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

[fusangite]

I think your definition of rational player is a bit flawed. A rational player would play a character such that there is discernable reward to the PLAYER and not necessarily to the character. The benefit doesn't have to be in-game at all if the player derives more enjoyment out of playing in that particular way. This may be one of the barriers to you really grokking the descriptive (not proscriptive) alignment argument.

Declaring repeatedly that alignment is not proscriptive does not make it so. How many players have you seen who have decided that it is a good and rewarding choice to lose all their class abilities? How many people have you met who find this a fulfilling way to play D&D?

I'll grant there are such 1 in a million individuals, like swrushing's lawful evil angels but we are talking about how the rules make people behave in the real world, not about some absurd hypothetical.

The same is true for lawful characters, though. While a meritocratic-oriented chaotic group might take longer to find the best leader, the lawful hierarchically-oriented group may have a harder time removing an ineffective leader put there by privilege rather than ability.

Agreed. Chaotic characters are most disadvantaged by the alignment mechanic, followed by lawful characters; neutral characters are not disadvantaged at all and can act efficiently unfettered by the mechanic, especially if one uses swrushing's theory that neutrality can express a compatible combination of strongly lawful and strongly chaotic traits.

You should have thought up the description of what the evil noble has done and is like before you picked the alignment and then picked the alignment that best characterized your description.

I did but I wanted to write a campaign about demons. For the duke to be summoning creatures from a plane other than that with which he was aligned did not make a whole lot of sense to me. It didn't seem logical for the agent of a demon prince not to share the prince's alignment.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

So, if everything was modal/conditional in the descriptions anyway, why did they specifically use modal/conditional language 17 times? If they do not need to repeat it, why do they do so 17 times but apply conditional and modal language to only a portion of the total text?

Beats me! Ask them.

But, it is more reasonable for me to think the answer is a choice to repeat and not that it was an unspoken total voiding of the previous qualifier specifically applied to this list.

I understand that. Every second post you accuse me of asserting that this is about single events and not collections of events.

you asked a very broad question... did it have predictive quality, and the answer is YES for broad focus over time and no for narrow focus over short time. if my giving you a complete answer is troublesome, ask a more specific question.

At no time have I ever said that we were talking about isolated events and I have stated on more than 10 occasions that I am specifically not talking about isolated events.

cool. but you have noticed that, using terms like proscriptive and "forced" and "diallow" sound a lor more like they are applying to scenario level focus rather than "choices over a long time". At least, you should have gotten that impression by now.

Thats why i encouraged you earlier to move away from the more strict sounding terms and move towards more broad-over-time sounding terms like "encourage" and "discourage". But so far, thats not a direction you choose to go.

Again, I'm getting rather cross. We are not arguing about the definition of alignment. We are arguing about its operational function. I do not care about alignment on a definitional level -- I am only interested in how it causes people to operate.

right, but of course, people's reactions to the rule is something that will vary from player to player and game to game. In my game, they "play the character" and not the alignment, so alignment is not having the same "operational effects" it seems to have in your games, where apparently, people play "their characters alignment" and we are not sure where "their character" actually comes into it.

The rule is something we can discuss. "how the rule causes people to operate" is a far more variable and nebulous and "localized" thing.

I think we could both agree on this part, or are you saying that, in your mind, everyone operates the same way as regards to alignment, so ther is a "true way" of "how people operate with regards to alignment"?

The above statements are not operationally true if you concede, as you just did, that alignment has predictive value.

See, here you go. Thats specifically WHY i made two distinct answers, one for specific case and one for long term patterns... which you groused about I might add.

if a characters alignment is ACCURATELY pegged as so-n-so, then you can expect they will over time show various tendencies, not necessarily ALL the tendencies. This prediction will be more or less accurate over the long term.

It will NOT be necessarily accurate over the short term. That remains to me an important distinction.

Now, on the even larger scale, remember it is predictive, not ABSOLUTE. Past performance gives you good predictive data to go on for future tendencies but things can change. T

he character can change his outlook.

A character pegged as LE today (due to past actions) might undergo a change and begin as of midnight tonight doing LN or even LG things. As a result of that change, your precitions which are based on past performance will lose accuracy.

A guy who has smoked for 20 years and tried to stop three times and failed... you can predict he will be smoking a month from now and usually be right. His past perfromance says this is a good bet" but he can stop smoking tomorrow, go on the patch, for any number of reasons.

Same for overweight gluttons.

Same for the mercilous SOB who kills for sport, or the pious guy who tends to the sick. Their past actions and choices (reflected by alignment) tell you what type of person they have been and give you predictive info, but they might just up and change.

If a monster with a Lawful Evil alignment is in no way predisposed to act in a Lawful Evil way, what you say above is true. But you have just conceded that NPCs with a particular alignment are predisposed to maintain this alignment.

no, i did NOT say that.

I said previous actions, previous traits, previous tendencies give you predictive data. The characters has normally acted so-n-so and people usually keep to their patterns. It isn't "predisposed to act CE, but predisposed to torture and maim for fun" or whatever other traits are applicable.

Being CE dosn't predispose you to kill and torture.

And you're employing this quotation to refute what I am saying? I suppose we could make this thread about one in a million situations but what would be the point?

How refute? you asked a question. Did i miss you taking a position?

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Now we get to the general point I was making. While your theory of alignment only "describing" a PC's past and not acting on the individual's future or restricting their choices does not violate the letter of the rules, I think there are a number of reasons to suspect that this is not the most likely interpretation of the rules. If you work with the alignment mechanic the way I initially read it, it applies in the same way to every creature in the D&D universe. To run the alignment rules the way you suggest, the following things happen at the operational level:
(a) alignment functions to restrict choice for some PCs and not others

If by this you mean, some classes have alignment restrictions, sure. The paladin restriction is as much a part of the class structure and design as BAB is or armor restrictions are and so forth.

if a Gm is uncomfortable with alignment restrictions in his classes, its easy to remove them from the classes.

(b) alignment functions radically differently for PCs and NPCs in that it is predictive for NPCs but not for PCs

Sorry but NO. For most every PC i have ever seen, their "past actions and choices" (their past behavior) was predictive, but not absolute. Dain the dwarf i could predict would never move ahead and leave an unexplored door behind him, because thats how he had acted all the times before.

"predictive" does not mean "directive", does not mean 100% accurate.

So, PCs and NPCs, unless the Gm is playing his NPCs oddly, are both predictive by their past behavior, just not scripted, not directed. Either's behavior can change at any time, but isn't as likely to.

(c) creatures with the always alignment descriptor interact differently with the mechanic from other PCs and NPCs

Well, first off, creatures with "always" ARE different. Their alignment is a matter of nature, not choice, so, yeah, they will be different. if they weren't different, there wouldn't need to be a separate category, i reckon.

But, in fact, the difference amounts to little more than "how often the change occurs in the population" which is just a setting thing.

you go on about "operational differences" but in fact there are no operational differences between an "always" guy changing alignment in the rules. in the outside the norm case of an always outsider PC who decides to change alignment, there are no differences "operationally" between that and a normal rogue human moving from CN to CG, right?

While your solution buys a lot of free will without violating the letter of the rules, you can see that it is by no means the obvious way to do things, what with the rules never actually saying to run alignment the way you do.

i consider the rules to be quite clear and yes, fairly obvious, that alignment is guideline, not script, that alignment reflects character choices, not directs character choices, or as my favorite phrase runs...

alignment is derived from character choices and it does not drive character choices.

I agree with the notion that it is bad, unpalatable, and even potentially broken to, as a GM, try to make alignment DIRECTIVE or DRIVING as opposed to its current DERIVITIVE or REFLECTIVE role as covered in the rules.

 

[fusangite]

Beats me! Ask them.

So, doesn't it concern you that your reading of the rules leaves 17 statements unexplained and opaque to you while my reading doesn't leave any? I thought you just said that these people knew how to write and did not write the rules inconsistently, incompetently or in a grammatically incorrect way.

right, but of course, people's reactions to the rule is something that will vary from player to player and game to game. In my game, they "play the character" and not the alignment, so alignment is not having the same "operational effects" it seems to have in your games, where apparently, people play "their characters alignment" and we are not sure where "their character" actually comes into it.

But realistically, how many people decide "I'd like to lose all my class abilities"?

The rule is something we can discuss. "how the rule causes people to operate" is a far more variable and nebulous and "localized" thing.

Okay. I am now done with this thread. You have finally admitted that you are not willing to discuss how the rules cause people to play the game. Thank you for this admission. I can now leave.

I'm afraid your assertion that alignment can be predictive without predisposition will have to go unaddressed.

I think we could both agree on this part, or are you saying that, in your mind, everyone operates the same way as regards to alignment, so ther is a "true way" of "how people operate with regards to alignment"?

Well, I was trying to have a discussion that was premised on people playing the game as rational actors, a discussion that was about understanding what happens with the alignment mechanic 99.9999% of the time. A discussion that consistently snags on "what if people feel like deliberately hobbling their characters for no reason?" and "what about that one demon in a million who is lawful good?" is not one I want to be part of.

I've had a good time on much of this thread and gained some valuable insights and new tricks for running the alignment system effectively. Thank you all for responding to my original post and putting so much time and thought into your messages.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

So, doesn't it concern you that your reading of the rules leaves 17 statements unexplained and opaque to you...

it doesn't i understand what those statements mean. There is nothing opaque about them.

while my reading doesn't leave any?

yours seems to however, just decide to throw some out in toto. like the whole "guidelines not scripts".

I think, from everything I have seen, think mine is a more accurate reading of the rules than yours.

I thought you just said that these people knew how to write and did not write the rules inconsistently, incompetently or in a grammatically incorrect way.

I don't believe i ever said they did not sometimes write rules inconsistently.

But realistically, how many people decide "I'd like to lose all my class abilities"?

Honestly, the vast majority, say 90% of players IMX never have their character undergo an alignment change. Even when the character undergoes significant changes in story, they usually still remain within the broad stretches of alignment.

of the ones who do change, it is usually no more than a one space shift.

so, it is very very rare for a character to, IMX, shift so radically as to be in a position of "I lose all of my class abilities."

MOREOVER, the classes with that problem have it stated up front. So, the players who CHOOSE that class are forewarned of the alignment restriction. That tends to make them not play the class unless they do intend to play a character appropriate to it. So, these are LESS LIKELY to be playing "marginally in line" characters for these classes and certainly not playing a character likely to do a radical reversal.

So, all in all, this whole "class restriction" issue has come up so rarely that its not a problem i would ever give any sort of "commonality" to.

Okay. I am now done with this thread. You have finally admitted that you are not willing to discuss how the rules cause people to play the game. Thank you for this admission. I can now leave.

thats all it took!?! gee, why didn't you say so earlier. It could have saved us a lot of typing had you said this.

I'm afraid your assertion that alignment can be predictive without predisposition will have to go unaddressed.

how totally unsurprising. shocked i am.

Well, I was trying to have a discussion that was premised on people playing the game as rational actors, a discussion that was about understanding what happens with the alignment mechanic 99.9999% of the time.

but, you do realize what you are describing as "what happens with the alignment mechanic" is no where even close to what i see 90% of the time, 50% of the time, and so forth, right? Thats part of the problem... your house definition of rational actor is not equal to mine.

A discussion that consistently snags on "what if people feel like deliberately hobbling their characters for no reason?" and "what about that one demon in a million who is lawful good?" is not one I want to be part of.

What about a discussion of "what if people feel like playing their character, even when that won't get them the most powers and plusses, and they trust that this "sacrifice of power for character and story" won't be held against them by the GM and result in a loss of screen time or "relevence". What about people who, having a good non-competitive relationship with their GM, trust him enough to not see "being my character even when it hurts" as simply a decision to be based on "efficiently summing the powers and bonuses"?

I would consider those very, extremely "rational actors." That descirbes a MAJORITY not a MINORITY of my players.

As for a discussion of "one in a million" YOU fus were the one who brought into this discussion the QUESTION of running outsiders with always descriptors, and the one in a million is a direct quote from that "always" descriptor YOU drug in.

if you did not want to discuss one-in-a-million, why bring up the "always" outsiders at all? Were you just unaware of the "one-in-a-million" reference?

hilarious, as always.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Go with the Black Company. It uses Alliegances. In some ways, more simple.

 

[swrushing]

Go with the Black Company. It uses Alliegances. In some ways, more simple.

no argument there. besides the traditional DnD alignments really do not cover that setting well at all.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, I was trying to have a discussion that was premised on people playing the game as rational actors, a discussion that was about understanding what happens with the alignment mechanic 99.9999% of the time. A discussion that consistently snags on "what if people feel like deliberately hobbling their characters for no reason?" and "what about that one demon in a million who is lawful good?" is not one I want to be part of.

Hmmm...and see, that's where the differences come from.
Your position is that a player looks at the alignment of his character and plans his character's actions according to the alignment, especially if the class of the character in question carries an alignment restriction along with it. In your train of arguments, an alignment shift, and the following loss of character abilities is a negative event, because the player decided to play a paladin, and wants to stay a paladin, no matter how the game goes. That's what you call a "rational" player, and yes, they exist, and yes, for them, the alignment system probably is a proscriptive, penalizing rule system.

My, and not just my, position is that a player looks at his character's personality, his history and motivations, and plans his actions according to them, and the alignment of his character is derived from these actions and the motivations behind them. If that player has chosen a class with an alignment restriction, and the character shifts alignment because of his actions and motivations, a shift in class takes place. For this kind of player, it's nothing negative, but simply a shift in focus. For a player like that, the alignment system is descriptive and consequential, but not penalizing. I just wouldn't call this kind of player less "rational".

It's a shame that you pulled out of the discussion, though...the point we finally reached is that, on a certain kind of player, or DM, the alignment system can have a proscriptive effect...but I dare say, not on all kinds of players.

And as to your question about what player would knowingly "hobble" his character...well, my priest of law and order and goodness has probably fallen out of favour with his god, and all because he partook in a chain of events that aim at a good end. So...I, for one, would easily "hobble" my character if I thought it appropriate with my character's personality and motivations.

 

[billd91]

Declaring repeatedly that alignment is not proscriptive does not make it so. How many players have you seen who have decided that it is a good and rewarding choice to lose all their class abilities? How many people have you met who find this a fulfilling way to play D&D?

I'll grant there are such 1 in a million individuals, like swrushing's lawful evil angels but we are talking about how the rules make people behave in the real world, not about some absurd hypothetical.

Absurd hypothetical? Because you can't conceive of a player willing to play a falling paladin? I know plenty of players willing to investigate this sort of story as it unfolds in a game. I feel sorry for you that you have not.
Also, as we've been over before: it's the rules for the paladin that proscribe behavior and not the alignment rules in and of themselves.
Ultimately, players pick alignments for their PCs for one or two reasons: 1) because that's how they perceive the character and their personalities, 2) because they think want to play to that alignment. In that case, they may look to the alignment to set their expectations of how they should have their character behave, but then, once the game has started, their alignment can and should shift based on how they actually play.

Agreed. Chaotic characters are most disadvantaged by the alignment mechanic, followed by lawful characters; neutral characters are not disadvantaged at all and can act efficiently unfettered by the mechanic, especially if one uses swrushing's theory that neutrality can express a compatible combination of strongly lawful and strongly chaotic traits.

I don't agree that chaotic characters are more disadvandaged than lawful characters at all. It's easy to spin a situation either way. Neutrals, yes, are generally pragmatic because they don't have a particularly strong philosophical focus.

I did but I wanted to write a campaign about demons. For the duke to be summoning creatures from a plane other than that with which he was aligned did not make a whole lot of sense to me. It didn't seem logical for the agent of a demon prince not to share the prince's alignment.

Nor did I say that the character you described couldn't fit CE, rather that, by your description, CE didn't seem the strongest candidate. Prefering to use demons as his tool might be one of those factors that helps push him to CE. But why use demons? Maybe his philosophical outlook tends to match them more even if his behavior is a bit less demon-emulating.