This is tortured. There are no descriptors. As you yourself go on to say, the author draws upon "the manner in which the character has already been written to date, and the experiences he has had (in backstory and in play)". The manner in which a character has already been written is not a descriptor. There may not even be a word or phrase of English able to adequately capture that manner, whatever exactly it is. Similarly for the experiences a character has had in backstory and play. There is no descriptor there: there is a simply a known history of experiences.
The author does not create characters from vacuum. He has a vision of the character, with history and upcoming events which fit within his story for the character. The gamer lacks that. He has a vague knowledge, if any, of the broad aspects of the campaign the character is about to enter into. Unlike the author, he has no control over the extent t which his backstory - what has gone before the story itself begins - will actually come up in the course of the story itself. But he does not enter the story as a blank slate. When a character "writes himself", it is precisely because his actions are dictated by personality traits that the author has baked into him - even without realizing it.
But that's not the character authoring him-/herself! It's conscious authoring based on a preconception of what Sir Gallice desires and is capable (or not capable) of.
It is a well realized character who "authors himself", and it happens only when the author has a well-realized character whose "preconception of what [the character] is (or is not) capable of." So well conceived that he knows without conscious consideration how that character would act, and only on reflection can he figure out why he would act that way. Some authors do, in fact, address why this action (which was so key to the story) was really the only one the character would really take, despite the fact it was not the original author expectation of the action he would take.
Now, in a D&D game, it is possible that this epiphany comes with the realization that the character is not, in fact, of the originally state alignment - perhaps that simply means changing the notation, or perhaps it means the turn of the story becomes "what happens now that the character has realized he does not, in fact, agree with the group he has always identified with", and this has a cost. The Vlad Taltos series, by Brust, has such a character. He spends his life becoming a criminal and assassin for a criminal organization, before coming to realize that he's not really that person. This costs him dearly in many respects as he ends up on his own, running from his former allies and subordinates (ie he loses a lot of character resources). If a player looking at his character says "Well, this is what Sir Gallice would do, but doing that would mean no Paladin powers, so I'll just override his personality to keep mechanical benefits", then to me that is poor role playing.
And, as I type that, perhaps that is a significant part of where we do not see eye to eye. You have mentioned before that the game mechanics should reinforce Sir Gallice playing to character. He should always be advantaged by playing to his sense of Justice, Righteousness and Benevolence. To me, good role playing is its own reward - I don't need a mechanical reward for my character to be played in character. Remaining true to your principals can, and often should, have a cost.
That said, I also place my trust in the GM to use my character's principals - including, and perhaps especially, their drawbacks - to build an exciting and fun game. Sometimes, that excitement and fun will come from challenges to his principals - situations where it would be so much easier for Sir Gallice to cheat a little on his principals, to rationalize away some breach of his principals, to look the other way while his teammates takes actions he would find unconscionable so that the team can "win". But ultimately, I trust the GM to use these challenges to make the game fun and exciting, and not to screw me or my character over and make the game "no fun".
Perhaps that is part of the disconnect. The mantra of yourself and @
Hussar seems to be "trust the players". But trust extends both ways - why is there no expectation that trust be extended to (and earned by) the GM?
And this raises a further issue, that goes to the heart of alignment: who gets to define the shorthand? If the player - who is the typical author of the character - gets to do so, then LG should have whatever meaning the player imputes. But at that point we don't have mechanical alignment anymore. And if the GM gets to decide on the shorthand, then the character is clearly not authoring him-/herself, because there is the prospect of real-time editorial correction from a 3rd party. The player becomes less like an author and my like an actor of someone else's screenplay.
I think the player makes the decisions for his character. He does not decide how those decisions fit into the broader world in which he lives, so he does not judge whether those actions are Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. He judges what his character would do. Anakin Skywalker's player gets to define whether Anakin takes actions consistent with the Light Side of the Force, remaining pure to the teachings of the Jedi, or whether he succumbs to the temptations of the Dark Side of the Force, falls to the influence of Palpatine and becomes a Dark Lord of the Sith. He does not get to redefine the Universe making his actions those of a Jedi, and not falling into the Dark Side.
This is also part of the disconnect, I suspect. As a player, I am playing a character who is subject to temptation. If I am playing Anakin Skywalker, then I am playing a character who may, or perhaps even will, succumb to those temptations. I can disconnect my own views from his - it is Anakin's failures that cause him to fall. As a player, I'm fine with Anakin falling - I chose to pay a character who is not "morally pure" by the terms set by the setting, or the game, or the GM, or perhaps even by my own standards. Anakin's fall is a failure of the
character, but a success to the
player in role playing that character in accordance with his own personality - and, in D&D terms, his own alignment.
Of course they can be. I'm not the one who has insisted they be defined - you are! (Do I really have to trawl back through the thread to find the posts? In post number 530, you said that "we can have a deity of honour and heroism, can we not? Assuming that deity is, in some way, directly influential, that deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism must be determined in some way". In the post to which you have now replied, I denied that this was so. That is to say, I denied that we need to "determine" a concept of honour and/or heroism to use it. Likewise in the same post I denied that we need to "determine" a concept of good or evil to base a game on the trope of good vs evil.)
Again, you seem to approach this in binary, requiring either no definition at all or full codification of every aspect of the definition. I do not believe ANYONE comes into the game with no sense of what constitutes "honour", "heroism", or "good and evil". These terms are not, and never will be, "defined entirely through play". Nor will they ever be fully codified and defined, or definable, in every respect, in black and white terms.
My point - which you seem still to be missing, or perhaps just ignoring for some reason - is that mechanical alignment requires the use of these evaluative words and phrases as standards, imposed by the GM as part of adjudicating and refereeing the play of the game. THIS IS SOMETHING I DON'T WANT TO DO. Hence I don't use mechanical alignment. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
To take a step back for a moment, do you acknowledge and agree that it is possible someone might FULLY UNDERSTAND your point while still DISAGREEING with it? I do not care whether you adopt alignment in your game. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I do however, believe that you misrepresent "alignment" in general by your rigid interpretation of "mechanical alignment".3 I maintain that the "great moments in role playing" you cite as being impossible if we use alignment are perfectly possible in games where alignment is used, though perhaps not as you interpret the only way it could possibly be used, and that they would not be cast into utter ruin by the assessment of whether, say, sacrificing a friend and companion to a Dark God is a Good, or moral, action. And I do not think a Samurai would be robbed of any playability, if not destroyed by bolts from the blue, because he negotiated with - or even **gasp** played dice with - ogres.
By the way, I remain completely unable to see why you perceive the Samurai dicing with the ogres as such a huge deal, frankly, whether from a perspective of "Great Moments in the History of Role Playing" or "Horrific Alignment Violations". The fact that you do indicates you are, in some way, evaluating the behaviour of the character (or the player) against some standard and concluding that, in a game where that standard has some mechanical influence, the player would be penalized in some way for this action. Maybe someone out there who uses alignment can set me straight on the horrible error the Samurai has made.
I don't know if you are familiar with the plot of Wagner's Ring Cycle, but it actually has roughly the shape you here treat as a knock-down counterexample! Wotan (Odin), between the conclusion of The Valkyrie (the 2nd opera) and the opening of Siegfried (the 3rd opera), realises that the only way to restore a proper order to the world - which he, Wotan, has doomed via the pacts he has entered into which have permitted the dragon Fafnir to gain possession of the Ring, itself tainted by (i) its creator's theft of the gold from the Rhinemaidens and then by (ii) Wotan's theft of it from its creator - is to allow the emergence of a wild man unbound by any obligation or law. That is Siegfried, who - when he meets Wotan - uses the sword that he forged himself to cleave in half the spear on which Wotan has engraved all the runes that record the pacts and laws of the world.
So here we have Wotan, divine ruler of the world - and no slouch in the reasoning department - forming the view that the best way to serve divine order is to permit the emergence of a wild man who decides based on whim and passion, and that to proceed in conventional ways would only compound the problems that the theft of the Rhinemaiden's gold, and then of their ring, have created for the world.
Regardless, I don't see Seigfried as consciously seeking to serve the Divine Order. I do see a lot of predestination in the whole plotline, which is not what I typically see in a good game. Do you see Siegfried has having an alternative choice of being a lawful servant of the Gods? Do you perhaps perceive Wotan empowering him as a True Servant of the Primal Order?
If a player was setting out to play a noble knight, I'm hard pressed to see why s/he would have his/her PC ride into a village on a whim, grab a baby, and tear out its throat on a whim. @
Hussar has already discussed this particular issue well.
The player in the episode of play I described didn't have his PC decide to sacrifice his friend and (soon to be former) companion on a whim, however. So I don't really see the connection. And I also don't see the relevance of moral judgement. I don't need to make a moral judgement to express the view stated in the paragraph above this one. I'm just making a prediction: I can't imagine a player of a noble knight declaring, on a whim, that his/her PC rides into the village, grabs hold of a baby and rips out its throat. In relation to the sacrifice episode, I'm not making a moral judgement either. Nor am I making a prediction. I'm describing an episode that actually occurred during play (in early 1994, if my memory serves me well).
First off, in your description of the episode of play you described, there is no indication of any reason the PC decided to sacrifice his friend. I mentioned earlier why I find play examples lose a lot in communication to non-players, who don't have the context or the backstory. Second, the fact that he had a reason to commit a dark and evil act, and that it may have been in character for the character in question, in no way makes it moral or righteous - it more seems to me that playing the character appropriately (and I don't think anyone is asserting the character is being played inappropriately) meant playing him consistent to an alignment other than Law and Goodness, whether he started out with such an alignment or whether his moral outlook has changed in the course of the game.
Finally,
YOU ARE GROSSLY MISREPRESENTING MY EXAMPLE*. I set the scenario for that noble knight (actually, I said "Paladin", not "Noble Knight") deciding he must tear out a newborn's throat with his teeth. You have dismissed or ignored that scenario to recast my example as simple whim of a poor player. The scene I had set (and I may be elaborating on it here), was that our PC's goal was to infiltrate and bring down and evil Cult. After, presumably, much in-game work to make contacts and ingratiate himself with the cult, he is on the verge of acceptance as an acolyte. He is now presented with the requirement to demonstrate his devotion to the Dark One by tearing out this newborn's throat with his teeth as a sacrifice. He's in full view of the cultists, who are watching and waiting. If he does not, another cultist will. His decision is that infiltration of the Cult of the Dark One is important, and consistent with his Paladinly vows, and hew, the baby's dead either way and I might be at risk too if I don't do it, so...**CHOMP**
* Bolded caps to represent that I can yell as loud as, or louder than, you. Apologies to other readers who may have been disturbed by the shouting.
Were the actions justified in the eyes of the character? Obviously. Were they justified in the eyes of the player? Maybe - he could be role playing a fall from grace due to a focus on the end resulting in willingness to use vile means (the road to Hell is paved with what, again?) or he could really believe that "fighting fire with fire" - or "the end justified the means" - is an appropriate tenet of Lawful Goodness. Regardless, that is what the character believes. A statement that this is not what "the cosmos", "the deity", or even "the GM" or "the table" believes, and that as such proceeding jeopardizes the character's alignment, Paladinhood and/or standing within the Church of the Holy and Merciful Deity of Justice and Righteousness seems not to be out of order here.
It seems you disagree. You seem to be of the view that this fellow, waving the corpse of the newborn in the air as its life's blood drips down his chin, should retain his Holy Aura gifted him by the Gods of Honour, Benevolence and Righteousness. Well and good. For me, that approach does not make for good gaming. It may be a great game overall, and specifically in the events which lead to this turn of events. But, at least to me, great gaming does not mean there are no consequences for actions taken.
First, you seem to be (i) asserting that no reasonable person could believe that an Arthurian paladin could sacrifice a friend and companion to a dark god, yet remain a paladin, while (ii) supposing that a player might take that very view about his/her own PC. Which entails that you think players will depart from what reasonableness requires. Why would they do that?
In order for "mechanical alignment" to be an impediment to that in-game event (you have claimed it not only would have impeded such play, but rendered it impossible), the player must "depart from what reasonableness requires" in this manner. So I return the question to you - why would they do that? I suspect that, around your table, the acknowledgement and admiration of this great role play did not include any belief that the character's actions were good and righteous, untainted by the slightest hint of evil or immorality.
You seem to consider any acknowledgement that the character is not a bastion of morality as some criticism of the game play itself. I am uncertain why that is the case.
Second, you seem to be supposing that unless the GM imposes moral judgements as part of the adjudication of players' declared actions for their PCs, then the game is taking place in a moral vacuum. That's such a strange supposition that I hesitate to impute it to you, yet I don't see any other way to make sense of what you're saying. But the notion that events don't have value unless someone sticks an authoritative label on them, which everyone else participating in the activity in question is then obliged to abide by, is so foreign to my way of thinking that I barely know where to begin.
I would say more accurately that I suppose the ability of each player to independently define "good" as "whatever I want my character to do" and "evil" as "whatever I do not want my character to do" to indicate a moral vacuum in which the game takes place. No action can be classified as "good" or "evil", and in fact every action could be either, neither or both ant any given point in the game.
You claim not to make any moral judgment on the action, but the simple fact you perceive the action as one which would merit such judgment indicates you have, in fact, evaluated it.
I'll take the example of the movie Casablanca. It is no part of authoring the script to Casablanca, nor filming, producing and distributing Casablanca, nor watching Casablanca as an audience member, to impose evaluative labels in some authoritative way on the actions or characters of Rick, or Ilsa, or Victor Lazlo, or Captain Renault, or Ferrari. But to suggest that Casablanca takes place in a moral vacuum would be absurd.
These examples seem to move further and further away from the setting of role playing games, but perhaps I have missed something in the movie itself. Can you clarify for me which of Rick, or Ilsa, or Victor Lazlo, or Captain Renault, or Ferrari you perceive as a cleric or Paladin who is empowered by one or more Deities or Philosophies of Justice, Righteousness and/or Purity with divine powers and grace, such that the moral evaluation in question might carry a significant mechanical implication?
Moral implications can arise, and be judged by the participants in an RPG, without the need for the GM to adjudicate by way of mechanical alignment. My personal experience is that in fact moral implications are more likely to arise in the absence of mechanical alignment, because the players do not have the GM's judgement to hide behind. They have to take responsibility for their own decisions in playing their PCs.
How did those very reasonable and trustworthy people you game with so suddenly take to hiding behind the GM's judgment as soon as we added alignment rules to the picture? It seems you are saying that, in fact, we need to remove the alignment system in order to force the players to take responsibility for their own decisions in playing their PC's. Why do you play with such unreasonable players? If they are not so unreasonable, then why do they need to be forced to take responsibility for their decisions?
I'm not @N'racc but I'd like to comment on this part of your post and the whole "trusting your players" line of thought. The problem with the trust your players argument is that it ignores the fact that ultimately D&D is a game, a game where a player is advocating for their particular character. It is not a game where death only happens if the player agrees, it is not a game where you are constructing a "story" and it is not a game where individual awards, treasure, etc. are meaningless. Thus there is plenty of impetus for a player to do what is convenient/best/optimized/etc. for their character...
I mean if I trust my players and they are all there to participate in a challenging but fun fantasy adventure... well shouldn't I trust them to select appropriately challenging monsters for themselves and shouldn't I trust them to set appropriate DC's for themselves? I mean if I can trust them to follow the edicts and code of a particular deity or cosmological force without advocating for themselves when it becomes easy or (in their minds) necessary for their characters survival... Why shouldn't I trust them to select appropriate treasure for their victories, or anything else in the game? Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm not really buying the "player trust" argument.
Certainly, they should also be trusted to decide whether their character conception would mandate the success or failure of any endeavour. Why can't we
trust them to decide whether their attacks hit or miss, their saves succeed or fail, and their skill checks are successes or failures? Why do we have mechanical health? Why would anyone play with unreasonable players they cannot
trust to decide, objectively and equitably, whether their character has sustained enough damage to be rendered unconscious, dying or dead?
@
Imaro, it seems we have been playing the game HORRIBLY WRONG all these years. Worse, we have expressed such clear and systemic distrust for our players - our friends and noble companions here in the real world? How can we ever atone? Clearly, we must begin by destroying all our gaming books - we need no rules to game, only the trust for our players, whose reasonableness will create great gaming from nothing!
Lordy, Lordy, I'm on fire!
[And the mechanics of Enworld, which clearly does not trust its posters to be reasonable and behave appropriately, will not permit me to xp Imaro. Hopefully some right-thinking and properly aligned reader will do so on my behalf. I shall pray for the souls of the designers who place this unholy restriction on my judgment as a poster, for must we not love the sinner, yet hate the sin? Can I get an Amen, Brothers?]
