Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Bedrockgames]

If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is the cosmological force of good. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.

If alignment is handled in this way, I don't see how it can do the job @Mishihari Lord wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.

Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).

That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)

That second quoted post isnt mine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is the cosmological force of good. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.

If alignment is handled in this way, I don't see how it can do the job @Mishihari Lord wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.

ional clerics.)

As long as characters still have free will, they can disagree with the gods and develop their own ideas about good and bad. What alignment does is create potential consequences for acting out of accord with what is objectivley good-bad-lawful-chaotic in the world and it also simply sets down the idea that, whatever the individual pc might think about good, there is an objective meaning of good outside of him. PCs have limited perspective, they are not necessarily going to have a clear understanding, especially when the respective forces of law, chaos, good and evil are trying to thwart one another. Much of this will be setting specific though.

 

[Imaro]

If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is the cosmological force of good. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.

Welll as I said above I tend to personify my cosmological forces and regard them as fallible because in the D&D milieu (where mortals become gods and, at least by the fiction in their novels still retain very human desires, wants and characteristics) it seems to fit. So yes in a sense they are NPC's with desires which have somehow achieved enough power and the mantle necessary to define a certain type of good or a certain type of evil, or a certain type of chaos. But as a good & lawful (or any other combination) being there are certain broad tenets that, in accepting their mantle as a cosmological power they must abide by.

I want to clarify something before we continue, I was very specific in the terms I used in the previous post because I was not asserting that "good was not good"... I was asserting that one may not believe the "good" thing to do (as defined by the tenets of the cosmological force) is not necessarily the "correct" or "proper" thing to do for said character in any particular situation (and the rules allow for this since they explicitly state, at least in the current editions I am familiar with that one action does not define one's alignment) that is a distinction I made purposefully.

As an example... A paladin may know that by the tenets of the cosmological force in this world sparing an orc (considered a scourge on all that is righteous and wholesome in this particular world) is considered a non-good (though not evil because mercy is a tenet of good) act. The paladin however does it any way and decides he will try and reform the orc. Now he doesn't fall because this is not in and of itself an evil act but the paladin is now responsible for the actions of the orc he showed mercy. This takes months/years/etc. of watching over the orc, trying to teach him new values, etc. while taking responsibility for any actions the orc takes while under his guidance. Ultimately the DM must decide whether individual orcs can or cannot be redeemed. If the orc does reform... does this mean lawful good is not lawful good because one of its tenets doesn't consider the reform of orcs a good act? No, good is still what it has always been and lawful has always been what it has always been. But the paladin has discovered that reforming orc's is possible and so may in the future try to do so as opposed to killing them outright as lawful goodness sets forth as being one of it's tenets.

If alignment is handled in this way, I don't see how it can do the job @Mishihari Lord wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.

Ultimately it's up to the type of game you're playing... alignment is a tool for the DM. I assume in a game run by @MishihariLord, using the example above... that the paladin would have found that the orc ultimately could not be reformed and thus good is correct and there is no mortal quandary or even questioning in the slaughtering of orcs by the hundreds because they really are corrupt and evil all the time (IMO, this is a very high-fantasy, LotR-esque take on morality but valid all the same). under the 3.X rules both scenarios are acceptable ways of the alignment issue playing out.

Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).

That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)

I was the one who posted the quoted not Bedrockgames...


I believe you may be confusing Elric's morality and views (who is an aberration when it comes to values and morality in Melnibonean society with those of his people and the Young Kingdoms as a whole).

I think a more apt example of "clerics" are the Sorcerer-priests of Pan Tang in the Elric stories... they commune with the same beings as those of the Melniboneans but the relationship is totally different... they are actual priests of chaos as opposed to having ancient pacts of semi-command like the Melniboneans do... though ultimately the end result is very similar (which is probably just one of the influences that have led to my view of there not being much difference between a priest who serves his deity and gets powers vs. a warlock who makes a pact with a deity and is granted powers).

I also think Prince Gaynor who once served the Balance but now serves Chaos is a good example of a fallen paladin in the world of the Young Kingdoms. He didn't make any pacts but willingly chose to serve the Balance and then fell and served chaos.

 

[N'raac]

This puzzles me. I am playing a game without mechanical alignment. So there is no "cosmological force of good". There are no "exemplars of good". There are active gods, and a banished god (Bastion of Broken Souls), and a dead god (Requiem for a God), and there are Lords of Karma, and a former Lord of Karma relieved of authority (the Ordainer, an RM NPC/monster, merged with aspects of Asmodeus and Demogorgon from the AD&D MM), and there are Storm Lords and Sea Lords (and a child descended from both, the love interest of one of the PCs and also a dragon), and there are animal lords, and former animal lords relieved of authority (including one of the PCs, as it turned out). And other beings too .

I think most people would see The Heavens as "Good". If we are presuming "Good" in alignment is good in English, "The Heavens" are similarly associated with "Good".

The players make their own judgements, in the course of playing their PCs, and act on them. In doing that, some of the players have the conviction that their PCs are serving the causes ("true enlightenment") to which they are devoted. I don't contradict them in that judgement. All the players also recognise that they are deliberately thwarting the constables of heaven enforcing the edict of the Lords of Karma. I don't contradict that judgement either! - which is to say, as the campaign unfolds they get more trouble from heaven.

What prevents "True Enlightenment" being Neutral with respect to Good and Evil? Why does whatever the PC's choose to pursue need to be classified as Cosmologically Good in order for it to be worthwhile?

I have attached to this post the chart that the players worked up over the course of the campaign, reflecting their understanding of connections between different entities as well as the PCs' relationship to them . (You'll see, for instance, that "heaven" is labelled "the so-called heavenly realm".)

Emphasis added. The PC's have decided that what is "Good" by conventional wisdom and cosmological force (the Heavens themselves) is not really so good in their own eyes. What would prevent the exact same judgment being made in a game using mechanical alignment? In my view, nothing. "If I have to choose between your God and my friend – I choose …. my friend".

However, if those Heavens whom the PC's are now actively opposing continue to grant miracles to one or more of those PC's. while working towards their downfall, or even their deaths, and watching their own numbers fall at the hands of those PC's, using the very gifts they continue to grant, that strikes me as lacking in verisimilitude. Those abilities are no longer divine gifts, just tricks anyone with the right knowledge and skills can achieve, regardless of any faith or devotion on their part.

Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).

That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)

I find your own cosmology seems difficult to reconcile with Paladins and Clerics. "My power comes from faith and devotion to a higher power - the one I turned my back on and now actively oppose". Really? A 25+ INT and WIS cosmic being keeps providing you with powers you use to oppose its objectives and slay its loyal followers?

As long as characters still have free will, they can disagree with the gods and develop their own ideas about good and bad. What alignment does is create potential consequences for acting out of accord with what is objectivley good-bad-lawful-chaotic in the world and it also simply sets down the idea that, whatever the individual pc might think about good, there is an objective meaning of good outside of him. PCs have limited perspective, they are not necessarily going to have a clear understanding, especially when the respective forces of law, chaos, good and evil are trying to thwart one another. Much of this will be setting specific though.

Exactly. If Good stands for Mercy, and my character considers Mercy a weakness, then that is a strike against my character aligning with Good. Maybe his only inconsistency is with Mercy, and on balance he is still Good, or maybe he's more of a N with G tendencies kind of guy.

I also think Prince Gaynor who once served the Balance but now serves Chaos is a good example of a fallen paladin in the world of the Young Kingdoms. He didn't make any pacts but willingly chose to serve the Balance and then fell and served chaos.

He also stands as a good example of the character losing old powers and gaining new ones due to a shift in allegiance. ie let the Paladin fall, but let him regain mechanical abilities of comparable strength, derived from his new allegiances, skills, etc. as appropriate for the change in his mindset.

 

[pemerton]

I think it helps here in that the argument is about a fantasy morality that no one really believes in rather than players' own moral codes. The former is much less likely to be a cause of acrimony than the latter.

That's what I was thinking, yes. But it seems to me that can't work if the PCs are free to second-guess the fantasy morality. (Of course the players might disagree with it, but a bit part of the point of the fantasy morality is to keep those disagreements out of play, isn't it?)

I love the cosmology shown by your chart, by the way

Thanks.

I think the hardest part of the approach you're advocating is that it's very tempting as a player to redefine the morality your character follows on the fly to avoid problems, which destroys the value of a moral code.

I can see that it might look that way, but I haven't actually had that experience. I think the reason is because the players themselves don't lose anything by having their PCs suffer for making the moral choice: they (the players) still get to play a fun RPG.

(This is a bit like the passage I quoted upthread from the DMG2 - while the PCs don't want to be attacked by assassins in the night, for the players it might be fun.)

 

[pemerton]

What exactly where you expecting from the pro-alignment crowd? DMs declaring punishments or forcing actions on every perceived indiscretion?

Perhaps on some, at least.

If alignment is a tool for judging character behaviour, then it would be nice if every example of actually using alignment to judge behaviour wasn't swept aside as an example of bad dming.

Can someone give an example of using mechanical alignment to judge character behaviour that is acceptable to the pro-alignment crowd?

This is the sort of thing I was thinking, yes.

 

[pemerton]

That second quoted post isnt mine.

I was the one who posted the quoted not Bedrockgames

Fixed.

 

[pemerton]

As long as characters still have free will, they can disagree with the gods and develop their own ideas about good and bad. What alignment does is create potential consequences for acting out of accord with what is objectivley good-bad-lawful-chaotic in the world

I don't understand in what way it is objective, if people within the gameworld can reasonably disagree with it.

I tend to personify my cosmological forces and regard them as fallible

<snip>

one may not believe the "good" thing to do (as defined by the tenets of the cosmological force) is not necessarily the "correct" or "proper" thing to do for said character in any particular situation

I understand the first sentence. It makes me think of Sword and Sorcery, plus some takes on classical mythology. I just don't understand why anyone would call them the powers of "good" or "evil" if in fact sometimes they are wrong (in the case of the good ones) or right (in the case of the evil ones).

Calling them Team A and Team B seems a bit bland too. But why not name them (for instance) by their pantheonic characteristics or aspirations?

A paladin may know that by the tenets of the cosmological force in this world sparing an orc (considered a scourge on all that is righteous and wholesome in this particular world) is considered a non-good (though not evil because mercy is a tenet of good) act. The paladin however does it any way and decides he will try and reform the orc. Now he doesn't fall because this is not in and of itself an evil act but the paladin is now responsible for the actions of the orc he showed mercy. This takes months/years/etc. of watching over the orc, trying to teach him new values, etc. while taking responsibility for any actions the orc takes while under his guidance. Ultimately the DM must decide whether individual orcs can or cannot be redeemed. If the orc does reform... does this mean lawful good is not lawful good because one of its tenets doesn't consider the reform of orcs a good act? No, good is still what it has always been and lawful has always been what it has always been. But the paladin has discovered that reforming orc's is possible and so may in the future try to do so as opposed to killing them outright as lawful goodness sets forth as being one of it's tenets.

Again, in this example I don't really see why we're calling those powers the powers of "Lawful good". Why not call them the "vicious retributivists"? Or something else more accurate or evocative? If they are capable of moral error, they don't seem very good to me.

I also don't understand how a character who forms the view that the divinity to whom s/he is devoted is capable of error can be a paladin. To me, that seems at odds with the archetype (apart from anything else, it seems to betoken a lack of appropriate humility). But obviously others see the paladin somewhat differently - to me that conceptions seems more like a (principled) warlock.

I believe you may be confusing Elric's morality and views (who is an aberration when it comes to values and morality in Melnibonean society with those of his people and the Young Kingdoms as a whole).

I think a more apt example of "clerics" are the Sorcerer-priests of Pan Tang in the Elric stories

I'm not talking about the in-character morality and views. I'm talking about the tropes and themes and aesthetics of the stories. I'm sure that, in the fiction, the priests of Set in REH's Stygia are very devout. But the author (with Conan as his some-time voice) regards their devotion as misguided. In D&D terms they are sorcerers or warlocks who are deluded (perhaps self-deluded). They are nothing like the saints and prophets and holy knights that the classic cleric and paladin archetypes are built around.

 

[pemerton]

I think most people would see The Heavens as "Good". If we are presuming "Good" in alignment is good in English, "The Heavens" are similarly associated with "Good".

They might. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not using mechanical alignment, and hence there is no "cosmological force of good". There are gods in heaven. Whether or not they are a force for good is not a question that the game mechanics themselves establish.

The PC's have decided that what is "Good" by conventional wisdom and cosmological force (the Heavens themselves) is not really so good in their own eyes. What would prevent the exact same judgment being made in a game using mechanical alignment? In my view, nothing. "If I have to choose between your God and my friend – I choose …. my friend".

Yes - but the person making that choice doesn't then form the view that s/he is evil. S/he things that, by protecting his/her friend from an undeserved punishment, s/he is doing something that is morally permissible, perhaps even morally desirable or obligatory.

If it is coherent to say that "The Cosmologically Good god/force is wrong", or that "I am choosing well in opposing it", then why are we labelling it Good? Why not just label it Force A? Or, as my players did, "The so-called heavenly realm"?

Alignment tries to combine the labelling of teams with the prescription of values and conduct. This breaks down as soon as it is coherent, within the gameworld, to suggest that the good team is really doing evil or the chaotic team is really acting lawfully.

If Good stands for Mercy, and my character considers Mercy a weakness, then that is a strike against my character aligning with Good.

But it also suggests that my character is evil, unless Good is mistaken about what is good. Which strikes me as prima facie incoherent.

Maybe his only inconsistency is with Mercy, and on balance he is still Good, or maybe he's more of a N with G tendencies kind of guy.

But if you go this way, this doesn't show that the character is correct in repudiating goodness - it just shows that s/he is not repudiating forcefully enough to get dumped. The character should still be receiving dreams or portents or whatever telling him/her that s/he is not conducting him-/herself properly.

What prevents "True Enlightenment" being Neutral with respect to Good and Evil? Why does whatever the PC's choose to pursue need to be classified as Cosmologically Good in order for it to be worthwhile?

I don't fully understand the question, but if you're asking why is the good worth pursuing, and evil not, well those are (within limits that I don't think we need to worry about here) tautologies.

More crudely, "worthwhile" = "valuable" = "worthy of being valued" = "good".

However, if those Heavens whom the PC's are now actively opposing continue to grant miracles to one or more of those PC's. while working towards their downfall, or even their deaths, and watching their own numbers fall at the hands of those PC's, using the very gifts they continue to grant, that strikes me as lacking in verisimilitude.

<snip>

I find your own cosmology seems difficult to reconcile with Paladins and Clerics. "My power comes from faith and devotion to a higher power - the one I turned my back on and now actively oppose".

Who said that the powers of the paladins and clerics in that game came from the heavens? They came from higher beings, who have realised enlightenment. The gods might have created the world, and govern it according to natural law and the laws of karma, but they are not themselves truly enlightened.

As for verisimilitude, though, I find that very flexible for any god but the most petty. So even were it the case that a cleric or paladin was spurning his/her own god, a wise and merciful god might (i) know that a temporary rejection or repudiation by a favoured servant is all part of the providential plan, and hence (ii) continue to grant miracles. Is not the continued granting of miracles a sign to the wayward servant that s/he has made a mistake in judging his/her god as wrong?

He also stands as a good example of the character losing old powers and gaining new ones due to a shift in allegiance. ie let the Paladin fall, but let him regain mechanical abilities of comparable strength, derived from his new allegiances, skills, etc. as appropriate for the change in his mindset.

This would be an instance of what I have described upthread as "paladin = warlock" (but shinier). I personally regard that as incompatible with the paladin archetype. The paladin is not being rewarded for allegiance. The paladin is answering the call of truth.

 

[howandwhy99]

Well consistency would be nice. If alignment is a tool for judging character behaviour, then it would be nice if every example of actually using alignment to judge behaviour wasn't swept aside as an example of bad dming.

Can someone give an example of using mechanical alignment to judge character behaviour that is acceptable to the pro-alignment crowd?

I don't see Alignment as judging player behavior, but simply a statistic that represents the current behavior of a game element, a construct within the game.

Everything in D&D has an Alignment. Most everything in D&D has lots of the other common D&D statistics too (strength, intelligence, hit points, saving throws scores, and so on). All of these scores can change depending upon what happens in the game. That's a good thing. Same with alignment. It determines certain behaviors and can change depending on results.

Scores in relation to game mechanics tell the referee how any particular game element interacts with other game elements. That means Alignments when dealing with the Alignment system.

Player Characters as game constructs haven Alignments too. They also have scores like wisdom, intelligence, charisma, and slew of other stats, but only in so much as what a Player does not play in the game.

All the things a player actually does in place of a PC must be determined by the player. That means things like Morale, how much they remember of their past, what strategies they've developed, their loyalty to other characters (not just players), and so on. Everything in the Alignment system that is not defined for a PC, but is for an NPC or other game element, must be done by a player.

Player actions change their character. That's every score and resource, not just Alignment. When players take actions that would shift their Alignment score, then they are informed of that. I include a Saving Throw on an Alignment shifting action so they are informed before they even take the action. This way they can feel out the edges of where their current alignment stands in particular situations within the game.

Players do not need to play to a particular alignment just like no one ever needs to play Ability Scores as attributes. But just like any score in the game Alignment affects how other elements in the game will interact with their game construct, the PC.

Some classes are more difficult to play because they lose abilities when their Alignment shifts. The Alignment system is the core system for the cleric class to master and get XP within (otherwise it becomes a poor substitute for gish class). And clerics who change Alignment often change significantly when that happens.

Cleric subclasses (and other subclasses like Rangers and Paladins tied heavily to the cleric sphere of play) are usually the Alignment-specific classes. Stop being Neutral and your Druid becomes a standard Cleric losing all their specialty Druidic abilities. Like any Ranger or Paladin who becomes a Fighter the Druid becomes the same level of Cleric and may find more clerical abilities in another religion/deity.

Paladins are a special case, yes. If they shift Alignment, they can never rejoin the ranks of Paladins in that campaign again. (Or you could just roll up another Paladin) But that challenge is what the Paladin class offers to players of it. Other Alignment-specific classes don't have this limitation.

Alignment in D&D is based off the three basic ways of playing a game. Cooperatively (together), Competitively (at odds), and Solo (each their own way). D&D is a cooperative game because the balance of the game tilts towards cooperation as the effective means of achieving mastery of the game for any individual. This mastery must still come individually for a player (not a character power), but the capabilities of a group as a team counts largely too.

Cooperation is not a rule of the game players must solely follow. It is defined as certain operations within the game where game elements work in conjunction with each other rather than, well, the other two alignment behaviors.

D&D is unique as a cooperative game (actually, it's incredibly unique in many ways) as it offers multiple systems for player to explore, each one selected prior to play according to the class they pick to focus on. Combat system. Magic system. The alignment system is one of the core designs of the game. What D&D does is make play of these roles complementary to each other with both niches and overlaps within the game construct which is the fantasy game world. Most cooperative games, and even 20 years ago there were few, make every game piece the same with only varying stats. However, this last difference is what makes D&D a role playing game.

So, before playing the game Players select an Alignment to start their PC in. They play the game and learn what those actions mean in relation to the Alignment system, or ignore it if they wish, and go about their business of achieving objectives within the game. But the DM still tracks their Alignment. Just as the DM tracks the changes to their age, location, what equipment they have, what scores their PCs have, and all the rest. These will change and its up to them to tell the Players when they do.

While hopefully this generally covers character behavior and alignment it doesn't really get into judging Players and how they behave. A referee running a game of Monopoly, a DM running D&D isn't judging the players as good or bad people, but rather keeping track of how their PCs' scores change throughout the game. That's not ever bad DMing IMO, but necessary to even be a referee.