D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[soviet]

Or how about...all humans are flawed creatures who at times act in bad faith? Yes, this includes DMs, but we still have sheriffs and police in real life, right?

I don't think that all people sometimes act in bad faith.

 

[kermit4karate]

I don't think that all people sometimes act in bad faith.

OK.

 

[kermit4karate]

If the GM is guaranteed to occasionally act in bad faith, should we not prepare for that inevitability, rather than shrugging and saying, "What can we do?"


Who is the person with the responsibility to keep the peace and adjudicate decisions in a married couple? Who is the person with the responsibility to keep the peace and adjudicate decisions in a group of three friends who play a video game together on weekends? When going to a restaurant with (say) four friends to celebrate, whose responsibility is it to keep the peace and adjudicate decisions about who will eat what dish?

This assertion requires the idea that all relationships have a hierarchy. That's simply not correct. Some do not--and they address concerns in a different way. Plenty of ways people interact with each other do not have a hierarchy, but they manage to survive and even thrive without an absolute authority dictating things for everyone else. We can, in fact, do something similar in TTRPGs--even if we do allow one person more authority than others.


Nor are GMs. Entrusting them with absolute authority, then, is simply inviting them to use it in the--as you yourself allege--completely inevitable event that they act in bad faith.


Again: there are myriad forms of human grouping where we don't have this, and yet life isn't constantly beset by "chaos". It's just not true that it's "otherwise chaos". People can and do work out their differences. And if they absolutely can't--if consensus is truly completely impossible--then what makes you think a single person shouting everyone else down would somehow guarantee a fix anyway? If cohesion is already breaking down, what makes the fact that one person wears the pointy hat (crown, viking hat, whatever) magically able to get folks to calm down? You still have to have that foundation of agreement to cooperate--which means your protection against "chaos" already required a foundation of consensus anyway.


I'm not saying that a single leader can't enforce decisions on a group sometimes, but I am saying that they won't be able to enforce decisions all the time without consensus first.

Two can play at this game--and it is the simple fact that government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

Are you sure you aren't just vehemently opposed to conceding any ground? I guess we just aren't able to communicate, because I thought I knew what you were talking about, but you lost me again. I don't understand whatever point you're trying to make. Is it worth continuing with it though? Maybe with others if you want, but I think I'm gonna politely bow out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Are you sure you aren't just vehemently opposed to conceding any ground? I guess we just aren't able to communicate, because I thought I knew what you were talking about, but you lost me again. I don't understand whatever point you're trying to make. Is it worth continuing with it though? Maybe with others if you want, but I think I'm gonna politely bow out.

Do you want me to answer the question, or respect your choice to bow out? I feel I've gotten a mixed message here.

But the TL;DR of my point is: You claim a single, central, strong authority is the only shield against "chaos" in social groups. Yet real social groups exist without chaos that do not have such a thing. And, further, that strong authority only has authority because the group agreed to it, which means the authority only removes "chaos" by already having consensus to begin with--meaning that, if consensus has failed, the authority goes out the window along with it.

If you do not wish to reply any further, I respect that and will not say anything further, nor in any way hold your choice against you. I only say this because you both asked for clarification and said you were going to bow out, and I can't heed both requests.

To be clear: I favor collaboration and finding common ground as the solution to most issues. I am simply arguing that the alleged reason for a strong central authority, to prevent "chaos", is broken the moment that chaos has broken the group's consensus of support for that authority.

 

[kermit4karate]

You claim a single, central, strong authority is the only shield against "chaos" in social groups.

Sure, and to summarize my position, I'll conclude by affirming that one of your claims about me is correct. That one up there. Yes, that is what I claim and what I believe. So we're in total agreement there in terms of what I believe and your understanding of it.

 

[GobHag]

Well it's so great that we agree that alignment should only be in the hand of the player and should never-ever have the GM judge it.

 

[kermit4karate]

Well it's so great that we agree that alignment should only be in the hand of the player and should never-ever have the GM judge it.

Yup, what a relief. Now I can sleep at night.

 

[Necropolitan]

How can a player interpret THEIR character anything but correctly?

I had a fellow player insist his Paladin taking on an assassination contract without even bothering to check if the target was guilty and then lying to try to get a double payday was Lawful Good.

He also had them justify slavery for personal gain.

In the same session.

He is no longer in the group.

 

[kermit4karate]

I had a fellow player insist his Paladin taking on an assassination contract without even bothering to check if the target was guilty and then lying to try to get a double payday was Lawful Good.

He also had them justify slavery for personal gain.

In the same session.

He is no longer in the group.

Well that makes no sense at all!? You mean you knew a player who didn't have his or the party's best interests at heart? As if they were acting in bad faith??? Too bad there wasn't someone in a position of authority, some kind of helpful figure, who could have intervened on the group's behalf to keep things running smoothly.

Hmm....

I feel like there might be a term for it.... Group Maestro? No, that's not it.... Den Manager??

I know! Domain Mentor!

 

[GobHag]

Well that makes no sense at all!? You mean you knew a player who didn't have his or the party's best interests at heart? As if they were acting in bad faith??? Too bad there wasn't someone in a position of authority, some kind of helpful figure, who could have intervened on the group's behalf to keep things running smoothly.

Hmm....

I feel like there might be a term for it.... Group Maestro? No, that's not it.... Den Manager??

I know! Domain Mentor!

Doesn't seem like a DM is needed when the group itself can just kick them out.