This thread is a response to something that came up on this thread. I've started a new thread to avoid the possibility of derailing that one.
I'm all for presenting players with hard choices. Make the player of a paladin choose between saving a family member and honouring an oath to a lord or a god (eg maybe the only way to rescue the family member from debt bondage is to rescue them from a powerful patron of the church). Make a monk choose whether or not to help a fellow PC in getting revenge on an enemy, even though the desire for revenge is very obviously motivated by an excessive concern for worldly status.
But alignment doesn't force this sort of hard choice.
Rather, it forces the player to choose between playing his/her own conception of a LG/exalted/self-disciplined/etc PC, and playing the GM's version of the same character. This is because, at least in my experience, alignment is enforced by the GM against players, based on the GM's conception of what is permissible and what not. Hence my description of it as a recipe for player/GM conflict. There's no surer route to conflict, at an RPG table, then for person A to tell person B, "Hey, your conception of how a heroic protagonist would act, well actually that's pretty unheroic - and evil into the bargain!" That's a pretty insulting thing to say to a person, going as it does to the calibre of both their aesthetic and their moral judgements.
The further hard choice alignment forces, when it is a prerequisite for character abilities and when the player and GM have different evaluative opinions, is between playing the PC as the player envisages him/her, but losing the abilities that are central to the character as a mechanical vehicle in the game, or keeping the mechanical abilities but following the GM's line on PC personality.
This is just a recipe for more conflict at the game table. Even more so if, as in the traditional game, the situations in respect of which the player's choices are triggering the alignment questions are situations that have been presented to the players by the GM. This is (in my view) one of the most dysfunctional forms of railroading.
I don't object to balancing powerful abilities with limitations - even, perhaps, certain sorts of personality disadvantages - but doing it via the mechanism of "you lose if the GM doesn't share your conception of your character's moral life" is (in my view) not the way to do it.
(An exception to this might arise in a hardcore gamist game, where players are expected to milk every last tactical and operational advantage out of their PCs, even if this means bending the spirit of the most natural ingame interpretation of their PCs' abilities. But in that sort of game, I suggest that using personality-type disadvantages at all as a balancing mechanicsm is a recipe for disaster. For more evidence on this point, consider the points-buy horror stories that come out of a certain approach to GURPS, HERO etc.)
An actual play example, concerning a paladin in a Rolemaster game. RM is a game with random crits, and is also one in which defeat of foes frequently occurs by disabling them via accumulated penalties to action, perhaps leaving them maimed but allowing their bleeding to be staunched so they can be taken prisoner/sent on their way/whatever. The first time the player of this paladin actually killed an NPC in combat was when he rolled a death crit - 00 on the percentile dice - and therefore beheaded the foe. This sent him into a period of deep mourning and introspection, and he wandered alone away from the rest of the party. I (as GM) rolled a random encounter, got a low level demon, and proceeded to have that demon appear near the paladin and begin taunting him for his conduct. I assumed that the paladin would attack the demon, on the grounds that demons speak falsehoods and not truths, but in fact he interpreted the whole thing as a sign from his god that he had done the wrong thing and deserved punishment. He therefore let the demon beat him to a pulp, until - realising that there was no more sport to be had here - it let him go. The paladin in question spent the next part of the campaign trying to atone for (what he took to be) his wrongs by building housing for refugees fleeing war in a neighbouring country.
So like I said, I'm all for hard choices, and a game in which crises of faith and moral judgement are at the forefront of play. But (in my view) to be meanginful to the players these have to come from the players in the course of playing the game. That is, in my view, what an RPG is about. GM-enforced alignment rules are just an unnecessary obstacle to this.
As the individual in question, I thought I might explain my alternative views on these issues.
I'm all for presenting players with hard choices. Make the player of a paladin choose between saving a family member and honouring an oath to a lord or a god (eg maybe the only way to rescue the family member from debt bondage is to rescue them from a powerful patron of the church). Make a monk choose whether or not to help a fellow PC in getting revenge on an enemy, even though the desire for revenge is very obviously motivated by an excessive concern for worldly status.
But alignment doesn't force this sort of hard choice.
Rather, it forces the player to choose between playing his/her own conception of a LG/exalted/self-disciplined/etc PC, and playing the GM's version of the same character. This is because, at least in my experience, alignment is enforced by the GM against players, based on the GM's conception of what is permissible and what not. Hence my description of it as a recipe for player/GM conflict. There's no surer route to conflict, at an RPG table, then for person A to tell person B, "Hey, your conception of how a heroic protagonist would act, well actually that's pretty unheroic - and evil into the bargain!" That's a pretty insulting thing to say to a person, going as it does to the calibre of both their aesthetic and their moral judgements.
The further hard choice alignment forces, when it is a prerequisite for character abilities and when the player and GM have different evaluative opinions, is between playing the PC as the player envisages him/her, but losing the abilities that are central to the character as a mechanical vehicle in the game, or keeping the mechanical abilities but following the GM's line on PC personality.
This is just a recipe for more conflict at the game table. Even more so if, as in the traditional game, the situations in respect of which the player's choices are triggering the alignment questions are situations that have been presented to the players by the GM. This is (in my view) one of the most dysfunctional forms of railroading.
I don't object to balancing powerful abilities with limitations - even, perhaps, certain sorts of personality disadvantages - but doing it via the mechanism of "you lose if the GM doesn't share your conception of your character's moral life" is (in my view) not the way to do it.
What governs the paladin's behaviour is the player's conception of what is lawful and good. Not the GM's. If you assume that your players can't be trusted in this respect - that they have no interest in actually playing an honourable holy warrior - then (in my opinion) you have problems at your game table which alignment rules won't solve.
(An exception to this might arise in a hardcore gamist game, where players are expected to milk every last tactical and operational advantage out of their PCs, even if this means bending the spirit of the most natural ingame interpretation of their PCs' abilities. But in that sort of game, I suggest that using personality-type disadvantages at all as a balancing mechanicsm is a recipe for disaster. For more evidence on this point, consider the points-buy horror stories that come out of a certain approach to GURPS, HERO etc.)
Objecting to alignment isn't saying that a paladin or a monk shouldn't act a certain way. It is putting control over the interpretation of that requirement into the player's rather than the GM's hands.
And this is the crux of it. In my view, if divine PCs' powers are in part to be dependent on the good graces of their gods, then the GM ought not to be the sole arbiter of what counts as behaviour acceptable to the gods. Some of that player needs to be given to the relevant players(s). Otherwise the game table conflict I have referred to above is just a real life evaluative disagreement away.
Obviously I disagree strongly with the last sentence here. I think that the player should be allowed to explore what good and evil mean as part of playing the game. And if it becomes obvious that the player in fact has no sincere interest in playing a paladin (or monk or . . .) then this is a metagame issue that should be resolved in a metagame fashion (ie all the parties concerned talk about it like mature people). Not via alignment rules.
Again, I obviously object to the notion that not only does the GM get to have a major say in the paladin player's playing of his/her PC, but also gets to do this in a secret, "Gotcha!" style. As for the falling issue - NPC paladins can fall or not depending on the GM's whims in setting up the backstory. It's not as if a GM who does use alignment rules, in giving the heads up to the player of a paladin that s/he is thinking of stripping that paladin of its abilities if the player has the paladin pursue a particular course of action, is playing an ingame role. It's a purely metagame heads up. NPC paladins don't experience any metagame.
This is great stuff. I don't object to this at all. I've GMed players whose PCs have undergone this sort of self-realisation. But you don't need alignment rules to do it. Nor do you need to mechanically destroy the PC. If the player is genuinely interested in this sort of play experience, they will play out this sort of tension without needing that sort of threat to lead to it.
An actual play example, concerning a paladin in a Rolemaster game. RM is a game with random crits, and is also one in which defeat of foes frequently occurs by disabling them via accumulated penalties to action, perhaps leaving them maimed but allowing their bleeding to be staunched so they can be taken prisoner/sent on their way/whatever. The first time the player of this paladin actually killed an NPC in combat was when he rolled a death crit - 00 on the percentile dice - and therefore beheaded the foe. This sent him into a period of deep mourning and introspection, and he wandered alone away from the rest of the party. I (as GM) rolled a random encounter, got a low level demon, and proceeded to have that demon appear near the paladin and begin taunting him for his conduct. I assumed that the paladin would attack the demon, on the grounds that demons speak falsehoods and not truths, but in fact he interpreted the whole thing as a sign from his god that he had done the wrong thing and deserved punishment. He therefore let the demon beat him to a pulp, until - realising that there was no more sport to be had here - it let him go. The paladin in question spent the next part of the campaign trying to atone for (what he took to be) his wrongs by building housing for refugees fleeing war in a neighbouring country.
So like I said, I'm all for hard choices, and a game in which crises of faith and moral judgement are at the forefront of play. But (in my view) to be meanginful to the players these have to come from the players in the course of playing the game. That is, in my view, what an RPG is about. GM-enforced alignment rules are just an unnecessary obstacle to this.
) some pretty darn good interpretations, some really smart uses, of the traditional D&D (AD&D - 3e, actually, I suppose) alignment system.
