Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Herschel]

As others have noted, there is no reason this would not work with alignments just as well as without. Do we compromise Law in the name of Good or Good in the name of Law is a question any LG character needs to confront.

The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued.

So why does making them goblins mean that the moral issues go away? Are goblins automatically evil without possibility of redemption?

It doesn't have to be. If playing with stringent/simpler alignment views, goblins are evil, just like it says in the Monster Manual. Personally, I like the 'there can be a good goblin' trope as much as the next guy.

 

[Imaro]

The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued.

Here is the SRD defintion of how a LG character acts...

[h=5]Lawful Good, "Crusader"[/h]A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Now could you explain why a character who ascribes to the above (pretty broad ideals) would have to compromise any of them in order to deal with the hypothetical situation you put forth?

 

[Herschel]

The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?

 

[Imaro]

The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?

I'm sorry but how does this answer the question of what problem(s) specifically caused by alignment would arise? A party could decide to do that, (of course it would probably depend on the makeup of the party) regardless of whether alignment was or wasn't implemented... They could just as easily not do this, or have conflict about exactly what to do... due to their personalities as opposed to alignment. what problem specifically centered around alignment makes this scenario of gray morality impossible/hard/whatever to handle?

 

[N'raac]

The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued.

So what? Good implies respect for life and law includes respect for order. Does that mean a Paladin can't exist in a nation which has capital punishment? Really, there should be no Good creatures anywhere they respect life, so clearly they can't eat!

Here is the SRD defintion of how a LG character acts...

[h=5]Lawful Good, "Crusader"[/h]A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Now could you explain why a character who ascribes to the above (pretty broad ideals) would have to compromise any of them in order to deal with the hypothetical situation you put forth?

Let's add

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?

That would make them killers, lacking a respect for life, so they should in turn be killed, right? Again "alignment as straightjacket" is - well, I'd say "not being advocated by anyone", but those opposed to alignment seem pretty consistent in advocating "alignment as straightjacket" as the only possible alternative to removal of alignment. I can say it is not being advocated by anyone who is in favour of the game including alignment!

Just to clarify, I presented the exact same approach as a joke that no one with two firing synapses could possibly think of as "good". Only those opposed to alignment seem to present it as "good". And, of course, in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game, there would be no judgment of whether it was or was not good and moral. So which games have simplistic definitions, again?

I would actually expect this approach more from the most stringent of LN characters - "the law is the law and can never be compromised". The sheriff is probably off the hook - his actions are likely egal.

 

[N'raac]

It doesn't have to be. If playing with stringent/simpler alignment views, goblins are evil, just like it says in the Monster Manual. Personally, I like the 'there can be a good goblin' trope as much as the next guy.

That same "logic" would mean all dwarven PC's must be LG, and all Elves CG. Again, not the alignment rules but specific table rules. Like pretty much every objection to alignment on this thread, the objection seems either one of "specific and extreme interpretation of alignment", "bad GM/players" or "playstyle issues", and not to the actual alignment rules.

 

[Herschel]

Actually, Dwarves would be LN.

Some people like the strict lines that the alignment axis makes, some people use them as a foundation, some use them as a very loose guide, some prefer more nuanced methods and some only use them for non-PCs.

This is why Alignment is fine to be listed but not have any mechanical effect.

 

[N'raac]

The SRD I'm looking at says "often Lawful Good", with Deep "usually Lawful Neutral or Neutral" and Duergar "often Lawful Evil". Goblins are "usually Neutral Evil".

So, because people may use it differently, alignment should have no mechanical effect? People use the magical item rules differently - should they also have no mechanical effect?

 

[Hussar]

I guess my response to this general argument is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of fantasy role playing games that don't have alignment in them much less alignment with a mechanical effect. In fact I am hard pressed to think of a game outside D&D (Besides clones) that uses alignment, in a way that directly impacts the game. This, IMO and regardless of how minimal people try to paint alignment in earlier editions (which I generally disagree with but will leave that argument for another thread), is a true D&D-ism and I'm finding it hard to sympathize with those claiming it should be taken out of the game when there are so many other games without alignment. This is one of those things where I feel like if you want alignment gone or morally subjective paladins... then perhaps you are looking for a different "story" than the one D&D has been designed (out of the box) to facilitate for the majority of it's run.

I have no problem with D&D campaign settings that minimize or eliminate the effects of alignment, Eberron was a great campaign setting for 3.x that I really enjoyed running games in... but I don't think no alignment should be the default since there have definitely been more editions of D&D where alignment has had mechanical effects then not and it is one of those things that creates a gaming experience unique to D&D. All IMO of course.

But, hang on, how is "I the player determine the code for my paladin and then play that character to that code" any more subjective (or less) than, "My DM hands me a code for my paladin and then I play that character to that code"?

In either case, it's still an entirely morally subjective paladin, it's just that instead of the player getting to determine his character, he's being told by the DM how to play his character.

 

[Hussar]

Look at @Herchel's example, I can easily see why alignment is an issue.

For you that are saying alignment is a necessary part of D&D, and the DM determines alignment, then any action the players take will be judged by the DM's interpretation of alignment. If the DM has decided that helping one group is the "evil" choice, then a paladin, despite the player honestly believing that he is making the morally correct decision, can have all his character abilities stripped away. The player has "chosen badly" and essentially loses his character because of it.

I'd much prefer that the player's interpretation be held as the standard. Again, this isn't about bad DMing. It's not. We've seen multiple examples in this thread of differing opinions on the alignment of different acts. And, again, we're not talking about variations on a theme here, we're talking about two people looking at the same information and making exact opposite judgements.

No one is being bad here.

The idea that because the player is advocating for his character, he will then "cheat" by bypassing restrictions is not someone I want at my table. If a player is choosing a character with a strong code of behaviour, then presumably he wants to play that character FOR that code of behaviour. It's not like he's getting anything else out of the deal. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] mentions paladins being able to call in aid from their religious affiliation. That's very campaign dependent, number one, but, then again, it's not limited to any class either. Nor is it actually built into the paladin or cleric class.

Why can't my barbarian leverage his tribe for aid? Why is my fighter completely isolated? Can't he leverage anything in his background to gain help? Can't my rogue character belong to a group? My wizard is apparently entirely self taught and cannot gain aid? Why are paladins or clerics any different? There's nothing specific in the class that says any of the advantages that Imaro claims are inherent to the class. Again, the divine classes don't even need to belong to an organised religion at all.