinion must from time to time readily employ simple exchange of ideas out of character whenever it would be more expedient to do so.

But that the universe responds in that way itself has implications for the truth or falsehood of certain moral and cosmological conceptions. For instance, if the universe is neutral as between being good or being evil - as is the case in Planescape, where both are valid alignments able to shape the planes by way of belief - then the typical mindset of a paladin (according to which the universe is on the side of good, and providence will ensure that honour and duty align to reinforce rather than oppose one another) has already been refuted, and the paladin is consequently self-deluded.

I don't understand whether this is a rebuttal to the quote you posted or simply a development of an interesting point about gaming and philosophy in general (or both!).
 

Dwimmerlied

First Post
Actually, as I posted upthread, alignment rules seem to have been invented precisely for players whose PCs were pawns on a chess board. They introduced an extra constraint on the play of those pawns, in return for better access to certain benefits (like hirelings, healing and resurrection).

Conversely, once you are playing living, breathing characters why do you need alignment?
not?

I don't believe the alignment rules were invented as constraints for pawns. Also, as to why, well one reason that looks easily beyond pawn control is that they provide a nice, concise mechanical and story hook that interacts with the supernatural and metaphysical assumptions of the game.
 

It seems to me that there is little challenge in role playing this character's strong moral directives when the player knows, and the mechanics dictate, that the character is always more likely to succeed by adhering to those moral beliefs than if he deviates from them. What is difficult is maintaining principals when one would benefit by compromising or ignoring those beliefs.

I agree with @pemerton here. I may play a game now and again that is about exploring the descent into madness in a world of lurking horrors or how much of your humanity you are willing to risk to do x, but D&D typically isn't it for me. The themes we're playing out and premise we're exploring is typically much lighter. I don't want it to be "hard" for the players to roleplay so we may have exclusive interests here.

That being said, it isn't difficult to make a stray choice a difficult one. A character can have (i) their moral directives be slightly at odds (mostly from a utility perspective) with a companion's own. What's more, a set of personal beliefs may become at tension if framed into a certain situation. In that case, there are systemic ways to frame a feedback such that XP is gained from having those beliefs challenged and the character (through the player) being forced to make a hard decision that betrays their internal, competing interests...and ultimately forces them to establish a herarchy (even if just a temporary one, subject to change later).

Lastly, If there is any point to the alignment system (specifically the "your powers are contingent upon it"), it is that the GM should frame conflict that juxtaposes its competing ideas and priorities. As such, I don't look at the classic D&D alignment system as having any advantage here. Inherent to it is, when presented with a hard choice, if you misprioritize your hierarchy of ideals (specifically in the GM's eyes) and commit an action that champions one over another, you may lose access to your archetype (class) defining features (your powers).
 

Dungeoneer

First Post
I guess my POV should be clear with what I've posted before, but the reason I disagree with your quotes, @Dungeoneer , is because I think it represents overly antagonistic gaming. That aside, surprises can't be too much of a problem for folk who can communicate and compromise. And if such antagonism exists, there would be many other problems the game with so much potential ambiguity.

Or ask before, or even during the game. And hand-slapping is never necessary, who would do that? I as a DM would discuss, or offer thoughts, and determine to be receptive to my players vision of their character, then I'd work within that. Is that so out there?

You can ASK before, but here's what will happen: you'll get generalities about not stealing and taking life. Those are obvious. What you won't hear about are the edge cases, like where the DM decides your character is being too much of a jerk or doesn't like the way you spoke to that barmaid at the last inn and tells you that this is behavior unbecoming a LG character.

Unless your DM has extensively reflected on their moral philosophy and then handed you a tome codifying it at the start of the game there is no way that you can know exactly what they believe constitutes Lawful Good or any other alignment. At the end of the day you can only truly find out by testing the boundaries, knowingly or not.

If you think this never comes up, there is another active thread right now on this very messageboard where a DM has decided his LG player is being too much of a jerk because of various reasons that have nothing to do with stealing from orphans.

When you think an LG player's behavior is out of line, you "offer thoughts." To the player it feels like a slap on the wrist. Especially since you probably haven't "offered thoughts" on the way your other player is running his CN halfling rogue.

D&D is a mind game! :D

Cute, but you know what I mean.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion!

ON A MESSAGEBOARD?!? Well I never! :p
 

Dwimmerlied

First Post
You can ASK before, but here's what will happen: you'll get generalities about not stealing and taking life. Those are obvious. What you won't hear about are the edge cases, like where the DM decides your character is being too much of a jerk or doesn't like the way you spoke to that barmaid at the last inn and tells you that this is behavior unbecoming a LG character.

See, only under this situation is this correct. But do you game with jerks? I dunno... it's conceivable that I've just always had great groups (excepting high school, but that doesn't count), but I wouldn't play in such an antagonistic group; it wouldn't be fun, and it'd just make me angry. Like I say, if there are jerks at the table, even if it's just from time-to-time, you can abandon or change rules to remove all ambiguity or interpretation, but you will still have problems.

Unless your DM has extensively reflected on their moral philosophy and then handed you a tome codifying it at the start of the game there is no way that you can know exactly what they believe constitutes Lawful Good or any other alignment. At the end of the day you can only truly find out by testing the boundaries, knowingly or not.

Bombastic!! :D I've never used such a tome. I like to talk about stuff, and in preparing for a new game, I might talk about these things a little bit; seriously, most cases are very black and white, and for all examples posted on this thread so far, very few have really, in my mind, stretched the wear of standard alignment too far. I could see something coming up in game, and if it did, I'm confident, as DM or player, it could quickly be resolved because I can both communicate and make compromise if I have to without sacrificing my fun. The vast majority of people are capable of employing both these two fundamental social skills, if they want to.

If you think this never comes up, there is another active thread right now on this very messageboard where a DM has decided his LG player is being too much of a jerk because of various reasons that have nothing to do with stealing from orphans.

You are making the point for me. A jerk is jerk no matter how fantastic and unambiguous your rules are.

When you think an LG player's behavior is out of line, you "offer thoughts." To the player it feels like a slap on the wrist. Especially since you probably haven't "offered thoughts" on the way your other player is running his CN halfling rogue.

What, jumping to conclusions? making assumptions? That's either silliness on the thinker's part, or it's founded, and then you've got bigger problems than abandoning alignment can help you game with.


Cute, but you know what I mean.

Yeah, I can see how you think I was having a dig, but I intended something a little deeper, too (but didn't mind that the "dig" was still there :D). So what I meant was if all the game is in your head, and it is, then all of the game is just as potentially open to abuse or misinterpretations, whatever. Which is why I think it's either often (not always) going to work or fail depending on how much the players can cooperate to make it work, with or despite the rules.

ON A MESSAGEBOARD?!? Well I never! :p

I don't find it outrageous that you had an opinion, but I'll call it out if you try to sell it as fact when we debate.

Edit reason; failed int check on the quote tags
 

N'raac

First Post
For me a comparison would be this: the PCs meet a dragon and decide to try and defeat it in combat. Do they succeed or not - ie is it true or false in the fiction that the PCs beat the dragon? One way would be for everyone to sit around, think hard about what the PCs can do and what the dragon can do, communicate frankly about this, and reach agreement. Another way would be to play the game. I prefer playing the game to work out what happens to the dragon; and I prefer playing the game to work out whether or not a particular player's evaluative conception of his/her PC, as expressed through the play of that PC, is viable/worthwhile/good/bad/admirable/despicable. In my experience the results can be interesting.

I find this a poor comparison. We have plenty of rules for combat with the dragon, enabling an objective determination of whether the Dragon or the PC's won. We don't argue over whether the Dragon should or should not be able to fly. We accept that Dragons can fly. We don't assert that, through sheer power of belief, a given PC should stand unharmed in the inferno of the Dragon's breath weapon - we look to the rules.

Many of the alignment arguments come back to debating the rules. "Well, is 'respect for all life' really Good, or is it OK to adopt a system of capital punishment for capital crimes? My Paladin thinks that it is not only Good to execute perpetrators of certain heinous crimes, but Evil not to do so." Whether I think Dragonfire should cause damage or not, the rules say it does. Whether I think capital punishment is morally right or morally wrong, the rules say "Respect for Life is a Good ideal", so capital punishment is a compromise of that ideal. I think the biggest issue with alignment arises when we assert that no compromise of ideals can exist. The Paladin must respect life and protect the innocent, so when he must either defend the innocent with violence, and possibly cause the death of another person, that should not mean "Oh, you compromise the ideals of Good either way, you have fallen", but that there is room for compromise of one ideal to the betterment of another. I doubt any gaming group would assert that the Paladin should not take up arms. But in our real world, many pacifists would outright reject this form of resistance.

But that the universe responds in that way itself has implications for the truth or falsehood of certain moral and cosmological conceptions. For instance, if the universe is neutral as between being good or being evil - as is the case in Planescape, where both are valid alignments able to shape the planes by way of belief - then the typical mindset of a paladin (according to which the universe is on the side of good, and providence will ensure that honour and duty align to reinforce rather than oppose one another) has already been refuted, and the paladin is consequently self-deluded.

Who says the mindset of the Paladin is that the universe is on the side of good? The Paladin devotes his life to exemplifying the virtues of Good and opposing evil at every turn. He trains diligently in martial skills so he can oppose evil. That strikes me as someone who believes Good is not foreordained to victory, but that the Virtuous must take up arms and fight to their last breath to see that virtue succeeds, and evil does not win.

As I said upthread, this can work in some games - eg in a Conan game a paladin would be self-deluded - but doesn't work for the sort of fantasy game I default to, which is romantic fantasy a la Tolkien and King Arthur, not REH-esque.

I think there are two questions conflated here. One is whether alignment can be a useful tool, perhaps as a role playing guide. The second is whether it should have a tangible impact on the mechanics by which the characters play, highlighted by the loss of Paladin powers for failure to adhere to certain alignment tenets.

In those romantic fantasies, adherence to the tenets of Good and Law carry rewards, and a fall from grace carries a cost to the character, so I think this argument suggests the enforcement, not the abandonment, of alignments in the romantic fantasy, and suggests they should impact the mechanics. In a Conan game, we may well still have virtuous Knights and vile, evil Sorcerers, but the cause of Good does not reward its followers with power (yet Evil still does, as sorcerers make pacts with vile entities from other worlds - Good is its own reward, but Evil bribes its followers).

This paragraph begins by talking about the player - and whether it is hard or easy to roleplay a particular character - and then ends up talking about the PC - who is maintaining certain principles. Talking in that way already involves many assumptions about playstyle that are not true for the way I play or GM the game. For instance, I don't expect my players to find it hard to roleplay their PCs being challenged. I hope that they will find it easy and enjoyable, and challenging only in the sense of setting an intellectual and aesthetic goal to aspire to - but in that respect, playing your PC being rewarded can be equally challenging, although often less dramatically engaging.

Is the problem, then, with the alignment system or the player's choice of character? If I do not want my character to be beholden to any third party for his powers and abilities, then I should not select a class which derives its powers from adherence to the tenets of Law and Good, and is rewarded by divine favour (ie the Paladin), but rather I should choose a class whose abilities are inherent, and do not trust to any outside force. The Paladin's abilities are linked to his adherence to an alignment as clearly as a spellcaster's spells are linked to his spellbook and use of components.

Most suggestions I see for replacing alignment bind the Paladin instead to some form of moral code. Let's return to your "chastity" character. If that character were a Paladin in a game where one of the tenets of the Paladin's Code is remaining chaste to remain pure, then I see nothing wrong with your character re-evaluating his priorities and perhaps deciding that he does not consider his purity dependent on chastity. But his character mechanics still say "he must adhere to his code to maintain his powers". So the character either needs to find another code which will grant the same, or similar, powers without a requirement of chastity (and presumably requiring some other code be maintained), perhaps also changing his powers/mechanics in some way, or forego his powers because he is no longer willing to meet the requirements of having those powers continue to be granted by the external force which grants those powers.

I contrast this issue, by the way, with your "accidental death" Paladin. In that case, you are unhappy that his powers are not immediately struck from him due to a failing the character perceives as justifying such punishment, but the deity does not. In the case of the vow of chastity, you are unhappy when failure to abide by the restrictions imposed does carry consequences. Clearly, you do not find this to be inconsistent. I do. To the player who is unhappy with mechanics of a character depending on maintaining some behavioural requirement (be it alignment, a code of honor, a vow of chastity, the regular sacrifice of an innocent, loss of control under a full moon or any other restriction or requirement), don't select a class, archetype or ability that imposes such requirements. This doesn't seem so tough to me. Play an Honourable, Pious or Chaste fighter whose decision to abandon honour, piety or chastity has no mechanical repercussions.

They don't. That's part of the point of playing a paladin - finding out what your own conception of "honour" might require, and finding out what happens when that comes into collision with other participants' conceptions.

It seems like your issue is less one of "Alignment", as we can replace the word "honour" above with "Law" or "Good" and have the same expectations. To me, your issue is more around who decides what happens, yourself or the GM, and whether the concept is embedded within the rules or not. The rules are quite clear that when the Paladin crosses the line, he loses his powers. That, then, is "what happens" when his conception of the ideals by which he lives "comes into collision" with the conceptions laid down by the rules, as interpreted by the GM. If we remove "alignment" and require the Paladin live by his honour, with no other change to the game system, then the GM decides whether his has upheld the requirements of his honour, and you do not. In another group, that decision might be made by the table as a whole (and in all games I've played, the GM listens to the opinions of those at the table, especially when the call is not clear and obvious). From your comments here, and in prior posts, it seems you want the question of whether the Paladin's actions are, or are not, honourable to be somehow decided by a die roll, so if your "Honour" skill his high enough, somehow striking an enemy from behind in a dark alley is sufficiently "honourable" to satisfy the code.

Actually, as I posted upthread, alignment rules seem to have been invented precisely for players whose PCs were pawns on a chess board. They introduced an extra constraint on the play of those pawns, in return for better access to certain benefits (like hirelings, healing and resurrection).

I think the alignment rules may well have been motivated, at least in part, by a desire to include some rules parameters encouraging the players to treat their characters as more than a pawn on a chessboard, or at least that this may have motivated some of the evolution of the alignment rules. This is no different than psychological complications in later game systems. However, I believe the origins of alignment are found in the influence Michael Moorcock's writings had on the early roots of the game.

Conversely, once you are playing living, breathing characters why do you need alignment? You just play your character. If one of your character's "weaknesses" is that s/he won't fight dirty then just play him/her that way - though the whole idea that not fighting dirty is a weakness rather than a strength strikes me as wildly misguided unless the focus of the game is on nothing but extracting benefits from others via the most efficient application of physical force.

It is a weakness in a case where fighting dirty would be to the player's, or character's, advantage. If we are letting matters be decided by the dice, and our PC can gain an advantage by throwing sand in his opponent's face, or by sniping with a crossbow rather than facing him in open combat, then an advantage is foregone by not "fighting dirty", whatever we perceive that to be. Hopefully, the game also incorporates advantages to the character's honour perhaps trust, respect and goodwill which assists him outside combat), but then the lack of similar trust, respect and goodwill extended to the sniper might well be seen as a disadvantage of his choices.

Lastly, If there is any point to the alignment system (specifically the "your powers are contingent upon it"), it is that the GM should frame conflict that juxtaposes its competing ideas and priorities. As such, I don't look at the classic D&D alignment system as having any advantage here. Inherent to it is, when presented with a hard choice, if you misprioritize your hierarchy of ideals (specifically in the GM's eyes) and commit an action that champions one over another, you may lose access to your archetype (class) defining features (your powers).

This, to me, comes down to interpretation in play. When presented with a hard choice, my view is that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed. The fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers. Given that, I consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice made. The Paladin should not fall because he was forced to make a hard choice, and rank his priorities. He should fall when he fails to make an obvious choice, even where that choice may be disadvantageous. But the campaign ground rules should be discussed at the table, no different from a ruling on mechanics. If Orcs in our game are irredeemably evil and fair game for slaughter by the forces of Good, this should be made known to everyone, and they should get reminded when the player forgets what their character would clearly know. If, on the other hand, they are sentient beings capable of moral choice, then the players should know/be reminded of that as well, and treat Orc prisoners no different than human prisoners. To me, the problem is much less "alignment as a concept" than it is an adversarial, "gotcha!" style of play where the GM considers it his job not to set interesting challenges for the Paladin (since he is the example we keep coming back to) but to trick him, or place him in untenable situations, driving him to fail.
 

N'raac

First Post
See, only under this situation is this correct. But do you game with jerks? I dunno... it's conceivable that I've just always had great groups (excepting high school, but that doesn't count), but I wouldn't play in such an antagonistic group; it wouldn't be fun, and it'd just make me angry. Like I say, if there are jerks at the table, even if it's just from time-to-time, you can abandon or change rules to remove all ambiguity or interpretation, but you will still have problems.

Agreed. To me, if the answer is so obvious the Paladin would know it, then this gets pointed out to the player before he commits. We can certainly discuss the interpretation. If it's a judgment call, then the Paladin (or whoever) is quite within his rights to make either call and have it considered acceptable. LG is not a tiny dot on the alignment grid, it is a portion of the square within which may possible "dots" lie, and any one of those different points still falls under the broader heading "LG". A team of four LG characters will not see eye to eye on every issue, but will on the more clear cut issues.
 

Alignment adds depth to a character.
Only if the character is the most shallow, superficial, cardboard character ever created. I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play. All of my characters, and with very few exceptions all of the characters of all of the players in my group, are considerably more deep than the superficial, shallow, arbitrary and ridiculous alignment system can possibly convey.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top