Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

IMO, your argument is similar to claiming the creation of weapon shops shouldn't be under DM control because without them a rogue and fighter can't fight

If players are playing weapon-dependent PCs, then as a GM I wouldn't severely restrict their access to weapons - whether that be via weaponsmiths, gifts from mentors, loot from enemies, or some other means.

the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation) need tools to counteract GM control

This is not my view. I am overwhelmingly a GM, and my players don't need tools to control me. What I don't want to do, as GM, is to have to evaluate my players' action declarations for their PCs as part of my refereeing role. And I don't want the apprehension of such evaluation to be influencing my players' decisions.

If we have a character who derives his powers from adherence to his moral philosophy, and those powers are granted by an outside force or person in recognition of his adherence, then that philosophy becomes quite relevant and needs definition.

In the fantasy world, for Good and Evil to be objective forces, they must in some way be defined.

I don't agree with this. In the fantasy world, for the wind to be an objective force, it needn't be defined. I just tell my players the wind is blowing, and they respond by having their PCs cast control winds, or perhaps unfurl the sails on their ships, or something else.

I have a PC in my game who gains (chaotic) power from Chan, one of the non-evil primordials who is Queen of Good Air Elementals. The PC can be played, and his relationship to Chan can be played, without defining "Queenship" or "Good" in mechanical terms. I know this, because I see it happen every session.

For instance, when the wind blows the PC might look for a sign from Chan (or worry that it is a deception from Chan's nemesis Yan-C-Bin, the Prince of Evil Air Elementals). This does not require an definition of "Princeship" or "Evil" (or "wind", for that matter) in game terms.

Your choice of Star Wars is an interesting one, as the Dark Side and Light Side of the Force are very much akin to D&D Alignment, and we have a lot more info on them than on the number of dials on the Falcon’s dash.

I don't know about all the "Expanded Universe" material - but from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.

Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings counsels Frodo against hubris (particularly in the conversation about Bilbo not having killed Gollum; and not also Aragorn's lack of hubris upon his arrival at Minas Tirith). I don't need a mechanical definition of "hubris" in order to make sense of these passages, and achieve similar episodes in RPG play.

I agree that not every action can be simply classified as “good” or “evil”. Perhaps more accurately, the precepts of Good or Evil may sometimes require compromise, as they come into conflict with one another

<snip>

The character has no easy, obvious choice. Whatever choice he makes compromises a precept of Good. To me, this means either choice must be accepted as consistent with the ideals of Good.

<snip>

Both Thor and Aphrodite have been defined as CG. I would expect their followers to have very different problem solving techniques and perspectives on the world. However, both would value freedom and protection of the innocent, and neither would think it appropriate that their followers rip out the throats of babies to show their devotion to their religion.

And so what point is being served by the use of mechanical alignment?

I am not my character.

<snip>

“My character” can readily espouse views that I myself do not hold, or even violently disagree with.

I think this is obvious. I don't see what bearing it has on the question, though, of whether or not I want the GM to impose his/her judgement on a player's action declaration for a PC.

For instance, I once had a player who played his PC's collapse into degradation and addiction. It would have added nothing to those episodes of play for me to be hovering over him telling him whether or not his PC had become chaotic, evil etc. The play of the character is the player's business. He is trying to achieve some aesthetic goal, or make some point, or just enjoy trying out some particular storyline for his character. I don't see what would be added by me overlaying some stipulated moral characterisation.

Should a player be able to decide that the Raven Queen [note: I am not a 4e player, so I am, not familiar with the entity – substitute a Good deity of peaceful repose if that better suits the scenario] will be OK with him animating a horde of undead to turn back the Orcish hordes?

<snip>

Perhaps my character believes, with all his heart, that sending his victims to the Goddess of Death is their rightful fate in her eyes.

<snip>

Since the morality of my PC is not yours to command, and as my choice of the Raven Queen as patron makes her my resource or a shared resource.

The description of the Raven Queen states that she hates undead and those who create them. So when - as I did - I tell my players that we are playing a game in the default 4e world, I trust that they will not disregard these elements of the setting description.

If they want to play a necromancer - putting to one side the difficulties of mechanical implementation of the necromancer in 4e - there are other entities to serve, such as Vecna or Orcus.

“should there be any mechanic to guide PC behaviour?” Hero has psychological disadvantages/complications, Fate has aspects, etc. Certainly, some games lack these entirely, and I believe that is the model pemerton supports.

I wouldn't play with HERO/GURPS style "disadvantages", for similar reasons to alignment.

FATE aspects, BW beliefs etc have very little in common in play with those other mechanics, though. In particular, they are not mechanical constraints on player action declaration.

With alignment or HERO/GURPS disadvantages, a player has no incentive to have regard to the constraint except as a boundary upon behaviour; and when that boundary is drawing near, the player has a reason to hope the GM overlooks it. (Because crossing the boundary causes the GM to inflict penalties.)

Whereas with aspects, beliefs etc the player has an incentive to pursue/activate the belief/aspect, and want the GM to keep it constantly in mind in framing situations and resolving conflicts. In my D&D game, I asked each player to indicate one loyalty for his/her PC as part of PC building. Although these don't have any mechanical role like aspects or beliefs, they have helped play the same "hook the GM" role.

You have still not directly answered the question of how much control devolves to the player versus the GM, by the way. Instead, you continue to evade the question asking instead why a player might make this choice. It seems you hold a preconceived notion that no reasonable player could ever make such a choice, contrary to your stated assertion that we should have no preconceived notions, but let matters develop in the fiction through play.

I thought I'd answered this multiple times. I've given multiple actual play examples in this thread (and I believe I am the only person besides [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] to have done so).

I don't have any "preconceived notions". I have experiences and knowledge. You are, in effect, asking "What would I do if a player disregarded agreed elements of the fiction, such as the Raven Queen's hatred of undead?" Or "What would I do if a player built his/her PC as an honourable warrior, and then set about having his/her PC torture peasants?" Because I've never had these issues come up, I don't know how I'd respond. If you're suggesting that alignment mechanics would help, I've got no real reason to believe that's so. If a player isn't interested in taking the shared fiction seriously, or their own PC build seriously, why would I expect them to take a GM's stipulations in relation to alignment seriously?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION], I think your comments on chaos and codes are sensible. I think they also highlight a more general issue for law/chaos. (And in my posts on this thread I've mostly focused on good/evil.)

The most mainstream way of expressing individualism, in contemporary English-speaking political philosophy and jurisprudence, is to support human rights or a bill of rights, constitutionalised in some fashion and able to be used as a source of individual rights to be litigated in court.

This juridicalised rule-of-law approach to protecting the individual was invented by (among other) the US "founding fathers".

Is it chaotic or lawful?

Some of the strongest opposition to this sort of legal system, although less significant in the post-WWII era, has come from left-wing criticism of rights adjudication and advocacy of populist democracy. (Aspects of this can be seen in some of the issues around FDR's New Deal.) These advocates emphasise solidarity, collective interests, and (on this basis) hostility to liberal legal systems.

Are they lawful or chaotic?

The only utility I personally see for law vs chaos is with the presupposition of some sort of fundamental cosmological conflict (Moorcock, 4e D&D). I think the notion of lawfulness (without being framed in opposition to chaos) can also make some sense if there is a presupposition that rhe requirements of self-discipline, honour and duty to others will all coincide - but (as I did post quite a way upthread) I think this is a very anti-modern perspective which I have rarely seen D&D material treat well.

 

[Cadence]

So, by RAW, Law-Good, Chaos-Evil often fulfill a role in the cosmology that are particularly tied into a number of spells, Paladins (and Clerics to a lesser extent), and particular outsiders.

At first blush, I think alignments add to the gaming experience by allowing for the battle of capital letter Good versus Evil with associated spells and outsiders and all. I like the possibility of having the Crawling Chaos out there and, even if I haven't used them, the chance to have the Lords of Order.

For a general guideline I'm inclined to view lawful as the scrupulous following of some underlying set of principles that the player should specify (national laws, religious dogma, personal code of honor), where chaos is the active confounding of rules in general just for the sake of going against them. For good, maybe have it be the willingness to suffer pain/loss for the benefit of non-associates and no personal gain. For evil it could be the willingness to make expenditure of pain/loss for the sole purpose of harming others. Going with those, are most people closer to Neutral-Neutral than anything else? Is it impossible for a human to be good or evil or chaotic in even most of their actions?

I like @pemerton 's idea of whether each border case action is particularly good or evil, lawful or chaotic, until there is a necessity to do so.

In terms of use to PCs, I confess to having put down some other descriptors on that character sheet line before (Lawful Greedy, Angry, Neutral-Neutral Good, or Zen for a few examples) until the DM needed it to be nailed down for cosmological reasons. Even from this viewpoint, I'm inclined to think that the canonical nine have some value if viewed as a projection of the richer space of descriptors into something more concise that matches the cosmology. I think they add to the gaming experience by giving an easy system to help clarify a character. I wouldn't say this adds a lot though, especially if used like a straight jacket. And like any projection, of course it loses something.

I think I get @pemerton 's argument that playing enforcer to the PCs is (at best) an annoyance. I'm not sure it's that big or regular of a problem in experienced groups that could stand each other long enough to keep playing together. I think the DM is always screening the PC choices and actions - kind of like a PC in a game with passive perception is always looking for traps. Unless the PCs are trying to make phasers and tricorders using craft, or the Paladin is killing children for fun, I don't think the passive perception will be tripped and cause the DM to intervene and say no.

 

[Hussar]

Hmmm, I would say this is no more of an inherent assumption by those who like alignment than the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation) need tools to counteract GM control...



And in the same vein I could claim all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "GM's can't be trusted or relied upon to fairly adjudicate the cosmological forces they created for their world and need to be dis-empowered or else their unchecked creative control over the setting will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn...

Of course in reality I think the positions have much more nuance to them than either of us is presenting in these posts...

But, no one in this thread has actually argued this. Throughout this thread, I've posited that both the DM and the Players are reasonable people.

However, with two reasonable people, you can still have pretty differing opinions on morality. D&D alignments however, empower the DM to say, "Well, that's your opinion, but, this is my game so you're wrong." Which is something I'm not comfortable with as a DM.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] - I believe you are conflating "I" the player and "I" the character. The character doesn't set a code of conduct, the player does and then applies that to his character.

Then again, even if we go with the idea that this is all being done in game, then the character most certainly isn't Chaotic, as defined by D&D. He is making a code of conduct and sticking to it. That's lawful, not chaotic. I suppose it could be Chaotic if it was a code that said, "Follow no rules, obey no laws, and do whatever the hell you feel like at the moment", but, I think that's not what's being talked about here.

And, this little back and forth with [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] perfectly outlines the problem.

Both of you are making what you feel to be accurate assessments of alignment. Neither of you is being unreasonable. Yet, depending on who is DM, one of you is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Now, do you feel comfortable sitting down at Cadence's table knowing that your interpretations of alignment, at that table will be wrong? Will this help you play the game? Will it enhance your enjoyment of this game?

Conversely, Cadence, sitting at your table, is going to be in the same situation.

How has alignment improved your gaming experiences?

 

[N'raac]

You can certainly choose your slate of 5 aspects such that no (or very few) moral/ethical concerns are relevant. Aspects in Fate cover much more ground than alignments do in D&D, including some parts of what D&D does with class and the like. To implement them as a replacement for alignment while preserving the rest of D&D's mechanics would be necessary, and I couldn't guess right off how that would look.

I can play a D&D character for whom alignment has little or no mechanical effect as well. If I play a Paladin, I expect morality comes into play in either system.

I don't agree with this. In the fantasy world, for the wind to be an objective force, it needn't be defined. I just tell my players the wind is blowing, and they respond by having their PCs cast control winds, or perhaps unfurl the sails on their ships, or something else.

It is defined to the extent they know what the wind is. It need not be defined to the ultimate degree of knowing precisely how fast, what direction, etc. the wind blows. Neither do we need to define a hierarchy for the principals of Good.

I don't know about all the "Expanded Universe" material - but from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.

My two quotes were pretty solid indicators, and come from the initial trilogy.

The description of the Raven Queen states that she hates undead and those who create them. So when - as I did - I tell my players that we are playing a game in the default 4e world, I trust that they will not disregard these elements of the setting description.

If they want to play a necromancer - putting to one side the difficulties of mechanical implementation of the necromancer in 4e - there are other entities to serve, such as Vecna or Orcus.

and yet

I don't have any "preconceived notions". I have experiences and knowledge. You are, in effect, asking "What would I do if a player disregarded agreed elements of the fiction, such as the Raven Queen's hatred of undead?" Or "What would I do if a player built his/her PC as an honourable warrior, and then set about having his/her PC torture peasants?" Because I've never had these issues come up, I don't know how I'd respond. If you're suggesting that alignment mechanics would help, I've got no real reason to believe that's so. If a player isn't interested in taking the shared fiction seriously, or their own PC build seriously, why would I expect them to take a GM's stipulations in relation to alignment seriously?

You have preconceived notions of the Raven Queen's morality. She hates undead. Thus, a character who considers animating the dead for his purposes is not serving the Raven Queen's morality. They cannot define their own code, deciding that as a dedicated follower of RQ, they will Animate a horde of Zombies for the greater good.

The question is not whether you have preconceived notions of the entity's views on morality, but which notions are and are not preconceived. That you choose not to label them "good" or "evil" in no way changes that.

 

[Hussar]

The difference N'raac is that there is no way that two DM's, seeing a PC devoted to the Raven Queen will give diametrically opposed rulings while following the rules of the game.

The same is obviously not true of alignment given the comments between Cadence and Celebrim above.

 

[Sadras]

I don't know about all the "Expanded Universe" material - but from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.

Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings counsels Frodo against hubris (particularly in the conversation about Bilbo not having killed Gollum; and not also Aragorn's lack of hubris upon his arrival at Minas Tirith). I don't need a mechanical definition of "hubris" in order to make sense of these passages, and achieve similar episodes in RPG play.

And so what point is being served by the use of mechanical alignment?

Apologies if I am misunderstanding you here if I have drawn up a strawman, but are you saying that due to the Star Wars movies you understand the Dark and Light side - and they originate from broader cultural and mythical tropes? Can not the same be said for Good and Evil in D&D and the bucket loads of novels which have comes out? The "fall" of Raistlin comes to mind in Dragonlance. In the Lone Wolf series it was Vonotar the traitor..etc
Surely we can agree that the D&D alignment tropes are not that removed for us not be able to understand them.

If your answer is yes, why would you be so adverse to mechanical alignment. All mechanical alignment does is enforce the stereotype described. It sets a general guideline.

I also firmly believe that the fall of a paladin, cleric & druid has not been set in stone in the books, for instance it has not been broken down, no skill challenge has been displayed of how it happens and merely is commented on through a paragraph as it is meant to become each DM's interpretation for roleplay purposes, hence strict mechanics have not been set.

But we do not have to go so far as alignment to think of where a DM takes control of a situation if the need arises: For instance, think of a PC Fighter who through the story was elevated to Knight status (this can easily happen in Mystara in the Karameikos Duchy). Should the Knight behave "un-knightly" his status can be taken away. And it is not the Player who decides on the fate of his character of whether or not he loses his status, it is the DM. Do you also oppose this "DM empowerment"?

 

[Sadras]

The difference N'raac is that there is no way that two DM's, seeing a PC devoted to the Raven Queen will give diametrically opposed rulings while following the rules of the game.

Your argument against alignment is that two DMs will roleplay it differently in a campaign? A cleric of the Raven Queen who animates undead will be treated the same in both campaigns? Perhaps one DM will punish the cleric by refusing him access to Divine Powers altogether and permanently, one DM might decided that the cleric will have to pay penance, another might send someone/thing to punish him (lose a hand, an eye), another would have him flogged by his spiritual equals..etc
I think its great no two DMs are the same.

 

[pemerton]

It is defined to the extent they know what the wind is. It need not be defined to the ultimate degree of knowing precisely how fast, what direction, etc. the wind blows. Neither do we need to define a hierarchy for the principals of Good.

You seem to be using "defined" as something like a synonym for "known". In that case, we know what a paladin is too: s/he is a heroic warrior who is in the calling of a deity, and who values honour and duty above all else. (It is tempting to say "above his/her personal welfare, but on some theories of welfare - eg certain Socratic/Platonic ones - valuing honour and duty are the best ways to serve one's genuine welfare.)

Here is the class description from the 4e PHB, for instance (pp 89-90 - the text alternates between third and second person):

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. . .

Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations. . .

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve . . .​

That is all pretty clear, and we get extra information when we learn that paladins are proficient in all armour, even plate, and also are proficient in shields, and have as their key abilities either STR or CHA. They are knights in shining armour, either on the model of Lancelot/Gawain (STR) or Galahad/Percival (CHA). The power load-out for a typical paladin only further reinforces that a paladin is a knight in shining armour. oN pp 89 & 91 of the PHB we even get a summary of what paladin powers permit the PC to do:

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. . .

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .

In battle, paladins rely on their deities to strengthen their sword-arms and fortify them against the attacks of their enemies.​

For completeness, here is the corresponding text from the AD&D 2nd ed PHB (as published on the WotC website as part of their promotion of the reprint - its p 35 of that printing):

The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. Like the fighter, the paladin is a man of combat. However, the paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others might learn from him as well as gain by his actions.​

I imagine a person who had no familiarity with those Arthurian (or similar) tropes - eg a person raised in a very strict and sheltered pacifist community - would have trouble identifying what the archetype of a paladin is. (For instance, such a person might reflexively see righteousness and devotion as at odds with being a warrior.) But I also imagine that comparatively few such people are playing D&D. In practice I've never had this problem. (Note that you don't need to endorse the trope in order to play a paladin: you just have to recognise it. It's a fantasy game, after all.)

What we don't need, in order for someone to play this class, is a definition in the stricter sense of what counts as "devotion", "taking the high road", "refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations" or "fervently crusading [in the service of] a specific faith". Or, in other words, what we don't need in order for this class to work in the game is anything approaching the application of mechanical alignment.

the Dark Side and Light Side of the Force are very much akin to D&D Alignment <snippage>

But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's pprentice.”

Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.

My two quotes were pretty solid indicators

The way you present this, it's as if the choice of anger, fear, aggression and hatred as triggers for corruption was arbitrary: as if, in some alternative "Star Wars universe", Yoda might warn Luke not to help too many old ladies across the road, because generosity, compassion, loving kindness and equanimity are the ways of the dark side!

The idea that those sorts of emotions lead to corruption is not invented by Lucas - it's an idea with broad resonance, although worked out in perhaps the greatest detail within Buddhism. They are not simply "external" triggers for the dark side - as if the god of the Jedi doesn't like them to do these things, and after three strikes will boot them out of the team. They are "internal" triggers for the dark side, corrupters of personality which eventually - and drawing on another fantasy trope that predates Lucas - manifests itself in external transformation.

The analogue of alignment debates in a Star Wars RPG would be the GM trying to tell the Jedi player whether or not a particular action manifested an excessive degree of aggression. I would not be interested in that for the same reason I'm not interested in mechanical alignment. If the player is being sincere in playing a Jedi, s/he will avoid excessive aggression. If s/he wants to play out a fall to the dark side, then that can be played out. (Obligatory Darths & Droids reference here.)

You have preconceived notions of the Raven Queen's morality. She hates undead. Thus, a character who considers animating the dead for his purposes is not serving the Raven Queen's morality.

By "morality" here you seem to mean what she thinks is right and wrong. Yes, that is defined as part of the gameworld. As I posted upthread, when I tell my players that I want to run a game using the default 4e world, then I am including the Raven Queen as written up for that world. Here are the relevant passages (PHB p 22):

The name of the god of death is long forgotten, but she is called the Raven Queen. She is the spinner of fate and the patron of winter. She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.

She expects her followers to abide by these commandments:

* Hold no pity for those who suffer and die, for death is the natural end of life.

* Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the Raven Queen, you must punish hubris where you find it.

* Watch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The Demon Prince of the Undead seeks to claim the Raven Queen’s throne.​

They cannot define their own code

I never said that they could (though in fact the players have worked out details - eg the paladin decided himself that he sleeps standing up). That is a view you've imputed to me, perhaps in part because - in this as in other conversations - you don't distinguish between backstory and action resolution as components of the fiction.

Just as the players chose to have their PCs worship the Raven Queen because they liked what they read about her in the background material, so the player of the dwarf who got to specify sociological details of dwarven society didn't disregard what was written about dwarves. For instance, p 36 of the PHB tells us that "dwarves endured an age of servitude to giants before winning their freedom. Their mighty mountain fortress-cities testify to the power of their ancient empires." The player's backstory for dwarves therefore included details of their compulsory military service within those fortress-cities rather than (say) their tendency to enjoy cavorting with the stone giants in the mountains.

The question is not whether you have preconceived notions of the entity's views on morality, but which notions are and are not preconceived. That you choose not to label them "good" or "evil" in no way changes that.

That might be your question - though I'm not sure what you think is at stake in answering it. It's not my question, though. My question is "Why would I want to impose evaluative judgements on the choices that my players' make for their characters?"

For me, the answer to that question is "I wouldn't". It's up to them to decide what is involved in honouring the Raven Queen's commandments. It's up to them to decide what it means to be a dwarf, and what counts as embracing or repudiating one's dwarven heritage. To echo something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said repeatedly, it's up to them to play their characters, and it's not my role to judge whether or not they're doing it properly.