Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Hussar]

Well, i was responding to pemerton's point, which was it doesnt make logical sense for characters to disagree with the gods in a setting with objective alignments. So my post was not intended to address your concern, which is different.


But to address it, this depends on the setting. I offered an example where under the alignment system you could have gods who are occassionally wrong. In that scenario, it would be possible for pcs to disagree and be right. But yes, one feature of having the gm make these determinations is the pcs cannot deny the realities of the setting and be correct. If the gm defines lawful good in the setting, then he gets to define it (though i can envision a setting where there are four gods of lawful good, each with slightly different interpretations of LG. it is entirely possible to have imperfect gods who are the best examples of lawful good that exist, but still flawed.

Oh, and that's totally fair too. "Slightly different interpretations" isn't going to get anyone in trouble I would think.

It's when two people look at the same even and give opposite interpretations. Which we've seen in this thread. You're comfortable to simply leave it in the hands of the DM. Me, I would not enjoy that. It's not that God X is inconsistent in my view. It's that when something comes up that hasn't been previously established, I'm not terribly interested in simply letting the DM decide.

As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting. When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting. If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.

Again, this is all IMO.

 

[Steely Dan]

It depends on the setting for me, Alignment might not play a heavy role in a Dark Sun or Eberron campaign, but would feature heavily in a Planescape campaign.

Alignment can be a wonderful tool when implemented properly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting. When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting. If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.

Again, this is all IMO.

And i believe this is just a playstyle faultline. I know folks who hold your preference here. Personally, for me, this is one of the few things that annoys me as a player if it happens. Generally stuff in the game wont bother me, but when the players exert that kind of control over the setting, i get irritated (not saying you are wrong to be doing this, just my reaction to it as a player is strong). I really started noticing this when wishlists first appeared in some of the groups i was in. It took me a while to figure out why it bothered me, but i think it was the fact that the players were exerting control over setting content to a degree (even if in a very minor way via wishlists). So the player being able to assert 'Grog beleives X just really hits me over the head when I am playing. I want to discover what Grog believes not dictate what he believes.

 

[Nagol]

Oh, and that's totally fair too. "Slightly different interpretations" isn't going to get anyone in trouble I would think.

It's when two people look at the same even and give opposite interpretations. Which we've seen in this thread. You're comfortable to simply leave it in the hands of the DM. Me, I would not enjoy that. It's not that God X is inconsistent in my view. It's that when something comes up that hasn't been previously established, I'm not terribly interested in simply letting the DM decide.

As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting. When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting. If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.

Again, this is all IMO.

Grog the Destroyer can believe any X he wants; the consequence of Grog the Destroyer believing X is Y.

 

[N'raac]

Again BRG you are stipulating that the player is always wrong. The only reason that the PC is changing his alignment is to conform to the DM's interpretations of alignment.

You're very hung up on this "right/wrong" absolute. If the player says "Grog hits the ogre and decapitates him", but the GM says "No, Grog misses" then the GM is right and the player is wrong. If the player says "Grog leaps across the chasm, landing cleanly on the other side" and the GM says "No, he falls to his death", then the GM is right and the player is wrong. If the player says "Grog is far too strong to be dominated by a Charm Person spell", and the GM says "He failed his save and is Charmed", then the GM is right and the player is wrong.

If the player says "Grog believes family is more important than saving the world" and the GM says "Grog does not believe that", then the player is right and the GM is wrong. Grog's beliefs are not up to the GM. How those beliefs are categorized by outside forces such as deities or some cosmological Force of Good and Law is not up to the player - again, we are back to setting - but the player, and only the player, can determine what Grog believes. And Grog believes family is more important than saving the world.

If Grog thinks that the Gods of Law think a couple of family members are more important than the world as a whole, then yes, Grog is wrong. If Grog believes he is more moral than the Gods of Law because they do not place a sufficient priority on family, then neither Grog nor the Gods of Law are "right" or "wrong".

There is no way for your gods to be wrong. Any differing opinion is simply shuffled into a different alignment pigeonhole.

You make it sound like a character's alignment will bounce around like a pinball, with every choice of action shunting him to a new alignment. Alignments are not tiny little compartments within which everyone has the precise same beliefs on every issue. They are broad categories within which rest an array of similar, but different, viewpoints. All LG characters value both Law and Good. Some will place a higher priority on Law in general, and others on Good in general. People are not perfect, so many will have specific issues where their views will not accord with Law, or with Good. Alignment is an overall determination, so that one inconsistent belief will not preclude the character remaining in a given alignment.

N'raac claims that the powers cannot force pcs to adhere to their definition of morality but that's false. Any time my actions are out of line with the DM's interpretation of alignment my alignment is shifted to conform with the DM's interpretation.

The Powers set the definitions of their own morality. They cannot force the PC's to agree that their value system, their priorities and their conclusions are the "most moral" ones.

But, N'raac misses the point here. It's not that LG is the only good. It's that any time there is a difference in opinion between the DM and the player over what LG means, the player is always wrong. And, if the player has his character behave as if he is right, the player knows that the character is delusional. After all, if the player was right, then the character would not have been penalised by the alignment mechanics.

If the player is seeking to redefine LG from the campaign expectations, yes, the player is wrong. If the player decides that there is no river in his character's path, and takes action accordingly, then the GM's statement there is a river is correct, and the delusional PC drowns. If, in any game situation, there must be a "right" and a "wrong" answer, then the GM is the ultimate arbiter of which answer is right and which is wrong. But the GM is not the arbiter of Grog's beliefs. "Grog not care what priest say, what King say, or even what Gods say. Grog's heart says family is more important, and Grog's heart cannot be wrong."

Again, N'raac here is just pigeonholing the action into a different slot. There is no way for my character to perform an act that is LG if the DM does not agree that it is LG. It is not possible, in your way of playing.

You do not get to redefine Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, to suit you, no. Your character's moral choice is yours alone. How others, from the urchin in the street to the Gods in their Heavens, define and react to that choice is theirs, and "they" are not PC's, so their choices do not belong to the players. If human sacrifice is an evil act (and the precepts of Good and Evil suggest it is), you do not get to define your "Paladin" who sacrifices those who disagree with him (even if they are only Evil enemies of the Faith) as LG. Respect for life is a hallmark of Good, so you do not get to define that your Religious Crusader, who forces the heathens to convert at swordpoint, then immediately kills them to guard against backsliding, as Good. The GM does not get to define that your character KNOWS this is wrong, only that it is not consistent with the ideals of Good. Like every other rules issue, someone must make a decision.

And, for the love of god, PLEASE stop trying to paint this as a good DM/Bad DM thing. Good grief. We've seen NUMEROUS examples in this thead alone between perfectly reasonable people over whether something is good or not. I mean, I brought up the Dark Knight example of saving Raz Al Gul and freely admit that you can argue it either way. No one is right, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't believe that one can "go either way". I'm unsure who, if anyone, has suggested it can.

Let's review:

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.

Leaving an enemy to die in no way demonstrates altruism (it is a refusal to display altruism), a respect for life (R’as is being left to die) or a concern for the dignity of sentient beings (it doesn’t touch on this at all). It is therefore not a Good act. Bats is also not hurting, oppressing or killing others. He is not undertaking an Evil act. R'as is by no means "innocent", so his death does not violate Good's motive to defend the innocent. Arguably, allowing (or even causing) R'as death defends the innocent. That, again, would not make such actions Good, but it also mitigates them against being Evil.

As the act is neither good nor evil, it is Neutral. He is not upholding the values of Good, but neither is he opposing them.

If I move this into a typical D&D world, what credibility does the GM have to say that failure to save the Bad Guy is an evil (act not a non-good act - one which is, in fact, evil) when we consider the usual fate of the Bad Guys? We cant accept that slaying dozens or hundreds of enemies to defend the innocent is OK, then balk at refusing to save the life of one of those enemies. That would most certainly be bad GMing - it's completely inconsistent.

Bats' behaviour seems, to me, consistent with an LG alignment - he is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, and has concluded that R'as is on the wrong side of that equation - his death will bring greater good to a greater number than letting him live to endanger others again. That, to me, is tempering the pure Good of respect of R'as life, like all other lives, with the Good of protecting others he could threaten, and Law balancing out in favour of many lives preserved from risk, rather than the single life lost. Now, one might argue Bats is also balancing Law (turn him over to face the justice of the courts/the king in a D&D world) with Chaos (individual vigilantism), but I think that's a much more challenging interpretation in the 21st century than in a medieval fantasy world.

What I find interesting is N'raac and Imaro both come out with strong interpretations that close off other interpretations and then tried to claim that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on. Leaving the villain to die is NOT an evil act according to them.

My point is, it might be, it might not be. Both sides have pretty strong arguments. So, as a DM, I'm just not going to pick sides.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the act in question was an Evil one which should properly result in a Paladin losing his status as a consequence. I would argue with any GM proposing it was. The only possible argument I can see for this being "an evil act" is that the game in question takes place in a Saturday Morning Cartoon setting from a morality perspective, in which case I would expect the PC's would never consider lethal force as a non-Evil means of resolving a dispute.

For the act in question, I cannot envision any reasonable GM, in a typical D&D setting, concluding that refusal to save a person who has already demonstrated his dedication to killing millions of innocents is "an evil act".

Either interpretation works and you get to stay a paladin in my game. But, in N'Raac's game, there is no question at all. It's not an evil act. Therefore it's acceptable.

It's not a Good act either. It must be taken in context. If the Paladin's usual approach is "hey, what happens, happens. I'm not going out of my way to help anyone else out", then he seems far less Good and far more Neutral. But he doesn't seem much like a Paladin.

But, then again, in N'Raac's game, by his own words, I cannot play a Batman inspired paladin since he's decided that Batman isn't a paladin.

"Batman-inspired" or "Batman clone"? First off, Batman isn't a fantasy character. The bigger question to me, and the line Batman has straddled in the comics, and he's been written firmly on either side at various times, is whether he is motivated by altruism (his desire to protect the innocent) or vengeance (punishing by proxy the man who killed his parents). The former indicates a Good character, the latter a non-Good motivation. The Frank Miller Dark Knight doesn't strike me as "Good". The early quite about seven ways to take down an enemy (three will kill him, three will leave no lasting ill effects - I choose the seventh. He's young, he'll probably walk again) doesn't scream "respect for life" over "enjoys hurting others", and only the fact he is pursuing these acts in defense of the innocent keeps him in the Neutral side of the equation. But a lot of "Dark, edgy" writing seems to push for our "heroes" to behave less than heroically, so Good becomes a scarce commodity. The revamped Bat Franchise made a conscious decision to move to a darker, more gritty Batman.

So, exactly how is this not limiting? Why would I not feel restricted here? I'm not calling N'raac a bad DM. I've never sat at his table, I have no idea. But, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't enjoy his game, not because of any failings, but, because of play style differences.

I don't find "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" to make for a great gaming experience. Paladins have restrictions on their behaviour. I find those restrictions are pretty easily accommodated if my character is, in fact, a stalwart follower of the precepts of Law and Good. I would not envision a character who chafes under authority, or who doesn't really give a crap about anyone else, having become a Paladin in the first place. In the Batman example, it is telling that, for him, the decision to leave someone - even someone guilty of the crimes R'as committed - to die, rather than making every effort to save him did not come easily. A player seeking to emulate Batman would need to emulate that difficulty, not decide "Hey, Bats didn't save R'as, so I can just ignore anyone in danger and my character will be just like Batman".

As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting. When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting. If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.

You are the only one who is arguing that the GM can override Grog's beliefs. But then, that depends on what those beliefs are. If he says "Grog believes that you serve Law and Good by slaughtering the Orcish Race, and Grog answers to no man - he is a leader, not a follower", then pointing out the inconsistency with that "LG" scribbled on the page seems perfectly reasonable. And no different from pointing a bit further down to advise that the race he has selected is not in this setting, so it will need to be changed. If he has selected a deity whose tenets include obedience to one's superiors, then noting that his beliefs seem inconsistent with his religion is fine too.

This does not require Grog change his beliefs, but it does address the manner in which those beliefs interact with the setting. A setting which should be consistent for all the players, not allow each to define, say, the LG alignment in any way they see fit.

Sometimes, changes to the setting can be made to accommodate the player, and sometimes the layer has to change his character a bit to accommodate the setting, or the group.

Grog the Destroyer can believe any X he wants; the consequence of Grog the Destroyer believing X is Y.

Exactly.

 

[Imaro]

If the requirements of LG are settled, then choosing to do something different is choosing to do something that is not LG. If it causes you to immediately lose your paladinhood, that is sufficient proof that it is evil.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

A paladin who nevertheless insists that s/he made the right choice is therefore asserting that it is good to do evil. On any non-ironic use of either "good" or "evil" that assertion is contradictory, given the premise that good has been objecitvely defined by those cosmological forces.

First... "right" is not the same as "good" in this context. One can feel they did the "right" thing in a situation regardless of whether it would be defined as good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral ect. by the cosmological forces of the world. Going back to our favorite superhero Batman... if one of the tenets of good is that one does not kill... does that mean Batman makes the "wrong" choice if he decides to kill the Joker one day? Who is this choice "wrong" for... the millions of people at risk every time the Joker breaks out of Arkham? Now murdering the Joker may not be a "good" action but Batman could come to believe that it is the "right" choice after all the deaths and pain the Joker has caused.

Now that said, again I find myself unclear of your point here... If a paladins actions are within the defined purview of "good" as set out by the cosmological forces of the world then it was a good act... This however doesn't speak to whether the paladin feels that his actions were "right" or not.

In the real world, people who reject the moral judgement of others - even the moral judgement of divine beings - are thereby denying that those beings are cosmological forces of obejctive goodness. But in the campaign set-up being described I don't see any scope for such denial, and hence don't see any scope for rejecting the moral judgement of the forces of good. The paladin, it seems to me, would have to concede that s/he chose evilly ie wrongly.

No the paladin has to concede that s/he chose an action that was not good... this does not in fact mean the paladin chose wrongly... you seem to keep using right as a synonym for good and wrong as a synonym for evil... but IMO, that is incorrect and may be why you're having a hard time understanding the difference in the paladin choosing an action he feels is "right" in the context of a situation vs. the paladin choosing the "good" thing to do in a situation or even the "lawful" thing to do in a situation... The paladin feeling his action was "right" does not in turn make that action good or lawful or anything else, the cosmological forces define what is "good" but not what is the right way to handle any particular thing for an individual character.

 

[Imaro]

It's when two people look at the same even and give opposite interpretations. Which we've seen in this thread. You're comfortable to simply leave it in the hands of the DM. Me, I would not enjoy that. It's not that God X is inconsistent in my view. It's that when something comes up that hasn't been previously established, I'm not terribly interested in simply letting the DM decide.

Emphasis mine... exactly where did this happen at in the thread... I saw slight variations on the Batman example but I must have missed where there were actually opposite opinions expressed... could you cite this?

As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting. When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting. If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.

Again, this is all IMO.

Emphasis mine again... No one in the pro-alignment camp is telling Grog the Destroyer what he has to believe...

 

[pemerton]

"right" is not the same as "good" in this context.

<snip>

If a paladins actions are within the defined purview of "good" as set out by the cosmological forces of the world then it was a good act... This however doesn't speak to whether the paladin feels that his actions were "right" or not.

<snip>

No the paladin has to concede that s/he chose an action that was not good... this does not in fact mean the paladin chose wrongly... you seem to keep using right as a synonym for good and wrong as a synonym for evil... but IMO, that is incorrect

In my view it's hard to give an account of right conduct where what is aimed at is not good.

 

[pemerton]

What the player cannot do is change the alignment of those LG powers to match his own. Neither can they force the PC to adhere to their definition of morality in favour of his own beliefs.

We are there to explore the setting as it is managed by the GM.

this depends on the setting. I offered an example where under the alignment system you could have gods who are occassionally wrong.

No one is saying the pc can deny the object reality of the gods judgment.

If the GM is running the gods like any other NPC, and there is nothing more to it than that, then of course it makes sense that a PC might repudiate the god's judgement.

But that's not the case I've been focusing on. (Nor am I talking about LG vs CG, which has it's own weirdness but is not what I am primarily talking about.)

I'm focusing on the case where the PC commits an evil act and thus blots his/her alignment copybook - as a paladin, s/he loses his/her class features; or if not a paladin, let's suppose that the evil act is such as to make him/her change alignment. (And how does s/he know this? Because she casts "Know Alignment" or "Detect X" on herself every morning from her magic sword, or has a cleric henchman cast it, or whatever.)

In this sort of case, the character knows that what s/he did was evil. And how can s/he reasonably dispute that within the gameworld? The metaphysical evidence that s/he acted evilly is irrefutable!

(If the gods are themselves fallible channellers of cosmological good and evil, that just makes things more complex. For instance, if a LG good makes a mistake and judges an action good that is actually evil, does his/her paladin who commits such an act lose status or not? According to the PHB s/he does, in which case the LG good presumably now has to concede that s/he got it wrong!)

For me going your way is problematic for my sense of the setting, because the gods adjust to meet the definitions offered by individual pcs. I want Grog the God of Destruction to act like an independent entity outside the pkayers,s, not be shaped by the views of the players.

<snip>

We have all simply agreed to invest the GM with the power to define such things purely for the purpose of running a fictional setting that feels real.

You run together "PC" and "player".

I am not talking about a gameworld in which the PCs are their own judges. I am talking about the role of the players.

In my games, at least, players - not the GM - decide the colour of their boots at the start of the campaign. This doesn't make those boots and their colour any less "real" as part of the gameworld.

A player might also decide that his/her PC's mother loves that PC; or alternatively, that his/her PC has been outcast by his/her family. The fact that the player stipulates these elements of backstory doesn't make those familial relationships any less "real" as part of the gameworld.

Hence, I do not think there is any generalisation from player-authored backstory to an absence of "reality" to the gameworld. And in my own experience there is no reason to think that codes and aspirations for the PC are in some radically different category.

This depends what is "constrictive and stifling".

<snip>

Just as there are poor GM's out there, poor players also exist. For some of these, any request they play within the agreed upon structure of any game is "constrictive and stifling" because they are a special snowflake who must always get their own way, and cannot abide any rules call, setting limitation, restriction on source material, and so on

My personal view is that every player is obviously a "special snowflake" - both in general, as an individual human being entitled to respect and dignity, and as a participant in a creative endeavour who is committing time and effort, and is entitled to commensurate respect and recognition.

Each PC is also, and obviously so (to me at least), a "special snowflake". I don't need a game with a "one unique thing" mechanic to make this obvious. The PC is the mechanical and story vehcicle via which a player will be principally engaging the game for hours at a time, session after session. That status should be reflected in mechanical design and story role.

Overall, and stripped of the pejorative tone, I think I quite like your "poor players". They are proactive, have a clear vision of what they want from the campaign, a keen sense of the rules, and aren't sitting at the table waiting for the GM to roll up (what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has called) the "plot wagon". Sounds to me like a recipe for good RPGing!

 

[Hussar]

And i believe this is just a playstyle faultline. I know folks who hold your preference here. Personally, for me, this is one of the few things that annoys me as a player if it happens. Generally stuff in the game wont bother me, but when the players exert that kind of control over the setting, i get irritated (not saying you are wrong to be doing this, just my reaction to it as a player is strong). I really started noticing this when wishlists first appeared in some of the groups i was in. It took me a while to figure out why it bothered me, but i think it was the fact that the players were exerting control over setting content to a degree (even if in a very minor way via wishlists). So the player being able to assert 'Grog beleives X just really hits me over the head when I am playing. I want to discover what Grog believes not dictate what he believes.

Oh, totally agree. Yes, this is a play style issue completely.

Which, if you bring it back around to the original question, I guess i would answer it thusly:

Alignments can improve the gaming experience if you follow a particular play style. For me, who doesn't enjoy that play style, it does not.