Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

You continue to assert that any assessment of alignment means the character “did wrong”.

<snip>

Every alignment has its own outlook. To “do right” under one will certainly “do wrong” under another.

This is a relativism which strikes me as sitting well with Planescape, but at odds with the idea of good and evil as objective forces.

To "do right" by the lights of evil is to do evil, ie wrong, ie to act in a way that is not supported by right reason.

The only way to act properly is to "do right" by the lights of good. That is, roughly, what good means. It is not simply a description of an outlook, or of some principles. It is the most general term available, in English, for commending bonduct or people as valuable and worthy of pursuit or emulation or admiration.

Hence, if the GM judges that a PC's behaviour was "not right" (ie was objectionale) by the lights of good, s/he is judging that it was not right simpliciter, ie that it was wrong.

(I say "roughly" because it can be argued that ethics doesn't exhaust the relevant considerations for proper behaviour. But the other sorts of considerations that authors like Nietzsche or Bernard Williams point to play little to no role in any D&D material or play that I have ever encountered or seen described.)

Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are also tropes

Good and evil aren't tropes in any normal sense of that term. Law and Chaos are, but many D&D worlds don't deploy those tropes - the exceptions here are the Morcockian interpretation of pre-AD&D, and 4e.

A knight in shing armour, and a holy warrior, are tropes.

I find it hard to believe every GM will concur as to how one best reflects “a living example of ” the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry”.

Yes. I've been asserting this for some time now.

Nor will every player.

That's why I don't like alignment rules, which require one participant in the game to impose his/her interpretation onto the game.

You keep telling me the character should define his own morality

<snip>

You first told me the players define their own codes and the GM has no right to evaluate them.

I have never told you that the character defines his/her own morality. Nor have I told you that the player defines his/her own code. These are both views that you are imputing to me.

I have said that the player plays his/her PC, and that in my view and my experience the successful play of the game does not require the GM to impose an evaluation upon that play.

how is it hard to envision a judgement in game that a character’s actions taken as a whole (or an extreme action) indicates a trend to the Dark Side?

It's not. If the player makes that judgement, s/he can act on it.

The GM's judgement would only be relevant if it differed from the player's. If it differed from the player's, why should I prefer the GM's judgement? Why is it the GM's job to tell the player how to play his/her character, or to tell the player what his/her character has become?

Your answer, as I read it, is that the players may interpret this as they will, and you will let any disagreement slide. Yet you have indicated you reject one of my possible character interpretations for the Raven Queen. As well, your willingness to let any disagreement slide seems to be conditional on the players not deviating too far from your own view

<snip>

So why was my example character dismissed as inappropriate to the Raven Queen?

<snip>

So why did you dismiss my character who murders in the name of the Raven Queen? In what way was he clearly not honoring those commandments? You judged that character before it was even created.

What character? The paladin of the Raven Queen who tears out the throats of children? The cleric of the Raven Queen who raises hosts of undead? These aren't characters being created for actual play. They're message board examples, which were never intended for actual play, will never see actual play, and have no bearing on actual play.

I don't believe that they're sincere attempts to interpret the notion of a knight in shining armour, nor to interpret the tenets of a god of death and fate. For instance, you haven't said anything about why you want to play this PC, how you see him/her being a knight (where is the honour?), and how you see him/her relating to the convictions of the Raven Queen (why would people invoke this character's god at funerals, except out of fear?).

If you were actually joining my game, and suggested that the PC you wanted to play was a paladin who tears the throats out of children as sacrifices to a god of death, I would probably suggest that you consider a blackguard of fury in service to Demogorgon, or perhaps a blackguard of domination in service to Orcus, Vecna or Kas. If you sincerely believe that the murderous torturer you have described is a viable instantiation of the trope of the paladin, then perhaps our genre conceptions are so far apart that we can't RPG together - at least, not in fantasy gaming.

But anyway, working out what fits within the scope of the game, what fits the genre and so on is of course quite different from judging a player's play of his/her PC. Apart from anything else, (i) there is no play to judge, and (ii) it is part of prep, not part of play.

EDIT:You said that no where in the Raven Queen's descrition does it mention her opposition to undead. I know at least 6 people, though - namely, me and my 5 players - who read that, noted that people pray to her at funerals to protect their loved ones from the curse of undeath, noted that she is opposed to Orcus, the demon prince of undeath, and inferred without hesitation to the conclusion that she is not a god who is favourably disposed to undeath. I've never seen any other interpretatin suggested.

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand why the player is out of Fate points, given that the GM just compelled him/her.

The situation was that he is out of Fate points and he doesn't have a Fate point to spend... until he accepts the offered compel.

I also found this in the Spirit of the Century SRD:

It’s important to note that an aspect may dictate the type of action, but it usually shouldn’t dictate the precise action, which is always the player’s decision. In this way, the compel highlights the difficulty of the choices at hand by placing limits on those choices.​

That suggests that the GM can compel that the PC not approach the snake, but can't compel that the PC cower and do nothing. At which point the PC could use his/her newly-acquired Fate Point, plus other abilities (including his/her "Defend the Innocent" aspect? I'm not sure in Fate exactly how a player makes his/her aspects work for him/her) to do something back to the snake.

First, SotC is an outdated version of the Fate rules... but putting that aside for a moment, I don't see how this fundamentally changes the issue... he still can't get near the snake to stop it from eating the innocents... better yet, flee is a general action as well... so he could compel the "paladin" to flee from the snake.

Here are some relevant points from the current Fate system SRD...

The complication from a compel occurs regardless of anyone’s efforts—once you’ve made a deal and taken the fate point, you can’t use your skills or anything else to mitigate the situation. You have to deal with the new story developments that arise from the complication.


There are two major categories for what a compel looks like in the game: events and decisions. These are tools to help you figure out what a compel should look like and help break any mental blocks.
[h=4]Events[/h]An event-based compel happens to the character in spite of herself, when the world around her responds to a certain aspect in a certain way and creates a complicating circumstance. It looks like this:

• You have ____ aspect and are in ____ situation, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, ____ would happen to you. Damn your luck.

So it seems the situation proposed is valid under the rules.

IWell it is theoretical. It's not an actual play example, nor even based remotely in an actual play experience. I therefore personally regard it as having basically no value as a model of Fate play.

Well I can't argue with how you feel... so ok.

Particularly because less than five minutes of looking through the SRD for a game I don't even play showed me both the text I quoted above, and also this:

Occasionally a character’s aspects will be in head to head conflict with one another. This should not be seen as a problem — rather, it’s an opportunity for high drama! When two aspects are in conflict with one another, they are both subject to a compel. If the player can’t see a way to act in accordance with both aspects, he must buy off at least one of them. In a number of cases, this can lead to a “zero sum”, where one compel is accepted, gaining a fate point, and the other is refused, spending that fate point. If the player can see clear to acting in accordance with both – fantastic! He’s just gotten himself two fate points (and a world of trouble).​

The GM needn’t always press the issue in this fashion. Nothing says she has to compel both aspects. But occasionally it’s more interesting if she does.​

Which, apart from anything else it tells us about the general approach to GMing against conflicting aspects, also makes clear that the point earned from the compel can be used for other purposes in the same scene (such as buying off a second compel or, as I suggested, taking some sort of action against the snake).

Your interpretation of this seems off... What does this prove exactly? the fact that they mention this seems to imply that the example, where aspects are in conflict is valid and can happen in game, at least enough where advice about it needed to be published. they even say occasionally it's more interesting if the GM does do this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

or seen described.)

Good and evil aren't tropes in any normal sense of that term. Law and Chaos are, but many D&D worlds don't deploy those tropes - the exceptions here are the Morcockian interpretation of pre-AD&D, and

Psted.

I am not much of a literature guy, so i will defer those who know more about it, but this feels incorrect to me. Good versus Evil seems like a very old trope. If chaos can be a trope, i would think evil can as well. Maybe i am missing something though.

 

[pemerton]

it seems that alignment is built into AD&D

<snip>

If this is your criteria for whether alignment is built in or not, then you can do the same thing for 3.x as well... just drop everything that uses it

<snip>

I'm not trying to answer this question

OK, you're not interested in expressing your view as to what is the tail and what the dog, but you're very interested in what my view of that is!

In AD&D if I drop alignment I have to go back to the B/X interpretatin of detect evil, dispel evil and protection from evil (none of which is an alignment-oriented spell in B/X); and know alignment and alignment languages become redundant (though the latter could easily be replaced with secret religious languages, if desired).

As I said upthread, the biggest mechanical impact is actually in relation to magic swords, which now lose a good chunk of their mechanical heft.

In 3E if I drop alignment I lose a good chunk of the cleric spell list (including alignment-specific attack spells at levels well below that of Holy Word, which comes into play in AD&D only for a 16th level cleric), plus a good chunk of the cleric domains, plus the 3.5 damage reduction system. I think that counts as more deeply built in.

In other words, I think that by 3E the tail has become the dog: it's a pain to try and expunge it.

 

[pemerton]

The description here has an order of operations issue.

<snip>

If you unravel it into the official order of operations, though, there's no issue.

I read this as more-or-less agreeing with my post. Am I right or wrong in that?

The situation was that he is out of Fate points and he doesn't have a Fate point to spend... until he accepts the offered compel.

At which point the player has a fate point to spend to try and do stuff, including leveraging "Defender of the Innocent".

Here are some relevant points from the current Fate system SRD...

The complication from a compel occurs regardless of anyone’s efforts—once you’ve made a deal and taken the fate point, you can’t use your skills or anything else to mitigate the situation. You have to deal with the new story developments that arise from the complication.

So we are positing that the "situation that can't be mitigated" is the giant serpent eating the NPCs.

Has the GM simply framed the player into that scene: "You fall down a rabbit hole and see a giant serpent about to eat Alice - now, I'm compelling you to run away so you can't stop the serptent"? I assume everyone would agree that's crap GMing.

Or is the scene the culmination of some struggle, in which the player spent all his/her fate points on other things, and gets to the climax without the resources necessary for victory? In that case, how is it any different to a D&D paladin fighting the snake and dropping to zero hp before the snake does? In which case, what does it have to do with alignment again? (It's certainly not an examle of the GM overriding the player's conception of his/her PC, given that the player chose the aspect "Why does it have to be snakes".)

 

[pemerton]

I am not much of a literature guy, so i will defer those who know more about it, but this feels incorrect to me. Good versus Evil seems like a very old trope. If chaos can be a trope, i would think evil can as well. Maybe i am missing something though.

Satan is (among other things) a trope. So is Hannibal Lecter (qv Steve Busemi's memorable portrayal of this trope in Con Air). The eternal struggle of good vs evil is a trope. I don't think that good and evil are themselves tropes, any more than red or bigness are tropes. They are values (or, if you prefer, terms for expressing evaluations).

You might say that when it comes to law and chaos the real trope is the conflict between the two, Morcockian style or gods vs titans style. That would be fine by me.

 

[Cadence]

Fate questions for @Umbran , @Imaro , or any other regular players...

So, would that be a Decision compel or an Event compel. The player is choosing how to react in fear to the snakes... does that make it a decision one? Would the Event one be the environment doing something to him?

Is it cheesy to compel when the other person is out of fate points (too close to rail-roading, or does getting the fate point make up for that)?

Can you use the Fate point earned from accepting the compel to essentially mitigate the compel?

I wonder how often...

GMs, remember that a player is ultimately responsible for everything that the character says and does. You can offer decision-based compels, but if the player doesn’t feel like the
decision is one that the character would make, don’t force the issue by charging a fate point. Instead, negotiate the terms of the compel until you find a decision the player is comfortable making, and a complication that chains from that decision instead. If you can’t agree on something, drop it.

... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.


@pemerton - RE: Alignment and 1E: I always picture the great wheel cosmology from 1e when alignment comes up. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone in 3/3.5/PF cast a chaos or law spell. The 3/3.5/PF addition of Law/Chaos spells seems like just trying to have some symmetry.

 

[N'raac]

An example for someone familiar to comment on. The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.

Player: "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"

GM: "whoa there, cowboy. What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes? You should be cowering back in that cave. Compel. Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."

Player: "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"

GM: "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."

We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated. And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?

The description here has an order of operations issue.

Let's say the player has one fate point left.

Let’s stick with the scenario painted. He has no Fate points left.

If the GM does compel, he says, "Hey, I know you don't like snakes! I compel you to stay back!" And offers a Fate point. The player either accepts (and now has two Fate Points, but will have to change what they intend to do) or declines (and pays his or her last point for that, and can go ahead and attack.)[/quote’

He has no Fate Point to spend and must, as I understand it, accept the Fate Point and the Compel. Then he must flee, based on that general descriptor as set out by another poster.

The thing is that there is no order of precedence among Aspects. You are both a "defender of the Innocent" and "Afraid of snakes", and the player doesn't get to demand that only one applies, except through spending fate points. If the player is running low on fate points, then in the fiction, we can say the characters running low on willpower - and maybe his fears overrides his honor. If he didn't want that to happen, he shouldn't have chosen that aspect.

It seems like the GM sets an order of precedence by selecting which to invoke. I think the player chose the aspect, just as a D&D player might choose to play a Paladin, and it is reasonable that both are bound by the constraints this imposes on them. That includes, in the former case, the GM Compelling the aspect the player wishes to downplay, and in D&D, the GM judging the behaviour of the Paladin.

Mind you, I'd also say that the "Snakes, why'd it have to be snakes" isn't a great Aspect to have chosen. It is very difficult to invoke positively. Aspects are more useful if they are written as two-edged swords. "Defender of the Innocent" is better - the player can invoke it for a bonus when defending the innocent, and the GM can compel it to force the PC into a confrontation they may not want to get into,.

It was offered as a legitimate aspect. I intentionally restricted the choice to aspects others had suggested were reasonable Fate aspects.

I read this as more-or-less agreeing with my post. Am I right or wrong in that?

At which point the player has a fate point to spend to try and do stuff, including leveraging "Defender of the Innocent".

Sure. After he has followed the requirement of the Compel and fled.

So we are positing that the "situation that can't be mitigated" is the giant serpent eating the NPCs.

The situation that cannot be mitigated seems to be the PC having no ability to prevent the snake consuming its prey given that it has fled the scene.

It's certainly not an examle of the GM overriding the player's conception of his/her PC, given that the player chose the aspect "Why does it have to be snakes".)

The player also chose the aspect “Defender of the Innocent” and his conception of the character was that his devotion to this duty would override his fear of snakes. Conception overridden.

Or he felt his fear of snakes would override and the GM compels him to attack the snake. Again, PC conception overridden by GM.

For that matter, what is the whole Compel mechanism other than a GM being able to call the player on not playing to one of his aspects, overriding player assessment of how his character’s various personality traits would combine into action in this specific situation?

I wonder how often...

... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.

I suspect it happens with very similar frequency, if we assume the same players and GM.

@pemerton - RE: Alignment and 1E: I always picture the great wheel cosmology from 1e when alignment comes up. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone in 3/3.5/PF cast a chaos or law spell. The 3/3.5/PF addition of Law/Chaos spells seems like just trying to have some symmetry.

OD&D had Law and Chaos. Early Basic had the five alignment square. AD&D had the Great Wheel/9 alignment square. Later Basic/Expert reverted to Law and Chaos.

 

[N'raac]

This is a relativism which strikes me as sitting well with Planescape, but at odds with the idea of good and evil as objective forces.

So one player choosing a Lawful approach and another choosing a Chaotic approach to do Good is “moral relativism” if both are right. But one player wishing the prisoner to face the punishment for her crimes and the other sparing her of that punishment, with both being right, is not moral relativism. Seems clear as mud!

To "do right" by the lights of evil is to do evil, ie wrong, ie to act in a way that is not supported by right reason.


The only way to act properly is to "do right" by the lights of good. That is, roughly, what good means. It is not simply a description of an outlook, or of some principles. It is the most general term available, in English, for commending bonduct or people as valuable and worthy of pursuit or emulation or admiration.

Hence, if the GM judges that a PC's behaviour was "not right" (ie was objectionale) by the lights of good, s/he is judging that it was not right simpliciter, ie that it was wrong.

Define “level”. I suspect you will find several definitions in the dictionary. D&D, however, uses the word as a term of gameplay, where it does not match its various dictionary definitions. Even there, the context must be known (spell level? Character level? Class level? Caster level?)

Good is defined in the rules. In game, that is the definition of “good” as it is used in the alignment context. It overrides all other definitions for that purpose.

And Alignment posits two axes, Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic. Arthur and Robin Hood are Good. Will they agree on how to deliver Good? Likely not – one is lawful and one is chaotic.

I have never told you that the character defines his/her own morality. Nor have I told you that the player defines his/her own code. These are both views that you are imputing to me.

You have indicated that only the player’s determination of whether their code is being followed matters. I’m not going to comb through the whole thread to track down the quotes.

The GM's judgement would only be relevant if it differed from the player's. If it differed from the player's, why should I prefer the GM's judgement? Why is it the GM's job to tell the player how to play his/her character, or to tell the player what his/her character has become?

What character? The paladin of the Raven Queen who tears out the throats of children? The cleric of the Raven Queen who raises hosts of undead? These aren't characters being created for actual play. They're message board examples, which were never intended for actual play, will never see actual play, and have no bearing on actual play.

The character who believes that killing people is a service to the Raven Queen, bringing them to her realm of death. You are judging that character. You are saying your judgment is to be preferred over mine. So you tell me – why should YOUR judgment be preferred in this instance, and what makes this instance different from your general mantra that the GM should not exercise moral judgment.

I don't believe that they're sincere attempts to interpret the notion of a knight in shining armour, nor to interpret the tenets of a god of death and fate.

Wasn’t looking for a Knight in Shining Armor. And why does your judgment whether my attempts are sincere relevant? I thought you specifically would not judge the players’ approach to playing their character?

EDIT:You said that no where in the Raven Queen's descrition does it mention her opposition to undead. I know at least 6 people, though - namely, me and my 5 players - who read that, noted that people pray to her at funerals to protect their loved ones from the curse of undeath, noted that she is opposed to Orcus, the demon prince of undeath, and inferred without hesitation to the conclusion that she is not a god who is favourably disposed to undeath. I've never seen any other interpretatin suggested.

Here is your quote of the relevant passages again:

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.

If they have to invoke RQ to guard their loved ones from the threat of undeath, how does that mean she is diametrically opposed to it? That can as easily be taken to mean “I pray thee, take someone else’s loved one to be your undead servant and leave my father to his rest” as “The RQ is a staunch foe of all that is undead.” By the way, they ARE invoking her out of fear – fear that their loved ones will return as undead.

So, the Demon Prince wants what RQ has – again, why can that not be interpreted as “The Demon Prince longs to join the Raven Queen’s legions of Undead warriors with his own, the better to conquer all the lands.”

I do not believe my interpretation of the words – to cast the RQ is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead – is a less reasonable interpretation of the words above. So why is a character who holds those beliefs categorically “wrong” rather than someone whose beliefs can be tested in play? How is your dismissal of my interpretation consistent with your statement that “It's up to them to decide what is involved in honouring the Raven Queen's commandments.”?


If we were giving control of the cosmology to the GM, then your interpretation should certainly hold for your campaign. But I wrote her into my background, based on what I read and what I interpreted. If that makes her mine at least as much as yours, then my vision must also be respected, not cast down as “wrong”. We should discover in play who is right and who is wrong.

The eternal struggle of good vs evil is a trope. I don't think that good and evil are themselves tropes, any more than red or bigness are tropes. They are values (or, if you prefer, terms for expressing evaluations).

Really not interested in discussing hair-splitting semantics. How can you have the eternal struggle of good vs. evil if we cannot have either “good” or “evil” in any way defined?

 

[pemerton]

I wonder how often...

GMs, remember that a player is ultimately responsible for everything that the character says and does. You can offer decision-based compels, but if the player doesn’t feel like the decision is one that the character would make, don’t force the issue by charging a fate point. Instead, negotiate the terms of the compel until you find a decision the player is comfortable making, and a complication that chains from that decision instead. If you can’t agree on something, drop it.

... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.

I can't comment on Fate play, but I think this quote is largely consistent with the tenor of games that I am familiar with, like HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel, that use free-descriptor approaches to link mechanics and convictions.

In Burning Wheel, for instance, a player (i) can earn fate points by engaging in play that expresses one of his/her PC's beliefs; (ii) can earn fate points by choosing to have his/her PC engage in complicating behaviour that expresses an instinct or trait; and (iii) can earn a better grade of fate point by roleplaying out an agonised choice when multiple beliefs, instincts and/or traits come into conflict.

An example of (i) which doesn't involve complications: the player a devotee of Pelor, and has chosen as a belief "Pelor's light is my guide". Entering a dungeon, the PC lights a torch. +1 fate point. The GM has basically no policing role here.

An example of (i) which does involve complications: the devotee of Pelor is also a holy warrior, has as a belief "Honour is the only true path." Coming upon an orc sentry who is asleep at its post, the PC wakes the sentry and gives it the opportunity to surrender, or alternatively to duel for its life. This is also +1 fate point. The GM doesn't have a policing role here, but does have a role that relates to "fail forward" and "say yes" - namely, the GM shouldn't resolve the orc's response in a way that completely hoses the player (eg by having the orc agree to the duel, and then sound the alarm before the player has a chance to declare any action that would stop the orc doing so). As well as these expectations around GM framing and adjudication, the game also has mechanical systems to allow the player to dictate the response of the orc, at least within limits (eg various forms of resolving social conflict - and suppose the player of the paladin wants to make the orc surrender by succeeding at an intimidate check, there are rules to set the DC, to grant the player bonuses to the check for the PC being in the clearly superior position over the just-woken orc, etc.)

Some examples of (ii): a PC has the trait "Spooky". When making a Circles check (something like a cross between a Gather Information check and a reaction roll) to meet some friendly villagers, the player describes how wild and scary his/her PC looks, and the GM imposes a penalty to the check. +1 fate point. The GM has no policing role here. And the game is set up so that the player has reason to choose this: for most abilities (including Circle) making the check counts towards advancement whether or not it succeeds (and can actually count more towards advancement if it is harder, which in this case it has become because of how spooky the PC has seemed to the NPCs); and "fail forward" means that the player won't be left high and dry in the game if the check fails. It's just that instead of the PC getting to meet some friendly villagers, the GM will be setting some challenge in his/her path.

Another example of (ii): a PC has the trait "Always in the way", and during an archery exchange in which one of the other PCs is drawing arrows from where they are stuck into the ground, the player of the PC with the trait describes how his/her PC is getting in the way of the other PC trying to draw arrows - thus giving that other PC a penalty to his/her archery. +1 fate point. The GM has no formal policing role here, but obviously too much of this thing could cause intra-group friction, and so the GM, like every other participant, has a role in the informal table discussions and negotiations that keep everyone happy with what's going on.

Another example of (ii), adapted from the Revised rulebook example of play: a PC has the instinct "When surprised, hit them with The Fear". (The Fear is a spell similar to Spook or Cause Fear in D&D.) The GM describes the PC coming home when suddenly a stranger in the shadows, whom the PC hadn't noticed, speaks his name. The player declares "The Fear" - and succeeds on the casting roll, so the strange NPC runs away. And when she comes out of the shadows as she runs, the PC sees that it was his sister, whom he is relying on to help advance his ambitions in the city - which just got harder! +1 fate point.

In relation to all the above cases, the GM is expected to be providing opportunities, in play, for the players to do these sorts of things. And the players, assuming they want fate points, will be looking to create their own opportunities too. (And are expected to author their belief and instincts keeping the need for such opportunities in mind.) The rules don't specify any procedure for resolving disagreement over whether or not a fate point had been earned - I think it's taken for granted that the players won't be half-hearted in playing their PCs, and the GM won't be half-hearted in providing relevant opportunities, and most of the advice to both players and GMs in the books is aimed at not being half-hearted.

(iii) above - earning higher-grade fate points (called "persona points") by roleplaying out conflict - is an example where the BW rules do specify a particular procedure: to get the persona point, a player has to be nominated for it at the end of the session by one of the other participants, and a majority vote must be made in favour of the award. This makes it clear that this is a bigger deal, but is not solely in the hands of the GM. And again the GM is expected to be providing opportunities for the players to do this sort of thing, by putting them into situations of conflict. The GMing advice also indicates that if a player is regularly departing from a particular belief during episodes of conflict then the GM might talk to the player about whether or not s/he wants to rewrite that belief, but ultimately it is the player's call, and the onus is on the GM to frame situations so as to accommodate those beliefs that the player has chosen.

RE: Alignment and 1E: I always picture the great wheel cosmology from 1e when alignment comes up.

It's a long time since I've used the great wheel (as in, over 25 years) but I can see some of its charm (in Appendix IV form; I'm not talking about Planescape). Reflecting on it now, I think I would like it better if the various pantheons weren't split up, so that each plane was the home of one particular pantheon, and broadly reflected the ethos of that pantheon and its culture. So the Seven Heavens would have Bahamut and Moradin - the "paladin gods" - and the Twin Paradises and Arcadia would be essentially adjuncts to the Seven Heavens, where less stern or more stern gods, saints and worshippers end up.

Elysium could then just be the Greek paradise as its name suggests, and Olympus and Gladsheim could likewise house their pantheons. The only oddity is that the Happy Hunting Grounds - for shamanic totem spirits and allied gods - mucks up the geography.

Limbo and Nirvana can then be as their names suggest - nothingness as either dissolution (Limbo) or enlightenment (Nirvana) - while the lower planes can be pretty much as they are standardly presented: Pandemonium as an adjunct to the demonic Abyss, Tarterus and Hades having their standard relationship to the Greek and Norse pantheons, and the Hells for the devils. The only oddities, then are Gehenna and Acheron, and my inclination would be to treat them as adjuncts of the Hells in the same way that I would treat the Twin Paradises and Arcandia as adjuncts to the Heavens.

I don't think I would need mechanical alignment to make this work - that is, I think the alignment descriptions in conjunction with the tropes evoked by the planar names and allusions would be enough to let people know what is what with these planes, and they could then travel them and devote themselves to the gods who live on them without needing mechanical alignment to be enforced.