Why I don't like alignment in fantasy RPGs

[smetzger]

I'd like to back pedal a bit....

My above comments hold for _most_ campaigns and certainly the following campaign settings (as I read them) Greyhawk, FR, Eberron, Dark Sun...

However, there could be a campaign where the gods strip a character of their 'god granted' powers. However, this would be more of a greek pantheon type of game where the god's themselves take an active role in the world. Most campaigns are set in a more Deist type world or at least one where the god's act through persons rather than directly. However, this should be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[shadzar]

I'd like to back pedal a bit....

My above comments hold for _most_ campaigns and certainly the following campaign settings (as I read them) Greyhawk, FR, Eberron, Dark Sun...

However, there could be a campaign where the gods strip a character of their 'god granted' powers. However, this would be more of a greek pantheon type of game where the god's themselves take an active role in the world. Most campaigns are set in a more Deist type world or at least one where the god's act through persons rather than directly. However, this should be the exception rather than the rule.

Dragonlance also, where the Gods of Light are not to be found, and their are no true clerics as none has been granted power for quite some time. That was more about belief than alignment though, but could as well hold true for alignment.

 

[prosfilaes]

You want verisimilitude breaking? The height of it is inducing a harsh mechanical penalty for fluff actions. "I do something bad in character" "Well, you need to adjust your character sheet." Now that brings a person out of the setting and into the "game" mindset.

In some ways, drawing a line between "fluff" actions and stuff that actually matters seems more arbitrary and more likely to keep people out of the setting. Why should sticking your hand in the demon's mount and having to take damage and lose equipment be okay, but throwing a baby out the window and losing the favor of your god not be?

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton, you made some very, very good points.

Thanks.

This is a game and not an ethics seminar (I was a philosophy major specializing in ethics BTW...so they might be a bit more interchangeable/fun for me than others).

I'm an academic lawyer and political philosopher - which is part of why I like to GM campaigns in which religious, political and moral choices for the PCs loom large, and which certainly affects my views on alignment as a mechanic, and especially my resonse to those who say that the requirements of alignment are pretty straightforward.

I think, if we are to move forward with "highly ethical characters" just like "highly tactical warriors" then we need to understand what the boundaries are for both...in a codified way.

So, here's my (admittedly, off the cuff) solution:
If you have an "extreme" alignment or an "ALIGNMENT!!!!" as I stated earlier, what about these questions?

1. What will you ALWAYS do? OR What will you ALWAYS fight for?
2. What will you NEVER do?

I could imagine a game like this - in effect the PCs would have geases. But the geases would have to be specified in a way that made it pretty clear at the game table when the geas had been broken. "Always be good" or "Never be chaotic/evil" in my view falls very far short of satisfying this requirement.

I balk at the idea that "super good" characters are overly free of moral restrictions...and submit that these restrictions can, and probably should be player derived.

I just want to go the next step and say that they can be largely player adjudicated also. This is why, in the OP, I put it as a point about trust (and also canvassed a sort of game - hardcore gamist - where it would probably be a mistake to rely upon player adjudication).

Because in my view GM's have no special expertise in judging when the requirements of "super goodness" have been upheld or violated. So why encourage them to make these sorts of judgements about the friends/acquaintances with whom they're RPGing?

if a character is "super moral" as I've suggested....they need a personal code of conduct. Just like a tactician, or fighter, or spellcaster....there need to be boundaries defined that are shared with the DM.

I can see this. I don't mind sharing with the GM, in the sense that a player could easily talk to the GM (who typically has a richer sense of the campaign world and campaign progression overall, than does any single player) about how the GM perceives the PC's compliance with the code, and what might be an interesting way to develop the PC. I would personally still balk at giving the GM the last word. To the extent that a last word is needed (if we worry that consensus isn't possible) then I would give it to the player.

 

[pemerton]

In your OP your saying the consequences of your PC actions should also be determined by you and what you think. You can decide what you want to do all day long, but the DM gets to decide the consequences/results of your actions all day long. That is not dictating, that is how the game works, that is how real life works.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "consequences of your action".

If we put to one side the case of PCs like paladins and clerics, who are liable to falling, then the main consequence of a GM's adverse alignment judgment is that it is now official, at the game table, that my PC is (let's say) evil, even though in my opinion as a player what my PC was doing is good. In my real life, at least, there is no equivalence to this - when I evaluate my own conduct, whether aesthetically, or morally, or . . ., that is my evaluation and it stands until I revise it. I might revise it after conversation with others - whether my partner, my friends, or (in the case of a religous person) my priest or even the "conversation" of prayer.

Likewise in the sort of approach to play that I am advocating, the player can talk to the GM, his/her fellow players, or anyone s/he cares to about what her PC is doing. In light of that, s/he might decide eg that it is time for her paladin to atone.

But I continue to assert that it is a needless recipe for conflict to give the GM the power to unilaterally override a player's evaluative judgements at the game table. Some people, at least, think a good rule of thumb for avoiding awkardness at dinner parties is never to discuss religion or politics. Alignment rules turn this on its head, by mandating that the GM continually express his or her opinion of the evaluative judgements that the players express via their play of their PCs.

You said that you should get to decide not only your actions, but how those actions are reacted too.

By whom? I never said that the GM doesn't control NPCs. I did say that, in a game in which divine PCs depend upon the favour of the gods, then it is a mistake to treat the gods as NPCs purely under the GM's control. But I'm not saying that this is a mistake in the sense of a careless misclassification. I'm saying it's a design mistake - and it's a design mistake, in my sense, because it leads to needless conflict at the game table.

Consider a game in which a player is allowed to spend PC-building resources to buy a sidekick, a lover, an enemy, whatever. If the GM then proceeds to play that person as an ordinary NPC - fodder for casual assassination by other foes, prone to treachery, or (in the case of a PC-purchased enemy) able to be overcome with the same ease as a typical orc warrior - then in my view the GM is doing it wrong. Because if this happened, the GM would in effect be depriving the player of the benefits of the play experience that s/he spent resources to buy.

Well, a player who plays a cleric or a paladin whose powers are dependent upon divine favour has payed PC-building resources - choice of character class, in typical D&D - to get the benefit of a certain play experience, namely, playing a holy character in a close relationship to a deity. If the GM treats that deity like any other NPC, as his or hers to play independently of the preferences of the player who has spent resources to make that deity a salient element of the game, then (in my view) the GM is doing it wrong.

If you want that, be the DM, they get to do that. All you control is what your PC does, everything else is decided by the DM.

No other player of the game is at the whim of the GM in this way. The GM doesn't get to decide whether or not what the player of the fighter chose to have her PC do is tactically sound or not - the GM might have an opinion, but so does the player, and the player is not obliged to change her mind just because the GM disagrees with her. My contention is that players of divine PCs, in choosing what their character does and what it's evaluative significance is, shouldn't be subject to GM dictation either.

Alignments sole purpose is to give a common ground definition of what is expected of your PC when that alignment is put on their character sheet,

<snip>

Players who fail to do so simply fail to do so. So suffer whatever consequences the GM feels are appropriate.

I'm not sure how carefully you've chosen your words, and so I don't want to seem like I'm making a cheap point. But to me there seems to be a pretty big difference between "a common ground definition" and "consequences the GM feels are appropriate". Because the second phrase removes the common ground altogether - it is the GM's opinion that is relevant.

why even bother with having a DM? Why roll a D20 to see if you hit or saved?

I don't quite get the point you're making here. A GM has a lot of work to do - mostly, when I GM, I see myself as (i) providing the backstory, and (ii) providing the antagonists to the PCs. I also (iii) do a fair bit of the narration of what is happening during action resolution, because most of my players are a bit slack in this respect. And perhaps most importantly, (iv) I adjudicate action resolution when the mechanics of the game set the parameters of an outcome but don't fully dictate it (in 4e this mostly comes up in skill challenges, but also from time to time in combat).

I don't see it as my job to pass moral or aesthetic judgement on my friends as an integral part of playing the game. (From time to time I do express such opinions, but they are simply the opinions of a participant in the shared game - they have no special force coming from my status as GM.)

If you're saying, on the other hand, that alignment rules are as clear as (for example) saving throw rules - so anyone who is capable of working out whether or not a given d20 roll has or has not resulted in a save is equally capable of working out whether or not some action is good or evil, in such a way that non-collusive agreement is obtainable by all participants in the game - then I simply disagree. And I'll simply repeat the example I gave upthread - look at the reactions in Pakistan to the recent political assassination in that country.

All of that's fine. But I see no reason why the DM needs to 'get involved' here.

<snip>

IMO just let the player role-play as they see fit, no need to 'check' there behavior against some kind of code or alignment.

If NPCs watching the fight have an opinion they can act on it; otherwise I see no need to 'second guess' how the player is role playing.

This really sums up my view pretty well.

 

[pemerton]

Why should sticking your hand in the demon's mount and having to take damage and lose equipment be okay, but throwing a baby out the window and losing the favor of your god not be?

If the best that can be said for alignment rules is that they give the GM a mechanical stick with which to beat the player of a paladin who has his PC gratuitously throw a baby out a wind, then it seems to me there's not much to be said.

Any player trying sincerely to play a paladin would only have the PC toss a baby out of a window because s/he had some seriously considered reason to do so - either s/he thinks (for example) that it is the lesser of two evils, or in some other way morally permitted even if not optimal (in which case punishment would be gratuitous and one might expect the player to play out some remorse in any event) or s/he is trying to play out some sort of mental/moral collapse on the part of her PC, in which case what s/he goes on to do is likely to be far more interesting gameplay than having the GM say "OK, take XYZ mechanical penalties for breaking alignment".

And if you have players rolling up paladins and clerics but not interested in playing them sincerely, what makes you think that the alignment rules are going to change that?

 

[Coldwyn]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]:

I´m wondering a bit about your answers here. Alignmnets are a tool to help you into your character, especially to help you to avoid using knee-jerk reactions or your normal trained behaviour. Classes with an alignment component should encourage you to stop and think about your actions and behaviour, not enforce it, with the dm giving a helping hand in case you can´t decide on the right action.

This is important because most of us come from cultures with only moral grey zones, justified morality and a whole lot of egoism.

So yes, alignments can be a bit of a straightjacket and no, its actually not the dms place to really enforce them, just give out reminders and tipps.

What you are avoidong to answer Aberzanzorax to is the BoED question. The stuff in that book is very powerful and coupled to certain behaviour in the context of "be lawfull, be good, always - no arguments" way. If it says "no lying, ever, no excuses, no exceptions" and you as player agree to that, than yes, it´s enforceable by the dm.

 

[pemerton]

Coldwyn, I'm personally not a big fan of using alignment in the way you describe - for getting into character - but I don't think there's anything wrong with it as game design. It's just not the design for me. But that's not what I was criticising in my OP. My intended target was (A)D&D alignment rules, which do involve the GM having the final say on the moral and aesthetic evaluation of PC conduct.

A PC with a constraing "no falsehoods, ever" is a bit like the geas example that I interpreted Aberzanzorax as suggesting above. But this isn't alignment in the classic D&D sense - it's more like a personality disadvantage. I don't object in principle to a game in which a GM enforces personality disadvantages, although again they don't especially appeal to me. But D&D alignment isn't like this, because it doesn't use descriptors like "falsehoods", it uses evaluative descriptors like "good", "evil", "lawful" and "chaotic".

As for the BoED point, I don't know it very well, but it does bring up a deeper issue about (A)D&D alignments. It's pretty clear that in 1st ed AD&D a paladin's Lawful Goodness was conceived of as a roleplaying disadvantage which balanced out some mechanical strengths of the class. In 3E I think this isn't the case, given both (i) posts of the designers to that effect back around 1999-2000, and (ii) the fact that the paladin is generally regarded as a non-overpowered class (and a paladin-monk even less overpowered, I would have thought). If the BoED is then once again trying to take the view that a strict alignment constraint is a disadvantage, I don't see how this all fits together in a coherent package.

Furthermore, there is (in my mind) a deep question about the nature of the putative disadvantage. In 1st ed AD&D it's pretty clear that the disadvantage operates mostly at the ingame level - in a game based on dungeon exploration and looting, having to be a stalwart LG type is a disadvantage, as it puts limits on stealth, looting, killing and the like.

In subsquent D&D play, however, where the field of action and goals of play are often much broader than traditional AD&D dungeon play, it's far less clear how being an honourable stalwart type is a disadvantage. I remember playing 2nd ed games where it was, in fact, a distinct advantage to be a stalwart LG type, because of the increased respect that this gave when dealing with NPCs.

These days, it seems that the disadvantage is not so much one that plays out ingame, but one that plays out purely at the metagame level - namely, the player of this sort of PC runs the risk of being judged poorly by the GM and hence being mechanically penalised. I'll agree that that's a disadvantage. But I don't think it's a very good example of RPG design.

 

[Roadkill101]

For D&D, I never cared for the alignment system. I prefer a very wide swath of gray between my black and white.

When I have a player with a character whose concept depends on moral and ethical code, I have the player document the chacters code of conduct. I then let the player know that actions breaking said code may or may not have in-game ramifications based upon the circumstances of any infractions (i.e. any witnesses, repeat offenses, etc.)

I haven't used it but I like the Palladium way of handling alignment (a blanket description describing general behaviors).

 

[Coldwyn]

@permeton

I try to give you a coherent answer but I fear some things will get lost in translation. But here we go:

I think there are cases when alignment should be a balancing factor. I also think that alignment is important when you use alignment-based mechanics as written. Later more on this.

When gaming with my regular group, we don´t use alignments at all because we know each other well enough to also know the moral values and thought processes a bit. So we can all agree on which spells do what they should do and so on. When gaming with strangers, either on conventions or RPGA rounds, we use alignments as written right because of the same effects and use the stuff as written to have a coherent guideline.

Ok, on alignment as a balancing factor:
Thinking back at the AD&D Paladin, that really was a power-house. Full Fighter, added Spellcasting and Turning? Check. Good Stats if you rolled them? Check. Exp Bonus for High Stats? Inbuild. Sure that guy needed some counter-point.

On BoED. It defined the concept of exalted along with very strict guidelines and bound to alignment. Note that it is purely optional and doesn´t supersede the normal alignment definitions. The Book also introduced an new type of feat, creativelly called exalted feats which needed a functioning exalted status to gain and use. These feats are pretty mighty and a bit out of whack compared to normal feats. The book states that it is damn hard and complicated to keep and stay exalted and that possibly a lot of dm feedback is involved. That´s the trade-off for power.

I go on a small tangente here: If I offer you a chain of Feats about being possessed by a demon, gaining a good chunk of power but sharing controll of the character with the dm (or another player) who´s taking on the demon part of you (Think Wraith: The Oblivion)? Would that be acceptible, even a role-playing challenge for you?

To go back: My guess is that the Paladin/Monk chose feats that combine the advancement of both classes, meaning that monk level raise paladin spellcasting while paladin levels raises unarmed damage and ac. That he rounded with exalted feats like vow of poverty, which gives you a whole -load of boni (these boni do level up with you) when your character doesn´t own anything beside the clothes on his back and a holy symbol.
So it´s a munchkins dream come true, attached to the cost of being exalted.

Where now is the difference between playing a demon-possessed guy and a living saint when in both cases you trade character controll and freedom willingly for raw power?

So, now on to two other things. I´m flipping through my 3,5 PHB and reread the alignment section on p.103 and nowhere does it say: The dm controls it. Rather its states here that chosing an alignment is stating an intent what one is trying to portrait and doesn´t have to be totally consistent or uniform.

So I guess heavy-handed alignment management is a left-over from earlier editions which is still in the heads of some dms.