[i]This[/i] is my problem with alignment

[fusangite]

Geron, Dr. Nuncheon,

Thanks for your recent posts. I see what is going on here: there is a mapping problem with terminology. From what I can see, the following is happening:

Dr. Nuncheon is interpreting my statement "the rules function to proscribe x" as being identical to "the rules make it impossible to do x." As a result, there is a problem in mapping real world terminology to the rules.

Geron, thank you for providing the term "consequential" here. But don't you agree that the operational function of a consequential rule is to proscribe the things for which there are catastrophic negative consequences?

This is why I keep emphasizing that I am interested in discussing the operational functioning of the alignment mechanic -- I'm not here to discuss how alignment works outside of the context of operational function. Why? Because alignment is so incoherent it doesn't deserve a philosophical debate.

When I use the word proscribe in the context of D&D, I assume its meaning is the same as in the real world.

If I had intended to argue that the alignment mechanic makes it impossible for a paladin to commit an evil act, I would have said "the alignment mechanic makes it impossible for a paladin to commit an evil act." And I would have been wrong. But I didn't say that -- ever.

I have never argued that the rules make it impossible for a paladin to become evil. To do so would be absurd because the rules clearly state what will happen if a paladin becomes evil. When I say the rules function to proscribe the paladin changing alignment, proscribe means exactly the same thing it does as if I were talking about a real world situation.

So, can we agree that if we make the word "proscribe" function in D&D the way it functions in the real world, the rules function to proscribe paladin alignment change?

This is why I use the term "function to" in this context. This is why I keep emphasizing that I am discussing the operational functioning of alignment. I continue to agree that yes, if you delete all the mechanics in the rules that make alignment function operationally, it will cease functioning to proscribe conduct. But this returns to my basic point -- you people continue to argue that nothing is wrong with the alignment rules and then justify your position by explaining that alignment works just fine if you change the alignment rules.

This brings me to one final point: some people here are arguing that the only alignment rules are pages 104-105 of the PHB. That all other rules about alignment in the core rules are not "alignment rules" and should not be part of this debate. This is like saying that cleaving is not part of the combat rules because it's a feat and doesn't fall between pages 133-160 of the PHB. I'm sorry but cleaving, whirlwind attacks, dodging, etc. are all part of the combat rules. Why? Because the rules are an integrated whole.

 

[swrushing]

question to fus...

by the definition of proscribe you are atempting to implement here... would the following be true statements...

The rogue's sneak attack ability proscribes him attacking undead critter because when he does so he loses his sneak attack bonus damage?

The rangers favored enemy bonuses proscribe him attacking those not of his favored enemy because he loses his bonus damage when he does so.

Now, certainly the degree of ability loss is not commensurate with say the paladin losing his paladin abilities, but I am not looking for which is harsher, just are these proscriptive, like the paladins thingy, because if they choose these actions they will lose benefits they would otherwise have.

 

[swrushing]

Again to fus with regard to the "clarification" of what you are talking about...

In your initial post, you reference much stroinger interpretations of what alignment might be doing when you talk about "what your problem is..."

A chaotic alignment, the argument goes, circumscribes as NPC's capacity to act rationally and efficiently in pursuit of his goals. In balance-obsessed D&D 3.5, this strikes me as a real problem.

If chaotic NPCs are inherently less capable of making a plan and working in a cohesive efficient manner towards its completion, shouldn't being chaotic function mechanically as a disability rather than as simply descriptive?

If alignment is essentially a character's political views, shouldn't chaotic characters be just as capable as lawful characters of working together over an extended period to achieve a more chaotic world? If a chaotic evil group of NPCs wanted to exterminate all viable heirs to the throne so that an extended civil war could take place, isn't it unfair to force them to betray eachother before their plan can be brought to fruition?

On the other hand, if chaos is a pathology and not a political ideology, why should people who have trouble cooperating and lack impulse control not be allowed to believe in strict laws, stable monarchies and inflexible social standards?

force them, not be allowed, inherently less capable...

Looking at the above quotes, and highlights, can you see how some might have gotten the impression that you were in fact thinking/arguing/positioning that what alignment does is to "disallow" or even "forbid" some actions and not, shall I say, in some cases provide an incentive to make certain choices over others?

under your current position, would it not be fair to say "force them" and "not be allowed" are specificlly not what you think happens but instead maybe softer terms like "encourage them" or "caution them against"... or even "make note of these choices for future considerations" are more accurate as to your current position?

If so, we have made headway, it seems.

Since now no one is adopting the "alingment may force you" or "alignment may not allow you" level of misrepresentation anymore.

 

[fusangite]

question to fus...

by the definition of proscribe you are atempting to implement here... would the following be true statements...

The rogue's sneak attack ability proscribes him attacking undead critter because when he does so he loses his sneak attack bonus damage?

No. Because the rogue is still a rogue after he hits the zombie. Operationally, the paladin is no longer a paladin after he turns evil. Similarly, a druid is no longer a druid if his alignment changes to chaotic good, for instance.

I am not arguing that the smite evil ability proscribes a paladin from attacking neutral creatures. But I am arguing that the alignment requirement for the class functions to proscribe the paladin from becoming evil. See the difference?

To argue that a special class ability not applying universally to all situations is somehow equivalent to losing every single ability associated with the class if a certain threshold is crossed is not tenable here.

Note that I am talking about the operational functioning of a rule. Evidence shows that the operational function of a paladin's alignment requirement does actually proscribe certain behaviours.

On an operational level, it is never an efficient or rational choice for a paladin to change his alignment. It is never an efficient or rational choice for a druid to change his alignment to a non-neutral one. Because it is never an efficient or rational thing to do, it is proscriptive.

You cannot similarly argue that it is never rational for a ranger to attack a creature who is not a favoured enemy. There are all kinds of situations in which such an act is rational. Similarly, there are all kinds of situations in which it is rational for a rogue to attack undead creatures.

The rangers favored enemy bonuses proscribe him attacking those not of his favored enemy because he loses his bonus damage when he does so.

I might argue that if the rule said, "a ranger loses all spells and class abilities and can no longer advance as a ranger if he attacks a creature other than his favoured enemy," that this was the case. But the ranger does not lose anything by attack a non-favoured enemy. Don't you think that's a pretty substantive difference?

You see, swrushing, we are talking about the operational effects of a rule. If such a discussion is not one you actually wish to entertain, that's fine.

 

[drnuncheon]

Dr. Nuncheon is interpreting my statement "the rules function to proscribe x" as being identical to "the rules make it impossible to do x." As a result, there is a problem in mapping real world terminology to the rules.

Actually, I'm saying that there's two ways to talk about how something is proscribed - there's the game-world proscriptions and the game-rules proscriptions.

The former is like laws against murder, the latter is like the law of gravity. A lot of GMs used to treat alignment as proscriptive in the latter sense, which it is not in 3e. That is generally what everyone has been saying, and then we got onto the paladin argument, which is really a sidetrack - the original question you posed was, "can a chaotic person use tactics", and not "is alignment proscriptive for paladins". It's proscriptive for paladins in the way that you mean, OK. But they're a special case, and you can't generalize from them to 'alignment is proscriptive for everybody'.

And going back to an earlier point I made, if you regard Law and Chaos as opposing Moorcockian universal forces on the level of Good and Evil, it's a lot easier to rationalize how they work - just like you can rationalize invading someone's house/tower/cave/sovereign nation, slaughtering them, and taking their stuff to be Good, if they are on the side of Evil.

J

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Geron, thank you for providing the term "consequential" here. But don't you agree that the operational function of a consequential rule is to proscribe the things for which there are catastrophic negative consequences?

Well, the "operational function"...or the intent, in easier terms...of any kind of consequential rule is of course to encourage the respective behaviour the rule is about. In the paladin's example, which is kinda an extreme in any alignment discussion, the rule goes that a single willing evil act will cause the permanent loss of a paladin's powers. Which is the consequence of the mentioned behaviour, and as such can be taken as an encouragement not to act evil, at least not willingly.

Going back to your original problem, the thing about chaotic alignment barring people from forming a group to support their plans...I have to say I don't really see where in the alignment dscriptions that is written. True, the group might not be organized along formalized structures, and members might tend to start an action on impulse, because they feel the moment is just right for it, no matter if the whole group is there or not...but it can still be a group, with common goals, acting together for as long as they want, and need? Lets try and have examples

1) A group of chaotic good rangers, banding together to hunt down the orcs that are raiding the woodcutter villages in the forest. Each hails from a different part of the forest, they all know each other, maybe, by name only. They agree that combined, they stand a better chance of dfeating the orcs. There's no leader, each simply pitches in according to his or her strengths, with each individual acting as effective as it can. If, while scouting, one of them meeets a small group of orcs, he might decide to attack them to vanquish the group, weakening the enemy, or track them to find the main lair, or get back to the others to report, but he certainly won't run back to base camp to get the agreement of everybody else. The group is only bound together by one goal, with each individual keeping it's decision rights to itself, and bringing in it's strengths on it's own judgement.

2) A group of lawful good fighters assembles to hunt down the gnolls that have terrorized the area. After getting to know each other for a bit, a small but effective hierarchy is formed, with the most experienced as leaders, dispensing assignments based on their judgement of the strengths and weaknesses of the others. Everybody gets his orders from them, and no part of the group acts without them, or without consulting a higher ranking fighter for new orders based on the changed situation. They form a highly efficient, but slow fighting unit that employs the strengths of it's members in accord to the judgement of it's most experienced members. It is bound together by one goal and the obedience and trust of the younger members on the older, more experienced members to think for them.

The first example is a pretty chaotic group, in my opinion, and still a group, with one goal in mind. It can be very fast, flexible, and effective, as everybody knows his own strengths best, and applies them when he judges it needed.
The second group is lawful, forming a group hierarchy, pursuing their goal with strategy and orders. It is slow, and if the orders aren't thought through well, can be unflexible, but it is also hard to break up into single, disordered parts, and will always exactly know what is up with each and every member.

The same principle can be applied to most other examples, I think.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

No. Because the rogue is still a rogue after he hits the zombie. Operationally, the paladin is no longer a paladin after he turns evil. Similarly, a druid is no longer a druid if his alignment changes to chaotic good, for instance.

So if we still call the ex-paladin a paladin, will everything be fine?

Actually, i get it. The difference in the severity of the choices result make the difference. i even admitted from the get-go the difference in harshness.

I am not arguing that the smite evil ability proscribes a paladin from attacking neutral creatures. But I am arguing that the alignment requirement for the class functions to proscribe the paladin from becoming evil. See the difference?

Absolutely, one is much harsher than the other. the "alignment requirement for the class" as i have already suggested, might not be appropriate for all campaigns. fortunately, the Gm can tweak classes,.

To argue that a special class ability not applying universally to all situations is somehow equivalent to losing every single ability associated with the class if a certain threshold is crossed is not tenable here.

An argument i did not make. The question i asked was, given your definition of proscribtive, was it proscriptive, and was specifically not "was it equivalent." if you know of someone who is arguing they are equivalent, lets see it.

Note that I am talking about the operational functioning of a rule. Evidence shows that the operational function of a paladin's alignment requirement does actually proscribe certain behaviours.

which, under your definition, is a whole lot different than "force" or 'disallow", right?

Honestly, with the definition you are using, i think you could go a long way by dropping "proscribe" from the death grip you have on it.

If you were to say, for instance, that "class alignment restrictions encourage choices in character consistent with the character's alignment and discourage choices inconsistent with the characters alignment by the threat of repercussions in character abilities", then i doubt ANYONE would argue with the point.

However, while that point may be agreed with, is there any sort of PROBLEM inherent in that being true? is there somehow something wrong with the whole encourage/discourage thing resulting in a paladin being more likely to act in a good manner but still being in extremis to "make the sacrifice" if thats the story the player wants to go with?

Note also that, if one doesn't cvhange the class restriction, and one relists the alignment traits, one still has "proscriptive" conditions, right?

On the other hand, if one changes the class restrictions...

On an operational level, it is never an efficient or rational choice for a paladin to change his alignment. It is never an efficient or rational choice for a druid to change his alignment to a non-neutral one. Because it is never an efficient or rational thing to do, it is proscriptive.

if all decisions are based on 'efficiency" and if "proscriptive" does not mean disallowed or forbidden" but rather 'discouraged"...sure. Those are two big "ifs".

However, while it may be bad news for these guys to conduct a long term series of choices that would lead to an incompatible alignment, they can certainly at various times perform acts that are not in accordance to their alingment. Paladins one evil act of course being the more severe exception. A druid can do lawful good things, he just cannot BE lawful good.

You cannot similarly argue that it is never rational for a ranger to attack a creature who is not a favoured enemy.

But i can argue its illogical for him to consistently, over a long time, choose to keep attacking non-fave-enemy targets instead of choosing to attack fave-enemy targets. Remember, for comparison, when we compare fave enemy to alignment change we are not talking one single excpetion, but a long series of choices.

There are all kinds of situations in which such an act is rational. Similarly, there are all kinds of situations in which it is rational for a rogue to attack undead creatures.

and, similarly, there will likely be cases when its rational for the paladin to do chaotic acts or for the druid to do non-neutral acts. And they can.

I might argue that if the rule said, "a ranger loses all spells and class abilities and can no longer advance as a ranger if he attacks a creature other than his favoured enemy," that this was the case. But the ranger does not lose anything by attack a non-favoured enemy. Don't you think that's a pretty substantive difference?

yeah, its like the difference between the paladins class restrcition for one evil act as opposed to the differences between the alignment restriction several classes have.

You see, swrushing, we are talking about the operational effects of a rule. If such a discussion is not one you actually wish to entertain, that's fine.

cool. glad that would be Ok with you. After all, your permission is so important to me.

 

[fusangite]

An argument i did not make. The question i asked was, given your definition of proscribtive, was it proscriptive, and was specifically not "was it equivalent." if you know of someone who is arguing they are equivalent, lets see it.

which, under your definition, is a whole lot different than "force" or 'disallow", right?

What I stated is that the rules function to disallow this -- operationally, they proscribe it.

Honestly, with the definition you are using, i think you could go a long way by dropping "proscribe" from the death grip you have on it.

I am talking about the operational functioning of the alignment rules. I am talking about what they do. What they do is proscribe paladins from being non-good. As I said before, if you want to make a case about alignment without reference to its operational functioning, you are free to do so, I'm just saying I'm not interested in participating in that discussion. But you are free to discuss semantics to your heart's content.

It's not that they "encourage" paladins to be lawful good and "discourage" paladins from being non-lawful or non-good; they function to prohibit paladins from being this way. You seem to want to keep turning this back into a discussion about what the rules in some completely abstract way. What I'm interested in is how the rules cause a rational person to play the game at an operational level.

However, while that point may be agreed with, is there any sort of PROBLEM inherent in that being true? is there somehow something wrong with the whole encourage/discourage thing resulting in a paladin being more likely to act in a good manner but still being in extremis to "make the sacrifice" if thats the story the player wants to go with?

I have decided to assume that players are rational actors for the purpose of our discussion. I'm really not interested in exploring how the rules affect people who are not rational actors -- such a discussion isn't really possible in any general terms and general terms are what we are dealing in on this thread. When a rational person makes a sacrifice, some benefit accrues for having made it. "Because I feel like having a hobbled evil ex-paladin," does not qualify as a benefit.

if all decisions are based on 'efficiency" and if "proscriptive" does not mean disallowed or forbidden" but rather 'discouraged"...sure. Those are two big "ifs".

Yes. My argument is that if being exectuted for murder functions to proscribe murder then the rules function to proscribe non-good/non-lawful paladin behaviour. If that's a "big if" for you, fair enough.

However, while it may be bad news for these guys to conduct a long term series of choices that would lead to an incompatible alignment, they can certainly at various times perform acts that are not in accordance to their alingment. Paladins one evil act of course being the more severe exception. A druid can do lawful good things, he just cannot BE lawful good.

At what point did I argue that one single exceptional act causes alignment change?

But i can argue its illogical for him to consistently, over a long time, choose to keep attacking non-fave-enemy targets instead of choosing to attack fave-enemy targets. Remember, for comparison, when we compare fave enemy to alignment change we are not talking one single excpetion, but a long series of choices.

Nope. Still not analogous. Sorry. Not getting the benefits of a special class ability in all circumstances is in no way comparable to losing all class abilities if a threshold is crossed.

 

[fusangite]

Actually, I'm saying that there's two ways to talk about how something is proscribed - there's the game-world proscriptions and the game-rules proscriptions.

When you consider that this effective proscription comes exclusively from the core rules and not from any GM's particular setting, I think you'll acknowledge that is a pretty fine line.

And going back to an earlier point I made, if you regard Law and Chaos as opposing Moorcockian universal forces on the level of Good and Evil, it's a lot easier to rationalize how they work - just like you can rationalize invading someone's house/tower/cave/sovereign nation, slaughtering them, and taking their stuff to be Good, if they are on the side of Evil.

I agree. This is similar to how I run law and chaos in my games. Like many other smart people on this thread, you have found a way to change the rules to make alignment work better. I commend you for doing that. I think it's the right thing to do.

Certainly if we change alignment from how it is described in the rules, it will work better. That's my whole case.

 

[fusangite]

Swrushing, thanks for getting me back on track here by referring me to an earlier quote on this thread. It reminded me that much of my problem with alignment stemmed from my experience as a GM, rather than my experience as a player.

I am happy to concede that you guys have found some new ways to make the alignment mechanic function that I had not previously considered. You have made a compelling case that PC rangers, fighters, rogues, wizards and sorcerors need not be affected by the alignment rules in a proscriptive way. Although the rules take no actual position on whether alignment is derived by the GM from PC actions or chosen and lived-up to by the player, I think your idea for the GM controlling alignment instead of the player does, paradoxically, broaden the player's choices.

But now you have brought me back to the reason I became so frustrated with the alignment mechanic in the first place and found it so unworkable: the playing of NPC adversaries. But in order to make the case about this, I need to return to some issues I let drop earlier in the thread.

Language in the Rules

Earlier in this thread, we had an argument about how to read the rules. For some people posting here, some rules were literally more true than others. The oft-quoted statement

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types and personal philosophies…

was seen as altering the meaning of other statements in the rules instead of merely contextualizing them. The argument was that this statement functioned much as "I come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it" works in mainstream Christian exegisis.

I have a different take on how to read the rules. I assume that each rule is consistently and equally literally true as long as they do not have to contradict eachother.

You will notice that there are three main kinds of language on pages 104 and 105 in the PHB.

1. Universal Declarative Statements
These are declarative sentences that make unqualified statements about alignments, such as "law" implies honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability." These statements in my opinion are always true. They are written using the same grammatical structures as rules like the description of the feat Cleave.

2. Modal Statements
These are statements that employ auxiliary verbs in order to indicate that they are only sometimes true. An example of such a statement is "lawfulness can (italics mine) include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness and a lack of adaptability." They are written using very different grammatical structures than those employed in the rest of the rules.

3. Conditional Statements
These are statements that employ subjunctive clauses to indicate that they are only true under certain specified conditions or for certain sets of people. For example, "Those who consciously promote lawfulness (italics mine) say that only lawful behaviour creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decision in full confidence that others will act as they should.

I assume that the writers of the D&D rules know how to use English. That when they make a statement that is always true, they use grammatical structure #1. When they wish to make statements that are sometimes true, they use grammatical structures #2 or #3.

So, in my reading of the Chaotic Evil alignment, it is always true that:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable… His plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized.

It is sometimes (modally) true that:

Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Similarly it is conditionally true that:

If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse.

Now, when compared against the above quotation, we can see that a literal reading of these rules in no way violates the assertion made earlier that

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types and personal philosophies…

There are a number of personalities and personality types who are "hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable" who make "haphazard" plans and form "disorganized" groups.

Indeed, the format used to describe the chaotic evil alignment is used throughout the section. A universal declarative statement or set thereof is followed by a series of modal and conditional statements. Now, I suppose that one could argue that the rules are badly written and that the authors accidentally made a set of universal declarative statements when they really intended to make only conditional and modal statements. But I believe the only reasonable way to engage in a discourse about the rules is to assume that what they say is what they mean.

Now, how does this impact playing NPCs? Am I not obliged, as a GM, to play a chaotic evil NPC in the way the rules describe the alignment chaotic evil? Unlike a player who doesn't directly control his character's alignment as per your ingenious model, as GM, I'm obliged to play an NPC as per the alignment description. I suppose I could change the alignment of every single NPC I played (except of course the ones with always in their alignment descriptor) but then one would have to wonder why NPCs even have alignments.

If I am playing a chaotic evil NPC villain, a clear majority of his actions have to be "hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable." Otherwise it game balance becomes an issue -- essentially, while PCs' alignments and behaviour would be required to correlate, NPC alignments and behaviour would not.

The moment I realized that the alignment mechanic was broken was when I was playing a Chaotic Evil duke whose objective was to open the gates to the Abyss under the city which he ruled. I realized that in order for him to rationally and efficiently achieve his goal, I would have to change his alignment. This seemed absurd; if he wasn't Chaotic Evil, why would he be opening the gates to a plane that was and not, say, to Hades, the plane with which he was aligned?

So, I'll grant that alignment only functions proscriptively for all NPCs and 50% of PCs rather than the 100% of PCs I had originally imagined. I guess my failure to think of running alignment the way you do arose (a) from the fact I generally GM rather than working as a player and (b) from the fact that the rules don't actually suggest or allude to your way of running alignment (even though your way does not in any violate the rules and now strikes me as a better way to go).