# Do alignments improve the gaming experience?



## fagura

I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games. I do understand where they come from. And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?
Now before I get to my points, I need to address the people arguing you do not need to use alignments, they are just a guideline. I totally agree! They are a guideline for role playing a character. Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance. So, shouldn't game designers take this under consideration instead of letting me -the player or DM- do it? And here come my points on the drawbacks of alignment use:

Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities. And most of them share elements of distinctive alignments. Let's think of a woman who has to choose between the survival of her son and an -unknown to her- tribe of 1.000 people. She chooses her son. Does this make her evil? Or non-good? She just let 1.000 people die to save 1 person, nevertheless many people might argue that their own mother might make the same choice. Are all our mothers evil? Is a person with schizophrenia evil? He might kill a dozen innocent men next morning for no reason, or be the most considerate, gentle, nice person to everyone for the next month. Why do we need to put a tab on a character's way of thinking and say "He is CN or NE"? 

Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person. Only last time he adventured, anti-paladins could smite him and this time paladins can smite him. 

Thirdly, there is a fine line between thinking of doing sth and actually doing it. A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time? Only he knows (and sometimes not even him). Is he evil already? Does he become evil the moment he does it? How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret? 

Fourthly, there is a big chapter in human behavior that is called Motivation. The same action made to serve different motives might be totally evil, totally good or very shady. Let's take the previous example. That woman killed a 1.000 people tribe. This is certainly an evil act. Her alignment though might be evil if she did it just for fun, shady if she did it to save her family and even good if she believed that was the way to save humanity. Are we to discuss the motivation behind all characters' actions to determine what tab to put them under?

And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else. In today's society anyone with a sword roaming the streets and killing wrong-doers would be definitely considered evil. In d&d settings, not necessarily. So, there is the need to describe in every setting what are the boundaries between those axes. This is not an easy task (and btw is up to the setting designers). And even if it was done, does this mean that in every single part of this world, all societies think alike? I really doubt if that might be the case. In practice, depending on the place or tribe he grew up (nevertheless in the same setting), a character might consider an action evil or absolutely necessary to serve good. Does this mean that when he travels he becomes evil because the place he is currently at perceives actions differently than him? Does a paladin smite murderers in town X but not in town W because in the first town society does not accept murder whereas in the second it is endorsed?


----------



## delericho

fagura said:


> But what do they offer to an experienced player?




The one thing it gives is rules-backed character constraints. While you _can_ play a character with an iron code of honour in a system without alignment, my experience generally has been that the moment that code conflicts with expedience, the player decides to make an exception - unless the rules specify some penalty for doing so.

(Of course, there's no reason that constraint has to take the form of an alignment system. That's just the most common approach, and the one that D&D uses for legacy reasons.)



> Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities.




There are 11 base character classes in the Pathfinder (and D&D 3e) core rulebooks (a few more if you include the NPC classes). Do you really think that's an adequate way of representing the mass of humanity?

D&D is a game of archetypes - you get your race (with a fixed package of racial abilities), your class (with a fixed package of class abilities), and your alignment. Various supplements and optional rules allow you to swap bits of these in and out - the only reason alignment is exempt is that most groups who might be interested in that sort of thing are more interested in just dropping alignment altogether, so there's little point.

So, while alignment is a poor scale for measuring the nuance of 6+ billion unique humans, it's really a matter of putting people into fairly broad boxes that may or may not fit terribly well - just like their race and/or class.



> ... simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance. So, shouldn't game designers take this under consideration instead of letting me -the player or DM- do it?




On this, I certainly agree! However, since that ship has sailed long since for those games that are in production, I'm not sure what you want them to do? 5e will grant you your wish, while most new games being produced simply don't have alignment in the first place.

But, yes, I'd be inclined to agree that if alignment appears in the rules of the game, it should probably do so on the basis of "if you want..." In that regard 4e, with it's "unaligned" state, did represent a significant step forward.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Improve?  No.

Give it a distinct flavor that isn't found in alignment-free systems?  Yes.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

I'd say it depends on the table.  Some players want to think deeply and explore such things as alignment and what it means to be a certain alignment within the context of the game.  Others might just want guidelines given to them to have a reasonable idea of where to put up boundaries for roleplaying.  Still others find the entire thing detracts from playing the game and naturally allowing freeform moments to happen and their character to develop.

And there might even be players who swap between those three things (and many others) depending on what they want out of the gaming experience at a given time or with a given group of people.  I know I could definitely look deeply at the philosophy of alignment with the right people, but there are times when I don't really want to bother with the alignment system and instead would rather freeform a character's motives and character traits.

D&D 3.5 has plenty of potential for all of those if you're okay bending things around a little, because there are definitely things as written that when strictly adhered to don't work within the game's confines.


----------



## GMMichael

fagura said:


> Now before I get to my points, I need to address the people arguing you do not need to use alignments, they are just a guideline. I totally agree! They are a guideline for role playing a character. Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance.






fagura said:


> Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities. And most of them share elements of distinctive alignments.




I'd say 9 alignments actually provides some good options.  When you start spotting where the lines are blurred between alignments, is when you've been looking too hard.



fagura said:


> Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person. Only last time he adventured, anti-paladins could smite him and this time paladins can smite him.




I'm pretty sure DMGs support changing alignments.



fagura said:


> Thirdly, there is a fine line between thinking of doing sth and actually doing it. A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time? Only he knows (and sometimes not even him). Is he evil already? Does he become evil the moment he does it? How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?




Looking too hard.



fagura said:


> And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else. In today's society anyone with a sword roaming the streets and killing wrong-doers would be definitely considered evil. In d&d settings, not necessarily.




Since you're still mesmerized, I'll shed some light on how to make alignment objective.  It's completely subjective UNTIL you treat good and evil thusly:

Good: that which only supports life.
Evil: that which only destroys life.
Greater good: choosing to kill one person in order to save 1000 could be good or evil, but I would say that, strictly speaking, it's an evil act since you've decided to kill someone.  (So, any amount of evil taints an act to be totally evil.)

Two more implications:
Killing orcs is evil, since it only destroys life.
Killing skeletons is good, since there was no destruction of life, and destroying undead supports the lives of others.

Any other questions?


----------



## TillForPie

When used to provide simple supports for the game, it works just fine. Take for example a magical sword that deals additional damage to evil creatures. A simple, flavorful object that can use the alignment system. But you shouldn't prop up too much more than that on such a system or it starts to show its cracks. Things like restricted alignments based on class should be avoided.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

fagura said:


> Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance.



Difficult to remove alignments? I suppose so, for a DM who doesn't like hacking the system. But plenty of DMs have done it, and I don't think it's terribly hard to do so.

Oh, and what do you mean about alignment affecting class balance? 2e was the last edition that tried to use alignment as a balancing factor. Since then, game devs and players alike have mostly realized that it doesn't work all that well.



fagura said:


> Why do we need to put a tab on a character's way of thinking and say "He is CN or NE"?



No particular reason; many games are plenty fun without alignment.



fagura said:


> Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person.



Indeed. To my way of thinking, all humans are born N; then some of us drift toward a different alignment during childhood and adolescence. And though shifting a second time is rare, nobody is entirely consistent with a single alignment.



fagura said:


> How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?



When in doubt, I suggest leaving a character's alignment as-is.



fagura said:


> Are we to discuss the motivation behind all characters' actions to determine what tab to put them under?



Unless you're setting your players up for a lot of morally ambiguous choices, the moral implication of most actions are pretty clear, in my opinion. YMMV.



fagura said:


> And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos.



Alignment hasn't been subjective since 2e; and even then, only good and evil are.

Personally, I like alignment in concept: an objective label that the game universe imposes on each character, based on his or her actions. (And to some extent, his or her motivations.) It fits the fantasy genre, it can be used for neat little mechanics, and it has its charm -- at least until the game starts attaching all kinds of baggage to alignment. (XP penalties for changing alignment, alignment restrictions, _detect evil_, etc.)

The problem is of course all that baggage, which has existed until 4e, and the fact that I just don't like how the rulebooks define alignment. I might like 4e's definitions, if I ever read them, but alignment doesn't matter in 4e, so I haven't. In fact, I've been happily playing and DMing without alignment since 2008. Sometimes I miss it, but not enough to throw it back in.


----------



## Storminator

We've been playing without alignment since we switched to 4e, and more or less without it for a long time.

The only thing I miss is that tiny little insight into module NPCs, where it says LE (frex) in his write up. Just gives me a nugget to RP off of. 

But I've mostly been write my own adventures and reskinning all the monsters/NPCs, so even that wouldn't have been very useful recently.

PS


----------



## pemerton

fagura said:


> I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games. I do understand where they come from. And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?



I very strongly dislike mechanical alignment.

 [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] have helped me understand what alignment was for in classic D&D: being lawful or lawful good opened up some benefits (eg NPCs are more likely to accept your promises, you get better hireling loyalty, and easier access to clerical healing magic) but also shut down some options (mostly expedient options for dealing with enemies).

Once the focus of the game shifts from that sort of "competitive", "beat the dungeon" play, though, then what does alignment add, for new _or_ experienced players? Just let players play their PCs.



delericho said:


> The one thing it gives is rules-backed character constraints. While you _can_ play a character with an iron code of honour in a system without alignment, my experience generally has been that the moment that code conflicts with expedience, the player decides to make an exception - unless the rules specify some penalty for doing so.



That has not been my experience. And more generally, I don't really see how letting the GM dictate the practical limits of a PC's actions (eg "Do this and you will be very heavily nerfed") facilitates the player playing their PC.

If the game (i) permits players to create paladin characters, but (ii) repeatedly penalises players for playing such characters, such that they are strongly motivated to expedience instead, then I think something has gone wrong with the game.


----------



## Dungeoneer

As someone who got into D&D relatively recently, alignment has always seemed fairly pointless to me. It's an anachronism, and I promptly ignore the alignment grid anywhere it appears. It has no interesting mechanical benefits and seems like it could actually hinder an interesting story. I have not used it in any game I've run. If my players have picked alignments, I couldn't tell you what they are. As far as I'm concern, actions define alignment and I have yet to hear a convincing argument why it should be otherwise.


----------



## Dungeoneer

pemerton said:


> @_*Libramarian*_ and @_*LostSoul*_ have helped me understand what alignment was for in classic D&D: being lawful or lawful good opened up some benefits (eg NPCs are more likely to accept your promises, you get better hireling loyalty, and easier access to clerical healing magic) but also shut down some options (mostly expedient options for dealing with enemies).



That's interesting and I did not know that. 

I feel like you could easily achieve the same effects without alignment, though. Say there was a 'Paladin's Oath' which a player could optionally take which served to give them more access to clerical support but bound them from performing certain actions. That would have interesting character implications without trying to impose a clunky moral framework on every other character in the game.


----------



## pemerton

Dungeoneer said:


> I feel like you could easily achieve the same effects without alignment, though. Say there was a 'Paladin's Oath' which a player could optionally take which served to give them more access to clerical support but bound them from performing certain actions. That would have interesting character implications without trying to impose a clunky moral framework on every other character in the game.



I think this is probably how some of the advantages/disadvantages stuff you see in games like HEROES/Champions got started.

And I agree 100% that alignment is a clunky moral framework. The fact that it bears no resemblance to any actual functioning system of moral analysis (either by philosophers or by ordinary people) is, for me, sufficient evidence of that.


----------



## adamc

I think alignments help weaker roleplayers by giving them some guidelines for their character, but they have little benefit for stronger roleplayers.  Alignments themselves are simplistic at best, so I don't put much emphasis on them in my campaign.


----------



## Yora

Generally speaking, it of course depends on whether or not you are playing in a game that has objective cosmic forces of good and evil. If you have such a game, alignment makes kind of sense.

However, I wouldn't want to play such a game and certainly wouldn't run one. And in that case alignment is just a very big obstacle that serves no purpose and instead causes confusion for everyone involved, which in turn leads to characters acting in stereotypical ways and removes all the ambiguities that make the making of tough descisions interesting.
In a world where _detect evil_ exist, there are no tough descisions.

As far as I am aware, there is only a single RPG that ever used alignment. No other RPG that came after it uses alignment. Which probably is the case for very good reasons.

Alignment doesn't improve anything. It only takes away.


----------



## howandwhy99

Alignment is a score represented within the game's mechanics. It is crunch, not fluff. Like Ability Scores it isn't an attribute to be "role-played", but a feature of the game, so don't worry if you aren't being Lawful Good enough or not. Take actions in the game and your PCs alignment changes. What that Alignment is on any turn, point in time, alters potential interactions in the game including what you can and can't do, or must roll to do. Alignment works the same for everything else in the game too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The problem is of course all that baggage...




Not to me.  I _like_ all that baggage in my D&D.*









* if/when addressing this post, please do read the last three words in that second sentence.


----------



## ArmchairReactionary

I don't mind alignment/allegiance systems, but I keep them (objectively) amoral. I don't believe in good and evil, but interdimensional monsters playing games with the memetic tropes/heuristics of stupid apes proclaiming themselves 'good' I'll buy. It's just religion/politics with support powers at that point. 
Which id's what alignment was in OD&D and Moorcock. It want until later that it was moralized/Tolkienized (a similar shift happens with religion and mythology in the Axial age, people just can't help wanking about their value conceits).


*Mod Note:*  A small reminder to folks - discussion of real-world religious beliefs is not appropriate for these boards.  Thanks!  ~Umbran


----------



## Scorpio616

Alignment is great, rather than having to bring RL options and belief's into the game, alignment gives an in game measuring stick on what is Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. Oh, wait, every edition of D&D has fudged up and failed to give a concise codifying of each. Kind of a major problem since Alignment defines a fudgehuge chunk of the Metaphysics.


But still, Alignment is a useful tool, even if it is only to keep presumably good characters from having undead minions & lower the survival rate of evil parties (that whole good is better at healing thing).


----------



## Dwimmerlied

fagura said:


> I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games. I do understand where they come from. And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?




Hi fagura, interesting topic! Here's my thoughts; they might not be popular because I think the arguments against the d&d moral compass are a little overstated given the context.

 I don't think there is anything wrong with a simplified moral system, because I reckon it probably works for most gamers out there. From my own experience, deeper explorations haven't been necessary, and I've managed to tell interesting and compelling stories without the need for modification. I don't believe great DMing, immersive, or compelling stories and commitment to exploration of definitions of good and evil are mutually exclusive. Philosophy hasn't yet answered these questions, and humanity has been around for a long time, so I don't expect it from my story-telling vehicle. And you know, if d&d can posit a system of theology and afterlife that is obviously a conditional tool available to gamers, why is the alignment system so vilified?

Further, I honestly think that many of your questions could actually be rationalized within the simplified d&d alignment quite easily without any breakdown of suspended disbelief or taking away from the immersion. The devil's advocate would play a mean fiddle against my contentions, sure, because I think things can often be more black and white but for the want of an interesting debate.

 The woman who was forced to choose could not be considered evil, though whoever forced her into the decision would be. No number of lives lost can be weighed against any other number in terms of degree of goodness. Depending on the law of the land, she might be considered non-lawful though.

Is a person with schizophrenia evil? Depends on the actions they wreak. A thought or intent doesn't cause grief, so not all schizophrenics are evil; not even the acts themselves are evil, but the intent behind them is; an action executed for the purpose of causing loss or suffering would be evil. It is the primal essence of these actions that cling to the soul, so although good deeds might be performed the next morning, detect evil, or a god's interest in or abandonment of a character depend on this. Detect evil spell can even tell you the strength of evilness that emenates (sp.) from the subject, so when you answer this question for your players, you can give them a guage, if that makes sense? Someone who truly atones and genuinely seeks to correct their own ways is not evil.

Indeed mentalities are changeable, but the alignment system allows for this and DMs are encouraged to monitor this. 



> A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time?




That's up to the DM. So the DM knows.



> Is he evil already?



No. He never hurt anyone thinking.



> Does he become evil the moment he does it?




The moment he intentionally proceeds to execute an action that will bring about sorrow, fear and pain himself? Yes.



> Fourthly, there is a big chapter in human behavior that is called Motivation. The same action made to serve different motives might be totally evil, totally good or very shady. Let's take the previous example. That woman killed a 1.000 people tribe. This is certainly an evil act. Her alignment though might be evil if she did it just for fun, shady if she did it to save her family and even good if she believed that was the way to save humanity. Are we to discuss the motivation behind all characters' actions to determine what tab to put them under?




I find your suggested alignment outcomes here reasonable  

Especially in terms of much gaming, I think the simplification is fine and generally makes sense, but I do agree that if you wanted to develop a compelling story which really wanted to explore the shades of grey, or play with the commonfolk's flawed ideas of morality it would require either a little house-ruling, or a discussion with the game group, or whatever. I'm not yet convinced that working with, modifying or completely abandoning alignment will cause the mechanics to collapse completely where slight redefinitions or explanations can easily be used to ensure it all still works, and I strongly disagree with the contention that the alignment system is a crutch for the inexperienced and more advanced gamers are likely to become lost when they inevitably find the need to abandon it.

Anyway, just my own reflections on the topic!


----------



## XunValdorl_of_Kilsek

Yora said:


> Generally speaking, it of course depends on whether or not you are playing in a game that has objective cosmic forces of good and evil. If you have such a game, alignment makes kind of sense.
> 
> However, I wouldn't want to play such a game and certainly wouldn't run one. And in that case alignment is just a very big obstacle that serves no purpose and instead causes confusion for everyone involved, which in turn leads to characters acting in stereotypical ways and removes all the ambiguities that make the making of tough descisions interesting.
> In a world where _detect evil_ exist, there are no tough descisions.
> 
> As far as I am aware, there is only a single RPG that ever used alignment. No other RPG that came after it uses alignment. Which probably is the case for very good reasons.
> 
> Alignment doesn't improve anything. It only takes away.




I completely disagree with your last sentence because it's 100% subjective. Alignment is like a race or a class. It presents you with a criteria that you are supposed to follow. You wouldn't choose an elf if you wanted to be a dwarf would you? Alignment is a challenge to the game. Del's first post had it spot on. The moment a "player's" characters alignment gets in his way, he wants to drop it. The challenge is to stay with in that alignment and do what that "character" would do, not what the player himself would do.

Alignment adds depth to a character.


----------



## fagura

I see there is a division of opinions regarding alignments, which is both interesting and constructive.
I do get the points of the ones giving alignment high value, this proves both that there are arguments in favor of alignment and that there are several players that like the system to say the least.

I have 1 question for each group:

Firstly, to the ones supporting the alignment system:
Have you run or participated in any game where 1 or more players can not get along with his own character's alignment? To elaborate, I am talking about a large percentage of players, that create optimized characters that have some rp alignment-based restriction (ie in Pathfinder apart from paladins, clerics are dependent on their alignment since channel energy class feature depends on it as do domains selection or wizards with improved familiars should have 1 one step away from their own alignment etc). This player is here to have fun and part of his fun is to play the character he so carefully built. I am the DM and decide that his actions are not compatible with his alignment. Alignment change will affect his whole build though. Have you not ever met a player that does not accept the DM's decision or does so lightly? Isn't this ruining the fun for him and the team respectively (even more so if more than 1 such player is present in the group)?

And to the ones rejecting the concept of alignment:
Is it possible to run a game game without alignments given that alignments are so tied to the game mechanics? And if so, 1) how do you do it (I am talking actual mechanic regarding Detection spells, smite abilities, class features -ie cleric's domains or channel energy in Pathfinder- or even entire classes such as the paladin are based on alignment) and 2) don't you think it affects the balance, gameplay and overall experience of the game? 

And to sum up, since at least to a respectable part of players, the alignment system might be a burden, shouldn't the game designers take this into account and reduce its impact on game mechanics?


----------



## Umbran

fagura said:


> I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games. I do understand where they come from. And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?




They offer the experienced player another mechanical system to interact with.  It gives them worlds in which certain moral and ethical positions have actual magical power.

Other systems do fantasy without any moral structures in the rules.  So, taking alignments out of D&D isn't going to give the player something they can't get elsewhere.



> Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities.




There are literally dozens of varieties of tree in the species _Malus domestica_, some with quite striking differences between their fruit.  But we still use the general term "apple" a lot, and find that term useful.



> Secondly, mentalities are changeable.




Yep.  So, a character can change alignment.  Simple.



> How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?




By admitting that this mechanic is flexible, has many interpretations, and by putting a Game Master in there to arbitrate the thing.



> Are we to discuss the motivation behind all characters' actions to determine what tab to put them under?




That's for the GM to decide.  In my experience, however, most of the time the thing's pretty clear.  You paint a picture of this being an impenetrable morass, but I haven't ever found it to be all that problematic.


----------



## GX.Sigma

fagura said:


> And to the ones rejecting the concept of alignment:
> Is it possible to run a game game without alignments given that alignments are so tied to the game mechanics? And if so, 1) how do you do it (I am talking actual mechanic regarding Detection spells, smite abilities, class features -ie cleric's domains or channel energy in Pathfinder- or even entire classes such as the paladin are based on alignment) and 2) don't you think it affects the balance, gameplay and overall experience of the game?
> 
> And to sum up, since at least to a respectable part of players, the alignment system might be a burden, shouldn't the game designers take this into account and reduce its impact on game mechanics?



D&D Next has no alignment mechanics, and it works fine. _Detect good and evil _only reveals the presence of celestials, fiends, or undead, or any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated (which basically means whatever the DM wants it to mean).

The only exception is the _protection from evil_ spell, which is a mess anyway and will probably change before publication.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Have you run or participated in any game where 1 or more players can not get along with his own character's alignment? To elaborate, I am talking about a large percentage of players, that create optimized characters that have some rp alignment-based restriction (ie in Pathfinder apart from paladins, clerics are dependent on their alignment since channel energy class feature depends on it as do domains selection or wizards with improved familiars should have 1 one step away from their own alignment etc). This player is here to have fun and part of his fun is to play the character he so carefully built. I am the DM and decide that his actions are not compatible with his alignment. Alignment change will affect his whole build though. Have you not ever met a player that does not accept the DM's decision or does so lightly? Isn't this ruining the fun for him and the team respectively (even more so if more than 1 such player is present in the group)?




Yes.

In at least one case, I helped the player redesign his character with a different class.  In all cases, I explain that whatever restrictions are placed on the PCs by the rules are there for a reason, and if you don't want to deal with them, than you need to make other PC build options.

Because the thing is, players can and will make PCs that don't work the way they want them to because they don't consider _all_ of the mechanics of the build, not just alignment.  And not just in D&D.

For example, I have encountered several players in HERO games who griped when I actually used their PC's Disadvantages.  I responded that if they didn't want to be Vulnerable to Sonic attacks (or whatever), they should have taken a different Disadvantage.  One player responded that I would have just used that other Disad against them, whatever it was.  My reply was "Of course, because Disads aren't just there to give your character free building points."

Does that negatively affect their fun?  For some, I'm sure it does.  But if that is so, perhaps that game, campaign or even hobby isn't suitable for them.


----------



## Umbran

fagura said:


> Firstly, to the ones supporting the alignment system:
> Have you run or participated in any game where 1 or more players can not get along with his own character's alignment?




I can't say I've ever found that to be an issue.  I've had players choose characters that are impacted when they change alignment - either they stick to their alignments, or they accept the change when it happens without a lot of issue.  Mind you, characters generally get warnings - nobody has ever been surprised by an alignment change in a game I've played or run.



> This player is here to have fun and part of his fun is to play the character he so carefully built.




I make sure players in my games have a solid understanding of how I adjudicate alignment before we start.  If they carefully build a character, they do so with both knowledge of rules ad how alignments work.  The player understands the alignment restrictions just as they understand all the other mechanical restrictions their build imposes upon them.  I think of it it his way - if you choose to make Charisma a dump stat, you know when you start that your character isn't going to be successful at social interactions - and having a bad social interaction can, in a tense spot, get your character killed or have other reprecussions.  If you choose to lock yourself into an alignment, stepping out of it can also have repercussions.




> And to the ones rejecting the concept of alignment:
> Is it possible to run a game game without alignments given that alignments are so tied to the game mechanics? And if so, 1) how do you do it (I am talking actual mechanic regarding Detection spells, smite abilities, class features -ie cleric's domains or channel energy in Pathfinder- or even entire classes such as the paladin are based on alignment) and 2) don't you think it affects the balance, gameplay and overall experience of the game?




When I choose to run D&D without alignments. I generally simply outright remove any ability or power that has alignment as part of its mechanic.  So, the "detect" and "protection from" spells and abilities simply vanish, or at least have the alignment-dependent parts of them simply not apply.

Clerics can generally be rewritten to have to hold to a religious code, rather than an alignment - I don't see as they actually win anything in that, but religions generally ask one to hold to a dogma, and I don't see as we should remove that.  Similar goes for paladins, though their Smite ability becomes problematic.  I often simply remove it, or rewrite it to apply to some particular group that stands against their religion.


----------



## pemerton

Dwimmerlied said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with a simplified moral system, because I reckon it probably works for most gamers out there.



Obviously I'm just one player, but I've never found it to work. It just creates needless arguments, in part because it's _not_ simple: it requires either the whole table to agree on what is good and what not, or alternatively it requires the GM to override his/her players' judgements on such matters and impose his/her own moral opinion onto the game.



XunValdorl_of_Kilsek said:


> Alignment is like a race or a class. It presents you with a criteria that you are supposed to follow.



The only version of D&D I know of where class presents criteria that you have to follow is 1st ed AD&D (becaue if you don't follow the right criteria, you will be penalised on training time and training costs). I've never really encountered the idea of _race_ requiring the following of criteria.

With alignment, not only are there criteria you are obliged to follow, but the criteria are stated using ordinary moral language, and therefore import all the ambiguity and judgement inherent in that language.



XunValdorl_of_Kilsek said:


> Alignment is a challenge to the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The moment a "player's" characters alignment gets in his way, he wants to drop it. The challenge is to stay with in that alignment and do what that "character" would do, not what the player himself would do.
> 
> Alignment adds depth to a character.



I find alignment is an obstacle to depth (i) because it subordinates the player's judgement to that of the GM, thereby discouraging the player from fully engaging his/her PC, and (ii) because as a conceptual framework for analysis moral choices and moral consequences it is utterly hopeless.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> ... or alternatively it requires the GM to override his/her players' judgements on such matters and impose his/her own moral opinion onto the game.




That's one way to see it, I suppose.  Or, alternatively, you can say that it allows the GM to set the morals and ethical powers that exist in the game world.  Seeing as world design is normally the purview of the GM, that doesn't seem at all problematic, to me.

Now, the common error would be for the GM to not discuss his or her interpretations of alignment before game begins.  That's where I suspect the arguments normally come from - not from the adjudication, but from a lack of understanding between players and GM before play begins.  If the player is somehow surprised that killing an orc baby is an issue, sure, there'll be an argument.  But, if you warn the player ahead of time where the lines are, and where the grey areas might be, then they make informed choices, and have much less of a basis for an argument.



> I find alignment is an obstacle to depth (i) because it subordinates the player's judgement to that of the GM




If the player knows that the character will fall after jumping off a cliff, is the player's judgement subordinated to that of the GM because the player cannot simply choose to not plummet?  Does the player get to argue with the basic physics of the world?  No.  The player's judgement is about what he or she does *in the face of* the world reality.

Alignment, as it is written in D&D, is merely another force of the game universe.  If you jump off a cliff, you will fall.  If he or she commits overtly evil acts, the paladin will fall.


----------



## Dwimmerlied

Ok, two genuine questions;

How many times have people encountered serious conflict at the table due to misunderstandings about alignment that could not have been avoided with good communication?

What situations are people devising for their stories that they are finding the alignment system really can't handle?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dwimmerlied said:


> Ok, two genuine questions;
> 
> How many times have people encountered serious conflict at the table due to misunderstandings about alignment that could not have been avoided with good communication?
> 
> What situations are people devising for their stories that they are finding the alignment system really can't handle?




Zero.  Since 1977.

However, I have to qualify that by admitting that as many as 50% of the DMs I've played under have eliminated- not alignment- Paladins.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dwimmerlied said:


> Ok, two genuine questions;
> 
> How many times have people encountered serious conflict at the table due to misunderstandings about alignment that could not have been avoided with good communication?
> 
> What situations are people devising for their stories that they are finding the alignment system really can't handle?





I haven't really encountered any problems during play. The only time it has come up is during downtime at the table when people are talking about things in general and an alignment debate crops up (usually because someone objects to the system's definition of good or evil).


----------



## Dwimmerlied

fagura said:


> Have you run or participated in any game where 1 or more players can not get along with his own character's alignment? To elaborate, I am talking about a large percentage of players, that create optimized characters that have some rp alignment-based restriction (ie in Pathfinder apart from paladins, clerics are dependent on their alignment since channel energy class feature depends on it as do domains selection or wizards with improved familiars should have 1 one step away from their own alignment etc). This player is here to have fun and part of his fun is to play the character he so carefully built. I am the DM and decide that his actions are not compatible with his alignment. Alignment change will affect his whole build though. Have you not ever met a player that does not accept the DM's decision or does so lightly? Isn't this ruining the fun for him and the team respectively (even more so if more than 1 such player is present in the group)?




I haven't. And here's the thing. If I ever created a character concept that could be hamstrung because of differing expectations, alignment or otherwise, and later became handicapped because I myself did not make sure to understand what the go was, I'd feel I had no one to blame but myself. I'd then suck it up and make sure I could still have fun. Depending on the degree, I might be disappointed, so I would seek compromise if it were possible, but I'd make sure to be more careful next time. And I would totally expect the same from any reasonable adult. 

But my scenario is pretty contrived because I'm finding it hard to imagine such situations in the games I've played. Ok, so there's the Paladin. But the first thing I think of when I think Paladin is "Alignment stuff" (right before "boring"). The moral code is such a big thing that I find it hard to believe discussions about expectations wouldn't be happening before game. Would you, as a DM immediately take away a barbarian's rage ability because you feel she is playing more toward lawful than chaotic? The DM's guide certainly doesn't suggest it's a good idea. Is coming to a working compromise so out of the question in your scenario that players are frequently robbed of their mechanical abilities?

If I felt that a cleric were playing against their God's doctrine I'd talk to his or her player and determine what the deal was. I might roleplay the god visiting in a dream. The player would at every step understand the consequences of their playstyle, and in turn I would work with them to try to ensure it would work for them still. After all if it really is part of their character concept, they'll have some ideas. But, and serious question here, is this so out there? Isn't this what you would do? Would you game with someone who it is likely you will reach irreconcilable obstacles with?

I hope my reply doesn't come off as snarky or anything. I'm genuinely interested in the replies, and my mind is open btw.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> That's one way to see it, I suppose.  Or, alternatively, you can say that it allows the GM to set the morals and ethical powers that exist in the game world.  Seeing as world design is normally the purview of the GM, that doesn't seem at all problematic, to me.
> 
> Now, the common error would be for the GM to not discuss his or her interpretations of alignment before game begins.  That's where I suspect the arguments normally come from - not from the adjudication, but from a lack of understanding between players and GM before play begins.  If the player is somehow surprised that killing an orc baby is an issue, sure, there'll be an argument.  But, if you warn the player ahead of time where the lines are, and where the grey areas might be, then they make informed choices, and have much less of a basis for an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> If the player knows that the character will fall after jumping off a cliff, is the player's judgement subordinated to that of the GM because the player cannot simply choose to not plummet?  Does the player get to argue with the basic physics of the world?  No.  The player's judgement is about what he or she does *in the face of* the world reality.
> 
> Alignment, as it is written in D&D, is merely another force of the game universe.  If you jump off a cliff, you will fall.  If he or she commits overtly evil acts, the paladin will fall.




i agree with what you say here. Communication can go a long way. I tend to see alignment as tied to the setting cosmology, so it isn't necessrily commentary on real world ethics, just like the existence if a panthein of gods isn't a commentary on real world religions. When I first played D&D, I admit the latter came very hard for me, because I was raised in a religious household and i couldn't conceive of a world where my religion and god weren't true. I kept asking the GM, where is God in this settin? As Ai got older, I realized these are fictional worlds, with their own rules, cosmologies and cultures. I find I can accept the settings definitions of good and evil, and seperate that from my own unserstanding of good and evil.


----------



## Cadence

Dwimmerlied said:


> How many times have people encountered serious conflict at the table due to misunderstandings about alignment that could not have been avoided with good communication?




Never, since 1981.  I'm having trouble even remembering any misunderstandings.


----------



## fagura

Since most people do not have such experiences, let me chip in to the conversation 

There is at least one major debate about alignment in most campaigns I run with my group. Not necessarily conflict, but debate. There are some important causes behind this other than the structure of the alignment system itself of course, ie we are rotating the DM's chair every few months to keep it more interesting, nevertheless we do not change settings and sometimes even campaign, so this means there is no 1 person who has control of world ethics. It is debatable. Second important reason is that -compared to our teen years 15-20 ago- sessions are less frequent, last less and everyone is less prepared and more tired. This means less discussion around the campaign / city / setting before play.

I can share more than a few debates on alignment we had in my group (one of which was in Curse of the Crimson throne Pathfinder adventure path in book 2 I think, where a paladin, believing that the queen was behind the king's murder demanded her interrogation during the public trial of the main suspect, but to avoid spoilers i won't get into that). Anyway, the most recent debate example was the following: I was playing a female, human enchanter (Wizard specialist). I had created the character back in d&d 2nd edition, CG character with all the typical characteristics. I had not played her for many many years. A couple of months ago I decided to convert her to Pathfinder and play her in a sequence of Pathfinder society scenarios we would run with the group. Nevertheless, I wanted to alter her personality to something that would cause some conflict of values to the character. So, I talked to the DM and agreed that my character was convinced by an evil outsider (slowly, through many interactions) that the only way she could save her husband who was missing, was to kill 100 innocent people and make it look like an accident (not necessarily all of them together - the point was to 'accumulate' 100 innocent souls and trade them for the soul of the beloved one without the society or other PCs realize who was behind this). The character's motivation was to save the beloved person, nevertheless she would sacrifice innocent souls. So, we decided LE would be the most appropriate alignment. I started making my plans. First 2 sessions everything was fine, although no innocent had been killed yet, I was still gaining the other PCs trust. In the third session, one player that had missed the first two, joined with a paladin. First thing he does, detect evil to all people present (PCs and NPCs alike). He senses evil only at my enchanter. And then suddenly, the whole balance shifts. The paladin says "we should not leave her alone with that guy" and tells the NG sorcerer (whom he knew from previous adventures) "keep a close eye on her" and so on. And there comes the debate: There is a character who until now has not harmed anyone (in fact she was CG until 2 sessions ago) and suddenly she is the black sheep of the party because the paladin saw 'red' in his detection ability. Doesn't this take away from the game experience? If there was no such mechanic or no alignment, the paladin would have to find out for himself , role playing with my enchanter. He might see through her or not, but in every case it would definitely be a richer role playing experience.

To conclude, we had a long talk about when my character would have turned evil (after committing the act or after deciding to do it), whether she could have been considered CN since she tries to save her family and might even feel guilty about these people or try to save them later etc.


----------



## DEFCON 1

fagura said:


> Doesn't this take away from the game experience? If there was no such mechanic or no alignment, the paladin would have to find out for himself , role playing with my enchanter. He might see through her or not, but in every case it would definitely be a richer role playing experience.




Until you talk with the paladin player, you cannot definitively say that it'd be a richer experience for that person, nor should you claim to know what would be best for that person.

The real question is, whether or not you think you think it took away from _your_ experience.  From what you've said... I read it as that you had hoped to play the "secret evil person" scenario for quite a while, killing innocents on the way to 100 without difficulties... and then I would imagine only when you neared the conclusion of your quest that the problems to finish it off would start cropping up.  Which would explain why you went with 100 people to begin with.  I mean, you could have just as easily said you needed to kill just 3... in which case those three kills would have had a much more massive impact on you and the game.

Instead... the difficulties to finish your quest has popped immediately.  You now are stuck dealing with the fallout of being an evil character prior to the "free period" of your character acting evil secretly that it seems to me like you were hoping to have.

So the real question is... what's most important for you?  Being able to "be evil" without consequence for a good period of the game... or roleplaying the cnsequences of being an evil character?  If it's the latter... then its quite easy enough to say that your character has _already_ killed 98 innocents on the way to finishing the quest (prior to the game startng), and it's only now that you have just two more to do that your character is stuck with the party up his butt (with the casting of the detect evil).  It now becomes an interesting roleplay challenge of trying to get those last two taken care of while being watched like a hawk.

But if it was the former... that it was the possibility of just roleplaying little individual scenarios of killing innocent people by yourself and "being bad"... then I can see why the alignment system might bother you.  You aren't allowed to be evil on your own terms... there's consequences you are being forced to play immediately.  But to be honest... that's really something that you'd be dealing with even without an alignment system in place.  Because being evil for evil's sake means nothing if you aren't interacting with the conflicts.

A party that walks through a dungeon which is free of conflicts and consequences tends to be a rather staid or boring scenario.

A player being evil which is free of conflicts and consequences tends to be the same.


----------



## Blackbrrd

As a DM, when the game focused on alignment, the players played their characters more one dimensional, so my answer would is: no. It's much better to have made some general thoughts on how your character would act and write those down, than to come up with an alignment. It makes the characters less stereotypical.


----------



## Celebrim

fagura said:


> I am challenging the general concept of alignments and the way they are used in most OGL settings and games.




Next to getting rid of Vancian magic, this is probably the most common challenge made to the traditional AD&D framework.   Honestly, I find it a bit trite and usually misguided.



> But what do they offer to an experienced player?




A great deal more than they offer the neophyte.



> Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities.




So, your first misunderstanding is to equate alignment with personality.  Alignment is not the same as personality and makes no attempt to record a characters personality.   We could make some broad generalizations about personality by examining the combination of alignment and the characters social attributes (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma), but even then there would be significant room for variation and a great many unrecorded factors.   Whether the person is lascivious or chaste, outgoing or introverted, fastidious or slovenly, for example, is not something that can be determined easily by alignment.   Certain sterotypes suggest themselves of course, but alignment is broad enough to incorporate departures from the sterotypes if we employ or imagination.    



> Let's think of a woman who has to choose between the survival of her son and an -unknown to her- tribe of 1.000 people. She chooses her son. Does this make her evil? Or non-good? She just let 1.000 people die to save 1 person, nevertheless many people might argue that their own mother might make the same choice.




I'm amazed that you've decided to be critical of alignment and yet seem to lack even the most basic understanding of it.   You propose a very quintessential choice between the needs of the many and the needs of the one, between society and the individual, between the personal and the impersonal, and you seem to think that this is within the constrains of the alignment system principally a question of good and evil.   

According to the alignment system, we certainly can't know whether this mother is good or evil (or even neutral).   But we can know that she certainly isn't very piously lawful.



> Is a person with schizophrenia evil? He might kill a dozen innocent men next morning for no reason, or be the most considerate, gentle, nice person to everyone for the next month.




First of all, schizophrenia is a separate disorder from multiple personality disorder.   Schizophrenia is generally regarded as CN on the grounds it creates a private internal and unreviewable reality for the person.   Sociopathic behavior on the other hand is generally regarded as NE in that it believes in the value of evil and destruction for its own sake.   Many other personality disorders might simply be extreme personality quirks without forcing a particular alignment save where they force particular sorts of actions.   The problem of multiple personality disorder is generally dealt with by giving each personality a separate alignment.



> Why do we need to put a tab on a character's way of thinking and say "He is CN or NE"?




That's the heart of it.  People who condemn the alignment system fundamentally do not wish the player character's thinking to be reviewable or labeled.   



> Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person. Only last time he adventured, anti-paladins could smite him and this time paladins can smite him.




Sure.  And alignment is changeable as well.   But it's quite possible to make a journey of personality change and character growth entirely within an alignment.  For example, a character might be NG, see cruelty in life and become cold and cynical and perhaps pursue isolation and an acetic lifestyle, then meet and be part of a kind family and repent and become more warm and sociable, all without leaving his essential NG outlook on life.   



> Thirdly, there is a fine line between thinking of doing sth and actually doing it. A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time? Only he knows (and sometimes not even him). Is he evil already? Does he become evil the moment he does it? How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?




This is precisely what alignment answers.  The vast majority of evil characters in my campaign have never murdered anyone.   What the evil (or good) alignment marker indicates for the DM whether, if they felt that murder advanced their interests, they would do so.



> And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else.




Sure.  The people who are LE don't necessarily believe that they are in the wrong for being lawful evil.  They may in fact believe that they are in the right, and that what you call 'evil' is in fact good.   People who are piously CN don't believe that they are wrong - but that they are in the right.   They see the fundamental root of all evil as being LN.   LN's in their turn see the reverse.   And even within an alignment there can be sharp disagreements.   Two Lawful societies can have competing rules and interests.   They may admire and understand the other, but still see each other as enemies.   The personal interests of a Chaotic can of course sharply disagree with the personal interests of another Chaotic.  

What the alignment system tells us though is that these things - evil and good - are real and not merely artificial constructs.   Of course, even within that reality different alignments might believe that each alignment is less real than the other.   For example, a NG person may believe that Good is a real and absolute thing, and that Evil (though real) is simply the absence of good.   The same person may believe that Law and Chaos are artificial constructs of society and persons, and that - while the represent real traits - they are simply the flawed and broken shards of true understanding.    And so forth for each of the alignments - the NE person may deny that good exists and claim instead that there are only different expressions of evil and that the 'righteous' are no better than anyone else.

Alignment allows us to resolve the complexities of relativism.

For me, the real heart of the matter is that I've never once in 30 years seen the removal of alignment lead to greater consideration of moral and ethical matters.  The pretext that in doing so you are allowing for more nuanced and mature exploration in practice is always just a pretext.   It invariably leads to things like, "We want to run an evil game, but we don't want to label or characters evil.", or has a basis like, "We are all in real life unreflective moral relativists and we don't want anything in our game that might challenge our understanding and make us think.   We want a fundamentally chaotic game were each person is the sole judge of whether they are doing 'the right thing' or not."   And so forth.

So yeah, I've got a bit of a bias against calls for removing alignment.   I find them based on weak understanding of what alignment is and to generally have ulterior motives.


----------



## Celebrim

Some observations based on 30 years of D&D...

1) Ninety percent of players are unable to play characters with differing alignments.  I've even seen this problem in some GMs.  Every character ends up having fundamentally the same alignment, modes of behavior, and often personality.   Attempts to relabel their next character by choosing a different alignment fail, because either they always end up playing themselves or else they never overcome the fundamental belief that this is a game, the character is but a playing piece, and sense it is to be a game it must be played competitively.  This invariably leads to every character manifesting behavior that could be called Chaotic Evil.   They do whatever is expedient for the advancement of their playing piece.

2) Alignment is a really bad system in the hands of a neophyte.  Neophyte players confuse alignment with personality, and end up believing that every personality quirk has a strong alignment component and so produce highly rigid one dimensional stereotypes of nine modes of behavior.   Neophyte DMs make the same mistake, fail to clearly communicate what falls within or without of alignment, and use alignment as a sledgehammer to either punish players or railroad the players.   This frequently leads to unhappiness, and people blame the alignment system.   But because of point #1, this seldom improves anything but the table contract.

3) Alignment systems in some form occur in the majority of fantasy RPGs, but are not limited to fantasy RPGs.  In the case of say RIFTS, it's almost identical to the two axis AD&D system.   Other systems build alignment through some sort of advantage and disadvantage system, or record alignment on some sort of scoring track (humanity, for example).   Star Wars of course has Dark Side points.  In all cases, the character is making some mark on their character that implicitly promises they'll try to conform their play to some standard which may or may not be convenient to advancing the character as a playing piece.   Neglect of these systems invariably leads to treating all player character's purely as playing pieces with no more inherent individuality, personality, or beliefs than the dog, shoe, and hat in Monopoly.  Play at such tables if it features any true role-playing at all, features role-playing as a form of metagaming where the intent is not to explore the personality of a character, but to cajole and wheedle and amuse the DM in the hopes of getting what you want.   

4) The AD&D alignment system is not less sophisticated than the alignment systems of other RPGs, and often it is more sophisticated.  

5)  Games that don't feature alignment systems generally assume a single alignment.   They assume that everyone has the some overarching alignment and allegiance.  If you are resisting the supernatural in a Call of Cthulhu game then it can be assumed that you are fundamentally aligned with humanity and thus 'good' in such a game.  Moreover there is a presumption of heroism inherent in the game system and an assumption that play is directed toward a heroic goal and that players aren't for example, going to pursue a bootlegging enterprise independent of interaction with the Cthulhu Mythos.

6) As a consequence of #1, having a player play a character like a Paladin who is heavily dependent on adhering to a moral code when the player themselves doesn't have a deep understanding and feeling for the moral code and its value can be disastrous.   Much of stereotypical bad Paladin play comes out of people who either believe Paladins are the bad guys, or who have overly simplistic understanding not bound by the motivation to actually be that sort of heroic example.   Elizabeth Moon's critique that real people with those beliefs would never act in the way they are almost invariably presented rings true to me.


----------



## Li Shenron

fagura said:


> Do alignments improve the gaming experience?




Short answer: alignment systems improved at least _my own_ gaming experience.

I've run and played games using mostly the 1-axis and 2-axis traditional D&D alignment systems, the M:tG five-colours system, and rank-based honor systems.

They have all been great tools for steering roleplay and help stay in-character.

When they fall flat, it's when some characters' _mechanics_ are bound to alignment, and either the player refuses to accept the rules decided by designers (i.e. the player wants the exclusive mechanics but doesn't want to play by that alignment) while the DM wants to enforce them, or player and DM have diverging interpretation on the alignment description.

The best situation is then, when alignment is not bound to mechanics, at least not making the PC lose abilities if the player in not good enough in roleplaying the alignment properly. Then people can choose an alignment because they actually want to roleplay that well, and not because there's a cool powerz granted if they choose Lawful Good.


----------



## Li Shenron

Blackbrrd said:


> As a DM, when the game focused on alignment, the players played their characters more one dimensional, so my answer would is: no. It's much better to have made some general thoughts on how your character would act and write those down, than to come up with an alignment. It makes the characters less stereotypical.




About this, alignment systems are always _simplifications_, so the risk of roleplaying one-dimensionally is real.

The flip of the coin is, IMXP, that without a track to follow ("Lawful Good" is not much of a track, but its broad description in the 3e PHB is already a usable enough track) most players tend to end up always roleplay themselves, or just do the most "efficient" thing.


----------



## steenan

I think that alignments could work towards encouraging and strengthening archetypes, as races and classes do. I have seen them used this way - as inspirations, not straightjackets.

The problem is with the technical side. Alignments suffer from poor connection with the rest of the rules. Alignments don't really DO anything, other than occasionally denying some characters their class abilities. And in trying to solve the problem, people tend to make alignments completely powerless, instead of giving them teeth.



Imagine, for a moment, a system with typical D&D 3*3 alignment matrix that does not describe them in moral terms at all. Instead, it gives them rules. Using 4e as an example, it could be something like this.

Once per session, you may regain one daily power or two healing surges when a specific, alignment-dependent trigger is met:
...
CG: You free someone from captivity or oppression.
LN: You hurt an innocent for the benefit of society.
...
CN: You stand up to someone with power and authority.
LE: You take something you want from somebody through force or social position.
...

Each gives a solid benefit and each uses a specific trigger that does not require anybody to judge how well a character is roleplayed. By rewarding behaviors instead of punishing them, such rules encourage players to engage the alignment system and show their alignment in action, instead of getting into endless discussions on nature of morality.


Dungeon World does something similar and in my experience it works quite well (although the rewards it offers are too small and too delayed for the full effect).


In short: make alignment as solid as class and race, and it will work as well.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> Talternatively, you can say that it allows the GM to set the morals and ethical powers that exist in the game world.  Seeing as world design is normally the purview of the GM, that doesn't seem at all problematic, to me.
> 
> Now, the common error would be for the GM to not discuss his or her interpretations of alignment before game begins.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the player knows that the character will fall after jumping off a cliff, is the player's judgement subordinated to that of the GM because the player cannot simply choose to not plummet
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Alignment, as it is written in D&D, is merely another force of the game universe.  If you jump off a cliff, you will fall.  If he or she commits overtly evil acts, the paladin will fall.



I think you are eliding a fundamental difference.

In effect, you are saying that (in D&D) "Good" simply means "behaviour rewarded by the gods/forces of good" and "Evil" the opposite. And hence, the only reason to act well rather than wickedly is expedience. 

The only major moral philosopher I can think of who accepts an analysis of moral evaluation along those lines is Hobbes, and that is one reason why he's often regarded as cyncial (or, at least, harshly realistic). Most moral philosophers accept, rather, the argument of Plato's Euthyphro to the effect that "good" and "evil" are concepts that are independent of the will of cosmological forces - ie assuming they believe in divine/cosmological forces at all, they accept that the universe punishes evil _because evil behaviour lacks value_ and the universe rewards good _because good behaviour has value_.

I think this has a couple of ramificaitons for D&D play:

* If you take the realist/Hobbesian approach, no one has a reason to be good rather than evil except expedience. If in fact you think the gods of evil are stronger than the gods of good, and so can give you better rewards, you have a reason to be evil! As I posted upthread, I think this is somewhat how alignment worked in classic D&D, but the game is not normally played in that sort of mode these days. This can also fit with a cynical sword & sorcery style of play, but I think a lot of D&D play is not in this mode either (eg neither FR nor Dragonlance nor Ravenloft is aimed at that style of play).

* If you take the more standard approach, and regard "good" and "evil" as labels not just of behaviour that will be rewarded or punished by certain cosmological forces but also, and primarily, as labels of behaviour that has or lacks certain value and therefore that characters have a reason to perform or to repudiate, then the issues that I mentioned come up: players have to subordinate their own judgements of value to the GM's.

For instance, suppose a GM decides that (say) inadvertantly killing someone in a context of defence of others is not evil. And then a paladin PC inadvertantly kills someone, and the player of that PC takes a different view from the GM (s/he has a stricter view about the impermissibility of various forms of non-intentinal homicide, either for real, or as part of his/her conception of his/her PC). Now there is a gap between the value framework within which the player is conceiving of his/her PC, and the value framework that the GM is applying - the player expects that his/her paladin should be subject to divine sanction, but the GM doesn't deliver. How is that improving the play experience or the depth of either character, or player's engagement with the game?

The above example is not purely hypothetical - it came up in my game. Because I don't use alignment, as GM rather than imposing my own moral judgement I followed my player's lead and made the character's response to (what he took to be) his PC's moral error a focus of play in that particular session.

Here's another example from actual play. The player of a paladin (and the other players as well), in the course of the game, form the view that the ancient pacts that had been reached between the gods, the demons and the lords of karma in order to bring stability to the heavens amounted, in effect, to an unfair sacrifice of the interests (in life and wellbeing) of present-day mortals. So they took it upon themselves to disregard the pacts, to ally with the one god who had been exiled from the heavens for taking a similar view, and to use an artefact borrowed from that god to rewrite the heavenly and karmic order to produce a new solution to the cosmological problems that also ensured that the mortal realm did not suffer as it otherwise would have.

My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad) and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces.



Bedrockgames said:


> I tend to see alignment as tied to the setting cosmology, so it isn't necessrily commentary on real world ethics



For the reasons that I have just posted, I don't think you can avoid interaction with real world values.

Of course imaginative players can divorce their own judgements from the judgements of their PCs and the NPCs/gods as played by the GM - but they know it's all just pretense. So if their paladin PC is stripped of power by the gods (as played by the GM), but by the player's lights the paladin has not done anything _actually_ wrong, then the player is not going to believe that his/her PC was punished for a genuine wrongdoing. S/he is just exploring or imaging a world in which the gods punish people for different reasons, reasons that aren't really good reasons but nevertheless are the reasons on which the gods in that imaginary world operate.

We see a lot of posts about how verimisilitude and immersion interact. For me, both as GM and as player, this sort of play is a far, far greater burden on immersion than fortune-in-the-middle mechanics.

To give an extreme case: I can imagine playing a character who is a sincere Stalinist and KGB officer, who therefore believes that torturing and killing political opponents is a desirable and important task, and who kills dissidents and proponents of liberal freedoms as counter-revolutionaries. And I can imagine a GM who goes along with this. But why would I label this behaviour "good"? I know it is wrong. I would hope the GM could likewise see that this is so. I would expect, in the game I'm describing, that we would both recognise that I am playing a character who is _sincere but radically mistaken_. I wouldn't expect the GM to say - actually, in this world what your PC is doing is good, so within the fiction you're acting rightly!

In circumstances where the gap between the PC's convictions and the moral truth is narrower, or once we get into territory where there can be reasonable moral disagreement (eg the example above about the wrongdoing involved in inadvertant defensive killing), then I wouldn't necessarily expect the player's and GM's judgements to overlap. But as a player I want to be free to react according to my own evaluative judgement, and to play my PC according to my own coneption of him/her (be that as a good person, if I'm playing my paladin, or as a fallen person, if I'm playing my KGB agent). I don't want to simply abandon my own evaluative perspective and find out what it's like to share my GM's value scheme as expressed in his/her campaign world; and when GMing I don't want my players to abandon their values and simply play their PCs in accordance with my judgements as to what is right or wrong within the fiction. That's simply not what I'm looking for in an RPG, either as GM or as player.



Dwimmerlied said:


> How many times have people enered serious conflict at the table due to misunderstandings about alignment that could not have been avoided with good communication?



Yes, but it's nearly 30 years ago so I can't remember the details. In 1985 (or thereabouts) I read an article in Dragon 101 called "For King and Country" which helped me work out why alignment was hurting rather than helping my game, and I've not used it since then.

For example of play to which an alignment system would be an impediment, see the two provided earlier in this post.


----------



## Celebrim

fagura said:


> Have you run or participated in any game where 1 or more players can not get along with his own character's alignment? To elaborate, I am talking about a large percentage of players, that create optimized characters that have some rp alignment-based restriction (ie in Pathfinder apart from paladins, clerics are dependent on their alignment since channel energy class feature depends on it as do domains selection or wizards with improved familiars should have 1 one step away from their own alignment etc). This player is here to have fun and part of his fun is to play the character he so carefully built. I am the DM and decide that his actions are not compatible with his alignment. Alignment change will affect his whole build though. Have you not ever met a player that does not accept the DM's decision or does so lightly? Isn't this ruining the fun for him and the team respectively (even more so if more than 1 such player is present in the group)?




This is a DMing failure that results from the DM not talking with a player sufficiently about the character prior to approving it.   It is the responsibility of the DM to make sure that any potential ethical issues are outlined prior to the PC being approved, and the broad outline of what 'lawful' or 'evil' means in the context of his game universe is explained so that the player can make an informed choice as to what alignment he wishes to play based on an understanding of what a particular alignment means to the DM.  If a DM chooses to make 'selfishness' the hallmark of evil, that better clearly be explained to a player that associated 'self-centered' with chaotic and doesn't think a self-centered attitude is incompatible with 'chaotic good'.   If a DM thinks that a LG society could reasonably debate the proper role of women and whether or not slavery is an ethical institution, he better be really up front about that so that a player who feels otherwise can choose a contrasting alignment (say CG).  

Then again, one thing players can fail to understand that you might want to make clear is that even good people can hold wrong beliefs, and that the story they can step up to and advance is how they change the world in that way.

If something comes up in play, it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure that the player is making an informed choice about anything that could have consequences for his character.   If a DM thinks that an action departs from the player's chosen ethical code for his character, then the DM should inform the player of that ahead of time (and why) so that the consequences don't come as a shock.   There are a variety of techniques for handling that well that the DM can employ depending on the situation.   Going OOC is often the simplest and best.   Sometimes it can be fun however to consult the PC's Wisdom score and determine by inference or fortune whether the character is as oblivious as the player is.   Particularly in the case of a below average wisdom character, it is the expectation of proper characterization that they will make mistakes in judgment and betray their own convictions unknowingly and require regular chastisement and repentance.   And it is a staple of literature (and really mature RPing) for a low wisdom character to believe that they have one code of conduct, but actually have another.   Another thing to consider is that often if you don't knowingly violate your ethos, who ever is holding you accountable to that ethos is less likely to consider the breach unpardonable.   Or, you can have the alignment violation if it is merely a trend rather than a breach be dealt with in game, such as having the character subject to dreams, visions, or divine intervention (an celestial comes and tells you the judgment of your deity).    Done properly this adds a mythic richness to the game world that a world without codes, creeds, and accountability just simply lacks.



> And to sum up, since at least to a respectable part of players, the alignment system might be a burden, shouldn't the game designers take this into account and reduce its impact on game mechanics?




Why should it be the goal of a game system to eliminate burdens?  Isn't stepping up to the challenge and shouldering burdens in fact part of what makes a game fun?   So, no, I don't see that logic at all.   I think game designers have a responsibility to clearly explain the game and to give good advice on playing and running their game - something D&D has not done well in my opinion with regard to alignment.   But I don't believe they have any burden to dumb the game system down.


----------



## pemerton

steenan said:


> Imagine, for a moment, a system with typical D&D 3*3 alignment matrix that does not describe them in moral terms at all. Instead, it gives them rules. Using 4e as an example, it could be something like this.
> 
> Once per session, you may regain one daily power or two healing surges when a specific, alignment-dependent trigger is met:
> ...
> CG: You free someone from captivity or oppression.
> LN: You hurt an innocent for the benefit of society.
> ...
> CN: You stand up to someone with power and authority.
> LE: You take something you want from somebody through force or social position.
> ...
> 
> Each gives a solid benefit and each uses a specific trigger that does not require anybody to judge how well a character is roleplayed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Dungeon World does something similar and in my experience it works quite well (although the rewards it offers are too small and too delayed for the full effect).



This sort of mechanic is very very different from traditional mechanical alignment in D&D. I don't know the Dungeon World version of this, but it is similar to Beliefs in Burning Wheel, or to Milestones in Marvel Heroic RP.

In these approaches, it is generally accepted (I think) that the player has primary authority over deciding when the trigger has been meant: ie provided the player makes it clear in play that in (say) forcefully suppressing the testimony of the farmer who is being stalked by the werewolf s/he is doing so in order to stop a village-wide panic, s/he gets the benefit of the LN trigger. The GM's role is simply to judge player sincerity as part of overall game management, not to second-guess whether or not the farmer really is innocent, nor whether or not preventing a village-wide panci is really a social benefit.

Hence these approaches don't exhibit the features that I am critical of in relation to traditional mechanical alignment, of requiring the player to subordinate his/her evaluative framework to that of the GM.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I think you are eliding a fundamental difference.
> 
> In effect, you are saying that (in D&D) "Good" simply means "behaviour rewarded by the gods/forces of good" and "Evil" the opposite. And hence, the only reason to act well rather than wickedly is expedience.
> 
> The only major moral philosopher I can think of who accepts an analysis of moral evaluation along those lines is Hobbes, and that is one reason why he's often regarded as cyncial (or, at least, harshly realistic). Most moral philosophers accept, rather, the argument of Plato's Euthyphro to the effect that "good" and "evil" are concepts that are independent of the will of cosmological forces - ie assuming they believe in divine/cosmological forces at all, they accept that the universe punishes evil _because evil behaviour lacks value_ and the universe rewards good _because good behaviour has value_.
> 
> I think this has a couple of ramificaitons for D&D play:
> 
> * If you take the realist/Hobbesian approach, no one has a reason to be good rather than evil except expedience. If in fact you think the gods of evil are stronger than the gods of good, and so can give you better rewards, you have a reason to be evil! As I posted upthread, I think this is somewhat how alignment worked in classic D&D, but the game is not normally played in that sort of mode these days. This can also fit with a cynical sword & sorcery style of play, but I think a lot of D&D play is not in this mode either (eg neither FR nor Dragonlance nor Ravenloft is aimed at that style of play).
> 
> * If you take the more standard approach, and regard "good" and "evil" as labels not just of behaviour that will be rewarded or punished by certain cosmological forces but also, and primarily, as labels of behaviour that has or lacks certain value and therefore that characters have a reason to perform or to repudiate, then the issues that I mentioned come up: players have to subordinate their own judgements of value to the GM's.
> 
> For instance, suppose a GM decides that (say) inadvertantly killing someone in a context of defence of others is not evil. And then a paladin PC inadvertantly kills someone, and the player of that PC takes a different view from the GM (s/he has a stricter view about the impermissibility of various forms of non-intentinal homicide, either for real, or as part of his/her conception of his/her PC). Now there is a gap between the value framework within which the player is conceiving of his/her PC, and the value framework that the GM is applying - the player expects that his/her paladin should be subject to divine sanction, but the GM doesn't deliver. How is that improving the play experience or the depth of either character, or player's engagement with the game?
> 
> The above example is not purely hypothetical - it came up in my game. Because I don't use alignment, as GM rather than imposing my own moral judgement I followed my player's lead and made the character's response to (what he took to be) his PC's moral error a focus of play in that particular session.
> 
> Here's another example from actual play. The player of a paladin (and the other players as well), in the course of the game, form the view that the ancient pacts that had been reached between the gods, the demons and the lords of karma in order to bring stability to the heavens amounted, in effect, to an unfair sacrifice of the interests (in life and wellbeing) of present-day mortals. So they took it upon themselves to disregard the pacts, to ally with the one god who had been exiled from the heavens for taking a similar view, and to use an artefact borrowed from that god to rewrite the heavenly and karmic order to produce a new solution to the cosmological problems that also ensured that the mortal realm did not suffer as it otherwise would have.
> 
> My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad) and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces.
> 
> For the reasons that I have just posted, I don't think you can avoid interaction with real world values.
> 
> Of course imaginative players can divorce their own judgements from the judgements of their PCs and the NPCs/gods as played by the GM - but they know it's all just pretense. So if their paladin PC is stripped of power by the gods (as played by the GM), but by the player's lights the paladin has not done anything _actually_ wrong, then the player is not going to believe that his/her PC was punished for a genuine wrongdoing. S/he is just exploring or imaging a world in which the gods punish people for different reasons, reasons that aren't really good reasons but nevertheless are the reasons on which the gods in that imaginary world operate.
> 
> We see a lot of posts about how verimisilitude and immersion interact. For me, both as GM and as player, this sort of play is a far, far greater burden on immersion than fortune-in-the-middle mechanics.
> 
> To give an extreme case: I can imagine playing a character who is a sincere Stalinist and KGB officer, who therefore believes that torturing and killing political opponents is a desirable and important task, and who kills dissidents and proponents of liberal freedoms as counter-revolutionaries. And I can imagine a GM who goes along with this. But why would I label this behaviour "good"? I know it is wrong. I would hope the GM could likewise see that this is so. I would expect, in the game I'm describing, that we would both recognise that I am playing a character who is _sincere but radically mistaken_. I wouldn't expect the GM to say - actually, in this world what your PC is doing is good, so within the fiction you're acting rightly!
> 
> In circumstances where the gap between the PC's convictions and the moral truth is narrower, or once we get into territory where there can be reasonable moral disagreement (eg the example above about the wrongdoing involved in inadvertant defensive killing), then I wouldn't necessarily expect the player's and GM's judgements to overlap. But as a player I want to be free to react according to my own evaluative judgement, and to play my PC according to my own coneption of him/her (be that as a good person, if I'm playing my paladin, or as a fallen person, if I'm playing my KGB agent). I don't want to simply abandon my own evaluative perspective and find out what it's like to share my GM's value scheme as expressed in his/her campaign world; and when GMing I don't want my players to abandon their values and simply play their PCs in accordance with my judgements as to what is right or wrong within the fiction. That's simply not what I'm looking for in an RPG, either as GM or as player.
> 
> Yes, but it's nearly 30 years ago so I can't remember the details. In 1985 (or thereabouts) I read an article in Dragon 101 called "For King and Country" which helped me work out why alignment was hurting rather than helping my game, and I've not used it since then.
> 
> For example of play to which an alignment system would be an impediment, see the two provided earlier in this post.




There is a lot here I disagee with (particularly on many of your points about ethical philosophy) but I think this gets too close to real world politics/religions/issues to really deal with here. I can just say, my experience doesn't match yours at all. Not doubting you may have encountered problems as you list them, but I just haven't. Given that I can walk down the street and encounter people with very diferent notions of what the good, and whether there is a cosmic ought and what shape that takes, it is pretty easy for me to imagine living under a different belief system where good is subject to different principles than my own. It hasn't presented any real issues for me. I am sure one could parse every moment of play to "prove" my real world notions are creeping in, but I am not too worried if the emulation falls a bit short. It doesn't disrupt the overall illusion, which is the point. 

I think we just have very different tastes and views about playstyle.


----------



## Celebrim

Li Shenron said:


> About this, alignment systems are always _simplifications_, so the risk of roleplaying one-dimensionally is real.




I certainly agree with that, but the flip side of this in my experience is that removing the system doesn't in fact encourage greater complexity but less complexity.   A simplified system is often more nuanced than no system at all.   While in theory PC's made with no alignment system at all might be more nuanced complicated characters, in practice I find the reverse is true.   First of all because there is no inherent reason why characters made with a system can't be nuanced and complicated, and in practice its never my most committed Thespian sorts that balk at providing a nominal alignment descriptor.  Without an alignment system there is an even greater impetus than the usual to perceive characters as being merely game pieces being advanced toward some goal, and even less impetus to consider them as real flesh and blood people with wills and motivations that are their own.   Now, I agree that there is no particular reason that the two alignment system is necessarily better at this task than some other system that is more or less complex depending on the conventions of the genera (see for example Pendragon for greater complexity), and people are free to devise more complex alternatives if that is what they like.   But I absolutely reject the notion that replacing the simple system with no system at all, which is almost invariably what is done, is motivated by a desire for less one-dimensionality.   Rather, in my experience, it's pretty much invariably motivated by a desire to go one dimensionality to no dimensionality.


----------



## Celebrim

steenan said:


> I think that alignments could work towards encouraging and strengthening archetypes, as races and classes do. I have seen them used this way - as inspirations, not straightjackets.
> 
> The problem is with the technical side. Alignments suffer from poor connection with the rest of the rules. Alignments don't really DO anything, other than occasionally denying some characters their class abilities. And in trying to solve the problem, people tend to make alignments completely powerless, instead of giving them teeth.
> 
> Imagine, for a moment, a system with typical D&D 3*3 alignment matrix that does not describe them in moral terms at all. Instead, it gives them rules. Using 4e as an example, it could be something like this.
> 
> Once per session, you may regain one daily power or two healing surges when a specific, alignment-dependent trigger is met:
> ...
> CG: You free someone from captivity or oppression.
> LN: You hurt an innocent for the benefit of society.
> ...
> CN: You stand up to someone with power and authority.
> LE: You take something you want from somebody through force or social position.
> ...
> 
> Each gives a solid benefit and each uses a specific trigger that does not require anybody to judge how well a character is roleplayed. By rewarding behaviors instead of punishing them, such rules encourage players to engage the alignment system and show their alignment in action, instead of getting into endless discussions on nature of morality.
> 
> Dungeon World does something similar and in my experience it works quite well (although the rewards it offers are too small and too delayed for the full effect).
> 
> In short: make alignment as solid as class and race, and it will work as well.




Very good post.  I should note that this sort of system appears quite widely in RPGs - the various White Wolf games use something similar.  I'd never really thought before how the various motives or demeanors could be quite easily classified according to the D&D alignment system should we choose to do so.

I have something similar in my games, but I've defined it less formerly and left it up pretty broadly to DM (my) judgment.    Your post is provoking me to thinking about the value in formalizing the system.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> There is a lot here I disagee with (particularly on many of your points about ethical philosophy) but I think this gets too close to real world politics/religions/issues



I think this is a recurrent difficulty with alignment threads. That's why I choose Stalin/KGB for my example - I was hoping it would be a fairly safe one.



Bedrockgames said:


> Given that I can walk down the street and encounter people with very diferent notions of what the good, and whether there is a cosmic ought and what shape that takes, it is pretty easy for me to imagine living under a different belief system where good is subject to different principles than my own.



I can imagine having different beliefs. It's a type of anthropological exercise. It's just that that's not what I'm looking for in an RPG.

To give a comparison by reference to other fictional media: when I watch a film or read a book (say, the X-Men or The Quiet American) my main interest, as an audience member and critic, is not in judging how accurately the author communicatd his/her sincere convictions. My main interest is in thinking about those convictions, and their implications, and whether or not I agree with them.

Likewise in RPGing. The anthropological approach to play is not what I'm interested in.l



Bedrockgames said:


> I am sure one could parse every moment of play to "prove" my real world notions are creeping in, but I am not too worried if the emulation falls a bit short. It doesn't disrupt the overall illusion, which is the point.
> 
> I think we just have very different tastes and views about playstyle.



I think we do have different tastes. I'm not interested in play as primarily illusion or pretense, particularly in the evaluative realm.

Here is how I would articulate the contrast between the play I enjoy and the play I don't - it may not accurately capture your preferred play, and I'm trying to speak more generally than just trying to capture our particular difference of preference, but I hope it at least gestures in the right genral direction with respect to your preferences:

Obviously, given that we're both fantasy RPGing, we're creating imaginary worlds populated by imaginary persons (including gods, demons etc) who have a range of beliefs about what is good or bad. It seems to me that traditional mechanical alignment makes the pretense/illusion primary: all the participants are trying to create a coherent shared fiction in which all evaluation is in accordance with the parameters set by the GM in creating the world.

Whereas for me, the point of the pretense is to prompt real evaluative judgements by the participants, on which I expect them to act in playing the game. That action can be very varied: for instance, a player might persist in playing a PC in a way that s/he regards as wrongful, in order to see where it leads and what sorts of responses it provokes in him-/herself and from the other participants. But in engaging with the fiction and thinking about it and playing it, participants aren't expected to subordinate their own evaluative judgements. They're expected to engage them.

That's what I mean when I say the illusion/pretense is not the main thing. It's a means to an aesthetic end in which real values are primary.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> This sort of mechanic is very very different from traditional mechanical alignment in D&D. I don't know the Dungeon World version of this, but it is similar to Beliefs in Burning Wheel, or to Milestones in Marvel Heroic RP.
> 
> In these approaches, it is generally accepted (I think) that the player has primary authority over deciding when the trigger has been meant: ie provided the player makes it clear in play that in (say) forcefully suppressing the testimony of the farmer who is being stalked by the werewolf s/he is doing so in order to stop a village-wide panic, s/he gets the benefit of the LN trigger. The GM's role is simply to judge player sincerity as part of overall game management, not to second-guess whether or not the farmer really is innocent, nor whether or not preventing a village-wide panci is really a social benefit.
> 
> Hence these approaches don't exhibit the features that I am critical of in relation to traditional mechanical alignment, of requiring the player to subordinate his/her evaluative framework to that of the GM.




Right on the money (and good post steenan).   [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION]'s post is very much like Beliefs in Burning Wheel and Milestones in Marvel Heroic RP (first thing I thought of), and to a lesser extent, like Dungeon World (and I agree with steenan that the feedback in Dungeon World is less provocative).  The facets of such a system are very different than classic alignment in D&D.  You have:

- Transparent, codified, non-negotiable trigger mechanism requiring no real adjudication.
- Immediate, positive mechanical feedback.

It produces a very different sort of play than what classic D&D alignment produces.  Further, I would say that it functionally, in play, fulfills the promise that D&D alignment promised (tight thematic play that challenges on an ethical/moral basis and allows those answers to emerge in play) whereas D&D alignment so often has sown dysfunction and angst at the tables I have overseen.  I say that as a GM with a considerable background in philosophy and ethics and a very stringent moral compass throughout my life.  Regardless of that, I've never felt equipped to adjudicate the moral intricacies of a high fantasy D&D game with the wanderings of the classical alignment system and I've certainly never felt the imposition of my own will/opinion on such moral quandaries yielded universal table agreement (even if the disagreement was in silence).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I think this is a recurrent difficulty with alignment threads. That's why I choose Stalin/KGB for my example - I was hoping it would be a fairly safe one.




Just to be clear, I wasn't agreeing with the actions of Stalin or the KGB. I just think ethics are more complicated than you suggested and don't want to get into a real world discussion about the subject since it is way outside the realm of RPGs. 



> I can imagine having different beliefs. It's a type of anthropological exercise. It's just that that's not what I'm looking for in an RPG.
> 
> To give a comparison by reference to other fictional media: when I watch a film or read a book (say, the X-Men or The Quiet American) my main interest, as an audience member and critic, is not in judging how accurately the author communicatd his/her sincere convictions. My main interest is in thinking about those convictions, and their implications, and whether or not I agree with them.
> 
> Likewise in RPGing. The anthropological approach to play is not what I'm interested in.l
> 
> I think we do have different tastes. I'm not interested in play as primarily illusion or pretense, particularly in the evaluative realm.




I think this is a big source of many of our disagreements. I should say, I do not engage film or fiction the same way I engage RPGs. I can say, with fiction and movies, it isn't important for me that I agree with the creator's ideas, as long as I find them interesting, and find the story compelling, and it challenges my assumptions, I am content (as an example I disagree strongly with most of Robert Heinlein's politics, but love his books, particularly Starship Troopers which stakes a position I very strongly oppose). Still I think he covers the topics in an interesting way. But I can also turn that off, and just watch a movie to be entertained. I can enjoy something like Enter the Dragon purely for the adrenaline rush and over the top fun, without worrying about whether I agree what Bruce Lee and the filmakers had to say about violence. 

But with RPGs, yes, I have no real interest in using them that way. For me they are not about exploring political or philosophical ideas. Just not what I am looking for. 



> Here is how I would articulate the contrast between the play I enjoy and the play I don't - it may not accurately capture your preferred play, and I'm trying to speak more generally than just trying to capture our particular difference of preference, but I hope it at least gestures in the right genral direction with respect to your preferences:
> 
> Obviously, given that we're both fantasy RPGing, we're creating imaginary worlds populated by imaginary persons (including gods, demons etc) who have a range of beliefs about what is good or bad. It seems to me that traditional mechanical alignment makes the pretense/illusion primary: all the participants are trying to create a coherent shared fiction in which all evaluation is in accordance with the parameters set by the GM in creating the world.
> 
> Whereas for me, the point of the pretense is to prompt real evaluative judgements by the participants, on which I expect them to act in playing the game. That action can be very varied: for instance, a player might persist in playing a PC in a way that s/he regards as wrongful, in order to see where it leads and what sorts of responses it provokes in him-/herself and from the other participants. But in engaging with the fiction and thinking about it and playing it, participants aren't expected to subordinate their own evaluative judgements. They're expected to engage them.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say the illusion/pretense is not the main thing. It's a means to an aesthetic end in which real values are primary.




I think if that is what you are trying to do, then yes, alignment might present some issues. But that is a very different approach to play than I am engaged in. Even when stuff like that might conceivably come up, like in my mafia games where the players are often taking on the roles of depraved hitmen and bank robbers, there isn't any effort toward introspection or enlightenment. It is to enjoy the fantasy of being in the Sopranos or Goodfellas. I certainly don't agree with any of the stuff the characters in that series or film do, but I can still pretend to be a mobster and adopt what I think is the mobster code of ethics, while having a great time doing it.


----------



## Celebrim

pemerton said:


> Whereas for me, the point of the pretense is to prompt real evaluative judgements by the participants, on which I expect them to act in playing the game. That action can be very varied: for instance, a player might persist in playing a PC in a way that s/he regards as wrongful, in order to see where it leads and what sorts of responses it provokes in him-/herself and from the other participants. But in engaging with the fiction and thinking about it and playing it, participants aren't expected to subordinate their own evaluative judgements. They're expected to engage them.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say the illusion/pretense is not the main thing. It's a means to an aesthetic end in which real values are primary.




I have never understood this criticism at all.   This criticism comes up repeatedly, and I've never understood its basis.

Let's begin with the obvious.  Does having a 2 axis alignment system force the player to accept the DM's beliefs and subordinate his own beliefs?

Well, no.  Obviously, the DM might characterize his own beliefs as being anywhere on or off the two-axis system.  Quite obviously the majority of the different approaches to life won't correspond to the DM's beliefs.   The DM might have a belief system that requires subordination to a powerful external authority and promotes conformity to a uniform social standard promoting (it believes) universal weal and the greater good.   The player may personally believe in a system that holds individual liberty and freedom of conscious as the highest (and even sole) good.   Nothing about the D&D system raises to primacy either belief system, nor constrains the player from exploring either belief system in his play.   The D&D cosmology is after all presented as a 'great wheel' by default, where nothing is either higher or lower than the other - the image of a round table.   One could argue whether this promotes the primacy of neutrality, but that gets into deep and serious questions if you plunge ahead and follow that line of thought.

One could counter that the DM himself might be closed minded and characterize the line of play the player wishes to explore as CE on the basis of his own biases, but this could certainly happen without a framework, but if that happens, so what?  Rebellion from social norms in fact characterizes the sort of belief system being explored.  If this means declaring allegiance with team evil, well now we are - by the strictures of the campaign universe - still exploring whether 'evil' is really evil and good is really good.   Again, no one has to actually subordinate anything. 

And of course we can explore all these sorts of ideas whether we agree with them or not, or even if we want to find out for ourselves just how much we do agree with them and how sympathetically (or unsympathetically) or complexly we can portray different ways of looking at the world.

I don't see how alignment isn't in fact engaging with evaluative judgments.  As a DM one of the standards I set for myself is making the villain be able to make as compelling of a case for how he sees the world as possible.

But, even within particular alignments, there are all sorts of differing questions that a broad summary of an alignments core values doesn't answer.   For example, in my game nominally dominate Lawful Good societies tend to promote what you might call traditional gender roles for men and women and tend to have laws which - while not oppressive necessarily - would (and do) strike modern persons as being rather sexist.   The do that for the very lawful reason that the needs of the individual (individual aspirations, for example) are seen as necessarily subordinate to the needs of a social order and society as a whole (strong stable family units).   So here we have an open question within the game universe.   Are normal gender roles a necessary feature of a Lawful Good societies, or just an incidental one?   Can a society value women while forcing them toward a particular and separate role in the world, or does real equality require the end of segregation?   I can as a DM note a LG feminist is out of step with the rest of societies norms, but I'm very willing to explore whether a convincing case could be made that the LG feminist is adhering to a higher ethical standard than the one made by the rest of the society - even within and especially within its own terms.   Certainly I think it pretty clear that you could make an argument within the Lawful Good framework, that feminism need not be antithetical to the desire for strong stable family units.  

For that matter, I can play with this sort of conflict with even less sympathetic social orders.   The core LE tenant as I see it could be described as, "The world is inherently about the strong dominating the weak.   All denial of that is fundamentally insane.  Therefore, no ruler can claim to be truly doing what is in the best interest of his subjects if he does not place as his highest priority the accumulation and enlargement of the collective power of the state.   And as the highest priority, the ruler is justified in obtaining this goal through any means necessary.   The ultimate goal might well be a state of universal weal, prosperity and peace, but can only come about if the society ruthlessly crushes and assimilates everything that stands apart from it."   It's quite easy I think to highlight how a society can have survival and existence and protection of the citizenry from hostile forces as a very legitimate concern, and if a society has that as a legitimate concern how do you resolve the question of moral niceties versus the certainty of say genocide or extinction should societies strength lapse.   And in that case, it becomes a very serious question not subordinate to any single interpretation and not subject to easy answers how that viewpoint is flawed.   Or in other words, do the ends really justify the means?   And if the ends aren't justified by the means, then what possibly could justify them?

Recourse to the alignment system gives no firm answer on these and many other points.   Indeed, when you come right down to it, the alignment system gives no firm answer to the central ethical question: "How ought one to live?"   

So how could you possibly say that it forces the player to subordinate his judgment?   At the most, and I'm not entirely convinced this occurs all that much since I've rarely seen this particular argument, it forces the player to subordinate his labeling.   But the label and the thing labeled are not the same thing.


----------



## Celebrim

Bedrockgames said:


> ...an example I disagree strongly with most of Robert Heinlein's politics, but love his books, particularly Starship Troopers which stakes a position I very strongly oppose




Heinlein's politics are complex and esoteric.  As an example of that, I disagree strongly with many of Heinlein's politics, but find I'm somewhat sympathetic to some of the positions staked in Starship Troopers, while strongly opposing the ones taken in Stranger in a Strange Land.   What I find particularly interesting about Heinlein is that since no two books seem to have a perfectly coherent set of beliefs despite the fact that each has a strong didactic mode, I can only conclude that to at least some extent Heinlein is exploring not just his own beliefs but potential beliefs in a way that I find very congruent with how I play RPGs.


----------



## pemerton

Celebrim said:


> Does having a 2 axis alignment system force the player to accept the DM's beliefs and subordinate his own beliefs?
> 
> Well, no.  Obviously, the DM might characterize his own beliefs as being anywhere on or off the two-axis system.



The terms "good" and "evil" are, in ordinary use, not purely descriptive terms. They carry with them an evaluative component. (The correct analysis of this component is obviously a matter of philosophical controversy. But the general point that it is present is not.)

There are uses that are in a certain sense non-standard - eg Satan's "Evil, be thou my good!" Whether this should be interpreted as using "evil" ironically, or in some other rhetorical mode, is a tricky question, but I think it is fairly clearly an atypical usage.

Whereas what you are asking me to do, in using the D&D alignment system, is to treat "good" and "evil" as purely descriptive terms. Besides being a jarring linguistic endeavour, this raises several other problems. First, the rulebooks, from AD&D through 3E and arguably (though slightly less obviously) 4e take it for granted that part of how you work out what "good" describes is by applying your evaluative judgements as a good person. Consider, for instance, these definitions from the d20 SRD:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. 

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.​
"Altruism", "respect", "dignity", "help", "oppress" and "hurt" - all of which appear in these definitions - are evaluative terms that can't be applied without making some sort of judgement which can, at least loosely, be called a moral judgement.

Thus, using these as pure descriptors requires treating someone's moral judgement - by default, the GM's - as having authority by fiat. I have to suspend my own judgement at the gaming room door.

I have focused on "good" and "evil" rather than "lawful" and "chaotic" because the latter dichotomy suffers from the additional problem that in their D&D usage they group together both self-discipline and social order, which is a grouping that only makes sense within a certain social framework (if one is thinking sociologically) or within a certain cosmological framework (if one is thinking mythically) that hasn't existed in large parts of the world - including most of the places that D&D is played - for over 100 years, and that most published D&D material fails to adequately explicate in its extremely _pseudo_-mediaeval worlds. Thus, using these as pure descriptors requires treating someone else's interpretive judgement - by default, the GM's - as having authority by fiat. Once again, I have to suspend my own interpretive judgement (be that an interpretation of the romantic/Arthurian/Tolkienesque world view, or of the similar but perhaps not identical pre-modern Japanese or Chinese world views, as expressed in such films as The Seven Samurai and Hero, or of some other pre-modern outlook that integrates a conception of duty to self and duty to others).

To connect these two points by way of an example: if I choose to play a paladin, I do so because I want to explore and express what altruism and respect might mean within a value framework in which honour and duty are also core values (this is what anchors self-discipline and regard for social order). I don't choose to play a paladin so I can be told, in due course, what the GM thinks that these things require - and thus potentially have my conception of my character, and his/her place within the gameworld, undone by the GM's mere stipulation.

A third problem, which also goes to the validity of the PC and of both the player's conception of the PC, and of the PC's self-conception, is this: if the alignment labels are treated as purely descriptive, rather than carrying their standard evaluative content, then any morally passionate character - eg a paladin, a monk, many clerics, some druids - is fundamentally wrong. For instance, if it is not in fact true that duty to self and duty to others are tightly integrated in the way that paladins and monks typically believe - if the universe is in fact indifferent to such things, and if from the point of view of the universe chaos and evil are equally valid choices - then the paladin and monk are in fact wrong in their worldview and their self conception. They are naïve fools.

This is why I regard Planescape as a fundamentally cynical campaign setting and therefore do not particularly care for it. There are ways of elevating this sort of "indifference of the universe to questions of value" beyond cycnicsm - eg with Neitzschean or Russellian ideas about moral self-creation - but those ideas are fundamentally modern, and still entail that the paladin or monk is misguided to the core. In terms of fantasy RPGing this suits a lot of swords and sorcery gaming - eg I think it captures REH's worldview, at least as expressed in Conan, pretty well - but in that case the game should not have paladins, monks or clerics as D&D defines them. (And it is no coincidence that they are absent from the d20 Conan game.)

But of course once we move into this sort of Conan-esque play - and I don't mind it, though by default my instincts incline me towards romantic fantasy - then we still don't need alignment. If the universe is ultimately indifferent to questions of value, and if moral self-creation is what human life is all about, then why do we need the alignment descriptors? At this point they are just a type of personality label, which can be helpful as a shorthand for NPCs but seems redundant for PCs, who don't need a label - they just need players to breathe life into them by means of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Celebrim said:


> Heinlein's politics are complex and esoteric.  As an example of that, I disagree strongly with many of Heinlein's politics, but find I'm somewhat sympathetic to some of the positions staked in Starship Troopers, while strongly opposing the ones taken in Stranger in a Strange Land.   What I find particularly interesting about Heinlein is that since no two books seem to have a perfectly coherent set of beliefs despite the fact that each has a strong didactic mode, I can only conclude that to at least some extent Heinlein is exploring not just his own beliefs but potential beliefs in a way that I find very congruent with how I play RPGs.




Yes,I didn't mean to suggest he was easy to pidgeon hole or didn't develop his beliefs organically over time...i just found My self not in agreement with him with either if Stranger or Starship. Though i found the later much more objectionable in terms of what it advocated (yet I prefer the Starship Troopers to Stranger in a Strange Land largely because he tackles the ideas in an interesting way).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> "n outlook that integrates a conception of duty to self and duty to others).
> 
> To connect these two points by way of an example: if I choose to play a paladin, I do so because I want to explore and express what altruism and respect might mean within a value framework in which honour and duty are also core values (this is what anchors self-discipline and regard for social order). I don't choose to play a paladin so I can be told, in due course, what the GM thinks that these things require - and thus potentially have my conception of my character, and his/her place within the gameworld, undone by the GM's mere stipulation.
> y.




That is interesting and explains why you dislike the alignment system. For me, I am more interested in finding out what the GMs understanding of these things are (usually i ask a bunch of questions prior to play or occassionlly during if i am unclear). I don't usually worry too much about my own conception of what a paladin should be. I kind of view it the same way I approach anything else in the game, where the GM might have strikingly different ideas about how something would function, be structured, or what daily life in a given area is like. I am history buff, but i find I can turn that off and accept the world the GM presents even if that love of history leads me to a different place regarding how A should be in a setting where X,Y and Z are true.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I think this has a couple of ramificaitons for D&D play:
> 
> * If you take the realist/Hobbesian approach, no one has a reason to be good rather than evil except expedience. If in fact you think the gods of evil are stronger than the gods of good, and so can give you better rewards, you have a reason to be evil! As I posted upthread, I think this is somewhat how alignment worked in classic D&D, but the game is not normally played in that sort of mode these days. This can also fit with a cynical sword & sorcery style of play, but I think a lot of D&D play is not in this mode either (eg neither FR nor Dragonlance nor Ravenloft is aimed at that style of play).
> 
> * If you take the more standard approach, and regard "good" and "evil" as labels not just of behaviour that will be rewarded or punished by certain cosmological forces but also, and primarily, as labels of behaviour that has or lacks certain value and therefore that characters have a reason to perform or to repudiate, then the issues that I mentioned come up: players have to subordinate their own judgements of value to the GM's.
> 
> For instance, suppose a GM decides that (say) inadvertantly killing someone in a context of defence of others is not evil. And then a paladin PC inadvertantly kills someone, and the player of that PC takes a different view from the GM (s/he has a stricter view about the impermissibility of various forms of non-intentinal homicide, either for real, or as part of his/her conception of his/her PC). Now there is a gap between the value framework within which the player is conceiving of his/her PC, and the value framework that the GM is applying - the player expects that his/her paladin should be subject to divine sanction, but the GM doesn't deliver. How is that improving the play experience or the depth of either character, or player's engagement with the game?




Why can't the Paladin actually judge himself more harshly than his deity does?  I suggest that "Good is about altruism and respect for life".  The taking of a life is, in itself, an evil act, one which the Paladin would, or at least should, strive to avoid.  The defense of other is altruistic, and highly consistent with the tenets of Good.  To accomplish that Good, our Paladin has been forced to do Evil.  His deity, in the context presented, considers the Evil done  by the Paladin to be supported by the Good by which it was motivated, and which it accomplished.  Our Paladin friend, however, expects more of himself he seems to feel that he should have found a way to protect those innocents WITHOUT resorting to causing the death of another person. 

I've historically adopted the view that a "Paladin's Dilemma" cannot really exist.  Where there is no "right answer" for the Paladin to take ("let one die or a hundred perish"), there can be no "wrong answer" (the Paladin cannot take any action which is clearly Good, so he must make his best judgment about the Greatest Good, and would not be penalized for his decision).  If there is a campaign standard "right decision", clearly his training should make him aware of that, but the Real World, even in a fantasy game, is seldom so clear cut.  Either decision will carry some Evil, and some Good.

"Hurt not where holding will suffice.  Maim not where hurting will suffice.  Kill not where maiming will suffice.  The greatest warrior is he that need not kill." seems a fine code for an order of Lawful Good Paladins.  Yes, it is sometimes necessary to compromise absolute Good, undertaking an Evil act (in this case, causing a person to die) for the greater Good (the protection of those innocents).  This is unfortunate, but necessary.  It seems like Paladins would recognize this - if they do not, why would they train so diligently to become better warriors - better killers?

It seems like great role playing could easily arise from the Paladin's reconciliation of his standards with those of his Deity.  Does he strive to understand these moral lines?  Does he nevertheless expect more from himself than his deity does, and come to accept that striving to do even better than the _minimum_ standards of his deity is the appropriate way to live his life?  Does he instead lower his own standards, adhering to only the minimum required by his deity, and possibly jeopardize his status by letting his standards fall too far?  Does he seek a new religion, one which better matches the higher standards he has set for himself?  Does his own belief he has failed and merits punishment which does not come cause him to abandon his faith and fall from Paladinhood of his own volition?  

It doesn't seem like this situation needs to be a game-wrecker by any means.  It may be, perhaps, that the player is so inflexible as to be unable to run his character if there is any challenge to his preconceived notions, but I don't find that a sign of a great player by any means.



pemerton said:


> The above example is not purely hypothetical - it came up in my game. Because I don't use alignment, as GM rather than imposing my own moral judgement I followed my player's lead and made the character's response to (what he took to be) his PC's moral error a focus of play in that particular session.




So really, then, there is no challenge to living up to the Paladin's Code as the player's vision, however harsh or lax it may be, will automatically be presumed to match that of his Deity's.



pemerton said:


> Here's another example from actual play. The player of a paladin (and the other players as well), in the course of the game, form the view that the ancient pacts that had been reached between the gods, the demons and the lords of karma in order to bring stability to the heavens amounted, in effect, to an unfair sacrifice of the interests (in life and wellbeing) of present-day mortals. So they took it upon themselves to disregard the pacts, to ally with the one god who had been exiled from the heavens for taking a similar view, and to use an artefact borrowed from that god to rewrite the heavenly and karmic order to produce a new solution to the cosmological problems that also ensured that the mortal realm did not suffer as it otherwise would have.
> 
> My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of *whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad*) and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces.




Emphasis added.  Are Good people (even deities) incapable of making mistakes?  Do they never compromise their ideals for expediency, or for what they perceive to be the Greater Good?  A great characterization of Mephisto in a comic a few years back had him comment that he puts a lot of effort into Red Cross and similar life-saving organizations.  Why?  Well, if people die young, they have less exposure to the temptations of the world, and less opportunity to damn their souls.  By keeping them alive longer, they get more exposed to the temptations of the world.  There's plenty of those, and you people come up with more every day, and better ways to make them available.  Keep people alive long enough, and they'll damn themselves with no extra effort anyway.  Is preserving those lives Good?  I suggest it is a Good act undertaken for Evil purposes.  If a tyrant donates to charity to make himself look better and hold on to power he continues to use to oppress his people, does that somehow make him Good, or is the motivation for his actions relevant?  I don't think you can measure whether anyone is Good or Evil by a single action in isolation, with no understanding of its greater context.  An evil, vile tyrant may be protective of his people (a Good trait) while carrying out atrocities to defend them (Evil).



pemerton said:


> In circumstances where the gap between the PC's convictions and the moral truth is narrower, or once we get into territory where there can be reasonable moral disagreement (eg the example above about the wrongdoing involved in inadvertant defensive killing), then I wouldn't necessarily expect the player's and GM's judgements to overlap. But as a player I want to be free to react according to my own evaluative judgement, and to play my PC according to my own coneption of him/her (be that as a good person, if I'm playing my paladin, or as a fallen person, if I'm playing my KGB agent). I don't want to simply abandon my own evaluative perspective and find out what it's like to share my GM's value scheme as expressed in his/her campaign world; and when GMing I don't want my players to abandon their values and simply play their PCs in accordance with my judgements as to what is right or wrong within the fiction. That's simply not what I'm looking for in an RPG, either as GM or as player.




I would have thought that challenge to the character's beliefs made for a stronger game, not a weaker one.  You are setting out a case that those beliefs should never be challenged - that our hypothetical Paladin cannot be a viable character unless his deities are 100% in lockstep with his beliefs or, alternatively, that the Paladin's mortal beliefs are 100% consistent with those of his deity, as though he has a direct hotline to, and is nothing more than a pawn of, his deity, a mere extension of that deity's will.



pemerton said:


> For example of play to which an alignment system would be an impediment, see the two provided earlier in this post.




Can't agree with that - it seems like the challenges to the character's belief can easily facilitate great role playing, rather than impede it.



Celebrim said:


> I certainly agree with that, but the flip side of this in my experience is that removing the system doesn't in fact encourage greater complexity but less complexity.   A simplified system is often more nuanced than no system at all.   While in theory PC's made with no alignment system at all might be more nuanced complicated characters, in practice I find the reverse is true.   First of all because there is no inherent reason why characters made with a system can't be nuanced and complicated, and in practice its never my most committed Thespian sorts that balk at providing a nominal alignment descriptor.  Without an alignment system there is an even greater impetus than the usual to perceive characters as being merely game pieces being advanced toward some goal, and even less impetus to consider them as real flesh and blood people with wills and motivations that are their own.   Now, I agree that there is no particular reason that the two alignment system is necessarily better at this task than some other system that is more or less complex depending on the conventions of the genera (see for example Pendragon for greater complexity), and people are free to devise more complex alternatives if that is what they like.   But I absolutely reject the notion that replacing the simple system with no system at all, which is almost invariably what is done, is motivated by a desire for less one-dimensionality.   Rather, in my experience, it's pretty much invariably motivated by a desire to go one dimensionality to no dimensionality.




I see similar results.  I seldom find those with a great conception of their character's personality are constrained by the alignment system.  Rather, they have their personality in mind first and foremost, and then assess which alignment the character most logically fits in.  Where the call is tough, they sit down with the GM and go over this so they're on the same page.  What they don't do is insist on shoehorning a highly Chaotic character into a Lawful alignment so the character can be a Monk, or a selfish, greedy opportunist into a Lawful Good alignment because they want the special abilities that come with Paladinhood.  Rather, their character conception leads them away from classes with alignment restrictions that aren't consistent with the character's outlook and personality.  

For those who balk at that LG alignment for their Paladin imposing any constraints, they will similarly argue against any enforcement of a Paladin's code imposed with no alignment system, or assert that their psychological limitations in a game where these are the hallmark of the Paladin mindset are being interpreted too restrictively, or complain bitterly when the GM uses their Pendragon system traits to their detriment on occasion.  They want their "holy warrior" to be free to use dirty, underhanded tactics whenever this is most expedient, and not to have their character live up to his supposed ideals.



Manbearcat said:


> Right on the money (and good post steenan).   @_*steenan*_'s post is very much like Beliefs in Burning Wheel and Milestones in Marvel Heroic RP (first thing I thought of), and to a lesser extent, like Dungeon World (and I agree with steenan that the feedback in Dungeon World is less provocative).  The facets of such a system are very different than classic alignment in D&D.  You have:
> 
> - Transparent, codified, non-negotiable trigger mechanism requiring no real adjudication.
> - *Immediate, positive mechanical feedback*.




Pemerton, I think, mentions "being good only because it leads to the greatest rewards".  It seems like this places the player/character in a similar position - behaviour consistent with your alignment will always generate positive mechanical results, so there is  no disadvantage, no sacrifice, required to be a stalwart defender of the Right striving to exemplify the ideals of Law and Good.


----------



## Dungeoneer

pemerton said:


> Thus, using these as pure descriptors requires treating someone's moral judgement - by default, the GM's - as having authority by fiat. I have to suspend my own judgement at the gaming room door.



Good thoughts, Pemerton. 

Apart from any moral or philosophical arguments, what constitutes "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Neutral" are going to be judged by a human at the table, and that human is the DM. What constitutes "lawful good" behavior? DM fiat. In some cases the DM's preferences and the players' may align closely, and I suspect those are the tables where people have no problem with alignment. But in many cases they will not. And even when they do, I expect the player is in for some "surprises".

Several people here have argued that alignment is just another mechanical system; just another set of rules. Well, no, it's not, really. Alignment says, "Paladins should behave in a way that is lawful good," and then fails to give the player specific guidelines as to what constitutes Lawful Good. It's as if the book said "Rangers must be elves," and then gave no stats for elves. The only way to find out for sure if you are following the requirements is for the DM to slap your hand and say "Paladins wouldn't do that."

Alignment isn't a mechanic, it's a mind-game. 

Like I said, at some tables the DM and the players are clearly on a wavelength (especially tables where they have played together for literally decades) and the fact that alignment requires the player to read the DM's mind is not a problem because the player more or less can. But those tables are rare and exceptional and should NOT set the rule that other tables play by.

Alignment needs to either have explicit, objective steps a player can take to cement their alignment status (Like "save three kittens a day" or something) or it needs to be dropped. Or at the very least, relegated to the optional 'rule' it pretty much has become.


----------



## Ratskinner

Count me as one who finds alignment to be a mostly useless mechanic. If you want to put some representation of characters' morality and/or drives in the game...there are just so many more methods available nowadays that accomplish that goal so much more effectively. If there's one area that D&D could benefit from oft-maligned "modern game design" it would be in adopting some of these mechanics and jettisoning the archaic alignment system. But, y'know, sacred cows.

Is alignment actually _harmful_ to the game? I think that depends on how you fall on paladins running around slaughtering orc babies. Seriously, I think that's it. If you want orcs to be profoundly, inherently, irredeemably evil, such that massacring an undefended village of their females and young is a good act, then alignment is for you. The only consistent impact I've seen alignment have (other than cause arguments about itself, including this one) was to divide the game-world into 9 teams with different logos, colors, hairdoos, etc. that were otherwise fairly indistinguishable in the way they treated each other.

Now, that's not to say that that's an inferior playstyle or position. There are plenty of people IRL who, if asked to defend why their moral/religious position is "good" would simply reply "that's what it says on the tin" (or effectively that). One can hardly say that such folks shouldn't have the opportunity to play in a world where such beliefs are more clearly reflected than the real world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ratskinner said:


> Seriously, I think that's it. If you want orcs to be profoundly, inherently, irredeemably evil, such that massacring an undefended village of their females and young is a good act, then alignment is for you. .




I think very few people here support alignment because they want their paladins to kill orc babies with impunity. In most games i play in, the consensus is the paladin is the guy who should be arguing against killing the orc baby.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Why can't the Paladin actually judge himself more harshly than his deity does?




According to some Christian theologians, that is _exactly_ what happens when we sin- the divine does not withdraw its favor from us, we distance ourselves from the divine.  It just so happens that in the case of the Paladin, this has direct and immediate results...


----------



## howandwhy99

D&D uses Alignment as a statistic so players can actually play with it in the game rather than hand waving it away as a story. 

Let's be very clear. Almost no statistics or mechanics in the game are about your character. Character as a personality concept is utterly irrelevant to D&D role playing. The specific scores comprising your character are a small, almost insignificant piece of game world and rules. If you as a Player want to ignore your Alignment, you can do that without too much hassle 

- as long as you are not playing a Cleric that is. Alignment is one of the key components of the cleric system. Just like AC, HP, and To-Hit tables aren't really important except to Fighters and Saving Throws to anyone, but Magic-Users. Alignment matters somewhat, but it is far more about what the alignment of everything else in the world is. How you treat the world has consequences on how it will treat you based on its design. 

Also, cleric players choose this class because they are interested specifically in playing with Alignment game (and Morale, and Loyalty, and NPC personalities, etc.) They aren't in it for combat or magic, but all the subtle ins and outs of interacting with people. They have chosen that as their class and therefore the focus of their game.

Even then, I do strongly suggest each and every Cleric player determine for themselves the tenets of belief of their own deity (religion, philosophy, belief system, what have you). And the GM holds to the specific player on what their behavior means in these. Alignment still remains. Maybe their religious belief spans a few Alignments? Maybe its smaller than even one? I don't know, but Alignment is about how the rest of the world engages with your PC. Just like any other stat on the sheet.


----------



## Jacob Marley

Ratskinner said:


> Is alignment actually _harmful_ to the game? I think that depends on how you fall on paladins running around slaughtering orc babies. Seriously, I think that's it. If you want orcs to be profoundly, inherently, irredeemably evil, such that massacring an undefended village of their females and young is a good act, then alignment is for you. The only consistent impact I've seen alignment have (other than cause arguments about itself, including this one) was to divide the game-world into 9 teams with different logos, colors, hairdoos, etc. that were otherwise fairly indistinguishable in the way they treated each other.




This is a trivialization of the position of those who utilize alignment. I expected more of you, [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION].


----------



## Celebrim

pemerton said:


> The terms "good" and "evil" are, in ordinary use, not purely descriptive terms.




To begin with, I would argue that any RPG term is quite obviously a term of art and therefore equally obviously not employed in an ordinary use.  The term may have a relation to some term from the real world, but a term like 'cleric' carries and conveys so much specific information that you can hardly say that when I refer to a D&D cleric I'm using the word in an ordinary usage and not in a way that is almost entirely descriptive.   Why shouldn't a phrase like 'lawful good cleric' be descriptive?

Second of all, so what?  You already admit that use I'm employing in relation to the D&D terms of art like 'good' and 'evil' is not unknown outside of D&D and that it is employed in literature.  Your declaration that this is a non-standard employment seems to have very little basis other than convenience for your argument.   I would argue that the only extent to which Milton's employment of the term is non-standard, is Milton's Satan is rather more self-aware than most people.   You agree that the term is subject to analysis.  In what sense is that less important than the fact the term is evaluative in the context of a work of speculative literature such as a fantasy RPG?  Surely the experience of the thing is the whole point.



> Whereas what you are asking me to do, in using the D&D alignment system, is to treat "good" and "evil" as purely descriptive terms.




Well, yes, what part of them being 'descriptors' made you think that wasn't the primary sense in which they were used.



> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.​
> "Altruism", "respect", "dignity", "help", "oppress" and "hurt" - all of which appear in these definitions - are evaluative terms that can't be applied without making some sort of judgement which can, at least loosely, be called a moral judgment.




I find this rather less difficult and arbitrary of a task as you are trying to make it seem.  Altruism can be for example sufficiently well defined to make it a subject of study in the hard sciences (biology that is, as opposed to say sociology or philosophy).   The common understanding of the meaning of those terms is I think quite sufficient.  It is of course in the details that we can find disagreement, but this of course runs us right back into "Let evil be my good".   It's precisely in these often non-standard ideas of what really helps and hurts that the alignments disagree.   While the guy with the whip might really feel he is doing it for "your own good", and that's something interesting to think about, it hardly falls into the usual standard of 'altruism'.



> Thus, using these as pure descriptors requires treating someone's moral judgement - by default, the GM's - as having authority by fiat. I have to suspend my own judgement at the gaming room door.




While I don't disagree that the GM has fiat authority,  I hardly see how this requires you to suspend your judgment at the gaming room door.   If you want to make the honest case that scourging someone repeatedly with a whip in order to encourage greater vigor in them is a real kindness, you can make that honest case.   What you shouldn't expect however is for that to be the ordinary understanding of what is meant by kindness.  A person that actually believed that would necessarily be used to his words not fitting into the ordinary ideas that the words were associated with.   Again, it's not freedom of play which is constrained, but simply your right to your own labels.  But, obviously everyone can't have the right to their own labels if we are to be systematic.  



> To connect these two points by way of an example: if I choose to play a paladin, I do so because I want to explore and express what altruism and respect might mean within a value framework in which honour and duty are also core values (this is what anchors self-discipline and regard for social order). I don't choose to play a paladin so I can be told, in due course, what the GM thinks that these things require - and thus potentially have my conception of my character, and his/her place within the gameworld, undone by the GM's mere stipulation.




This is not a very Paladin like outlook.  You are trying to approach the experience of being a Paladin by following the dictates of your own consciousness as the highest moral authority.   That's not remotely what a Paladin believes.   But in particular, if that really was a problem in a game, that would be a failure of DMing.  I don't see why it should come as a particular surprise what is required of a champion of some deity or alignment, nor that it should be a surprise that the DM is ultimately the standard of defining the requirements of a deity or alignment within his cosmology since he is ultimately the animating principle of such a thing.   For my part, I'm quite willing to work with a player to create a deity or organization that has a particular outlook he wishes to explore, but I reserve the right to say what 'bucket' that deity or organization goes into for the purposes of categorization.  



> if the alignment labels are treated as purely descriptive, rather than carrying their standard evaluative content, then any morally passionate character - eg a paladin, a monk, many clerics, some druids - is fundamentally wrong.




I don't agree, but I will say that within the religion and philosophy of my game world this is an intense point of controversy and there are certainly a great many NPCs in the world that would agree with you.   There are other NPCs that would disagree for a variety of reasons, noting (in a more elaborate way) that just because the universe contains good and evil doesn't mean we should be indifferent to them, or that just because the observable universe is impersonal doesn't mean that good and evil are to be equally esteemed.   You've read your Plato.  What is piety?


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> Pemerton, I think, mentions "being good only because it leads to the greatest rewards". It seems like this places the player/character in a similar position - behaviour consistent with your alignment will always generate positive mechanical results, so there is no disadvantage, no sacrifice, required to be a stalwart defender of the Right striving to exemplify the ideals of Law and Good.




I believe pemerton was referring to the 1st party feedback.  I committ good or I commit evil and I'm tangibly or intangibly rewarded.  Whereas I'm referring to the feedback to the player in the same way that the metagame considerations of XP for gold and prolific, punitive SoD traps and effects work together to create a certain approach by the players and a genre unto its own.  Consider the following:

1)  A player is running a character has a clear moral directive of "when the horde encroaches and crowds out the light, I will be an unrelenting bastion of hope."

2)  The system either (a) provides the character with XP for putting himself in "against all odds" scenarios (win or lose) or (b) the character build specifically shines in those scenarios thus leading to better odds of success.

So the system is going to "push" the player, and by extension the character, toward an ethos in line with (1).  If you take 3 or so of those moral directives and put them togethen then you have a focused value system that the system rewards (either by character advancement directly or by being "buffed" for facing conflicts that engage with those precepts and then having character advancement by proxy).  The idea is that this will produce coherent play GM-side (GM frames the player into conflicts that test those moral directives) and player-side (player is inclined toward engaging with those conflicts which tests those directives, therefore the fiction churns out that archetype).


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Why can't the Paladin actually judge himself more harshly than his deity does?



That would mean that the paladin is mistaken, wouldn't it? (Unless you mean that the deity acts with mercy, and so does not inflict the fully warranted judgement. But I've never seen what D&D's theory of mercy looks like, and it doesn't seem to play a role in the alignment descriptors for the game.)



N'raac said:


> It seems like great role playing could easily arise from the Paladin's reconciliation of his standards with those of his Deity.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It doesn't seem like this situation needs to be a game-wrecker by any means.  It may be, perhaps, that the player is so inflexible as to be unable to run his character if there is any challenge to his preconceived notions, but I don't find that a sign of a great player by any means.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would have thought that challenge to the character's beliefs made for a stronger game, not a weaker one.  You are setting out a case that those beliefs should never be challenged
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So really, then, there is no challenge to living up to the Paladin's Code as the player's vision, however harsh or lax it may be, will automatically be presumed to match that of his Deity's.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Can't agree with that - it seems like the challenges to the character's belief can easily facilitate great role playing, rather than impede it.



Three things.

First, the fact that you might enjoy playing a particular game - the "great roleplaying" that would result from the player brining his/her character's behaviour into conformity with divine requirements as stipulated by the GM - doesn't mean that I would.

Second, you say you "can't agree" that I encountered situations - as described in my post - in which alignment mechanics would have been a problem in the game. That's bizarre - what you're saying is that I have radically misunderstood my own play experience! But really what I think you mean is that _your_ play experience wouldn't have been hurt. Which is probably true, but - newsflash! - you're not me.

Third, you inference that a character's belief system can't be challenged if there is no GM enforcement of divine requirements is simply not true. For instance, in the real world, my belief system is challenged all the time, and I revise it (mostly on the margins, sometimes more signficicantly) in light of those challenges. The same can happen in a game. For instance, I've run games in which players have their PCs change allegiances (to NPCs, to gods, to one another) over the course of play as new things happen, as new deeds are done by those characters, as new aspects of backstory are revealed in play.

On one occasion when I played a paladin (mechanically a cleric built as a pseudo-fighter under the Skills and Powers rules) my character started out with a clear undertanding that celibacy was a requirement of his station. But in the course of play he became very close to another PC, and romantic feelings developed. This challenged both my conception, as a player, as to what my PC's paladinhood required, and also challenged the PC's own conception of the same thing. There are two main ways that sort of story arc can evolve - either the Lancelot-ish way, in which the good of celibacy is re-affirmed and the character either falls or recovers purity of heart; or the (probably more sentimental) way in which the good of personal love is revealed as an aspect of, and integrated with, the more abstract love and compassion of the paladin. I don't really see why the game is better if it is the GM by way of stipulatoin rather than the player together with the rest of the table by way of actual play of the character who choose which arc is explored. (And if you are assuming that players won't choose arcs in which their PC's suffer, you're making an assumption that has not been borne out by my own experience as a GM.)

I think part of the issue here is "challenge", which also goes back to my post upthread about the original purpose of alignment in D&D. The challenge I have just described is not really a mechanical challenge, and when I have seen players choose to take their PCs down paths in which their PCs suffer, it hasn't been the case that the _player_ suffers: in some of these cases the player has had a grand old time as the PC and the PC's suffering become the focus of play for a while. And as a general principle I don't think the player _should_ suffer just because his/her PC is suffering. A character who is falling, or transforming, should in my view still carry with it the mechancial capabilities which enable its player to impact upon the game. Hence I don't like "mechanical disempowerment" rules for clerics, paladins, monks etc. Look at Tai Chi Master, for instance - when the protagonist (played by Jet Li) "falls" from Buddhim to Taoism he doesn't lose his role in the movie, and remains capable of expressing his protagonism by beating up bad guys with awesome martial arts. Given that I see RPG play in terms of protagonism, I think this is the right sort of model. (So while the 3E paladin > blackguard transition is a bit cartoon villain for my taste, I think it is a mechanical innovation in the right general direction - I would just put the player rather than the GM in charge of the transition.)

Another sort of "challenge" can be the challenge of playing your PC as doing XYZ - because this is what the GM has stipulated your alignment requires - when if left to your own judgement you would have your PC do ABC. This can indeed be a challenge, but it's not one I'm interested in. This is the "subordiation of the player's judgement to that of the GM" that I described above as contributing nothing worthwhile to my personal play experience.



N'raac said:


> For those who balk at that LG alignment for their Paladin imposing any constraints, they will similarly argue against any enforcement of a Paladin's code imposed with no alignment system, or assert that their psychological limitations in a game where these are the hallmark of the Paladin mindset are being interpreted too restrictively, or complain bitterly when the GM uses their Pendragon system traits to their detriment on occasion.  They want their "holy warrior" to be free to use dirty, underhanded tactics whenever this is most expedient, and not to have their character live up to his supposed ideals.



I can't help but feel that you are projecting some experiences of you own onto the rest of the RPGing world while having - apparently - basically no conception of what our games are like or how they are played. Because if you did have such a conception you would see that this has no bearing on the issues that I mentioned in the post of mine to which you replied.

My players who play honourable warriors don't need a LG elephant stamp on their sheet, and a star chart from me as GM, in order to have their PCs not kick NPCs in the nads, or slip poison in their drinks, in the course of play. Having chosen to play an honourable warrior they are capable of carrying through on that decision.

The issues I referred to are fundamental questions of value, and of loyalty - for instance, can a paladin conclude that the gods in heaven are misguided, and throw in his/her lot with the one god whom they exiled? Can a paladin discover that s/he was wrong in thinking that purity required chastity? Those are the sorts of issues that I am interested in when I play, or GM, a paladin. Whereas the alignment system requires answering these questions by stipulation.



Manbearcat said:


> I believe pemerton was referring to the 1st party feedback.  I committ good or I commit evil and I'm tangibly or intangibly rewarded.  Whereas I'm referring to the feedback to the player



Correct.


----------



## Storminator

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to pemerton again."

Pretty seriously good post, man.

PS


----------



## N'raac

Manbearcat said:


> 1)  A player is running a character has a clear moral directive of "when the horde encroaches and crowds out the light, I will be an unrelenting bastion of hope."
> 
> 2)  The system either (a) provides the character with XP for putting himself in "against all odds" scenarios (win or lose) or (b) the character build specifically shines in those scenarios thus leading to better odds of success.
> 
> So the system is going to "push" the player, and by extension the character, toward an ethos in line with (1).  If you take 3 or so of those moral directives and put them togethen then you have a focused value system that the system rewards (either by character advancement directly or by being "buffed" for facing conflicts that engage with those precepts and then having character advancement by proxy).  The idea is that this will produce coherent play GM-side (GM frames the player into conflicts that test those moral directives) and player-side (player is inclined toward engaging with those conflicts which tests those directives, therefore the fiction churns out that archetype).




It seems to me that there is little challenge in role playing this character's strong moral directives when the player knows, and the mechanics dictate, that the character is always more likely to succeed by adhering to those moral beliefs than if he deviates from them.  What is difficult is maintaining principals when one would benefit by compromising or ignoring those beliefs.



pemerton said:


> That would mean that the paladin is mistaken, wouldn't it? (Unless you mean that the deity acts with mercy, and so does not inflict the fully warranted judgement. But I've never seen what D&D's theory of mercy looks like, and it doesn't seem to play a role in the alignment descriptors for the game.)




So it is impossible for the Paladin to, in any way, misinterpret the tenets of his deity, hold to a standard higher than his deity demands or otherwise have his principals differ, even a single iota, from his deity's.  If your standard for "LG" behaviour is that the slightest deviation from the GM's interpretation of LG ideals means los of paladinhood at best and death by bolts from the blue and eternal damnation at worst, then I certainly see why you would find alignment an excessive constraint.  But I fail to see how so rigid an interpretation of alignment would give way to a much more reasonable interpretation of, say, a Code of Honour, or a Code of Chivalry, or any similar code or standard or ideal by which the character is judged.



pemerton said:


> First, the fact that you might enjoy playing a particular game - the "great roleplaying" that would result from the player brining his/her character's behaviour into conformity with divine requirements as stipulated by the GM - doesn't mean that I would.




At no time have I said the character must bring his behaviour into perfect conformity with any standard, be it divine or otherwise, stipulated by anyone.  Nor did I say that you would enjoy such a game, or even that great role playing would result.  I did say it _could_ result, and I responded to your specific question of _"How is that improving the play experience or the depth of either character, or player's engagement with the game?"_ which, to me, suggested the assertion that it detracted from the play experience, depth and/or engagement as an objective fact, and not in your subjective opinion.

You asked how it might improve the play experience.  I answered.  It may or may not improve your personal play experience, but that was not the question you posed.  It would not improve the play experience for someone who wants his character to be a pawn on the chessboard, always making the best tactical move his player desires, rather than a living, breathing character with strengths and weaknesses either.



pemerton said:


> Second, you say you "can't agree" that I encountered situations - as described in my post - in which alignment mechanics would have been a problem in the game. That's bizarre - what you're saying is that I have radically misunderstood my own play experience! But really what I think you mean is that _your_ play experience wouldn't have been hurt. Which is probably true, but - newsflash! - you're not me.




Again, I responded to your specific statement that these were _For example of play to which an alignment system *would be *an impediment, see the two provided earlier in this post._  I do not agree that, objectively, an alignment system *would be* an impediment to good play of those scenarios.  You did not say it could be an impediment, or that it would be an impediment to some players, but that it objectively and universally *would be* an impediment.  Perhaps you cannot envision game play where the Paladin is not hard coded with a full, detailed moral belief system that matches his deity's precisely, with no deviation whatsoever.  I can easily envision that game, and it sounds like the differences would make for challenge, possible character growth and, overall, a much better game than the one you envision, where "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" since whatever interpretation you choose is automatically the precise vision of not only your character, but his deity was well.



pemerton said:


> Third, you inference that a character's belief system can't be challenged if there is no GM enforcement of divine requirements is simply not true. For instance, in the real world, my belief system is challenged all the time, and I revise it (mostly on the margins, sometimes more signficicantly) in light of those challenges. The same can happen in a game. For instance, I've run games in which players have their PCs change allegiances (to NPCs, to gods, to one another) over the course of play as new things happen, as new deeds are done by those characters, as new aspects of backstory are revealed in play.




I submit that, in the real world, the tenets of a person's religion (much less the views of a deity) are not set by that person.  Unless you are Henry VIII, I suppose (but we can't know what his deity thought of his vision).  As your deity's beliefs will always coincide with your own, presumably any vision that the standard should be higher or lower results in the deity's vision moving in lockstep.



pemerton said:


> On one occasion when I played a paladin (mechanically a cleric built as a pseudo-fighter under the Skills and Powers rules) my character started out with a clear undertanding that celibacy was a requirement of his station. But in the course of play he became very close to another PC, and romantic feelings developed. This challenged both my conception, as a player, as to what my PC's paladinhood required, and also challenged the PC's own conception of the same thing. There are two main ways that sort of story arc can evolve - either the Lancelot-ish way, in which the good of celibacy is re-affirmed and the character either falls or recovers purity of heart; or the (probably more sentimental) way in which the good of personal love is revealed as an aspect of, and integrated with, the more abstract love and compassion of the paladin. I don't really see why the game is better if it is the GM by way of stipulatoin rather than the player together with the rest of the table by way of actual play of the character who choose which arc is explored. (And if you are assuming that players won't choose arcs in which their PC's suffer, you're making an assumption that has not been borne out by my own experience as a GM.)




Who makes that call?  The player, the player with the rest of the table (but without the GM), or the table including input of the GM?  Again, you present your way (whichever it is, as I'm never quite clear from your comments who has a voice in the decisions) as de facto superior.  I don't see it as superior simply because it may be your preference.



pemerton said:


> I can't help but feel that you are projecting some experiences of you own onto the rest of the RPGing world while having - apparently - basically no conception of what our games are like or how they are played. Because if you did have such a conception you would see that this has no bearing on the issues that I mentioned in the post of mine to which you replied.




I suggest that you also project your own experiences, as we all do. 



pemerton said:


> My players who play honourable warriors don't need a LG elephant stamp on their sheet, and a star chart from me as GM, in order to have their PCs not kick NPCs in the nads, or slip poison in their drinks, in the course of play. Having chosen to play an honourable warrior they are capable of carrying through on that decision.




How is it that everyone can agree without question what constitutes "honourable" and "dishonourable", but if we label something "Lawful Good", suddenly no possible agreement can exist?  My players need no star chart from the GM to have their LG PC's not gut a shopkeeper and steal his goods rather than pay for the goods they wish to possess, nor to treat the King with respect rather than spit on his shoes.  Those seem just as "challenging" as your examples of honourable behaviour.



pemerton said:


> The issues I referred to are fundamental questions of value, and of loyalty - for instance, can a paladin conclude that the gods in heaven are misguided, and throw in his/her lot with the one god whom they exiled? Can a paladin discover that s/he was wrong in thinking that purity required chastity? Those are the sorts of issues that I am interested in when I play, or GM, a paladin. Whereas the alignment system requires answering these questions by stipulation.




Can there  be consequences for the decisions the character makes?  If a Roman Catholic priest decides that "he was wrong in thinking that purity required chastity", will he remain ordained after shacking up with his girlfriend?  If a Paladin derives his powers from a deity in exchange for exemplifying the values that deity espouses, why would he expect to keep those powers after turning his back on that deity?  Perhaps that one exiled god chooses to grant him the same powers - does that somehow prevent that deity being Evil, and using the Paladin to his own ends, rather than being benevolent as the Paladin has come to believe?  Why is it impossible for him to misjudge anyone or anything?


----------



## Dwimmerlied

pemerton said:


> * If you take the more standard approach, and regard "good" and "evil" as labels not just of behaviour that will be rewarded or punished by certain cosmological forces but also, and primarily, as labels of behaviour that has or lacks certain value and therefore that characters have a reason to perform or to repudiate, then the issues that I mentioned come up: players have to subordinate their own judgements of value to the GM's.




At tables with adequate communication and reason, this wouldn't be an issue. I don't want to use the term subordination because it's loaded, but as a GM, I'm happy to compromise towards the views and feelings of my players. Is that subordination to my player's judgements? I guess it is, but the term then has lost any significance.



> For instance, suppose a GM decides that (say) inadvertantly killing someone in a context of defence of others is not evil. And then a paladin PC inadvertantly kills someone, and the player of that PC takes a different view from the GM (s/he has a stricter view about the impermissibility of various forms of non-intentinal homicide, either for real, or as part of his/her conception of his/her PC). Now there is a gap between the value framework within which the player is conceiving of his/her PC, and the value framework that the GM is applying - the player expects that his/her paladin should be subject to divine sanction, but the GM doesn't deliver. How is that improving the play experience or the depth of either character, or player's engagement with the game?




There will always be gaps. The problem could always arise; communication seems a stronger solution, to me.



> In circumstances where the gap between the PC's convictions and the moral truth is narrower, or once we get into territory where there can be reasonable moral disagreement (eg the example above about the wrongdoing involved in inadvertant defensive killing), then I wouldn't necessarily expect the player's and GM's judgements to overlap. But as a player I want to be free to react according to my own evaluative judgement, and to play my PC according to my own coneption of him/her (be that as a good person, if I'm playing my paladin, or as a fallen person, if I'm playing my KGB agent). I don't want to simply abandon my own evaluative perspective and find out what it's like to share my GM's value scheme as expressed in his/her campaign world; and when GMing I don't want my players to abandon their values and simply play their PCs in accordance with my judgements as to what is right or wrong within the fiction. That's simply not what I'm looking for in an RPG, either as GM or as player.




I don't think the alignment system restricts the way you play your character though, it just offers a picture of how the universe responds to it.



> Yes, but it's nearly 30 years ago so I can't remember the details. In 1985 (or thereabouts) I read an article in Dragon 101 called "For King and Country" which helped me work out why alignment was hurting rather than helping my game, and I've not used it since then.




Cool, if I can find this somewhere, I'll have a read.

I understand why people might want to abandon the alignment system, but I do believe that it's weaknesses are often overstated.


----------



## Dwimmerlied

Dungeoneer said:


> Apart from any moral or philosophical arguments, what constitutes "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Neutral" are going to be judged by a human at the table, and that human is the DM. What constitutes "lawful good" behavior? DM fiat. In some cases the DM's preferences and the players' may align closely, and I suspect those are the tables where people have no problem with alignment. But in many cases they will not. And even when they do, I expect the player is in for some "surprises".




I guess my POV should be clear with what I've posted before, but the reason I disagree with your quotes, [MENTION=91777]Dungeoneer[/MENTION], is because I think it represents overly antagonistic gaming. That aside, surprises can't be too much of a problem for folk who can communicate and compromise. And if such antagonism exists, there would be many other problems the game with so much potential ambiguity.



> The only way to find out for sure if you are following the requirements is for the DM to slap your hand and say "Paladins wouldn't do that."




Or ask before, or even during the game. And hand-slapping is never necessary, who would do that? I as a DM would discuss, or offer thoughts, and determine to be receptive to my players vision of their character, then I'd work within that. Is that so out there?



> Alignment isn't a mechanic, it's a mind-game.




D&D is a mind game! 



> and the fact that alignment requires the player to read the DM's mind




That's not a fact, that's an opinion!



> Alignment needs to either have explicit, objective steps a player can take to cement their alignment status (Like "save three kittens a day" or something) or it needs to be dropped. Or at the very least, relegated to the optional 'rule' it pretty much has become.




I don't think it should be dropped, but I do strongly support modularity, yep! Although I disagree with the arguments as you see them, I do wonder why shouldn't every gamer be able to easily ignore rules they don't like (so yeah, make it modular and make sure the mechanical implications can easily be unplugged).


----------



## pemerton

Dwimmerlied said:


> At tables with adequate communication and reason, this wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There will always be gaps. The problem could always arise; communication seems a stronger solution, to me.



I don't see why communication and reaching a table-wide agreement about what "good" means in this campaign is stronger than not insisting on a table-wide usage of "good". The latter allows everyone to play their characters, and for the GM to handle backstory and setting, as s/he thinks is appropriate - and the collisions between these things help drive the actual play of the game.

For me a comparison would be this: the PCs meet a dragon and decide to try and defeat it in combat. Do they succeed or not - ie is it true or false in the fiction that the PCs beat the dragon? One way would be for everyone to sit around, think hard about what the PCs can do and what the dragon can do, communicate frankly about this, and reach agreement. Another way would be to _play the game_. I prefer playing the game to work out what happens to the dragon; and I prefer playing the game to work out whether or not a particular player's evaluative conception of his/her PC, as expressed through the play of that PC, is viable/worthwhile/good/bad/admirable/despicable. In my experience the results can be interesting.



Dwimmerlied said:


> I don't think the alignment system restricts the way you play your character though, it just offers a picture of how the universe responds to it.



But that the universe responds in that way itself has implications for the truth or falsehood of certain moral and cosmological conceptions. For instance, if the universe is neutral as between being good or being evil - as is the case in Planescape, where both are valid alignments able to shape the planes by way of belief - then the typical mindset of a paladin (according to which the universe is on the side of good, and providence will ensure that honour and duty align to reinforce rather than oppose one another) has already been refuted, and the paladin is consequently self-deluded.

As I said upthread, this can work in some games - eg in a Conan game a paladin _would_ be self-deluded - but doesn't work for the sort of fantasy game I default to, which is romantic fantasy a la Tolkien and King Arthur, not REH-esque.



N'raac said:


> It seems to me that there is little challenge in role playing this character's strong moral directives when the player knows, and the mechanics dictate, that the character is always more likely to succeed by adhering to those moral beliefs than if he deviates from them.  What is difficult is maintaining principals when one would benefit by compromising or ignoring those beliefs.



This paragraph begins by talking about the player - and whether it is hard or easy to roleplay a particular character - and then ends up talking about the PC - who is maintaining certain principles. Talking in that way already involves many assumptions about playstyle that are not true for the way I play or GM the game. For instance, I don't expect my players to find it hard to roleplay their PCs being challenged. I hope that they will find it easy and enjoyable, and challenging only in the sense of setting an intellectual and aesthetic goal to aspire to - but in that respect, playing your PC being rewarded can be equally challenging, although often less dramatically engaging.



N'raac said:


> I submit that, in the real world, the tenets of a person's religion (much less the views of a deity) are not set by that person.



Once again you seem to be confusing the player with the PC. Most people don't get to decide who their parents were either, but players frequently do that for their PCs. Heck, GMs set the whole cosmology in which their NPCs live, but no one supposes that all of the NPCs are therefore gods who got to create their own universe!



N'raac said:


> How is it that everyone can agree without question what constitutes "honourable" and "dishonourable", but if we label something "Lawful Good", suddenly no possible agreement can exist?



They don't. That's part of the point of playing a paladin - finding out what your own conception of "honour" might require, and finding out what happens when that comes into collision with other participants' conceptions.



N'raac said:


> I responded to your specific statement that these were _For example of play to which an alignment system *would be *an impediment, see the two provided earlier in this post._  I do not agree that, objectively, an alignment system *would be* an impediment to good play of those scenarios.  You did not say it could be an impediment, or that it would be an impediment to some players, but that it objectively and universally *would be* an impediment.



A poster - was it   [MENTION=6706967]Dwimmerlied[/MENTION]? - asked for example of play in which alignment had been an impediment. I gave some. I didn't describe scenarios that other's might play using alignment rules. I described examples of play. Part of those examples - inherent to them - is the experience that I and the other participants had in playing them.

The second example - about the paladin turning on the heavens - at various points along the way incorporated material from the WotC scenario "Bastion of Broken Souls". I'm sure there are some people who could, and did, enjoy playing that module using alignment rules as part of the game. I know that I couldn't, and hence I didn't. Hence I am an example of a play experience which would have been impeded by the presence of alignment rules.



N'raac said:


> It may or may not improve your personal play experience, but that was not the question you posed.  It would not improve the play experience for someone who wants his character to be a pawn on the chessboard, always making the best tactical move his player desires, rather than a living, breathing character with strengths and weaknesses either.



Actually, as I posted upthread, alignment rules seem to have been invented precisely for players whose PCs were pawns on a chess board. They introduced an extra constraint on the play of those pawns, in return for better access to certain benefits (like hirelings, healing and resurrection).

Conversely, once you are playing living, breathing characters why do you need alignment? You just play your character. If one of your character's "weaknesses" is that s/he won't fight dirty then just play him/her that way - though the whole idea that not fighting dirty is a weakness rather than a strength strikes me as wildly misguided unless the focus of the game is on nothing but extracting benefits from others via the most efficient application of physical force.



N'raac said:


> Who makes that call?  The player, the player with the rest of the table (but without the GM), or the table including input of the GM?



This question doesn't really make sense to me. _No one has to make the call._ Who gets to decide whether Denethor is evil, or simply misguided? No one does. Each reader is called upon to make his or her own judgement. For that matter, who gets to decide whether Tolkien's ultra-conservative vision of human affairs is admirable or not? Each reader is, again, called upon to make his or her own judgement.

Likewise in the games I run. Did the paladin who turned on the heavens and established a new cosmic order do the right thing or not? I'm pretty sure the player though that he did. If other participants though differently, that's there prerogative. No one needs to "make a call".

In another game, when a PC, depressed by the death of his only true love, agreed to sell out his home city in return for the promise of a magistracy, was the PC doing the right thing or not? The player didn't think so - the player was playing his PC's collapse into moral degeneration. I think the player of the other PC who procured the sell out might have taken a different view. No one needs to "make a call", though - we just play the game, see what happens and enjoy the experience.

Ultimately, alignment is about stipulating, in advance, what sort of behaviour is required to be a virtuous person. One of my main interests in fiction is being pushed to think in new ways about what a person might be and do. I think it's obvious that these two things are not compatible - that prior stipulation of what virtue requires is an obstacle to thinking in new ways about what a person might be and do. Alignment therefore being an impediment to my preferred play, I don't use it.


----------



## Ratskinner

Jacob Marley said:


> This is a trivialization of the position of those who utilize alignment. I expected more of you,  @_*Ratskinner*_ .




Sorry to disappoint, I guess.

IME, all the "good" things that alignment supposedly does for the game are handled far better by newer mechanics from other games. Alignment also doesn't seem to provide those good things without a great deal of "massaging" at the table...reducing its value as a solid mechanic. I mean, that's what all the arguing is about, isn't it? At table, I've seen far more of Lawful Dwarves doing questionable things to Chaotic Humanoid captives or Paladins getting tripped up by disagreements on what exactly they should do than I have of any other alignment-y thing. For the most part IME, someone's character acting "Lawful Good" (however one wishes to interpret that) has less to to with them having that written on the sheet than their decisions to act in such a manner regardless. 

Also, I've observed that with exceptions for the extremes, most groups generally ignore alignment for the other characters. For most of the characters I've seen...I'd be hard pressed to guess their alignments. Was he NG or CG?...maybe NN? Then there's that Batman alignment poster...

There is, to my knowledge, exactly one "good" impact that alignment has on the game: Putting the (Old School) Paladin in opposition with the thief/assassin. That forces a crises of theses that drives Narrativist play. However, it does so very briefly (usually) and in a not-that-interesting manner (since it usually comes down to the Paladin choosing to execute his chum or not).

Now, I used to think there might be something to alignment debate, and got into the arguments. Then a frustrated player (after an at-table argument about alignment) granted me clarity by presenting basically the position I outlined (including my final paragraph, which you omitted). He came to play D&D in order to _escape_ a world which for him was muddled with all sorts of grey ethical areas. He _wanted_ a D&D world with clearly defined teams and the ruthless simpicity that implies. That's what it does well. It just about useless for anything more sophisticated.


----------



## Darth Quiris

I have never played a game of D&D that used Alignments that didn't devolve into some form of Alignment War between players at some point because every player see's them, and interprets them, differently despite the clear wording of how they are described in the PHB and this is, IMO, the inherent problem of Alignments as used in D&D. Since they are so subjective and different people can interpret them in so many different ways what's Lawful Good to one person might be Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good to another... this is why I never abide by them and ignore them whether I am a player or a GM when it comes to mortals in the Prime Material Plane.


----------



## Dwimmerlied

pemerton said:


> I don't see why communication and reaching a table-wide agreement about what "good" means in this campaign is stronger than not insisting on a table-wide usage of "good". The latter allows everyone to play their characters, and for the GM to handle backstory and setting, as s/he thinks is appropriate - and the collisions between these things help drive the actual play of the game.




Good point. I can't say stronger, because I don't know, and if you are saying in your judgment and experiences you have found the system you now use is strong, well it seems you've reflected a lot on this, and I take that at face value. To clarify what I think, good communication skills are a very strong solution to many of the problems that I've seen offered as evidence that the alignment system is poor, weak, or should be abandoned.



> For me a comparison would be this: the PCs meet a dragon and decide to try and defeat it in combat. Do they succeed or not - ie is it true or false in the fiction that the PCs beat the dragon? One way would be for everyone to sit around, think hard about what the PCs can do and what the dragon can do, communicate frankly about this, and reach agreement. Another way would be to _play the game_. I prefer playing the game to work out what happens to the dragon; and I prefer playing the game to work out whether or not a particular player's evaluative conception of his/her PC, as expressed through the play of that PC, is viable/worthwhile/good/bad/admirable/despicable. In my experience the results can be interesting.




I don't think this is a good comparison; your example options aren't mutually exclusive, and neither, necessarily, are methods for working inside the alignment framework. I've given examples of in-world devices I would use in previous posts, as has, IRC has [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]. Further, it wouldn't be difficult for anyone to conceive of many other in-game devices. There is such a plethora of mechanical devices, entities, monsters, NPCs, spells and other mechanics to ensure the experience never need be as bland as your analogy suggests that I imagine for most DMs it happens organically without ever even needing to contemplate what the system intended on a gaming forum.

And yes, completely out-of-game discussion is also an option, which can be so effective and simple that I would happily use it even being mindful of your comparison, and not feel for an instant that the exchange was bland, because I believe that although organic, in game devices are great, all gamers, whatever their preferred mechanic or opinion must from time to time readily employ simple exchange of ideas out of character whenever it would be more expedient to do so.



> But that the universe responds in that way itself has implications for the truth or falsehood of certain moral and cosmological conceptions. For instance, if the universe is neutral as between being good or being evil - as is the case in Planescape, where both are valid alignments able to shape the planes by way of belief - then the typical mindset of a paladin (according to which the universe is on the side of good, and providence will ensure that honour and duty align to reinforce rather than oppose one another) has already been refuted, and the paladin is consequently self-deluded.




I don't understand whether this is a rebuttal to the quote you posted or simply a development of an interesting point about gaming and philosophy in general (or both!).


----------



## Dwimmerlied

pemerton said:


> Actually, as I posted upthread, alignment rules seem to have been invented precisely for players whose PCs were pawns on a chess board. They introduced an extra constraint on the play of those pawns, in return for better access to certain benefits (like hirelings, healing and resurrection).
> 
> Conversely, once you are playing living, breathing characters why do you need alignment?
> not?




I don't believe the alignment rules were invented as constraints for pawns. Also, as to why, well one reason that looks easily beyond pawn control is that they provide a nice, concise mechanical and story hook that interacts with the supernatural and metaphysical assumptions of the game.


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> It seems to me that there is little challenge in role playing this character's strong moral directives when the player knows, and the mechanics dictate, that the character is always more likely to succeed by adhering to those moral beliefs than if he deviates from them. What is difficult is maintaining principals when one would benefit by compromising or ignoring those beliefs.




I agree with @_*pemerton*_ here. I may play a game now and again that is about exploring the descent into madness in a world of lurking horrors or how much of your humanity you are willing to risk to do x, but D&D typically isn't it for me. The themes we're playing out and premise we're exploring is typically much lighter. I don't want it to be "hard" for the players to roleplay so we may have exclusive interests here.

That being said, it isn't difficult to make a stray choice a difficult one. A character can have (i) their moral directives be slightly at odds (mostly from a utility perspective) with a companion's own. What's more, a set of personal beliefs may become at tension if framed into a certain situation. In that case, there are systemic ways to frame a feedback such that XP is gained from having those beliefs challenged and the character (through the player) being forced to make a hard decision that betrays their internal, competing interests...and ultimately forces them to establish a herarchy (even if just a temporary one, subject to change later).

Lastly, If there is any point to the alignment system (specifically the "your powers are contingent upon it"), it is that the GM should frame conflict that juxtaposes its competing ideas and priorities. As such, I don't look at the classic D&D alignment system as having any advantage here. Inherent to it is, when presented with a hard choice, if you misprioritize your hierarchy of ideals (specifically in the GM's eyes) and commit an action that champions one over another, you may lose access to your archetype (class) defining features (your powers).


----------



## Dungeoneer

Dwimmerlied said:


> I guess my POV should be clear with what I've posted before, but the reason I disagree with your quotes, @_*Dungeoneer*_ , is because I think it represents overly antagonistic gaming. That aside, surprises can't be too much of a problem for folk who can communicate and compromise. And if such antagonism exists, there would be many other problems the game with so much potential ambiguity.
> 
> Or ask before, or even during the game. And hand-slapping is never necessary, who would do that? I as a DM would discuss, or offer thoughts, and determine to be receptive to my players vision of their character, then I'd work within that. Is that so out there?




You can ASK before, but here's what will happen: you'll get generalities about not stealing and taking life. Those are obvious. What you won't hear about are the edge cases, like where the DM decides your character is being too much of a jerk or doesn't like the way you spoke to that barmaid at the last inn and tells you that this is behavior unbecoming a LG character.

Unless your DM has extensively reflected on their moral philosophy and then handed you a tome codifying it at the start of the game there is no way that you can know exactly what they believe constitutes Lawful Good or any other alignment. At the end of the day you can only truly find out by testing the boundaries, knowingly or not. 

If you think this never comes up, there is another active thread right now on this very messageboard where a DM has decided his LG player is being too much of a jerk because of various reasons that have nothing to do with stealing from orphans.

When you think an LG player's behavior is out of line, you "offer thoughts." To the player it feels like a slap on the wrist. Especially since you probably haven't "offered thoughts" on the way your other player is running his CN halfling rogue.



> D&D is a mind game!




Cute, but you know what I mean.



> That's not a fact, that's an opinion!




ON A _MESSAGEBOARD_?!? Well I never!


----------



## Dwimmerlied

Dungeoneer said:


> You can ASK before, but here's what will happen: you'll get generalities about not stealing and taking life. Those are obvious. What you won't hear about are the edge cases, like where the DM decides your character is being too much of a jerk or doesn't like the way you spoke to that barmaid at the last inn and tells you that this is behavior unbecoming a LG character.




See, only under this situation is this correct. But do you game with jerks? I dunno... it's conceivable that I've just always had great groups (excepting high school, but that doesn't count), but I wouldn't play in such an antagonistic group; it wouldn't be fun, and it'd just make me angry.  Like I say, if there are jerks at the table, even if it's just from time-to-time, you can abandon or change rules to remove all ambiguity or interpretation, but you will still have problems.



> Unless your DM has extensively reflected on their moral philosophy and then handed you a tome codifying it at the start of the game there is no way that you can know exactly what they believe constitutes Lawful Good or any other alignment. At the end of the day you can only truly find out by testing the boundaries, knowingly or not.




Bombastic!!  I've never used such a tome. I like to talk about stuff, and in preparing for a new game, I might talk about these things a little bit; seriously, most cases are very black and white, and for all examples posted on this thread so far, very few have really, in my mind, stretched the wear of standard alignment too far. I could see something coming up in game, and if it did, I'm confident, as DM or player, it could quickly be resolved because I can both communicate and make compromise if I have to without sacrificing my fun. The vast majority of people are capable of employing both these two fundamental social skills, if they want to.



> If you think this never comes up, there is another active thread right now on this very messageboard where a DM has decided his LG player is being too much of a jerk because of various reasons that have nothing to do with stealing from orphans.




You are making the point for me. A jerk is jerk no matter how fantastic and unambiguous your rules are.



> When you think an LG player's behavior is out of line, you "offer thoughts." To the player it feels like a slap on the wrist. Especially since you probably haven't "offered thoughts" on the way your other player is running his CN halfling rogue.




What, jumping to conclusions? making assumptions? That's either silliness on the thinker's part, or it's founded, and then you've got bigger problems than abandoning alignment can help you game with.




> Cute, but you know what I mean.




Yeah, I can see how you think I was having a dig, but I intended something a little deeper, too (but didn't mind that the "dig" was still there ). So what I meant was if all the game is in your head, and it is, then all of the game is just as potentially open to abuse or misinterpretations, whatever. Which is why I think it's either often (not always) going to work or fail depending on how much the players can cooperate to make it work, with or despite the rules.



> ON A _MESSAGEBOARD_?!? Well I never!




I don't find it outrageous that you had an opinion, but I'll call it out if you try to sell it as fact when we debate.

Edit reason; failed int check on the quote tags


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> For me a comparison would be this: the PCs meet a dragon and decide to try and defeat it in combat. Do they succeed or not - ie is it true or false in the fiction that the PCs beat the dragon? One way would be for everyone to sit around, think hard about what the PCs can do and what the dragon can do, communicate frankly about this, and reach agreement. Another way would be to _play the game_. I prefer playing the game to work out what happens to the dragon; and I prefer playing the game to work out whether or not a particular player's evaluative conception of his/her PC, as expressed through the play of that PC, is viable/worthwhile/good/bad/admirable/despicable. In my experience the results can be interesting.




I find this a poor comparison.  We have plenty of rules for combat with the dragon, enabling an objective determination of whether the Dragon or the PC's won.  We don't argue over whether the Dragon should or should not be able to fly.  We accept that Dragons can fly.  We don't assert that, through sheer power of belief, a given PC should stand unharmed in the inferno of the Dragon's breath weapon - we look to the rules.

Many of the alignment arguments come back to debating the rules.  "Well, is 'respect for all life' really Good, or is it OK to adopt a system of capital punishment for capital crimes?  My Paladin thinks that it is not only Good to execute perpetrators of certain heinous crimes, but Evil  not to do so."  Whether I think Dragonfire should cause damage or not, the rules say it does.  Whether I think capital punishment is morally right or morally wrong, the rules say "Respect for Life is a Good ideal", so capital punishment is a compromise of that ideal.  I think the biggest issue with alignment arises when we assert that no compromise of ideals can exist.  The Paladin must respect life and protect the innocent, so when he must either defend the innocent with violence, and possibly cause the death of another person, that should not mean "Oh, you compromise the ideals of Good either way, you have fallen", but that there is room for compromise of one ideal to the betterment of another.  I doubt any gaming group would assert that the Paladin should not take up arms.  But in our real world, many pacifists would outright reject this form of resistance.



pemerton said:


> But that the universe responds in that way itself has implications for the truth or falsehood of certain moral and cosmological conceptions. For instance, if the universe is neutral as between being good or being evil - as is the case in Planescape, where both are valid alignments able to shape the planes by way of belief - then the typical mindset of a paladin (according to which the universe is on the side of good, and providence will ensure that honour and duty align to reinforce rather than oppose one another) has already been refuted, and the paladin is consequently self-deluded.




Who says the mindset of the Paladin is that the universe is on the side of good?  The Paladin devotes his life to exemplifying the virtues of Good and opposing evil at every turn.  He trains diligently in martial skills so he can oppose evil.  That strikes me as someone who believes Good is not foreordained to victory, but that the Virtuous must take up arms and fight to their last breath to see that virtue succeeds, and evil does not win.



pemerton said:


> As I said upthread, this can work in some games - eg in a Conan game a paladin _would_ be self-deluded - but doesn't work for the sort of fantasy game I default to, which is romantic fantasy a la Tolkien and King Arthur, not REH-esque.




I think there are two questions conflated here.  One is whether alignment can be a useful tool, perhaps as a role playing guide.  The second is whether it should have a tangible impact on the mechanics by which the characters play, highlighted by the loss of Paladin powers for failure to adhere to certain alignment tenets.

In those romantic fantasies, adherence to the tenets of Good and Law carry rewards, and a fall from grace carries a cost to the character, so I think this argument suggests the enforcement, not the abandonment, of alignments in the romantic fantasy, and suggests they should impact the mechanics.  In a Conan game, we may well still have virtuous Knights and vile, evil Sorcerers, but the cause of Good does not reward its followers with power (yet Evil still does, as sorcerers make pacts with vile entities from other worlds - Good is its own reward, but Evil bribes its followers).



pemerton said:


> This paragraph begins by talking about the player - and whether it is hard or easy to roleplay a particular character - and then ends up talking about the PC - who is maintaining certain principles. Talking in that way already involves many assumptions about playstyle that are not true for the way I play or GM the game. For instance, I don't expect my players to find it hard to roleplay their PCs being challenged. I hope that they will find it easy and enjoyable, and challenging only in the sense of setting an intellectual and aesthetic goal to aspire to - but in that respect, playing your PC being rewarded can be equally challenging, although often less dramatically engaging.




Is the problem, then, with the alignment system or the player's choice of character?  If I do not want my character to be beholden to any third party for his powers and abilities, then I should not select a class which derives its powers from adherence to the tenets of Law and Good, and is rewarded by divine favour (ie the Paladin), but rather I should choose a class whose abilities are inherent, and do not trust to any outside force.  The Paladin's abilities are linked to his adherence to an alignment as clearly as a spellcaster's spells are linked to his spellbook and use of components.

Most suggestions I see for replacing alignment bind the Paladin instead to some form of moral code.  Let's return to your "chastity" character.  If that character were a Paladin in a game where one of the tenets of the Paladin's Code is remaining chaste to remain pure, then I see nothing wrong with your character re-evaluating his priorities and perhaps deciding that he does not consider his purity dependent on chastity.  But his character mechanics still say "he must adhere to his code to maintain his powers".  So the character either needs to find another code which will grant the same, or similar, powers without a requirement of chastity (and presumably requiring some other code be maintained), perhaps also changing his powers/mechanics in some way, or forego his powers because he is no longer willing to meet the requirements of having those powers continue to be granted by the external force which grants those powers.

I contrast this issue, by the way, with your "accidental death" Paladin.  In that case, you are unhappy that his powers are not immediately struck from him due to a failing the character perceives as justifying such punishment, but the deity does not.  In the case of the vow of chastity, you are unhappy when failure to abide by the restrictions imposed does carry consequences.  Clearly, you do not find this to be inconsistent.  I do.  To the player who is unhappy with mechanics of a character depending on maintaining some behavioural requirement (be it alignment, a code of honor, a vow of chastity, the regular sacrifice of an innocent, loss of control under a full moon or any other restriction or requirement), *don't select a class, archetype or ability that imposes such requirements*.  This doesn't seem so tough to me.  Play an Honourable, Pious or Chaste fighter whose decision to abandon honour, piety or chastity has no mechanical repercussions.



pemerton said:


> They don't. That's part of the point of playing a paladin - finding out what your own conception of "honour" might require, and finding out what happens when that comes into collision with other participants' conceptions.




It seems like your issue is less one of "Alignment", as we can replace the word "honour" above with "Law" or "Good" and have the same expectations.  To me, your issue is more around who decides what happens, yourself or the GM, and whether the concept is embedded within the rules or not.  The rules are quite clear that when the Paladin crosses the line, he loses his powers.  That, then, is "what happens" when his conception of the ideals by which he lives "comes into collision" with the conceptions laid down by the rules, as interpreted by the GM.  If we remove "alignment" and require the Paladin live by his honour, with no other change to the game system, then the GM decides whether his has upheld the requirements of his honour, and you do not.  In another group, that decision might be made by the table as a whole (and in all games I've played, the GM listens to the opinions of those at the table, especially when the call is not clear and obvious).  From your comments here, and in prior posts, it seems you want the question of whether the Paladin's actions are, or are not, honourable to be somehow decided by a die roll, so if your "Honour" skill his high enough, somehow striking an enemy from behind in a dark alley is sufficiently "honourable" to satisfy the code.



pemerton said:


> Actually, as I posted upthread, alignment rules seem to have been invented precisely for players whose PCs were pawns on a chess board. They introduced an extra constraint on the play of those pawns, in return for better access to certain benefits (like hirelings, healing and resurrection).




I think the alignment rules may well have been motivated, at least in part, by a desire to include some rules parameters encouraging the players to treat their characters as more than a pawn on a chessboard, or at least that this may have motivated some of the evolution of the alignment rules.  This is no different than psychological complications in later game systems.  However, I believe the origins of alignment are found in the influence Michael Moorcock's writings had on the early roots of the game.



pemerton said:


> Conversely, once you are playing living, breathing characters why do you need alignment? You just play your character. If one of your character's "weaknesses" is that s/he won't fight dirty then just play him/her that way - though the whole idea that not fighting dirty is a weakness rather than a strength strikes me as wildly misguided unless the focus of the game is on nothing but extracting benefits from others via the most efficient application of physical force.




It is a weakness in a case where fighting dirty would be to the player's, or character's, advantage.  If we are letting matters be decided by the dice, and our PC can gain an advantage by throwing sand in his opponent's face, or by sniping with a crossbow rather than facing him in open combat, then an advantage is foregone by not "fighting dirty", whatever we perceive that to be.  Hopefully, the game also incorporates advantages to the character's honour perhaps trust, respect and goodwill which assists him outside combat), but then the lack of similar trust, respect and goodwill extended to the sniper might well be seen as a *disadvantage* of his choices.



Manbearcat said:


> Lastly, If there is any point to the alignment system (specifically the "your powers are contingent upon it"), it is that the GM should frame conflict that juxtaposes its competing ideas and priorities. As such, I don't look at the classic D&D alignment system as having any advantage here. Inherent to it is, when presented with a hard choice, if you misprioritize your hierarchy of ideals (specifically in the GM's eyes) and commit an action that champions one over another, you may lose access to your archetype (class) defining features (your powers).




This, to me, comes down to interpretation in play.  When presented with a hard choice, my view is that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed.  The fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers.  Given that, I consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice made.  The Paladin should not fall because he was forced to make a hard choice, and rank his priorities.  He should fall when he fails to make an obvious choice, even where that choice may be disadvantageous.  But the campaign ground rules should be discussed at the table, no different from a ruling on mechanics.  If Orcs in our game are irredeemably evil and fair game for slaughter by the forces of Good, this should be made known to everyone, and they should get reminded when the player forgets what their character would clearly know.  If, on the other hand, they are sentient beings capable of moral choice, then the players should know/be reminded of that as well, and treat Orc prisoners no different than human prisoners.  To me, the problem is much less "alignment as a concept" than it is an adversarial, "gotcha!" style of play where the GM considers it his job not to set interesting challenges for the Paladin (since he is the example we keep coming back to) but to trick him, or place him in untenable situations, driving him to fail.


----------



## N'raac

Dwimmerlied said:


> See, only under this situation is this correct. But do you game with jerks? I dunno... it's conceivable that I've just always had great groups (excepting high school, but that doesn't count), but I wouldn't play in such an antagonistic group; it wouldn't be fun, and it'd just make me angry.  Like I say, if there are jerks at the table, even if it's just from time-to-time, you can abandon or change rules to remove all ambiguity or interpretation, but you will still have problems.




Agreed.  To me, if the answer is so obvious the Paladin would know it, then this gets pointed out to the player before he commits.  We can certainly discuss the interpretation.  If it's a judgment call, then the Paladin (or whoever) is quite within his rights to make either call and have it considered acceptable.  LG is not a tiny dot on the alignment grid, it is a portion of the square within which may possible "dots" lie, and any one of those different points still falls under the broader heading "LG".  A team of four LG characters will not see eye to eye on every issue, but will on the more clear cut issues.


----------



## Desdichado

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek said:


> Alignment adds depth to a character.



Only if the character is the most shallow, superficial, cardboard character ever created.  I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play.  All of my characters, and with very few exceptions all of the characters of all of the players in my group, are considerably more deep than the superficial, shallow, arbitrary and ridiculous alignment system can possibly convey.


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> This, to me, comes down to interpretation in play. When presented with a hard choice, my view is that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed. The fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers. Given that, I consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice made. The Paladin should not fall because he was forced to make a hard choice, and rank his priorities. He should fall when he fails to make an obvious choice, even where that choice may be disadvantageous. But the campaign ground rules should be discussed at the table, no different from a ruling on mechanics. If Orcs in our game are irredeemably evil and fair game for slaughter by the forces of Good, this should be made known to everyone, and they should get reminded when the player forgets what their character would clearly know. If, on the other hand, they are sentient beings capable of moral choice, then the players should know/be reminded of that as well, and treat Orc prisoners no different than human prisoners. To me, the problem is much less "alignment as a concept" than it is an adversarial, "gotcha!" style of play where the GM considers it his job not to set interesting challenges for the Paladin (since he is the example we keep coming back to) but to trick him, or place him in untenable situations, driving him to fail.




If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter? In 1e, a UA Fighter is pretty much the equal of a Paladin and a 2e (especially C & T) Fighter is comprehensively a beast. They're both terrible in 3.x (and easily multi-classed out of) so it doesn't really matter. In 4e, the two characters are extremely distinct but there is no girding alignment.

I don't think we disagree too terribly much (except perhaps for what it means for roleplaying to be "hard" and/or its importants to functional D&D play). However, I just have found that the D&D alignment system is the least useful (and prone to potential detriment or obstruction) of all tools I've found in RPGs to explore thematic premise and challenge an ethos system (such that it must make hard choices or prioritize [sometimes competing] ideals).

Hang on. I think I have a moment of pithy clarity:

"Less, with specificity, is more. More, with generalities, is less."


----------



## Celebrim

Hobo said:


> Only if the character is the most shallow, superficial, cardboard character ever created.  I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play.  All of my characters, and with very few exceptions all of the characters of all of the players in my group, are considerably more deep than the superficial, shallow, arbitrary and ridiculous alignment system can possibly convey.




Well, if your writing is any example of your depth and nuance, I'm not convinced that your characters are really less "shallow", "superficial", and "cardboard" than those of us that don't find the alignment system "arbitrary" and "ridiculous".


----------



## Dwimmerlied

Manbearcat said:


> If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter?




Hey man, not everyone who wants to play an Anderson style knight in shining armour who fights for honour is interested in method-acting deep , morally ambiguous existential crises every session, and however it's read, or characterized on a messageboard forum, it's not, and doesn't have to be trivial to find the alignment system adequate.


----------



## Dwimmerlied

Despite how mentally undone you might become by the notion that someone might want to play a paladin within the context that you oversimplified, strap yourself in tight when you read this; I have written for many years many compelling, involving and entertaining stories, and never found the alignment system lacking.


----------



## Desdichado

Celebrim said:


> Well, if your writing is any example of your depth and nuance, I'm not convinced that your characters are really less "shallow", "superficial", and "cardboard" than those of us that don't find the alignment system "arbitrary" and "ridiculous".



Luckily, the chances of us playing together are so remote, that I'm not very concerned about you having to bear my attempts at nuance and depth, and I'll never have to bear your non-stop condescension, pretentiousness, smugness and insulting demeanor.



PLONK


----------



## Umbran

Celebrim said:


> Well, if your writing is any example of your depth and nuance...






			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> ...I'll never have to bear your non-stop condescension, pretentiousness, smugness and insulting demeanor.





And you guys thought making it personal was a good idea because....?

That was a rhetorical question, of course.  You both know you shouldn't make it personal.  You both know you should address the content of the post, not the person of the poster.

So, you know, do what you should do, instead of what you did here.  Thanks.


----------



## Umbran

Hobo said:


> I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play.




Now, to pose a question - is it that alignment is impeding depth, or is it your mindset about alignment that is impeding depth?

If you are stuck in the mindset that alignment is prescriptive - "My character is Lawful Good, and so they must behave in accordance with that." - then yes, alignment will tend to impede depth.

If, however, you get in the mindset that alignment is descriptive - that how you behave on the long average determines your alignment, not the other way around - then there's no impediment.  Act as you will, and let the alignment fall where it may.

This even goes for clerics and paladins.  If you're a paladin, of course the first thought is about how they are restricted - that is part of the point of the class!  But, you can phrase that either as, "I must be lawful good," or you can phrase that as, "This character has taken vows he or she holds dear."


----------



## Imaro

Hobo said:


> Only if the character is the most shallow, superficial, cardboard character ever created.  I assure you; alignment impedes depth with every character in every game I play.  All of my characters, and with very few exceptions all of the characters of all of the players in my group, are considerably more deep than the superficial, shallow, arbitrary and ridiculous alignment system can possibly convey.




Could you expound on this?  I mean I understand not liking alignment but I have a really hard time seeing how it could impede depth with every character in every game you've played... unless you are trying to use alignment to define the totality of your character's personality (which it was never meant to do)...


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter? In 1e, a UA Fighter is pretty much the equal of a Paladin and a 2e (especially C & T) Fighter is comprehensively a beast. They're both terrible in 3.x (and easily multi-classed out of) so it doesn't really matter. In 4e, the two characters are extremely distinct but there is no girding alignment.




I think you're making a mistake here... I don't think most players sits down with the intention to play a paladin without the thematic trappings... that said once the game starts, a paladin may find himself in a situation where it is more expedient, safe, etc. to go against those trappings depending on the in-game circumstances, and since it is still a game and one can suffer loss and even death in-game, a player could easily be tempted to ignore those thematic trappings when convenient or when their back is against the wall.

EDIT: In the model you (and I believe [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]) propose, nothing stops this from happening and, I have to ask, why would a player not choose the most expedient or optimized route if it is available and there are no repercussions for it?


----------



## Desdichado

Umbran said:


> Now, to pose a question - is it that alignment is impeding depth, or is it your mindset about alignment that is impeding depth?



It's alignment.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> If, however, you get in the mindset that alignment is descriptive - that how you behave on the long average determines your alignment, not the other way around - then there's no impediment.  Act as you will, and let the alignment fall where it may.



I agree.  However... because I agree, alignment becomes useless to me.  It's not nearly as useful at defining or describing a character's philosophical approach as a couple of sentences... maybe even a small paragraph or so... about my character is going to be.

On the other hand, I tend to allow character's character (ahem) develop organically, based on what seems like the right response to stimuli throughout play.  So, alignment is completely descriptive... but what exactly have I gained by attempting to describe these actions?  In what way does alignment become useful to me?  At best, it's trying to pigeonhole complicated stimulus/response patterns into poorly fitting and somewhat arbitrary buckets.  At worst, it devolves into philosophical wrangling between the player and DM about what is or is not appropriate for an alignment, or is used in an attempt to bludgeon player behavior.

I've never once had a good experience with alignment.  At best, it's merely superfluous and pointless.  At worst, it's an active detriment to having a good time at the table.  Luckily for me, the way I play tends to push towards making it superfluous.  And also luckily for me, the group I game with the last few years tends to be more or less on the same page as me about it.

But that hasn't always been the case, and I've been frustrated by interpretations of alignment esoterica and what it means for *my* character on more than one occasion throughout my gaming career.


Imaro said:


> Could you expound on this?  I mean I understand not liking alignment but I have a really hard time seeing how it could impede depth with every character in every game you've played... unless you are trying to use alignment to define the totality of your character's personality (which it was never meant to do)...



Hopefully answered above.


----------



## gamerprinter

I find alignment innocuous, mostly hand-waved, usable primarily to play 'being a paladin' or activating the 'good' based powers for an inquisitor. It points a direction for generalized attitudes and little more. Some groups I imagine can really put it to use effectively in their games. Me less so, though all the whining about alignment in many, many threads is because these people are taking it too seriously. It works fine for our games, because it has so little real meaning. Other than mechanical attributes to certain classes, or against certain monsters, we hardly think about alignment at all.


----------



## Manbearcat

Dwimmerlied said:


> Hey man, not everyone who wants to play an Anderson style knight in shining armour who fights for honour is interested in method-acting deep , morally ambiguous existential crises every session, and however it's read, or characterized on a messageboard forum, it's not, and doesn't have to be trivial to find the alignment system adequate.






Dwimmerlied said:


> Despite how mentally undone you might become by the notion that someone might want to play a paladin within the context that you oversimplified, strap yourself in tight when you read this; I have written for many years many compelling, involving and entertaining stories, and never found the alignment system lacking.




I think you're missing some context of what I was responding to and how it relates to classic D&D alignment enforcement (specifically the virtues and oaths of a Paladin).  I personally have no problem with what (I think) you're describing and it wouldn't matter if I did as its your table and you may (rightly) do as you please!



Imaro said:


> I think you're making a mistake here...




Could be.  I'm certainly as prone to being wrong as anyone.  Lets see.



Imaro said:


> I don't think most players sits down with the intention to play a paladin without the thematic trappings... that said once the game starts, a paladin may find himself in a situation where it is more expedient, safe, etc. to go against those trappings depending on the in-game circumstances, and since it is still a game and one can suffer loss and even death in-game, a player could easily be tempted to ignore those thematic trappings when convenient or when their back is against the wall.
> 
> EDIT: In the model you (and I believe @_*pemerton*_ ) propose, nothing stops this from happening and, I have to ask, why would a player not choose the most expedient or optimized route if it is available and there are no repercussions for it?




No, I read you and I get that.  That is certainly the dynamics in play that I was trying to capture above.  My question though is just, "when the chips are down, if the thematic trappings of the classic D&D Paladin (sacrifice, unrelenting committment to duty in the face lethal opposition, etc etc) don't come to the fore of your character's actions...why not play a Fighter with a more malleable ethic?"  I'm inclined to ask that of anyone who commits to something that is demanding and ultimately relents of their own volition.

I think we're (naturally) into the realm of behavioral psychology (as is pretty fundamental to the issues under discussion).  Carrot and stick.  Of course, given the diverse nature of peoples' programming, one approach might bear little to no fruit versus the other.  Let us say this guy is in mortal danger (as a Paladin should be) and his oath is being tested simultanesouly.  How about an oath that swears to "the committment to being a divine wall between the pressing horde and the innocent masses when there is no physical barrier."  The carrot approach might look something like this:

- Gain <n> XP when you are outnumbered.

and/or

- When you are outnumbered 3:1 or more, you gain Divine Boon 001 (damage reduction, armor bonus, + n to hit and damage, et al).

and/or 

- When innocents are in peril, your voice is imbued by the Divine might of your god (+ n bonus to Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc).

Stuff like that.  Those mechanical incentives (should) compel someone toward fulfilling their oath.  The abilities gained to even the odds reinforce the decision-making to observe the thematic trappings (in this case the specified oath above).  I would hope they would chase down those opportunities as it is basically the point of play (both mechanically and the fictional archetype).  If they still do not, then both the gameplay for them would (I would think) be stale (they don't get to do their shtick) and the fiction would simultaneously become incoherent with respect to their chosen archetype.  That is the case where I'm wondering why they aren't just playing a Fighter (or another martial archetype) who doesn't wax (mechanically and within the fiction) by way of oaths fulfilled or virtues observed.

Hopefully that is more thorough and makes some semblance of sense.


----------



## Celebrim

Umbran said:


> Now, to pose a question - is it that alignment is impeding depth, or is it your mindset about alignment that is impeding depth?
> 
> If you are stuck in the mindset that alignment is prescriptive - "My character is Lawful Good, and so they must behave in accordance with that." - then yes, alignment will tend to impede depth.
> 
> If, however, you get in the mindset that alignment is descriptive - that how you behave on the long average determines your alignment, not the other way around - then there's no impediment.  Act as you will, and let the alignment fall where it may.




I think it is an impediment to creating depth of character to view something prescriptive as being an impediment to depth.  On the contrary, the really great and powerful characters of literature we know because we can say firmly and authoritatively, "That action would be out of character for X."  In other words, we intuitively know that description of a character matches to some prescriptive set of strictures on the behavior of the character.   

In TV series, it's not uncommon at all for the show to 'jump the shark' when the character 'evolves' by doing something that was entirely out of character for that character.   We the audience don't want to see a character change, because the character stops being who we can to love the character for being.  The character's trajectory must be inherent and foreshadowed by the character's traits to begin with.   We may not know which way they will fall in the final trial and the final toss, but if it is a good character that conclusion must make sense in context so that either way, it is something we could see the character doing.



> If you're a paladin, of course the first thought is about how they are restricted - that is part of the point of the class!  But, you can phrase that either as, "I must be lawful good," or you can phrase that as, "This character has taken vows he or she holds dear."




The two must be equivalent.   If your first thought it, "I must be lawful good", your second thought must be, "What does that mean?"   If your first thought is, "I must be the sort of person who humbly submits to an outside authorities judgment, even when I disagree", your second thought must be, "What alignment am I talking about?"   Problems occur when those two thoughts become disconnected.

Now of course, we could play a game where we only thought "I am the sort of person who humbly submits to the outside authorities judgment, even when I disagree" and didn't follow up with, "What alignment am I talking about?", but if we did so we'd lose certain potentials for mechanical interaction between the statement of belief and the descriptor and we'd have to work hard to replace that mechanical linkage with something else.  

In my experience, not thinking deeply ahead of time about these things tends to trend the character to not actually be a character, but instead a playing piece whose actions are best described as 'they were chosen because the player felt they were the most expedient choices to make at the time' or at best 'they were chosen because they were the decisions most emotionally fulfilling to the player at the time' (usually self-aggrandizement, vengeance, and self-promotion).   This is certainly true in writing novels or similar literature, but even more true when animating a player character in an RPG where you can't know ahead of time whether the story arc will carry the character.

One of the greatest RPG essays ever written in my opinion is 'The Seven Sentence NPC'.  In it is some of the best and most pithy advice ever written about the art of crafting NPC's for practical use in a gameable environment.   One argument you can make against alignment that seems at first blush to be a strong one is that the article makes pretty much no mention of alignment and stands well without it.  Without alignment, all the character examples in the article stand up strongly as memorable NPCs (which IMO is often more important to an NPC at least than depth).   So one might argue, "What do we need alignment for?"   Many do.   But a deeper understanding in my opinion is reached when you realize that for each of these memorable NPC's, you can add more depth to the character by in addition also specifying the alignment of the character and in doing so realize that each of the character examples could be given any of the 9 alignments and in each case becomes a radically different character which we must reassess.   In many ways, the more strongly the alignment plays against the predictable personality type, the more surprising and memorable the character becomes.

Alignment might not tell us anything deep and useful about a character's personality.  It certainly never provides us with a background or details out the relationships that are important to the character.   All of those things are useful and perhaps even necessary whether we have alignment or not.  But it tells us something of fundamental importance that a character's personality does not.  It tells us some of the intrinsic prescriptions for getting the character right.


----------



## Imaro

Hobo said:


> It's alignment.
> 
> I agree.  However... because I agree, alignment becomes useless to me.  It's not nearly as useful at defining or describing a character's philosophical approach as a couple of sentences... maybe even a small paragraph or so... about my character is going to be.




Ok, here I see why you don't like it... why it's not as useful as it could be for your purposes... but not how it is actually *impeding* the depth of a character...



Hobo said:


> On the other hand, I tend to allow character's character (ahem) develop organically, based on what seems like the right response to stimuli throughout play.  So, alignment is completely descriptive... but what exactly have I gained by attempting to describe these actions?  In what way does alignment become useful to me?  At best, it's trying to pigeonhole complicated stimulus/response patterns into poorly fitting and somewhat arbitrary buckets.  At worst, it devolves into philosophical wrangling between the player and DM about what is or is not appropriate for an alignment, or is used in an attempt to bludgeon player behavior.




Well it could be useful as a shorthand, but putting that aside for a moment, again I am looking for why it is an actual impediment to the depth of a character? Alignment does not in and of itself prohibit me from writing background, personality traits or anything else so IMO... it's not pidgeonholing anything and is merely another facet of the character.  As far as a DM using it to bludgeon characters or philosophical wrangling... are these classes where alignment has a mechanical impact on their play... or are you speaking generally?



Hobo said:


> I've never once had a good experience with alignment.  At best, it's merely superfluous and pointless.  At worst, it's an active detriment to having a good time at the table.  Luckily for me, the way I play tends to push towards making it superfluous.  And also luckily for me, the group I game with the last few years tends to be more or less on the same page as me about it.
> 
> But that hasn't always been the case, and I've been frustrated by interpretations of alignment esoterica and what it means for *my* character on more than one occasion throughout my gaming career.




Couldn't these same complaints arise with a fleshed out personality as opposed to alignment... "Your character would never do this..."?  This doesn't seem like an "alignment" problem per se but instead strikes me as the problem that arises whenever people have differing interpretations of descriptors (including the description of a character's personality, traits, etc.)



Hobo said:


> Hopefully answered above.




I didn't really get a sense of why alignment in particular was an impediment to character depth from your reply... but it could be on me not understanding fully what you are saying.


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro, I'm not quite sure what would satisfy you.  Clearly I'm not actively impeded by a rule that I already stated that I ignore.  That seems self-evident.  _If I did use it_, then it would impede depth, because I'd have to either 1) try and pattern the behavior of my character to follow an alignment description, even if an organically developed character would have nuance and shades of gray that spanned multiple alignment categories, or 2) repurpose alignment to be little more than a "team jersey" rather than a useful description of my character, which would be a house-rule and therefore beside the point of our conversation, or 3) ignore the alignment on my character sheet and develop my character organically and suck it up on the rare occasions that the rules interact with my alignment, or constantly update my alignment on my character sheet as actions dictate, which is a bit of a hassle for no discernable benefit.

In any case, we've wandered a bit off-topic.  My response was that no, to me alignment does not improve the gaming experience.  At best--_depending on your interpretation of alignment_--it is superfluous and meaningless.  At worst--_depending on your interpretation of alignment_--it impedes the development of interesting characters that have depth.  If the solution to the second situation is to interpret alignment in such a way that it invokes the first situation, which is what I've been told already by Umbran, then that's not very helpful.  I already reached that conclusion and invoked the first situation in my own games long ago, and frankly, with that situation, there's no reason to have alignment at all.

I do also think it's interesting (although certainly not "proof" of anything) that no other fantasy game that isn't clearly and extremely derivative of D&D uses anything whatsoever like alignment.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> No, I read you and I get that.  That is certainly the dynamics in play that I was trying to capture above.  My question though is just, "when the chips are down, if the thematic trappings of the classic D&D Paladin (sacrifice, unrelenting committment to duty in the face lethal opposition, etc etc) don't come to the fore of your character's actions...why not play a Fighter with a more malleable ethic?"  I'm inclined to ask that of anyone who commits to something that is demanding and ultimately relents of their own volition.




Because you could have every intention of playing the paladin correctly up until the point where you have 3 hit points left, an unscathed giant is bearing down on a mother and her child and you think... sacrificing myself in a hopeless situation isn't REALLY about commitment or duty... it's just senseless stupidity... and so you decide to hide or run as the mother and child are killed...



Manbearcat said:


> I think we're (naturally) into the realm of behavioral psychology (as is pretty fundamental to the issues under discussion).  Carrot and stick.  Of course, given the diverse nature of peoples' programming, one approach might bear little to no fruit versus the other.  Let us say this guy is in mortal danger (as a Paladin should be) and his oath is being tested simultanesouly.  How about an oath that swears to "the committment to being a divine wall between the pressing horde and the innocent masses when there is no physical barrier."  The carrot approach might look something like this:
> 
> - Gain <n> XP when you are outnumbered.
> 
> and/or
> 
> - When you are outnumbered 3:1 or more, you gain Divine Boon 001 (damage reduction, armor bonus, + n to hit and damage, et al).
> 
> and/or
> 
> - When innocents are in peril, your voice is imbued by the Divine might of your god (+ n bonus to Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc).
> 
> Stuff like that.  Those mechanical incentives (should) compel someone toward fulfilling their oath.  The abilities gained to even the odds reinforce the decision-making to observe the thematic trappings (in this case the specified oath above).  I would hope they would chase down those opportunities as it is basically the point of play (both mechanically and the fictional archetype).  If they still do not, then both the gameplay for them would (I would think) be stale (they don't get to do their shtick) and the fiction would simultaneously become incoherent with respect to their chosen archetype.  That is the case where I'm wondering why they aren't just playing a Fighter (or another martial archetype) who doesn't wax (mechanically and within the fiction) by way of oaths fulfilled or virtues observed.
> 
> Hopefully that is more thorough and makes some semblance of sense.




It makes sense and I understand the approach you think is best but I have a few problems with it...

One problem with the carrot approach is that they are only incentives up to the point that a PC feels that using them this one time is worth more than what he may give up if he does... as an example, in a situation where the player will loose... let's say his favorite holy avenger sword, even using his bonuses/powers/etc if he holds back an enemy... but he could retain it by acting in a different manner, say hiding or running away,  he has no reason to act in the manner that the powers reward him for since he will still have them if he doesn't behave in a fitting manner (this time) and he will not have lost the holy avenger sword.  On the other hand I'm not sure many if any players would loose all of their class abilities in order to retain a magic weapon (this is the stick)...   

Another problem with the reward or carrot approach is that, if you are rewarding specific actions in specific circumstances it still doesn't carry any weight in the situations those rewards don't appear in... As an example, your paladin above wouldn't get a bonus when he tortures a tied up and helpless innocent... but nothing in your methodology causes him to be adverse to this action either (he's as good at it as anyone else so why not)... he doesn't suffer any repercussions so if it's expedient or necessary, torture of the innocent will be on the table for this paladin... even though he's supposed to be a wall  for said innocents that holds back the darkness.  Again this problem doesn't arise in a more general stick approach... do I want to loose my powers because I did this... probably not.


----------



## pemerton

Dwimmerlied said:


> I don't believe the alignment rules were invented as constraints for pawns.



I'm only going on what I've read (eg in articles in Dragon and White Dwarf back in the day), and then on posts I've read on these boards that have helpe me make sense of what I was reading back then.



Dwimmerlied said:


> if there are jerks at the table, even if it's just from time-to-time, you can abandon or change rules to remove all ambiguity or interpretation, but you will still have problems.





N'raac said:


> alignment can be a useful tool, perhaps as a role playing guide.





Hobo said:


> I tend to allow character's character (ahem) develop organically, based on what seems like the right response to stimuli throughout play.  So, alignment is completely descriptive... but what exactly have I gained by attempting to describe these actions?  In what way does alignment become useful to me?  At best, it's trying to pigeonhole complicated stimulus/response patterns into poorly fitting and somewhat arbitrary buckets.  At worst, it devolves into philosophical wrangling between the player and DM about what is or is not appropriate for an alignment, or is used in an attempt to bludgeon player behavior.
> 
> I've never once had a good experience with alignment.  At best, it's merely superfluous and pointless.  At worst, it's an active detriment to having a good time at the table.



What Hobo says here is true for me - it's the starting point of why alignment serves no purpose for my play. The reason that alignment is an active impediment for me, as opposed to merely a waste of time, is that by pigeonholing behaviour into pre-determined moral categories questions are answered by stipulation that I don't want to answer by stipulation.

And I certainly don't need aligment as a roleplaying guide. If I, or one of my players, wants to play a paladin, or a sneaky thief, or a chaotically tainted drow, or whatever, no guide in the form of alignments is needed. Having decided what to play, we just play it - and then let the character evolve in play as Hobo describes.

This doesn't relate to playing with jerks. I play with people whose company I enjoy. It doesn't mean that we have the same moral outlook, or have the same ideas about how to develop PCs or respond to situations posed in play. Sometimes I'm shocked by the things my players have their PCs do. I can express that shock by saying as much - I don't need to do anything additional like telling them "By the way, that shows that your PC is evil".



N'raac said:


> if the answer is so obvious the Paladin would know it, then this gets pointed out to the player before he commits.



This is exactly what I mean by the player having to subordinate his/her judgement to that of the GM: this is the GM telling the player how his/her PC should act, given that the player wants his/her PC to do the right thing.

I personally don't see the attraction of that sort of play. As a GM I want the players to play their PCs, and as a player I want to play my own PC. If we are assuming that the player is playing sincerely, then why should the GM's opinion as to what is right be given priority over the player's?



N'raac said:


> When presented with a hard choice, my view is that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed.  The fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers.  Given that, I consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice made.



And if alignment doesn't have any bite when choices are not "obvious", then for the reasons that Hobo gave it seems superfluous.



Dwimmerlied said:


> I don't think this is a good comparison





N'raac said:


> We have plenty of rules for combat with the dragon, enabling an objective determination of whether the Dragon or the PC's won.  We don't argue over whether the Dragon should or should not be able to fly.  We accept that Dragons can fly.  We don't assert that, through sheer power of belief, a given PC should stand unharmed in the inferno of the Dragon's breath weapon - we look to the rules.
> 
> Many of the alignment arguments come back to debating the rules.



I continue to think that, for my purposes, it is an apt comparison.

Yes, we have rules for combat with the dragon. Why? And why those rules, rather than rules that I described in which the outcome is determined via metagame discussion between the game participants? Because we don't want to resolve the outcome via negoitated consensus. (Nor by GM stipulation as the alternative to consensus.) Rather, we want the players to make action declarations for their PCs, and to see how the interaction of these things leads to a result against the dragon.

For me, as far as evaluation is concerned, I similarly want the players to make action declarations for their PCs, which prompt judgements by them and by the other participants, which might then lead those others to have their characters do certain things in the game - and the overall situation, and its value, is the outcome of those choices and their intersection. I don't want it predetermined either via consensus or via GM stipulation.

In the passage I quoted above N'raac posits that the GM would frame a choice for the paladin PC, and then tell the player of that PC the best way to choose. From my point of view, the player looks pretty superfluous in that situation!



N'raac said:


> In that case, you are unhappy that his powers are not immediately struck from him due to a failing the character perceives as justifying such punishment, but the deity does not.



Huh? The context of yor post suggests that "you" is meant to refer to me, pemerton, but the view you attribute to me is not one that I ever asserted. I haven't said anything about being unhappy about powers not being struck from a paladin.

In the situation I described and to which you were responding, the player decided that his paladin had done the wrong thing and hence the PC went off to do penance in the wilderness. I rolled an encounter, which turned out to be a demon encounter. The demon started taunting the paladin for having done the wrong thing. My initial thought with the encounter was that the player would reason as follows: a demon never speaks the truth; hence the demon is lying; hence the paladin didn't do the wrong thing; hence no penance is required. But the player actually interpreted the situation this way: that the paladin had done the wrong thing; that this rendered him on a par with a demon; and that the demon was here to invest him into the ways of evil. The players response to his interpreation, therefore, was to have his PC put up no resistance as the demon proceeded to beat him to a pulp, until it got bored and wandered off. (The PCs friends then tracked him down with some sort of divination spell, and nursed him back to health.)

This is an example of play which alignment rules would not have helped, and would have impeded.



N'raac said:


> In the case of the vow of chastity, you are unhappy when failure to abide by the restrictions imposed does carry consequences.



More imputation of emotions that I never said I had!

In the case of the chaste paladin, the question I had, as a player, was "Should I marry the other PC and consumate my feelings for her?" I had to make a decision as to what my PC ought to do. Either way there of course were consequences - for the other PC (and her player), for the party as a whole, for the campaign, as well as for the outlook and values of my PC.

This is another example in which alignment rules don't add anything except getting the GM to make the choice instead of me. What's the point of that? I may as well have not turned up to the session!



N'raac said:


> To me, your issue is more around who decides what happens, yourself or the GM, and whether the concept is embedded within the rules or not.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> From your comments here, and in prior posts, it seems you want the question of whether the Paladin's actions are, or are not, honourable to be somehow decided by a die roll



You are correct that the issue is, for me, one of who decides what happens in the game, and what its value is. I hoped that I had been clear on that.

You are incorect that I want the question to be "somehow decided by a die roll". I have repeatedly said that the question _does not have to be decided_ as part of the mechanical resolution of play. It is about provoking real evaluative judgements and motivations in the participants.



N'raac said:


> It is a weakness in a case where fighting dirty would be to the player's, or character's, advantage.  If we are letting matters be decided by the dice, and our PC can gain an advantage by throwing sand in his opponent's face, or by sniping with a crossbow rather than facing him in open combat, then an advantage is foregone by not "fighting dirty", whatever we perceive that to be.





Imaro said:


> once the game starts, a paladin may find himself in a situation where it is more expedient, safe, etc. to go against those trappings depending on the in-game circumstances, and since it is still a game and one can suffer loss and even death in-game, a player could easily be tempted to ignore those thematic trappings when convenient or when their back is against the wall.
> 
> EDIT: In the model you (and I believe pemerton) propose, nothing stops this from happening and, I have to ask, why would a player not choose the most expedient or optimized route if it is available and there are no repercussions for it?





Imaro said:


> Because you could have every intention of playing the paladin correctly up until the point where you have 3 hit points left, an unscathed giant is bearing down on a mother and her child and you think... sacrificing myself in a hopeless situation isn't REALLY about commitment or duty... it's just senseless stupidity... and so you decide to hide or run as the mother and child are killed



These characterisations of "advantage", or of "temptating the player of the paladin to have his/her PC act expediently rather than honourably", seem to me to make a whole lot of assumptions about both mechanics and playstyle.

The mechanical assumptions are that the paladin player will be more mechanically effective when making attacks that are sneaky rather than honourable. That is not true across all RPGs, and not even true across all versions of D&D - for instance, it is not really true in 4e, where the paladin's powers are designed so as to mechanically support the play of an honourable warrior. (This is 4e's approximation to the sort of approach suggested by [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION] upthread.)

The playstyle assumption is that the GM is not adjudicating in a "fail forward" style, and hence that, unless the _PC _achieves immediate victory in the confrontation, the _player_ will have "lost" the game. Once you change that assumption, the player does not need to worry that if s/he compromises her conception of the PC's values, s/he will lose the game (eg by having his/her PC die and hence his/her participation in the campaign terminated).



Dwimmerlied said:


> I don't understand whether this is a rebuttal to the quote you posted or simply a development of an interesting point about gaming and philosophy in general (or both!).





N'raac said:


> Who says the mindset of the Paladin is that the universe is on the side of good?



This actually relates to the issue about weaknesses and advantages.

There is a moral/cosmological tradition - found in Plato, and also in a number of mainstream religions - that the good person _cannot_ suffer. If this is true, then the paladin who succumbs to expedience is not getting an advantage at all, and to the extent that things might look that way the paladin is making an epistemic error.

How does this relate to some of the issues in this thread?

First, a paladin who is a participant in such a tradition does take the universe to be on the side of good (which doesn't mean that good will triumph without effort - see Tolkien, for instance, as an example of a world on the side of good but in which good won't triumph without effort).

Second, a game _can_ be set up so as to make the tenets of such a tradition too - say, by letting players earn mechanical benefits for doing the right thing. This is tricky to do, though, because in the tradition the "non-suffering" tends to include views about an afterlife of some sort - but can be seen in such rules as the Oriental Adventures rule that lets a new PC get benefits from the previous PCs honour score. Also, most versions of this I know tend to rely on GM adjudication, which I don't like for the reasons I've given at length.

Third, a game can be set up so as to leave the tenets of a tradition _open_. This is my general preference, as articulated in this thread. A player can play his/her PC in a way that treats this as true, and adjudicated in a way (including some of the techniques I've described above) that doesn't rebut that. (Although it's confirmation of that may be only in the eye of the beholder.)

Fourth, a game can be set up so as to reveal such traditins as _mistaken_. Planescape does this: it establishes that the universe is indifferent to individual's moral choices, and that there is no greater likelihood that a good person will avoid suffering than an evil person. As I've said, this can work for a cynical game, or a Conan-esque game about moral self-creation, but not for romantic fantasy.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Because you could have every intention of playing the paladin correctly up until the point where you have 3 hit points left, an unscathed giant is bearing down on a mother and her child and you think... *sacrificing myself in a hopeless situation isn't REALLY about commitment or duty... it's just* *senseless stupidity... and so you decide to hide or run as the mother and child are killed*...
> 
> Another problem with the reward or carrot approach is that, if you are  rewarding specific actions in specific circumstances it still doesn't  carry any weight in the situations those rewards don't appear in... As  an example, your paladin above wouldn't get a bonus when he tortures a  tied up and helpless innocent... but nothing in your methodology causes  him to be adverse to this action either (he's as good at it as anyone  else so why not)... he doesn't suffer any repercussions *so if it's  expedient or necessary, torture of the innocent will be on the table for  this paladin*... even though he's supposed to be a wall  for said  innocents that holds back the darkness.  Again this problem doesn't  arise in a more general stick approach... do I want to loose my powers  because I did this... probably not.




I'm going to couple these two together if you don't mind.  First, I want to just mention that (i) such an oath (as outlined above) would be but one specified moral directive amongst others and (ii) there would be an overarching faith that binds the general dogma (eg punish the wicked, protect the meek, et al).  Together, they would form a coherent whole.  All would be expected to be observed but only the oaths (which would be specific aspects that define the dogma) would have the feedback system attached.

I primarily want to address the bolded bits.  Making qualitative value judgements is, of course, an inescapable part of being human.  Where this interfaces with the classical D&D alignment system and how it manifests in play is my primary issue.  

Consider what you have outlined above.  A Paladin ruminating upon a present conflict and considering it hopeless and, therefore, any sacrifice by himself as in vain and/or senseless (when considering the good he could potentially produce elsewhere were he not tied up with this "lost cause").  Then we have a Paladin reviewing a situation and applying cost-benefit analysis to determine what is the most expedient means (rather than what is the most idealistically rigorous or robust) to achieve his sought end.  Let us say you and I are pals in real life and you are at my table.  Lets say that at the edges of the general faith, and the specificity of the oaths, there are corner cases (such as the one you have outlined) that require addressing the situation from a perspective of moral idealism or utilitarianism.  Suddenly, I'm in a conversation with my buddy Imaro (whom I really just want to be playing D&D with) about philosophy.  We're invoking Mill and Kant and examining if a Paladin should be making qualitative value judgements from a perspective of maximizing utility and/or that moral judgements stem from the application of reason.  I don't want to be doing this.  Certainly not at the table and I don't really want to be doing it later.  At least not as a means to the end of determining if these edge-case actions that may skirt the periphery of his oaths and overarching dogma are in-line with the sui generis Paladin code.

I don't think we would agree anyway and even if we got to the point of "agree to disagree and live with my decision as final arbiter", I don't think either of us would be happy (at least that is my experience).



Imaro said:


> One problem with the carrot approach is that they are only incentives up to the point that a PC feels that using them this one time is worth more than what he may give up if he does... as an example, in a situation where the player will loose... let's say his favorite holy avenger sword, even using his bonuses/powers/etc if he holds back an enemy... but he could retain it by acting in a different manner, say hiding or running away,  he has no reason to act in the manner that the powers reward him for since he will still have them if he doesn't behave in a fitting manner (this time) and he will not have lost the holy avenger sword.  On the other hand I'm not sure many if any players would loose all of their class abilities in order to retain a magic weapon (this is the stick)...




I think one of the issues that keeps coming up here is the player who is playing in Pawn Stance amongst a table consensus that expects a "fiction first", (relatively) tightly focused thematic game from Actor Stance (perhaps with a smattering of Director and Author Stance).  If a player continuously makes qualitative value judgements based on "stuff I personally want or don't want to happen to me the player" that are out of line with "stuff that is thematically appropriate or inappropriate for Bob the Paladin", while the rest of the table expects (and follows themselves) the inverse, you're going to have problems no matter if you use carrots or sticks or a combination of the two.  Alternatively, if you take the same player (who keeps playing in Pawn Stance despite the table consensus to not do so) and place him in a situation where his interests as a player match up with the thematics of the character build and progression mechanics (the positive feedback system), then the rest of the players at the table (GM included) won't notice the Pawn Stance play (because the two are married).


----------



## Manbearcat

> Originally Posted by *N'raac*
> 
> 
> When presented with a hard choice, my view is  that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed.  The  fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers.  Given that, I  consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice  made.




I was going to post a response to the above but I'll just lazily press the quote button and say "as below."




pemerton said:


> And if alignment doesn't have any bite when choices are not "obvious", then for the reasons that Hobo gave it seems superfluous.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> These characterisations of "advantage", or of "temptating the player of the paladin to have his/her PC act expediently rather than honourably", seem to me to make a whole lot of assumptions about both mechanics and playstyle.




I think this is unavoidable... you assuming the player will act honourably as opposed to optimally or expediently make just as many assumptions...



pemerton said:


> The mechanical assumptions are that the paladin player will be more mechanically effective when making attacks that are sneaky rather than honourable. That is not true across all RPGs, and not even true across all versions of D&D - for instance, it is not really true in 4e, where the paladin's powers are designed so as to mechanically support the play of an honourable warrior. (This is 4e's approximation to the sort of approach suggested by @_*steenan*_ upthread.)




Okay, nowhere in my example is the paladin attacking in a sneaky manner... he is retreating which is an option that is neutral for all characters in all versions of D&D... You seem focused on narrowing down the situation to one where the paladin can either fight this way or fight that way... but my point is that the paladin can choose other options besides fighting... he can run, retreat, make a deal, etc. I think limiting it to fighting is a pointless restriction since we are talking about practical play here...  



pemerton said:


> The playstyle assumption is that the GM is not adjudicating in a "fail forward" style, and hence that, unless the _PC _achieves immediate victory in the confrontation, the _player_ will have "lost" the game. Once you change that assumption, the player does not need to worry that if s/he compromises her conception of the PC's values, s/he will lose the game (eg by having his/her PC die and hence his/her participation in the campaign terminated).




Not sure why you're choosing to only focus on the death example since I gave others (such as not wanting to suffer the loss of a favored magic weapon)... or as another example maybe the paladin's player wants to achieve a goal so much that he is willing to put his code aside to do it... Maybe regardless of his code that he won't kill, Batman (the paladin) decides to kill Joker, I mean there are no repercussions so why not?? 

I'm also not sure what fail forward has to do with my examples either since failing forward doesn't mean I won't suffer loss that I don't necessarily want to happen... and it doesn't auto-guarantee I won't compromise my conception in order to make sure that or numerous other things won't or will happen.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I'm going to couple these two together if you don't mind.  First, I want to just mention that (i) such an oath (as outlined above) would be but one specified moral directive amongst others and (ii) there would be an overarching faith that binds the general dogma (eg punish the wicked, protect the meek, et al).  Together, they would form a coherent whole.  All would be expected to be observed but only the oaths (which would be specific aspects that define the dogma) would have the feedback system attached.




Well I still think there would be holes and gray areas (just like with alignment) unless we get codes of a ridiculous level of detail... and then who ultimately would decide those blurry areas of the code, player or DM??



Manbearcat said:


> I primarily want to address the bolded bits.  Making qualitative value judgements is, of course, an inescapable part of being human.  Where this interfaces with the classical D&D alignment system and how it manifests in play is my primary issue.
> 
> Consider what you have outlined above.  A Paladin ruminating upon a present conflict and considering it hopeless and, therefore, any sacrifice by himself as in vain and/or senseless (when considering the good he could potentially produce elsewhere were he not tied up with this "lost cause").  Then we have a Paladin reviewing a situation and applying cost-benefit analysis to determine what is the most expedient means (rather than what is the most idealistically rigorous or robust) to achieve his sought end.  Let us say you and I are pals in real life and you are at my table.  Lets say that at the edges of the general faith, and the specificity of the oaths, there are corner cases (such as the one you have outlined) that require addressing the situation from a perspective of moral idealism or utilitarianism.  Suddenly, I'm in a conversation with my buddy Imaro (whom I really just want to be playing D&D with) about philosophy.  We're invoking Mill and Kant and examining if a Paladin should be making qualitative value judgements from a perspective of maximizing utility and/or that moral judgements stem from the application of reason.  I don't want to be doing this.  Certainly not at the table and I don't really want to be doing it later.  At least not as a means to the end of determining if these edge-case actions that may skirt the periphery of his oaths and overarching dogma are in-line with the sui generis Paladin code.
> 
> I don't think we would agree anyway and even if we got to the point of "agree to disagree and live with my decision as final arbiter", I don't think either of us would be happy (at least that is my experience).






So are you advocating that as the player of the paladin that I should create my own code, decide my own gray areas, etc.?  If so why am I not just playing a pious fighter with some type of religious background?  I guess my question boils down to at the point where I can act however I want because I am defining my own code and gray areas and behavior... what makes a paladin a paladin, since anybody can choose to define and follow a code?




Manbearcat said:


> I think one of the issues that keeps coming up here is the player who is playing in Pawn Stance amongst a table consensus that expects a "fiction first", (relatively) tightly focused thematic game from Actor Stance (perhaps with a smattering of Director and Author Stance).  If a player continuously makes qualitative value judgements based on "stuff I personally want or don't want to happen to me the player" that are out of line with "stuff that is thematically appropriate or inappropriate for Bob the Paladin", while the rest of the table expects (and follows themselves) the inverse, you're going to have problems no matter if you use carrots or sticks or a combination of the two.  Alternatively, if you take the same player (who keeps playing in Pawn Stance despite the table consensus to not do so) and place him in a situation where his interests as a player match up with the thematics of the character build and progression mechanics (the positive feedback system), then the rest of the players at the table (GM included) won't notice the Pawn Stance play (because the two are married).




It sounds to me like you are saying this style of paladin can only operate "correctly" with players and groups who have a certain playstyle and (narrow??) assumptions... is that a good thing?   

the other point is that there is no incentive for the player not to pick a paladin since he is deciding everything about his code...  i think you are making the mistake of assuming that the player will be acting out of the character of a paladin all the time, but I was clear that this was not the situation I was speaking to.  i am speaking of a player who for the most part plays the paladin as a paladin but every so often, when it is expedient or optimal, does something no paladin would do but suffers no repercussions for it.  that is the player I am talking about.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Because you could have every intention of playing the paladin correctly up until the point where you have 3 hit points left, an unscathed giant is bearing down on a mother and her child and you think... sacrificing myself in a hopeless situation isn't REALLY about commitment or duty... it's just senseless stupidity... and so you decide to hide or run as the mother and child are killed...




There isn't one "correct" answer here.  How this plays out depends on the nature of the particular Paladin and his divine patron.

1) Senseless sacrifice is not _required_ of the Paladin by any code I can think of, but it may still happen in the objective sense but not the subjective sense.  Depending on the Paladin's faith, he may believe that the sacrifice of interposing himself will enable some other  actor within the world- possibly even the deity itself- to complete the rescue.  IOW, he interposes himself, hoping for a miracle: he has subjectively made a sensible sacrifice based on his faith.  Objectively, if the innocents are not saved, he has made a senseless sacrifice.  (If I'm the DM, at the very least, the innocents will be saved, because rewarding that heroism follows the Rule of Cool.)

2) Alternatively, the Paladin does not interpose himself and the innocents die, but he swears to avenge their deaths.  This is consistent with his oath & virtues.   As long as the Player/PC takes concrete steps to fulfill that vow, he retains his status as a holy warrior in one of my campaigns "...when a good man goes to war."  If, OTOH, he makes the vow and doesn't follow through- or worse, is unmoved by the deaths he couldn't prevent and let's the evil stand without even the contemplation of some kind of retribution?  Well...as Burke said, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing:  he has allowed evil to triumph through inaction; he loses his Paladin satus.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> What Hobo says here is true for me - it's the starting point of why alignment serves no purpose for my play. The reason that alignment is an active impediment for me, as opposed to merely a waste of time, is that by pigeonholing behaviour into pre-determined moral categories questions are answered by stipulation that I don't want to answer by stipulation.




This is true only if we assume one may be Lawful Good only by always making the most Lawful and Good choice at each and every turn.  And even then, where Law and Good collide, a decision of which to follow must be made.  Alignment is not "every character of an LG Alignment will always make the same choices".  Since we're citing old school Dragon Magazine, a great article once noted that Thor and Aphrodite are both Chaotic Good - will their followers take the same problem solving techniques?  Tyr and [Celtic healing god - name escapes me] are both LG - do they share the same priorities?  



pemerton said:


> And I certainly don't need aligment as a roleplaying guide. If I, or one of my players, wants to play a paladin, or a sneaky thief, or a chaotically tainted drow, or whatever, no guide in the form of alignments is needed. Having decided what to play, we just play it - and then let the character evolve in play as Hobo describes.




Does the character have consistent character traits, or just evolve in play?  After many sessions, would I as a player adventuring with the character consider him a pious man, a man defined by honour, or a man who pays lip service to both concepts when it serves him?  And, if his abilities depend on piety and honour, I suggest the latter losing those abilities is perfectly appropriate.  Nothing stops the character evolving in play - but certain evolutions have consequences.  If you wanted to play a character who may or may not retain the tenets of Law ad Good (I want that to develop in play), then you should either not choose to play a Paladin, or choose a Paladin knowing loss of his powers is a possible consequence of straying from those ideals, such that this fall and loss is part of the game you want to explore, or at least are considering exploring.



pemerton said:


> This doesn't relate to playing with jerks. I play with people whose company I enjoy. It doesn't mean that we have the same moral outlook, or have the same ideas about how to develop PCs or respond to situations posed in play. Sometimes I'm shocked by the things my players have their PCs do. I can express that shock by saying as much - I don't need to do anything additional like telling them "By the way, that shows that your PC is evil".




By the same token, if you describe your character as honourable and righteous, then stab people in the back and lie, cheat and steal your way through life, then I think I am justified in saying your character is not, in fact, honourable and righteous.  And, if a deity in the game grants special powers only to those who demonstrate honour and righteousness, then you have no right to complain when those abilities are taken away.  Should the Paladin fall because of one grey area corner case dispute?  No, he should not - in grey areas, neither choice indicates he is non-lawful or non-good, only that he is not a 10% perfect exemplar - and humans are not.



pemerton said:


> This is exactly what I mean by the player having to subordinate his/her judgement to that of the GM: this is the GM telling the player how his/her PC should act, given that the player wants his/her PC to do the right thing.




I don't see the GM "telling you how your character should act".  I see it as the GM telling you that, under the code imposed by the Paladin's order, his religion, his deity, etc., the act he is contemplating is prohibited, and he would lose his paladinhood for undertaking it.  It remains open to the character to decide that the code, religion, deity or even the very philosophy of good is, in fact, wrong and your actions are correct - that is your choice to make in playing your character.  It is not open to you to decide the consequences of that action, nor to say that your character's choice makes him "good", or "more good" than a second character who makes the other choice.

Why is it not OK for the GM to impose his definition of Good and require you abide by it, but it is OK for you to impose hyour definition of Good (the actins my character takes, which do not result in loss of his Paladin abilities) on the rest of the table, GM and players alike?



pemerton said:


> In the passage I quoted above N'raac posits that the GM would frame a choice for the paladin PC, and then tell the player of that PC the best way to choose. From my point of view, the player looks pretty superfluous in that situation!




If the choice is clear and obvious?  Sure.  The Paladin wants to go on an adventure, but the King orders him to remain and defend the faithful, and the Paladin says "I will cut down the King and dump his body in the swamp", yes that is an Evil and non-Lawful act, and yes, it jeopardizes his status as a Paladin.  Can he choose to take that action nevertheless?  Yes.  He cannot choose that his deity accepts it and he is still a Paladin who has never committed an evil act.  

Now, let's add some shades of grey.  The King is ensorcled and cannot see that the party's planned adventure is necessary to stem the tide of evil and win the war.  Striking down the King is still  not on the table, but he may well take the lesser non-lawful act of disobeying orders and sneaking away to join the adventuring party.  Does that one act condemn him? Clearly not.



pemerton said:


> In the situation I described and to which you were responding, the player decided that his paladin had done the wrong thing and hence the PC went off to do penance in the wilderness. I rolled an encounter, which turned out to be a demon encounter. The demon started taunting the paladin for having done the wrong thing. My initial thought with the encounter was that the player would reason as follows: a demon never speaks the truth; hence the demon is lying; hence the paladin didn't do the wrong thing; hence no penance is required. But the player actually interpreted the situation this way: that the paladin had done the wrong thing; that this rendered him on a par with a demon; and that the demon was here to invest him into the ways of evil. The players response to his interpreation, therefore, was to have his PC put up no resistance as the demon proceeded to beat him to a pulp, until it got bored and wandered off. (The PCs friends then tracked him down with some sort of divination spell, and nursed him back to health.)




Again - to me, the player decides what the PC believes  that demons always lie, or that the demon is using his failure to uphold the highest ideals of Good to tempt him, or whatever, and we play out the consequences.  If he decides "the greatest good will be served by joining the Demons to later destroy them from within, and first I must demonstrate my devotion to his ideals by ripping out a newborn's throat with my teeth, then slaughtering the mother", does he get to keep his Paladin powers?  I say no, he has committed an evil act.  I don't say that the character cannot take this action, but I do say that, however justified the Paladin may consider them to be, the act remains an act of evil.



pemerton said:


> In the case of the chaste paladin, the question I had, as a player, was "Should I marry the other PC and consumate my feelings for her?" I had to make a decision as to what my PC ought to do. Either way there of course were consequences - for the other PC (and her player), for the party as a whole, for the campaign, as well as for the outlook and values of my PC.




So why is it wrong for those consequences to include loss of powers granted by an entity which demanded the Paladin remain chaste?



pemerton said:


> These characterisations of "advantage", or of "temptating the player of the paladin to have his/her PC act expediently rather than honourably", seem to me to make a whole lot of assumptions about both mechanics and playstyle.




Assumptions are always required.  Again, is the Paladin less effective at torturing a peasant to gain information?  No, so why shouldn't he?  Is it the act of an honourable and good man?  I say it is not.  He may be good, he may accomplish good, and his actions may be swept under the rug, but his actions were  not those of an honourable and good man.  



Imaro said:


> I think this is unavoidable... you assuming the player will act honourably as opposed to optimally or expediently make just as many assumptions...




Yup.



Imaro said:


> Not sure why you're choosing to only focus on the death example since I gave others (such as not wanting to suffer the loss of a favored magic weapon)... or as another example maybe the paladin's player wants to achieve a goal so much that he is willing to put his code aside to do it... Maybe regardless of his code that he won't kill, Batman (the paladin) decides to kill Joker, I mean there are no repercussions so why not??
> 
> I'm also not sure what fail forward has to do with my examples either since failing forward doesn't mean I won't suffer loss that I don't necessarily want to happen... and it doesn't auto-guarantee I won't compromise my conception in order to make sure that or numerous other things won't or will happen.




Alternatively, the playstyle (or mechanic) provides that the character will never, in any way, be disadvantaged by any failure - that is, fail forward is interpreted to mean that the character will never actually be disadvantaged by failure and/or the player's goals will always be achieved, either by success or by fail-forward.  Whatever we do, we win.  Did someone ask about why we bother showing up for some games?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Since we're citing old school Dragon Magazine, a great article once noted that...




...two paladins could face each other in battle/war without either losing their holy warrior satus because their faiths and the edicts of their deities differed.



> I see it as the GM telling you that, under the code imposed by the Paladin's order, his religion, his deity, etc., the act he is contemplating is prohibited, and he would lose his paladinhood for undertaking it. It remains open to the character to decide that the code, religion, deity or even the very philosophy of good is, in fact, wrong and your actions are correct - that is your choice to make in playing your character. It is not open to you to decide the consequences of that action, nor to say that your character's choice makes him "good", or "more good" than a second character who makes the other choice.



Yup.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I think this is unavoidable... you assuming the player will act honourably as opposed to optimally or expediently make just as many assumptions.



I'm not so much making assumptions as talking about my own play experiences as I know it to have happened. And thereby explaining why alignment is, in fact, an impediment to getting out of the game those things that I want to get out of the game.

It's true that if I wasn't who I am, and if my players weren't who they were - ie if some of the assumptions that you and  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] seem to be making held true for me and my group - then alignment may not be an impediment in the ways that in fact it is. But the truth of that counterfactual doesn't change the actual state of affairs, which is that on the whole those assumptions do not hold good for me and my group, and hence that alignment _is_ an impediment to my desired play experience.

This is also relevant to your question to me and  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] along the lines of, "But how do you deal with this problem?" My answer is that it is a problem only if certain things are true - namely, the assumptions that I mentioned. But those assumptions aren't true of me or my group. Hence the problems you ask about don't really arise.



Imaro said:


> Maybe regardless of his code that he won't kill, Batman (the paladin) decides to kill Joker, I mean there are no repercussions so why not??



Because it's wrong to kill?

Why would the player choose to play PC A, and then just on a whim ignore that earlier choice? This really goes back to my comments about assumptions that don't hold good at least within my group. Or, if the decision to kill the joker is not just on a whim - if it emerges out of play in something like the way I described upthread for my chaste paladin who had to reconsider whether chastity was the proper course for him - then _why not_? Character development of that sort seems to me to make for a good game, so why would I want a mechanic that impedes it?

Ultimately, I feel that I don't really understand the question. I mean, the 24th level drow chaos sorcerer in my game could destroy every peasant holding in the known world while barely breaking a sweat (fly at will, area burst 2 blazing starfall for a typical 55 points of damage on a hit). But he doesn't, because that's not who the character is and that's not why the player is playing the game.

The only character in my game who has ruthlessly killed captives is the somewhat vengeance-obsessed invoker/wizard (although that was back before he discovered that his lifetime spent in human form was just the latest of his 1000 lives as an immortal deva). The chaos drow, in particular, but also the dwarven fighter/cleric (who is, for story purposes, a paladin), take oaths of renunciation of violence from those who surrender or whom they defeat without lethal violence.



Imaro said:


> I'm also not sure what fail forward has to do with my examples either since failing forward doesn't mean I won't suffer loss that I don't necessarily want to happen... and it doesn't auto-guarantee I won't compromise my conception in order to make sure that or numerous other things won't or will happen.



Fail forward is relevant because (i) it is associated with, on its flip side, "success means success", and hence (for instance) means that successful extraction of an oath to renounce violence won't just be ignored by the GM later on in the game, and (ii) it is associated with the GM not narrating consequences that bring the game to a halt, so if the paladin's virtue is part of the game then whatever consequence the GM narrates won't foreclose the continued exploration and development of that aspect of the game, and (iii) it means that the player of the paladin can afford to "lose" a scene without therefore "losing" the whole campaign.

So in your example of the paladin down to 3 hp, if the game is being adjudicated in "fail forward" style then if the player of the paladin interposes himself between the giant and the innocent NPCs, then there are a few options I can think of.

(1) The paladin - whether by marking, or Intimidate, or whatever other mechanic is relevant in the ruleset being used - successfully distracts the giant from the innocents. The GM is obliged to honour that success - so they're safe. And the GM will adjudicate the giant's subsequent pounding of the paladin in a way that does not result in the paladin's death, but rather keeps the game going. (Perhaps the giant beats the paladin to a pulp but then, finding the paladin's continued display of resolution distasteful, wander off to do something else.)

(2) The paladin valiantly intervenes but fails to save the NPCs eg because his/her Intimidate check against the giant doesn't succeed. In that case the player has not got everything s/he wanted out of the scene, but the paladin has not acted in any way dishonourably. The actual pounding by the giant - if it happens at all, which it may not (the GM might just have the giant wander off carrying the NPCs to munch on later, leaving the 3 hp paladin to lament his/her failure) - can be adjudicated in whatever fail forward style it would be adjudicated in option (1).

(3) The player of the paladin chooses to have his/her PC hang back, leaving the innocents to their fate. Because the player knows that, from the point of view of participating in the game with this PC, there is no special reason to make this choice - after all, options (1) and (2) still enable the player to continue to participate in the game with the same PC - then the player would only make this choice because s/he deliberately wants his/her PC to forsake his/her code. In which case we play that out in the game. Maybe in 3E we rebuild the paladin as blackguard, or in 4e we swap a blackguard at will for a typical paladin at will. Or maybe "playing it out" is, at least initially, a story thing without mechanical implications at the level of PC building.

But anyway, there is a worked example that explains why I think that worries about players of paladins choosing expedience over honour rest on an assumption that adjudication is not taking place in fail forward terms.



Imaro said:


> You seem focused on narrowing down the situation to one where the paladin can either fight this way or fight that way



I was replying both to you and to N'raac, who had framed things in terms of "underhanded fighting".

I don't see what difference it makes to my response to generalise beyond fighting. The same remarks hold true - for instance, a 4e paladin is likely to be either strong and athletic, charismatic but not tricky (Diplomacy and Intimidate but not Bluff as class skills), or perhaps both. Also s/he has a good chance of being able to see the truth about those s/he meets (WIS plus Insight as a class skill). So if the paladin PC chooses not to fight, s/he is still likely to do better by trying to reason with a wrongdoer (Diplomacy) or simply stare the wrongdoer down (Intimidate) rather than to try the sorts of tricky things that Stealth, Bluff, Thievery etc involve. So my point - that a game can be designed so that a paladin's mechanical effectiveness is optimised not by being sneaky or underhanded, but by being bold and forthright, and that 4e is at least a rough example of such a game - can be generalised across both combat and non-combat domains of resolution.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> are you advocating that as the player of the paladin that I should create my own code, decide my own gray areas, etc.?  If so why am I not just playing a pious fighter with some type of religious background?



The difference between these two characters, at least to my mind, is firstly a story one: one is blessed by the gods, the other is not - s/he is a mortal who admires the gods but isn't specially chosen by them. In some systems, but not all, it may also find mechanical expression via PC build. In AD&D, for instance, or in Rolemaster, the paladin's mechanical resources include spells. In 4e the paladin has options - particularly for self-sacrificial healing, for ranged attacks and for dealing radiant damage - that aren't open to the fighter. Those mechanical differences express the story difference - for instance, the paladin's prayers are answered in a literal fashion (eg the paladin speaks a "Name of Might" - ie the word of his/her deity - and his/her foes crumble before that power).


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> is the Paladin less effective at torturing a peasant to gain information? No, so why shouldn't he?



D&D doesn't _have_ mechanics for torture, of peasants at least. (Some editions have mechanics for torturing other planar entities in binding circles.) If it did, then I would expect that paladins wouldn't be very good at them. In those games which do have torture mechanics (eg Burning Wheel), paladin characters are not likely to be good at them. That is a feature, not a bug.

What a typical D&D paladin is good at, if s/he wants to get information from a peasant, is persuading him/her to cooperate, whether by word (Diplomacy, or straight CHA in AD&D) or deed (laying on hands to relieve the peasant's ailment, or even better the ailment of the peasant's sick child/spouse) or command (Intimidate, or again straight CHA in AD&D).

Whereas an assassin who wants that information would use disguises to trick the peasant. And a mage would use ESP, or Charm Person, or - at the more brutal end - just blast the peasant and then summon his/her shade to interrogate it.

If the different class builds don't support these different approaches that are pretty inherent to the archetypes then something has gone wrong.



N'raac said:


> if his abilities depend on piety and honour, I suggest the latter losing those abilities is perfectly appropriate.  Nothing stops the character evolving in play - but certain evolutions have consequences.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if you describe your character as honourable and righteous, then stab people in the back and lie, cheat and steal your way through life, then I think I am justified in saying your character is not, in fact, honourable and righteous.  And, if a deity in the game grants special powers only to those who demonstrate honour and righteousness, then you have no right to complain when those abilities are taken away.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't see the GM "telling you how your character should act".  I see it as the GM telling you that, under the code imposed by the Paladin's order, his religion, his deity, etc., the act he is contemplating is prohibited, and he would lose his paladinhood for undertaking it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> why is it wrong for those consequences to include loss of powers granted by an entity which demanded the Paladin remain chaste?



I understand all this. You are restating your preferred playstyle for paladins, which is an instance of your overall preferred playstyle as stated in the "Surprising the GM" and "Fighters vs Casters" threads. I don't see how any of this is relevant to my claim that I, playing the game as I like too, have found and would find mechanical alignment to be an impediment.

What you are positing here is a situation in which the player can choose to evolve his/her PC at the cost of having the GM strip him/her of basic mechanical elements gained via the PC build rules. I think that is incredibly poor design for a game that wants to encourage players to explore their PCs values, and valuation more generally, as it straight away establishes a coercive dynamic between certain choices and the GM's own view of the answer to those questions of value.

It is good design for the sort of game that   [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] described above - in which the players explore the ins and outs of the GMs moral conception for the gameworld - but as I hope I've made clear I am not interested in that particular approach to play either as player or GM.

I can cash the piety example out by reference to the example of the paladin who turned on the heavens, for instance: in his view he wasn't being impious at all. By upholding the values to which the heavens at least paid lip service, and by achieving a solution to the cosmological crisis that made the heavens compliance with their old pacts unnecessary, he was - in his view - being _more_ pious than would have been the case had he blindly followed heaven's will, because he was realising the true intent of the gods and the heavens rather than (what he regarded as) their actual corrupted intent. (For my part, in framing the elements of the campaign that drove this forward I was partly inspired by Wagner's Ring Cycle, in which Wotan is trapped in chains of his own making, and can ultimately be liberated and have his will realised only by Siegfried, the wild man beholden to no one who sets himself against Wotan's will.)

That sort of play - in which the player considers what piety requires and then gives effect to that judgement through play - is not consistent with the GM imposing his/her judgement of the values in play onto the player and his/her character.

And as I've already asked several times, how would my game have been better had I told the player that he was wrong, that his paladin was being impious, and that he therefore loses most of the mechanical effectiveness of his PC (and in practice, therefore, has to retire it and bring in a new PC)? How would that make for a better game?



N'raac said:


> It remains open to the character to decide that the code, religion, deity or even the very philosophy of good is, in fact, wrong and your actions are correct - that is your choice to make in playing your character.  It is not open to you to decide the consequences of that action



I have two issues with this.

First, I don't think it's coherent for a character in a D&D world containing mechanical alignment to judge that a lawful good god, living in the Seven Heavens, is in fact mistaken as to what lawfulness and goodness require. The god has an INT and WIS in the neighbourhood of 25 each (using AD&D ability scaling) or 30+ each (using 4e ability scaling). If you're playing in standard AD&D s/he has been imbued with the ethos of an aligned plane for an eternity or so. In some interpretations of the Great Wheel cosmology, s/he is literally an incarnation of law and good, as are his/her servants like archons, devas etc. So I don't see how it is really open for the character to decide that the good is wrong if the paladin is stripped of power.

Second, I think that when what is at stake is PC build it is generally quite fine for players to determine the consequences of their actions. PC build is a part of my game that the players, not the GM, are in charge of. If the _player_ chooses to have his/her PC fall, and wants to rebuild to reflect that, then that is his/her prerogative, but why would I as GM want to force that on him/her? I don't see how my game would be improved by forbidding players from playing the PCs they want to play.

Now before you retort with "What about the players who want to play paladins who torture peasants for information?" let me repeat that _I don't, and never have, played with any such players_. Given that so many people seem concerned with such players, and with building the game around the threat of them, I guess they must exist. But whether by dint of good fortune or good management I'm not having to deal with them.



N'raac said:


> Why is it not OK for the GM to impose his definition of Good and require you abide by it, but it is OK for you to impose hyour definition of Good (the actins my character takes, which do not result in loss of his Paladin abilities) on the rest of the table, GM and players alike?



First, it's OK for the _player_ to play his/her PC because that's the player's role within the overall dynamic of my game.

Second, the player isn't imposing his/her definition of "Good" on anyone. S/he's just playing a character, which s/he takes to be good. If other players (and/or their PCs) disagree, they can voice that disagreement. That happens all the time in my games. In my current 4e game, the paladin of the Raven Queen regards the invoker who serves (among many gods) the Raven Queen as a backslider, and regards the ranger/cleric who serves the Raven Queen as insufficiently pious. They both regard the paladin as a bit simplistic in his zealotry, while the non-Raven Queen worshippers - a paladin (= fighter/cleric) of Moradin and a sorcerer who is part of a Corellon-worshipping secret society of drow - regard the whole Raven Queen cult as something to be tolerated but not indulged. No one is imposing a moral conception on anyone else. Each of the paladins regards the other as morally flawed. The game mechanics don't need to take a view on this, and if they did then the whole setup I've just described would be impossible to get off the ground.



N'raac said:


> Assumptions are always required.



No. I don't have to make assumptions to know what would be good or bad for my game. I actually _know_ what I want from my game. I _know_ how to run a game that my players enjoy. From many years experience, I also _know_ a suite of GMing techniques that will get players engaged with a political, moral or cosmological situation in the sort of way I like them to, which is the sort of way I've described in this post and my other posts upthread. No doubt there are other techniques that might do the same thing, but I have no reason at all to think that traditional D&D alignment mechanics are among them.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Alternatively, the playstyle (or mechanic) provides that the character will never, in any way, be disadvantaged by any failure - that is, fail forward is interpreted to mean that the character will never actually be disadvantaged by failure and/or the player's goals will always be achieved, either by success or by fail-forward.  Whatever we do, we win.  Did someone ask about why we bother showing up for some games?



I discussed fail forward upthread in my reply to  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] about three posts above this one. I refer you to that for an explanation of how "fail forward" is relevant in the paladin context.

This post actually gives me the impression that you are either incapable of drawing (or unwilling to draw) distinctions between consequences within the story, and consequences within the mechanical sphere of PC building; or alternatively that you don't really understand what "fail forward" is as a GMing technique.

Have a look at option (2) that I set out in my reply to Imaro: the paladin tries to save the innocents, and fails, but the player of the paladin gets to keep playing his/her PC in the game because the GM adjudicates the giant's response to the paladin's presence in a "fail forward" fashion - eg the giant walks off chewing contentedly on the innocent NPCs while all the helpless paladin can do is lament his/her failure to rescue them (that's the story consequence). The player hasn't achieved his/her goal - but knowing that the GM was adjudicating in a "fail forward" fashion, and therefore wouldn't just gratuitously have the giant kill the paladin, the player had no reason to hold back and not have his/her PC make a valiant effort to save the NPCs (that's the lack of adverse consequence in the sphere of PC building).

Once the GM is framing and adjudicating scenes using those sorts of techniques, the choice of whether to fall or not lies with the player, which is where I want it to lie.


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : Let me try approaching this in a different manner since we are now speaking specifically about your play experiences... 

 You are a proponent of DMs (and only DMs) framing scenes since you worry that the players may frame themselves into easy situations or with easy obstacles to overcome... yet you trust the paladin player to adjudicate his own actions when it comes to his code. Why don't you share the same concerns when it comes to the paladin, since he is in essence (through creating his own code, deciding the gray areas of the code, and having the ability to ignore it if he truly wants) also choosing whether a moral obstacle or scene is weak or strong... I'm finding it hard to see a difference in these two areas and also wondering why you don't trust your players as a whole to create meaningful, strong obstacles and thematic pressures through scene framing but you do trust that whoever is playing the paladin will not do the same through self adjudication and  occasional manipulation of his code? 

OAN: A paladin in 4e is pretty good at torture, i.e. Intimidate...


----------



## Bluenose

Imaro said:


> I think this is unavoidable... you assuming the player will act honourably as opposed to optimally or expediently make just as many assumptions...




If your deity expects you to act in a particular way, then the rules should reflect that by making acting that way beneficial. And conversely, not acting that way should have consequences too, if not always as major as falling. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There isn't one "correct" answer here.  How this plays out depends on the nature of the particular Paladin and his divine patron.




Different deities should have different views of what is a proper way for their followers to act. I'm inclined to say that in the specific example of a paladin retreating in the face of a giant and leaving a mother/child to die, some gods (FR's Helm, for example) would make a very different judgement than some others (FR's Red Knight, to pick another).


----------



## Imaro

Bluenose said:


> If your deity expects you to act in a particular way, then the rules should reflect that by making acting that way beneficial. And conversely, not acting that way should have consequences too, if not always as major as falling.




I don't disagree here, what I do disagree with is that we should give  benefits for acting a certain way but not consequences for acting contrary... 





Bluenose said:


> Different deities should have different views of what is a proper way for their followers to act. I'm inclined to say that in the specific example of a paladin retreating in the face of a giant and leaving a mother/child to die, some gods (FR's Helm, for example) would make a very different judgement than some others (FR's Red Knight, to pick another).




Yes but the issue being discussed is whether the DM should decide those consequences... there shouldn't be consequences or should the player get to decide whether there are or aren't consequences...


----------



## Desdichado

pemerton said:


> And I certainly don't need aligment as a roleplaying guide. If I, or one of my players, wants to play a paladin, or a sneaky thief, or a chaotically tainted drow, or whatever, no guide in the form of alignments is needed. Having decided what to play, we just play it - and then let the character evolve in play as Hobo describes.



That's pretty much how we do it.  Decoupled from the constraints of alignment, which in my experience, have deep claws in the subconsciousness of many players, I've found that players will tend to play much more "realistic" characters, and certainly much more interesting characters.  I maintain that if you're at the roleplaying level where alignment is a prompt, then you probably don't roleplay the way that I'm accustomed to seeing, or don't have a very good handle on what kind of character you're playing yet.  Almost all of the players in my group, and in groups I've played in in the past, are roleplaying in a space where alignment would be a rather curious and peculiar constraint rather than a prompt.

I freely admit that my tastes and preferences with regards to roleplaying games already lean towards having more interesting characters than some, though.  Even in a "beer and pretzels" game, interesting characters makes for a much more interesting game, to me.


pemerton said:


> This doesn't relate to playing with jerks. I play with people whose company I enjoy. It doesn't mean that we have the same moral outlook, or have the same ideas about how to develop PCs or respond to situations posed in play. Sometimes I'm shocked by the things my players have their PCs do. I can express that shock by saying as much - I don't need to do anything additional like telling them "By the way, that shows that your PC is evil".



I've had players do things that were unquestionably evil, no matter what kind of moral compass you have.  Seeing the shock on the other players' faces was kinda priceless.  But because I had eschewed alignment, and it's team-jersey-style, black and white approach to everything that happens in game, I had a much more interesting response from everyone than if the "NG rogue" just had to get huffy because he's NG or whatever.


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro said:


> Yes but the issue being discussed is whether the DM should decide those consequences... there shouldn't be consequences or should the player get to decide whether there are or aren't consequences...



This is an interesting point, because it also highlights another "feature" of alignment.  For most characters, alignment isn't that big a deal, and more or less ignoring it is OK.  But where it seems to inevitably "break" is with paladins, and to a lesser extent, clerics--because the mechanics of falling and atoning and whatnot inevitably lead to disagreements between the player and the DM about what exactly is appropriate behavior for those kinds of characters.

In a sense, my dissatisfaction with alignment is somewhat misplaced--I think alignment is superfluous, most of the time, and occasionally has deep claws in the subconscious of some players who then act accordingly.  But where I really have a genuine problem is with the paladin class, and to a lesser extent the cleric class, and their interaction with the alignment rules.  You get rid of those two classes, and I find alignment much less offensive.

Still superfluous, and I'm still not interested, but I'm not actively annoyed by it anymore either.


----------



## Bluenose

Imaro said:


> I don't disagree here, what I do disagree with is that we should give  benefits for acting a certain way but not consequences for acting contrary...




Of course there should be consequences for acting contrary. What those should be is rather harder to answer.



> Yes but the issue being discussed is whether the DM should decide those consequences... there shouldn't be consequences or should the player get to decide whether there are or aren't consequences...




A rules system where these consequences are of significance should have some explanation of what those consequences are, and how to judge them. 



Hobo said:


> This is an interesting point, because it also highlights another "feature" of alignment.  For most characters, alignment isn't that big a deal, and more or less ignoring it is OK.  But where it seems to inevitably "break" is with paladins, and to a lesser extent, clerics--because the mechanics of falling and atoning and whatnot inevitably lead to disagreements between the player and the DM about what exactly is appropriate behavior for those kinds of characters.
> 
> In a sense, my dissatisfaction with alignment is somewhat misplaced--I think alignment is superfluous, most of the time, and occasionally has deep claws in the subconscious of some players who then act accordingly.  But where I really have a genuine problem is with the paladin class, and to a lesser extent the cleric class, and their interaction with the alignment rules.  You get rid of those two classes, and I find alignment much less offensive.
> 
> Still superfluous, and I'm still not interested, but I'm not actively annoyed by it anymore either.




How characters act, and whether that should and/or does have any mechanical impact, is one of the places D&D has chosen not to go in general. Or at least has chosen to leave up to GMs to adjudicate. As a thread around the end of November showed, that's particularly significant for "Religious" characters, whose abilities are sort-of-but-not-really related to their adherence to their deities precepts.


----------



## sheadunne

I'm of the mindset that narrative actions without mechanical support should not impact mechanics. 

Since there are no mechanics (die rolls) to determine whether an oath/vow has been broken, I don't see how the result can impact an actual mechanic (character creation). It should have an impact on narrative, but unless there are rules to determine how the narrative of breaking an oath interacts with character creation (player make a morals roll or an ethics roll with a bonus/penalty to determine if their actions have invoked the wrath of their deity), I don't think it should interact directly with other rules, such as character creation (gaining or losing of one's abilities).  It's the same issue I have with some spells and other narrative only abilities. 

Option One (narrative only)
Paladin breaks his oath (narrative without mechanics) instead of losing his abilities (mechanics) he is shunned by the religious order until he redeems himself (narrative).

Option Two (mechanical only)
Paladin breaks his oath (narrative with mechanics) and rolls his religion check with a -2 penalty because it was a minor offense. He fails his roll and as a result loses use of his x ability for 24 hours. Or he succeeds on his roll, says a prayer, and all is forgiven.

Either of these options are fine with me (although I'm more interested in playing out option one than I am option two, since I don't like the headache of altering my character sheet during play). 

Whether or not negative or positive reinforcement should be used in RPGs is a bigger question and I like to lean toward positive reinforcement since it tends to produce longer lasting effects after the initial incident even though it's harder to manage in the short term. Negative reinforcement tends to have quicker response but has other baggage that comes along with it, such as an avoidance of the larger situation that caused the reinforcement to be necessary (I not only avoid taking the action that caused my character to lose his paladin abilities, I stop playing paladins altogether, as an example).


----------



## Desdichado

Bluenose said:


> How characters act, and whether that should and/or does have any mechanical impact, is one of the places D&D has chosen not to go in general. Or at least has chosen to leave up to GMs to adjudicate. As a thread around the end of November showed, that's particularly significant for "Religious" characters, whose abilities are sort-of-but-not-really related to their adherence to their deities precepts.



Exactly my point.  And 90+% of the issues with alignment are related to exactly that decision by the D&D teams of developers.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I'm not so much making assumptions as talking about my own play experiences as I know it to have happened. And thereby explaining why alignment is, in fact, an impediment to getting out of the game those things that I want to get out of the game.




If I am reading you correctly (a major ‘if’), much of your objection is that, if you set out to play an honourable character, then the character will be played as honourable, and you don’t need alignment to play that honourable character.  To me, that answers the thread title in the negative (alignment does not add to the game).  However, if Lawful people act honourably, and your character acts honourably, I fail to see how that capital L on the character sheet in any way impedes your game.

Where I think this gets conflated, and [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] refers to this below, is when alignment also starts to impact the mechanics.  More on that later.



pemerton said:


> Because it's wrong to kill?




Says who?  The whole thrust of your argument seems to have been that you do not want the GM, the game system, or anyone but you, defining “right” or “wrong” for you as a player or your character.  So why can’t my Paladin believe that it is just and right to extract a forced conversion to the One True Way from heathen, heretic alike, and then kill them immediately so they cannot backslide or recant?

In my game, he cannot because Good implies respect for life, and this does not.  But if Good is not subject to outside adjudication in your game, then how is it that you get to decide “it is wrong to kill” rather than “my character follows a code that says killing is wrong”?



pemerton said:


> Why would the player choose to play PC A, and then just on a whim ignore that earlier choice? This really goes back to my comments about assumptions that don't hold good at least within my group. Or, if the decision to kill the joker is not just on a whim - if it emerges out of play in something like the way I described upthread for my chaste paladin who had to reconsider whether chastity was the proper course for him - then why not? Character development of that sort seems to me to make for a good game, so why would I want a mechanic that impedes it?




No mechanic impedes your character choice, with the exception of a mechanic you as the player chose to impose on your character.  More on that when we get to your discussion of PC builds.



pemerton said:


> The only character in my game who has ruthlessly killed captives is the somewhat vengeance-obsessed invoker/wizard (although that was back before he discovered that his lifetime spent in human form was just the latest of his 1000 lives as an immortal deva). The chaos drow, in particular, but also the dwarven fighter/cleric (who is, for story purposes, a paladin), take oaths of renunciation of violence from those who surrender or whom they defeat without lethal violence.
> 
> Fail forward is relevant because (i) it is associated with, on its flip side, "success means success", and hence (for instance) means that successful extraction of an oath to renounce violence won't just be ignored by the GM later on in the game, and (ii) it is associated with the GM not narrating consequences that bring the game to a halt, so if the paladin's virtue is part of the game then whatever consequence the GM narrates won't foreclose the continued exploration and development of that aspect of the game, and (iii) it means that the player of the paladin can afford to "lose" a scene without therefore "losing" the whole campaign.




Emphasis added.  So the oath of nonviolence extracted at swordpoint is binding, and no mechanical consequence for its breaking need ever be considered because it simply will not be broken, as “success means success”.   But your character’s oath is not only nonbinding, but can also have no negative consequences for your choosing to break it.  Seems something of a double standard here.



pemerton said:


> So in your example of the paladin down to 3 hp, if the game is being adjudicated in "fail forward" style then if the player of the paladin interposes himself between the giant and the innocent NPCs, then there are a few options I can think of.
> 
> (1) The paladin - whether by marking, or Intimidate, or whatever other mechanic is relevant in the ruleset being used - successfully distracts the giant from the innocents. The GM is obliged to honour that success - so they're safe. And the GM will adjudicate the giant's subsequent pounding of the paladin in a way that does not result in the paladin's death, but rather keeps the game going. (Perhaps the giant beats the paladin to a pulp but then, finding the paladin's continued display of resolution distasteful, wander off to do something else.)
> 
> (2) The paladin valiantly intervenes but fails to save the NPCs eg because his/her Intimidate check against the giant doesn't succeed. In that case the player has not got everything s/he wanted out of the scene, but the paladin has not acted in any way dishonourably. The actual pounding by the giant - if it happens at all, which it may not (the GM might just have the giant wander off carrying the NPCs to munch on later, leaving the 3 hp paladin to lament his/her failure) - can be adjudicated in whatever fail forward style it would be adjudicated in option (1).
> 
> (3) The player of the paladin chooses to have his/her PC hang back, leaving the innocents to their fate. Because the player knows that, from the point of view of participating in the game with this PC, there is no special reason to make this choice - after all, options (1) and (2) still enable the player to continue to participate in the game with the same PC - then the player would only make this choice because s/he deliberately wants his/her PC to forsake his/her code. In which case we play that out in the game. Maybe in 3E we rebuild the paladin as blackguard, or in 4e we swap a blackguard at will for a typical paladin at will. Or maybe "playing it out" is, at least initially, a story thing without mechanical implications at the level of PC building.




OK, I’m back to “the characters/players cannot actually fail”.  No matter what happens, there will be no long-term detrimental result to the character and he can try, try again.  The NPC’s are dead.  So what?  If that were a real concern to the player, his character wasn’t going to hang back and leave them to their fate.

Now, what if the two NPC’s are the Paladin’s sister and her child, central to his background and character conception – and let us say more central, at least in the eyes of the player, then his holy sword or Paladin powers and mechanics?  Is it OK to kill them off in this scene, stripping that key component of the player’s concept of the character?  If so, why is that OK, but it’s not OK to strip him of the magical gear, or his Paladin powers, on the basis they are key components of the player’s conception of the character?



pemerton said:


> I don't see what difference it makes to my response to generalise beyond fighting. The same remarks hold true - for instance, a 4e paladin is likely to be either strong and athletic, charismatic but not tricky (Diplomacy and Intimidate but not Bluff as class skills), or perhaps both. Also s/he has a good chance of being able to see the truth about those s/he meets (WIS plus Insight as a class skill). So if the paladin PC chooses not to fight, s/he is still likely to do better by trying to reason with a wrongdoer (Diplomacy) or simply stare the wrongdoer down (Intimidate) rather than to try the sorts of tricky things that Stealth, Bluff, Thievery etc involve. So my point - that a game can be designed so that a paladin's mechanical effectiveness is optimised not by being sneaky or underhanded, but by being bold and forthright, and that 4e is at least a rough example of such a game - can be generalised across both combat and non-combat domains of resolution.




And if we get a +2 Intimidate bonus (enhancing the Paladin’s area of strength” from a Torch to The Groin, and a +3 for torturing the target’s friend to death in front of the target we are trying to intimidate, why should the Paladin not take both steps and enhance his area of strength?

Now logically, based on your fairly consistent comments that the Paladin should have mechanics that provide bonuses for his honourable, righteous actions, motivating him to take such actions because, for him, they are mechanically superior, there should be mechanics which motivate the Paladin not to skin this captive’s comrade alive, then question him with an open flame held to his groin.  Is the loss of his Paladin powers not a mechanical disincentive to taking these bonuses?  

If, indeed, my choice to play an honourable and righteous Paladin was made because that is the kind of character I wanted to play, why would I even consider those actions?  If I would never consider them anyway because of my sincere intention to consistently role play that honourable warrior, then how is the fact that I would lose my Paladin powers for taking an action I would never even consider in any way impeding my role playing?



pemerton said:


> The difference between these two characters, at least to my mind, is firstly a story one: one is blessed by the gods, the other is not - s/he is a mortal who admires the gods but isn't specially chosen by them. In some systems, but not all, it may also find mechanical expression via PC build. In AD&D, for instance, or in Rolemaster, the paladin's mechanical resources include spells. In 4e the paladin has options - particularly for self-sacrificial healing, for ranged attacks and for dealing radiant damage - that aren't open to the fighter. Those mechanical differences express the story difference - for instance, the paladin's prayers are answered in a literal fashion (eg the paladin speaks a "Name of Might" - ie the word of his/her deity - and his/her foes crumble before that power).




So why would the requirements for the “Chosen of the Gods” not differ from those of one who is not only “not specially chosen”, but who has been granted no special benefits by the Gods?  Why is it hat the Gods may give, but they cannot take away?

Here, it seems, the problem departs from “alignment” and moves to “alignment as a mechanic that impacts other aspects of my build”.  Part of the problem is that this was, in earlier editions, less a penalty.  If you fell as a Paladin, you were a fighter of equal level.  You lost those Paladin powers, but Fighters had no special powers, so you were more or less comparable with any other fighter.  Now, however, you lose your Paladin powers, but you don’t get those Fighter bonus feats to compensate, so you are way behind.  Perhaps the fallen Paladin should be able to become a fighter, and gain those bonus feats to result in more mechanical equality.  Again, more later as this is an area [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] also touches on.



pemerton said:


> D&D doesn't have mechanics for torture, of peasants at least. (Some editions have mechanics for torturing other planar entities in binding circles.) If it did, then I would expect that paladins wouldn't be very good at them. In those games which do have torture mechanics (eg Burning Wheel), paladin characters are not likely to be good at them. That is a feature, not a bug.




As noted by others, torture seems like a bonus to Intimidation, a skill the Paladin is pretty good at.



pemerton said:


> What you are positing here is a situation in which the player can choose to evolve his/her PC at the cost of having the GM strip him/her of basic mechanical elements gained via the PC build rules. I think that is incredibly poor design for a game that wants to encourage players to explore their PCs values, and valuation more generally, as it straight away establishes a coercive dynamic between certain choices and the GM's own view of the answer to those questions of value.




I find it interesting that his “basic mechanical elements” were gained by the PC build rules, but the fact that those same PC build rules specify that those elements are lost should the character not adhere to the requirements of the Paladin is ignored.  If I want to play a Wizard, my spells are a “basic mechanical element”, and if I fail to meet the requirements of those spells, such as having my spellbook at hand and getting adequate rest and time to re-learn them, being able to speak and/or gesture and/or access material components, I lose access to those mechanical elements.  My familiar is a mechanical element, and it can be killed, requiring me to dedicate resources (gold) and time to recover it, and do without it in the meantime.  

I don’t see the requirement for the Paladin to stay true to his alignment being any more subject to abuse by a mean, nasty GM than the wizard’s need for his spell components.  The GM can structure a series of events where the wizard loses his spellbook and component pouch while far from any location where they can be easily replaced.  In fact, structuring such a scene seems to require far less co-operation on the part of the Wizard player than a scene where the Paladin violates his requirements to an extent so great his abilities are stripped from him.



pemerton said:


> It is good design for the sort of game that @Bedrockgames described above - in which the players explore the ins and outs of the GMs moral conception for the gameworld - but as I hope I've made clear I am not interested in that particular approach to play either as player or GM.




Then don’t select a character whose mechanics depend on conformance with the moral conceptions of the GM, or of an NPC in the campaign world (even an NPC so powerful a God of Law and Good).  Select a character who is free to act as he will, whether or not in conformance with the vision of any third party, whether a Deity, some Philosophy or a mundane group such as a guild or arcane order, without mechanical repercussions.



pemerton said:


> I can cash the piety example out by reference to the example of the paladin who turned on the heavens, for instance: in his view he wasn't being impious at all. By upholding the values to which the heavens at least paid lip service, and by achieving a solution to the cosmological crisis that made the heavens compliance with their old pacts unnecessary, he was - in his view - being more pious than would have been the case had he blindly followed heaven's will, because he was realising the true intent of the gods and the heavens rather than (what he regarded as) their actual corrupted intent. (For my part, in framing the elements of the campaign that drove this forward I was partly inspired by Wagner's Ring Cycle, in which Wotan is trapped in chains of his own making, and can ultimately be liberated and have his will realised only by Siegfried, the wild man beholden to no one who sets himself against Wotan's will.)
> 
> That sort of play - in which the player considers what piety requires and then gives effect to that judgement through play - is not consistent with the GM imposing his/her judgement of the values in play onto the player and his/her character.
> 
> And as I've already asked several times, how would my game have been better had I told the player that he was wrong, that his paladin was being impious, and that he therefore loses most of the mechanical effectiveness of his PC (and in practice, therefore, has to retire it and bring in a new PC)? How would that make for a better game?
> 
> I have two issues with this.
> 
> First, I don't think it's coherent for a character in a D&D world containing mechanical alignment to judge that a lawful good god, living in the Seven Heavens, is in fact mistaken as to what lawfulness and goodness require. The god has an INT and WIS in the neighbourhood of 25 each (using AD&D ability scaling) or 30+ each (using 4e ability scaling). If you're playing in standard AD&D s/he has been imbued with the ethos of an aligned plane for an eternity or so. In some interpretations of the Great Wheel cosmology, s/he is literally an incarnation of law and good, as are his/her servants like archons, devas etc. So I don't see how it is really open for the character to decide that the good is wrong if the paladin is stripped of power.
> 
> Second, I think that when what is at stake is PC build it is generally quite fine for players to determine the consequences of their actions. PC build is a part of my game that the players, not the GM, are in charge of. If the player chooses to have his/her PC fall, and wants to rebuild to reflect that, then that is his/her prerogative, but why would I as GM want to force that on him/her? I don't see how my game would be improved by forbidding players from playing the PCs they want to play.
> 
> Now before you retort with "What about the players who want to play paladins who torture peasants for information?" let me repeat that I don't, and never have, played with any such players. Given that so many people seem concerned with such players, and with building the game around the threat of them, I guess they must exist. But whether by dint of good fortune or good management I'm not having to deal with them.
> 
> First, it's OK for the player to play his/her PC because that's the player's role within the overall dynamic of my game.
> 
> Second, the player isn't imposing his/her definition of "Good" on anyone. S/he's just playing a character, which s/he takes to be good. If other players (and/or their PCs) disagree, they can voice that disagreement. That happens all the time in my games. In my current 4e game, the paladin of the Raven Queen regards the invoker who serves (among many gods) the Raven Queen as a backslider, and regards the ranger/cleric who serves the Raven Queen as insufficiently pious. They both regard the paladin as a bit simplistic in his zealotry, while the non-Raven Queen worshippers - a paladin (= fighter/cleric) of Moradin and a sorcerer who is part of a Corellon-worshipping secret society of drow - regard the whole Raven Queen cult as something to be tolerated but not indulged. No one is imposing a moral conception on anyone else. Each of the paladins regards the other as morally flawed. The game mechanics don't need to take a view on this, and if they did then the whole setup I've just described would be impossible to get off the ground.




Let me boil this down.  You are viewing this as “the player chose the Paladin powers as part of his PC build, and it is unfair to take them away”.  I view this as “the player chose the Paladin powers and restrictions as part of his PC build”.  He has now turned against the beings which grant him those powers.  How, then, can he reasonably retain access to them?  Is there some other force which now grants him these powers?  If not, how has he retained them?  Do those heavens on which he has turned, and is now actively opposing, nonetheless still bless him with their holy might? If so, why?



Imaro said:


> @pemerton : Let me try approaching this in a different manner since we are now speaking specifically about your play experiences...
> 
> You are a proponent of DMs (and only DMs) framing scenes since you worry that the players may frame themselves into easy situations or with easy obstacles to overcome... yet you trust the paladin player to adjudicate his own actions when it comes to his code. Why don't you share the same concerns when it comes to the paladin, since he is in essence (through creating his own code, deciding the gray areas of the code, and having the ability to ignore it if he truly wants) also choosing whether a moral obstacle or scene is weak or strong... I'm finding it hard to see a difference in these two areas and also wondering why you don't trust your players as a whole to create meaningful, strong obstacles and thematic pressures through scene framing but you do trust that whoever is playing the paladin will not do the same through self adjudication and occasional manipulation of his code?
> 
> OAN: A paladin in 4e is pretty good at torture, i.e. Intimidate...




Very good questions, and linked to my perception of some double standard issues.



Bluenose said:


> If your deity expects you to act in a particular way, then the rules should reflect that by making acting that way beneficial. And conversely, not acting that way should have consequences too, if not always as major as falling.




And the rules do make acting that way beneficial - the character is rewarded with blessings not made available to others, being his Paladin powers.  When the character fails to act that way, the consequences can include loss of those powers.



Bluenose said:


> Different deities should have different views of what is a proper way for their followers to act. I'm inclined to say that in the specific example of a paladin retreating in the face of a giant and leaving a mother/child to die, some gods (FR's Helm, for example) would make a very different judgement than some others (FR's Red Knight, to pick another).




That different deities might prioritize different aspects of Law and Good is perfectly reasonable.  My approach would be to allow for judgment on the part of the Paladin – he doesn’t fall because his judgment may not precisely align with someone else’s judgment in close calls.  He falls when he abandons the tenets of Law and Good.

I could also see some merit in setting out more detailed codes which indicate how the various deities (and through them their orders) prioritize tenets of Law and Good, with the expectation a Paladin of one would adopt similar prioritization.  This would also provide for a Paladin who fails in the eyes of Helm becoming a Paladin of Law and Good, or of the Red Knight, retaining his Paladin abilities.  That’s certainly at least as reasonable as a Cleric changing deities, which I would also allow.



Hobo said:


> This is an interesting point, because it also highlights another "feature" of alignment. For most characters, alignment isn't that big a deal, and more or less ignoring it is OK. But where it seems to inevitably "break" is with paladins, and to a lesser extent, clerics--because the mechanics of falling and atoning and whatnot inevitably lead to disagreements between the player and the DM about what exactly is appropriate behavior for those kinds of characters.
> 
> In a sense, my dissatisfaction with alignment is somewhat misplaced--I think alignment is superfluous, most of the time, and occasionally has deep claws in the subconscious of some players who then act accordingly. But where I really have a genuine problem is with the paladin class, and to a lesser extent the cleric class, and their interaction with the alignment rules. You get rid of those two classes, and I find alignment much less offensive.
> 
> Still superfluous, and I'm still not interested, but I'm not actively annoyed by it anymore either.




I think you hit squarely on the question I’ve danced around above, and in other posts – is the issue that I must categorize my character into one of the alignments, whether I base his personality around the alignment or select his alignment based on his personality?  There, I can see alignment not adding to the game for many players, but not really detracting from it either.  

When alignment is part of the mechanics, then I think the answer is for those who dislike alignment to simply not play characters who have alignment issues.  To me, this is no different than a player complaining that he hates having to keep track of which spells he chose this morning, and which spells he has already cast today, or how many spell slots his sorcerer has used.  That’s part of the class mechanics, and if you find it such an issue to abide by those restrictions, and track the use of your spells, pick a character who doesn’t have those mechanics.

Would those of you who play 4e put up with a player complaining that he doesn’t like having to track which encounter powers have already been used, and how recently his dailies were utilized, so he should just be able to use all of his abilities without restrictions on frequency, or would the player be required to abide by the mechanics of his abilities?  Assuming the latter, why is maintaining the alignment precepts set out by the rules (or by the deity or philosophy) so different?


----------



## Bluenose

N'raac said:


> And the rules do make acting that way beneficial - the character is rewarded with blessings not made available to others, being his Paladin powers.  When the character fails to act that way, the consequences can include loss of those powers.




I'm afraid "Not-Fallen" and "Fallen" seem like rather Brute force approaches. Either everything works at full efficiency, or nothing does. What [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] suggests is rather closer to what I'd like to see. Some of the things that were said in the "Religion in D&D" thread are also relevant.



> That different deities might prioritize different aspects of Law and Good is perfectly reasonable.  My approach would be to allow for judgment on the part of the Paladin – he doesn’t fall because his judgment may not precisely align with someone else’s judgment in close calls.  He falls when he abandons the tenets of Law and Good.
> 
> I could also see some merit in setting out more detailed codes which indicate how the various deities (and through them their orders) prioritize tenets of Law and Good, with the expectation a Paladin of one would adopt similar prioritization.  This would also provide for a Paladin who fails in the eyes of Helm becoming a Paladin of Law and Good, or of the Red Knight, retaining his Paladin abilities.  That’s certainly at least as reasonable as a Cleric changing deities, which I would also allow.




A player's judgement should be important, but it's also important that their decisions be made with knowledge of the consequences too. 



sheadunne said:


> I'm of the mindset that narrative actions without mechanical support should not impact mechanics.




Actions without mechanical effect having no mechanical effect is I think obvious. Whether there should be a mechanical effect is in question.



> Whether or not negative or positive reinforcement should be used in RPGs is a bigger question and I like to lean toward positive reinforcement since it tends to produce longer lasting effects after the initial incident even though it's harder to manage in the short term. Negative reinforcement tends to have quicker response but has other baggage that comes along with it, such as an avoidance of the larger situation that caused the reinforcement to be necessary (I not only avoid taking the action that caused my character to lose his paladin abilities, I stop playing paladins altogether, as an example).




I'd prefer both positive and negative, to be honest. Other games manage to reconcile narrative events with mechanical consequences, and can provide both sorts of reinforcement at the same time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Imaro said:


> Yes but the issue being discussed is whether the DM should decide those consequences... there shouldn't be consequences or should the player get to decide whether there are or aren't consequences...




DM, all the way.


----------



## Manbearcat

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] I'm going to respond to your prior post tonight or tomorrow.  I just want to make sure I arrange my thoughts properly as I think we're connecting on a few things but we're not connecting on a few others (eg; I do understand your point about the player who is not inhabating his Paladin PC and internalizing the ethos...and acting in accord with a detached, Pawn Stance perspective "I want to win the game" and/or "my sense of self-preservation exceeds the thematic weight of the oath of self-sacrifice", etc).  I just think we see the problem very differently.  We also see the answer differently (it would appear).  I see a positive feedback system (that will inherently have edge-cases not covered by the oaths, general faith) as the "least bad" of all propsals to mechanically adjudicate questions of adherence to oaths/virtues/doctrine.

What I wanted to do right quick was just interject a statement and a general question.  I just want to look under the hood (without legacy concerns) and wonder why and how these things work (I have an answer but I want to wonder aloud so people can respond).

Dogs in the Vineyard is a game solely about Paladins like Roland of the Dark Tower.  Gun-toting, sin-judging, justice-meting, demon-exorcising, innocent-saving, life always on the line Paladins in a fantasy frontier setting.  After training/indoctrination (character creation process and of which you establish your background, stats, traits, belongings, relationships and resolve an accomplishment conflict), you travel from sin-ridden, demon-encroaching town to town and resolve conflicts.  Between conflicts there will be general Fallout and between towns there will be Reflection Fallout (evolves/progresses characters).  This game is absolutely fantastic in the thematically weighty, and challenging, Paladin-ey play it produces.  

Here is what Vincent Baker has to say about:



> "A Dog's Authority", p 44 Dogs in the Vineyard
> When your character is acting to preserve the faith of a branch, he or she can take whatever steps are necessary, and no one can justly complain.  Your character acts on behalf of the King of Life; if anyone has a problem, they can take it up with Him.




Here is what Vincent Baker has to say about:



> "Your Character's Conscience and Your Own", p 45 Dogs in the Vineyard
> Does this [the extreme boundaries of authority outlined in "A Dog's Authority"] mean that your character can't sin?
> 
> No.  But it does mean that no one's in a position to judge your character's actions but you yourself.  Your character might be a remorseless monster or a destorying angel- I the author of the game can't tell the difference, your GM and your fellow players can't tell the difference, only you can.
> 
> As play progresses, you'll have the opportunity to consider your cahracter's actions and change your character's Stats, Traits, and Relationships to reflect them.  That might mean that you give your character Relationships with sins and demons, problematize his or her Traits, and burn out his or her Relationships with the Faithful - or it might mean no such thing.  Sin, arrogance, hate, bloodlust; remorse, guilt, contrition; inspriation, redemption, grace:  they're in how you have your character act, not (just, or necessarily) in what's on your character's sheet.  Those moments, in play, are what matters.
> 
> Your character's conscience is in your hands.




Now this is a game with an extremely crunchy and well-defined value system and ethos.  "The Faith" is (I'm not going to get into the modern day religion it is based off of) is extensively carved out, its various precepts exhaustively enumerated.  

So you have an exhaustively defined faith, Paladin's in their typical role, full authority to act in whatever way is necessary to preserve the faith of a branch, you can sin and fall short of your faith, and the judgement by the King of Life and your character's mechanical and fictional evolution is up to you (+ mechanical resolution of Fallout from conflicts and Reflection between Towns).  

It has players (1 or more of them) and a GM that want to have a good time and play a TTRPG.

I assure you it works and has never, ever sown disfunction in any game I've run.  In fact it is extraordinary in how well it works toward producing "Paladin-ey play."  So I would ask folks (even if you haven't played it...merely by extrapolating from what I have written above), why does this work without a negative feedback system and/or a strong central role of the GM in adjudication of matters of faith, sin, and fallout?


----------



## billd91

Manbearcat said:


> I assure you it works and has never, ever sown disfunction in any game I've run.  In fact it is extraordinary in how well it works toward producing "Paladin-ey play."  So I would ask folks (even if you haven't played it...merely by extrapolating from what I have written above), why does this work without a negative feedback system and/or a strong central role of the GM in adjudication of matters of faith, sin, and fallout?




My guess is this has more to do with the people and style you play with than the rules (or lack thereof) themselves. If *Dogs in the Vineyard* had the following and internet presence that D&D has, I'll bet we'd hear a lot more about players who take the precepts of the religion, their position within it, and the lax consequence rules to run amok without negative consequences. D&D's ubiquity is going to generate a broader survey of the gamer population, including its anti-social foibles, than an indie game that is less likely to attract players not actively interested in its particular take on things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> @_*Imaro*_
> 
> 
> So you have an exhaustively defined faith, Paladin's in their typical role, full authority to act in whatever way is necessary to preserve the faith of a branch, you can sin and fall short of your faith, and the judgement by the King of Life and your character's mechanical and fictional evolution is up to you (+ mechanical resolution of Fallout from conflicts and Reflection between Towns).
> 
> It has players (1 or more of them) and a GM that want to have a good time and play a TTRPG.
> 
> I assure you it works and has never, ever sown disfunction in any game I've run.  In fact it is extraordinary in how well it works toward producing "Paladin-ey play."  So I would ask folks (even if you haven't played it...merely by extrapolating from what I have written above), why does this work without a negative feedback system and/or a strong central role of the GM in adjudication of matters of faith, sin, and fallout?




If you like games where players have a bit more say about outcomes, it probably works great. But my experience with such systems is I do not really enjoy that dynamic, i would rather outcomes like that be determined by a referee not the individual playing his character. Again, nothing wrong with it at all if you like that, but i think that style of play is a bit niche for something like D&D. I know it would not be my preference. For me it is pretty crucial that cosmological matters are handled by the GM not by me as a player. 

That said I am all for faiths being detailed beforehand. I think the question there is hitting the right level of depth, so the GM has enough information to make informed judgements but isnt so burdenedwith detail he or she needs study it and understand the text like a theologian.


----------



## Desdichado

Bluenose said:


> Some of the things that were said in the "Religion in D&D" thread are also relevant.



Ooooh, I'm interested in this thread, but I don't see it on the first page or two.  Is it a bit old?  Can you provide a link, by any chance?


----------



## Celebrim

> I assure you it works and has never, ever sown disfunction in any game I've run.  In fact it is extraordinary in how well it works toward producing "Paladin-ey play."  So I would ask folks (even if you haven't played it...merely by extrapolating from what I have written above), why does this work without a negative feedback system and/or a strong central role of the GM in adjudication of matters of faith, sin, and fallout?




Let me start at the end first and work back to the top.

I started to write a (different) long response to this thread and realized it would be pointless, because the fundamental problem is we have no way of not talking past each other.  Without common experience, we don't have the words or the frame or reference to actually communicate.  We are all talking at each other, but no one has the actual means to understand the other (and be assured in their understanding).

I'm glad you brought up DitV though.   When I first heard about DitV I immediately wanted to play and/or run it because it sounded like it was aiming to create exactly the sort of play experience I enjoy the most.

In answer to your question about how it 'works' (for you), I would suggest that one of the reasons it 'works' is that it is hugely self-selective in its audience.   The only people who end up playing it or who can play it are people who fundamentally agree with its precepts.   When I actually sat down and started studying the game, I realized that I couldn't actually play it.   It was trying to create the game that I enjoy, and in many ways it was designed correctly for doing so but I personally wouldn't be able to play it.

One of the reasons is that as a Christian, I find that there isn't enough distance between the world it creates and the world I actually inhabit.  It blurs the line between fantasy and reality in ways that I'm hugely uncomfortable with.   Moreover, I realized immediately that even if I tried to play it, I'd likely make everyone I played with hugely uncomfortable.  I spent some time thinking about the players I could actually play with, and realized that it was an empty set.   In order to play the game, I'd have to completely rewrite the setting so that it wasn't a trope off of Mormonism (and hense Christianity).   I couldn't play the game with pious Mormon friends, lapsed Mormon friends, Christian friends, non-Christian friends, or anyone else I could think of.  Each would present a separate but real discomfort.

So the question is, does the game actually 'work'?  And the answer is, "Not for me it doesn't.  It works so badly it's broken right out of the box."   The distance polytheism and the two-axis alignment system has from the real world is a feature for me, not a bug.   The system manages to stay close enough to reality to comment on reality, while being remote enough from reality that it is clearly not an allegory for reality.   No one has to insist on one to one and on to relationships between the system and reality, and there is no pressing reason to be uncomfortable with feeling like this particular departure is, for lack of better words - heretical, sacrilegious, dangerous and well evil.

I have the strong impression that the setting self-filters so that the only people playing are ones with a particular real world moral, ethical, and cosmological outlook.   You have to be the sort of person that fundamentally accepts the precept that each person is their own best judge, that what is right and wrong is different for different people, and that no one can question anyone else if they are following the dictates of their own consciousness.  You must believe deep down that each individually is the source of moral authority.  

Ironically, DitV postulates a setting where the only persons in the setting for which this is true are the Dogs.  I would argue that if you enjoy DitV and think it's approach highly reasonable and not at all niave, you would find it impossible to enjoy the game from the perspective of any character other than a Dog.  After all, at that point absolute moral authority would then lie in the hands of an NPC (and not perforce the player), and you are then subject to all the things that you say you hate about alignment (and then some)!

In other words, it requires players the preeminently don't represent the ethos described in the setting and which (IMO) would consistently make a real hash of it.   You're asking people to pretend to be Mormon/Christian inspired leaders while rejecting the fundamental tenants of those belief systems.   That is never going to 'work' as I see it, though I'm sure there are groups for which it 'works' in the sense that it produces the play the author desired.



Manbearcat said:


> Here is what Vincent Baker has to say about:
> 
> Does this [the extreme boundaries of authority outlined in "A Dog's Authority"] mean that your character can't sin?
> 
> No. But it does mean that no one's in a position to judge your character's actions but you yourself. Your character might be a remorseless monster or a destroying angel- I the author of the game can't tell the difference, your GM and your fellow players can't tell the difference, only you can.




This is quite frankly unmitigated nonsense to me.  I suppose there are people that read that and actually believe it, but I find it impossible to imagine that in practice this actually happens unless on the really big questions about life all the players (including the GM) are on board the same train.   Does the author really believe that no one is going to be able to discern the difference between good and evil (or think that they can) and there are things that another character ought or ought not to have done under the circumstances?  

Fundamentally what is going on her is a deeply embedded moral belief - "no one can judge another person's actions but themselves".  In my D&D homebrew, this would be a 'chaotic' belief system.   As a real world belief system we could apply a number of different labels.   Existentialism would be one, for example.  Baker's quote almost immediately brings me back to studying Camus's 'The Stranger' in philosophy class.

One of the fundamental assumptions Baker is making is essentially that no one is going to be acting in a way that the other players consider monstrous, and before that is true the players are going to have to be in pretty close agreement to begin with.  

But even to the extent that is true, there seems to be an almost willful blindness going on here.   I've read DitV scenarios.   It isn't not true that sin is defined ambiguously and that winning and losing are defined ambiguously and that the setting (and therefore the GM) applies and passes no judgment on the PC's actions.   Actions are supposed to have consequences and those consequences are supposed to follow a certain framework defined by The Faith.  The only way that can not be true is willfully ignoring the setting.



> As play progresses, you'll have the opportunity to consider your character's actions and change your character's Stats, Traits, and Relationships to reflect them. That might mean that you give your character Relationships with sins and demons, problematize his or her Traits, and burn out his or her Relationships with the Faithful - or it might mean no such thing. Sin, arrogance, hate, bloodlust; remorse, guilt, contrition; inspiration, redemption, grace: they're in how you have your character act, not (just, or necessarily) in what's on your character's sheet. Those moments, in play, are what matters.




This is I think incredibly naïve and relies on the implicit trust that players are going to behave in a way that other players are going to deem to be rational, coherent, and sympathetic.  In other words, it assumes that there will be a natural consensus agreement on what it all meant, that I think that in practice isn't going to happen if you have a real wide audience playing the game.   You are GMing the game and the Dog does one thing and annotates his character sheet completely at odds with how you saw the game play out and which seems designed to mitigate the consequences of his actions, and this isn't going to bother you?  As a player, you're doing your best to adhere to what you see as the Faiths strictures and annotate your character sheet with your characters failings (or otherwise play as you think the game was intended to play), and this other player is in your opinion completely ignoring them and annotating his character sheet not only in a way that suggests he's meta-gaming to enlarge his character's prowess during play but that he's judging himself righteous for doing so, and you don't think he's missing the point of the game and ruining it for everyone?  

I find that simply impossible to believe.   And to the extent that it is possible to believe, it must be equally possible to believe that no one every argues about alignment.

tl;dr - DitV works without creating table arguments???  We are barely going to be able to discuss it without shutting down the thread, much less play it together.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I assure you it works and has never, ever sown disfunction in any game I've run. In fact it is extraordinary in how well it works toward producing "Paladin-ey play." So I would ask folks (even if you haven't played it...merely by extrapolating from what I have written above), why does this work without a negative feedback system and/or a strong central role of the GM in adjudication of matters of faith, sin, and fallout?




I can and have played Palsdins in fantasy campaigns that had no alignments or moral compasses at all- GURPS, HERO, etc.- because, presumably like the DitV players you described, I have a very strong concrete idea of how the PC is supposed to work, and rarely, if ever, deviate from that template.

However, even when I play Paladins in such systems, there are rarely any mandatory consequence for deviating from that template, unless I impose one myself, and no explicit uniform framework for redemption.  In HERO, for instance, _my_ Paladin's powers would be lost if such a deviation occurred (IOW, built with triggered Power Limitations that decrease their costs), but no other "Paladin" need be built with that guideline.  There also wouldn't be an "Attonement" spell exists unless the DM or I write one up...

Which means that one of the classic (as in, found in the source material that inspired the class) challenges of playing a Paladin- the risk of losing one's divinely granted boons if/when one goes against the tenets of one's faith or violated their vows- becomes, in a sense, optional.

And that just doesn't feel..._right_.

These are, after all, men and women called to serve the divine.  Not any old person of faith, but literally personally chosen to be the divine's sword-arm.  That implies high standards of responsibility and a razor's edge of fitness for duty.


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] : Well I'm not going to re-hash what has already been brought up regarding DitV... I used to own the game but only remember it vaguely, however something that stood out to me is that my impressions of the Dogs (from what I can remember, and I could be totally wrong)... or Roland Deschain for that matter... don't strike me as anything near a traditional (D&D) paladin.  I'd be interested in why you think they match up as such??


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can and have played Palsdins in fantasy campaigns that had no alignments or moral compasses at all- GURPS, HERO, etc.- because, presumably like the DitV players you described, I have a very strong concrete idea of how the PC is supposed to work, and rarely, if ever, deviate from that template.
> 
> However, even when I play Paladins in such systems, there are rarely any mandatory consequence for deviating from that template, unless I impose one myself, and no explicit uniform framework for redemption.  In HERO, for instance, _my_ Paladin's powers would be lost if such a deviation occurred (IOW, built with triggered Power Limitations that decrease their costs), but no other "Paladin" need be built with that guideline.  There also wouldn't be an "Attonement" spell exists unless the DM or I write one up...
> 
> Which means that one of the classic (as in, found in the source material that inspired the class) challenges of playing a Paladin- the risk of losing one's divinely granted boons if/when one goes against the tenets of one's faith or violated their vows- becomes, in a sense, optional.
> 
> And that just doesn't feel..._right_.




It doesn't feel right because if you think about it, it is fundamentally at odds with the experience of being a Paladin.  

I postulate that the sort of person that really cares about exploring (Sim in GNS) belief within the framework of a character really is trying to get in touch with what it is like to be that character.  They aren't merely trying to create an interesting story featuring a character that is nominally a Paladin, but the story that proceeds from being a particular character and the experience of being that character. 

So in the Paladin's world view he expects to be in the situation where his judgment of right and wrong is flawed, and he must submit to an outside authority.  He fully expects that in submitting to that outside authority there will be cases where he doesn't understand the judgment, doesn't personally agree with the judgment, and can't see how the judgment could be right.   He doesn't expect to be his own source of moral authority.  He doesn't rely on the dictates of his consciousness.  When he has to make a judgment call, his first instinct is never to go with his gut, to examine his feelings, or to try to reason it out for himself.  His first instinct is always to pray, or look up scriptures, or recall his teachings and stories of past heroes, or to look to the code, or to address the question to a more senior member of his order.  His first instinct is always to try to appeal to outside authority to see what the outside authority says on this matter.   He only goes to his own judgment, feelings, and reasoning ability when he can't access or understand the outside authority clearly, and when that happens is first assumption is always that he's likely to be making a mistake in this situation and will require contrition, study, and repentance because this is all highly unlikely (now) to work out well.    He believes this way because he knows he himself is weak, ignorant, and stupid, and that the outside authority has profoundly greater understanding than he has himself.  His happiness as he sees it profoundly depends not on doing what he wants to do, but in doing what pleases the outside authority.  

So the experience of playing a Paladin - or anyone else that believes in the priority of external authority - while relying on yourself as judge of all feels wrong because it is entirely unlike the experience of being a Paladin.  It misses the entire point.  Without first hashing out what it means to adhere to your code, and then vesting someone else (the GM usually) with the authority to judge whether you are following the code, you aren't simulating the ethos at all.   By the standards of the Paladin code, anyone that makes themselves the judge of all is inherently a self-righteous git and is no better (and possibly worse) than the most deplorable of villains.


----------



## sheadunne

Celebrim said:


> So the experience of playing a Paladin - or anyone else that believes in the priority of external authority - while relying on yourself as judge of all feels wrong because it is entirely unlike the experience of being a Paladin.  It misses the entire point.  Without first hashing out what it means to adhere to your code, and then vesting someone else (the GM usually) with the authority to judge whether you are following the code, you aren't simulating the ethos at all.   By the standards of the Paladin code, anyone that makes themselves the judge of all is inherently a self-righteous git and is no better (and possibly worse) than the most deplorable of villains.




The only issue here is that I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions). I find satisfaction in creating characters that find themselves in situations that test their moral fortitude and then resolving them based on how I feel the story should progress when handling them. It's not important or necessary for the GM to impose restrictions based on their understanding when it might be in conflict with my own story development. Nothing for me is more immersion breaking than a GM imposing himself on my character. He should present challenges that put the character's morality and ethics to the test, but the internal results of those challenges, when it comes to the character, should be left to the player who better understands the morality of the character himself, at least that's my preference.

This isn't to say that I'm against mechanical implications of failed oaths, I just don't think they should be subjective.


----------



## D'karr

sheadunne said:


> Nothing for me is more immersion breaking than a GM imposing himself on my character. He should present challenges that put the character's morality and ethics to the test, but the internal results of those challenges, when it comes to the character, should be left to the player who better understands the morality of the character himself, at least that's my preference.




Bingo, well said.  This is exactly my take on why the "classic" view of alignment as a "stick" is so counter to the game I want to play, or run.


----------



## Celebrim

sheadunne said:


> The only issue here is that I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions).




While in theory I don't disagree this is possible, I first want to point out that you are again insisting on a) the primacy of the truth that no one judges oneself better than oneself ("It's not important or necessary for the GM to impose restrictions based on their understanding when it might be in conflict with my own...the player who better understands the morality of the character himself")  and b) the primacy of getting what you want and think you deserve ("resolving them based on how I feel the story should progress when handling them").   I'm not going to quibble over the truth of those statements, we can for these purposes except them as valid, but I do want to highlight again the primacy you are putting on your volition and judgment and note that this is again at right angles to how the majority of people who live lives of service, duty, and devotion to a code see the world. 

And secondly, while I agree that there are people who can turn the mirror on themselves quite well, I find in practice this is a pretty rare skill.   Seeing truth clearly is hard.  Self-evaluation is really hard, and I'm not sure that 'this is my character' is sufficient distance from 'this is me' that for most people it's easy.  As I said earlier in the thread, I find that 90% of people can only role play themselves.  Maybe you are really good it.  And maybe you are just an incredibly good role-player.   Maybe you have the same stance toward your PC's that good DMs manage toward NPCs.  But, regardless, I find it strange to think that you expect to simulate duty by a system that means you are never subject to any constraint but the ones you place on yourself.  That's a really low standard of obligation.


----------



## sheadunne

Celebrim said:


> While in theory I don't disagree this is possible, I first want to point out that you are again insisting on a) the primacy of the truth that no one judges oneself better than oneself ("It's not important or necessary for the GM to impose restrictions based on their understanding when it might be in conflict with my own...the player who better understands the morality of the character himself")  and b) the primacy of getting what you want and think you deserve ("resolving them based on how I feel the story should progress when handling them").   I'm not going to quibble over the truth of those statements, we can for these purposes except them as valid, but I do want to highlight again the primacy you are putting on your volition and judgment and note that this is again at right angles to how the majority of people who live lives of service, duty, and devotion to a code see the world.
> 
> And secondly, while I agree that there are people who can turn the mirror on themselves quite well, I find in practice this is a pretty rare skill.   Seeing truth clearly is hard.  Self-evaluation is really hard, and I'm not sure that 'this is my character' is sufficient distance from 'this is me' that for most people it's easy.  As I said earlier in the thread, I find that 90% of people can only role play themselves.  Maybe you are really good it.  And maybe you are just an incredibly good role-player.   Maybe you have the same stance toward your PC's that good DMs manage toward NPCs.  But, regardless, I find it strange to think that you expect to simulate duty by a system that means you are never subject to any constraint but the ones you place on yourself.  That's a really low standard of obligation.




I guess the problem seems to be that I'm not judging myself in any way. I'm judging a fictional character as part of a story. I am not my character. There is no "mirror." There is no "self-evaluation." 

Any constraints should be built into the rules of the game and not DM fiat. I suggested several ways up thread on how to handle that. Neither of which is in conflict with the way I prefer things to be handled in a RPG. If "duty" is a game rule than to resolve that rule there needs to be mechanics for arbitration (such as a religion check to determine if the action caused a lapse of duty). If it is purely narrative in function than there needs to be ownership of the narrative (which for me is the player) and consequences (which for me is the DM), neither of which are mechanic in nature (the character don't lose character abilities).


----------



## Celebrim

D'karr said:


> Bingo, well said.  This is exactly my take on why the "classic" view of alignment as a "stick" is so counter to the game I want to play, or run.




Sometimes perception is at least as important as anything else.

Classic Gygaxian D&D does tend to run with the 'stick' approach to mechanics - either play well or your toys will be taken from you.

Would you object to having something like a classic approach to alignment, if the stick was taken away and replaced by a carrot?   That is to say instead of punishing you for not living up to your table contract, the system instead rewarded you mechanically with extra benefits for doing so?


----------



## Imaro

sheadunne said:


> The only issue here is that I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions).




IME... I've found the ability to be totally impartial towards one's character a very rare trait in players... 



sheadunne said:


> I find satisfaction in creating characters that find themselves in situations that test their moral fortitude and then resolving them based on how *I feel* the story should progress when handling them. It's not important or necessary for the GM to impose restrictions based on their understanding when it might be in conflict with *my* own story development.




Ok emphasis mine... this seems more in tune with the players I've run into.  These sentences definitely don't imply impartiality... they seem to imply that you've already got a "story" that you want to tell and the GM shouldn't be able to interfere with that at all.... I guess i would say if you've already got the story in your head maybe it would be better to write it down as opposed to wanting to play it out with other people, and a GM.



sheadunne said:


> Nothing for me is more immersion breaking than a GM imposing himself on my character. He should present challenges that put the character's morality and ethics to the test, but the internal results of those challenges, when it comes to the character, should be left to the player who better understands the morality of the character himself, at least that's my preference.




But being a paladin, cleric, etc. is about accepting the moral tenets of something or someone else and following them... In the same way you claim that as a player you know your character's morality better... wouldn't the DM know the morality of something or someone in the campaign setting better than you yourself would as a player? 



sheadunne said:


> This isn't to say that I'm against mechanical implications of failed oaths, I just don't think they should be subjective.




how can they not be subjective... I'm hard pressed to think of many, if any,  roleplaying games that have mechanical moral ramifications and there isn't a moderate to large dose of subjectivity and judgement involved... can you?


----------



## Celebrim

sheadunne said:


> I guess the problem seems to be that I'm not judging myself in any way. I'm judging a fictional character as part of a story. I am not my character. There is no "mirror." There is no "self-evaluation."




Again, I don't disagree that this is possible in theory.   However, I do think that it is a bit much to suggest that you as a player have no emotional investment in outcomes regarding your character and that this could not possibly bias how you judge a situation that effects your character.  I find it incredible that you think you can put that much distance between yourself and your character, especially in the light of the fact that _you are insisting that no one else be allowed to set outcomes for your character other than yourself_!



> Any constraints should be built into the rules of the game and not DM fiat.




That's not possible.



> I suggested several ways up thread on how to handle that.




You suggested ways that disguised the role of DM fiat, or set more structured expectations about exactly how DM fiat would enter into the game.  I'm not necessarily opposed to the sort of suggestions you made, and in fact earlier in the thread a different set of suggestions got me thinking hard about designing tighter coupling of alignment and mechanics for my own game, but I don't expect to be able to do away with DM fiat.   Instead, the benefit is greater structure to the expectations about DM fiat - the player gains the benefit of better foreknowledge of how the DM is likely to rule and what the consequences will be.  I find a lot of people who say they don't like DM fiat, mostly mean that they want a better handle on what is at stake, what the odds are, and so forth so that they can make more informed choices.


----------



## sheadunne

Imaro said:


> IME... I've found the ability to be totally impartial towards one's character a very rare trait in players...




I have found it to be the norm. But perhaps your definition is much more strict than mine.



Imaro said:


> Ok emphasis mine... this seems more in tune with the players I've run into.  These sentences definitely don't imply impartiality... they seem to imply that you've already got a "story" that you want to tell and the GM shouldn't be able to interfere with that at all.... I guess i would say if you've already got the story in your head maybe it would be better to write it down as opposed to wanting to play it out with other people, and a GM.




I am under the assumption that anyone who makes a character has a story they want to tell. They want to tell the story of X. How that story progresses is why I (and I assume others) play the game. The GM sets up challenges and based on the type of story the players want to tell, they interact with them. I assumed this was the normal way people played RPGs, it's certainly been my experience. I fight the ogres because I want a gritty action packed story. I hide from the ogres because I want a story of a coward who rises to glory later on in the game. I talk to the ogres because I want a story of different types of creatures learning to get along. Etc.



Imaro said:


> wouldn't the DM know the morality of something or someone in the campaign setting better than you yourself would as a player?




That hasn't been my experience.



Imaro said:


> how can they not be subjective... I'm hard pressed to think of many, if any,  roleplaying games that have mechanical moral ramifications and there isn't a moderate to large dose of subjectivity and judgement involved... can you?




Plenty of examples. Think of sanity points from CoC as an example. It's not like it would be that difficult to set up a chart of actions that require a loss of "honor points" or that require a Religion skill check (failure resulting in a lose of ability or HP or something else). It's not my preferred system, but it would work better than the DM telling you that X action makes you lose all your abilities when in your mind and with your intention, the action wouldn't be against deity X's code. As a DM I don't find it meaningful or valuable. My preferred method is entirely narrative.


----------



## sheadunne

Celebrim said:


> Again, I don't disagree that this is possible in theory.   However, I do think that it is a bit much to suggest that you as a player have no emotional investment in outcomes regarding your character and that this could not possibly bias how you judge a situation that effects your character.  I find it incredible that you think you can put that much distance between yourself and your character, especially in the light of the fact that _you are insisting that no one else be allowed to set outcomes for your character other than yourself_!




I'm not sure what you mean by outcomes. The DM can certainly set consequences. A paladin slaughtering a village is going to have some pretty harsh consequences by the local authority and the religious institution itself, even if his actions were morally justified as defined by the player. Those are narrative consequences, not mechanical ones. If the game introduces mechanical consequences, than there needs to be a resolution mechanic for handling them. I am not fond of mechanical consequences for narrative actions. 



Celebrim said:


> That's not possible.




Of course it is.



Celebrim said:


> You suggested ways that disguised the role of DM fiat, or set more structured expectations about exactly how DM fiat would enter into the game.  I'm not necessarily opposed to the sort of suggestions you made, and in fact earlier in the thread a different set of suggestions got me thinking hard about designing tighter coupling of alignment and mechanics for my own game, but I don't expect to be able to do away with DM fiat.   Instead, the benefit is greater structure to the expectations about DM fiat - the player gains the benefit of better foreknowledge of how the DM is likely to rule and what the consequences will be.  I find a lot of people who say they don't like DM fiat, mostly mean that they want a better handle on what is at stake, what the odds are, and so forth so that they can make more informed choices.




I suggested ways to make the narrative/mechanic work in a unified way as opposed to a narrative action causing a mechanical outcome without means of a resolution mechanic.

Situations where the DM needs to make rulings only tend to happen in situations where there is an issue between mechanics and narrative (such as with the paladin) or the mechanics are unclear in their resolution (poorly written, ambiguous, etc). In games I play the DM does not have the narrative authority to override a character, everything else, yes, but not the character. If the DM wants to impact the character, resolution mechanics need to be deployed. The problem with D&D is there tends not to be resolution mechanics for things like alignment. Either there should be or there shouldn't be mechanical implications.


----------



## Celebrim

sheadunne said:


> Plenty of examples. Think of sanity points from CoC as an example.




It's funny, but I was going to bring up sanity points as well as an example of something that it seemed like didn't involve DM fiat, but actually did.

While sanity points are really crunchy, it's pretty much entirely up to the GM whether or not an event requires a SAN check and how much sanity is staked on the outcome.   The GM is given some broad guidelines and the players some broad expectations, there is no way that those guidelines can ever be comprehensive and even those are subject to some interpretation.



> the DM telling you that X action makes you lose all your abilities when in your mind and with your intention, the action wouldn't be against deity X's code.




I have never once in my 30 years DMing imposed on a player permanent ability loss so it's not like I would particularly enjoy only having that as the sole tool in my tool bag, but strictly speaking shouldn't the deity be the judge of whether or not you've violated his code?   Just because you firmly believe something in your mind and in your intention, does that make it true?

But I notice we are getting side tracked into the particular mechanical implementation of how alignment interacts with the rules which is a rather different thing than whether it should exist at all.   Are we saying alignment can exist it's just the particular rules you don't like, or that it shouldnt' exist at all?



> As a DM I don't find it meaningful or valuable. My preferred method is entirely narrative.




You are going to have to explain that one to me better because to me that sounds entirely like DM pure and unlimited DM fiat.  Are you saying, "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin abilities, but I would have his deity smite him with a big blue lightning bolt!" or "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin's abilities, but I would arrange so that now he's going to be in the suck because Hera hates his character now!"   Narrative force is the strongest and most intrinsic application of DM fiat that there is.


----------



## Imaro

sheadunne said:


> I have found it to be the norm. But perhaps your definition is much more strict than mine.




You're either impartial or your not... I don't think there's a more strict and less strict impartial.  But we can just chalk this up to vastly different experiences...





sheadunne said:


> I am under the assumption that anyone who makes a character has a story they want to tell. They want to tell the story of X. How that story progresses is why I (and I assume others) play the game. The GM sets up challenges and based on the type of story the players want to tell, they interact with them. I assumed this was the normal way people played RPGs, it's certainly been my experience. I fight the ogres because I want a gritty action packed story. I hide from the ogres because I want a story of a coward who rises to glory later on in the game. I talk to the ogres because I want a story of different types of creatures learning to get along. Etc.




Do you decide the outcome of talking with the ogres?  Do you decide the result of a fight with the ogres?  Do you decide whether hiding from the ogres was successful or not...

Yet if a player is in charge of deciding what his code is (the obstacle) and whether he overcomes a moral quandary or not (the outcome)... isn't he deciding he beat the ogre/quandary?





sheadunne said:


> That hasn't been my experience.




Wait what?  How about instead of a pithy one liner you elaborate a little on that because it seems like you're claiming that you as a player know your character's morality better then the DM (without any chance of this being incorrect) but a DM doesn't know an NPC or monsters morality better than you do??  Please explain how that works...





sheadunne said:


> Plenty of examples. Think of sanity points from CoC as an example.




The GM would still decide what creatures cause sanity loss... and how much sanity loss a particular creature would cause... subjective.



sheadunne said:


> It's not like it would be that difficult to set up a chart of actions that require a loss of "honor points" or that require a Religion skill check (failure resulting in a lose of ability or HP or something else). It's not my preferred system, but it would work better than the DM telling you that X action makes you lose all your abilities when in your mind and with your intention, the action wouldn't be against deity X's code. As a DM I don't find it meaningful or valuable. My preferred method is entirely narrative.




There would still be gray areas, holes, etc. in the chart since all actions that could conceivably cause a check couldn't be covered without the chart becoming ridiculous... thus certain actions would have to be subjectively judged.  It's not about whether in your mind or with your intentions if the action is against deity X's code... it's the fact that you are not deity X and thus you don't dictate what his code means... 

I mean if I'm playing a paladin of Bahamut, and I decide that killing baby chromatic dragons is a good act, but Bahamut doesn't think so (because secretly in the GM's campaign setting chromatic baby dragons can transform into metallics if they choose to do good) and I'm told by the GM, either through Bahamut somehow or straight out that killing those baby dragons is an evil act in Bahamut's eyes...  who am I to say it isn't evil and is good if I've sworn to follow Bahamut?


----------



## Celebrim

sheadunne said:


> I am not fond of mechanical consequences for narrative actions.




I have no idea what this means.

If I narrate, "I swing my sword at the orc, hoping to chop off its head.", or really anything else I propose for my character to do, I generally expect my proposition to have mechanical as well as narrative consequences.   If I narrate, "I jump off the cliff, hoping to miss the rocks in the rapids below", I expect that to have mechanical as well as narrative consequences.   

So if I narrate, "I swing my sword at the infant, hoping to chop off its head." or if I narrate, "I take Sheila into my arms and break my oath of chastity", why should I expect that to not have mechanical as well as narrative consequences?  



> Situations where the DM needs to make rulings only tend to happen in situations where there is an issue between mechanics and narrative (such as with the paladin) or the mechanics are unclear in their resolution (poorly written, ambiguous, etc).




Really???



> In games I play the DM does not have the narrative authority to override a character, everything else, yes, but not the character. If the DM wants to impact the character, resolution mechanics need to be deployed.




You might not like the mechanical resolution, and we might both agree its a pretty blunt instrument but, "If you knowingly violate the tenants of your alignment or code of conduct, you permanently lose all class abilities", is very much a resolution mechanic.



> Either there should be or there shouldn't be mechanical implications.




Well, I guess we'll be happy with anything then.


----------



## sheadunne

Celebrim said:


> It's funny, but I was going to bring up sanity points as well as an example of something that it seemed like didn't involve DM fiat, but actually did.
> 
> While sanity points are really crunchy, it's pretty much entirely up to the GM whether or not an event requires a SAN check and how much sanity is staked on the outcome.   The GM is given some broad guidelines and the players some broad expectations, there is no way that those guidelines can ever be comprehensive and even those are subject to some interpretation.




I have no issue with the GM calling for a sanity check. Nor would I have any issue with the DM calling for an alignment check. Resolution mechanics are deployed. All is well. I do have a problem with the DM changing a characters sanity or alignment without employing resolution mechanics (which there aren't any alignment mechanics to employ, which is where my issue is and why I brought up sanity in CoC since it does have resolution mechanics that impact a non-health (HP) aspect of the character. 



Celebrim said:


> I have never once in my 30 years DMing imposed on a player permanent ability loss so it's not like I would particularly enjoy only having that as the sole tool in my tool bag, but strictly speaking shouldn't the deity be the judge of whether or not you've violated his code?   Just because you firmly believe something in your mind and in your intention, does that make it true?




For me, in a game of fiction, yes it makes it true.



Celebrim said:


> But I notice we are getting side tracked into the particular mechanical implementation of how alignment interacts with the rules which is a rather different thing than whether it should exist at all.   Are we saying alignment can exist it's just the particular rules you don't like, or that it shouldnt' exist at all?




I would like it to exist as either a mechanic element of the game or a narrative element of the game, not in-between. I have no real issue with the alignment descriptions. I have never had trouble fitting a character into one of the alignments (although I have had issues with either the player or DM not using the same definition of the alignment). I lean toward not having alignment as a mechanical element of the game and in my own 3x/PF games alignment only matters for purposes of spells/abilities that impact alignment and then only when a creature hails from an aligned plane or has an aura (such as a paladin or cleric). Detect evil doesn't reveal anything when used on a human rogue, but does on a human cleric (if he's evil). I don't think alignment offers much in terms of roleplaying, at least in my games, once the character is created and is usually ignored (aside from the above spells etc) during play (at least by the DM. The players may use it to remind themselves of their initial intention during character creation). 




Celebrim said:


> You are going to have to explain that one to me better because to me that sounds entirely like DM pure and unlimited DM fiat.  Are you saying, "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin abilities, but I would have his deity smite him with a big blue lightning bolt!" or "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin's abilities, but I would arrange so that now he's going to be in the suck because Hera hates his character now!"   Narrative force is the strongest and most intrinsic application of DM fiat that there is.




I think here lies the confusion. I don't involve the deities directly, nor do they have any direct influence on the game itself. When I run games I don't "play the deity." Deities do not control spell use (which I take from the cleric being able to use cleric spells without having a deity). I tend not to engage in high level play (epic level etc) and haven't since the 80s. When I say a purely narrative approach I'm talking about the ramifications in the fiction, NPC reactions, rumors spread about the failures of the paladin, etc. Narrative action do not take away anything from the character, they only present additional challenges for the PC to overcome. How does the lose of faith by the paladin resolve itself when the village he once called home now looks down upon him as a failure? These are the sorts of narrative consequences I like in the game.

DM Fiat to me is the DM taking action against a character without using the action resolution mechanics (whether there are any or not). A DM changing a characters alignment is Fiat. The DM presenting the character with a challenge based on his previous failure to live up to his code, is not.  D&D 3x expects this and it bugs me, when there are better ways to handle it in my option (see above). It's entirely possible that I'm using the term incorrectly and if so, I apologize for any confusion.


----------



## sheadunne

Imaro said:


> You're either impartial or your not... I don't think there's a more strict and less strict impartial.  But we can just chalk this up to vastly different experiences...




Could be.



Imaro said:


> Do you decide the outcome of talking with the ogres?  Do you decide the result of a fight with he ogres?  Do you decide whether hiding from the ogres was successful or not...




The outcome is irrelevant, it is the reflection of the character that matters. Did the outcome change the way the character views the world? The the outcome reinforce his belief in something. Those are the story elements I'm interest in.



Imaro said:


> Yet if a player is in charge of deciding what his code is (the obstacle) and whether he overcomes a moral quandary or not (the outcome)... isn't he deciding he beat the ogre/quandary?




The code is not an obstacle at least as I understand it or use it. It's a goal. The challenges created by the DM are used to test that goal (sticking to the code or failing it). 



Imaro said:


> Wait what?  How about instead of a pithy one liner you elaborate a little on that because it seems like you're claiming that you as a player know your character's morality better then the DM (without any chance of this being incorrect) but a DM doesn't know an NPC or monsters morality better than you do??  Please explain how that works...




I assumed you were still talking about deities and the paladin code. Once a character takes a resource during character creation (i.e. the act of playing a paladin) that resource is now in the players hands, even if it was originally created by the DM. The player knows what the code is and how it applies to his character better than the DM. In my experience this is true. 



Imaro said:


> The GM would still decide what creatures cause sanity loss... and how much sanity loss a particular creature would cause... subjective.




Again, it's the action resolution mechanics that are not subjective. How much and what creature are irrelevant to me (although I hope the game would balance those aspects appropriately for good play). I'm am not advocating the removing of alignment (although I don't have much attachment to it) only that it has resolution mechanics (roll a dice) or that it exist purely in the real of narrative without mechanic implications (lose of abilities). 



Imaro said:


> There would still be gray areas, holes, etc. in the chart since all actions that could conceivably cause a check couldn't be covered without the chart becoming ridiculous... thus certain actions would have to be subjectively judged.  It's not about whether in your mind or with your intentions if the action is against deity X's code... it's the fact that you are not deity X and thus you don't dictate what his code means...
> 
> I mean if I'm playing a paladin of Bahamut, and I decide that killing baby chromatic dragons is a good act, but Bahamut doesn't think so (because secretly in the GM's campaign setting chromatic baby dragons can transform into metallics if they choose to do good) and I'm told by the GM, either through Bahamut somehow or straight out that killing those baby dragons is an evil act in Bahamut's eyes...  who am I to say it isn't evil and is good if I've sworn to follow Bahamut?




Once the code becomes part of the character it is in the hands of the character, not the DM. The DM can challenge that code through the use of action resolution mechanics (if there were any) or through the use of narrative (as long as there isn't any mechanical implications, i.e. changes to the character's resources). D&D alignment (and some other elements, mostly spells) exist in a gray area between narrative and mechanics that leads to issues in my opinion.


----------



## sheadunne

Celebrim said:


> I have no idea what this means.
> 
> If I narrate, "I swing my sword at the orc, hoping to chop off its head.", or really anything else I propose for my character to do, I generally expect my proposition to have mechanical as well as narrative consequences.   If I narrate, "I jump off the cliff, hoping to miss the rocks in the rapids below", I expect that to have mechanical as well as narrative consequences.
> 
> So if I narrate, "I swing my sword at the infant, hoping to chop off its head." or if I narrate, "I take Sheila into my arms and break my oath of chastity", why should I expect that to not have mechanical as well as narrative consequences?




I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, and that's on me for not explaining the difference when I use the two terms.

When I talk about mechanic resolution I'm talking about a die roll. An impartial resolution to the situation where there are clear mechanical implications (HP loss for getting hit by an attack roll). 

When I talk about narrative consequences, I'm talking about the DM framing scenes which further challenge the failed code of the paladin but do not take away resources (like HP or sanity points). 

Both of first two examples require a resolution mechanic (a die roll). In which way does breaking the code have a resolution mechanic? What dice are being rolled to arbitrate between the DM and the player? In the existing model the DM decides the action and the resolution. There is no recourse for the player. No impartial arbitrator of the narrative (dice being rolled).



Celebrim said:


> Really???




Yes, in my experience.



Celebrim said:


> You might not like the mechanical resolution, and we might both agree its a pretty blunt instrument but, "If you knowingly violate the tenants of your alignment or code of conduct, you permanently lose all class abilities", is very much a resolution mechanic.




There is no resolution mechanics. No dice are being rolled. This is a narrative consequence that is effecting a characters resources without any recourse by the player (i.e. by using a resolution mechanic). The DM telling the player that his character is now LE is not a mechanic. It's fiat. If there was a roll to determine if it happened, then it would be a mechanic.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> You are a proponent of DMs (and only DMs) framing scenes since you worry that the players may frame themselves into easy situations or with easy obstacles to overcome



Correct.



Imaro said:


> yet you trust the paladin player to adjudicate his own actions when it comes to his code. Why don't you share the same concerns when it comes to the paladin, since he is in essence (through creating his own code, deciding the gray areas of the code, and having the ability to ignore it if he truly wants) also choosing whether a moral obstacle or scene is weak or strong



To me this seems to be quite different.

Any obstacle is an obstacle only relevant to a motivation. In technical terms, a "scene" expresses a hypothetical imperative: if you want to achieve X, then you are going to have to overcome Y. My concern about players framing scenes is that they will squib when it comes to specifying what Y is. Hence I prefer GM authority with respect to Y. But when I frame a scene, I am taking for granted a particular value of X.

For instance, in my most recent session the PCs were trudging through the icy tunnels of the Shadowdark, on the far side of the Soul Slough, heading for Torog's Soul Abattoir where they hope to destroy the Abattoir and defeat Torog. En route they were attacked by a beholder death emperor and the Worm of Ages. Thus, the hypothetical syllogism was framed: if you want to get to the Soul Abattoir, you must overcome the death emperor and the Worm. (This is the basic structure for all romatnic quest stories, I think.)

But the scene I've framed is only a challenge if the value of X is held constant. If the PCs decide to give up on Torog and the Soul Abattoir, then they don't have to overome the death emperor and the Worm: they can just run away back to their waiting planar dromond, and on their phantom steeds they have a better movement speed than either of those monsters. Part of the skill of GMing in a non-railroad but non-sandbox style is having a sound intuition on what "X" is for the players (this is "the GM being hooked by the players"), and this is why games in this style use devices - formal or informal - so that the players can tell GMs what "X" is for them. 

The paladin's code is one value of, or one component of, "X" for the paladin player. Given that value of X, I as GM can fairly easily frame a moral challenge.

If the player changes, or has changed, that value of X - ie what s/he takes his/her PC's obligations to be - then a scene that would have been a challlenge may not be. But that is no more an issue for GMing a paladin then for GMing any other PC. If the player of the fighter decides s/he no longer cares what the king thinks of his/her PC, then the delicate negotiation scene that I framed may turn out not to be a big challenge after all!

Handling these changes of X - which naturally occur from time to time as the game is played and PCs evolve - and reading those changes, whether expressed formally or informally, and responding to them in a flexible way, is another GMing skill. Sometimes it turns out that X has changed faster than the GM anticipated, and what was intended as a challenging Y turns out not to be. Or perhaps the nature of the challenge changes - here is an example from actual play:

The PCs in my 4e game were raiding a goblin stronghold (the Chamber of Eyes from H2) and while the goblins fell back and regrouped, the PCs ducked into a small room to take a breather. They found themselves in the room of a couple of duergar slave traders, who had been keeping their heads down during the fighting.

The module author certainly assumed that if/when the PCs encountered these duergar, a fight would ensue. And that had been my default assumption also. But on this particular occasion the players were fairly low on resources (hence they had decided their PCs would take a short rest) and they also didn't feel any special animosity towards the duergar. So the scene went in a different direction: the PCs negotiated with the duergar to redeem the slaves for an agreed price on an agreed date in a nearby town. (Resolved as a skill challenge.)​
That's an example of X changing, or at least turning out to be something different from what I as GM anticipated, and the nature of the Y therefore also changing in a flexible way. I haven't found GMing paladins to raise any special problems in this regard.

Burning Wheel, which has a formal technique for the signalling of X by players - namely, Beliefs - also has a rule that a player may change a Belief at any time, but that the GM may delay the implimenation of a change of Belief if s/he thinks it is being done simply to wriggle out of a difficult situation that the GM has framed for that player and his/her PC. Because, in D&D, there is no comparably formal system, there is no corresponding formal power in the GM to stop the player squibbing. In my own play, if I feel that the player is not really feeling the force of the moral challenge of the Y in the way s/he is playing his/her PC in response to it, I (verbally) poke and prod the player, perhaps making comments like "What would Moradin think?" or reminding them of some grievance they've been nursing from some earlier episode of play - in other words, informal techniques for the GM corresponding to informal signalling of "X" by the players. (Those informal techniques may seem obvious - I personally didn't work them out myself, though, but learned them from an excellent GM running a Cthulhu freeform at a convention in Melbourne in 1992.)



sheadunne said:


> I am under the assumption that anyone who makes a character has a story they want to tell.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The GM sets up challenges and based on the type of story the players want to tell, they interact with them. I assumed this was the normal way people played RPGs, it's certainly been my experience.



I see this as being in the same general neighbourhood of my Xs and Ys above: the player has some desire or goal for his/her PC, and the GM frames challenges that must be overcome if that goal is to be realised.

As GM I will discuss the Xs with the playes as part of campaign set-up, post-game reflection etc - that is part and parcel of everyone being on the same page with the game - but during play it is the players who have authority over the Xs, and what counts as satisfying or thwarting X. My job is to keep piling on enjoyable Ys.



sheadunne said:


> I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Nothing for me is more immersion breaking than a GM imposing himself on my character. He should present challenges that put the character's morality and ethics to the test, but the internal results of those challenges, when it comes to the character, should be left to the player who better understands the morality of the character himself



This all works for me. I also agree with your account of "narrative" consequences - upthread I think I've used the phrase "story consequences".

One of my assumptions - building on your idea that "anyone who builds a PC has a story they want to tell" - is that the players, having built a PC with goal X, _care about_ X as an element of the unfolding fiction. Hence they will care about "narrative consequences" like (for instance, in my game where the paladin turned on the heavens) angels and the like no longer treating them as friends/allies.

I know this is not true for all RPGers - some prefer a "step on up" sort of game where the main action is in the accruing of XP and treasure, and the story element is mostly just a flavour context for play - but for my techniques to work for me they don't have to be applicable to all RPGing at all times and places - just for me and my group!



Dannyalcatraz said:


> one of the classic (as in, found in the source material that inspired the class) challenges of playing a Paladin- the risk of losing one's divinely granted boons if/when one goes against the tenets of one's faith or violated their vows- becomes, in a sense, optional.
> 
> And that just doesn't feel..._right_.



In one sense it's always optional, in that it requires someone to make a decision that is not forced upon them. The question currently at issue is whether that will be the player or the GM - and a secondary question is whether that should lead to a signficiantly reduced mechanical effectiveness for the PC (I don't see why it should - after all, other players who spurn the gods don't therefore get stuck with less mechanically effective PCs - hence my preference for blackguard conversion rules, even if they are a little cartoony as written).



Imaro said:


> But being a paladin, cleric, etc. is about accepting the moral tenets of something or someone else and following them.





sheadunne said:


> I don't involve the deities directly, nor do they have any direct influence on the game itself. When I run games I don't "play the deity."



I do involve the deities directly in my game, but I take it for granted that if one of the players is playing a cleric or paladin of that deity then I am not the only one who has a stake in that NPC. Just as if I bring a PC's parent, or hometown, into play, the player of that PC has a stake in that too.

So, for instance, in my 4e campaign more than one of the Raven Queen worshippers has met with and interacted directly with their god, played by me as an NPC - mostly in the course of being resurrected - but that doesn't mean I assume I'm at liberty to have her do whatever I might feel like, including stripping them of their abilities based on an adverse moral judgement.

I see this as a special case of a more general principle - that in certain mechanical situations the GM does not have sole authority over NPC behaviour. So, for instance, if the game involves morale rules, and the NPC fails a morale check, then the GM is obliged to honour that. Or, if (as in 4e, for instance) the game has social resolution mechanics, and the players by dint of those mechanics extract some concession or favour from an NPC, then the GM is not at liberty to just disregard that (any more than s/he can just disregard a damage roll against an NPC's hit points during combat) - s/he is obliged to honour that.

So in the case of a god, or a PC family or hometown, the player has automatically acquired a stake in that simply by dint of PC creation. And as a GM I am obliged to honour that.

That's not to say I can't test it. For instance, the invoker/wizard in my game has an imp familiar, who is a watcher sent by the arch-devil Levistus to keep tabs on him. I can use this set up to push and prod that player, and even to contribute to the framing of a challenge - but in the final analysis the player bought that imp familiar with PC build resources, and so I don't have licence just to competely rob the player of his familiar and have it turn on him because "that's what Levistus would do". Levistus and his imp servants are no longer my sole property in the game.


----------



## pemerton

sheadunne said:


> The outcome is irrelevant, it is the reflection of the character that matters. Did the outcome change the way the character views the world? The the outcome reinforce his belief in something. Those are the story elements I'm interest in.



Likewise.



sheadunne said:


> The code is not an obstacle at least as I understand it or use it. It's a goal. The challenges created by the DM are used to test that goal (sticking to the code or failing it).



Yes - as per my above post, the code is a player-chosen/created "X" which the GM then puts to the test by creating salient challenges ("Y"s).


----------



## sheadunne

pemerton said:


> I do involve the deities directly in my game, but I take it for granted that if one of the players is playing a cleric or paladin of that deity then I am not the only one who has a stake in that NPC. Just as if I bring a PC's parent, or hometown, into play, the player of that PC has a stake in that too.
> 
> So in the case of a god, or a PC family or hometown, the player has automatically acquired a stake in that simply by dint of PC creation. And as a GM I am obliged to honour that.
> 
> That's not to say I can't test it. For instance, the invoker/wizard in my game has an imp familiar, who is a watcher sent by the arch-devil Levistus to keep tabs on him. I can use this set up to push and prod that player, and even to contribute to the framing of a challenge - but in the final analysis the player bought that imp familiar with PC build resources, and so I don't have licence just to competely rob the player of his familiar and have it turn on him because "that's what Levistus would do". Levistus and his imp servants are no longer my sole property in the game.




I hadn't considered it in that way before. I've always just left the deities out of the picture. I'll have to think on that. I've rarely if ever used deities as NPCs so it'll be new territory.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In one sense it's always optional, in that it requires someone to make a decision that is not forced upon them. The question currently at issue is whether that will be the player or the GM - and a secondary question is whether that should lead to a signficiantly reduced mechanical effectiveness for the PC (I don't see why it should - after all, other players who spurn the gods don't therefore get stuck with less mechanically effective PCs - hence my preference for blackguard conversion rules, even if they are a little cartoony as written).




Well, RAW (in games with an alignment system), the only sense in which its optional is whether one chooses to play a class with alignment-based restrictions with attendant consequences.

And, IMHO, there is no question as to whose responsibility it is to enforce the consequences of a PC violating his vow: the GM; the rules arbiter/world runner.  The players control the PCs actions, but it is thE GM's duty to control and narrate to the players how those actions reverberate within the campaign world.  As it is with normal NPCs, so it is with divine ones.

In one of our group's campaigns, one of the PCs* violated a Prince's edict about proselytizing within the boundaries of his domain.  This rule was not secret, and the player had his (priest) PC try to build a following for his faith anyway.  For his trouble, the PC was arrested, tried, and exiled.  The player felt he had done no wrong, but the GM** enforced the Prince's edict.

This is no different than the interaction of a wayward Paladin and his patron.  The Paladin has rules to follow, imposed upon him by another, more powerful being.  As the "show runner", it's the DM's duty, not the player's privilege, to decide when the NPC's rules hav been violated by the PC, and what consequences should follow.



* not mine

** not me


----------



## D'karr

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In one of our group's campaigns, one of the PCs* violated a Prince's edict about proselytizing within the boundaries of his domain.  This rule was not secret, and the player had his (priest) PC try to build a following for his faith anyway.  For his trouble, the PC was arrested, tried, and exiled.  The player felt he had done no wrong, but the GM** enforced the Prince's edict.




This seems exactly in line with what [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] had mentioned in an earlier post.  These are "narrative" consequences (put in jail) to a "narrative" situation (disobeying NPC edict).  Not mechanical consequences (losing PC clerical powers) to a narrative situation (disobeying an NPC).



> This is no different than the interaction of a wayward Paladin and his patron.  The Paladin has rules to follow, imposed upon him by another, more powerful being.  As the "show runner", it's the DM's duty, not the player's privilege, to decide when the NPC's rules have been violated by the PC, and what consequences should follow.




It is quite different.  This situation involves the stripping of mechanical class features based on an arbitrary ruling, sometimes a secret arbitrary ruling, of a completely subjective and "narrative" situation.  This is what I absolutely hate about the "classic" alignment "purported mechanics".  They are not mechanics at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

D'karr said:


> This seems exactly in line with what [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] had mentioned in an earlier post.  These are "narrative" consequences (put in jail) to a "narrative" situation (disobeying NPC edict).  Not mechanical consequences (losing PC clerical powers) to a narrative situation (disobeying an NPC)..




In this case, the narrative consequence was "roll a new PC, because that one has been exiled" because the campaign was centered within that Prince's domain.  Losing powers that can be regained is, comparatively speaking, small potatoes.



> It is quite different.  This situation involves the stripping of mechanical class features based on an arbitrary ruling, sometimes a secret arbitrary ruling, of a completely subjective and "narrative" situation.  This is what I absolutely hate about the "classic" alignment "purported mechanics".  They are not mechanics at all.



Arbitrary?  I don't think so, not unless your GM doesn't belong on that side of the screen.

At any rate, I stand by my position: players play their PCs, GMs determine how those PCs actions are reacted to within the campaign world.  The scenarios described differs only in details, not nature.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The Paladin has rules to follow, imposed upon him by another, more powerful being.  As the "show runner", it's the DM's duty, not the player's privilege, to decide when the NPC's rules hav been violated by the PC, and what consequences should follow.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> players play their PCs, GMs determine how those PCs actions are reacted to within the campaign world.  The scenarios described differs only in details, not nature.



As I set out in my reply to [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] about involving deities in the game, I don't actually share this conception of the GM's authority.

But I also have a second, distinct, reason for not sharing your view that the scenarios differ only in details.

In the case of the proselytising priest, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM has posed an obstacle to that (namely, the prince's objections). The player has pushed against that obstacle, and lost. The player's conception of his/her PC has not been invalidated, although from what you're saying the GM in question was not using "fail forward" methods, and so the player is not able to keep using that PC in the game.

In the case of the paladin, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM, playing the role of the divine, has decided that the player is wrong about that. Furthermore, within the fiction, it is almost unthinkable that the divine entity is making a moral error - s/he is an immortal being of LG with 25+ INT and WIS living in the Seven Heavens. Thus, the player's conception of his/her PC has been radically invalidated.

Whether or not one thinks the game _should_ permit a player's conception of his/her PC to be radically invalidated is a different thing. As best I can tell, [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] think that it should, because in this way the experience of the player reflects the experience of the _character_, who has been condemned by his/her god for misjudging what is proper. I hope I've made it clear that I prefer a game in which the player's conception of his/her PC is not invalidated, and as [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] has explained that therefore involves a player/character split.

But whatever one's view about the matters discussed in the previous paragraph, I think it is plausible to see that there is a difference in nature between the two episodes. Because only one involves the player being told that his/her conception of his/her PC was mistaken.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> As I set out in my reply to @_*sheadunne*_ about involving deities in the game, I don't actually share this conception of the GM's authority.
> 
> But I also have a second, distinct, reason for not sharing your view that the scenarios differ only in details.
> 
> In the case of the proselytising priest, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM has posed an obstacle to that (namely, the prince's objections). The player has pushed against that obstacle, and lost. The player's conception of his/her PC has not been invalidated, although from what you're saying the GM in question was not using "fail forward" methods, and so the player is not able to keep using that PC in the game.
> 
> In the case of the paladin, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM, playing the role of the divine, has decided that the player is wrong about that. Furthermore, within the fiction, it is almost unthinkable that the divine entity is making a moral error - s/he is an immortal being of LG with 25+ INT and WIS living in the Seven Heavens. Thus, the player's conception of his/her PC has been radically invalidated.
> 
> Whether or not one thinks the game _should_ permit a player's conception of his/her PC to be radically invalidated is a different thing. As best I can tell, @_*N'raac*_ and @_*Imaro*_ think that it should, because in this way the experience of the player reflects the experience of the _character_, who has been condemned by his/her god for misjudging what is proper. I hope I've made it clear that I prefer a game in which the player's conception of his/her PC is not invalidated, and as @_*sheadunne*_ has explained that therefore involves a player/character split.
> 
> But whatever one's view about the matters discussed in the previous paragraph, I think it is plausible to see that there is a difference in nature between the two episodes. Because only one involves the player being told that his/her conception of his/her PC was mistaken.





Could you please define what exactly PC "conception" encompasses??  Because I'm a little unclear from your post...  I mean can part of PC conception be that you can't be wrong about something (i.e. the paladin cannot be wrong about how he interprets the code of another being or cosmological force)??  Also I'm a little confused if I am understanding your usage of the word conception since it would seem, by the very nature of choosing to play the paladin class in every edition (except 4e) the selection of said class also encompasses the possibility of falling (whatever that means in the context of an individual edition) as well as (at least in 3.x) the possibility of atonement... so I am not seeing how a paladin falling is in fact invalidating conception of said character... or am I not understanding your usage of the word correctly?


----------



## Sadras

*DO ALIGNMENTS IMPROVE THE GAMING EXPERIENCE*

Alignments can improve the gaming experience, not necessarily do as it depends much on the players and the DM, but so does an adventure. So I don't see the problem with it. 

Think of alignments as character crutches/hindrances/merits/flaws/descriptors/paths - a great deal of RPGs (Grimm, Summerland, Vampire...etc) have such things within their systems, and most usually affect mechanics in some way or another but others affect narrative or character choices, which is great. 
We should actually have more descriptors in D&D - short/tall (this is denoted with height), fat/thin (denoted to some degree with weight), proud/humble, selfish/generous, jealous, empathic...etc     
I'd love for D&D to have a module which asks that a character have x descriptors and not just physical but psychological too. For me it encourages great role-play. 
My favourite moments in D&D funnily enough have usually not been about the numbers - its been about the role-play. 

We do not criticise other RPGS which have such systems, and I do not see why the use of alignments or the value of alignments is such a heated debate for D&Ders. Do we need them - not necessarily, but that is not the question. The question is "Do alignments improve the gaming experience?"

And the simple answer is yes they can, for they can assist in instilling or reminding the players (through everyone/anyone at the table) how we intended to play our characters. How is that a bad thing?

A character's alignment might change over the course of a campaign, which is absolutely fine - as one might change due to their experiences, the choices they might have had to make. 

Will a player play a paladin better is he uses alignment over another player who doesn't? Not necessarily. But a descriptor on a character's page allows the DM to explore the narrative behind it, whereas a player without that descriptor is playing it without a true boundary. 

Alignment can enhance stories, give a greater sense of direction or purpose to a character, it defines a character better and may lead to opportunities where it can be used creatively with the mechanics.

In my experience, those against a moral/psychological descriptor don't like it as it doesn't affect the roll-play and might supposedly limit their characters on the role-play which to me is an indication that they prefer the roll-play.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Correct.




Ok, cool.  that said...



pemerton said:


> To me this seems to be quite different.
> 
> Any obstacle is an obstacle only relevant to a motivation. In technical terms, a "scene" expresses a hypothetical imperative: if you want to achieve X, then you are going to have to overcome Y. My concern about players framing scenes is that they will squib when it comes to specifying what Y is. Hence I prefer GM authority with respect to Y. But when I frame a scene, I am taking for granted a particular value of X.




Yep I got this... so far so good.



pemerton said:


> For instance, in my most recent session the PCs were trudging through the icy tunnels of the Shadowdark, on the far side of the Soul Slough, heading for Torog's Soul Abattoir where they hope to destroy the Abattoir and defeat Torog. En route they were attacked by a beholder death emperor and the Worm of Ages. Thus, the hypothetical syllogism was framed: if you want to get to the Soul Abattoir, you must overcome the death emperor and the Worm. (This is the basic structure for all romatnic quest stories, I think.)
> 
> But the scene I've framed is only a challenge if the value of X is held constant. If the PCs decide to give up on Torog and the Soul Abattoir, then they don't have to overome the death emperor and the Worm: they can just run away back to their waiting planar dromond, and on their phantom steeds they have a better movement speed than either of those monsters. Part of the skill of GMing in a non-railroad but non-sandbox style is having a sound intuition on what "X" is for the players (this is "the GM being hooked by the players"), and this is why games in this style use devices - formal or informal - so that the players can tell GMs what "X" is for them.





Again so far so good  The value of X is a desire of the PC... Y is what they must overcome to attain X... X is only serving it's purpose when it is held valuable to the PC's...



pemerton said:


> The paladin's code is one value of, or one component of, "X" for the paladin player. Given that value of X, I as GM can fairly easily frame a moral challenge.




Hmm, I would go a little further and say, for the paladin as presented in every edition except 4e, that following the paladin's code is the epitome of X for said class... and I agree the DM can use said code to set up a moral challenge (i.e. Y)...



pemerton said:


> If the player changes, or has changed, that value of X - ie what s/he takes his/her PC's obligations to be - then a scene that would have been a challlenge may not be. But that is no more an issue for GMing a paladin then for GMing any other PC. If the player of the fighter decides s/he no longer cares what the king thinks of his/her PC, then the delicate negotiation scene that I framed may turn out not to be a big challenge after all!




And I think this may be where we don't see eye to eye on a class like the paladin.  The paladin's restrictions throughout the previous editions have primarily served to make sure this doesn't happen as far as the paladin's code goes.  IMO, the paladin's code is the thing that gives him his power and strength, and is what his entire archetype is centered around... without it he isn't a paladin (thus the "falling") he is a slightly pious fighter, a divine mercenary or something else but not a paladin... but you seem to regard the code as something the paladin can disregard and still be a paladin, I don't think I do.



pemerton said:


> Handling these changes of X - which naturally occur from time to time as the game is played and PCs evolve - and reading those changes, whether expressed formally or informally, and responding to them in a flexible way, is another GMing skill. Sometimes it turns out that X has changed faster than the GM anticipated, and what was intended as a challenging Y turns out not to be. Or perhaps the nature of the challenge changes - here is an example from actual play:The PCs in my 4e game were raiding a goblin stronghold (the Chamber of Eyes from H2) and while the goblins fell back and regrouped, the PCs ducked into a small room to take a breather. They found themselves in the room of a couple of duergar slave traders, who had been keeping their heads down during the fighting.
> 
> The module author certainly assumed that if/when the PCs encountered these duergar, a fight would ensue. And that had been my default assumption also. But on this particular occasion the players were fairly low on resources (hence they had decided their PCs would take a short rest) and they also didn't feel any special animosity towards the duergar. So the scene went in a different direction: the PCs negotiated with the duergar to redeem the slaves for an agreed price on an agreed date in a nearby town. (Resolved as a skill challenge.)​
> That's an example of X changing, or at least turning out to be something different from what I as GM anticipated, and the nature of the Y therefore also changing in a flexible way. I haven't found GMing paladins to raise any special problems in this regard.




Yes but I would contend that the values of X you have presented here are not intrinsic to what a particular player has chosen to play.  I also believe the fall and subsequent (if the player desires it) atonement (or even conversion to another deity) for paladins is a way for the DM to handle a change in X... and honestly if maintaining the paladin code has become so irrelevant to a player that they don't wish to atone... well then at that point I think it's time to roll up another character or convert your existing character to another class such as fighter.



pemerton said:


> Burning Wheel, which has a formal technique for the signalling of X by players - namely, Beliefs - also has a rule that a player may change a Belief at any time, but that the GM may delay the implimenation of a change of Belief if s/he thinks it is being done simply to wriggle out of a difficult situation that the GM has framed for that player and his/her PC. Because, in D&D, there is no comparably formal system, there is no corresponding formal power in the GM to stop the player squibbing. In my own play, if I feel that the player is not really feeling the force of the moral challenge of the Y in the way s/he is playing his/her PC in response to it, I (verbally) poke and prod the player, perhaps making comments like "What would Moradin think?" or reminding them of some grievance they've been nursing from some earlier episode of play - in other words, informal techniques for the GM corresponding to informal signalling of "X" by the players. (Those informal techniques may seem obvious - I personally didn't work them out myself, though, but learned them from an excellent GM running a Cthulhu freeform at a convention in Melbourne in 1992.)




But this Burning Wheel rule seems to fly in the face of a player knowing the morality of his character better than the GM. This is also an example of DM fiat (though on a more limited scale than D&D's), and a mechanical penalty for a narrative change.  IMO, this only differs in the way D&D handles paladins by having a less severe effect... a smaller amount of power is taken away by the DM because he feels you haven't roleplayed your beliefs convincingly.  Why is this ok in your ming but the handling of paladins in early editions isn't?

As to the way you poke and prod, I believe (though if I am wrong someone please correct me) that 3.5 makes it clear that you as the DM should warn the player when they are about to do something that is against their code, so it's very similar to what you have described above, only instead of beating around the bush... the DM just comes out and says it.


----------



## Sadras

Imaro said:


> (snip) ...the paladin's code is the thing that gives him his power and strength, and is what his entire archetype is centered around... without it he isn't a paladin (thus the "falling") he is a slightly pious fighter, a divine mercenary or something else but not a paladin... but you seem to regard the code as something the paladin can disregard and still be a paladin, I don't think I do.
> 
> As to the way you poke and prod, I believe (though if I am wrong someone please correct me) that 3.5 makes it clear that you as the DM should warn the player when they are about to do something that is against their code, so it's very similar to what you have described above, only instead of beating around the bush... the DM just comes out and says it.




You are not wrong and here is another example - If one chooses as an archetype, Archer, and he picks the necessary feats and abilities which would enhance his skill as an Archer. If that Archer drops his bow for a sword, the system punishes him through the mechanics for not sticking to his archetype. 

It is the same with the Paladin, his code is his strength but also his crutch, if he drops/breaks that code, he will get punished as that is not what he ascribed to be originally. Mechanics wise he might start losing his Paladin's abilities. 
Unfortunately the way back for the Paladin is usually a lot tougher than the Archer. All the Archer has to do is pick up his bow again - for the Paladin it might require a quest or something more...but that is the luxury and burden of ROLE-playing a Paladin.


----------



## N'raac

Bluenose said:


> I'm afraid "Not-Fallen" and "Fallen" seem like rather Brute force approaches. Either everything works at full efficiency, or nothing does. What @sheadunne suggests is rather closer to what I'd like to see. Some of the things that were said in the "Religion in D&D" thread are also relevant.




So is the issue that the Paladin may lose his divine-granted powers at all, or that the rules make this all or nothing?  A more robust system might incorporate loss of some, but not all, powers for a restricted timeframe, with the severity of the violation, and the circumstances, taken into account.

Are we discussing whether alignment itself benefits or detracts from the game?  I think we left that question behind many pages back.

Are we discussing whether there ought to be mechanics linked to alignment?  Or are we discussing whether the existing mechanics should be modified, enhanced, reduced and/or replaced?



sheadunne said:


> The only issue here is that I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions).




I think this opens up another question, which [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has discussed in some detail.  As the player judging what the character’s morality dictates, I believe that you are 100% in the right – no GM should be able to say “No, your character does not truly believe that” barring some external magical force which is overriding the character’s free will such as a Charm spell).  

However, the Paladin and Cleric’s abilities are not, as I read them, intrinsic.  They are granted by an external force, be that a deity, a cosmological Law and Goodness philosophy or some other force.  As such, demanding that the player assess whether the Paladin has fallen, or the Cleric’s actions have been in our out of keeping with the tenets of his deity demands that the player also play the Deity or Force which grants the character his powers.

I don’t get to decide that, despite having cast all his L5 spell slots today, my 9th level sorcerer is able to reach within and find that shred of power to cast just one more in this very crucial situation.  Why would I get to decide that my character’s Deity agrees with my intrepretation of Law, Good and the character’s religious obligations?

You refer to internal reflection of the character, but Clerics and Paladins have powers granted by an external source.  By rejecting the notion that those powers can be denied, I feel you reject the notion that the GM controls those external sources.  I question what other external sources should be under the player’s control, then.  Should the player of the proselytizing cleric referred to elsewhere in the thread be able to dictate that his words and deeds have impressed the Prince, who withdraws his edict rather than enforcing it?



sheadunne said:


> I guess the problem seems to be that I'm not judging myself in any way. I'm judging a fictional character as part of a story. I am not my character. There is no "mirror." There is no "self-evaluation."
> 
> Any constraints should be built into the rules of the game and not DM fiat. I suggested several ways up thread on how to handle that. Neither of which is in conflict with the way I prefer things to be handled in a RPG. If "duty" is a game rule than to resolve that rule there needs to be mechanics for arbitration (such as a religion check to determine if the action caused a lapse of duty). If it is purely narrative in function than there needs to be ownership of the narrative (which for me is the player) and consequences (which for me is the DM), neither of which are mechanic in nature (the character don't lose character abilities).






sheadunne said:


> I have no issue with the GM calling for a sanity check. Nor would I have any issue with the DM calling for an alignment check. Resolution mechanics are deployed. All is well. I do have a problem with the DM changing a characters sanity or alignment without employing resolution mechanics (which there aren't any alignment mechanics to employ, which is where my issue is and why I brought up sanity in CoC since it does have resolution mechanics that impact a non-health (HP) aspect of the character.




So it would be OK if loss of character abilities were contingent on a die roll?  I can see this, to some extent.  The character’s knowledge and understanding of his own religion could be set by a skill.  But however high that skill, are there lines that simply cannot be crossed?  Is there a point at which either the best your skill can do is tell you “that means excommunication and branding as a heretic and enemy of the religion forevermore”, or where the DC is so high that no roll can possibly succeed, becomes legitimate?



Celebrim said:


> It's funny, but I was going to bring up sanity points as well as an example of something that it seemed like didn't involve DM fiat, but actually did.
> 
> While sanity points are really crunchy, it's pretty much entirely up to the GM whether or not an event requires a SAN check and how much sanity is staked on the outcome. The GM is given some broad guidelines and the players some broad expectations, there is no way that those guidelines can ever be comprehensive and even those are subject to some interpretation.




Agreed.  In addition, the GM could set consequences even where the roll succeeded (the highest I recall was 1-10 points for a Great Old One, where a failed check was loss of 1-100 SAN).  It’s been a long time since I played CoC – it requires a group with a familiarity and fondness for Lovecraft, as well as a certain playstyle – but I recall the SAN loss in many Chaosium scenarios seeming quite arbitrary, and varying substantially across adventure writers.



Celebrim said:


> But I notice we are getting side tracked into the particular mechanical implementation of how alignment interacts with the rules which is a rather different thing than whether it should exist at all. Are we saying alignment can exist it's just the particular rules you don't like, or that it shouldnt' exist at all?




I think this is a very good question – we started with a discussion of “Alignment”, but only Paladins have received substantial discussion, and a bit for clerics.  Is the issue “Alignment” or “Mechanics of Alignment”?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, RAW (in games with an alignment system), the only sense in which its optional is whether one chooses to play a class with alignment-based restrictions with attendant consequences.




An issue which has been very much conflated, and the discussion focused almost entirely on whether those attendant consequences are appropriate, not whether alignment itself is relevant. 



pemerton said:


> As I set out in my reply to @sheadunne about involving deities in the game, I don't actually share this conception of the GM's authority.
> 
> But I also have a second, distinct, reason for not sharing your view that the scenarios differ only in details.
> 
> In the case of the proselytising priest, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM has posed an obstacle to that (namely, the prince's objections). The player has pushed against that obstacle, and lost. The player's conception of his/her PC has not been invalidated, although from what you're saying the GM in question was not using "fail forward" methods, and so the player is not able to keep using that PC in the game.




I have never received an answer on how far “fail forward” can go.  It is impossible, apparently, for the character to be removed from the game by banishment.  Can the character die, which also removes the character from the game?  Or does Fail Forward means that each failure must ultimately be resolved in a manner where the character is able to try, try again?

You have similarly not responded to my earlier question of where “PC conception” ends.  His deity/church/philosophy must always accept his actions, unless he decides they must not (the Paladin who accidentally took a life).  The player  gets a stake in the deities, his home town, his parents, etc.  Can the character veto, say, the death of a loved one, the razing or conquest of his home town or the loss of his heirloom/enchanted bow on the basis these are “central to his conception”?  Is it only possible to lose stakes that are not all that important to the PC?



pemerton said:


> In the case of the paladin, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM, playing the role of the divine, has decided that the player is wrong about that. Furthermore, within the fiction, it is almost unthinkable that the divine entity is making a moral error - s/he is an immortal being of LG with 25+ INT and WIS living in the Seven Heavens. Thus, the player's conception of his/her PC has been radically invalidated.




In the typical game milieu, how many immortal beings with staggering INT and WIS live in all of the Outer Planes?  I suggest the player and the PC may have discovered that LG is not what the PC considers proper to do.  



pemerton said:


> Whether or not one thinks the game should permit a player's conception of his/her PC to be radically invalidated is a different thing.




What is the player’s conception of his PC?  That he is “Lawful Good” or that he considers the protection of the innocent more important (or less important) than the rights of the guilty?  If the Greater Cosmic Beings of LG differ in opinion, that means, to me, that the character’s views of “what is right” do not accord with the philosophies of LG, and perhaps the character is LN, believing that respect for life most certainly DOES NOT take priority over the protection of the innocent by executing the guilty for their crimes.

Whether one or the other is “Good” is a question for philosophers.  What the Greater Cosmological Forces in a fictional world determine “Good” to be is not.



pemerton said:


> As best I can tell, @N'raac and @Imaro think that it should, because in this way the experience of the player reflects the experience of the character, who has been condemned by his/her god for misjudging what is proper. I hope I've made it clear that I prefer a game in which the player's conception of his/her PC is not invalidated, and as @sheadunne has explained that therefore involves a player/character split.
> 
> But whatever one's view about the matters discussed in the previous paragraph, I think it is plausible to see that there is a difference in nature between the two episodes. Because only one involves the player being told that his/her conception of his/her PC was mistaken.




I do not disagree with the philosophy that the player’s conception of the character is critical.  I disagree with the notion that this conception, of necessity, requires the world conform with the rightness of that conception.

The Paladin character’s views deviate from his deity?  This is a HUGE challenge to the beliefs of your character.  I thought the game was all about challenges.  Reflecting on my conception of the character, what is important to him?  Is it acceptance by the Church/Deity/Whatever and his position as a Paladin, with all the powers, mechanical or not, that his position carries (and he will therefore compromise his own beliefs to accord with those of the entity granting his powers, perhaps persuading himself that, clearly, that 25+ INT and WIS outer planar epitome of LG cannot be mistaken, so it is his own beliefs which are flawed), or does the power of his own convictions require he walk away from his Paladinhood, because retaining it would require him to deviate from what he knows to be right?

Now, I would not disagree that we could use a mechanic which enables the Fallen Paladin to replace his lost mechanical abilities with new abilities, just as we would likely allow a cleric to change deities and retain his abilities with any relevant changes such as domain spells, granted powers and favoured weapons.  Perhaps the Paladin gets to replace his Paladin levels with Fighter levels over a similar timeframe, becoming a character with the mechanical abilities befitting his level.  But he does  not get to dictate what “LG” or Paladinhood, mean.



Imaro said:


> Could you please define what exactly PC "conception" encompasses?? Because I'm a little unclear from your post... I mean can part of PC conception be that you can't be wrong about something (i.e. the paladin cannot be wrong about how he interprets the code of another being or cosmological force)??




Ditto.  What can the player, through his “conception”, dictate, and what is beyond “conception’s” authority?


----------



## N'raac

So it does not get lost in the verbiage, there seems to be a lot of stress placed on who gets to decide what is "LG" and therefore maintains Paladinhood.  Why do we place such great stock in whether the character is "LG", rather than "NG" or "LN"?  Is it because we project our own views of what is moral and ethical on the D&D labels, and we want to believe that we ourselves are "LG"?  Is "LG" somehow more "good" than NG?  Don't the corner alignments involve compromise - in the case of LG, absolute Lawfulness being compromised in the interests of Good and absolute Goodness being compromised in the interests of Law?

I think the player gets to define what his character's conception of what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, is.  I don't think that extends to defining the label placed on his conception within the game world.  I doubt anyone we would consider "Evil" considered himself or herself as such.  Philosophers debate what is truly "good" to no consensus.  We need to accept those nine alignments for what they are - a convenient shorthand for a bundle of beliefs in the game, not judgement over real world morality and ethics.  In the real world, what label would we place on a fellow who takes up arms to oppose all he thinks is wrong?


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> @_*Manbearcat*_  : Well I'm not going to re-hash what has already been brought up regarding DitV... I used to own the game but only remember it vaguely, however something that stood out to me is that my impressions of the Dogs (from what I can remember, and I could be totally wrong)... or Roland Deschain for that matter... don't strike me as anything near a traditional (D&D) paladin.  I'd be interested in why you think they match up as such??




I'll start by recognizing that my take on him as a paladin (lower-case) stems from an array, not specifically the Paladin of D&D; its etymological roots and its general usage in popular culture.  I'll try to keep this short and just tick things off.

- King's tale and protagonist (Roland) was inspired by the Robert Browning poem "Childe (untested knight) Roland to the Dark Tower Came".  My view (which is not absolute consensus, but majority I think) is that the poem's protagonist is the paladin from "The Song of Roland" (11th century French poem/song) which was in turn about the death of the original (etymologically) paladin, Roland, Charlemagne's military leader.

- Assuming it is the same (and King has basically said as much), it would appear that the Tower is the symbol of a knightly quest.  What is the purpose of this knightly quest?  That seems to be left up to the readership in the end.  It seems likely that one of three scenarios are at work:

1)  Knight Roland, being the last of the line of Gunslingers, is the only person who can undo the fact that "the world has moved on."  Perhaps once he finally completes his quest, that will fix the multi-dimensional ails of existence.  Having to ritualistically perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool for the task (The Horn of Eld; the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) in each reincarnation...as it tries to break him...are his his test.

or

2)  Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is the realization of his futility and damnation.  The _ka _is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...

or

3)  Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is a realization of futility and damnation meant to test his will and the sincerity of his attempt at atonement.  The _ka _is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...His atonement ritual is to perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool (The Horn of Eld; the analogue to the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) required for the ultimate atonement quest (perhaps related to 1) that requires multiple, trying reincarnations...until, atonement?...or ultimate damnation?

- Arthurian legend certainly has a role to play.  Roland is a descendant of Arthur.  His guns are the melted slag of Excalibur.  He is the last in a long line of knights (the setting's analogue).

- His will is guided by _ka_, a divine spark (or just a mysterious force) that binds his destiny to his quest.

- Single-minded commitment to the quest before him.  Paladins are always on the razor edge due to the imposition of this zealotry.

- That single-minded commitment bears out that yes, he certainly has some harsh means (pistol abortion of a gestating demon anyone?) in a considerably harsher existence, but the world is a completely fallen one.  And the actions that he must commit (specifically letting Jake fall and pass on to the next existence in order to facilitate his only chance at catching The Man in Black) in order to accomplish this quest make him priorities virtues...and that forced prioritization haunts him and he mourns it.

- High on his list of virtues is protection.  However, again, this virtue is prioritized as lower on the totem pole than the success of his quest.

- Personally, I think much of being a paladin in the modern world is present in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."  The father constantly instructs his boy that they are "carrying the fire" in a lost, dead world (that has "moved on").  I think the father is a paladin.  With his father's example and instruction, I think his boy will continue "carrying the fire" and will be one too.  There is a lot of compatible symbolism between the two works.

There is a lot more but that is off the top of my head and I've got writer's fatigue so I'll just leave it at that.  Is that enough to warrant Roland in his setting to being an analogue to a D&D Paladin?  I guess I'll leave that up to you and the readership to decide.  But those are my thoughts and are sufficient to cement my position.  And hey, Pathfinder does have a "Holy Gun" archetype for the Paladin!  So...I don't know.   Something about the idea not being too far off the reservation or something.


----------



## Manbearcat

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I certainly respect your faith-driven reasons for abstaining from DitV.  Its not unreasonable and its not unfair for you to invoke it.  That being said, I've played the game with a committed Christian conservative (and a hell of a good man and father and an exemplar of his faith), atheists and those in between.  It is certainly possible.  

Beyond that (and I'm going to try to keep this short), I think its a shame that your thoughts are only born of theory and not of playing.  Given that you apparently like the thematic backbone, I think you would have enjoyed playing and (knowing how intensive you are about your roleplaying given your posts) I suspect I would have enjoyed GMing for you.

Its trivially easy to remove the LDS and Utah aspects of the game if they don't work for you.  The faith can be any generic form of monotheism with a normal set of moral codes (don't lie, cheat, steal, sleep around, profit from another's misfortune, et al) and the standard religious ones (eg don't turn to demons or false idols/gods for favors).  Baker provides a schematic for doing so.  Even if he didn't, it would be trivial (especially for someone exposed to religious studies).  None of the games I've ever run had introspection on, or even exposure to, polygamy.  The genre fiction that inspires the game is pretty straight forward; High Plains Drifter, Tombstone, The Quick and the Dead, The Untouchable, and other number of Samurai and Western flicks.  If your game looks like that you're "doing it right."  

As GM, you make a town with various NPCs, sins and conflicts.  You frame the PCs into it.  You drive play toward conflict.  You escalate, escalate, escalate.  The PCs save the town, the town comes apart, or something in between.  Each conflict has some fallout and travel in between towns yields reflection.  Then you do it again.  

Its a great game.  I think if you changed The Faith to your own faith (trivially easy) and just pushed the game toward the genre fiction its meant to look like (and does in spades), you would have a great time.


----------



## Manbearcat

And finally, I'll throw something out there about "who gets to judge", specifically about the grey areas in a specified moral code or set of oaths.  Unsurprisingly, I come down on the same side of the affair as  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION].  

It seems that most times this dance is done, there is a notion of the GM being uniquely capable of being uniquely informed and an impartial arbiter of play.  Unfortunately (and this being solely a GM) I don't agree with that and there is no one on this board (or anyone I've crossed paths with in real life) who is more confident (I didn't competent) in their abilities than I.  So it is not for wont of it.  

I like to (in my less humble moments) attribute ny position to a hyper-perception (including self-awareness) and ruthless objectivity (specifically pertaining to self).  It can be extraordinarily difficult, even if the player telegraphs it with keen transparency, to discern player intent and then marry it to the outcome of mechanical resolution, while observing a conflict's stakes, with 100 % efficacy.  With a tiered system of oaths/values that must be prioritized when they are challenged (the point of playing and GMing a Paladin by my estimation), it gets even more difficult.  Whats more, its made more difficult still because (i) the player may not be privy to all things either by accident or sheer circumstance and (ii) you may not be privy to a player's 2nd, 3rd and 4th order considerations.  That, of course, assumes you are clear on their 1st order intent and its relation to their Knightly Quest (and I'm assuming that the Knightly Quest is specific and of mutual clarity).  

There are so, so, so many vectors that can go wrong in standard human communication on a singular issue.  Hell, we can't even get past the acceptance of general premise (or definitions) to converse on an issue a considerable portion of the time.  

So yes, suffice to say, I think the player is uniquely informed to understand their prioritization of their virtues, the 2nd/3rd/4th order components of the reasoning that bears out an action, and how all of these interface with the multi-faceted conflicts we (as GMs) place before them.  I can certainly reflect on it in excruciating detail after the game and come up with a psych profile.  I can certainly interview them at great length between sessions and then apply it to my "fall or flourish" equation.  But, of course, this equation is prone to user-error and fraught with the subjectivity of my GMing principles to (i) fill my players' lives with adventure and conflict and (ii) escalate * 3.

And finally, no, I don't think the player's patron or deity is "mine" and I don't think I should feel uniquely informed of that deity's will or machinations.  I guess my position (perhaps out of orthodox but I hold it without flinching) is that if a player's sword arm and intestinal fortitude is their own to command, then the guiding will (especially the details of their Knightly Quest) and divine offerings of a patron or deity should be likewise vested to the player.

Only one caveat.  In a game where (i) the Paladin (or any character with a patron that infuses them with power) has a *clear and present (written clearly into the rules)* benefit over other players *due to their divine boons* AND (ii) *Gamist step on up *is a reasonably large animating agenda to play, then Paladin's should be expected to functionally observe their binding code (and their should be clear and transparent mechanics for fidelity to code and disloyalty to code) in the same way that Wizards need to observe spellbook *mechanics *and FIghters need to observe HP recovery _*mechanics*_.  

---------------------------------

As to the self-interested player (lets call him Johnny) who prioritizes out of character interests over in-character thematics, I think that comes clear over time (likely not too long a time).  Obviously they aren't playing in good faith and are not in lock-step with the rest of the table, assuming the rest of the table priorities in-character thematics.  Play will become increasingly dysfunctional as a result.  The answer is simple.  Confirm the rest of the table is in agreement (that there is this dysfunction and the reason for it).  Have a conversation with Johnny about his lack of compatibility with the rest of the table's agenda.  If Johnny protests, give him the evidence.  If Johnny protests still, stand firm and offer him to play a character that is ethically malleable such that his Pawn Stance play (not inhabiting the character...disposable PC only meant to defeat challenges...disinterested in the coherency of thematics within the shared imaginary space) will not stand out as a sore thumb and sow such dysfunction.  If Johnny stands firm still, this is where you have to put your big boy pants on and do the uglier parts of your GMing duties.  Unfortunately, I cannot allow the rest of the table to subordinate their interests to a single player who brings a dissonant playstyle when compared to the unified whole.  If you will not move on this, I'm sorry, but good day Johnny.  I hope you find a group to your liking that fits your gaming interests.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I'll start by recognizing that my take on him as a paladin (lower-case) stems from an array, not specifically the Paladin of D&D; its etymological roots and its general usage in popular culture.  I'll try to keep this short and just tick things off.
> 
> - King's tale and protagonist (Roland) was inspired by the Robert Browning poem "Childe (untested knight) Roland to the Dark Tower Came".  My view (which is not absolute consensus, but majority I think) is that the poem's protagonist is the paladin from "The Song of Roland" (11th century French poem/song) which was in turn about the death of the original (etymologically) paladin, Roland, Charlemagne's military leader.
> 
> - Assuming it is the same (and King has basically said as much), it would appear that the Tower is the symbol of a knightly quest.  What is the purpose of this knightly quest?  That seems to be left up to the readership in the end.  It seems likely that one of three scenarios are at work:
> 
> 1)  Knight Roland, being the last of the line of Gunslingers, is the only person who can undo the fact that "the world has moved on."  Perhaps once he finally completes his quest, that will fix the multi-dimensional ails of existence.  Having to ritualistically perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool for the task (The Horn of Eld; the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) in each reincarnation...as it tries to break him...are his his test.
> 
> or
> 
> 2)  Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is the realization of his futility and damnation.  The _ka _is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...
> 
> or
> 
> 3)  Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is a realization of futility and damnation meant to test his will and the sincerity of his attempt at atonement.  The _ka _is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...His atonement ritual is to perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool (The Horn of Eld; the analogue to the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) required for the ultimate atonement quest (perhaps related to 1) that requires multiple, trying reincarnations...until, atonement?...or ultimate damnation?
> 
> - Arthurian legend certainly has a role to play.  Roland is a descendant of Arthur.  His guns are the melted slag of Excalibur.  He is the last in a long line of knights (the setting's analogue).
> 
> - His will is guided by _ka_, a divine spark (or just a mysterious force) that binds his destiny to his quest.
> 
> - Single-minded commitment to the quest before him.  Paladins are always on the razor edge due to the imposition of this zealotry.
> 
> - That single-minded commitment bears out that yes, he certainly has some harsh means (pistol abortion of a gestating demon anyone?) in a considerably harsher existence, but the world is a completely fallen one.  And the actions that he must commit (specifically letting Jake fall and pass on to the next existence in order to facilitate his only chance at catching The Man in Black) in order to accomplish this quest make him priorities virtues...and that forced prioritization haunts him and he mourns it.
> 
> - High on his list of virtues is protection.  However, again, this virtue is prioritized as lower on the totem pole than the success of his quest.
> 
> - Personally, I think much of being a paladin in the modern world is present in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."  The father constantly instructs his boy that they are "carrying the fire" in a lost, dead world (that has "moved on").  I think the father is a paladin.  With his father's example and instruction, I think his boy will continue "carrying the fire" and will be one too.  There is a lot of compatible symbolism between the two works.
> 
> There is a lot more but that is off the top of my head and I've got writer's fatigue so I'll just leave it at that.  Is that enough to warrant Roland in his setting to being an analogue to a D&D Paladin?  I guess I'll leave that up to you and the readership to decide.  But those are my thoughts and are sufficient to cement my position.  And hey, Pathfinder does have a "Holy Gun" archetype for the Paladin!  So...I don't know.   Something about the idea not being too far off the reservation or something.




I think you've made a strong case for Roland Deschain being a knight or knightly when using D&D as  basis, which is what we are discussing... but not for him being a paladin in the D&D sense...  I don't think there's any question that Roland throughout the stories doesn't hold himself to a higher and purer state of law *and good* than those around him.  He has a code (though IMO it's not really well defined)... which is what a knight has but he does not possess the attributes of a paladin.  Let me ask you a question, IYO what is the difference between a knight and a paladin?  Because when I have these discussions with you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I find that I often feel in your minds there is no difference, but in most editions of D&D there most certainly is.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> And finally, I'll throw something out there about "who gets to judge", specifically about the grey areas in a specified moral code or set of oaths.  Unsurprisingly, I come down on the same side of the affair as  @_*pemerton*_ and  @_*sheadunne*_.
> 
> It seems that most times this dance is done, there is a notion of the GM being uniquely capable of being uniquely informed and an impartial arbiter of play.  Unfortunately (and this being solely a GM) I don't agree with that and there is no one on this board (or anyone I've crossed paths with in real life) who is more confident (I didn't competent) in their abilities than I.  So it is not for wont of it.
> 
> find a group to your liking that fits your gaming interests.




If you like another approach that is cool, but for those of us who prefer the GM to handle this stuff, it isnt about the gm being more capable. It is mainly we just want a non-player making these kinds of calls and eant that person to be a single individual over the course of a campaign. I dont want to make decisions about stuff outside my character like how the gods feel about my actions. It is just prefence, but i feel sometimes like the other side paints us as worshipping GM authority, when it isnt really about that.


----------



## sheadunne

Bedrockgames said:


> If you like another approach that is cool, but for those of us who prefer the GM to handle this stuff, it isnt about the gm being more capable. It is mainly we just want a non-player making these kinds of calls and eant that person to be a single individual over the course of a campaign. I don't want to make decisions about stuff outside my character like how the gods feel about my actions. It is just preference, but i feel sometimes like the other side paints us as worshiping GM authority, when it isnt really about that.




For me it's simply a different view of the deity and the source of divine magic/powers/abilities in D&D. For me, the followers of gods (paladins, clerics, etc) get their powers through faith and not through any direct act by the deity. Their source of power is through belief. This belief is internal and not subject to being turned off by deities (they don't have the power to shut it off, but they do have the power to appear and kick butt I suppose, although why they would bother I have no idea). A DM controlling a deity really has no impact on whether divine magic happens. It happens because the person believes and those beliefs focus the magic into effect. When the follower questions himself (by say breaking his oath), that focus is lost and his magic and powers wain. Paladins and clerics believe more strongly in the divine than other characters. This is why they use holy symbols as a focus for their magic, it helps to channel their belief into effect.

This is based on 3x. 2e had some other notions about divine magic.


----------



## Celebrim

Manbearcat said:


> [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I certainly respect your faith-driven reasons for abstaining from DitV.  Its not unreasonable and its not unfair for you to invoke it.  That being said, I've played the game with a committed Christian conservative (and a hell of a good man and father and an exemplar of his faith), atheists and those in between.  It is certainly possible.




Under Romans 14, we are given a lot of freedom.  Maybe my inability to approach the game is my own weakness I must bear, but I think you completely misunderstand the nature of my problems with the game.

1) I'm not LDS, so its not as if the subject matter cuts too close to home in that regard.  Still, it does make me wonder what someone like Tracy Hickman would say regarding the game.
2) It's certainly not the tough and mature subject matter that is the problem.  I believe in respectfully and tastefully dealing with the vary sorts of subject matter addressed by the game.  To do otherwise, to have evil without consequence, is gratuitous in itself.
3) It's not that the faith is too different than my own.  Quite the contrary, it's that it is too similar.  Though I'm not a LDS, the LDS position on RPing is one I find 'wise', namely, that the saving grace of a FRPG is ultimately that it is trivial.  Were it not trivial, it would be harder to justify.  It's the very fact that it is but a minor vanity that prevents it from becoming a serious spiritual concern.  

Fundamentally, the problem I had is that I am very much a Thespian in my own RP.  I RP in first person and with full dialogue.  As a player, I often go as far as to use a method acting approach.  So I set down to approach the character of a Dog, imagining this first character along the most straight forward lines - that what you saw was in fact what you got, and that the depth of character would proceed from that.   And I sat down to imagine how I would play that, and immediately ran into all sorts of trouble.   Because I found I couldn't play that character in a way that wouldn't blur the lines between fiction and reality.   Anything the Dog said, or sang, or prayed, or proclaimed, or quoted, regarding the faith of the fiction would sound in pretty much every respect identical to what one might say, pray, or sing in a poetic fashion about the One True God of this universe.  A game which not only assumed a monotheistic universe, but which was grounded the religious life, rites, and offices of that universe would fundamentally require my role play to look in pretty much every respect like worship.

And that's not something I decided I could play with.  It's a character I am perhaps too well qualified to animate.  I don't have to just say, "I pray", I can easily imagine and invent what he would pray.  I don't just have to say, "He sings a hymn out of joy" (or sorrow or whatever), I can riff on real hymns.  I can invent real sounding scripture, riff on common poetic phrasing, and so forth.   And at some point the line just gets too blurry and you have to ask yourself, "Am I not in fact taking God's name in vain?"   At some point, you are treating what is sacred in a way that is too profane.   At some point, all this fake worship starts look like real worship of something that isn't quite God.   And, if it is in fact not fake worship, if my make my play a literal act of worship (as an actor playing a sacred role might), then not I can no longer tolerate the heresies of the setting for fear of spreading false teaching and to say nothing of the fact that this game has become very serious and earnest indeed and I'm probably just completely wierding out everyone (including myself).

It just gets too meta at that point.  My players don't generally know this, I'm the kind of guy that prays that my work will be edifying before running a session of D&D.   This would just go too far.

There are other issues as well.   Back during the occult scare in the '80's I considered making an RPG that was deeply Christian (three attribute scores, Faith, Hope, and Charity, a skill list that was the Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit, that sort of thing), and immediately ran into these same sorts of problems.  I dared not run it.  It scared me in I think the way that Tolkien was scared when he realized people were mining his novels for religious value.   It's a terribly serious business representing the Faith.  Turning my game - this trivial leisure activity akin to watching TV or putting a jigsaw puzzle together - into a Bible study with me as its defacto leader is heady stuff.   I felt I could either drop the game and tackle the issues head on and respectfully, or I could drop the serious stuff and leave it just a game, but not both.  And I certainly didn't ever want to run a game where I was having to put myself in the place of God and act in his place.   So that game died early and I realized the value of having distance from reality in your fantasy.

Finally, when I think of movie archetypes that might in form the notion of righteous characters, High Plains Drifter decidedly does not come to mind.   If these characters are supposed to be God's representatives on the earth, they are going to look more like Wild West versions of Homer Smith from 'Lilies of the Field', or Jess Birdwell from 'Friendly Persuasion', Father Anatoly from 'The Island', or even Jean Val Jean from 'Les Miserables'.   They aren't going to be characters written by someone decidedly hostile to religion and its precepts.   It's not that I'm rejecting the notion of a Christian with a six shooter, but I suspect it would look decidedly different than most people would expect - in the way that Frodo or Bilbo is a decidedly different sort of hero than Heracles.  In other words, I think if your game "looks like that", you are probably doing it decidedly wrong and you'd only call it right if you hated The Faith in the first place.


----------



## Desdichado

sheadunne said:


> Once a character takes a resource during character creation (i.e. the act of playing a paladin) that resource is now in the players hands, even if it was originally created by the DM. The player knows what the code is and how it applies to his character better than the DM. In my experience this is true.



In my experience this is _not_ assumed to be true by a large number of DMs.  Or players.  This is my big aversion to playing paladins, or frankly, even to their inclusion in the game.  The way the paladin code and alignments are generally interpreted by most people I've gamed with stands in direct and blatant opposition to the implicit social contract that governs what is the player's bailiwick and what is the GM's.

Which is, of course, exactly why they are notorious as a source of conflict.  And the same is true to a lesser degree for clerics.


----------



## sheadunne

Hobo said:


> In my experience this is _not_ assumed to be true by a large number of DMs.  Or players.  This is my big aversion to playing paladins, or frankly, even to their inclusion in the game.  The way the paladin code and alignments are generally interpreted by most people I've gamed with stands in direct and blatant opposition to the implicit social contract that governs what is the player's bailiwick and what is the GM's.
> 
> Which is, of course, exactly why they are notorious as a source of conflict.  And the same is true to a lesser degree for clerics.




I don't disagree with you which is why I think there needs to be explicit resolution mechanics (roll a die) or no mechanic effect on the character (does not lose powers).


----------



## Imaro

sheadunne said:


> For me it's simply a different view of the deity and the source of divine magic/powers/abilities in D&D. For me, the followers of gods (paladins, clerics, etc) get their powers through faith and not through any direct act by the deity. Their source of power is through belief. This belief is internal and not subject to being turned off by deities (they don't have the power to shut it off, but they do have the power to appear and kick butt I suppose, although why they would bother I have no idea). A DM controlling a deity really has no impact on whether divine magic happens. It happens because the person believes and those beliefs focus the magic into effect. When the follower questions himself (by say breaking his oath), that focus is lost and his magic and powers wain. Paladins and clerics believe more strongly in the divine than other characters. This is why they use holy symbols as a focus for their magic, it helps to channel their belief into effect.
> 
> This is based on 3x. 2e had some other notions about divine magic.




This is from the 3.5 SRD Under Divine Magic...  It doesn't really mention anything about having faith or the power being internal, so while you have every right to play the way you want, I don't think what you're saying is the official stance in 3.x

Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.


----------



## Manbearcat

@_*Imaro*_ , I'll think on that and try to put something together for you that is coherent.  Off the cuff, Divine Spark informing your ethos, abilities and quest is definitely the primary line of demarcation.

  @_*Bedrockgames*_ , I certainly don't want to make caricature of your position.  I was just talking of one facet of things (primarily from a GMing perspective).  I certainly get that there is a decently sized cross-section of folks who advocate for deep immersion play run exclusive from Actor Stance.  They have a very low threshold for tolerating metagame components of play or rules elements that induce excessive table handling time on "out of character" matters.  I get it.  I've known plenty of them and GMed for plenty of them.  Your interests are not lost on me.

  @_*Celebrim*_  Couple things:

1)  Great post until the end.  I understand your position and respect it.  You made it abundantly clear and advocated for it superbly.

2)  You can use Pale Rider and Preacher as your exemplar for a Dog.  You can use any archetype and turn the piety up to 10 or throttle it back.  But not all Dogs are goings to be (nor should they be) infallible or anywhere approaching it.  Some of them should be borderline monstrous (in their ferocity, methodology, and in their tolerance for sin, and maybe even in their dangerous dealings with the supernatural).  That is the point of play (to see what happens as conflicts unfold, characters evolve, and towns fall or survive).  Yes, the genre fiction that I mentioned is precisely how you "do it right."  You may not like that but so be it.  Its a system for _Story Now_, episodic, cinematic genre emulation.  It isn't trying to be a granular world simulator of mid-to late 19th century Utah to the degree that you're clearly inclined toward (given your posts).  Although important for the thematic conflict, that is just the setting colour and backdrop for the genre emulation.

No I am not a nihilist, an existentialist, nor a postmodernist.  Not even close.  And I absolutely don't "hate Faith."  You don't have to possess any of those qualities to play Dogs in the Vineyard in the way I play it.  Some of the things you've said are getting really, really personal and it takes an amazing amount to offend me.  We're at the point where if you said that to me in real life and implied some of those disrespectful things in your last two posts, then you better have a stout chin and be able to throw hands to back up those words.  So, given that, I think its probably best if you and I just walk away from this engagement or its going to escalate.  So, you can have the last word on this and we can certainly go back and forth in the future on other gaming issues (I won't put anyone on ignore and I generally enjoy your posts even if I disagree with some of them).  But I won't be responding to anything in the future on this specific issue.


----------



## sheadunne

Imaro said:


> This is from the 3.5 SRD Under Divine Magic...  It doesn't really mention anything about having faith or the power being internal, so while you have every right to play the way you want, I don't think what you're saying is the official stance in 3.x
> 
> Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.




Never claimed that it was. It based of the 3x notion of divine forces (not deities) powering spells (law and good in the instance of paladins), the idea of ethics and moral beliefs limiting spell selection, the power of faith to turn undead, the notion of a paladin meditating rather than praying for spells, and not having to be devoted to a deity to gain spells.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> @_*Bedrockgames*_, I certainly don't want to make caricature of your position.  I was just talking of one facet of things (primarily from a GMing perspective).  I certainly get that there is a decently sized cross-section of folks who advocate for deep immersion play run exclusive from Actor Stance.  They have a very low threshold for tolerating metagame components of play or rules elements that induce excessive table handling time on "out of character" matters.  I get it.  I've known plenty of them and GMed for plenty of them.  Your interests are not lost on me.




Thank you, though i wouldn't describe it as actor stance personally.


----------



## Celebrim

sheadunne said:


> For me it's simply a different view of the deity and the source of divine magic/powers/abilities in D&D. For me, the followers of gods (paladins, clerics, etc) get their powers *through faith and not through any direct act by the deity. Their source of power is through belief. This belief is internal* and not subject to being turned off by deities (they don't have the power to shut it off, but they do have the power to appear and kick butt I suppose, although why they would bother I have no idea). A DM controlling a deity really has no impact on whether divine magic happens. *It happens because the person believes *and those beliefs focus the magic into effect. *When the follower questions himself* (by say breaking his oath), that focus is lost and his magic and powers wain. Paladins and clerics believe more strongly in the divine than other characters. This is why they use holy symbols as a focus for their magic, it helps to channel their belief into effect.



 - emphasis added

This is good example of why I have long said that the question of whether alignment should appear in a game, and in what form, is itself an alignment question.

Let me just say that it is as strange as all get out, that the source of power of a lawful character would be internal, individual, compartmentalized, disconnected, unreviewable, and personal.  It's like saying that the source of power of a Paladin is Chaos, and the cultivation of that power in a Lawful character is greater introspection and greater self-actualization.  It would be strange in the extreme for a Paladin to believe that the source of his power is himself, which in your conception, surely every educated Paladin must believe.

When you use words like, "believe more strongly in the divine", what does 'believe' and 'the divine' actually mean there and in what sense is belief empowering?   I'd like to also point out that belief/faith are associated with the divine by only a very narrow spectrum of the world's religions, and notably not the ones that usually inspire D&D cosmologies.   Under virtually every religious description of the world, belief is irrelevant.  Odin doesn't care whether you believe he is good; he only cares whether you feed him and keep his cups filled with mead by observing the proper rituals established for that purpose.   Certainly I never got the impression D&D magic was in any way dependent on Faith as the word is used in a religious context.   There is nothing necessarily wrong with the cosmology you outline, but it seems incoherent in the context of a Paladin and rather at odds to the normal description of 'divine power' and indeed the multiverse given in most D&D material.  I certainly can see this approach being encouraged in the followers of Chaos, whose animating principles presumably encourage this sort of independence and existential view, but as universal interpretation of divine magic, it seems decidedly lacking.


----------



## Imaro

sheadunne said:


> Never claimed that it was. It based of the 3x notion of divine forces (not deities) powering spells (law and good in the instance of paladins), the idea of ethics and moral beliefs limiting spell selection, the power of faith to turn undead, the notion of a paladin meditating rather than praying for spells, and not having to be devoted to a deity to gain spells.




Thanks for clearing your point up, it was unclear to me since it seemed you were claiming the that the idea that the divine classes had internally granted as opposed to externally granted power was based on 3.x

EDIT...




sheadunne said:


> For me it's simply a different view of the deity and the source of divine magic/powers/abilities in D&D. For me, the followers of gods (paladins, clerics, etc) get their powers through faith and not through any direct act by the deity. *Their source of power is through belief. This belief is internal* and not subject to being turned off by deities (they don't have the power to shut it off, but they do have the power to appear and kick butt I suppose, although why they would bother I have no idea). A DM controlling a deity really has no impact on whether divine magic happens. It happens because the person believes and those beliefs focus the magic into effect. When the follower questions himself (by say breaking his oath), that focus is lost and his magic and powers wain. Paladins and clerics believe more strongly in the divine than other characters. This is why they use holy symbols as a focus for their magic, it helps to channel their belief into effect.






sheadunne said:


> *This is based on 3x.* 2e had some other notions about divine magic.




I'm curious in the way you view divine power... why can't a pious fighter/wizard/rogue/etc. believe in a deity or force so much that they gain powers... i feel like there has to be more than just believing or having faith since anyone can have that.


----------



## Celebrim

Manbearcat said:


> I understand your position




Well, you may be ahead of me in that then.



> You can use Pale Rider and Preacher as your exemplar for a Dog.




Well, you certainly can, but I can't and still believe that the Dog has the moral authority of the Lord of Life.



> But not all Dogs are goings to be (nor should they be) infallible or anywhere approaching it.




Of course not.  But that statement I think means something different to me than it does to you.  The greatest saint is still further below infallibility, than he is above the greatest monsters of history.



> No I am not a nihilist, an existentialist, nor a postmodernist.  Not even close.  And I absolutely don't "hate Faith."




I wasn't really referring to you.



> Some of the things you've said are getting really, really personal and it takes an amazing amount to offend me.  We're at the point where if you said that to me in real life and implied some of those disrespectful things in your last two posts, then you better have a stout chin and be able to throw hands to back up those words.




Friend, after having 'come out of the closet' like I just did, and listed the sort of exemplars I just did, what ever would make you think that if you put up fists on such a matter, I wouldn't just put my hands in my pocket and lead with my chin - stout or not?


----------



## sheadunne

Imaro said:


> Thanks for clearing your point up, it was unclear to me since it seemed you were claiming the that the idea that the divine classes had internally granted as opposed to externally granted power was based on 3.x




I would argue that it's not "granted" at all, but rather accessed through focus (be that mediation, contemplation, prayer, etc). But again, it's just my interpretation and a way to reconcile the conflicting perspectives of divine magic in 3x. It's more of a fluff thing than anything else and doesn't really do much to deal with my issues with a lack of mechanics, since one could easily argue that a deity could cut off that access in much the same way they could stop granting spells if that were the way I rolled. 

I tend to ignore the issue entirely when playing 3x/PF (as I do with many of the mechanic lacking spells/feats/abilities that exist in 3x/PF). I've been lucky enough to game with players who haven't pushed the envelop on "codes." (in terms of manipulating the system). They tend to take them because they want to RP them. Back in the day though, it came up on occasion, but I was much worse at communication back then. And when it comes to alignment, I simply say that only creatures hailing from the planes (outsiders mostly) or that have auras as a result of classes, radiate alignment and are affected by alignment based spells. 

That said, I'd much rather have the gap closed.


----------



## Sadras

sheadunne said:


> For me it's simply a different view of the deity and the source of divine magic/powers/abilities in D&D. For me, the followers of gods (paladins, clerics, etc) get their powers through faith and not through any direct act by the deity. Their source of power is through belief. This belief is internal and not subject to being turned off by deities (they don't have the power to shut it off, but they do have the power to appear and kick butt I suppose, although why they would bother I have no idea). A DM controlling a deity really has no impact on whether divine magic happens. It happens because the person believes and those beliefs focus the magic into effect. When the follower questions himself (by say breaking his oath), that focus is lost and his magic and powers wain. Paladins and clerics believe more strongly in the divine than other characters. This is why they use holy symbols as a focus for their magic, it helps to channel their belief into effect.
> 
> This is based on 3x. 2e had some other notions about divine magic.






sheadunne said:


> Never claimed that it was. It based of the 3x notion of divine forces (not deities) powering spells (law and good in the instance of paladins), the idea of ethics and moral beliefs limiting spell selection, the power of faith to turn undead, the notion of a paladin meditating rather than praying for spells, and not having to be devoted to a deity to gain spells.




Yeah, I'm not going to agree on this mostly because on page 33 of 3.5e there is a little section called _Ex-Clerics_: 
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features....He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones."

More-ever forget your take on 3e just look at the canon novels of two very important D&D settings:
Dragonlance (remember the King Priest of Ishtar - Cataclysm); and 
Forgotten Realms (Ao banished the gods to roam on Toril - Time of Troubles)
It was the gods themselves that provided divine power to divine casters.

You have every right to interpret the rules/source of divine magic as you so wish for your campaigns, but your interpretation is highly different to D&D lore.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> what is the difference between a knight and a paladin?  Because when I have these discussions with you and pemerton I find that I often feel in your minds there is no difference, but in most editions of D&D there most certainly is.



You are correct that I don't regard D&D's mechanical implimentation of the paladin - and particularly the mechanical alignment aspect - as definitive. If I did, then I would be contradicting myself when I said that I find alignment mechanics an obstacle to the play of paladins and similar religious PCs.

D&D didn't invent the paladin as an archetype. It has a long history, going back to medieval history and medieval romance. Arthur, Lancelot and Galahad are literary examples. So is Aragorn ("the hands of the king are the hands of a healer"). The crusading orders provide something of a historical model, at least in their self-conception if not (always) in their reality.

Not all knights are paladins, because some are greedy, some are married (not an absoluted bar - a king can be married but still a paladin - but at least an indicator), some are self-serving, etc. The knight who raised Arthur, for instance, was not a paladin because while he was a nice guy his first loyalty was to family, not to the divinity and its demands.

A paladin is a knight who has been called by the divine, who is touched by the grace of the divine, and who is answering that calling.



N'raac said:


> I feel you reject the notion that the GM controls those external sources.



In my case (not necessarily  [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]'s) that is correct. As I posted upthread, when a player chooses to play a character who has a calling, the GM does not have sole authority over the content or meaning of that calling, or of the one who has issued it.



Imaro said:


> The player  gets a stake in the deities, his home town, his parents, etc.  Can the character veto, say, the death of a loved one, the razing or conquest of his home town or the loss of his heirloom/enchanted bow on the basis these are “central to his conception”?



You'd need to tell me more about the context. They could certainly object very strongly to such a thing happening off-stage without any discussion - in my view that would be bad GMing, and hence I wouldn't do it. I think the advice on handling relationship in Burning Wheel is a sound starting point for these sorts of things.



Imaro said:


> Could you please define what exactly PC "conception" encompasses??





N'raac said:


> You have similarly not responded to my earlier question of where “PC conception” ends.  His deity/church/philosophy must always accept his actions, unless he decides they must not (the Paladin who accidentally took a life).



N'raac, your second sentence is incoherent, because the first occurence of "he" refers to the PC, and the second occurence refers to the player of that PC. If you won't draw any distinction between player and PC, how are you expecting me to explain a playstyle to you that depends upon drawing such a distinction?

As to "conception", in this discussion I am talking about the players' conception of his/her PC as acting properly or improperly. And I am saying that if the player conceives of his/her PC as having done the right thing, and then the GM overrides that conception by declaring the character to have fallen, that is quite different from (as in  [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]'s example) the proselytising priest being banished.

N'raac keeps mentioning that perhaps the paladin or cleric's god has made an error, but to me that makes no sense: first, because a traditional paladin (not D&D tradition, but actual literary and cultural tradition) is devoted to a power who is incapable of error; and second, because within the D&D tradition the paladin is devoted to a being who is an incarnation of law and good, lives on a plane that is infused with law and good, and has mental stats at least in the mid-to-high 20s (varying somewhat with edition). Such a being does not make errors as to what proper conduct requires.

So the GM declaring the paladin to have fallen, in circusmtances where the player's conception is of the PC having acted properly, is in effect telling the player that their conception of their character is mistaken due to their error in moral judgement.

(Obligatory defensive footnote: I'm not interested in being told about players who just want their paladin to be able to torture innocent children for fun. As I said upthread, I guess these players exist because people keep worrying about their pernicious effects on the game, but I don't know any and if I did wouldn't play with them. I am talking about how alignment is an obstacle to my actual play in my actual experience, and one feature of my actual play is that my players are sincere in their playing of their PCs - if they take a decision on the grounds that it's the proper thing for their character to do, they are sincere about that.)



N'raac said:


> In the typical game milieu, how many immortal beings with staggering INT and WIS live in all of the Outer Planes?  I suggest the player and the PC may have discovered that LG is not what the PC considers proper to do.



This is the approach that I described upthread as either cynical, or alternatively the approach of Conan-esque moral self-creation. It is an approach in which, in my view, the very notion of a paladin makes no sense, because the universe itself has no fundamental moral orientation, but rather is uncaring and indifferent.

If a paladin, who has pledged his or her life to all that is good and holy, suddenly finds him-/herself rejected by it, then either s/he is in the same situation as Job - but I would never put a player through that unilaterally - or alternatively is in the same situation as the protagonists in Lovecraft stories, of having discovered that his/her whole conception of the universe was radically mistaken. At which point s/he never would have been a paladin at all, and there would certainly be no such thing as "falling" - there would be nothing against which the idea of "falling" could even be measured!

(Another sidenote: if one approaches paladins in this way - as simply contracted agents of team Celestia - then it makes absolutely no sense that the other teams don't have similar contracted agents. This is not my conception of the paladin.)



Sadras said:


> If one chooses as an archetype, Archer, and he picks the necessary feats and abilities which would enhance his skill as an Archer. If that Archer drops his bow for a sword, the system punishes him through the mechanics for not sticking to his archetype.



Dropping your bow for a sword isn't the same as the GM telling you that your bow is suddenly, for the rest of the game, replaced by a sword. I wouldn't do that either. If a player builds an archer, and wants to keep playing an archer, than I will keep framing scenes that make life ineresting for that archer PC (and hence make it possible for the player to engage the game on his/her chosen terms, namely, as an archer).



N'raac said:


> The Paladin character’s views deviate from his deity?  This is a HUGE challenge to the beliefs of your character.  I thought the game was all about challenges.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now, I would not disagree that we could use a mechanic which enables the Fallen Paladin to replace his lost mechanical abilities with new abilities, just as we would likely allow a cleric to change deities and retain his abilities with any relevant changes such as domain spells, granted powers and favoured weapons.  Perhaps the Paladin gets to replace his Paladin levels with Fighter levels over a similar timeframe, becoming a character with the mechanical abilities befitting his level.  But he does  not get to dictate what “LG” or Paladinhood, mean.



I don't see the challenge. Or rather, I don't see the challenge that fits with my approach to RPGing.

I mean, here is one way to challenge my players: keep tilting the table as they try to roll their dice. But that is not a challenge of the sort I'm interested in in RPGing.

Here is another way to challenge may players: "OK, today everyone is to pass their character sheet one chair to the left - surprise, each of you is playing someone else's PC!" That would be a challenge - particularly in my game, where the PCs are 24th level 4e characters, each with a long list of mechanical resources to draw on. But that's not the sot of challenge I'm interested in in RPGing either. (Though I'm sure it would be good if I was coaching my players for some sort of tournament play.)

Here is another way to challenge my players playing paladins: either do A rather than B in the current situation, or else you're going to have to rebuild your PC in a way that you don't want to. But no one has yet told me why I would want to do that, or why it would make the game more enjoyable either for me (do I enjoy telling my players that they have to rebuild their PCs unless they play them how I want?) or my player (if s/he wanted to play a fighter wouldn't s/he have just made one, or if s/he wanted to rebuild as a fighter wouldn't s/he have talked to me about it?).



Imaro said:


> The paladin's restrictions throughout the previous editions have primarily served to make sure this doesn't happen as far as the paladin's code goes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you seem to regard the code as something the paladin can disregard and still be a paladin, I don't think I do.



There seems to be some confusion. I trust my players to play their paladins (and similar divine characters), and to choose whether or not to adhere to the code, and - if their paladin breaks the code - to play this out (as I described upthread with the paladin who let himself be beaten into the ground by a demon).

If my players choose to have their characters disregard the code, this gets played out. Narrative consequences of the sort  [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] mentioned in the abstract, and of which I've given a concrete example, get played out. If the player wanted to rebuild his/her PC in some way, that would happen. (It hasn't yet, but the opposite has: the player of the wizard, who had multiclassed into invoker, rebuilt his PC as an invoker following a resurrection experience that brought him much closer to his patron gods).

There seems to be a default assumption underlying many of these posts that it is hard for the player of a paladin to stick to the code. I think this is probably true in a Gygaxian game - hence my reference, upthread, to the original role of mechanical alignment as a type of disadvantage mechanic in "step on up" play: being LG was harder, but if you could stick to it you could get benefits, like easier access to healing and hirelings.

But in my sort of game the player of the paladin doesn't have any greater (or lesser) challenge than the player of the assassin - both will find themselves (and their PCs) framed into situations that generate pressure and force them to make choices. Either is free to evolve their character in the ways that make sense to them within the context of the game.



Sadras said:


> In my experience, those against a moral/psychological descriptor don't like it as it doesn't affect the roll-play and might supposedly limit their characters on the role-play which to me is an indication that they prefer the roll-play.



Whereas in my experience, alignment descriptors are used as an "out" for not addressing genuine moral questions in play (eg the morality of killing, which is a big part of typical D&D play), and also as a type of additional constraint in what is defacto, if not overtly advertised, "step on up" play (eg can I rob the whos-its and gain possession of their widgets while still persuading the GM that I'm not evil, because s/he runs a "no evil PCs" game).

It's probably not wise for either of us to generalise too much from our necessarily limited experiences.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I have never received an answer on how far “fail forward” can go.  It is impossible, apparently, for the character to be removed from the game by banishment.



You say this like it's some sort of shocking revelation. But how would you possibly think that the GM unilaterally excluding a PC from the game was consistent with "fail forward"? With forward like that, who would need backward?!



N'raac said:


> Can the character die, which also removes the character from the game?



Not in a fantasy game it doesn't. In my 4e campaign there has been one "TPK". Only one of the PCs was definitively dead (having been caught in friendly fire that reduced him below negative bloodied hit points). I asked the players - including that one - whether they wanted to keep playing their PCs or not. All but one did.

So 3 PCs awoke in a goblin prison cell, to the smell of a 4th PC - the half elf - roasting on a spit. In the cell was a strange drow (the new PC replacing the half elf). The dead paladin wasn't in the cell - his body was laid out on an altar by the hobgoblin shaman, who was using it as the focus for a ritual to summon the dead PC's dead nemesis from the Shadowfell - but what the shaman hadn't counted on was that the Raven Queen would send the paladin back to deal with the nemesis once again!

There have been 4 instances of single PC death. On each occasion the PC came back some way or other, in accordance with the wishes of the player.



N'raac said:


> Or does Fail Forward means that each failure must ultimately be resolved in a manner where the character is able to try, try again?



Events happen. Losses occur. If the PCs don't rescue the sacrifice due to their own cowardice (yes, it really happened) then that is on them. But if the player takes the view that the story of the PC is not done, and if the campaign itself is ongoing, then the PC can be reintegrated - I've given you some examples above.

Again, you write as if this is some great shock. But what do you do when one of your players' PC dies? Tell them not to bother turning up to the next 3 years of sessions until the campaign is over?

In different playstyle, of course, death matters because (i) the goal of play is to build a strong PC, and (ii) death obliges you to start again with a weak PC. But I don't play a Gygaxian, "step on up" game. Having your PC killed doesn't mean you "lose the game". It means that the story has changed in some way. Something you care about in the fiction might have changed. But you don't have to drop out of the campaign.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> I think you've made a strong case for Roland Deschain being a knight or knightly when using D&D as  basis, which is what we are discussing... but not for him being a paladin in the D&D sense...  I don't think there's any question that Roland throughout the stories doesn't hold himself to a higher and purer state of law *and good* than those around him.  He has a code (though IMO it's not really well defined)... which is what a knight has but he does not possess the attributes of a paladin.  Let me ask you a question, IYO what is the difference between a knight and a paladin?  Because when I have these discussions with you and  @_*pemerton*_  I find that I often feel in your minds there is no difference, but in most editions of D&D there most certainly is.






Manbearcat said:


> @_*Imaro*_ , I'll think on that and try to put something together for you that is coherent.  *Off the cuff, Divine Spark informing your ethos, abilities and quest is definitely the primary line of demarcation.*






pemerton said:


> You are correct that I don't regard D&D's mechanical implimentation of the paladin - and particularly the mechanical alignment aspect - as definitive. If I did, then I would be contradicting myself when I said that I find alignment mechanics an obstacle to the play of paladins and similar religious PCs.
> 
> D&D didn't invent the paladin as an archetype. It has a long history, going back to medieval history and medieval romance. Arthur, Lancelot and Galahad are literary examples. So is Aragorn ("the hands of the king are the hands of a healer"). The crusading orders provide something of a historical model, at least in their self-conception if not (always) in their reality.
> 
> Not all knights are paladins, because some are greedy, some are married (not an absoluted bar - a king can be married but still a paladin - but at least an indicator), some are self-serving, etc. The knight who raised Arthur, for instance, was not a paladin because while he was a nice guy his first loyalty was to family, not to the divinity and its demands.
> 
> *A paladin is a knight who has been called by the divine, who is touched by the grace of the divine, and who is answering that calling.*




I'm going to have limited time in posting (if at all) over the next few days so I'm just going to be expedient and take the opportunity to C&P pemerton's expansion on what I've written above as we're clearly of the same mind (as per the bold).  If I need to break something out further down the line, I might do so.  

On Roland specifically, the divine line of demarcation and calling was _ka_ (the metaphysical force that touches the very few and those of his order specifically); duty and destiny.  Only one of the line of Eld (Arthur) or possessing a sign of line of Eld (Excalibur; Roland's guns) would be able to open the door at the foot of the tower (of which _ka_ was directing him toward).  

And generally, the expansion above by pemerton are precisely my thoughts on it.


----------



## N'raac

Manbearcat said:


> And finally, I'll throw something out there about "who gets to judge", specifically about the grey areas in a specified moral code or set of oaths. Unsurprisingly, I come down on the same side of the affair as @*pemerton* and @*sheadunne* .




I’m clipping the well thought out analysis.  What that says to me is not that adherence with the Code, Alignment or what have you should not be done, but that it should be done reasonably.  Where a judgment call exists, it should give the benefit of the doubt to the player.  If, in  fact, players are playing reasonably, then a situation where they violate their code to the extent that they jeopardize the character’s status should be both rare and one where the player is aware that the character is, or likely is, crossing a line.



Manbearcat said:


> And finally, no, I don't think the player's patron or deity is "mine" and I don't think I should feel uniquely informed of that deity's will or machinations. I guess my position (perhaps out of orthodox but I hold it without flinching) is that if a player's sword arm and intestinal fortitude is their own to command, then the guiding will (especially the details of their Knightly Quest) and divine offerings of a patron or deity should be likewise vested to the player.




So, since the patron deity is not yours, is it OK for me to bring in my Paladin whose code says no enemy shall be allowed to live, his line should be snuffed out forever and all who have served him should be put to the sword?  How about “forced conversion at swordpoint, by torture if need be, followed by execution to preclude recanting or backsliding”?  This differs from Johnny in that the character’s motivations and beliefs do not shift with out of character interests, but are consistently played.

These clearly are extreme examples.  However, if your statements that this is 100% the player’s call, then I believe that character must be accepted as a Paladin whose actions are consistent with his code.  They would not fly in my game.  If they would not fly in yours, then there is some GM judgment involved, and the question is not one of absolutes, but of degree.  

One other aspect you hit on is the rest of the table, and I think consultation with the rest of the table is very relevant.  If the table considers the actions reasonable, or even if they are divided, that seems a much less clear call than where every0one’s jaw hits the table due to the inappropriateness of the action.

Your comment on mechanics is one I alluded to earlier in that the original Paladin was pretty clearly superior to the Fighter, and becoming a Fighter was a step down.  The classes have been balanced better, if not perfectly.  Hence my comment that the Paladin should be allowed to replace his mechanics rather than lose them, just as a fallen cleric might well be able to take up service to a deity more consistent with his new outlook.



Hobo said:


> In my experience this is _not_ assumed to be true by a large number of DMs. Or players. This is my big aversion to playing paladins, or frankly, even to their inclusion in the game. The way the paladin code and alignments are generally interpreted by most people I've gamed with stands in direct and blatant opposition to the implicit social contract that governs what is the player's bailiwick and what is the GM's.




I think the disagreement rather is one of what that implicit social contract allocates to the player and the GM in the case of a Paladin.  I can support “I do not want my character’s actions judged by someone else, so I will play a different class”.  I cannot support “I don’t want my character’s actions judged by someone else, so no one should be allowed to play such a class”.



pemerton said:


> You'd need to tell me more about the context. They could certainly object very strongly to such a thing happening off-stage without any discussion - in my view that would be bad GMing, and hence I wouldn't do it. I think the advice on handling relationship in Burning Wheel is a sound starting point for these sorts of things.




You have indicated that the character’s code is central to his character conception, and cannot be judged externally to remove the player’s conception that his character makes correct moral judgments.  Not that he cannot fall off-stage, but that he cannot fall unless he agrees the character will fall/has fallen.  

Do you extend the same to other aspects the player claims as important to his conception of the character?  He gets to decide the views of his deity.  Why does he not get to decide the views of the prince, the laws of the land, the success of his friends and family, etc.?  I do not see this line your posts suggest you perceive so clearly.



pemerton said:


> As to "conception", in this discussion I am talking about the players' conception of his/her PC as acting properly or improperly. And I am saying that if the player conceives of his/her PC as having done the right thing, and then the GM overrides that conception by declaring the character to have fallen, that is quite different from (as in @*Dannyalcatraz* 's example) the proselytising priest being banished.




The Paladin derives his powers from devotion to an ideal.  Why can he not be judged by that ideal, just as he can be judged by the Prince?



pemerton said:


> N'raac keeps mentioning that perhaps the paladin or cleric's god *has made an error*,




I have said no such thing.  I have said that the Paladin’s values have deviated from those of the patron being of Law and Good.  Perhaps, in pursuit of the greatest good (respect for life, say) he has excessively compromised the Law.  He has expressed the values of NG, rather than LG, and to him that is indeed proper conduct.  To his deity, strictly LG, it is not.  And so his deity withdraws its support.  *Neither character nor deity has made an error – they have discovered a difference in their values.*



pemerton said:


> but to me that makes no sense: first, because a traditional paladin (not D&D tradition, but actual literary and cultural tradition) is devoted to a power who is incapable of error;




Such a power does not exist in any D&D world, or any of the polytheistic religions, historical or imagined, which I see in any D&D world, so it is an irrelevancy to D&D.



pemerton said:


> and second, because within the D&D tradition the paladin is devoted to a being who is an incarnation of law and good, lives on a plane that is infused with law and good, and has mental stats at least in the mid-to-high 20s (varying somewhat with edition). Such a being does not make errors as to what proper conduct requires.




Here you make no sense to me.  Does this mean a character following the tenets of NG, CG or LN must, perforce, be considered to follow improper conduct?  Which LG entity, one who values justice over mercy, or one who values mercy over justice, espouses the truly proper conduct?  I don’t think Robin Hood fits the LG mold, but my first thought in reading his legend is hardly “improper conduct”.



pemerton said:


> (Obligatory defensive footnote: I'm not interested in being told about players who just want their paladin to be able to torture innocent children for fun. As I said upthread, I guess these players exist because people keep worrying about their pernicious effects on the game, but I don't know any and if I did wouldn't play with them. I am talking about how alignment is an obstacle to my actual play in my actual experience, and one feature of my actual play is that my players are sincere in their playing of their PCs - if they take a decision on the grounds that it's the proper thing for their character to do, they are sincere about that.)




Here again, is it an absolute (“Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” being one of my Paladin’s tenets; a disagreement over whether the actions of that child in-game leave him truly “innocent” or not; the player’s decision must ALWAYS be deemed morally correct behaviour for the Paladin) or a question of degree?  To the latter, I extend the player a lot of scope, and if I am to err, I prefer it to be on the side of the player.  I do not believe any situation exists where the Paladin has no valid choices, and most allow him many valid choices.  But some are pretty clear, and these tend to be obvious in play.



pemerton said:


> If a paladin, who has pledged his or her life to all that is good and holy, suddenly finds him-/herself rejected by it, then either s/he is in the same situation as Job




By definition, if he is rejected, he has not met his pledge.  We are discussing who judges whether he met that pledge.  Job is not a scenario I would see played out in a game.



pemerton said:


> Here is another way to challenge my players playing paladins: either do A rather than B in the current situation, or else you're going to have to rebuild your PC in a way that you don't want to.[/.quote]
> 
> Your presentation of constant GM override to the player’s judgment is as much or more an extreme as the suggestion a Paladin’s player would have him cheerfully torturing innocent children.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be a default assumption underlying many of these posts that it is hard for the player of a paladin to stick to the code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think that is necessarily true – I think it is posters like you suggesting that upholding the code will result in constant disagreements and Paladins falling despite sincere player belief they have behaved in accordance with their code.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say this like it's some sort of shocking revelation. But how would you possibly think that the GM unilaterally excluding a PC from the game was consistent with "fail forward"? With forward like that, who would need backward?!
> 
> Not in a fantasy game it doesn't. In my 4e campaign there has been one "TPK". Only one of the PCs was definitively dead (having been caught in friendly fire that reduced him below negative bloodied hit points). I asked the players - including that one - whether they wanted to keep playing their PCs or not. All but one did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically, the answer is as I have said.  Fail Forward means no loss of true severity to the player can ever occur and rather than “GM tells a story” play we have “Player tells a story” play.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Events happen. Losses occur. If the PCs don't rescue the sacrifice due to their own cowardice (yes, it really happened) then that is on them. But if the player takes the view that the story of the PC is not done, and if the campaign itself is ongoing, then the PC can be reintegrated - I've given you some examples above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That sacrifice, if important to player conception of character, should not occur, should it?  Why is the deity under domain of the player, but the mentor is not?  Would the same be the case if we replace “mentor” with “familiar”, “animal companion” or “cohort”?  I am unclear where you see this bright line differentiation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And I am saying that if the player conceives of his/her PC as having done the right thing, and then the GM overrides that conception by declaring the character to have fallen, that is quite different from (as in @Dannyalcatraz 's example) the proselytising priest being banished.




I disagree.

In both cases, the player conceives of their PC as having done "the right thing", and in both cases, a superior- the Prince; the divine- responded to the action saying, "You have erred, here is your punishment."  In those cases that I have personally seen, there was a GM warning of what they are risking in this situation before the PC action occurred, so that player and GM could discuss the matter fully, so that each side understood the "why" of the other's position.

As I have said before, it is the GM's job to decide how the rest of the world reacts to the actions of the PCs.  Which means that if the warning "Do X, and Y shall occur" is given and the PC does X, the GM _must_ have Y occur.

All that said, I'm of the position that when a player wants to play a character such as a D&D Paladin- whose moral and ethical choices could potentially backlash on the character- there should be pre-game discussion as to the PC's concepts of right and wrong and his relationship with his divine patron.

...just like I'd have a discussion with the guy playing a Good aligned Drow in a campaign in which Drow are nearly universally reviled.

...or the guy in a HERO game whose PC is loaded down with four "Hunted" disadvantages at 14- as part of his build.

...or the person who is playing a Vagabond in a RIFTS game where everyone else in the party has MDC armor & weapons


----------



## Serendipity

I think the next time I run D&D using alignment I'm just going to run it as a space on the character sheet for the player to put down whatever they want to use to describe that.  Like character name.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> You have indicated that the character’s code is central to his character conception, and cannot be judged externally to remove the player’s conception that his character makes correct moral judgments.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Do you extend the same to other aspects the player claims as important to his conception of the character?  He gets to decide the views of his deity.  Why does he not get to decide the views of the prince, the laws of the land, the success of his friends and family, etc.?  I do not see this line your posts suggest you perceive so clearly.



You keep saying these things like they're these amazing "gotchas". But I've already posted, upthread as well as in other threads in which you have read my posts, that I might. Tell me more about the context.

In my current 4e game, the player of the dwarf got to decide the norms and social requirements of dwarven society. The player of the drow got to decide that there exists a drow secret society dedicated to Corellon, and to the undoing of the sundering of the elves. These social structures, external to the PCs in question, are not solely, or even primarily, mine to control or make decisions about. They are primarily the players'.



N'raac said:


> Why is the deity under domain of the player, but the mentor is not?  Would the same be the case if we replace “mentor” with “familiar”, “animal companion” or “cohort”?  I am unclear where you see this bright line differentiation.



I don't understand - I didn't say anything about any mentors.

But I don't know what makes you think I would treat a mentor or a familiar differently. As I said to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] upthread, I regard the "relationship" mechanics and guidelines from Burning Wheel as a reasonable starting point. The NPC in question, if integral to the players' PC build, is not the sole property of the GM.



N'raac said:


> The Paladin derives his powers from devotion to an ideal.  Why can he not be judged by that ideal, just as he can be judged by the Prince?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Neither character nor deity has made an error – they have discovered a difference in their values.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Such a power does not exist in any D&D world, or any of the polytheistic religions, historical or imagined, which I see in any D&D world, so it is an irrelevancy to D&D.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> In both cases, the player conceives of their PC as having done "the right thing", and in both cases, a superior- the Prince; the divine- responded to the action saying, "You have erred, here is your punishment."



If the paladin is devoted to an ideal, and the ideal repudiates him/her, it follows that s/he has not lived up to it - ie is in error.

If the paladin is serving an entity, and the entity repudiates him/her, then if the entity is infallible in its judgement - which is the default status of the entity to whom a paladin is devoted (eg Arthur, Aragorn) - then again it follows that the paladin is in error. This is the fundamental difference from the Prince - the player of the priest can simply conclude that the Prince is in error.

If I'm now being told that, in fact, D&D and its alignment mechanics don't actually permit me to play a paladin devoted to a being of infallible moral judgement, for me that is just another strike against alignment. Because as soon as I drop alignment, there is no obstacle at all to playing this sort of paladin in the game. (And in fact it is considerations of this sort that are brought to bear by the author of "For King and Country" in Dragon 101 in arguing that a certain sort of game is better off without alignment mechanics.)



Imaro said:


> As to the way you poke and prod, I believe (though if I am wrong someone please correct me) that 3.5 makes it clear that you as the DM should warn the player when they are about to do something that is against their code, so it's very similar to what you have described above, only instead of beating around the bush... the DM just comes out and says it.



I think I forgot to answer this upthread.

I think there is a big difference between the GM saying "If you do A rather than B then your PC will be rebuilt in a different and probably downgraded way" and the GM speaking with the voice of the PC's conscience, or pride, or familiar, or whatever, in order to increase the experienced intensity of the stakes. I am not trying to make the players choose one way or another. I'm just trying to make them care more about what's going on in the fiction, so they feel the choice more.

I think "not beating around the bush" and just saying "Are you sure you want to do that evil thing?" I think is pretty much the opposite - it's more like trying to direct the player's choice but not actually heightening the emotional vibrancy of the decision-making experience.



N'raac said:


> So, basically, the answer is as I have said.  Fail Forward means no loss of true severity to the player can ever occur and rather than “GM tells a story” play we have “Player tells a story” play.



Unless by "loss of true severity to the player" you mean "having the player be substantially mechanically weakened relative to the other participants in the game", I don't see why you conclude that. I already gave the example of the PCs whose cowardice led to them failing to rescue one of those whom they were trying to save. The players don't tell that story - their choices within the context of the GM's framing, plus the action resolution mechanics, lead to that.

Here is another example of the players not getting what they wanted. And it involves two paladins:



pemerton said:


> the PCs took as prisoner a cleric of Torog, whom they had fought once before, when she was part of a hobgoblin raid on a village. Although the PCs won that earlier battle, the cleric managed to escape - the PCs tried to chase her down on a behemoth captured from the hobgoblins, but the players failed the skill challenge and the PCs therefore found themselves thrown from the beast when it had trouble negotiating a steep ridge.
> 
> The capturing of the cleric took place some time after midnight. The PCs had to meet the Baron of the town at dawn. The PCs wanted to interrogate their cleric captive before that meeting, and had a few hours in which to do so. They decided to conduct the interrogation in the beer cellar of the inn in which their (now defeated and dead) enemy had his apartments - no openings for the cleric to teleport out of (and they knew she could teleport from the two times that they had fought her).
> 
> The party's "social" team consists of a drow sorcerer/demonskin adept with very strong Bluff and good Intimidate, a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen with good Diplomacy and Intimidate, and a wizard/divine philosopher (who serves Erathis, Ioun, probably Vecna although it's a bit amiguous, and in the past at least has served the Raven Queen) - this last character has reasonable Diplomacy, and has a 1x/enc "Charm Person" cantrip that lets him use Arcana in place of a Bluff check.
> 
> There are two other PCs. One is a ranger/cleric who has good perception, zero social skills, and whose player is interstate on sabbatical - so that character was given the job of guarding the stairs. The other is a dwarven fighter/warpriest of Moradin, who has poor social skills but who (due to the way previous events have played out) is the "leader" of the party in the town they are in - he is "Lord Derrik", "Lord of the Dwarfholme of the East" who is accepted by the Baron as a peer.
> 
> As the interrogation began in the beer cellar, Lord Derrik was sent upstairs, to the enemy's apartments, to do a thorough search and also to drag all the furninture in the rooms over the top of a teleportation circle that they had found (to stop bad things teleporting in). In over 20 years of GMing, this is the first time I remember the players doing the whole "send the paladin (or in this case, the fighter/cleric of Moradin) to another room while we interrogate the prisoners" thing.
> 
> But anyway, it worked. With the sorcerer taking the lead (with Bluff), the (actual) paladin offering support (with Intimidate and a bit of Diplomacy) and the wizard joining in too (using Diplomacy, and Charm Person to make one crucial Bluff role), they managed to persuade the captive cleric to talk. I ran the persuasion as a skill challenge (requiring 8 successes before 3 failure), the idea being that once they had persuaded her then she would answer whatever questions she could without any more rolls being required from the players. (The rationale for this was that persuading her, and the way that played out and the consequences of it, was likely to be interesting - but that once the persuasion itself was sorted out, I was very happy to just let the players have a whole lot of fairly central plot information, that they've been trying to figure out now for many months of play.)
> 
> The crux of the attempt to persuade her was that she had no objection to suffering (being a cleric of Torog) but that she didn't want to die; but also if she _did_ die, she was very confident that her soul would not go to the Raven Queen but straight to her divine master. At first the captive tried to bargain for a safe passage in return for providing information; and she indicated that she would be willing to swear oaths not to return to her life of warfare and consorting with hobgoblins, as part of a deal to spare her life. But it became clear fairly quickly that the PCs - particularly the paladin of the Raven Queen, who is fairly fanatical about exacting vengeance for the deaths of innocent villagers caused by the cleric and her raiding hobgoblins - were not prepared to agree to this.
> 
> The wizard threatened her with death and resurrection as an undead corpse which he would then interrogate at his leisure (and he showed her some documents detailing necromantic rituals to back up this threat), but the force of this threat was a little blunted by the objections coming from the paladin of the Raven Queen.
> 
> The captive herself then started insisting that Lord Derrik (whom she, like everyone else in the town, was treating as the leader of the party) guarantee that the Baron would not execute her. (The grounds on which she might be executed were many - levying war against the town would be the most obvious one.) The drow sorcerer, through subtle manipulation (and an excellent Bluff check) managed to persuade her that this would be done, although no such actual promise was given - it was more that he worded things in such a way that gave her the impression that the undertaking was understood by all to have been given. And neither the wizard nor the paladin did anything to contradict the impression that had been created on her part. And thus she started spilling the beans - of which she had many to spill.
> 
> And then at about this time the player playing Derrik decided he had had enough of watching the others go at it, and so decided that Derrik had finished sorting out the furniture upstairs and was coming back downstairs to see how things were going. The ranger on guard had been instructed to try and dissuade Derrik from coming down, and he made a half-hearted attempt, but a PC whose player is absent is never going to persuade a PC whose player is present and wants to get in on the action! So Derrik came in.
> 
> He was very pleased to see the captive talking, and being so cooperative. And she was very pleased to see him, explaining that she was glad that he (through his agents) had promised to persuade the Baron to spare his life. At which point Derrik almost started pulling out his beard in frustration (and I think the player might not have been following all that was going on also - the session was a couple of weeks ago and my memory is a bit hazy, but I think Derrik's player may have been doing some child wrangling while Derrik was not in the action - and so he was a bit surprised and frustrated also!). But being a warpriest of Moradin, and a dwarf of his word (even if given carelessly by others!) he could not go back on a deal that she had so obviously been made to believe had been struck, and had relied upon in exchange for giving up her information.
> 
> Derrik did try to weasel out of things a bit by saying "he would do his best to persuade the Baron to spare her life", but the captive pointed out that the Baron owed his life and his town to Derrik, and Derrik was therefore in a position to extract the guarantee of mercy, not merely ask for it. And so when the PCs then met up with the Baron at dawn, the first thing Derrik did after pleasantries had been exchanged was to hand over the prisoner while explaining that he had promised to her that her life would be spared. And as she had foreseen, the Baron had no choice but to comply with Derrik's request.
> 
> So Derrik (and Derrik's player, at least somewhat) was upset that a prisoner had been spared whom he thought ought to be tried and justly punished - because the interrogators had been careless in making promises that they shouldn't have. The drow was upset that Derrik had instructed him to lead an interrogation, and then come in and mucked it up before it had reached its conclusion (which I think the drow envisaged being a swift execution so that Derrik need never know of the duplicitous means used to extract the information). The paladin was upset that someone who deserved death, and who had brough death to so many undeserving, was being spared. I'm not sure what the wizard thinks of the situation.
> 
> As GM, I felt obliged to compound the situation by reminding the players that Torog is also the god of jailers, and hence that the prisoner was likely to have a reasonably good time in prison, or even a good prospect of getting herself out of prison. This just made everyone even more upset!




Not everyone plays a game in which the main aim is to get bigger numbers on your PC sheet, and the main consequences of not getting what you want are smaller numbers. For me, the numbers generated by way of PC build are simply a mechanical device for interacting with the fiction, and the growth in those numbers is a type of pacing device that gradually ramps up the fictional stakes. That's why I describe my game as not being Gygaxian in its orientation.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> You keep saying these things like they're these amazing "gotchas". But I've already posted, upthread as well as in other threads in which you have read my posts, that I might. Tell me more about the context.




I keep posting the same questions because you continue to ignore or dismiss them rather than answering them.  



pemerton said:


> In my current 4e game, the player of the dwarf got to decide the norms and social requirements of dwarven society. The player of the drow got to decide that there exists a drow secret society dedicated to Corellon, and to the undoing of the sundering of the elves. These social structures, external to the PCs in question, *are not solely, or even primarily, mine to control or make decisions about. They are primarily the players'*.
> 
> I don't understand - I didn't say anything about any mentors.




First, to the statement I have emphasized - you steadfastly refer to aspects not being primarily in the GM's control, as having some ownership by the character.  But you also continue to indicate that the decisions are entirely the player's.  Which is it?  Do these aspects of the game belong entirely, 100%, to the player, as the complete inability for the Paladin's guiding ideal/deity/whatever to ever disagree with his decisions (unless the player decides that the Paladin has made a decision inconsistent with that of his guide, whoever or whatever that may be)?  Or is control shared in some way between player and GM, as your statement above would indicate?  If the latter, where does the player's control end and the GM's control start?  

Now, maybe these constant requests for "context" really say "well, it depends on the specific character, the link with the entity, the campaign specifics, the other players, etc. etc.  If it's  a question of "I use my best judgment to assess when the player's control ends in the context of all other aspects of the game", then congratulations - that's exactly what I do.  I don't decide that sparing a defeated enemy (mercy and belief in redemption) or slaying a fallen foe (you will face justice for your crimes) is the One True Path of LG, so the Paladin sets the moral choice (for that Paladin - not necessarily for the world as a whole).  When the Paladin decides whether or not to sacrifice a 2 month old baby on the Altar of Orcus to infiltrate their cult, I don't give him so much leeway.  

To the "depends on the campaign" aspect, you continually refer to a game with multiple worshippers of the Raven Queen.  Presumably, each has a stake in the RQ.  How do we resolve matters if one decides the right moral judgment in her service is to exercise mercy (spare the prisoner) and the other decides the morally correct act is to execute the prisoner?  Which one is TRULY following the moral guidance of the Raven Queen and which has erred?  They cannot both be right.  The Cleric will cast a Commune spell to ask the Raven Queen specifically which decision is morally correct to get the benefit of her 25+INT and WIS absolute knowledge of the appropriate moral decision.

To the last, I suggested a mentor as a contrast to a deity or ideal.  The Paladin strives to live up to the ideal or a deity, and you are indicating that the player makes the decisions on that ideal and can never be judged to have deviated from it by anyone but that player.  You also seem fine with the Prince banishing the cleric (presumably because the Cleric did not create the Prince nor link to him in his own background).  So I am trying to determine just how far the player can go in linking various campaign fixtures to his own background to take control of them.



pemerton said:


> But I don't know what makes you think I would treat a mentor or a familiar differently.




I chose familiar to contrast with mentor because the familiar is a game mechanic provided to certain classes where the mentor is not.  What makes me think some things are treated differently?  Your inconsistent comments.  For example, when I asked if the player had similar control over the character's parent or his home town, such that their removal could not occur without his consent, you indicated they would not be removed *off-stage*, implying that they could be forfeit due to on-stage game activity.  However, the Paladin could not fall due to his decisions on-stage,  not just off-stage, so you clearly treat the deity/ideal differently than the parent/home town, at least as your written comments would indicate.  I am trying to get a more accurate sense of where you draw the line, which elements the player has control over, how absolute that control is, and perhaps also how many elements he may lay claim to in order to better frame this discussion.

I am not going to buy or download other game systems and/or invest the time to carefully read and consider their guidance.  What other game systems do is not the issue here, at least to me.  In any case, even your own comments note that " the "relationship" mechanics and guidelines from Burning Wheel as a reasonable starting point", so that would not answer the question of your end point after starting from that system.



pemerton said:


> If the paladin is devoted to an ideal, and the ideal repudiates him/her, it follows that s/he has not lived up to it - ie is in error.




If the Paladin has not lived up to the ideal based on his own moral judgment, then it follows that the Paladin is not as devoted to that ideal as you suggest.  I can claim to be entirely devoted to the Catholic church, to select a real world example.  However, if I am in favour of birth control and female priests, then I am clearly not so devoted as one might originally have believed, as I do not support certain tenets of the faith.  If my interpretations differ enough, then perhaps I will discover I am actually devoted to the ideals of a different faith, one which incorporates tenets of the Catholic church to which I am, in fact, devoted but which does not incorporate those tenets with which I strongly disagree.  I may also discover that I am more fervent in some aspect than the tenets of the church actually require (perhaps believing a strict tithing of 10% of my earnings is appropriate, where the church does not enforce this).

This does not mean that I have failed to live up to my ideals, nor that either Church has failed to live up to its ideals.  It means that they are not the same.

Now, in my analogy, we cannot determine which church is truly correct - that is, which lives up to the ideals of the divine being both venerate.  In a D&D context, however, we lack that one supreme all-wise and all-knowing being.  Instead, we have an array of powerful, wise beings, all devoted to different ideals.



pemerton said:


> If the paladin is serving an entity, and the entity repudiates him/her, then *if the entity is infallible *in its judgement




A big if.  You assume this.  I don't  believe the D&D cosmology does.



pemerton said:


> - which is the default status of the entity to whom a paladin is devoted (eg Arthur, Aragorn)




In a polytheistic setting such as the D&D world, this again does not follow.  Arthur and Aragorn's world is not one with numerous competing otherworldly powers.  If we import Arthurian precepts, then all wizardry, sorcery, etc. is provided through the devil, which does not leave a lot of scope for working with sorcerers and wizards.  Merlin's fit is uncomfortable at best, as he is by many legends considered the child of the devil himself, or of a demon.

The only game I am aware of which follows the Arthurian milieu is Pendragon, which had mechanics for PC's living up to their ideals - and their failure was quite possible, if not likely, in the course of the game.  That further removes control of the character's adherence to his ideals from the control of the player, perhaps in a manner more in keeping with [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]'s desire for a mechanic to be invoked rather than a GN judgment call, although, again, I expect GM judgment is needed to assess when the mechanic is invoked, and possibly some of its specifics, such as how difficult the check might be.



pemerton said:


> - then again it follows that the paladin is in error. This is the fundamental difference from the Prince - the player of the priest can simply conclude that the Prince is in error.




The fallacy as I see it is set out above, in asserting there is One True Philosophy in the D&D milieu the Paladin exists in.  If we have a party where the Paladin strives to uphold an ideal of LG, where a cleric in the same party strives to uphold the tenets of a CG deity, both are in the service of an entity which guides their moral decisions.  Those entities view the world, morality and ethics very differently.  To implement your premise, they both must be correct and infallible, while differing considerably on their assessment of what is correct.



pemerton said:


> If I'm now being told that, in fact, D&D and its alignment mechanics don't actually permit me to play a paladin devoted to a being of infallible moral judgement, for me that is just another strike against alignment.




If you and I each want to play a paladin "devoted to a being of infallible moral judgement", and we must both have the power to determine what that judgment is, as we must both be assumed to play our paladin in accordance with this "infallible moral judgement" by absolute adherence to our codes, what happens when our two paladins make different moral choices (eg. I wish to execute the prisoner; you wish to spare him)?  By your rules, we have both made the infallibly correct moral judgment, but we have made the opposite choice.



pemerton said:


> Because as soon as I drop alignment, there is no obstacle at all to playing this sort of paladin in the game. (And in fact it is considerations of this sort that are brought to bear by the author of "For King and Country" in Dragon 101 in arguing that a certain sort of game is better off without alignment mechanics.)




I think the above is a pretty solid obstacle to implementing your approach.  As I recall the article in question, and it has been several years since I read it (many since I bought it from a long-defunct FLGS), it very much worked on a theory of moral relativism, much like the edition which described each alignment from the perspective of one so aligned as "the best alignment because".  Applying that precept, we would clearly have to abandon the Paladin as traditionally viewed in D&D, as it would not require adherence to any specific alignment - one could be devoted to the ideals of, say, a culture which sacrifices virgins to its deities and transfers power by combat to the death, or assassination.



pemerton said:


> I think there is a big difference between the GM saying "If you do A rather than B then your PC will be rebuilt in a different and probably downgraded way" and the GM speaking with the voice of the PC's conscience, or pride, or familiar, or whatever, in order to increase the experienced intensity of the stakes. I am not trying to make the players choose one way or another. I'm just trying to make them care more about what's going on in the fiction, so they feel the choice more.
> 
> I think "not beating around the bush" and just saying "Are you sure you want to do that evil thing?" I think is pretty much the opposite - it's more like trying to direct the player's choice but not actually heightening the emotional vibrancy of the decision-making experience.




So you can look across the table at the so-called devoted LG Paladin who is about to rip the throat of a newborn child out with his teeth because his infiltration of the Cult of Orcus depends on it, and besides some other cultist will do it anyway if he refuses, and say "hey, whatever you choose, the Raven Queen , in her Absolute Lawful Goodness, supports you 100%"?  That may be the game you want to play.  It's not my vision of Aragorn, Arthur or D&D Paladinhood, so it's not my game.



pemerton said:


> Unless by "loss of true severity to the player" you mean "having the player be substantially mechanically weakened relative to the other participants in the game", I don't see why you conclude that. I already gave the example of the PCs whose cowardice led to them failing to rescue one of those whom they were trying to save. The players don't tell that story - their choices within the context of the GM's framing, plus the action resolution mechanics, lead to that.




So is the issue only one of mechanics, rather than one of alignment in general?  Merely change the Paladin to "follows a moral code all his own from which he derives his powers" and let their code include or exclude any action the player wishes.  But don't claim it to be Good or Lawful unless the precepts of Law and Good are somehow to be included in that code.

So let's discuss mechanical weakening (which I take to include removal of the character from the game, requiring the layer create a new character to replace him, as the player decides whether the character will be returned, and he cannot be banished from the game location without violation of "fail forward").  Clearly, we cannot remove the Paladin or Cleric's class features permanently, then, and you have indicated we cannot replace them with other features since that is not what the player wished to play.  Can they be denied for a period of time?  For example, removal of their holy symbols, a broad anti-magic zone, etc., which deny any character with magic a class feature?  Is the death of the Paladin's warhorse, or the wizard's familiar, replaceable with time and/or money, acceptable at any time?  What about the removal of gear or denial of wealth?  Assumption of a certain measure of gear/wealth by level is a part of the game mechanics at this point (really added by 3e, when the power of the classes was to be moved parity, if not implemented perfectly), so is denying that wealth of limits?  An archer can be denied his bow, I believe we established - for how long?  Can that also be the approximate time it takes a Paladin to atone in some  and regain his class abilities?  What about just making them ineffective?  A high DR creature can be very frustrating to characters lacking the ability to bypass it, and spell resistance or immunities can be equally frustrating to characters reliant on magic.  

Again, I don't believe the line is anywhere near as clear as your comments imply.  Rather, I suspect it is an area where we balance competing interests within the game.



pemerton said:


> Here is another example of the players not getting what they wanted. And it involves two paladins:




So which of the two was right?  They had different priorities, so one of them must have made the right call that extraction of the information was more important than the just punishment of the character), and the other must have made the wrong one.  Yet it does not seem their moral philosophies really came into conflict, as Derrick simply accepted the result (with some wailing and gnashing of teeth), and did not refuse to turn his back on the infallible moral judgment that the crimes of the prisoner must be punished.

I don't see any choice made which would be inappropriate of a Paladin.  I see lots of other choices they could have made without participating in an evil act.  Had Derrick refused to honour the promise given by his teammate, I suppose that could arguably be a non-lawful act (is he beholden to uphold the promises of that character) or a lawful one (leaving the decision to the Baron whose role includes meting out justice), and one could assert the actual Paladin carried out a chaotic act in making this promise knowing his leader would not have agreed (and even trying to keep him out of the picture while the deal was being made), as well as usurping the Baron's authority, but he was pursuing the greater good, so again I'm seeing a judgment call.



pemerton said:


> Not everyone plays a game in which the main aim is to get bigger numbers on your PC sheet, and the main consequences of not getting what you want are smaller numbers. For me, the numbers generated by way of PC build are simply a mechanical device for interacting with the fiction, and the growth in those numbers is a type of pacing device that gradually ramps up the fictional stakes. That's why I describe my game as not being Gygaxian in its orientation.




This seems a passive-aggressive effort to suggest that those who favour alignment are "roll-players rather than role players".  I note that you greatly object to any approach which causes mechanically weaker characters.  I am also uncertain why, if the "main aim" is not "to get bigger numbers on the character sheet", having smaller numbers is a significant negative occurrence.  I believe your concern is less about the absolute numbers than the relative ability of each character to succeed in efforts to influence the narrative, at least in their own areas of expertise (Derrick's ability to influence the narrative in the excerpt you provided seemed pretty small compared to the socially skilled characters).  

I am uncertain how growth in those numbers "ramps up the fictional stakes".  If you have +5 to achieve a DC 15 roll, or +35 to achieve a DC 45 roll, the stakes are not changed, nor is the likelihood of success or failure.  I can envision very good games where the abilities of the characters change very slowly, or not at all.  However, we have largely come to view growth (higher levels, bigger bonuses, etc.) to indicate success in the game, despite the fact that our opponents and challenges typically grow at exactly the same pace, as they must to maintain the challenge.  Some systems se much less focus on combat abilities increasing over time.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

fagura said:


> And I realize their importance when a new player is introduced to rpgs. But what do they offer to an experienced player?



Answered your own question there.  If alignment is a guide to roleplaying then an experienced roleplayer has much less need of the guide.  I would note, however, that that does not make the existence of the guide a DRAG upon the game when you become an experienced player.



> Nevertheless, a high percentage of rpg mechanics depend on alignment use (paladin's smite evil - detect alignment spells - cleric's channel energy feature in Pathfinder and many others), so simply removing alignments certainly is not an easy task and by all means raises questions about classes' balance.



I wouldn't call it a HIGH percentage.  Alignment has been woven significantly into the game but it's removal (should you strangely decide that its mere existence is intolerable) shouldn't be that _complicated _- just a tedious and extensive task.



> Firstly, there are 9 alignments. In reality, there are more than 9.000 ways of thinking and types of personalities.



Which is rather the point.  Alignment is created as a shorthand reference, a convenient simiplification of reams upon reams upon reams of detailed information about morals, philosophy, religion, ethics, sociology, etc.



> Why do we need to put a tab on a character's way of thinking and say "He is CN or NE"?



For the g_ame-play _convenience of knowing a little bit of what kind of behavior and attitide can be expected of that character.  For the roleplaying support of having the character behave in a manner that is, to the PLAYERS at the table, reasonable and consistent as opposed to ridiculously unguided, incomprehensible, disruptive for being non-sequetorial.



> Secondly, mentalities are changeable. Past experiences shape the way of thinking. A character might begin NG, see cruelty in life and turn CN and then meet and be part of a kind family and turn CG or a totally different course that goes from LG to CE and back. It is still the same person. Only last time he adventured, anti-paladins could smite him and this time paladins can smite him.



It has never been useful for a character to frequently and drastically change his entire freaking world-view.  If it happens then it's pretty sensible that it's only going to happen ONCE, not repeatedly.  If it happens it's likely to happen over a fair amount of time and in response to IN-GAME events, and thus that change would be sensible and evidence of GOOD ROLEPLAYING.

One of the long-time failures of alignment _rules _has been handling of alignment change and handling actions by characters that doesn't necessarily fit their alignment - but which also need not be taken as alarming and inevitable changes from one alignment to another.



> Thirdly, there is a fine line between thinking of doing sth and actually doing it. A character wants to commit a very evil act. Nevertheless, he never does it. Was it because he never got the chance? Was it because sth internal stopped him every time? Only he knows (and sometimes not even him). Is he evil already? Does he become evil the moment he does it? How does a game base its mechanics on such a fine line that even the player might not be able to interpret?



_Actions _determine alignment.  That's the only way that alignment CAN work.  If you accept that alignment is a roleplaying guide then the actual behavior of the character is what is relevant.  The motivations BEHIND the behavior only begin to matter when the characters alignment is changing, as again, it should be in response to in-game events and not for baseless, spontaneous desire for UNmotivated change by the player.  It doesn't much matter if a paladin is obsessed with thoughts of violent murdering rapages of all people that are not LG.  As long as he _behaves _LG he is of LG alignment.  It's only when he begins to ACT on those thoughts of murder that he faces ALIGNMENT consequences within the game.


----------



## Hussar

The way I see it, there are two major issues with alignment and they are both shown in this thread:

*1. Disagreement between the Player and the DM*

If you swim way upthread in this thread, you'll see a discussion between [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] and the OP where Celebrim flat out states that the OP does not understand and is misinterpreting alignment.  Ok, fair enough, that's his opinion.

Now, imagine a situation where Hypothetical Celebrim is the player and our OP is the DM.  According to most in this thread, it is the DM who determines what alignment is in the game.  I've seen that repeated a number of times that it is absolutely the DM who makes the determination. 

Which means, in this hypothetical situation, that Celebrim is 100% wrong.  He's flat out wrong.  The DM has determined that X is a good/evil issue and he is the final word on the matter.  So, what are our Hypothetical Celebrim's choices?

a) Suck it up, and continue playing, even though he strongly disagrees with the DM.  I can't see how this is adding to Celebrim's enjoyment of this game.

b) Quit the game.  Again, I'm failing to see how alignment has contributed to the enjoyment of the game.

c)  Argue and fight with the DM, causing all sorts of table drama.  Now our Hypothetical Celebrim is a bad player and the Hypothetical DM comes on EN World to complain about him and get all sorts of sympathetic pats on the back from En World Posters who feel that the DM is never wrong.

Again, in none of these situations is alignment helping to make a better game.

*2.  Players need to be forced to play their characters*

This one I find even more problematic.  Alignment gives DM's a honking great big lever into the personality of a PC.  The Dm is effectively telling the player, "No, sorry, you don't know how to play your character right, and I'm going to punish you for it by invoking the game mechanics."  And the player has zero recourse here.  

If your players are playing their character in a manner that you, the DM, feel is inappropriate, my gut reaction is, well... too bad.  That's their character, not yours.  It is not your job to judge how someone plays their character.  And it's certainly not your job to tell your players that they are playing their character wrong.

If the only reason that your players are playing their characters in a certain way is because you are threatening them with the clue bat, you have much, much larger issues at your table than alignment is ever going to fix.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> The way I see it, there are two major issues with alignment and they are both shown in this thread:
> 
> *1. Disagreement between the Player and the DM*
> 
> If you swim way upthread in this thread, you'll see a discussion between @_*Celebrim*_ and the OP where Celebrim flat out states that the OP does not understand and is misinterpreting alignment.  Ok, fair enough, that's his opinion.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where Hypothetical Celebrim is the player and our OP is the DM.  According to most in this thread, it is the DM who determines what alignment is in the game.  I've seen that repeated a number of times that it is absolutely the DM who makes the determination.
> 
> Which means, in this hypothetical situation, that Celebrim is 100% wrong.  He's flat out wrong.  The DM has determined that X is a good/evil issue and he is the final word on the matter.  So, what are our Hypothetical Celebrim's choices?
> 
> a) Suck it up, and continue playing, even though he strongly disagrees with the DM.  I can't see how this is adding to Celebrim's enjoyment of this game.
> 
> b) Quit the game.  Again, I'm failing to see how alignment has contributed to the enjoyment of the game.
> 
> c)  Argue and fight with the DM, causing all sorts of table drama.  Now our Hypothetical Celebrim is a bad player and the Hypothetical DM comes on EN World to complain about him and get all sorts of sympathetic pats on the back from En World Posters who feel that the DM is never wrong.
> 
> Again, in none of these situations is alignment helping to make a better game.





But for a lot of us, ceding that power to the GM isn't a problem. I want the GM to interpret the alignment text and set the standard for the game. If i personally disagree with his definition of the alignment, it really isn't a problem for me...that just goes with the territory of having a referee adjudicate things like alignment. For my preferences that is important to have, because it adds to the sense that law-chaos-good-evil are cosmic forces that exist beyond  my character. I shouldn't be the one deciding if the gods are pleased with my behavior, the GM makes that assesment. As a player, i have voluntarily given him the authority to do so. For you A might seem like a really unpleasant option. To me it isn't. I never went incwith the expectation that my definition of the alignment would be employed. 

Now, if th GM is a terrible referee and reaches bizare conclusions about alignment that no one else at the tabe agrees with or understands that is a different story. But again, there is always the risk that a gm wil be bad. That happens.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> The
> a) Suck it up, and continue playing, even though he strongly disagrees with the DM.  I can't see how this is .
> 
> *2.  Players need to be forced to play their characters*
> 
> This one I find even more problematic.  Alignment gives DM's a honking great big lever into the personality of a PC.  The Dm is effectively telling the player, "No, sorry, you don't know how to play your character right, and I'm going to punish you for it by invoking the game mechanics."  And the player has zero recourse here.
> 
> If your players are playing their character in a manner that you, the DM, feel is inappropriate, my gut reaction is, well... too bad.  That's their character, not yours.  It is not your job to judge how someone plays their character.  And it's certainly not your job to tell your players that they are playing their character wrong.
> 
> If the only reason that your players are playing their characters in a certain way is because you are threatening them with the clue bat, you have much, much larger issues at your table than alignment is ever going to fix.




I suppose this one is a matter of perspective. My view is i get to play whatever character i want, but decisions regarding aligmnent can have external consequences and the aligmnents are part of a setting outside my character. I am the one who choses whether i take a bag of money from the counter or whether i kill the evil king, but the GM gets to decide how the setting views those actions. If i am a paladin or cleric that may mean loss of powers. But i still have the freedom to play my character how i want. There are just consequences for it.

For other people this may not work. But i really like this approach. 

now i think there are bad ways to approach this as a gm. It isnt about trapping the player or tricjing the player. Yon should have an open line of communication so the player has a fair sense of what aftions are regarded as l-g-e-n-c.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So you can look across the table at the so-called devoted LG Paladin who is about to rip the throat of a newborn child out with his teeth because his infiltration of the Cult of Orcus depends on it, and besides some other cultist will do it anyway if he refuses, and say "hey, whatever you choose, the Raven Queen , in her Absolute Lawful Goodness, supports you 100%"?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This seems a passive-aggressive effort to suggest that those who favour alignment are "roll-players rather than role players".  I note that you greatly object to any approach which causes mechanically weaker characters.  I am also uncertain why, if the "main aim" is not "to get bigger numbers on the character sheet", having smaller numbers is a significant negative occurrence.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am uncertain how growth in those numbers "ramps up the fictional stakes".  If you have +5 to achieve a DC 15 roll, or +35 to achieve a DC 45 roll, the stakes are not changed, nor is the likelihood of success or failure.



You seem very concerned about these episodes of play that simply don't come up in my games.

I mean, if it's obvioust to everyone that tearing the throat out of the child is at odds with the paladin's obligations, what makes you think the player of a paladin would declare such an action?

As to the issue of bigger numbers signalling bigger fictional stakes, I agree that you are uncertain about that because you have simply described abstracted mechanics with no fiction attached. The connection between numbers and fiction is most obvious in 4e, but it is present in classic D&D too, and I believe also to some extent in 3E: the bigger the numbers on the PC sheet, the greater the fictional stakes: rather than the stakes being villages threatened by kobolds and orcs, we have worlds threatened by demons and dragons. I don't see how it makes the game a better experience for the GM to unilaterally change the numbers on a PC sheet such that the player no longer has a mechanically adequate vehicle for engaging with the stakes that are currently at play in the unfolding campaign.

As I've mentioned several times, the presvious paragraph would be nonsensical for someone playing Gygaxian D&D - there is barely such a thing as "fictional stakes" in that sort of game, and if your numbers get smaller that is a type of loss condition, requiring you to go back to beating on kobolds for copper pieces on the upper levels of the dragon, rather than giants for platinum pieces on the bottom levels of the dungeon. But - to repeat once again - I am not playing or GMing Gygaxian D&D.



N'raac said:


> The fallacy as I see it is set out above, in asserting there is One True Philosophy in the D&D milieu the Paladin exists in.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think the above is a pretty solid obstacle to implementing your approach.  As I recall the article in question, and it has been several years since I read it (many since I bought it from a long-defunct FLGS), it very much worked on a theory of moral relativism



The article doesn't work on a theory of moral relativism. It doesn't adopt any meta-ethical theory.

To the extent that D&D's traditional alignment system is itself moral relativist in the way you describe, that is a reason - as I have posted already upthread - that it is an obstacle to my game.



N'raac said:


> Arthur and Aragorn's world is not one with numerous competing otherworldly powers.



Arthur's has at least two - god and the devil - and three if you regard Merlin as an otherworldly power distinct from both of those. Aragorn's also has at least two - Iluvitar and the Valar vs Melkor and Sauron.



N'raac said:


> you continually refer to a game with multiple worshippers of the Raven Queen.  Presumably, each has a stake in the RQ.  How do we resolve matters if one decides the right moral judgment in her service is to exercise mercy (spare the prisoner) and the other decides the morally correct act is to execute the prisoner?  Which one is TRULY following the moral guidance of the Raven Queen and which has erred?  They cannot both be right.  The Cleric will cast a Commune spell to ask the Raven Queen specifically which decision is morally correct to get the benefit of her 25+INT and WIS absolute knowledge of the appropriate moral decision.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you and I each want to play a paladin "devoted to a being of infallible moral judgement", and we must both have the power to determine what that judgment is, as we must both be assumed to play our paladin in accordance with this "infallible moral judgement" by absolute adherence to our codes, what happens when our two paladins make different moral choices (eg. I wish to execute the prisoner; you wish to spare him)?  By your rules, we have both made the infallibly correct moral judgment, but we have made the opposite choice.



The cleric will not cast a Commune spell in the way you describe in my game, for two reasons.

First, there is no Commune spell of that sort in 4e.

Second, and more significantly, if my players have come to a fundamental disagreement over what their common god requires, why would I, as GM, step in and by stipulation tell them how to resolve their disagreement? This is the crux of playing an RPG. They can sort it out themselves, resorting - in the end, and within the limits of the system - to the action resolution mechanics.

The same thing could happen if the PCs found themselves arguing with the Raven Queen. But the way 4e is structured, that wouldn't happen until epic levels. At which point the PCs are themselves epic beings - in my game one is a demigod, another a Marshall of Letherna, another a Sage of Ages. If they found themselves turning on the Raven Queen, taking the view that they could better uphold her ideals than she can, that would be the sort of stuff that awesome games are made of. And why would anyone expect them to lose their powers at that point? They would have staked their claim as autonomous epic beings.

This is where I feel you are failing to understand the basic reason why I find alignment an obstacle to my desired play experience. You keep positing these scenarios intending to show why the GM has to step in. But I don't play RPGs in order to have the GM step in. I play RPGs in order to have the _players_ make decisions. If the players find themselves bringing their PCs into the sor of conflict you describe, well, c'est la vie. Apart from anything else, it shows they're immersed in and committing themselves to the fiction!


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So which of the two was right?



You tell me! I don't need to have an opinion on that in order to run the game.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> [/U]
> But for a lot of us, ceding that power to the GM isn't a problem. I want the GM to interpret the alignment text and set the standard for the game. If i personally disagree with his definition of the alignment, it really isn't a problem for me...that just goes with the territory of having a referee adjudicate things like alignment. For my preferences that is important to have, because it adds to the sense that law-chaos-good-evil are cosmic forces that exist beyond  my character. I shouldn't be the one deciding if the gods are pleased with my behavior, the GM makes that assesment. As a player, i have voluntarily given him the authority to do so. For you A might seem like a really unpleasant option. To me it isn't. I never went incwith the expectation that my definition of the alignment would be employed.
> 
> Now, if th GM is a terrible referee and reaches bizare conclusions about alignment that no one else at the tabe agrees with or understands that is a different story. But again, there is always the risk that a gm wil be bad. That happens.




Who is this "lot of us" you speak of?  

The issue here is though, that you have zero choice here.  You don't cede anything.  You were never given the option in the first place.  The rules place all of the power in the hands of the DM, full stop.

Now, if it was an option that would be different.  If I sit down at the table, and the DM says, "Ok, we have two options here - 1.  I make all the decisions regarding alignment or 2. alignment decisions are made by the players.  I want to play 1.  What do you want?"

If I agree to that, then it's entirely on me.  I have no room to complain.  If I don't agree, then I can either bow out of the game, or the table can come to some sort of compromise.  Either way, everyone at the table is happy.

But, the way it's laid out now, there are no choices.  Besides Play or Not Play I suppose.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Who is this "lot of us" you speak of?




For what it is worth I will sign up for this "lot of us", not that we have actual numbers, but from the gaming circles I've see they all bend to the DM's interpretation of alignment. Also from what I have seen the players and the DMs do not strongly disagree where they are exactly polar opposites. 
I find the non-alignment loving crowd on this thread to be rather exaggerated in their interpretation of how the alignment crowd roleplays.

When the question of whether an action or a series of actions affects alignment a discussion normally ensues and a reasonable consensus is reached at the table and USUALLY prior to the action being performed. There are no major disagreements and generally everyone is on the same page. The player is given the opportunity to motivate and justify his position and generally everyone at the table has their say, but the DM has the final word. Some players purposefully make their character perform a questionable action due to the circumstances of the story -perhaps it would improve the roleplay narrative or they think something within the story broke their characters resolve...whatever.

The player knows full well that if the character performs a certain action - it might (if slight) or will (if drastic) lead to repercussions. Each DM is given the leeway, since there are no set rules, to roleplay this how they wish...perhaps the paladin wakes up with a fever (normally immune to diseases), his celestial horse has left, he is unable to draw on divine power due to the "terrible action" playing over and over in his mind...etc
There are no hard and fast rules of how deities react or punish allowing for DM creativity to shine through, which is what I think was the designers' goal.  

And I see no problem with this. I see this as a feature. 



> The issue here is though, that you have zero choice here.  You don't cede anything.  You were never given the option in the first place.  The rules place all of the power in the hands of the DM, full stop.




The rules always did place the power in the DMs hands. This is a not a new concept, and might I add a bad DM is a bad DM no matter what the rules say.



> Now, if it was an option that would be different.  If I sit down at the table, and the DM says, "Ok, we have two options here - 1.  I make all the decisions regarding alignment or 2. alignment decisions are made by the players.  I want to play 1.  What do you want?"




I do not see this as necessary. The DM sets the ENTIRE setting - deities, land, law, races, classes, customs, history, adventures, monsters, conflicts, difficulty on tasks... I do not see why it has to be any different for alignment.
Saying that, everything is an option within the game, it doesn't have to be specified.


----------



## Incenjucar

As both a player and a DM I pretty much ignore alignment. My characters, PC or NPC, have motives and personal ethical/moral systems, and they're always going to be much more complex than the LNC/GNE. It's not terrible as a basic guideline, but I despise it when it's hard-coded into the rules. I don't mind its use in inspiring the Great Wheel, but that's about where it runs out of value for me.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> There are no hard and fast rules of how deities react or punish allowing for DM creativity to shine through



AD&D had very hard and fast rules on this - the paladin is forevermore a fighter. I think 3E does also.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> AD&D had very hard and fast rules on this - the paladin is forevermore a fighter. I think 3E does also.




I was speaking to the rules which dictate how the DM roleplays the situation regarding permanent or temporary loss of powers. Right now I do not have those books in front of me and it has been a while since I read that section in AD&D or in 3e, will check it out when I get home and revert.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:


> The way I see it, there are two major issues with alignment and they are both shown in this thread:
> 
> *1. Disagreement between the Player and the DM*
> 
> If you swim way upthread in this thread, you'll see a discussion between [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] and the OP where Celebrim flat out states that the OP does not understand and is misinterpreting alignment.  Ok, fair enough, that's his opinion.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where Hypothetical Celebrim is the player and our OP is the DM.  According to most in this thread, it is the DM who determines what alignment is in the game.  I've seen that repeated a number of times that it is absolutely the DM who makes the determination.




You can replace 'alignment' with 'rules' in the above train of logic and come to the exact same conclusion.   Heck, let's just do it:



> "The way The way I see it, there are two major issues with rules and they are both shown in this thread:
> 
> *1. Disagreement between the Player and the DM*
> 
> If you swim way upthread in this thread, you'll see a discussion between [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] and the OP where Celebrim flat out states that the OP does not understand and is misinterpreting the rules.  Ok, fair enough, that's his opinion.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where Hypothetical Celebrim is the player and our OP is the DM.  According to most in this thread, it is the DM who determines what the rules are in the game.  I've seen that repeated a number of times that it is absolutely the DM who makes the determination."




By this logic, I guess we are supposed to conclude that RPGs are better without rules? 

The OP's logic ran as follows:

1) The rules regarding alignment produce a situation I don't like.
2) Therefore the rules regarding alignment [as it concerns PC] should just be dropped.  

My counter to this assertion was simply that it was not the rules causing the problem, but the DMs flawed interpretation of the rules.  It is of course true that the DM is allowed to set any rules he likes, even if they are based on a misunderstanding on his part.   We get tons of arguments on this board over things like 'Are 1e M-U's over powered", where the original poster is not using casting segments, dropped requirements for spell components, is making extremely generous interpretations of the spell wording, is ignoring limiting clauses within spells, and is otherwise altering the rules that provide for balance and yet complaining that the game is unbalanced.   It's certainly reasonable in such a context to point out that the poster's own particular rules are responsible for the situation he says he doesn't desire.   

This was my assertion.  The poster's own (novel and unsupported) interpretation of alignment was responsible for the problem's he said he had with alignment.  



> Which means, in this hypothetical situation, that Celebrim is 100% wrong.  He's flat out wrong.  The DM has determined that X is a good/evil issue and he is the final word on the matter.  So, what are our Hypothetical Celebrim's choices?




In a sense, yes.  If I'm a player at a DM's table, and the DM sets the rules I have no authority to overturn those rules whatever they may be.   The DM does have the final word on any rules issue.   He certainly also has the final authority to define good and evil as it exists in his cosmology.   However, if the DM's own interpretation of the rules is not producing the results he wants, this suggests a fundamental confusion.   The OP claimed the confusion was in the rules.  I claimed that the confusion was in the interpreter of the rules.

I'd like to note that my particular complaints regarding the DMs interpretations don't fall into the usual sort of things that people normally disagree about.  The OP wasn't claiming that (for example) abortion was a good aligned behavior, and that this was a definition of good and evil that I simply couldn't accept - an argument I might add that occur independently of alignment rules and which could certainly wreck the ability of two people to socialize quite independently of alignment depending on how strongly they felt about such things.   Those sort of disagreements are a framework I think I could largely play within, even if it made me a rebel (of some sort) within the game world.   Rather, my biggest complaint was what I feel is the fundamental misunderstanding regarding alignment - that it is a marker for personality (whether for example, you are happy or brooding, introverted or extroverted, meticulous or sloppy, etc.   It's over the question of whether alignment is personality that I feel most table arguments about alignment originate.

The rest of the arguments about alignment are literally alignment arguments - fundamental disagreements over the nature of morality - relativism vs. absolutism, for example.



> a) Suck it up, and continue playing, even though he strongly disagrees with the DM.  I can't see how this is adding to Celebrim's enjoyment of this game.
> 
> b) Quit the game.  Again, I'm failing to see how alignment has contributed to the enjoyment of the game.
> 
> c)  Argue and fight with the DM, causing all sorts of table drama.  Now our Hypothetical Celebrim is a bad player and the Hypothetical DM comes on EN World to complain about him and get all sorts of sympathetic pats on the back from En World Posters who feel that the DM is never wrong.
> 
> Again, in none of these situations is alignment helping to make a better game.




Perhaps, but each of these results is equally available for any rules dispute - like for example, over whether the rules represent the physics of the game world.   Yet, we'd never suggest that rules don't add to the RPG experience (well, most of us wouldn't).   What's particularly interesting about the sort of disputes that arise around alignment is that they are quite likely to arise independently of any rules governing alignment as well.



> *2.  Players need to be forced to play their characters*
> 
> This one I find even more problematic.  Alignment gives DM's a honking great big lever into the personality of a PC.




Personality??  I suppose in a very very broad definition of morality.



> The Dm is effectively telling the player, "No, sorry, you don't know how to play your character right, and I'm going to punish you for it by invoking the game mechanics."  And the player has zero recourse here.




I suppose.  In practice, I've never seen this happen.   Particularly in modern games, the discussion tends to be: "You don't seem to be living up to your alignment contract.  Do you want to change your alignment?"  Sometimes I may make utilize IC recourse.  After a deity witnesses the character being merciless and cruel, the character may receive a vision indicating the deities growing displeasure long before things escalate to a table conflict.   I don't recall ever having to force an alignment change on a player.   Usually there is a recognition by the player that they are more comfortable playing the character with a different alignment.   I've fortunately not had a large problem convincing a character that the choices he's been making are not in fact LN (or NG, or whatever).   Generally speaking, the player tends to recognize, "Yeah, it's pretty clear my allegiance is to myself and I'm happy with rule breaking... I probably should reannotate my character sheet, because clearly I can't hold to a LN contract."  Of course, alignment change has at least some consequences (even if you aren't penalized with XP loss), but for most characters it's usually not dramatic.   It's more which magic items you can pick up safely, and which spells are effective against you (and at my table, what actions might garner you a small amount of bonus XP).   The ugliest alignment rules argument I've ever witnesses was between a DM and a power gamer (playing a fighter no less) who wanted 'Good' on his character sheet for rules reason, but who refused to follow any stricture or scruples whatsoever (murdering captives, for example).  

And yes, this was a far bigger problem than alignment was ever intended to fix.   Alignment can't fix dysfunctional play and was never intended to.  I don't know any rules that can that because ultimately its not a rules issue.  



> If your players are playing their character in a manner that you, the DM, feel is inappropriate, my gut reaction is, well... too bad.  That's their character, not yours.  It is not your job to judge how someone plays their character.  And it's certainly not your job to tell your players that they are playing their character wrong.




For most things, I would agree with you.  I'm a strong defender of the concept that DMs don't get to play the PCs.  There are nonetheless ways of playing a character that are wrong, and this wrongness doesn't require any specific alignment system.   For example, a player that meta-games and uses information his character doesn't have (for example, knowledge of modern technology, information learned OOC) isn't playing his character right.  A player that violates the strictures he has chosen for himself (perhaps he took a Flaw in GURPS, and refuses to adhere to it), isn't playing his character right.  At some point, yes, it is the GM's job to say, "ERrr... you aren't doing it right."   That doesn't necessarily imply railroading or any of your other known bugaboos about how DM's are bad bad bad things.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> You seem very concerned about these episodes of play that simply don't come up in my games.




Read the topic of the thread.  It is “Do alignments improve the gaming experience”.  It may surprise you to learn that “your games” or even “your gaming philosophy” falls well short of “the gaming experience”.  

You have repeatedly stated the player’s determination of whether  the character is following his moral code is inviolate.  Are you now saying that extends only to your players, or only to those players who concur with your view of what is plainly and obviously consistent with, or at odds with, the palain’s obligations?  If no player at your table would ever violate their alignment/code/morality/whatever you wish to call it to the extent that he would reasonably be penalized under the alignment rules, then *why are they a huge bone of contention*? 

I don't believe anyone supporting the alignment system is supporting arbitrary GM decisions which split fine hairs, and destroying characters as a consequence.  Those DM's are no better than players who think it is OK for the LG paladin to behave in a blatantly non-LG fashion.  You are assuming that we will have only good players, who will role play their characters reasonably in line with whatever code of morality they have designed that character to possess, and only horrible GM's who will place the characters in huge moral dilemmas where their principals cannot all be upheld, then beat them down with the penalty stick for "failing to uphold their code" no matter what action they take.  Is it possible that there could be a good GM *and* good players at the same table, and that alignment is not a stumbling block for such a group?  Perhaps it does not add to their game (they would play that moral code anyway), but I fail to see how adding the alignment (most) consistent with their code, and interpreting those alignments within a reasonable range of behaviour, is devastating to the game, as you seem to consider it, either.



pemerton said:


> I mean, if it's obvioust to everyone that tearing the throat out of the child is at odds with the paladin's obligations, what makes you think the player of a paladin would declare such an action?




It cannot be obvious “to everyone at the table” if the paladin’s player is declaring the action.

I’ve provided the player’s rationale.  The child will die horribly either way, at his hands or another’s.  The greater good requires he infiltrate this cult, and tearing out the newborn’s throat with his teeth will enable him to build the trust needed to do so.  It’s all good, because he will save more than just one newborn in the long run, and exact a horrible bloody vengeance on the cultists later.

So do we assume the Raven Queen is fine with her Paladin tearing out the child’s throat for the greater good, or is there a line beyond which that assumption does not hold true, whether or not that line is eve crossed in your particular game?



pemerton said:


> I don't see how it makes the game a better experience for the GM to unilaterally change the numbers on a PC sheet such that the player no longer has a mechanically adequate vehicle for engaging with the stakes that are currently at play in the unfolding campaign.




OK, we’re talking about relative power of the characters.  Here I can agree – leaving one player unable to meaningfully contribute is problematic.  The old “fighter forevermore” rule left the Paladin as able to contribute as any other fighter, but that was back in the day when the Paladin had all the abilities of the fighter, plus some extra added abilies.  Hence my comment that a better system might allow the Paladin to replace his Paladin levels with levels in some other martial class.

While he doesn’t lose everything, he is considerably de-powered.  Perhaps the player gets the choice – a quest to restore his lost honor and Paladinhood (like the wizard needing to get his spellbook back, or the archer needing to replace his bow) or converting the Paladin levels to Fighter levels (perhaps over a brief timeframe, so he’s lacking some of his punch for a while, much like a spellcaster in a dead magic area or a ranger whose favoured enemy isn’t featured for a while).

He does still have his BAB, save bonuses, weapons, armor, martial feats, skills, etc., so it’s not like he has lost all ability to participate, but I do agree he needs some way to restore mechanical effectiveness.  Which reminds me – you still have not answered this:

Is the about actual gaming philosophy and alignments themselves, or about the presence of mechanical drawbacks if one fails to follow alignment as determined and judged by the GM?



pemerton said:


> The article doesn't work on a theory of moral relativism. It doesn't adopt any meta-ethical theory.
> 
> To the extent that D&D's traditional alignment system is itself moral relativist in the way you describe, that is a reason - as I have posted already upthread - that it is an obstacle to my game.




“Whatever the player chooses is deemed morally perfect” seems like a pretty relative determination to me. The player chooses when and where any given principal can morally be compromised (right up to tearing out that newborn’s throat for the greater good), based on the absolute authority of the player which I believe you are supporting.



pemerton said:


> Arthur's has at least two - god and the devil - and three if you regard Merlin as an otherworldly power distinct from both of those. Aragorn's also has at least two - Iluvitar and the Valar vs Melkor and Sauron.




Two is not numerous, especially not in comparison to the tyical D&D milieu, and I don’t think anyone in Arthurian  myth considered the devil (or Merlin) the source of morally correct behaviour.  Nor do I believe LoTR ever suggested that Sauron’s path was one of goodness and righteousness.

You seem to insist on importing real world religion, via Arthurian legend.  So how consistent are Arthurian (or Roland) ideals with:

-    Turn the other cheek
-    Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord
-    Love the sinner, hate the sin
-    Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors
-    Blessed are the meek

I don’t believe Arthur, or any  traditional D&D paladin, or any source for same, espouses these very Christian ideals.  Do you?



pemerton said:


> Second, and more significantly, if my players have come to a fundamental disagreement over what their common god requires, why would I, as GM, step in and by stipulation tell them how to resolve their disagreement? This is the crux of playing an RPG. They can sort it out themselves, resorting - in the end, and within the limits of the system - to the action resolution mechanics.
> 
> The same thing could happen if the PCs found themselves arguing with the Raven Queen.




Assuming that they can interact in some way with the Raven Queen, how is the question of which approach was considered the more righteous by the Raven Queen resolved?  What happens to the character who was wrong, based on this resolution?  Both are assumed to follow the code of their deity unfailingly, under your model.  Each feels their path was correctly following that code, and that the other compromised it.  They cannot both be correct.



pemerton said:


> But the way 4e is structured, that wouldn't happen until epic levels. At which point the PCs are themselves epic beings - in my game one is a demigod, another a Marshall of Letherna, another a Sage of Ages. If they found themselves turning on the Raven Queen, taking the view that they could better uphold her ideals than she can, that would be the sort of stuff that awesome games are made of. And why would anyone expect them to lose their powers at that point? They would have staked their claim as autonomous epic beings.




If their moral decisions are always deemed to match those of their patron, how can they take the view that they can uphold her ideals better than she can?  She always agrees with the manner in which they uphold her ideals, based on your “player determines deity” model, doesn’t she?  Or does  achievement of epic status make the PC’s unflagging ability to perfectly match the morality of his code somehow fade at those levels?



pemerton said:


> This is where I feel you are failing to understand the basic reason why I find alignment an obstacle to my desired play experience. You keep positing these scenarios intending to show why the GM has to step in. But I don't play RPGs in order to have the GM step in. I play RPGs in order to have the _players_ make decisions. If the players find themselves bringing their PCs into the sor of conflict you describe, well, c'est la vie. Apart from anything else, it shows they're immersed in and committing themselves to the fiction!




When the players make decisions, does the rest of the world react?  It seems like NPC’s also make decisions.  The enemies of the PC’s  made decisions.  The Baron made the decision to spare the prisoner when asked by Derrick, even though Derrick wished he would not agree to this.  The enemy made decisions to make her an enemy.

The players can come into conflict with each other, with NPC’s, with the environment, and with untold other matters.  Yet, from your reasoning, they can never come into conflict with their own patrons, except you then describe exactly that happening at epic levels (where, presumably, their previous omniscience as to the code prescribed by that patron somehow atrophies).

The player can decide his character will kill the invading army.  I expect the invading army to resist the PC’s decision, and I expect that is what happens in your game as well – isn’t it?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Who is this "lot of us" you speak of?




Do you think I am in a substantial minority. My impression is plenty of players out there share my view on this.



> The issue here is though, that you have zero choice here.  You don't cede anything.  You were never given the option in the first place.  The rules place all of the power in the hands of the DM, full stop.





I think ink this is a case where they either give the GM authority to interpret cosmic will or they do not and both lead to very different places in terms of style. Someone like me, I prefer that being cedddd to the GM . Whether there are enough if me who play D&D to ensure alignment stays as is I. The game I do not know. But we have a fun tangential style divide here over how much impact players should have on the setting beyond their character. That doesn't make either side wrong. But it is going to make it difficult for us to find a solution we agree works.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Who is this "lot of us" you speak of?




Sadras and I, plus our gaming acquaintances, at a minimum.  Bedrock as well, I assume, as you are replying to him.



Hussar said:


> The issue here is though, that you have zero choice here.  You don't cede anything.  You were never given the option in the first place.  The rules place all of the power in the hands of the DM, full stop.
> 
> Now, if it was an option that would be different.  If I sit down at the table, and the DM says, "Ok, we have two options here - 1.  I make all the decisions regarding alignment or 2. alignment decisions are made by the players.  I want to play 1.  What do you want?"




So you are asking the GM to cede his power to you, is that correct?  Aren’t you the guy who unflaggingly argued that, by agreeing to play the game, we agreed to follow its rules as written?  Now, you are coming back on this thread arguing that we should not follow those rules?



Hussar said:


> If I agree to that, then it's entirely on me.  I have no room to complain.  If I don't agree, then I can either bow out of the game, or the table can come to some sort of compromise.  Either way, everyone at the table is happy.
> 
> But, the way it's laid out now, there are no choices.  Besides Play or Not Play I suppose.




Your first paragraph seems to suggest this discussion is a good result.  The second seems to suggest a negative view.  But in both, you are choosing to play the game by its rules or not play the game at all.  I don’t see the big difference between “bow out rather than follow the rules” and  “not play because I do not like the rules”.

My main games for the past several years have been Hero (3d6 resolution) and d20 (d20 resolution).  If I decide I don’t want a game where random chance is as significant a determiner of success (d20 swings way wider than 3d6), then I either bow out of, or don’t play, a d20 game.  Are you suggesting instead I should negotiate for us to play with 3d6?  Or perhaps I should bow out – not play – the d20 game whose mechanics I dislike and instead play Hero, which is designed with the mechanic I prefer in mind.



Sadras said:


> For what it is worth I will sign up for this "lot of us", not that we have actual numbers, but from the gaming circles I've see they all bend to the DM's interpretation of alignment.




Sign me up too, on the same basis you outline below.



Sadras said:


> Also from what I have seen the players and the DMs do not strongly disagree where they are exactly polar opposites.




 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] also seems to indicate his players aren’t at polar opposites either.  Makes me wonder why he so vehemently opposes the alignment system when it seems like he and his players would never have serious disagreements anyway.




Sadras said:


> I find the non-alignment loving crowd on this thread to be rather exaggerated in their interpretation of how the alignment crowd roleplays.




While I concur, a lot of our own examples can also be extreme.  Killing orc babies tends to crop up a lot.



Sadras said:


> When the question of whether an action or a series of actions affects alignment a discussion normally ensues and a reasonable consensus is reached at the table and USUALLY prior to the action being performed. There are no major disagreements and generally everyone is on the same page. The player is given the opportunity to motivate and justify his position and generally everyone at the table has their say, but the DM has the final word. Some players purposefully make their character perform a questionable action due to the circumstances of the story -perhaps it would improve the roleplay narrative or they think something within the story broke their characters resolve...whatever.




To me, the concern of arbitrary stripping of PC abilities, which both [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seem most concerned with, is not consistent with the above.  They don’t seem to perceive any discussion beyond “do it my way or get a beating”.  They seem to approach this from the perspective that the GM will always seek to abuse the system, and the players, while the players will all be strong role players who would never compromise their vision of the character’s ethics.



Sadras said:


> The rules always did place the power in the DMs hands. This is a not a new concept, and might I add a bad DM is a bad DM no matter what the rules say.




Exactly.  A GM who will use the alignment rules to screw over the players at every turn, which always seems to be [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s expectation of every GM’s use of any authority granted to him, is not going to become a better GM because we remove the alignment rules.  As Celebrim says, your description of a dispute over an alignment interpretation can just as easily be a disagreement over any rules interpretation.



Sadras said:


> I do not see this as necessary. The DM sets the ENTIRE setting - deities, land, law, races, classes, customs, history, adventures, monsters, conflicts, difficulty on tasks... I do not see why it has to be any different for alignment.




I think there are some clear cut issues (where few, if any, reasonable GM’s and players will disagree) and a lot of grey areas.  The grey areas are the challenge, and I think  more often adjudicated by the table.  A good GM is likely to solicit input on those grey areas, and follow a consensus if one emerges.  He might very specifically rule that, in his game world, a specific issue is seen by a specific alignment in a specific way.  If the GM wants to tell me “Orcs are, in my world, beings of pure, undiluted evil.  They can never be redeemed or reformed.  They cannot be persuaded from their evil ways.”  then I can agree that, in his world, killing orc babies is not inconsistent with an LG alignment.  Begs the question how we have a LG ½ orc paladin confronted with that choice, though…

I rather suspect that, if all his players disagree with his views on major issues, he will either see the view of the table, or start looking for a new table.


----------



## Ratskinner

Celebrim said:


> The OP claimed the confusion was in the rules.  I claimed that the confusion was in the interpreter of the rules.




I would suggest that the failure of 40 years' experience with these rules to add much clarity or resolution to alignment debates of any type is indicative that indeed, confusion lies within the rules.   ....which certainly doesn't mean that the interpreters of said rules are any better off.


----------



## Celebrim

Ratskinner said:


> I would suggest that the failure of 40 years' experience with these rules to add much clarity or resolution to alignment debates of any type is indicative that indeed, confusion lies within the rules.   ....which certainly doesn't mean that the interpreters of said rules are any better off.




I agree that the rules could be written better.  I certainly am sympathetic to anyone who says, "I don't understand what alignment is supposed to mean." or "I think the alignment rules need to be reworked or rewritten."  

But when someone says, "Alignments don't improve the gaming experience.", my response tends to be, "Compared to what?"   While the two axis alignment system is (more or less) unique to D&D, the general concept of descriptors that mark or constrain the character in some way are not at all unique to D&D.  A lot of different systems intended to accomplish much the same thing are out there.  I'm sympathetic to learning from those other systems and adopting ideas from them as your system for handling alignment, but the OP is much more logical IMO about what this means than some other posters in the thread when he notes that simply dropping alignment from the rules leaves a big hole in the rules.

And the situation has certainly not been helped by the fact that different editions of the game have differed over just what exactly constitutes the core philosophy of the alignments in exactly the sorts of ways you'd expect different DMs.   Even Gygax has a couple of subtle biases that have led to misunderstanding.  I think part of the problem here is that alignment is something all DMs have a lot of problems become detached from and treating as part of their referee stance.   It's natural for the DM to impose on the situation that one way of thinking is 'better' than the others, which is stepping out of the DMs role as neutral arbiter.  It's equally hard for the player to see having an action denoted as evil as something other than condemnation unless the player was explicitly and self-consciously striving for that result in his characterization.


----------



## Umbran

N'raac said:


> Read the topic of the thread.  It is “Do alignments improve the gaming experience”.  It may surprise you to learn that “your games” or even “your gaming philosophy” falls well short of “the gaming experience”.




There is nobody I know of on these boards who has experience sufficient enough to speak to "the gaming experience" as a whole.  Nor has anyone done anything like a useful (meaning "statistically relevant) bit of polling on the subject.

So, we can either resort to our personal experiences, or we can just end the discussion here.


----------



## DMZ2112

*ascends podium, straightens microphone, clears throat*

LOL, alignment.


----------



## Desdichado

Hussar said:


> But, the way it's laid out now, there are no choices.  Besides Play or Not Play I suppose.



There's a third option, which is possibly a subset of Not Play--avoid character classes for which alignment is likely to be an issue.  This mostly means avoiding paladins and clerics, with a bit of monk thrown in for fun, if I recall.  Depending on the edition, of course.

If you avoid those classes, the whole issue becomes moot.


----------



## Celebrim

Hobo said:


> If you avoid those classes, the whole issue becomes moot.




Not really.   While the issue becomes rarer, it still comes up.   This view point seems to be the view point that, "Alignment really doesn't have much role in the rules."   I disagree.

Examples:

1) There is an intelligent sword that blasts any non-good that holds it for 2d6 holy damage.  The player has been consistently taking stances that the DM/cosmology would judge non-good in defiance of what is written on his character sheet.  Should the intelligent sword judge the character's alignment as non-good?

2) A good aligned outsider is tasked with guarding a portal.  Its instructions are to only allow characters with pure hearts through the doors, and it judges this with a 'detect good'/'know alignment' type spell where the character's alignment must be above some threshold of strength.  The PC is nominally good aligned but has anything but rigorous in acting out the beliefs expected of a good creature (he's regularly using poison, casting animate dead almost daily, torturing prisoners to obtain information, killing captives when convenient, flagrantly lying to everyone he meets, cheating merchants with illusions, burning down orphanages to kill individual villains without risking his own neck, etc.).   Should the player expect to be passed through the portal without needing to fight the outsider?

3) An evil cleric casts "Blasphemy".  Does it effect the PC or not?   What happens when you get players advocating for whatever alignment descriptor is convenient at the time?   If PC argues that the sword doesn't blast him because he retroactively colors his acts with the tincture of good, can later be allowed to retroactively color his acts with the tincture of evil when that gives him a mechanical benefit?  Does the DM never get to judge?  

4) In a certain dungeon, the DM places an evil altar and its associated solid gold sacramental implements.  They clearly radiate evil and magic, and the DM places a note in the text that if the altar and implements are destroyed then good  aligned members of the party gain a small XP bonus (say 300 XP).  But, if the implements are used to perform a sacrifice, then evil aligned members of the party gain a small XP bonus (say 10 x the HD of the thing sacrificed).   After proceeding with a course of action, who gets the XP bonus?   Does the course of action also imply alignment drift?   For example, even if a Paladin doesn't expect an XP bonus for sacrificing to the god of pederasty, does the act itself constitute an alignment violation?   Is the DM allowed to make that judgment?


----------



## pickin_grinnin

I have always ignored alignments, but I do encourage players to show some amount of consistency in character personality, within reason.

Crusaders, monks, priests, and other religious figures in real life are not necessarily good people.  They vary a lot.  Some are downright nasty.  In addition, I can't think of any deity in the real world that is universally presented as being a wholly good being - most are shown to be as variable in behavior as humans.


----------



## Ratskinner

[/QUOTE]







Celebrim said:


> I agree that the rules could be written better.  I certainly am sympathetic to anyone who says, "I don't understand what alignment is supposed to mean." or "I think the alignment rules need to be reworked or rewritten."




Or just jettison them in favor of...well just about _any_ of the systems to which I think you next refer.



Celebrim said:


> But when someone says, "Alignments don't improve the gaming experience.", my response tends to be, "Compared to what?"




My first response is..."compared to just ignoring them". That is, IME (and I seem hardly alone in this, given the thread), alignments tend to actually _detract_ from the gaming experience, and the more they are focused upon, the worse it gets.

My second response is: Aspects from Fate (although they are much broader in scope), Beliefs from Burning Wheel, MHRP has something descended from Keys from the Shadow of Yesterday, and I'm sure there are others that aren't off the top of my head. Alignments, other than the mechanics (spells and whatnot) that rely on them, don't actually _do_ anything for gameplay but generate arguments, and (depending on the edition) serve as a lever by which the DM _can _rather arbitrarily disempower some of the players to enforce his positions on these issues.



Celebrim said:


> While the two axis alignment system is (more or less) unique to D&D, the general concept of descriptors that mark or constrain the character in some way are not at all unique to D&D.  A lot of different systems intended to accomplish much the same thing are out there.  I'm sympathetic to learning from those other systems and adopting ideas from them as your system for handling alignment,




Accomplish what, exactly? What does alignment accomplish and promote during play? I've witnessed it promoting the "paladin killing orc babies". I've witnessed it being used to disempower paladins. I have _not_ witnessed it ever actually helping a paladin or cleric player play their character any better or avoid disempowerment. I haven't ever seen it help someone figure out what their character should do. If you're looking for a mechanic to actually generate meaningful  or interesting ethical/moral conflict within gameplay, then I'd suggest that alignment seems singularly ill-suited to the task.

I'd also note that many systems take their cues from D&D. The fact that other systems may echo D&D in this regard doesn't really add weight to the argument that "alignment as descriptor" is a needful thing. 



Celebrim said:


> but the OP is much more logical IMO about what this means than some other posters in the thread when he notes that simply dropping alignment from the rules leaves a big hole in the rules.




Yes, it would be best if alignment was excluded from the earliest stages of design, so that it doesn't weave its way into all the subsystems and make it hard to extract.


----------



## Celebrim

Ratskinner said:


> My second response is: Aspects from Fate (although they are much broader in scope)...




Let's start there then.   Yes, they are broader in scope in that an aspect can represent something other than a belief or ethos but a particular aspect is actually narrower in scope.   One complaint I'd accept about the alignment system is that it is so broad that it really requires something (often some things) laid on top of it in order to really be descriptive for a particular character.   Lawful in particular just screams for the need of some sort of allegiance descriptor.  Yes lawful, but to what order?

But what I won't accept is the notion that Aspects resolve the 'table conflicts', 'GM fiat', and disempowerment complaints that mark the core of what seems to trouble people about alignment.   

To the extent that you can have alignment arguments, to the extent that you play in groups that are going to behave that way, you can equally argue over whether or not an Aspect applies to a situation and whether or not it works for or against the character.   This is especially true if your Aspects are actually dealing with anything more serious than, "My hammer hits things hard."

If you say, "Well in practice that doesn't become a problem...", then I say, "Well in my experience, alignment isn't problem either."    



> Alignments, other than the mechanics (spells and whatnot) that rely on them, don't actually _do_ anything...




Well, yeah.  But that's like saying Aspects, other than the mechanics that rely on them, don't actually do anything.

But you are neglecting something that alignments do that aspects don't.   In FATE, everyone's aspects are their own individualized disconnected descriptors.   If we look at alignments like aspects, what you have is aspects that immediately put themselves in relation with all the other aspects that are out there.   We could model this in FATE with mandatory aspects from lists that mutually contradicted each other.   So yes, there are 'teams' involved here.   There is a tendency to see the teams as meaningless distinctions, but didn't we just define the teams in terms of aspects?   And don't you already agree that aspects aren't meaningless?

Besides, try to translate the above scenarios into FATE with the same crunch they have in D&D.  Take the alignments out of the scenarios, and you know what - problems of fiat, subjectivity, and DM arbitration don't go away.  Aspects are doing something for you, but not quite the same thing, and they don't eliminate the problem that you and others supposedly care about the most. 



> Accomplish what, exactly? What does alignment accomplish and promote during play?




It's supposed to promote looking at problems poised in the game through some frame work other than, "What can I do to get the most loot/XP at the lowest risk to myself?"   And I might note that it isn't clear that Aspects really do that, since you get rewarded for making them relevant, what Aspects could be argued tend to do is treat ethical questions as another instance of meta-game pragmatism - "What should I the player choose to maximize my chance of success in this situation?"  There is something to be said for choosing to do something with no expectation of reward at all, simply because you believe it the right thing to do (for the character).



> I haven't ever seen it help someone figure out what their character should do.




This is the sort of statement that just makes it impossible to discuss this.  I've so many characters that grew out of looking at the question, "What would a character be like if he intellectualize the concepts of an alignment and strived to live by that ethos?"   When you say, "I've never seen it", it makes me feel like we lack sufficient common experience to even communicate.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Read the topic of the thread.  It is “Do alignments improve the gaming experience”.  It may surprise you to learn that “your games” or even “your gaming philosophy” falls well short of “the gaming experience”.



Besides  [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s apposite point, I remind you of post 28 upthread, where [MENTION=6706967]Dwimmerlied[/MENTION] asked "How many times have people encountered serious conflict at the table due to misunderstandings about alignment that could not have been avoided with good communication?" and also "What situations are people devising for their stories that they are finding the alignment system really can't handle?"

I replied in post 42. In that post, after describing some episodes of actual play which I believe fall under the description "situations that the alignment system really can't handle", I said that "My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad) and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces."

Since then, you have been trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I put it to you that I know my own prefrences, and the preferences of my players, and the dynamics of my game, better than you do. Furthermore, it's not like my approach is a particularly odd or obscure one. There are multiple other posters in the thread saying much the same sort of thing as I am, for much the same reasons.



N'raac said:


> You have repeatedly stated the player’s determination of whether  the character is following his moral code is inviolate.



I haven't actually said that. I've said that I, as GM, as part of my adjudication of the game, do not need to form a view on this. As a human being participating in the game I of course can form a view on this, which may be quite critical of the PC and the player. But that is independent of my role as GM.

I have recently been reading my children a retelling of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Which led me to read the entry on that story in Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, there is a wide spectrum of critical opinion on what the story has to tell us about chivarly, about the relationship between chivalry and courtly love as ethical frameworks, about the relationship between Christianity and other value systems that may have still had some popular currency, etc. (And obviously no serious literature course would begin by having the lecturer tell the students what the true evaluative significance of the works to be read is, and that on their assessment tasks they are expected to conform to those dictates or else they will fail.)

It is my experience that the game does not need one dominant participant to impose valuation in a mononlothic fahsion from the perspective of the fiction in order to proceed. In fact, my experience is to the contrary - that if the game proceeds on the basis that such monolithic evaluation will be imposed by the GM, that is an inhibitor of interesting and challenging play. 



N'raac said:


> If no player at your table would ever violate their alignment/code/morality/whatever you wish to call it to the extent that he would reasonably be penalized under the alignment rules, then *why are they a huge bone of contention*?



This makes no sense to me. My table doesn't use alignment rules, so the notion of "violation" doesn't come up. Yours is the table - as far as I can tell from your posts - which is full of players who declare as actions for their PCs that they torture peasants and rip the throats out of children, or who would do so but for having written LG at the top of their PCs sheets; and who, in so writing and thereby forsaking torture and brutal murder as permissible modes of action, fiind themselves tackling the challenges of the gameworld with one hand tied behind their backs.

My players just play their PCs. The reason that their PCs don't, as a general rule, engage in torture or brutal murder is because they conceive of their PCs as decent people, and decent people (obviously) don't act in such ways. What do alignment descriptors add to this?

From time to time I have players who play PCs who aren't (always) decent. Some of them have committed brutal murders. One of them even tortured his enemies on occasion. I think it's pretty obvious that these aren't decent people. What do alignment descriptors add to this?

Then there are borderline cases, like the wizard who - in an act of vicarious vengeance for the sacking of his town by humanoids many years before - slew the unconscious hobgoblins from whom he had just saved some kidnapped children. I (as GM) was shocked. The other players, whose PCs were on the other side of a ridge, and who had not been paying attention to the wizard player's action declaration because they were engaged in their own fight on the other side of that ridge, were shocked when their PCs came back over the hill to collect the prisoners and I told them what they saw. What do alignment descriptors add to that experience? The other players can choose how their PCs respond - they don't need my alignment ruling to inform them, do they? I can play the NPCs - most of those present, who were victims of the hobgoblins, cheered the wizard. Some didn't. Why do I need alignment rules to inform this? What do they add?



N'raac said:


> pemerton also seems to indicate his players aren’t at polar opposites either.  Makes me wonder why he so vehemently opposes the alignment system when it seems like he and his players would never have serious disagreements anyway.



If my players and I agree on evaluation, we don't need alignment mechanics to vindicate that agreement. Conversely, if there is disagreement we don't need the GM to step in and impose a "solution" on the disagreement via alignment mechanics.



N'raac said:


> I think there are some clear cut issues (where few, if any, reasonable GM’s and players will disagree) and a lot of grey areas.  The grey areas are the challenge, and I think  more often adjudicated by the table.  A good GM is likely to solicit input on those grey areas, and follow a consensus if one emerges.



You haven't actually told me what this adds to the game. Why does it make the game better? Why is the game hurt if one player (and his/her PC) thinks that vengeance against the unconscious hobgoblins is morally required, another that it is permitted, and another that it is forbidden?



N'raac said:


> You are assuming that we will have only good players, who will role play their characters reasonably in line with whatever code of morality they have designed that character to possess
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It cannot be obvious “to everyone at the table” if the paladin’s player is declaring the action.



Not at all. On the contrary, given your obvious concern with playes who play torturers and murderers, I can only assume that you have many players who lie about their character's personalities and moral inclinations!

As to "if the player is declaring the action", which player? You're not talking about my players, so I can only assume you're talking about yours. Which reinforces my point above: I can only assume that your game is somewhat populated by players who roll up noble knights and then play them as self-deluded ruthless assassins.



N'raac said:


> If I decide I don’t want a game where random chance is as significant a determiner of success (d20 swings way wider than 3d6), then I either bow out of, or don’t play, a d20 game.  Are you suggesting instead I should negotiate for us to play with 3d6?  Or perhaps I should bow out – not play – the d20 game whose mechanics I dislike and instead play Hero, which is designed with the mechanic I prefer in mind.



This is a new argument - that peole who don't want to use alignment shouldn't play D&D! I hope that the D&Dnext designers don't follow your line, and rather recognise that there have been alignment-sceptics playing D&D for 30 or more years and therefore build the new edition around alignment as optional rather than an assumed part of the game.



N'raac said:


> I don’t think anyone in Arthurian  myth considered the devil (or Merlin) the source of morally correct behaviour.  Nor do I believe LoTR ever suggested that Sauron’s path was one of goodness and righteousness.



This is equally true in D&D. No one in standard alignment-governed D&D regards Asmodeus as a source of morally correct behaviour: after all, he is evil. Likewise no one regards Sauron's path as one of goodness. He is evil too.

I'm not sure, but you seem to be asserting that in D&D's alignment system evil can be good. Or something like that. I'm not 100% sure, but it's not changing my mind about the coherence or utility of the alignment system.



N'raac said:


> You seem to insist on importing real world religion, via Arthurian legend.  So how consistent are Arthurian (or Roland) ideals with:
> 
> -    Turn the other cheek
> -    Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord
> -    Love the sinner, hate the sin
> -    Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors
> -    Blessed are the meek
> 
> I don’t believe Arthur, or any  traditional D&D paladin, or any source for same, espouses these very Christian ideals.  Do you?



I can't fully answer this question, as it is against board rules. But the history of conversion of the Franks and Anglo-Saxons is fairly well known, including the way that Christian values were made to speak to Germanic values. And if you are really suggesting that the Knights Templar et al, and their spiritual advisors like St Bernard of Clairvaux, were not sincere Christians I'd ask what your historical evidence is.



N'raac said:


> Assuming that they can interact in some way with the Raven Queen, how is the question of which approach was considered the more righteous by the Raven Queen resolved?  What happens to the character who was wrong, based on this resolution?



Argument is resolved via the full suite of action resolution mechanics - free roleplay, skill checks and challenges, combat. If a character turns out to be "wrong" - as in, at odds with the Raven Queen - then what happens would depend on context. If it were the demigod, perhaps he becomes his onw cult leader. If it was the Marshall of Letherna, perhaps he allies with Kas and tries to make himself master of the Shadowfell. If it was the invokers, perhaps he allies more fully with Vecna, or one of his other patrons.

None of this needs to be known in advance. That's part of my point.


----------



## pemerton

Celebrim said:


> A good aligned outsider is tasked with guarding a portal.  Its instructions are to only allow characters with pure hearts through the doors, and it judges this with a 'detect good'/'know alignment' type spell



This is one instance of the sort of play that I am trying to avoid by not using alignments.

The last time an episode like this came up in my game was when I was running the 3E module Bastion of Broken Souls. I disregarded the module writer's advice on how to run the scene (which was in my view pretty hopeless advice) and instead resolved it as a social challenge: the PCs - one in particular - persuaded the angel that the mission the PCs were on required her to depart from her instructions and permit the PCs through the gate (which in this case required the angel to be killed).


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Do you think I am in a substantial minority. My impression is plenty of players out there share my view on this.




But, since you have actually no idea how many people agree with you, what does it lend to your argument?  That the people you play with play the same way you do?  Well, that's great and all, but, like any anecdote, it isn't really helpful.  I'm flat out telling you that the people I play with don't agree with you.  So, I see your "lots of" and raise you a "Whole bunch".  

Gee, that's useful isn't it?




> I think ink this is a case where they either give the GM authority to interpret cosmic will or they do not and both lead to very different places in terms of style. Someone like me, I prefer that being cedddd to the GM . Whether there are enough if me who play D&D to ensure alignment stays as is I. The game I do not know. But we have a fun tangential style divide here over how much impact players should have on the setting beyond their character. That doesn't make either side wrong. But it is going to make it difficult for us to find a solution we agree works.




But, again, you haven't ceded anything.  You had no choice in this.  None.  The rules made that decision for you.  While it's true that the rules do do this for many things, this is one area where I think that it is a mistake for the rules to do so.  

Look, all you have to do is look at any thread where people try to pin the alignment of different fictional characters.  There's almost no agreement.  And quite often two people look at the same character and make very valid arguments for opposed alignments.  What alignment is Batman?  How about House from Dr. House?  How about James Bond?

Despite thirty or forty years of discussion on alignment there is still almost no consensus.  Everyone has their own take on alignment because the way alignment is written, it's very vague and wide open to all sorts of interpretation.

I'm not against an alignment system per se.  The mentioned Aspects system of FATE is a pretty good way to go.  You can pin down very concrete examples of how this character should be described and how this character is expected to act.  

But, to me, all alignment has ever done is cause endless arguments at the table and I can't think of a single time that I've finished a session or a campaign and thought, "Wow, that alignment system really helped and made this a better experience."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, since you have actually no idea how many people agree with you, what does it lend to your argument?  That the people you play with play the same way you do?  Well, that's great and all, but, like any anecdote, it isn't really helpful.  I'm flat out telling you that the people I play with don't agree with you.  So, I see your "lots of" and raise you a "Whole bunch".
> 
> Gee, that's useful isn't it?ce."




I do not see this as a competition for who has the highest numbers. I am merely pointing out that from where i am standing a lot of people share my view and approach (just from what i have encountered, what i have seen online and from the posters who share my thoughts here). I do nou doubt many also share your view. It isn't necessarily a winner take all situation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, again, you haven't ceded anything.  You had no choice in this.  None.  The rules made that decision for you.  While it's true that the rules do do this for many things, this is one area where I think that it is a mistake for the rules to do so.
> 
> Look, all you have to do is look at any thread where people try to pin the alignment of different fictional characters.  There's almost no agreement.  And quite often two people look at the same character and make very valid arguments for opposed alignments.  What alignment is Batman?  How about House from Dr. House?  How about James Bond?
> 
> Despite thirty or forty years of discussion on alignment there is still almost no consensus.  Everyone has their own take on alignment because the way alignment is written, it's very vague and wide open to all sorts of interpretation.
> 
> I'm not against an alignment system per se.  The mentioned Aspects system of FATE is a pretty good way to go.  You can pin down very concrete examples of how this character should be described and how this character is expected to act.
> 
> But, to me, all alignment has ever done is cause endless arguments at the table and I can't think of a single time that I've finished a session or a campaign and thought, "Wow, that alignment system really helped and made this a better experience."




i am saying the rules either cede it or they dont. Our choice is made when we decide what system or what optional rules to employ. I agree alignment is subjective. But i am fine, acknlowledging that and giving the GM the power to decide what good or evil mean in a setting. For me that is more enjoyable play than if the players views are able to shape it on a case by case basis (at least in a game l ke d&d where you have a cosmology where good, evil, law and chaos are actual things with powerful entities persuing those agendas). 

If you don't have this experience, then you don't. But i think the point is people are chiming in ans saying what they want or they dont want. You don't want alignment. Cool enough. That is your opinio. Mine is I want alignmnt with GM adjudication. No idea what we will end up getting in next. Presumably whatever they decide is based on playtesting and will make the majority of fans happy.


----------



## Ratskinner

Before I get started here, I just want to point out that I'm not recommending that D&D adopt Fate's aspect system, at least not as simply a replacement for alignment. IMO, by the time you've fully implemented aspects into D&D...you've gutted the remainder of D&D so much that you'd have been better off starting with Fate and converting it to a d20 resolution mechanic. Using some kind of limited aspects as many tried to do with 3.x at various times just ends up falling flat for me. YMMV. I'd also point out that aspects were just one suggestion (granted, the one I'm most familiar with).

[/QUOTE]







Celebrim said:


> Let's start there then.   Yes, they are broader in scope in that an aspect can represent something other than a belief or ethos but a particular aspect is actually narrower in scope.   One complaint I'd accept about the alignment system is that it is so broad that it really requires something (often some things) laid on top of it in order to really be descriptive for a particular character.   Lawful in particular just screams for the need of some sort of allegiance descriptor.  Yes lawful, but to what order?




And alignments avoid that? The very point of replacing the Alignment system with aspects would be to replace wishy-washy useless descriptors like "Lawful" with something much more distinct and telling about the character...like "devoted to the Order of St. Egregious". Saying "We'll use aspects instead of alignment" and then taking aspects like "Lawful" would be pointless. Without the context of knowing what the DM or his cosmology intends by the alignment terms they only seem to form a trap for players of the "sensitive" classes.



Celebrim said:


> But what I won't accept is the notion that Aspects resolve the 'table conflicts', 'GM fiat', and disempowerment complaints that mark the core of what seems to trouble people about alignment.




I'm not sure about the notion of Aspects as divorced from the surrounding Fate construct. I mean, I really can't say. Within Fate, though, these problems (at least as alignment generates them in D&D) are all but unheard of. I say that with scientific scepticism, because the only time I recall having ever witnessed such a problem discussed on any Fate community has been in response to theoretical questions from D&D players who were considering Fate. That is, they were so used to alignment causing these issues that they had difficulty conceiving of it working better with aspects. I cannot recall ever seeing a thread or comment that something like typical alignment problems has ever happened during actual Fate play. I couldn't say how well that success would translate to a limited implementation of aspects like you seem to be envisioning for D&D.

To go point by point (at least within Fate):
"Table conflicts" - The standard process for creating characters in Fate obviates this in practice. You don't really make up your character's aspects in a vacuum. So if something is unclear, then it can be clarified before play.
"GM fiat" - Fate includes a method (the compel) for the GM to make your aspects work against you, but you get Fate points to drive the plot forward later. So, when the paladin's code (_Follow the code of Egregius_) calls him do something that seems otherwise foolish, he gets the reward for accepting that challenge and living up to his code. Both the player _and_ the GM are encouraged to both point out and seek for ways for this kind of thing to happen. Even better, we don't have to define the code beforehand! The compel is an offer not a bludgeon. In the traditional parlance, the GM says "Are you sure that the code of Egregious doesn't demand that you help them?" while holding up a Fate point token to tempt the player. The player is free to either accept the point (and act accordingly) or to buy off the GM by paying a token. The whole character doesn't become dysfunctional simply because the GM and player disagree on what's "right" for the character to do.
"disempowerment" - By default, in Fate, St. Egregious may not have even existed in the gameworld until the player wrote that aspect down.



Celebrim said:


> To the extent that you can have alignment arguments, to the extent that you play in groups that are going to behave that way, you can equally argue over whether or not an Aspect applies to a situation and whether or not it works for or against the character.   This is especially true if your Aspects are actually dealing with anything more serious than, "My hammer hits things hard."
> 
> If you say, "Well in practice that doesn't become a problem...", then I say, "Well in my experience, alignment isn't problem either."




The difference being that its not just me...that is, you just don't see threads like this about Aspects on any of the Fate forums that I frequent (which I think is all of them). I can't recall one ever. In part, I think its because of the fact that aspects actually _do_ something in the game, and the GM can push your aspect (called a compel) without disempowering the character at all.

Which is not to say that aspects are perfect mechanics by any means, they just have a different set of limitations. Ones that don't seem to impact play as negatively, and that get better the more familiar the group is with using them.



Celebrim said:


> Well, yeah.  But that's like saying Aspects, other than the mechanics that rely on them, don't actually do anything.




Not really, although I may not have been as clear as I might have been. An aspect (at least any worth their ink) should tell you significant and interesting things about the character, they define what the character _is_ (at least within Fate). An aspect is "always true". Therefore, it can define what character A or character B might be able to attempt or do with any of the skills. You could remove compels, invokes, and Fate points from Fate, and aspects would still serve that function. Writing "NN" in the alignment spot for a DnD character tells me virtually nothing about them. Even "LG" really doesn't tell me all that much.  So if you remove the spells, items, etc. from D&D...how much meaning does alignment still have? Those other parts are handled by things like class, ability scores, and (recently) backgrounds in D&D.



Celebrim said:


> But you are neglecting something that alignments do that aspects don't.   In FATE, everyone's aspects are their own individualized disconnected descriptors.   If we look at alignments like aspects, what you have is aspects that immediately put themselves in relation with all the other aspects that are out there.   We could model this in FATE with mandatory aspects from lists that mutually contradicted each other.   So yes, there are 'teams' involved here.   There is a tendency to see the teams as meaningless distinctions, but didn't we just define the teams in terms of aspects?   And don't you already agree that aspects aren't meaningless?




I can't imagine why I'd adopt aspects...and then neuter them as you suggest. To do so defies the concepts upon which aspects are built! You cannot simple rename "alignments" "aspects". Previously in this thread, I mentioned the team creating power of alignments. I can assure you of a few things: 1) its not universally desirable 2) it is the father of the paladin slicing orc babies up, and 3) it could easily be recreated in Fate with aspects...although one character at a time.



Celebrim said:


> Besides, try to translate the above scenarios into FATE with the same crunch they have in D&D.  Take the alignments out of the scenarios, and you know what - problems of fiat, subjectivity, and DM arbitration don't go away.  Aspects are doing something for you, but not quite the same thing, and they don't eliminate the problem that you and others supposedly care about the most.




I assume you mean the ones in your previous post. First, I must say that many of these represent peculiarities within D&D that are artifacts of the existence of alignment in the first place. That is to say, these examples exist because of alignments, alignments do not exist to serve these situations.



Celebrim said:


> 1) There is an intelligent sword that blasts any non-good that holds it  for 2d6 holy damage.  The player has been consistently taking stances  that the DM/cosmology would judge non-good in defiance of what is  written on his character sheet.  Should the intelligent sword judge the  character's alignment as non-good?




Neither alignments nor aspects particularly "solve" this problem AFAICT. However, to replicate a similar thing in Fate, you would write the sword up as an "extra" with a _Holy Blast_ skill/power, and aspects to give it the personality and function that you wish. 



Celebrim said:


> 2) A good aligned outsider is tasked with guarding a portal.  Its  instructions are to only allow characters with pure hearts through the  doors, and it judges this with a 'detect good'/'know alignment' type  spell where the character's alignment must be above some threshold of  strength.  The PC is nominally good aligned but has anything but  rigorous in acting out the beliefs expected of a good creature (he's  regularly using poison, casting animate dead almost daily, torturing  prisoners to obtain information, killing captives when convenient,  flagrantly lying to everyone he meets, cheating merchants with  illusions, burning down orphanages to kill individual villains without  risking his own neck, etc.).   Should the player expect to be passed  through the portal without needing to fight the outsider?




The angel has an appropriate aspect or stunt: _Can weigh the hearts of men._ He does so. _If_ this is cause for contention. because of aspects that the PC has, the situation is no different than the D&D situation. (Notably, the broader rules for Fate have mechanics for handling this sort of thing as a "social" conflict.)

I feel compelled (pun intended) to point out that this quandry seems to me to point out a weakness of the alignment system. Namely, it says NG on the sheet, but that's just because nobody remembered to change it...the existence of the alignment system is the source of this problem, not the solution.



Celebrim said:


> 3) An evil cleric casts "Blasphemy".  Does it effect the PC or not?    What happens when you get players advocating for whatever alignment  descriptor is convenient at the time?   If PC argues that the sword  doesn't blast him because he retroactively colors his acts with the  tincture of good, can later be allowed to retroactively color his acts  with the tincture of evil when that gives him a mechanical benefit?   Does the DM never get to judge?




Without a construct like alignment existing in the game, spells like Blasphemy would be written entirely differently. How aspects would interact with this would depend greatly on the extent to which they were implemented in the rules. Basically, its impossible for me to respond to this one within that specific context. Within the Fate Core context, and barring some extra magical extra system, the evil cleric would likely have created a situational aspect that he then invoked to harm the PCs. However, Fate is not strict in this regard and there are several possibilities for achieving a very similar if not the same narrative for a blasphemy-like spell. 



Celebrim said:


> 4) In a certain dungeon, the DM places an evil altar and its associated  solid gold sacramental implements.  They clearly radiate evil and magic,  and the DM places a note in the text that if the altar and implements  are destroyed then good  aligned members of the party gain a small XP  bonus (say 300 XP).  But, if the implements are used to perform a  sacrifice, then evil aligned members of the party gain a small XP bonus  (say 10 x the HD of the thing sacrificed).   After proceeding with a  course of action, who gets the XP bonus?   Does the course of action  also imply alignment drift?   For example, even if a Paladin doesn't  expect an XP bonus for sacrificing to the god of pederasty, does the act  itself constitute an alignment violation?   Is the DM allowed to make  that judgment?




Okay so that's a couple questions all posed by the same scenario. As above, a system without alignment would be constructed differently. To create a similar situation within Fate Core, the Altar would basically be a mini-character. The GM could construct it to place things like "touched by <the god of pederasty>" or "tainted by the dark altar" as a temporary aspect on the PCs, and even use it to haunt the PCs later, creating a longer story line. If all you wanted was to have something reward evil characters and punish good ones...then just give it aspects to reflect that. The fact that those rewards take the form of XP in your example is a D&Dism.



Celebrim said:


> It's supposed to promote looking at problems poised in the game through some frame work other than, "What can I do to get the most loot/XP at the lowest risk to myself?"   And I might note that it isn't clear that Aspects really do that, since you get rewarded for making them relevant, what Aspects could be argued tend to do is treat ethical questions as another instance of meta-game pragmatism - "What should I the player choose to maximize my chance of success in this situation?"  There is something to be said for choosing to do something with no expectation of reward at all, simply because you believe it the right thing to do (for the character).




Common misconceptions about aspects abound here. You only gain Fate points from your aspects when you have taken the hit for it. That is, you have been compelled or had one invoked against you. The other portion of "making them relevant" is no different than a fighter swinging a sword or a wizard casting a spell instead of vice-versa. Getting an aspect compelled is precisely Fate's mechanism for representing the character acting in accord with what they believe is the right thing to do (although it can often mean other things, as well).



Celebrim said:


> This is the sort of statement that just makes it impossible to discuss this.  I've so many characters that grew out of looking at the question, "What would a character be like if he intellectualize the concepts of an alignment and strived to live by that ethos?"   When you say, "I've never seen it", it makes me feel like we lack sufficient common experience to even communicate.




I dunno. I don't think any of the alignments have ever represented anything specific enough to be called an "ethos" to me. Maybe they describe families of ethoses(?) ethoi? But if your suspicion is correct, then isn't that a strike against alignments? Doesn't it indicate that an alignment simply isn't specific enough to clarify such things about the character? Can you not envision similar explorations of character without the alignment system? IME, such things almost always take place in the context of a much more formed and specific ethos than I have ever seen described for any D&D alignment. To paraphrase myself earlier, I would think that 40 years has been plenty of time for us to sort this sort of thing out...if it actually worked.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> i am saying the rules either cede it or they dont. Our choice is made when we decide what system or what optional rules to employ. I agree alignment is subjective. But i am fine, acknlowledging that and giving the GM the power to decide what good or evil mean in a setting. For me that is more enjoyable play than if the players views are able to shape it on a case by case basis (at least in a game l ke d&d where you have a cosmology where good, evil, law and chaos are actual things with powerful entities persuing those agendas).
> 
> If you don't have this experience, then you don't. But i think the point is people are chiming in ans saying what they want or they dont want. You don't want alignment. Cool enough. That is your opinio. Mine is I want alignmnt with GM adjudication. No idea what we will end up getting in next. Presumably whatever they decide is based on playtesting and will make the majority of fans happy.




But, it's not case by case.  That presumes that there wouldn't be consistency.  The player makes a character with a specific and specified moral compass.  As the player plays his character, it's up to the player to make sure that his actions are consistent with the character he made and with his interpretation of the moral compass of that character.

IOW, acting in a purely expedient manner and ignoring your character sheet is bad play.

To me, it comes down to two things.  One, I am perfectly capable of playing my own character and I don't feel that I need the DM to police my play.  Two, as a DM, I do not feel it is my job to police how you play your character.  I trust you enough, as a player, that you will be able to play your own character without my over sight.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, it's not case by case.  That presumes that there wouldn't be consistency.  The player makes a character with a specific and specified moral compass.  As the player plays his character, it's up to the player to make sure that his actions are consistent with the character he made and with his interpretation of the moral compass of that character.
> 
> IOW, acting in a purely expedient manner and ignoring your character sheet is bad play.
> 
> To me, it comes down to two things.  One, I am perfectly capable of playing my own character and I don't feel that I need the DM to police my play.  Two, as a DM, I do not feel it is my job to police how you play your character.  I trust you enough, as a player, that you will be able to play your own character without my over sight.




I get that you want something different than me,and that is cool. But i do not see this as an issue of trust or policing. It is more about how i want aliignment to feel in the game. Judments about morality are subjective, but i want my D&D settings to feel like good and evil have objctive weight. They are real, and exist beyond my character. I find having everyone decide for themselves what constitutes good or evil, is less effective at creating that sense of a real cosmic ought than having it adjudicated by a single person as the consistent source of judgment.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I get that you want something different than me,and that is cool. But i do not see this as an issue of trust or policing. It is more about how i want aliignment to feel in the game. Judments about morality are subjective, but i want my D&D settings to feel like good and evil have objctive weight. They are real, and exist beyond my character. I find having everyone decide for themselves what constitutes good or evil, is less effective at creating that sense of a real cosmic ought than having it adjudicated by a single person as the consistent source of judgment.




Except when you have a single person who does not share your judgement.  Also, you are presuming that a given DM will be more consistent than any given player.  Granted, overall, he should be more consistent than the group, but, on a one to one level, there's no reason to think that the DM will be more consistent in his interpretation of alignment than you will.

Additionally, you presume that the player has to define morality during play.  Why is this not being decided during character generation?  It is now an objective value, known to everyone at the table.  The only difference is, your definitions apply to your character, not the DM.  

Like I said, I don't like the idea of telling players that they don't know what good or evil actually is.  It's far too close to discussing religion for my taste.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> his
> Like I said, I don't like the idea of telling players that they don't know what good or evil actually is.  It's far too close to discussing religion for my taste.




But that isn't what I am doing. I am saying let one person determine what good and evil mean inside a fictional fantasy setting . It isn't real world good and evil, it's what Malledhyr the God of Clouds and Sunshine says is good. The point is having a source external to me or my character make these judgements, not impose a real world moral philosophy on me by the GM. This is make believe, I can imagine a world where good and evil do not match my own personal views. 

I am with you, not interested in the GM being there to moralize me on religion or ethics. That isn't what this is about.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Except when you have a single person who does not share your judgement.  Also, you are presuming that a given DM will be more consistent than any given player.  Granted, overall, he should be more consistent than the group, but, on a one to one level, there's no reason to think that the DM will be more consistent in his interpretation of alignment than you will.
> 
> aste.




I think a single player could be more consistent than the GM. The issue is you want one person being the judge, so it is consistent for the group, otherwise you have  (potentially) 3-6 competing views on what constitutes lawful good or chaotic evil. This is set in a world where there are cosmic moral forces who make their will known. So for me, it's important those judgments be somewhat consistent and feel like they are actually coming from outside the characters. Again, preference, but that is what I like.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I replied in post 42. In that post, after describing some episodes of actual play which I believe fall under the description "situations that the alignment system really can't handle", I said that "My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad) and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces."






pemerton said:


> This is equally true in D&D. No one in standard alignment-governed D&D regards Asmodeus as a source of morally correct behaviour: after all, he is evil. Likewise no one regards Sauron's path as one of goodness. He is evil too.




So is Asmodeus maybe Good in your game?  Can I have my Paladin be a devoted servant of the High Moral Path of Asmodeus? Or has someone made the judgment call in advance that the Raven Queen is Good and Asmodeus is Evil?  if so, how can we tell, when any action taken by the PC's may be Good or Evil, based on the moral code that only they may define?



pemerton said:


> This makes no sense to me. My table doesn't use alignment rules, so the notion of "violation" doesn't come up. Yours is the table - as far as I can tell from your posts - which is full of players who declare as actions for their PCs that they torture peasants and rip the throats out of children, or who would do so but for having written LG at the top of their PCs sheets; and who, in so writing and thereby forsaking torture and brutal murder as permissible modes of action, fiind themselves tackling the challenges of the gameworld with one hand tied behind their backs.




Your assessment of my players is about as reasonable as me asserting that you, yourself, must be an egomaniac who, if trusted with any power to actually adjudicate the game, will use it only in the most arbitrary fashion and override any choice the players may have to play their characters.  This is, after all, the extreme "wrong" of the alignment system which you decry, just as I present the extreme example of the players being able to set their own moral choices with no adjudication.  I don't believe you're the egomaniac you portray the worst case scenario GM as.  Don't assert my players are the worst case scenario of a game without alignment simply because I support it as a useful tool.



pemerton said:


> My players just play their PCs. The reason that their PCs don't, as a general rule, engage in torture or brutal murder is because they conceive of their PCs as decent people, and decent people (obviously) don't act in such ways. What do alignment descriptors add to this?




Why is this "obvious"?  I thought appropriate actions were not obvious, so the player must be allowed to apply whatever moral judgement he sees fit, and this moral judgment would become that of the code he follows, be that the Raven Queen or the Demon King.



pemerton said:


> You haven't actually told me what this adds to the game. Why does it make the game better? Why is the game hurt if one player (and his/her PC) thinks that vengeance against the unconscious hobgoblins is morally required, another that it is permitted, and another that it is forbidden?




If all three are telling me "And this is the One True Way under the Code of the Raven Queen, who grants my Holy Powers", it hurts any semblance that the Raven Queen is granting power to her followers based on any actual moral precepts.



pemerton said:


> Not at all. On the contrary, given your obvious concern with playes who play torturers and murderers, I can only assume that you have many players who lie about their character's personalities and moral inclinations!
> 
> I'm not sure, but you seem to be asserting that in D&D's alignment system evil can be good. Or something like that. I'm not 100% sure, but it's not changing my mind about the coherence or utility of the alignment system.




I am not the one arguing that each player may independently decide whether their character's actions are, in fact, Good or Evil.



pemerton said:


> I can't fully answer this question, as it is against board rules.




Then let us confine our discussion to the fictional game world, and not bring real world religions such as Christianity into the discussion.  The lack of direct Divine intervention and granting if divine powers to mortals seems to render the real world a very different place to that inhabited by Paladins and Clerics in any case.



pemerton said:


> Argument is resolved via the full suite of action resolution mechanics - free roleplay, skill checks and challenges, combat. If a character turns out to be "wrong" - as in, at odds with the Raven Queen - then what happens would depend on context. If it were the demigod, perhaps he becomes his onw cult leader. If it was the Marshall of Letherna, perhaps he allies with Kas and tries to make himself master of the Shadowfell. If it was the invokers, perhaps he allies more fully with Vecna, or one of his other patrons.




So what happens to the character whose powers are granted due to his devotion and service to the Raven Queen, when he is determined, after many game sessions, to have opposed her wishes routinely throughout his adventuring career?  Do we conclude she is unaware of these actions by the servant she favours with divine gifts?  So much for that 25+ INT and WIS!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Additionally, you presume that the player has to define morality during play.  Why is this not being decided during character generation?  It is now an objective value, known to everyone at the table.  The only difference is, your definitions apply to your character, not the DM.




because unless you have a comprehensive list of all possible events and circumstances, many cases will come up requiring an on the spot assessment. That is one reason why people argue over alignment. The alignments are described as objective things, but people disagree over how they apply to specific cases.


----------



## N'raac

Bedrockgames said:


> I think a single player could be more consistent than the GM. The issue is you want one person being the judge, so it is consistent for the group, otherwise you have  (potentially) 3-6 competing views on what constitutes lawful good or chaotic evil. This is set in a world where there are cosmic moral forces who make their will known. So for me, it's important those judgments be somewhat consistent and feel like they are actually coming from outside the characters. Again, preference, but that is what I like.




It so often seems like those not wanting "a single person, the GM" making these calls actually want to be the single person making these calls.  Ultimately, if there is a cosmological "good" and "evil", someone must define the terms.  If there is not, then by all means let the dice fall where they may to determine who was ultimately "moral" and who was not, with no preconceived notions in that regard.  What I am seeing, however, is not that there are no preconceived notions, but that many gaming groups share the preconceptions that are really important to them, and chafe at anyone being able to reject their interpretations on other issues.  Thus "we never have players whose characters would do that and still be claimed to be decent people", yet "we cannot have a single standard setter for what a decent person is or does".


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Ultimately, if there is a cosmological "good" and "evil", someone must define the terms.  If there is not, then by all means let the dice fall where they may to determine who was ultimately "moral" and who was not, with no preconceived notions in that regard.



This is wrong for two reasons, one meta-ethical and the other to do with RPG design and play.

(1) In the real world of English speaking moral philosophy, the most common meta-ethical view is that there is "cosmological" good and evil. Different philosophers have different understandings of this - various forms of Aristotelianism are probably the most common, then various forms of Kantianism, then consequentialism, with Platonist approaches brining up the rear. But the idea that moral value is not objective, or related semantic ideas such as meta-ethical expressivism, are minority views.

Yet almost none of these philosopher take the view that "someone must define the terms". After all, electrons exist as "cosmological" entities but no one had to "define the terms". Electrons are there, independent of definition, and discovering their nature is a task for human inquiry. Most philosophers who believe in objective morality would see value in a different way (and even the contemporary Kantian "constructivists" still don't frame "construction" in terms of definition - the relevant constructions are concerned with the real requirements of collective rationality, not anyone's stipulated requirements).

(2) Something can be objective within the fiction of an RPG, and yet not be predetermined at the table. This can be easily seen by considering examples from other fictional works: for instance, within the fiction of Star Wars it is objective whether their were an odd or even number of dials on all the control panels of the Millenium Falcon, but as far as I know no one actually knows the answer to that, because there is no definitive presentation of all of the Falcon's control panels within any narrated episode that is part of the fiction.

So in an RPG, presumably there is an objective fact of the matter within the gameworld whether my PC's father was left or right handed, but I myself have never played a game where that objective fact came to light. (Heck, in most games, for most PCs, the objective fact of the father's age, or name, never came to light.)

Now when we are playing an RPG, and some piece of fiction isn't known and needs to be decided, there are various techniques for working that out. One tried and true technique is to employ the action resolution mechanics. Suppose a group of epic PCs, all servants of the Raven Queen, confront their mistress and proceed to debate some point of morality with her. From the fact that, as a matter of play, her views are determined in part by the way the dice fall, it doesn't follow that her views were not predetermined within the fiction. Any more than, from the fact that we learn how many orcs are in the patrol by rolling dice on a wandering monster table, it follows that _within the fiction_ they were "Schroedinger's orcs."


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> To go point by point (at least within Fate):
> "Table conflicts" - The standard process for creating characters in Fate obviates this in practice. You don't really make up your character's aspects in a vacuum. So if something is unclear, then it can be clarified before play.
> "GM fiat" - Fate includes a method (the compel) for the GM to make your aspects work against you, but you get Fate points to drive the plot forward later. So, when the paladin's code (_Follow the code of Egregius_) calls him do something that seems otherwise foolish, he gets the reward for accepting that challenge and living up to his code. Both the player _and_ the GM are encouraged to both point out and seek for ways for this kind of thing to happen. Even better, we don't have to define the code beforehand! The compel is an offer not a bludgeon. In the traditional parlance, the GM says "Are you sure that the code of Egregious doesn't demand that you help them?" while holding up a Fate point token to tempt the player. The player is free to either accept the point (and act accordingly)* or to buy off the GM by paying a token.* The whole character doesn't become dysfunctional simply because the GM and player disagree on what's "right" for the character to do.
> "disempowerment" - By default, in Fate, St. Egregious may not have even existed in the gameworld until the player wrote that aspect down.




Emphasis mine... so unless you go along with the GM... you are actually being punished by having a fate point taken away, right?  That seems like a bludgeon to me, especially seeing as compels, invokes, etc. are based around the use of fate points...  I'm not seeing how you aren't being punished in Fate if you don't agree with the way the GM wants you to play and then have to give up a fate point to refuse to act how  he is saying you should??  It's not as drastic a punishment as the paladin but you are still loosing resources (being punished) because you choose not to do what the GM thinks you should.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> But that isn't what I am doing. I am saying let one person determine what good and evil mean inside a fictional fantasy setting . It isn't real world good and evil, it's what Malledhyr the God of Clouds and Sunshine says is good. The point is having a source external to me or my character make these judgements, not impose a real world moral philosophy on me by the GM. This is make believe, I can imagine a world where good and evil do not match my own personal views.
> 
> I am with you, not interested in the GM being there to moralize me on religion or ethics. That isn't what this is about.




Have to spread some XP around first... but yeah, this.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> But that isn't what I am doing. I am saying let one person determine what good and evil mean inside a fictional fantasy setting . It isn't real world good and evil, it's what Malledhyr the God of Clouds and Sunshine says is good. The point is having a source external to me or my character make these judgements, not impose a real world moral philosophy on me by the GM. This is make believe, I can imagine a world where good and evil do not match my own personal views.
> 
> I am with you, not interested in the GM being there to moralize me on religion or ethics. That isn't what this is about.




But, since it is the DM who is in actuality Malledhyr then he is, in fact, moralising at you.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think a single player could be more consistent than the GM. The issue is you want one person being the judge, so it is consistent for the group, otherwise you have  (potentially) 3-6 competing views on what constitutes lawful good or chaotic evil. This is set in a world where there are cosmic moral forces who make their will known. So for me, it's important those judgments be somewhat consistent and feel like they are actually coming from outside the characters. Again, preference, but that is what I like.




They should be consistent when the group is actually compatible.  Note consistent does not mean, "always one way".  There are multiple interpretations which can be consistant and different.  What you apparently want is a "correct" answer to moral elements in your game and you are content to allow the DM to make that determination.  

To me, it's far more preferable for there to be numerous interpretations that are consistent with genre.  It's more fun for there to be some uncertainty about what consists of good or evil rather than having one person tell me, "no, that action is evil."  I'm far more interested in having more voices at the table.

Which makes N'raac's point somewhat moot.  He's trying to pass this off as a player entitlement issue - only players who want to tell the DM don't like alignment.  Sorry, but I DM almost all the time, and I don't want this.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... so unless you go along with the GM... you are actually being punished by having a fate point taken away, right?  That seems like a bludgeon to me, especially seeing as compels, invokes, etc. are based around the use of fate points...  I'm not seeing how you aren't being punished in Fate if you don't agree with the way the GM wants you to play and then have to give up a fate point to refuse to act how  he is saying you should??  It's not as drastic a punishment as the paladin but you are still loosing resources (being punished) because you choose not to do what the GM thinks you should.




As I recall, you don't actually lose the token.  You just fail to gain a new one.  Isn't that how the compels work?  It's been a while and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Which is significantly different from actually losing class abilities and whatnot.  You don't lose anything, as I recall, you just don't gain anything either.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, since it is the DM who is in actuality Malledhyr then he is, in fact, moralising at you.
> 
> 
> 
> .




No , not really. When I GM it isn't what I an doing, I am playing Malledhyr, whose notion of good might be very different than my own. And when I am a player the GMs in my groups never strike me as moralizing.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Your assessment of my players is about as reasonable as me asserting that you, yourself, must be an egomaniac who, if trusted with any power to actually adjudicate the game, will use it only in the most arbitrary fashion and override any choice the players may have to play their characters.



I take it from this that you don't have baby-throat ripping players. I know I don't. So why do you keep bringing up players who are not part of either of our play experiences? What does thinking about them add to my understanding of how my game does, and might, work?



N'raac said:


> I am not the one arguing that each player may independently decide whether their character's actions are, in fact, Good or Evil.



Nor am I. I am arguing that the game does not require any such judgement to be imposed in order to progress, and in fact can better progress if no such judgement is imposed as part of the action resolution mechanics.



N'raac said:


> On the contrary, given your obvious concern with playes who play torturers and murderers, I can only assume that you have many players who lie about their character's personalities and moral inclinations!



Huh? I have no such concern. I only discuss the issue because you, and some other posters, keep raising it. Do you really need me to point you to your earlier posts upthread, where you posited such examples as the paladin of the Raven Queen who rips out the throat of a child, or the paladin (of some unspecified god) who tortures a peasant to gain information?



N'raac said:


> I present the extreme example of the players being able to set their own moral choices with no adjudication.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I thought appropriate actions were not obvious, so the player must be allowed to apply whatever moral judgement he sees fit, and this moral judgment would become that of the code he follows, be that the Raven Queen or the Demon King.



There are multiple issues here.

First, absolutely the players in my game are allowed to make whatever moral judgements they see fit. This is both true in general terms - I honour freedom of conscience in my games, and don't try to force my players to subscribe to any particular moral conception - and also in the sense of evaluative response: just as, when I see a movie with my friends, we might disagree over what evaluations, if any, should be applied to the characters and the events within the film, so the same is true when playing D&D.

Second, if a player wanted to play a PC who was a wanton murderer, what makes you think that player would choose to worship the Raven Queen (or Bane, or Pelor), rather than (say) Gruumsh or Orcus or Demogorgon? The Raven Queen is a god of death, of fate, of winter. Not a god of murder. There are other beings in the 4e cosmology who fill that role.

You seem to me to be assuming, but without real explanation that I can see, that somehow a player will get an advantage if s/he presents his/her PC as a worshipper of Pelor, but plays his/her PC as a murderer. I can conceive of games where this might be so, but mine is not one of them. I would be interested in seeing you address this issue head on.



N'raac said:


> So is Asmodeus maybe Good in your game?  Can I have my Paladin be a devoted servant of the High Moral Path of Asmodeus? Or has someone made the judgment call in advance that the Raven Queen is Good and Asmodeus is Evil?  if so, how can we tell, when any action taken by the PC's may be Good or Evil, based on the moral code that only they may define?



I don't really follow this. In 4e the Raven Queen is unaligned (and would be neutral in 3E alignment I think), as are the 3 PCs who follow her. One of those PCs is also, somewhat reluctantly, is allied with the archdevil Levistus and the war god Bane, both of whom are labelled as Evil in the 4e rulebooks (and would be LE in 3E alignment).

Of these three, only one is a paladin in both the technical sense of class choice, and in the archetypical sense of playing a warrior called by the divine who conceives of his whole life in terms of honouring the Raven Queen through his conduct (from such minor things as sleeping standing up - only when he is dead will he lie on his back - to such major things as leading the party against Torog's Soul Abattoir, where the souls of those who die in the Underdark are subjected by Torog to brutal torture). I think a paladin of Asmodeus or perhaps Bane could make sense - these are entities whom a divine warrior might honour through his/her conduct. Vecna or Torog I can't really see, but I can't say I've devoted that much mental energy to it.

The other two PCs are a ranger-cleric, who serves the Raven Queen by hunting down the undead and demons to whom she is opposed; and an invoker/wizard, who serves the Raven Queen together with a suite of other entities (besides Bane and Levistus already mentioned there are also Ioun and Vecna - both gods of knowledge - and Erathis, a god of order (both earthly order and divine order) and at least sometimes Pelor). Neither of these PCs sets out to honour the gods they serve through their conduct in the way that the paladin does. And the invoker often finds himself in tricky situations, where making choices is hard.



N'raac said:


> If all three are telling me "And this is the One True Way under the Code of the Raven Queen, who grants my Holy Powers", it hurts any semblance that the Raven Queen is granting power to her followers based on any actual moral precepts.



Whereas I have no trouble with this at all.

In the First World War, there were Christian clergy both in France and in Germany telling soldiers of each country that God was on their side. Presumably not all of those clerics were correct, although this is perhaps not self-evidently true (eg maybe military service to one's country is a very important value in the eyes of the divinity). Yet they continued to serve as clergy.

There are any number of reasons why the Raven Queen, like any other divine being, might tolerate error and disagreement among her servants yet not strip them of their powers. After all, it is notorious that such beings move in mysterious ways.

And turning this from in-fiction to play-at-the-table, the main aim of play in my game is not for the players to discover what I, as GM, regard as the true moral code of the Raven Queen. It is to play their PCs and find out what happens when the stakes get high. Why would I want to shut down such play by intervening on the basis of some stipulated solution to a moral question?



N'raac said:


> So what happens to the character whose powers are granted due to his devotion and service to the Raven Queen, when he is determined, after many game sessions, to have opposed her wishes routinely throughout his adventuring career?



To me, this is like asking what happens when you think the other character your PC is adventuring with is a reasonable guy, and then he suddenly executes half-a-dozen unconscious prisoners without warning. I don't think the game needs an algorithm for this - it's precisely the point of playing the game to make these sorts of decisions.

The particular issue with the Raven Queen has never come up, so I don't need to decide yet. If it comes up, I'll deal with it then, drawing on all the resources that the context and history of play give me.

I actually don't think this issue is all that likely to come up, as it happens, but comparable issues - mostly around divine order vs chaos - are increasingly coming up in my 4e game, and I personally devote my mental energies to thinking about these actual play questions rather than hypothetical ones. A big practical factor in D&D is the centrality of party play, which creates a fairly strong pressure at the table not to do stuff, nor to respond to stuff, in such an outrageous way that party unity is no longer feasible. (You can see this in the very common response to a PC "falling" in D&D - s/he is taken out of the game and becomes an NPC.) This does not come up in one-shots in the same way, nor in systems that can better mechanically handle ongoing conflict between and disunity among the PCs.

I'm actually surprised that no one on this thread has defended alignment in these terms, because that is certainly one way I've seen it used: eliminate intra-party conflict by having the GM tell players the limits of their permissible choices for their PCs. (To do this job, GM-enforced alignment needs to be combined with a "no evil PCs" rule, but that has been very common in 2nd ed games I've seen and played in.)


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... so unless you go along with the GM... you are actually being punished by having a fate point taken away, right?  That seems like a bludgeon to me, especially seeing as compels, invokes, etc. are based around the use of fate points...  I'm not seeing how you aren't being punished in Fate if you don't agree with the way the GM wants you to play and then have to give up a fate point to refuse to act how  he is saying you should??  It's not as drastic a punishment as the paladin but you are still loosing resources (being punished) because you choose not to do what the GM thinks you should.




One big difference is that the GM (or the rules themselves) aren't pre-defining your aspects for you. So by choosing your aspects, you're choosing what kinds of conflicts or troubles you want to have. Basically, when you put down an aspect, you're signing up for it to be compelled. (Although certainly some aspects are far more compellable than others, which some players also use when constructing their characters.) In this way, the GM isn't really demanding you act according to his dictates, but pushing the character to act as the player stated it would (or sometimes, pushing for the world to react to your character the way you said it would). The nature of the aspects is always in the hands of the players. Additionally, since aspects are defined in a freeform way, your aspects can be as specific and detailed as you see fit. There can be tremendous mechanical variety to characters in Fate who might all be "paladins" under a D&D scheme.

As for the punishment angle...Fate points are more of an economy during play, rather than finite resource. You should be anticipating such things coming (and going), and Fate points don't usually get treated as a rare resource. While I suppose you are technically correct, it usually doesn't feel that way, IME. In Fate, if you find yourself running out of Fate Points, its usually a sign that the character isn't working the way you intended it, or it isn't striking the interest of the rest of the group. Additionally, you're character never stops being <whatever> merely on the whim of the GM. That is, you may have to pay a Fate point for it, and if it happens a few times you might want to reconsider the problematic aspects, but the GM can't suddenly declare that two of your aspects just don't work and your stunts are all gone.

Now, IME, declining a compel rarely happens, and when it does its usually perceived as an invitation for the GM to come up with something more interesting (although the GM can also up his offer to 2 FP). I can't say if that's a universal thing with Fate or not, but it seems common, at least.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> No , not really. When I GM it isn't what I an doing, I am playing Malledhyr, whose notion of good might be very different than my own. And when I am a player the GMs in my groups never strike me as moralizing.




Hang on though.  You claim you want an objective definition of alignment provided by the DM.  But, if every Good god defines Good differently, then how can there be an objective definition of alignment?  

How is it consistent if the definition of a given alignment changes depending on which NPC you talk to?

I thought the whole point of having a single voice determine alignment was so you could have a single, objective definition that everyone is following.  But, now you're claiming that alignment will always be relative to the NPC doing the defining.

How is that any different from having each player define alignment?  Instead of six people giving one voice each, you have one person giving six different opinions.

To put it more concretely, presuming a standard D&D pantheistic world with numerous like aligned gods, if the DM isn't giving definitive answers, then how can the players act on any information they get?  Is a given act good or not?  Well, it depends on who you ask, in the game world?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> But, since it is the DM who is in actuality Malledhyr then he is, in fact, moralising at you.



This is my feeling too, based on my general play experience.

In my experience, GMs who adjudicate good and evil aren't making up some fantasy conceptions. They're trying to apply the words in their ordinary usage. This is also borne out by Gygax's reference, in his description of "good" in his PHB and DMG, to "weal" and "human/creature rights", and (for LG) to "the greatest happiness of the greatest number".

Look at the SRD:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. 

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.​
These aren't stipulated fantasy usages. These terms are meant to hook on to genuine, widely held moral intuitions, such as that life is valuable and killing is at least morally suspect.



Hussar said:


> To me, it's far more preferable for there to be numerous interpretations that are consistent with genre.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Which makes N'raac's point somewhat moot.  He's trying to pass this off as a player entitlement issue - only players who want to tell the DM don't like alignment.  Sorry, but I DM almost all the time, and I don't want this.



I agree with all this.



Ratskinner said:


> by choosing your aspects, you're choosing what kinds of conflicts or troubles you want to have.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The nature of the aspects is always in the hands of the players. Additionally, since aspects are defined in a freeform way, your aspects can be as specific and detailed as you see fit. There can be tremendous mechanical variety to characters in Fate who might all be "paladins" under a D&D scheme.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if you find yourself running out of Fate Points, its usually a sign that the character isn't working the way you intended it



This all strikes me as pretty close to Beliefs in Burning Wheel. It's very different from the tradition of mechanical alignment in D&D.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> In my experience, GMs who adjudicate good and evil aren't making up some fantasy conceptions. They're trying to apply the words in their ordinary usage. This is also borne out by Gygax's reference, in his description of "good" in his PHB and DMG, to "weal" and "human/creature rights", and (for LG) to "the greatest happiness of the greatest number".
> 
> Look at the SRD:
> 
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.​
> These aren't stipulated fantasy usages. These terms are meant to hook on to genuine, widely held moral intuitions, such as that life is valuable and killing is at least morally suspect.




The fact that the definitions of good and evil in D&D aren't that different from typical modern uses of the term doesn't mean the DM's moralizing at the player nor that the alignments aren't being defined for fantasy use. Defining them close to typical modern uses makes them easier to understand and accept, both of which are good for helping players get into character. If I tell a player that the character he is playing is drifting from good to neutral or even evil, I'm not judging the player. I'm judging the character's long term behavior according to D&D's morality. I'll save my personal judging of the player based on other behavioral issues (such as if he's a disruptive player, an overall asshat, or a decent guy) not whether or not his PC is evil.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> I'm not judging the player. I'm judging the character's long term behavior according to D&D's morality.



I don't think anyone said you're judging the player directly. Though if the player disagrees with your evaluation of his/her PC's conduct then there might be some implicit judgement there.

What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "D&D morality". The SRD and Gygax both explicate good and evil using the ordinary vocabulary of ordinary moral usage.

Heck, Gygax doesn't even try to tell us whether morality should be understood in deontological or consequentialist terms, given that he identifies good with both of these!


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> As I recall, you don't actually lose the token.  You just fail to gain a new one.  Isn't that how the compels work?  It's been a while and I'm too lazy to look it up.
> 
> Which is significantly different from actually losing class abilities and whatnot.  You don't lose anything, as I recall, you just don't gain anything either.




No, you do loose a fate point if you want to refuse a compel... and you sort of do loose abilities (or at least the ability to use them) since it costs fate points for you to invoke your own aspects...


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> One big difference is that the GM (or the rules themselves) aren't pre-defining your aspects for you. So by choosing your aspects, you're choosing what kinds of conflicts or troubles you want to have. Basically, when you put down an aspect, you're signing up for it to be compelled. (Although certainly some aspects are far more compellable than others, which some players also use when constructing their characters.) In this way, the GM isn't really demanding you act according to his dictates, but pushing the character to act as the player stated it would (or sometimes, pushing for the world to react to your character the way you said it would). The nature of the aspects is always in the hands of the players. Additionally, since aspects are defined in a freeform way, your aspects can be as specific and detailed as you see fit. There can be tremendous mechanical variety to characters in Fate who might all be "paladins" under a D&D scheme.




But your aspects are limited by genre, who your character is, setting, etc... so to a point they are pre-defined.  You aren't going to have an aspect like "uncontrollable magic power" if your GM is running a grim and gritty game in a cyberpunk setting, because it doesn't fit the setting. You also choose your class, race, alignment, etc. in D&D and through choosing these things (since these choices are not pre-defined for your character either) you are choosing the kinds of conflict and troubles you want to have... You don't play a character class bound by moral rules if you want the freedom to act in any way you see fit... Just like you wouldn't pick an aspect like "Thrill Seeker" and spend the majority of the game scared to act.  

Also, when you choose to play a character who has powers based on alignment, you're signing up for having to abide by the GM's interpretation of that alignment (just as a DM decides in Fate whether an aspect can or cannot be invoked, compelled, etc. in a certain way...).  The DM isn't demanding you act a certain way with alignment either according to how you phrased it above... but pushing you to act the way you said you would when you picked that alignment and/or a certain character class...  

Speaking to mechanical variety as far as paladins go, especially since in D&D a paladin is a specific class and in fate it's a descriptor... that's comparing apples and oranges... I'm also not sure how much mechanical variety there is in a fate paladin since it's pretty specific as far as what aspects actually do... (+2 to a skill roll, +2 to a friend's roll, +2 to a passive source of opposition, or reroll your dice).  I'm not seeing much variety here, in fact it seems downright anemic compared with what going to level 20 in the D&D paladin class of almost any edition gives you.  



Ratskinner said:


> As for the punishment angle...Fate points are more of an economy during play, rather than finite resource. You should be anticipating such things coming (and going), and Fate points don't usually get treated as a rare resource. While I suppose you are technically correct, it usually doesn't feel that way, IME. In Fate, if you find yourself running out of Fate Points, its usually a sign that the character isn't working the way you intended it, or it isn't striking the interest of the rest of the group. Additionally, you're character never stops being <whatever> merely on the whim of the GM. That is, you may have to pay a Fate point for it, and if it happens a few times you might want to reconsider the problematic aspects, but the GM can't suddenly declare that two of your aspects just don't work and your stunts are all gone.




Can you invoke your "paladin" aspect without a fate point?  If not then sooner or later the GM will dictate what you should do if you want to retain the ability to be a paladin in Fate.  If you loose a point every time you resist a compel, and by default the most Fate points you can start out with is 3 (though if you want an extra stunt or two that drops it to 2 or 1) it seems like it's just a more obfuscated way of making it so that the GM can enforce "good play" on your part... Especially since as per Fate Core the GM is the final arbiter on invokes, compels, etc.  I don't see much of a difference between a GM controlling through alignment penalties or through resource economy when they are both basically up to the judgement of the GM.  



Ratskinner said:


> Now, IME, declining a compel rarely happens, and when it does its usually perceived as an invitation for the GM to come up with something more interesting (although the GM can also up his offer to 2 FP). I can't say if that's a universal thing with Fate or not, but it seems common, at least.




So basically most of the time the player is going along with how the GM feels they should be playing their character and gets rewarded for it (Yet for some reason they chafe when expected to do the same thing in D&D???)...  I understand because I wouldn't want to run out of Fate points either and not be able to use my paladin aspect... the same way I wouldn't want to fall in D&D and loose my paladin's powers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Hang on though.  You claim you want an objective definition of alignment provided by the DM.  But, if every Good god defines Good differently, then how can there be an objective definition of alignment?




i never said they had different definitions good. There is going to be differences of personality and temperment, though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> How is it consistent if the definition of a given alignment changes depending on which NPC you talk to?




Most PCs and NPCs will have different views on good and evil, because they have limited perspective. They are going to hve to rely on things like the actions of the gods to help them determine what is good and what is evil. So for normal characters, there will still be that subjective variety. It is just the settiny theh inhabit is one where there are objective moral forces in the world, and these forces interact directly with people. 



> I thought the whole point of having a single voice determine alignment was so you could have a single, objective definition that everyone is following.  But, now you're claiming that alignment will always be relative to the NPC doing the defining.




no, that isnt the point. The point is to have the arbiters of morality in the setting adhere to consistent understandings of the various alignments. The characters still have a limited view of the world, and have to make their own judgements. But when their actions are judged it is by this objective standard (so the GM decides when and how alignments change, when clerics or paladins fall short, etc).



> To put it more concretely, presuming a standard D&D pantheistic world with numerous like aligned gods, if the DM isn't giving definitive answers, then how can the players act on any information they get?  Is a given act good or not?  Well, it depends on who you ask, in the game world?




there is going to be a certain amount of uncertainty here, but it isnt going to be as much as you encounter in the real wolrd. When maladhyr is pissed, he'll let you know. His priesthood, through trial and error probably has a pretty solid code at this point and knows what is kosher and what isnt. And the GM isnt trying to screw players here, that isnt the purpose either, so the player can ask "based on what i know would maladhyr be cool with this?" And the GM can give him a helpful response. 

This is how i have played D&D for years and it absolutely works. The only time i ever see this approach run into issues is when people take the alignment issue too personallly. But no one i game with presently does that. And none of the GMs i game with use alignment to trick or surprise players. Different GMs in the group handle the line of communication differently, but in all cases, it adds to our experience.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "D&D morality". The SRD and Gygax both explicate good and evil using the ordinary vocabulary of ordinary moral usage.
> 
> Heck, Gygax doesn't even try to tell us whether morality should be understood in deontological or consequentialist terms, given that he identifies good with both of these!




D&D alignment wasn't written for philosophy students though, it is meant for everyday people who really dont worry about that sort of distinction. I minored in philosophy and took a special interest in ethics and theology, but with something like D&D i turn that switch off and follow the GMs lead, and it hasn't been a problem for me. It just isn't a system where this sort of reasoning will be fruitful. When in make my own settings outside of D&D, where alignment isnt part of the cosmology (or at the very least where cosmology is not the same) then i find it easier to apply some if these concepts because i am building these aspects of the setting. So i do appreciate what you are after here, i just dont see D&D as thically striving for that. 

In a somewhat related example, i was in a campaign where the GM was describing the temple and rites of a particular god, and it felt like a watered down Congresgationalist service. To me, that isnt how a polytheistic religion is likely to operate, where you have gods in charge of specific things. But that is because i knew more about those kinds of religions than the gm. I just turn that off, and accept the reality of what the GM presents. It is like watching a historical film. I could get hung up on each anachronism that emerges, or just sit back and enjoy the movie.

But i do appreciate where you are coming from, even though i imagine we'd still differ a bit on apppropriate implementation (if only because you seem ti be interested mainly in the narrative elements and i am interested mainly in inhabiting the setting from character point of view). Infvy current setting for our Network system, i tried to strike a balance and created two tiers for the cosmology. There is a distant creator deity, almost a demiurge type force called aetia, who doesn't interact directly with the world much but is a sort if objective standard if morality, but aetia created the immanent gods who in turn made the races and shaped the earth. These gods are less perfect than aetia, somewhat petty, but interact regularly with the world. So th morality ofthe setting ends up being quite gray. Unless aetia directly communes with someone, which virtually never happens, then the players are free to characterize good and evil as they wish. They still have to contend with these petty gods, but that is less about morality and more about anticipating the will of deeply flawed entities (still, the gm does play the gods, so there is a consistent source for their decisions).


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> D&D alignment wasn't written for philosophy students though, it is meant for everyday people who really dont worry about that sort of distinction.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It just isn't a system where this sort of reasoning will be fruitful.



Well of course it won't if you are using mechanical alignment! That's just one reason why I don't use it.

And it's not like I'm in some obscure minority. Alignment has been a contentious part of the game for 30-odd years (at least), and it's not like I'm Robinson Crusoe in this thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And it's not like I'm in some obscure minority. Alignment has been a contentious part of the game for 30-odd years (at least), and it's not like I'm Robinson Crusoe in this thread.




I am not suggesting you are. I tend to speak in these terms in debates over alignment myself, but i think you will agree most players gripes with alignment dont usually stem from worry about the distinction between consequentialism and deontology. I can usually see all but one of my fellow player's eyes glaze over when i start talking this way. I am not saying the distinction is unimportant or uninteresting (heck it is why i enjoyed gone baby gone). I just think it isnt the kind of reasoning that goes into something like D&D. It would be like taking high level principles of physics and useing that to evaluate D&D's falling damage. 

I edited my original post to elaborate on this point a bit more.


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> This all strikes me as pretty close to Beliefs in Burning Wheel. It's very different from the tradition of mechanical alignment in D&D.




In some ways, it is. You may recall that I considered BW and Fate to be similar when viewed in extremely broad strokes. In this case, one big difference is that you don't really have to frame your aspects in any deep moral or ethical way. You could, for instance, have an aspect _Why does it always have to be snakes?_ which isn't really going to put any big questions on the table.


----------



## Desdichado

Ratskinner said:


> My first response is..."compared to just ignoring them". That is, IME (and I seem hardly alone in this, given the thread), alignments tend to actually _detract_ from the gaming experience, and the more they are focused upon, the worse it gets.



I thought the Allegiances from _d20 Modern_ were a pretty decent substitute for alignment.  But yeah; my preferred method is to replace it with absolutely nothing.  The whole idea is, for me and my playstyle, at least, a flawed concept from the get-go.  There really isn't a comparable subsystem that I'd rather see; I'd rather see the concept just ignored completely.

That said, it's not hard to find alternatives to alignment that I'd prefer, if for some reason I _had_ to have one.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hobo said:


> I thought the Allegiances from _d20 Modern_ were a pretty decent substitute for alignment.  But yeah; my preferred method is to replace it with absolutely nothing.  The whole idea is, for me and my playstyle, at least, a flawed concept from the get-go.  There really isn't a comparable subsystem that I'd rather see; I'd rather see the concept just ignored completely.
> 
> That said, it's not hard to find alternatives to alignment that I'd prefer, if for some reason I _had_ to have one.




what are your thoughs on things like reputation and honor. Where you don't necessarily have these cosmic forces of good-evil-law-chaos but you might have social forces where your name has standing in the wider community of adventurers or among the people of the world, and it stems from your behavior over time? Just curious because you mentioned allegiances.


----------



## Desdichado

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure, but you seem to be asserting that in D&D's alignment system evil can be good. Or something like that. I'm not 100% sure, but it's not changing my mind about the coherence or utility of the alignment system.



I think he's asserting, whether he means to or not this is how it looks to me, anyway--that _without_ alignment, all is chaos and nobody can tell good from evil, and there is no difference between them.

Since this is directly contrary to our real life experience in the real world, that seems to be a strange assertion.  But if that's not what he means, then I have no idea what else he's trying to get at.


----------



## Desdichado

Bedrockgames said:


> what are your thoughs on things like reputation and honor. Where you don't necessarily have these cosmic forces of good-evil-law-chaos but you might have social forces where your name has standing in the wider community of adventurers or among the people of the world, and it stems from your behavior over time? Just curious because you mentioned allegiances.



I prefer them to alignment.  I'm still most likely to ignore them at my table even so, however.

Again; I'm not saying that I really _like_ Allegiances.  Just that I like them better than alignment.  I think that they are more cut and dried and less likely to lead to conflicts of interpretation between opinionated gamers, therefore they're preferable to alignment.  But my preference is still to not have any of those subsystems at all.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> This is wrong for two reasons, one meta-ethical and the other to do with RPG design and play.
> 
> (1) In the real world of English speaking moral philosophy, the most common meta-ethical view is that there is "cosmological" good and evil.




In the real world, the cosmological forces of Good and Evil are not represented by entities which regularly interfere in our mortal world, granting powers to their followers and seeking to advance their agendas.  Hence, again, the real world is a poor example.

I do not consider D&D alignments to be commentary on real world morals and ethics.  In the real world, if my Paladin chooses to arm and armor himself and go to war with the Forces of Evil, I doubt he will be perceived as a great hero.  “Criminal vigilante“ or “insane and dangerous to himself and others” seem the most likely perceptions.  So might we please, I ask again, lave the real world behind for our fantasy games?

If my games tended to devolve into Philosophy 101 whenever alignment issues arose, I suspect I would be arguing against it as well, but my players and GM’s (and. I think, most gamers) are capable of differentiating the real world and the fantasy world, so it has never become an issue.  BTW, in stating I am "wrong for two reasons", are you not casting judgment on me?  OK in real life, but not in game?  [To be clear, I am not offended by your statement in any way - it's part of a good discussion.]

In the fantasy world, for Good and Evil to be objective forces, they must in some way be defined.



pemerton said:


> (2) Something can be objective within the fiction of an RPG, and yet not be predetermined at the table. This can be easily seen by considering examples from other fictional works: for instance, within the fiction of Star Wars it is objective whether their were an odd or even number of dials on all the control panels of the Millenium Falcon, but as far as I know no one actually knows the answer to that, because there is no definitive presentation of all of the Falcon's control panels within any narrated episode that is part of the fiction.




Neither has it ever been relevant within the fiction.  If we have a character who derives his powers from adherence to his moral philosophy, and those powers are granted by an outside force or person in recognition of his adherence, then that philosophy becomes quite relevant and needs definition.

Your choice of Star Wars is an interesting one, as the Dark Side and Light Side of the Force are very much akin to D&D Alignment, and we have a lot more info on them than on the number of dials on the Falcon’s dash.  



			
				Yoda said:
			
		

> But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.”






			
				Palpatine said:
			
		

> Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!






pemerton said:


> Now when we are playing an RPG, and some piece of fiction isn't known and needs to be decided, there are various techniques for working that out. One tried and true technique is to employ the action resolution mechanics. Suppose a group of epic PCs, all servants of the Raven Queen, confront their mistress and proceed to debate some point of morality with her. From the fact that, as a matter of play, her views are determined in part by the way the dice fall, it doesn't follow that her views were not predetermined within the fiction. Any more than, from the fact that we learn how many orcs are in the patrol by rolling dice on a wandering monster table, it follows that within the fiction they were "Schroedinger's orcs."




Another tried and true technique is GM design of the setting.  Rather than roll randomly for how many Orcs are in the patrol, this is set by the desired level of challenge to the PC’s.  In fact, even to  make that random roll, it must have parameters – is it 1-4 Orcs, 2-12 orcs or 6-48 Orcs?  Who decided that range?  Either the game rules (as they also define the major precepts of alignments) or the GM (who interprets those precepts, and assesses how they are interpreted by those NPC’s, from street urchin to deity and all in between, for whom it is relevant).



Hussar said:


> But, since it is the DM who is in actuality Malledhyr then he is, in fact, moralising at you.




GM’s get to play a lot of vile, evil despots.  Perhaps your view that the GM is actually the character he plays explains something of your views on the GM attitude.  

I am not my character.  Neither is the GM any one of the myriad of characters he may voice.  “My character” can readily espouse views that I myself do not hold, or even violently disagree with.  If I am role playing multiple characters, a common requirement of a GM, I could be role playing an argument with myself quite readily.

The GM is not Malledhyr.  The GM takes on the role of Malledhyr and assesses, within Malledhyr’s views and perceptions, the judgment call Malledhyr would make.



Hussar said:


> To me, it's far more preferable for there to be numerous interpretations that are consistent with genre. It's more fun for there to be some uncertainty about what consists of good or evil rather than having one person tell me, "no, that action is evil." I'm far more interested in having more voices at the table.




I agree that not every action can be simply classified as “good” or “evil”.  Perhaps more accurately, the precepts of Good or Evil may sometimes require compromise, as they come into conflict with one another, even before we consider possible conflict between aspects of alignment (eg. Law vs Good).  

As an example, is Protection of the Innocent more or less important than Respect for Life?  This will determine certain choices, and how much more or less important will further influence them.  Abandoning one or the other is abandoning a core precept of Good, but a situation where the PC may either kill a foe or allow that foe to kill others forces a choice.

If that PC is a Paladin, following a martial deity, I expect his choice to be obvious.  If he is instead a non-martial character who follows a pacifist deity, his choice is also obvious.  This also seems a pretty easy choice from where I sit, at least in an adventure game.  What if I change the facts ever so slightly – the threat to those innocents is not a foe, but an innocent pawn, mentally dominated by the true foe.  Now the choice is more difficult.

The character has no easy, obvious choice.  Whatever choice he makes compromises a precept of Good.  To me, this means either choice must be accepted as consistent with the ideals of Good.  If, however, the character has an easy means of ensuring that the innocents are not harmed without using lethal force on the mentally dominated attacker, the choice becomes much easier for the character, and he can Respect Life and Protect the Innocent.  If, instead, the foe is a slavering, evil demon-beast, one could much easier argue that sparing it to possibly kill another day is a non-good act.



pemerton said:


> I take it from this that you don't have baby-throat ripping players. I know I don't. So why do you keep bringing up players who are not part of either of our play experiences? What does thinking about them add to my understanding of how my game does, and might, work?




Why do you keep bringing up GM’s who will dogmatically use alignment as restricting each character to a single choice at every turn, bludgeoning them if they fail to run their characters precisely as he dictates?  Do you play with a lot of such GM’s?  I am sure terrible GM’s and awful players are both out there.  Neither is the norm.  Both are extreme examples of alignment-related issues.  



pemerton said:


> Nor am I. I am arguing that the game does not require any such judgement to be imposed in order to progress, and in fact can better progress if no such judgement is imposed as part of the action resolution mechanics.




I do not consider the determination of an NPC’s views on moral issues should always turn on a die roll.  Should a player be able to decide that the Raven Queen [note:  I am not a 4e player, so I am, not familiar with the entity – substitute a Good deity of peaceful repose if that better suits the scenario] will be OK with him animating a horde of undead to turn back the Orcish hordes?  Should he be able to decide that, since the Raven Queen is a goddess of death, killing all within his path is devoted service?  Should the PC’s skill at religion allow him to roll the dice with a solid chance that his interpretation becomes canon within the game?



pemerton said:


> Huh? I have no such concern.




Apologies – I cut your quote off too early so your words were passed off as mine.  I’ve fixed the quotes now.



pemerton said:


> Second, if a player wanted to play a PC who was a wanton murderer, what makes you think that player would choose to worship the Raven Queen…
> 
> The Raven Queen is a god of death, of fate, of winter.




A Neutral death goddess?  Why not?  Perhaps my character believes, with all his heart, that sending his victims to the Goddess of Death is their rightful fate in her eyes.  With more background on the Winter aspect, I can probably tie that in with their sacrifices either staving off or accelerating and lengthening the winter in accordance with My Lady, the Raven Queen’s wishes.

Since the morality of my PC is not yours to command, and as my choice of the Raven Queen as patron makes her my resource or a shared resource.

You have still not directly answered the question of how much control devolves to the player versus the GM, by the way.  Instead, you continue to evade the question asking instead why a player might make this choice.  It seems you hold a preconceived notion that no reasonable player could ever make such a choice, contrary to your stated assertion that we should have no preconceived notions, but let matters develop in the fiction through play.



pemerton said:


> rather than (say) Gruumsh or Orcus or Demogorgon? The Raven Queen is a god of death, of fate, of winter. Not a god of murder. There are other beings in the 4e cosmology who fill that role.




So, is this the response I, as a player, would receive from you, the GM, when I presented my character with the brief morality/code sketch outlined above, or would I be allowed to play MY character as I envision him, and let the truth of his views within the fiction evolve through play?  I will, of course, max out whatever skill I use in action resolution to support his views.



pemerton said:


> In the First World War, there were Christian clergy both in France and in Germany telling soldiers of each country that God was on their side. Presumably not all of those clerics were correct, although this is perhaps not self-evidently true (eg maybe military service to one's country is a very important value in the eyes of the divinity). Yet they continued to serve as clergy.




Once again, we are back to real world, rather than fantasy world, examples.  In the real world, these WW I clergy have, I expect, passed to their final reward, and will know the truth of their beliefs, if any.  I have no wish to discuss whether they are simply dead and gone, with their Lord, banished to the fiery pits of Hell, reincarnated as some other form of life or any of the myriad interpretations possible under various philosophies of what happens after we die.

I can state, however, that they did not, during their lives, manifest gifts from the divine such as causing earthquakes or shielding their followers from harm, which gifts would indicate their Deity supported their views.  Deities and moral philosophies are much more active in most fantasy worlds.



pemerton said:


> And turning this from in-fiction to play-at-the-table, the main aim of play in my game is not for the players to discover what I, as GM, regard as the true moral code of the Raven Queen. It is to play their PCs and find out what happens when the stakes get high. Why would I want to shut down such play by intervening on the basis of some stipulated solution to a moral question?




Yet above you suggested my character’s code better fit some other being than the Raven Queen.  Why would you suggest that, rather than look forward to our PC’s and you finding out what happens when the stakes get high?



pemerton said:


> I actually don't think this issue is all that likely to come up, as it happens, but comparable issues - mostly around divine order vs chaos - are increasingly coming up in my 4e game, and I personally devote my mental energies to thinking about these actual play questions rather than hypothetical ones. A big practical factor in D&D is the centrality of party play, which creates a fairly strong pressure at the table not to do stuff, nor to respond to stuff, in such an outrageous way that party unity is no longer feasible. (You can see this in the very common response to a PC "falling" in D&D - s/he is taken out of the game and becomes an NPC.) This does not come up in one-shots in the same way, nor in systems that can better mechanically handle ongoing conflict between and disunity among the PCs.
> 
> I'm actually surprised that no one on this thread has defended alignment in these terms, because that is certainly one way I've seen it used: eliminate intra-party conflict by having the GM tell players the limits of their permissible choices for their PCs. (To do this job, GM-enforced alignment needs to be combined with a "no evil PCs" rule, but that has been very common in 2nd ed games I've seen and played in.)




While common and easily supportable, for the reasons you outline, the same can be achieved without alignments, for example stipulating the characters will be hard-bitten mercenaries, or altruistic boy scouts, or must all be loyal to the State of Risur, as demonstrated under magical examination.  In Hero, many Supers campaigns require common codes of conduct, such as Code of the Hero, or Reluctant to Kill, achieving similar effects without the need for alignment.  Fate Aspects could be mandated to be similar as well, I expect, and some games just assume commonalities (eg. all characters will be Superheroes, not Villains; the characters will oppose the Great Old Ones,  not worship or attempt to use their powers for their own gains).

I agree, however, that alignment can serve the same purpose, and these other approaches can add other benefits to the game, similar or different.  As well, many result in similar arguments over whether the character is following his stated codes, or is in violation of them. 



Hussar said:


> Hang on though. You claim you want an objective definition of alignment provided by the DM. But, if every Good god defines Good differently, then how can there be an objective definition of alignment.






Hussar said:


> To put it more concretely, presuming a standard D&D pantheistic world with numerous like aligned gods, if the DM isn't giving definitive answers, then how can the players act on any information they get? Is a given act good or not? Well, it depends on who you ask, in the game world?




As noted above, within the broad guidelines are more narrow issues which create decision points not cleanly decided by G/N/E or L/N/C.  Anyone who interprets alignment as “there are only nine viewpoints and personalities and all decisions can be dictated by which one you choose” has, in my opinion, missed the boat.

Both Thor and Aphrodite have been defined as CG.  I would expect their followers to have very different problem solving techniques and perspectives on the world.  However, both would value freedom and protection of the innocent, and neither would think it appropriate that their followers rip out the throats of babies to show their devotion to their religion.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... so unless you go along with the GM... you are actually being punished by having a fate point taken away, right? That seems like a bludgeon to me, especially seeing as compels, invokes, etc. are based around the use of fate points... I'm not seeing how you aren't being punished in Fate if you don't agree with the way the GM wants you to play and then have to give up a fate point to refuse to act how he is saying you should?? It's not as drastic a punishment as the paladin but you are still loosing resources (being punished) because you choose not to do what the GM thinks you should.




Once again, seems like a matter of degree rather than an absolute “GM interpretation of PC morality should never have a mechanical effect (or at least a mechanical downside).



Ratskinner said:


> One big difference is that the GM (or the rules themselves) aren't pre-defining your aspects for you. So by choosing your aspects, you're choosing what kinds of conflicts or troubles you want to have. Basically, when you put down an aspect, you're signing up for it to be compelled. (Although certainly some aspects are far more compellable than others, which some players also use when constructing their characters.) In this way, the GM isn't really demanding you act according to his dictates, but pushing the character to act as the player stated it would (or sometimes, pushing for the world to react to your character the way you said it would). The nature of the aspects is always in the hands of the players. Additionally, since aspects are defined in a freeform way, your aspects can be as specific and detailed as you see fit. There can be tremendous mechanical variety to characters in Fate who might all be "paladins" under a D&D scheme.




In practical terms, can I just chose no aspects if I do not want my character to be encumbered by these rules?  It seems I cannot.  Is a difference of opinion over what an aspect means impossible, or even unlikely?  I suspect it occurs, but I have no experience with the system.



Ratskinner said:


> Now, IME, declining a compel rarely happens, and when it does its usually perceived as an invitation for the GM to come up with something more interesting (although the GM can also up his offer to 2 FP). I can't say if that's a universal thing with Fate or not, but it seems common, at least.




IME, it is rare for players to reject their chosen alignment, especially without having made the conscious decision that the character is changing alignment.  How easy is it to change aspects in Fate (again, I have no experience with the system)?



Imaro said:


> No, you do loose a fate point if you want to refuse a compel... and you sort of do loose abilities (or at least the ability to use them) since it costs fate points for you to invoke your own aspects...




Sounds like GM judgment of my play, whether consistent or inconsistent with my stated moral philosophy, results in access to, or denial of, my character abilities.



Imaro said:


> Also, when you choose to play a character who has powers based on alignment, you're signing up for having to abide by the GM's interpretation of that alignment (just as a DM decides in Fate whether an aspect can or cannot be invoked, compelled, etc. in a certain way...). The DM isn't demanding you act a certain way with alignment either according to how you phrased it above... but pushing you to act the way you said you would when you picked that alignment and/or a certain character class...




It seems like I can choose a D&D character who is not very much affected by alignment, but I get the sense an aspect-less Fate character is not viable.  In that sense, my mechanics are even more linked to the GM’s assessment of my play within the parameters I set out.



Imaro said:


> Can you invoke your "paladin" aspect without a fate point? If not then sooner or later the GM will dictate what you should do if you want to retain the ability to be a paladin in Fate. If you loose a point every time you resist a compel, and by default the most Fate points you can start out with is 3 (though if you want an extra stunt or two that drops it to 2 or 1) it seems like it's just a more obfuscated way of making it so that the GM can enforce "good play" on your part... Especially since as per Fate Core the GM is the final arbiter on invokes, compels, etc. I don't see much of a difference between a GM controlling through alignment penalties or through resource economy when they are both basically up to the judgement of the GM.




This seems to open up the question to “should there be any mechanic to guide PC behaviour?”  Hero has psychological disadvantages/complications, Fate has aspects, etc.  Certainly, some games lack these entirely, and I believe that is the model [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] supports.



Imaro said:


> So basically most of the time the player is going along with how the GM feels they should be playing their character and gets rewarded for it (Yet for some reason they chafe when expected to do the same thing in D&D???)... I understand because I wouldn't want to run out of Fate points either and not be able to use my paladin aspect... the same way I wouldn't want to fall in D&D and loose my paladin's powers.




It’s interesting that wrapping the same mechanical issues in different terminology results in a completely different view from at least some players, but that seems to be the reality.


----------



## N'raac

Hobo said:


> I think he's asserting, whether he means to or not this is how it looks to me, anyway--that _without_ alignment, all is chaos and nobody can tell good from evil, and there is no difference between them.




Not necessarily without alignments, but under the [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] model that the player is the sole arbiter of morality for his character, and that all determinations of "objective" morality and/or the moral code of all entities other than player characters are determined through play, never through preconceived notions.  However, as indicated above, it doesn't seem that this espoused preference is actually implemented as strictly as it is described.


----------



## Manbearcat

It seems it keeps coming to pass that alignment's primary function is to inhibit bad faith play, especially at the edges, that sows dysfunction at the table (balance, genre trope destabilization).  I'd like to turn things around a bit if I could and establish a few concrete things and then pose the question.  Let us assume all of the following:

*Fact 1* -  The players at the table all have a specified thematic premise and conceptualization of their characters in mind and are intent on pursuing this path wherever it leads, come hell or high-water.  Any Pawn Stance, gamist interest is utterly subordinate to this interest.  For instance:  Paladins aren't skulking around slitting throats or strategically retreating (due to resource ablation, et al)  in the face of thematic adversity while innocents or their allies are in peril.  They're pushing forward, leading from the front, and relentlessly extolling the virtues of their oaths.
*
Fact 2* - The classes are all reasonably balanced, level for level, and are not reliant on external balancing measures (eg code enforcement by GM).

*Fact 3* - The GM has a considerable amount of mental overhead on his/her plate, up to and including:

a)  Internalizing the PCs cues (build, backstory, emergent decisions in play) of the content they're interested in engaging with and consistently heeding those cues when framing them into challenges/conflicts/situations.

b)  Working in real time to assimilate multiple, sometimes disparate in minor but important ways, PCs' thematic content embedded into their characters such that they all have at least some stake in most, if not all, of the conflicts the PCs are framed into.

c)  Reacting in real time to player decisions and responding with thematically-coherent/compelling, genre-relevant, dynamic pushback.  These can be outcomes such as successes, rewards, failures, or complications.

d)  Providing the requisite color and texture (NPCs and setting backdrop) that the group expects (this may be significant or a simple nod).

e)  Maintenance of coherency of an emergent story, evolved each week by player/group actions and decisions.  This includes thinking off-screen.

f)  As to the above, ensuring that your off-screen considerations are telegraphed or foreshadowed enough (or even outright revealed with ominous vignettes portrayed in front of the players) such that the reveal isn't jarring, incoherent or potentially seen as bad form gotchas.  They should be compelling complications in which the PCs are provided agency over.

g)  Performing the heavy load of relevant, in-play clerical and administrative work inherent to GMing.

h)  Having to think about multiple combat units (including relevant battlefield features) and how best they can be leveraged/force-multiplied to compose exciting, climactic combat.

i)  Possessing robust knowledge of the system to properly adjudicate corner cases and stunts.

j)  Making sure the pacing consistently conforms with your group's expectations.

k)  Spending extra-session reflection and clerical overhead on compliance (yours with respect to PC expectations) and considerations of upcoming progression (Quests, Treasure Parcels, Alternate Advancement Awards, character advancement, potential conflicts for upcoming sessions).


There are other individual GM principles, but those are the big ones.

Assuming 1-2 and the already considerable overhead (mental, clerical, administrative) inherent to 3 are indeed indisputable facts for a given group, of what *use *is standard D&D alignment?


----------



## Umbran

Manbearcat said:


> Assuming 1-2 and the already considerable overhead (mental, clerical, administrative) inherent to 3 are indeed indisputable facts for a given group, of what *use *is standard D&D alignment?




You know, I said some stuff something like 20 pages back in the thread, but folks who are big on tearing down the system seem to have either ignored it or refuted it to their satisfaction.  I don't see much point in repeating myself.


----------



## Ratskinner

[/QUOTE]







Imaro said:


> But your aspects are limited by genre, who your character is, setting, etc... so to a point they are pre-defined.  You aren't going to have an aspect like "uncontrollable magic power" if your GM is running a grim and gritty game in a cyberpunk setting, because it doesn't fit the setting.




First, those sorts of things (genre) are usually decided before you're writing aspects. Second, strictly speaking, they don't have to be. A Fate GM comes (or can come) to the table with a lot less control over the specifics of the setting than a D&D GM. Many Fate GMs come to the game with no prep whatsoever, allowing play to define the world. 



Imaro said:


> You also choose your class, race, alignment, etc. in D&D and through choosing these things (since these choices are not pre-defined for your character either) you are choosing the kinds of conflict and troubles you want to have... You don't play a character class bound by moral rules if you want the freedom to act in any way you see fit... Just like you wouldn't pick an aspect like "Thrill Seeker" and spend the majority of the game scared to act.




To an extent, I actually agree with you here. The big problem with alignment in this regard is that it is (obviously, just look at the history of alignment threads) not very clear or specific enough what those choices actually entail. That is, you effectively aren't bound by a specific set of moral rules, you're bound by a line that the DM circumscribes for your alignment, and which you very well may not know what that is. In the editions where stepping over that line is like blowing a fuse...this becomes a trap.



Imaro said:


> Also, when you choose to play a character who has powers based on alignment, you're signing up for having to abide by the GM's interpretation of that alignment (just as a DM decides in Fate whether an aspect can or cannot be invoked, compelled, etc. in a certain way...).  The DM isn't demanding you act a certain way with alignment either according to how you phrased it above... but pushing you to act the way you said you would when you picked that alignment and/or a certain character class...




I'd make a distinction between characters who have powers based on alignment (which might include simply using spells) and characters whose powers are subject to significant disempowerment through alignment violation. That is, if a caster finds that _Know_ _Alignment_ isn't working quite like he wishes, that's hardly the same thing as the paladin or cleric suddenly discovering that he's been acting out-of-bounds and discovering that he's effectively a second or third string fighter now. More to the point, though, the DM doesn't have any mechanical means of pushing your alignment.

That is, you often hear people say "The powers of the paladin are a reward for his following the strict code." Which not only encourages the DM to be strict with the paladin player in a way that they are often not for say bards or monks, but leaves you with no mechanism to effect such a reward relationship between the paladin and his code. That is, Paladin A helped 50 orphans and Paladin B didn't do anything but kill a few orcs and take their stuff....yet they receive the same benefits. You are not empowered by your behavior, only risking disempowerment. There is no method or incentive for the DM to do anything to "push" your code, only for him to set up traps where you play "guess what the DM thinks is Lawful Good." (Some DMs, I will note, allow things like religion checks to discern this.)

This is patently _not_ the case with aspects.



Imaro said:


> Speaking to mechanical variety as far as paladins go, especially since in D&D a paladin is a specific class and in fate it's a descriptor... that's comparing apples and oranges... I'm also not sure how much mechanical variety there is in a fate paladin since it's pretty specific as far as what aspects actually do... (+2 to a skill roll, +2 to a friend's roll, +2 to a passive source of opposition, or reroll your dice).  I'm not seeing much variety here, in fact it seems downright anemic compared with what going to level 20 in the D&D paladin class of almost any edition gives you.




In systems like Fate, where mechanics are strongly tied to fictional positioning, its not the mechanical effects that matter, but when and how they can be used. In this case, you can have two "paladinic" character that are otherwise identical on the sheet, but one has _Defender of the innocent_ and the other has _I am the swordarm of Pelor_ for aspects. Those aspects will not only trigger in different circumstances and be used in different ways, but through compels will push the story in different directions from the start (when the GM is looking for compels.) There is nothing about alignment mechanics in D&D that gives players a similar influence on play. 



Imaro said:


> Can you invoke your "paladin" aspect without a fate point?  If not then sooner or later the GM will dictate what you should do if you want to retain the ability to be a paladin in Fate.




Not so. Your aspects are always true. So if your sheet says "paladin" then that's true about the character. The GM cannot change that (directly anyway). You may not be able to invoke it right now, and that may or may not be because of this aspect and compels, but you are still a paladin and other parts of the game and fictional positioning do not change because of a lack of Fate points. That is, if NPCs know of it, they still react as if you are a paladin; if you get different trappings for skills by being a paladin, they are still in effect; etc.



Imaro said:


> If you loose a point every time you resist a compel, and by default the most Fate points you can start out with is 3 (though if you want an extra stunt or two that drops it to 2 or 1) it seems like it's just a more obfuscated way of making it so that the GM can enforce "good play" on your part... Especially since as per Fate Core the GM is the final arbiter on invokes, compels, etc.  I don't see much of a difference between a GM controlling through alignment penalties or through resource economy when they are both basically up to the judgement of the GM.




Except that you, the player, get to define what it means for you when you write the aspect(s) down. They are distinctly not "up to the judgement of the GM." You don't need to leave much room for the GM to "wiggle". Now, if you want (as you suggest some players do) to have that experience, then just write "paladin" for an aspect and go, presumably the GM will be aware of what you mean by that and later give you that. However, if you really want to play a saintly character...writing _Defender of the __Innocent_ down doesn't really give as wiggle room, does it? The GM can only really compel that by setting up innocents in trouble, using it like an adventure hook. If you say you want to play a _Defender of the Innocent_ and right off the bat decline to defend innocents three times in a row...that's on you, not the GM. He's just listening to your signals...which were apparently not in sync with what you wanted. Unlike D&D, you are not suddenly de-paladinized. You have, however, severely limited your ability to impact the future story. 

I would also point out that Fate includes "modules" called extras, some of which would definitely help a group play out a "fall and redemption" story, if they wanted such a thing. However, extras can have a wide variety of impacts on play.



Imaro said:


> So basically most of the time the player is going along with how the GM feels they should be playing their character and gets rewarded for it (Yet for some reason they chafe when expected to do the same thing in D&D???)...  I understand because I wouldn't want to run out of Fate points either and not be able to use my paladin aspect... the same way I wouldn't want to fall in D&D and loose my paladin's powers.




Just to repeat, its the player not the GM who gets to decide their aspects (although you should really listen if your table mates express confusion about them.) If a player puts down _Paladin_ on their sheet, I'm immediately going to ask for more specification or what they want out of it. This is not a special case, I'd do the same for _Wizard_ or _Thief_ or _Chaotic_, one-word aspects are not very helpful. In practice, it is very much _not_ the same thing for a would-be paladin in D&D.


----------



## am181d

Manbearcat said:


> Assuming 1-2 and the already considerable overhead (mental, clerical, administrative) inherent to 3 are indeed indisputable facts for a given group, of what *use *is standard D&D alignment?




Keeping in mind the obvious point that RPGs run perfectly well without an alignment mechanic, the obvious answer to your question is: 

Spells and effects can key off of alignment. (Whether's it's Detect Evil or a sword that can only be wielded by those of chaotic alignments, etc.)


----------



## Ratskinner

N'raac said:


> In practical terms, can I just chose no aspects if I do not want my character to be encumbered by these rules?  It seems I cannot.  Is a difference of opinion over what an aspect means impossible, or even unlikely?  I suspect it occurs, but I have no experience with the system.




You can certainly choose your slate of  5 aspects such that no (or very few) moral/ethical concerns are relevant. Aspects in Fate cover much more ground than alignments do in D&D, including some parts of what D&D does with class and the like. To implement them as a replacement for alignment while preserving the rest of D&D's mechanics would be necessary, and I couldn't guess right off how that would look.



N'raac said:


> IME, it is rare for players to reject their chosen alignment, especially without having made the conscious decision that the character is changing alignment.  How easy is it to change aspects in Fate (again, I have no experience with the system)?




Changing aspects is a regular part of character development in Fate. It can happen more often under certain circumstances within the game.



N'raac said:


> Sounds like GM judgment of my play, whether consistent or inconsistent with my stated moral philosophy, results in access to, or denial of, my character abilities.




See my other response, but it doesn't end up working that way. 



N'raac said:


> It seems like I can choose a D&D character who is not very much affected by alignment, but I get the sense an aspect-less Fate character is not viable.  In that sense, my mechanics are even more linked to the GM’s assessment of my play within the parameters I set out.




As I noted above, aspect-less would be...well you'd be playing Fudge instead of Fate. However, you can certainly choose a set of aspects that generally ignore morality/ethics. Also, as I pointed out to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], you get to specify the aspects much more precisely than you do alignments. Compels are not generally "assessments" of your play, but attempts to offer hooks for further play direction based on your aspects.



N'raac said:


> It’s interesting that wrapping the same mechanical issues in different terminology results in a completely different view from at least some players, but that seems to be the reality.




I note that its hard to convey such things without actual play experience, but I hope I've done a bit (mostly in response to Imaro) to indicate how they are actually quite different.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> First, those sorts of things (genre) are usually decided before you're writing aspects. Second, strictly speaking, they don't have to be. A Fate GM comes (or can come) to the table with a lot less control over the specifics of the setting than a D&D GM. Many Fate GMs come to the game with no prep whatsoever, allowing play to define the world.




The fact that you are playing D&D (with alignment) is decided beforehand as well... And while it's possible to run Fate without any setting the multitude of games that smack a setting on it from Legends of Anglerre and Spirit of the Century to Dresden Files and the two Fate World books released for core I would'nt consider running with absolutely no setting in mind the norm or even a majority.  In fact here are some relevant quotes from the Fate Core book...

"The first step in setting up your Fate game is to decide what sort of people
the protagonists are *and what sort of world surrounds them..."*

"*Decide what the world that surrounds the protagonists is like.*
You’re probably already familiar with the idea of a setting, but in short, it’s
everything that the characters interact with, such as people, organizations
and institutions, technology, strange phenomena, and mysteries (crime,
intrigue, and cosmic or historical legend)..."

"If you’re using a setting that already exists, from a movie, novel, or other
game book, then many of these ideas are ready for you to use."

"If you’re inventing a setting, you have more work cut out for you. It’s
beyond the scope of this chapter to tell you how to make a setting; we’re
assuming you already know how to do that if that’s what you’re choosing to
do. "

Now while they do give advice about not defining everything (which I think is impossible in creating your own setting any way, it seems pretty clear from the advice in the book that the assumption is that there will be a setting...




Ratskinner said:


> To an extent, I actually agree with you here. The big problem with alignment in this regard is that it is (obviously, just look at the history of alignment threads) not very clear or specific enough what those choices actually entail. That is, you effectively aren't bound by a specific set of moral rules, you're bound by a line that the DM circumscribes for your alignment, and which you very well may not know what that is. In the editions where stepping over that line is like blowing a fuse...this becomes a trap.




Aspects aren't very clear or specific either, here are just a couple threads from Rpg.net where the breadth of aspects and/or how to adjudicate them is called into question by people trying to play Fate, and there are plenty more if you look for them...

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?393808-Fate-Breadth-of-aspects

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?672688-FATE-Aspects-Question-Opinions

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?601989-FATE-Aspects-amp-Potential-Abuse



Ratskinner said:


> I'd make a distinction between characters who have powers based on alignment (which might include simply using spells) and characters whose powers are subject to significant disempowerment through alignment violation. That is, if a caster finds that _Know_ _Alignment_ isn't working quite like he wishes, that's hardly the same thing as the paladin or cleric suddenly discovering that he's been acting out-of-bounds and discovering that he's effectively a second or third string fighter now. More to the point, though, the DM doesn't have any mechanical means of pushing your alignment.




Sure he does, items, spells, certain creatures, magical effects, etc. that are tied to alignment...  The thing is it's up to the DM how common or uncommon these mechanical pushes are (perhaps every magic item has an alignment necessary for its use, perhaps none do)... unless a player signals (by playing a character who is based upon the alignment system as part of their class) that he or she wants to be pushed by alignment as part of regular play...



Ratskinner said:


> That is, you often hear people say "The powers of the paladin are a reward for his following the strict code." Which not only encourages the DM to be strict with the paladin player in a way that they are often not for say bards or monks, but leaves you with no mechanism to effect such a reward relationship between the paladin and his code. That is, Paladin A helped 50 orphans and Paladin B didn't do anything but kill a few orcs and take their stuff....yet they receive the same benefits. You are not empowered by your behavior, only risking disempowerment. There is no method or incentive for the DM to do anything to "push" your code, only for him to set up traps where you play "guess what the DM thinks is Lawful Good." (Some DMs, I will note, allow things like religion checks to discern this.)




Experience points... I believe 2e, (though I could be wrong) has rules for ad hoc XP and I know 3.x does, holy weapons and armor, etc, so yes you do have a way of rewarding the paladin who helped 50 orphans... more xp, magical armaments, etc.



Ratskinner said:


> This is patently _not_ the case with aspects.




Yes aspects also work on a reward/punishment system, I already said this and commented on how similar to alignment they are, IMO...




Ratskinner said:


> In systems like Fate, where mechanics are strongly tied to fictional positioning, its not the mechanical effects that matter, but when and how they can be used. In this case, you can have two "paladinic" character that are otherwise identical on the sheet, but one has _Defender of the innocent_ and the other has _I am the swordarm of Pelor_ for aspects. Those aspects will not only trigger in different circumstances and be used in different ways, but through compels will push the story in different directions from the start (when the GM is looking for compels.) There is nothing about alignment mechanics in D&D that gives players a similar influence on play.




I never claimed alignment did... but since the aspect "Paladin of Pelor" is in effect my class and deity in D&D, I think a more fair comparison is does the class paladin in D&D provide me with just as much influence or more in play... I would say yes.




Ratskinner said:


> Not so. Your aspects are always true. So if your sheet says "paladin" then that's true about the character. The GM cannot change that (directly anyway). You may not be able to invoke it right now, and that may or may not be because of this aspect and compels, but you are still a paladin and other parts of the game and fictional positioning do not change because of a lack of Fate points. That is, if NPCs know of it, they still react as if you are a paladin; if you get different trappings for skills by being a paladin, they are still in effect; etc.




Yes and if a fallen paladin continues to dress and act like a paladin even though he has lost his powers... fiction wise no one would know the difference... He still can't use the mechanical abilities of a paladin, and without fate points neither can your Fate paladin... he has effectively fallen until he gets more Fate points,




Ratskinner said:


> Except that you, the player, get to define what it means for you when you write the aspect(s) down. They are distinctly not "up to the judgement of the GM." You don't need to leave much room for the GM to "wiggle". Now, if you want (as you suggest some players do) to have that experience, then just write "paladin" for an aspect and go, presumably the GM will be aware of what you mean by that and later give you that. However, if you really want to play a saintly character...writing _Defender of the __Innocent_ down doesn't really give as wiggle room, does it? The GM can only really compel that by setting up innocents in trouble, using it like an adventure hook. If you say you want to play a _Defender of the Innocent_ and right off the bat decline to defend innocents three times in a row...that's on you, not the GM. He's just listening to your signals...which were apparently not in sync with what you wanted. Unlike D&D, you are not suddenly de-paladinized. You have, however, severely limited your ability to impact the future story.




Well I would argue that you aren't de-palanized because "Defender of the Innocent" isn't an aspect that corresponds to being a D&D paladin.  Any class in D&D could characterize itself as a "Defender of the Innocent" and if you pick one without alignment underpinnings... well then you aren't beholden to any type of code except the one you set for yourself.  

As far as wiggle room goes... what entails an innocent,  someone with no sins, someone who has never committed an evil act(how do we determine if it was or wasn't an evil act??), someone who hasn't committed an evil act you are aware of, even mistakenly... or are all common people innocents?

Also defend against what exactly?  Everything?? 



Ratskinner said:


> I would also point out that Fate includes "modules" called extras, some of which would definitely help a group play out a "fall and redemption" story, if they wanted such a thing. However, extras can have a wide variety of impacts on play.




Yes, and 3.x has a ton of alternate, well... everything that would definitely help a group play out a "fall and redemption" story... or even use something other than alignment but I thought we were discussing the main rules, not add-ons




Ratskinner said:


> Just to repeat, its the player not the GM who gets to decide their aspects (although you should really listen if your table mates express confusion about them.) If a player puts down _Paladin_ on their sheet, I'm immediately going to ask for more specification or what they want out of it. This is not a special case, I'd do the same for _Wizard_ or _Thief_ or _Chaotic_, one-word aspects are not very helpful. In practice, it is very much _not_ the same thing for a would-be paladin in D&D.




Yes and some/many/most people  would do the same with alignment... Not seeing why missing clarity can be sought through discussion in one game... but for some reason not the other.


----------



## Desdichado

N'raac said:


> Not necessarily without alignments, but under the [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] model that the player is the sole arbiter of morality for his character, and that all determinations of "objective" morality and/or the moral code of all entities other than player characters are determined through play, never through preconceived notions.  However, as indicated above, it doesn't seem that this espoused preference is actually implemented as strictly as it is described.



It seems to me that there's an inherent assumption or subtext behind your model that players are assumed to be bad, and the GM needs tools with which to control them.

Where you see pemerton's model as "not strictly implemented", I see it as "about what I'd expect, assuming that you play with reasonable people."

As is frequently the case, it often seems that bad mechanics are designed to inhibit presumed people/behavior problems.  If you can make the assumption that people/behavior problems aren't likely to exist, or that if they do, mature and reasonable players can resolve tham in a mature and reasonable manner, then the mechanics are merely bad.

To hear your (and many others) description of why alignment is so necessary, and how it contributes to the gaming experience, all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "players are bad, and need to be controlled, or else their bad behavior will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn."


----------



## Imaro

Hobo said:


> It seems to me that there's an inherent assumption or subtext behind your model that players are assumed to be bad, and the GM needs tools with which to control them.




Hmmm, I would say this is no more of an inherent assumption by those who like alignment than the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation)  need tools to counteract GM control...



Hobo said:


> To hear your (and many others) description of why alignment is so necessary, and how it contributes to the gaming experience, all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "players are bad, and need to be controlled, or else their bad behavior will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn."




And in the same vein I could claim all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "GM's can't be trusted or relied upon to fairly adjudicate the cosmological forces they created for their world and need to be dis-empowered or else their unchecked creative control over the setting will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn...

Of course in reality I think the positions have much more nuance to them than either of us is presenting in these posts...


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> Assuming 1-2 and the already considerable overhead (mental, clerical, administrative) inherent to 3 are indeed indisputable facts for a given group, of what *use *is standard D&D alignment?





I'll just quote Umbran in answer to this question...



Umbran said:


> They offer the experienced player another mechanical system to interact with. It gives them worlds in which certain moral and ethical positions have actual magical power.
> 
> Other systems do fantasy without any moral structures in the rules. So, taking alignments out of D&D isn't going to give the player something they can't get elsewhere.


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, I would say this is no more of an inherent assumption by those who like alignment than the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation)  need tools to counteract GM control...



No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess.  That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good.  The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> And in the same vein I could claim all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "GM's can't be trusted or relied upon to fairly adjudicate the cosmological forces they created for their world and need to be dis-empowered or else their unchecked creative control over the setting will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn...



You could claim that, but I'd challenge you to back that up with some specifics, because I think that's completely false.  Rather, it's a question of whether or not such "cosmic forces" amount to an unreasonable amount of control in the GM's hands of what has traditionally been a bastion of player responsibility.  This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the player trusts his GM, and everything to do with the philosophical approach to the game, and the implict social contract between "this is my area of responsibility, and this is yours."  Alignment, particularly as it applies to classes like the paladin and certain clerics, straddle that line, and therefore are a constant source of conflict and disagreement.  I can barely remember a time in almost fifteen years of being a member on these forums, where there wasn't some form of alignment debate ongoing on the boards.  Right now, there's two threads featuring it on the first page of this subforum.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Of course in reality I think the positions have much more nuance to them than either of us is presenting in these posts...



No doubt.  But sometimes nuance ends up being camouflage for the big picture.


----------



## Desdichado

All that said, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], reasonable people can certainly reach a point where the discussion is not furthered and we simply agree to disagree.  My opinion is based on my experience with alignment, and my experience with many, many discussions on alignment.  The discussion in this thread has, so far, confirmed my position, at least to me.  But my experience is, ultimately, my experience and not anyone else's.  If my conclusions don't speak to your experience, then that's fine.  We don't _need_ to end up on the same page here, after all.


----------



## Imaro

Hobo said:


> No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess.  That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good.  The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.




Wrong, we've been asked why the DM is a better arbitrator for alignment than an individual player... we've given examples (some extreme) for why that is... but it wasn't the crux of why those of us who like alignment do, I think both @_*Umbran*_ and @_*Bedrockgames*_ have given the reasons (at least for me) that I enjoy a game with alignment... but then I guess those don't count for some reason.



Hobo said:


> You could claim that, but I'd challenge you to back that up with some specifics, because I think that's completely false.  Rather, it's a question of whether or not such "cosmic forces" amount to an unreasonable amount of control in the GM's hands of what has traditionally been a bastion of player responsibility.  This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the player trusts his GM, and everything to do with the philosophical approach to the game, and the implict social contract between "this is my area of responsibility, and this is yours."  Alignment, particularly as it applies to classes like the paladin and certain clerics, straddle that line, and therefore are a constant source of conflict and disagreement.  I can barely remember a time in almost fifteen years of being a member on these forums, where there wasn't some form of alignment debate ongoing on the boards.  Right now, there's two threads featuring it on the first page of this subforum.




Yet you have people telling you that they play games perfectly fine with alignment as it stands so it's not a universal problem... As to whether alignment straddles the line or not, I don't think it does, there are numerous examples where characters have to interact with GM created fiction in order to perform the duties of their class... IMO, your argument is similar to claiming the creation of weapon shops shouldn't be under DM control because without them a rogue and fighter can't fight... or where spell components can be located and retrieved from should be under the control of the wizard's player because without them he can't cast spells...  i disagree, the rules of the game are clear about who decides these things, even though they affect players... and it's the DM. 





Hobo said:


> No doubt.  But sometimes nuance ends up being camouflage for the big picture.




Ah, so are you starting from the position that those who like alignment are being dishonest about why... or that we are somehow ignorant of whyt we really enjoy it... great way to facilitate communication.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hobo said:


> No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess.  That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good.  The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.
> .




This is not at all why I like alignment. I am fine with ruthless characters and am not in the business of telling PCs they can't be evil, do questionable things or even live a life of crime (some of my best campaigns have been around the thieves guilds).


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro said:


> Wrong, we've been asked why the DM is a better arbitrator for alignment than an individual player... we've given examples (some extreme) for why that is... but it wasn't the crux of why those of us who like alignment do, I think both @_*Umbran*_ and @_*Bedrockgames*_ have given the reasons (at least for me) that I enjoy a game with alignment... but then I guess those don't count for some reason.



See, what is all this?  Of course they count.  But did you miss where I pointed out that my opinion is based on years of Alignment Wars stories?  There are other reasons why alignment can be used in the game other than to preemptive curb (or post-emptively punish) player character behavior.  Sure, I never claimed otherwise.  Celebrim did a good job of giving us a few examples of such (although pemerton gave a good counter example of how alignment isn't necessary for any of those.)

And yet, you feel somehow that those handful of examples from two or three people are going to cause my opinion, based on many years of many alignment stories from many, many gamers, to suddenly turn on a dime?

If you think so, you clearly haven't been paying attention to what I actually said, nor are you exhibiting any respect for my opinion.  The underlying implication being that the only reason I could possibly think as I do is if I simply don't know as much about alignment and the game as you do.  I certainly believe that the vast majority of gamers who use alignment use it to curb player behavior.  In fact, I believe that it's existed in the game as long as it has specifically for that reason.  And I believe that _most_--a word specifically chosen to leave wiggle room for exceptions, such as those self-professed here in this thread--gamers who like alignment like it specifically for that reason; because they don't trust other player characters to not burn the game down with excessive crazy player behavior.

I've seen that pattern repeated online (and in person) over, and over, and over again.  A handful of hypothetical counter examples from three or four pro-alignment posters is hardly going to change that.  And frankly, the subtext of much of this thread has, in my opinion, supported my position anyway.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Yet you have people telling you that they play games perfectly fine with alignment as it stands so it's not a universal problem... As to whether alignment straddles the line or not, I don't think it does, there are numerous examples where characters have to interact with GM created fiction in order to perform the duties of their class... IMO, your argument is similar to claiming the creation of weapon shops shouldn't be under DM control because without them a rogue and fighter can't fight... or where spell components can be located and retrieved from should be under the control of the wizard's player because without them he can't cast spells...  i disagree, the rules of the game are clear about who decides these things, even though they affect players... and it's the DM.



I never claimed the problem was universal.  For those who problematic player behavior has been a problem in the past, a tool to curb it is not a problem at all; it's welcomed.  And certainly there are differences of opinion in terms of "what is the player's job" and "what is the GM's job."  If there were not, the whole railroad vs. sandbox discussion wouldn't have any currency.  

I'm making no claims of universality here.  I'm talking about my preference and my taste and my playstyle.  And I never claimed otherwise.

Although do I believe that my preferences, tastes and playstyle are unique and totally without precedent in the greater gaming community?  No, of course not.  I believe that in many respects--in this respect in particular, not only are they fairly representative, but that many people are firmly _even further_ into the separation of player and GM responsibilities.  I think the notion of players taking on directorial stance is downright radical, for instance, and I'm even more or less on that page with regards to players developing setting elements as well.  And yet, lots of GMs and games are specifically geared toward allowing those specific things.


			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Ah, so are you starting from the position that those who like alignment are being dishonest about why... or that we are somehow ignorant of whyt we really enjoy it... great way to facilitate communication.



See, that's complete nonsense.  I made no such claim, or even anything close to it.

Nuance is to trees as big picture is to forest.  That's not intellectual dishonesty; that's just getting lost in the details and missing the big picture, and therefore coming to conclusions that I believe to be mistaken.


----------



## Imaro

Hobo said:


> See, what is all this?  Of course they count.  But did you miss where I pointed out that my opinion is based on years of Alignment Wars stories?  There are other reasons why alignment can be used in the game other than to preemptive curb (or post-emptively punish) player character behavior.  Sure, I never claimed otherwise.  Celebrim did a good job of giving us a few examples of such (although pemerton gave a good counter example of how alignment isn't necessary for any of those.)




So if you're taking your evidence from outside the thread why paint those participating in the thread with that brush?  You also claimed *the crux of most of our arguments for alignment* have been baby killing paladins, when in fact they have not, I was correcting that.  



Hobo said:


> And yet, you feel somehow that those handful of examples from two or three people are going to cause my opinion, based on many years of many alignment stories from many, many gamers, to suddenly turn on a dime?




Nope,  I'm not trying to change your opinion...  but I feel if you are going to comment on the reasons for favoring alignment as they pertain to the posters in this thread... well you would be more accurate since your "generalizations" are mis-representing them... it's almost as if you already have their "reasons" made up for them...



Hobo said:


> If you think so, you clearly haven't been paying attention to what I actually said, nor are you exhibiting any respect for my opinion.  The underlying implication being that the only reason I could possibly think as I do is if I simply don't know as much about alignment and the game as you do.  I certainly believe that the vast majority of gamers who use alignment use it to curb player behavior.  In fact, I believe that it's existed in the game as long as it has specifically for that reason.  And I believe that _most_--a word specifically chosen to leave wiggle room for exceptions, such as those self-professed here in this thread--gamers who like alignment like it specifically for that reason; because they don't trust other player characters to not burn the game down with excessive crazy player behavior.




Dude, you can believe what you want... but when you go attaching those beliefs to people in the thread and they are incorrect... expect to be corrected by said people.



Hobo said:


> I've seen that pattern repeated online (and in person) over, and over, and over again.  A handful of hypothetical counter examples from three or four pro-alignment posters is hardly going to change that.  And frankly, the subtext of much of this thread has, in my opinion, supported my position anyway.




Well then why keep posting... you have your opinion, in your mind it's been supported by much of the thread... who are you trying to convince at this point?  Do you think you are suddenly going to make those of us who do like alignment suddenly not?  If so, go back and re-read what you just posted about your own opinion and how likely it is to be changed...



Hobo said:


> I never claimed the problem was universal.  For those who problematic player behavior has been a problem in the past, a tool to curb it is not a problem at all; it's welcomed.  And certainly there are differences of opinion in terms of "what is the player's job" and "what is the GM's job."  If there were not, the whole railroad vs. sandbox discussion wouldn't have any currency.




Lol, nice... passive-aggresively insinuate that the only reason to like alignment has to be to control players (how many times has this assertion been made by you in the thread now??)... even after other reasons have been presented to you.  you're right nothing is going to change your mind...  



Hobo said:


> I'm making no claims of universality here.  I'm talking about my preference and my taste and my playstyle.  And I never claimed otherwise.




No you keep creating and assigning reasons and motivations to those who like alignment in this thread... 



Hobo said:


> Although do I believe that my preferences, tastes and playstyle are unique and totally without precedent in the greater gaming community?  No, of course not.  I believe that in many respects--in this respect in particular, not only are they fairly representative, but that many people are firmly _even further_ into the separation of player and GM responsibilities.  I think the notion of players taking on directorial stance is downright radical, for instance, and I'm even more or less on that page with regards to players developing setting elements as well.  And yet, lots of GMs and games are specifically geared toward allowing those specific things.




I guess the question, for a game like D&D that is trying to be mainstream popular (or as close as you can get to it in this niche hobby) will taking on your preferences achieve that??



Hobo said:


> See, that's complete nonsense.  I made no such claim, or even anything close to it.
> 
> Nuance is to trees as big picture is to forest.  That's not intellectual dishonesty; that's just getting lost in the details and missing the big picture, and therefore coming to conclusions that I believe to be mistaken.




Ok, so it's that we're ignorant of why we really like something... not seeing the big picture.  Thanks for enlightening me...


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> I'll just quote Umbran in answer to this question...




Yes.  This is what I found when I user name searched Umbran for contributions upthread.



Umbran said:


> They offer the experienced player another mechanical system to interact with.  It gives them worlds in which certain moral and ethical positions have actual magical power.
> 
> Other systems do fantasy without any moral structures in the rules.  So, taking alignments out of D&D isn't going to give the player something they can't get elsewhere.






am181d said:


> Keeping in mind the obvious point that RPGs run perfectly well without an alignment mechanic, the obvious answer to your question is:
> 
> Spells and effects can key off of alignment. (Whether's it's Detect Evil or a sword that can only be wielded by those of chaotic alignments, etc.)




So, the primary aspects (presumably beneficial) of gameplay that alignment facilitates that I see here is:

1)  If you're a spellcaster (or a character with a scroll, wand, or supernatural/spell-like abilities), you can interact with the world via the various Abjurations (Protection from x and Dispel x), Conjurations (Summon x) Divinations (Detect x), and Evocations (Dictum, et al) that interface directly with alignment.

2)  A group can possibly get a sentient magical item that may have alignment restrictions such that only one or no party member can use it.  Alternatively, it may possess alignment-centered aspects to it that work to provide (interesting?) complications for the group.  Alternatively, it may possess alignment-centered aspects that are beneficial to the group.

Is that correct?


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro said:


> So if you're taking your evidence from outside the thread why paint those participating in the thread with that brush?



Because alignment actually exists in the gaming community outside of this thread.  This thread doesn't exist in a vaccuum.  Obviously.


> You also claimed *the crux of most of our arguments for alignment* have been baby killing paladins, when in fact they have not, I was correcting that.



But you're wrong.  You found a few counter examples.  In a thread 26 pages long, if you think those are the "crux" of the arguments even in this thread, you're mistaken.


> Nope,  I'm not trying to change your opinion...  but I feel if you are going to comment on the reasons for favoring alignment *as they pertain to the posters in this thread*... well you would be more accurate since your "generalizations" are mis-representing them... it's almost as if you already have their "reasons" made up for them...



See, there's where you went wrong.  The bolded part?  You made that up and inserted it into my arguments.  I never claimed that that's true for eveyrone in this thread, only that I saw evidence for my posiiton in this thread.  I'm not "painting" with nearly so broad a brush as you consistently claim that I am.  You're taking on inferences that I'm not making, and am, in fact, specifically denying in multiple posts.

Nor do the handful of examples you picked of people who gave examples that were different than my view represent the whole of those who have posted in this thread.

You percieved an attack on you personally and the way you play that simply isn't there.


> Dude, you can believe what you want... but when you go attaching those beliefs to people in the thread and they are incorrect... expect to be corrected by said people.



Just as I'm correcting you now.  I've been speaking all along of my opinion of a generalized approach amongst gamers.  I *specifically* in my last post--the one you're responding to--said that of course exceptions would exist, including a handful of people posting in this thread.

And yet, in spite of my very clear and deliberate _not_ attaching beliefs to people in this thread, you believe, in spite of very clear evidence to the contrary, that I have done so and therefore you need to correct me.

Well, now I'm correcting you.


> Well then why keep posting... you have your opinion, in your mind it's been supported by much of the thread... who are you trying to convince at this point?  Do you think you are suddenly going to make those of us who do like alignment suddenly not?  If so, go back and re-read what you just posted about your own opinion and how likely it is to be changed...



Is the notion foreign to you that people might want to talk about things without it being a debate and without people needing to be converted to a single way of thinking?  Because I specifically called that out and tagged you in a post about that, too.  It _is_ after all, possible for reasonable people to have different opinions about something, and they don't haveto be in a state of constant conflict until one is either defeated or concedes or whatever.  You have your opinion; I have mine.  Why do you not seem to want me to further articulate mine just because yours is different?  Does it somehow threaten you that I disagree with you?  If not, then stop arguing and just discuss.  The topic could be interesting if you'd step back and not have such a chip on your shoulder, or something to prove about alignment.


> Lol, nice... passive-aggresively insinuate that the only reason to like alignment has to be to control players (how many times has this assertion been made by you in the thread now??)... even after other reasons have been presented to you.  you're right nothing is going to change your mind...



Just because you label something passive-aggressive doesn't make it so.  It just means that you're calling me names because you don't seem to be able to stand it that I have a different opinion on alignment than you do.  Seriously; step back and read what I'm saying.  I'm not assigning any motives to any inidivuals, including you or Celebrim, or Bedrockgames, or anyone else who's posted directly in this thread (well, OK, maybe N'kaar, or however he spells his name.  He specifically stated that without GM arbitration, the game would descend into chaos because suddenly without an alignment mechanic, good is no longer good and evil is no longer evil.)

If I say, and I am in fact doing so, that "In general, alignment serves as a means to preemptively curb bad player behavior with the threat of punishment.  Without that aspect, alignment serves very little purpose in game, and in fact I believe it is a source of a lot of completely unnecessary strife.  The game would be better off without it.  In my experience, most of the support I've seen for alignment come from players who have reasons to distrust the motives of their players, and want to preemptively constrain them," then how have I assigned a motive to you personally?  I haven't.

Yet you've repeatedly claimed that I have.

I haven't (yet) called you dishonest (although you've repeatedly claimed that I have.)  If you continue to claim that I'm doing things that I've specifically disavowed, I may have to reevaluate that.  This isn't a discussion, as I hope to have, if you're going to run around claiming that I'm saying things that I have not said.  It's just another useless internet argument.


> No you keep creating and assigning reasons and motivations to those who like alignment in this thread...



See above.


> I guess the question, for a game like D&D that is trying to be mainstream popular (or as close as you can get to it in this niche hobby) will taking on your preferences achieve that??



I have no real idea, of course, but I suspect so.  Alignment is an artifact that is pecular to D&D.  It is not representative of (much) in mainstream fantasy fiction, for example, which is an order of magnitude more popular than D&D.


> Ok, so it's that we're ignorant of why we really like something... not seeing the big picture.  Thanks for enlightening me...



Again; yeah, of course I think you're wrong.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be in disagreement on this issue.  I don't know why you are taking that personally.  Has no one ever told you that they think that you're wrong before?  In the real world, it happens all the time to pretty much everyone.


----------



## Ratskinner

[/QUOTE]







Imaro said:


> The fact that you are playing D&D (with alignment) is decided beforehand as well... And while it's possible to run Fate without any setting the multitude of games that smack a setting on it from Legends of Anglerre and Spirit of the Century to Dresden Files and the two Fate World books released for core I would'nt consider running with absolutely no setting in mind the norm or even a majority.  In fact here are some relevant quotes from the Fate Core book...
> 
> <snippage>
> 
> Now while they do give advice about not defining everything (which I think is impossible in creating your own setting any way, it seems pretty clear from the advice in the book that the assumption is that there will be a setting...




I can only report that many Fate GMs have reported starting play with no settings in mind (usually in response to a "How much do you prep?" thread). I do not know how that compares with the number of times those individuals have done otherwise, nor how many other GMs have never done so.

However, (and I'm not sure you intended this meaning) the game is not _run_ without a setting. Even if the GM comes to the table with nothing in mind, settling on the broad strokes of the setting is usually the first step in play, and often continues through character generation. 

I _would _add that a Fate GM probably shouldn't come to the table with as much prepped as most D&D DMs do. The declarative functions of aspects and the GMs need to compel them mean that having too much "set" will box him in. Much like Dungeon World, you should leave a lot of blanks.



Imaro said:


> Aspects aren't very clear or specific either, here are just a couple threads from Rpg.net where the breadth of aspects and/or how to adjudicate them is called into question by people trying to play Fate, and there are plenty more if you look for them...
> 
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?393808-Fate-Breadth-of-aspects
> 
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?672688-FATE-Aspects-Question-Opinions
> 
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?601989-FATE-Aspects-amp-Potential-Abuse




I would note that in those threads the immediate advice/responses from experience Fate players is very similar to the circumstances that I describe. That is, that this is more of a theoretical problem than one that often shows up in play. In particular, the one thread is spawned from another, where the GM is attempting to bend the function of a "name" aspect to match a setting. (I'm not familiar with the setting ::shrug:: )



Imaro said:


> Sure he does, items, spells, certain creatures, magical effects, etc. that are tied to alignment...  The thing is it's up to the DM how common or uncommon these mechanical pushes are (perhaps every magic item has an alignment necessary for its use, perhaps none do)... unless a player signals (by playing a character who is based upon the alignment system as part of their class) that he or she wants to be pushed by alignment as part of regular play...




 I think that pushes the mechanic of alignment a lot. I'm not sure that that actually pushes a player or character along any path that they might have in mind.



Imaro said:


> I never claimed alignment did... but since the aspect "Paladin of Pelor" is in effect my class and deity in D&D, I think a more fair comparison is does the class paladin in D&D provide me with just as much influence or more in play... I would say yes.




I must disagree. There is nothing preventing a D&D game from relying completely on very detailed pre-packaged adventures. That means that such adventures are not focused towards any particular character's traits in this regard. A DM can write and run successful adventures with no concern for who or what his PCs are (excepting things like level). This sort of thing does not function very well in a Fate game at all, because it shortcuts the whole Fate point economy. Compels and invokes and the like become much more constrained to the point of disutility. (I know, I've watched it happen.) Alignment and class choices _may_ signal to a DM something about what the player wants out of play, but he is free to ignore them in a way that a Fate GM is not.

And to be clear, that can be a part of playstyle preference and is why neither game satisfies all comers.



Imaro said:


> Yes and if a fallen paladin continues to dress and act like a paladin even though he has lost his powers... fiction wise no one would know the difference... He still can't use the mechanical abilities of a paladin, and without fate points neither can your Fate paladin... he has effectively fallen until he gets more Fate points,




Except that, as I've already said, there will be functions of that aspect that do not require Fate points. He may (if he is intending to mimic a D&D paladin's abilities) have stunts that will still function without spending Fate points. I would also point out that the Fate paladin has (default) 5 aspects, any of which can get compelled to earn Fate points. He can even "self-compel" by making suggestions at the table for the GM to take the game in directions he would rather see it.

However, at that point we are into broader facets of the differences between D&D and Fate. I've already said that I can't be sure of how an "alignments only" version of aspects would work in D&D, which is the question I was originally addressing when I brought up aspects.



Imaro said:


> Well I would argue that you aren't de-palanized because "Defender of the Innocent" isn't an aspect that corresponds to being a D&D paladin.  Any class in D&D could characterize itself as a "Defender of the Innocent" and if you pick one without alignment underpinnings... well then you aren't beholden to any type of code except the one you set for yourself.




erm...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I mean, I would hope that Paladins would defend the innocent. Maybe there's some confusion here about what I would consider a potential paladin to be in Fate terms? You certainly wouldn't have to have an aspect that references the word "paladin". 



Imaro said:


> As far as wiggle room goes... what entails an innocent,  someone with no sins, someone who has never committed an evil act(how do we determine if it was or wasn't an evil act??), someone who hasn't committed an evil act you are aware of, even mistakenly... or are all common people innocents?




In a broader sense, neither aspects or alignment answer these questions. In the instance of play however, compels don't happen accidentally or as punishment, even when refused. Hence, they will not act as a trap for guessing wrong.



Imaro said:


> Yes and some/many/most people  would do the same with alignment... Not seeing why missing clarity can be sought through discussion in one game... but for some reason not the other.




If  extended discussion is required to determine what LG (or any alignment) means for this character or another...then that just makes the calling it LG that much more useless. Just skip that part and move on to writing down the character's values.


----------



## Celebrim

> well then you aren't beholden to any type of code except the one you set for yourself.




If you create a character that isn't beholden to any code except one that they set for yourself, in my game at least you _have_ chosen your alignment.  Your character is Chaotic Neutral.   You very likely believe in things like: "Harm no one; do as you will", "Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.", "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.", or even just, "I am not beholden to anyone but myself."   

In FATE terms, those - or something like them - are your Aspects as set by choosing Chaotic Neutral and as conveyed by that term or by discussion between the GM and player either before or during play.  

I seriously doubt from what I've seen of FATE that its usually that interesting at least in terms of what it says about the characters stance on what is right and what is wrong.  Certainly FATE can lend itself to deep discussion of right and wrong, but it would be a mistake to assume that is what everyone is using aspects for.   Most example characters I've seen are using aspects as markers of things that in D&D would be class abilities or at most just personality.   It's very difficult to tell from a collection of six average aspects what the character believes in any more detail than you could from alignment - and probably I would argue, less so, if you consider how readily I drew an ethos out of the terms 'Chaotic Neutral'.  

D&D says in effect, "You HAVE to choose a side to be on, even if it is just your own.   One of your aspects has to state what you believe and has to align you with like minded believers."   This is very evocative of a traditional sort of fantasy - the great clash of conflicting ideologies embodied as tangible things.  

A lot of people are asking what use alignment has - aside from its mechanical uses.  We could ask the same question of aspects.   What use have they - aside from the mechanical uses?   And the answer would come back, "They tell us a small part of who the character is."   That small piece could but doesn't always include, "This is what the character believes."   In fact, if you look at the FATE system reference document and the discussion of creating good aspects, not a one of the aspects really delves into or deals with what a character believes in the sense I'm using it here. 

If the goal was to find out why I believe alignment has value, I don't think nearly enough people paid attention to my post on the 'Seven Sentence NPC' essay.  In FATE terms, the 'Seven Sentence NPC' essay describes how to build an NPC by creating aspects in a structured way.   I would argue that the seven sentence NPC does as much as a list of aspects does, sans the mechanical benefit obviously but its not always primarily in the mechanical benefit that the benefit of something lies.   System doesn't matter nearly as much as how you think about the system.   The value in having a list of aspects for your NPC exists even when you aren't calling out or compelling those Aspects mechanically.

Now of course, I'm not saying that marking NG on your character sheet is in any way sufficient.  You still need to discuss things with your DM.  You still may need to write up a background if you want to achieve a certain style of play (backgrounds are probably pointless for a beer and pretzels dungeon crawl though).  It may not even be necessary to have alignment, particularly if your game isn't going to be about a clash of ideologies in any way shape or form, though you'll need to do what everyone does when D&D doesn't exactly fit and do some house ruling to disentangle the system from the assumption that alignment is present.   But I am saying that it adds something that wasn't there before.

The reason you don't see it is that you don't understand that how you think about a system (and how the system encourages you to think about itself) is as important as the system.   It doesn't work for you or add anything to your game because you and your fellow players are thinking about it in an entirely different way than I am.


----------



## Cadence

Celebrim said:


> If you create a character that isn't beholden to any code except one that they set for yourself, in my game at least you _have_ chosen your alignment.  Your character is Chaotic Neutral.




Beholden to the code they set for themselves doesn't seem to be CN in PF anyway.

CN: "follows his whims ... resents restrictions, and challenges authority"

vs...

CG: "acts as his conscience directs him... little use for laws and regulations... follows his own moral compass"
N: "does what seems to be a good idea... would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones... not personally committed to upholding good"
LN: "acts as .. a personal code directs her"

And if a character comes up with a set of his own precepts that essentially match those of several LG gods and sticks to them then I'm not even sure why it would be LN instead of LG.


----------



## Celebrim

Cadence said:


> Beholden to the code they set for themselves doesn't seem to be CN in PF anyway.
> 
> CN: "follows his whims ... resents restrictions, and challenges authority"




Huh?  You don't see a relationship between "beholden only to the code I set for myself" and "following my own whims"?   You don't see a relationship between, "beholden only to a code I set for myself" and "resents [external] restrictions"?   You don't see the conflict between external authority and someone who says, "I, me, the individual, is the ultimately source of authority over my life"?

And even to the extent that PF rules depart slightly from mine, so what?  That's just the house rules of the writers of the PF system guide.   I don't privilege a DM just because he's published, though I may respect and admire them for it.



> LN: "acts as .. a personal code directs her"




This is the only one that you've stated that seems wrong and misleading to me.  The essence of the LN is that you act not according to a personal code, but to an external one.  The essence of LN is that you aren't the source of your own authority.   LN's have external codes that are subject to review by an external authority so that someone who knew their code could determine whether they were acting in accordance to it and could judge them for it, and indeed the LN expects that there are people (maybe even everyone) that has this right to judge them.

Where as if a code is personal, and isn't shared, then no one can judge you by that code except yourself.



> And if a character comes up with a set of his own precepts that essentially match those of several LG gods and sticks to them then I'm not even sure why it would be LN instead of LG.




Being in service to someone whose ideology differs from your own creates great emotional and intellectual drama.  Imagine a Paladin who is sworn to serve the King, who discovers that the King is a CE monster.   Another really great example of emotional and intellectual drama is when the character has one alignment and believes that he has another - Javier believes he is LG when in fact he is LN.  These are concepts that I would advise only very experienced RPers to attempt, however.

For your particular example, first a LN could have a set of precepts that essentially matched those of a LG God but there would be tension:

a) The LN would emphasis the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, far in excess of what the LG deity intended.   For example, he might give 10% of everything to charity scrupulously, but give nothing to anyone he met in need, reasoning that he's already done his part.  He'd get the law and fulfill it, but not the motive behind it, and he would not understand that the law as the LG deity saw it was setting a minimum standard and not an absolute standard.

b) He would be largely devoid of compassion or mercy.  He'd always interpret the requirements of the law in the strictest and least compassionate manner.   He certainly would never feel for or empathize with the objects of suffering.  He might read that he was supposed to care for and love the helpless, but he'd have absolutely no understanding of what was meant by it.  He would be utterly blind to this deficiency on his part, and could not be made to see it because he would understand love and compassion in a strictly legalistic manner - as if they were simply reciprocal social contracts.   He would point to his lack of cruelty as proof of his compassion.

c) He would tend to favor those aspects of the law which were most lawful, over those that were most good and he would be uncomfortable with this tension.   He would not understand why the law needed to be mixed in its approach, and he would tend to see good as ambiguous and unenforceable.  Calls for goodness and righteousness would not be understood, or might be understood as mere poetics added on the law for the sake of the weak and lesser sorts that didn't understand their duty.  He might even be in internal or even verbal rebellion against the laws, the institutions they create, or even their creator.  There could be resentment, or there could simply be willful blindness to the conflict between the way he behaved and the way he was intended to behave.


----------



## Cadence

Double post, sorry!


----------



## Cadence

Celebrim said:


> Huh?  You don't see a relationship between "beholden only to the code I set for myself" and "following my own whims"?




The LN character can stick to their diet.   The CN says they're dieting as they shovel the next bag of M&M's down their throat because they feel like at the moment.  



Celebrim said:


> You don't see a relationship between, "beholden only to a code I set for myself" and "resents [external] restrictions"?




The LN character doesn't allow the codes of others to change what they feel the code they follow should be.  Without your added "external", the CN character sounds like they might not even like to regiment their life enough to have a code.   They sound like they'd go out of their way to walk on the grass just to spite authority.



Celebrim said:


> This is the only one that you've stated that seems wrong and misleading to me. The essence of the LN is that you act not according to a personal code, but to an external one




An external one was one of the options in PF.  But even if it is an external one, unless there is only one set of laws, the character had to choose which ones they're following (church first? state first? natural law first?) and they further may need some deeper method of choosing between interpretations (different philosophies for making decisions on the supreme court for example).




Celebrim said:


> And even to the extent that PF rules depart slightly from mine, so what?  That's just the house rules of the writers of the PF system guide.
> 
> I don't privilege a DM just because he's published, though I may respect and admire them for it.




As you say, there's nothing that says you have to stick to RAW...



			
				1e PhB said:
			
		

> Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.






			
				2e PhB said:
			
		

> Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions.




... but...



			
				Oxford English Dictionary said:
			
		

> Chaotic: 2) Resembling chaos; utterly confused or disordered.




...changing the dictionary definition of Chaotic seems to be another matter entirely.  




Celebrim said:


> The essence of the LN is that you act not according to a personal code, but to an external one.  The essence of LN is that you aren't the source of your own authority.   LN's have external codes that are subject to review by an external authority so that someone who knew their code could determine whether they were acting in accordance to it and could judge them for it, and indeed the LN expects that there are people (maybe even everyone) that has this right to judge them.




That's certainly fine for your campaign world.  But the need for some external authority isn't RAW in at least one system and it also forces CN to contravene RAW in two others and seemingly break with the standard definition of chaotic.   There is also some support for using the word law without the need for external authority:



			
				Oxford English Dictionary said:
			
		

> Law:  3. d.  In more comprehensive sense: Rules or injunctions that must be obeyed. to give (the) law (to) : to exercise undisputed sway; to impose one's will †upon (another). †to have (the) law to do something: to be commanded. †law will I: arbitrary rule, making one's own will law.






			
				Oxford English Dictionary said:
			
		

> Law: 16. a. A rule of action or procedure; one of the rules defining correct procedure in an art or department of action, or in a game. †Also, manner of life. Phr. a law unto (or to) himself (or themselves , etc.).




Is Hammurabi incapable of being lawful because he composed the laws?   Is every break-away government, founder of a splinter religious sect, and non-violent protester inherently lawless?



Celebrim said:


> For your particular example, first a LN could have a set of precepts that essentially matched those of a LG God but there would be tension:
> 
> a) The LN would emphasis the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, ...
> b) He would be largely devoid of compassion or mercy. ...
> c) He would tend to favor those aspects of the law which were most lawful, ...




That certainly sounds like LN to me.

But for my example I was considering the person who spends a decade meditatively determining on their own that the greatest goals in life are to: treat others as you would be treated, work for the greatest long term common prosperity and contentment, increase happiness whenever possible, and to avoid causing pain and harm.   To this end they come up with an extensive list of rules that they think need to be followed to lead towards these goals (where each rule coincidentally can be found in the commandments of at least one LG god or laws of at least one LG nation) and go out into the word to live for the sake of those goals by following the rules that they have derived.   

As the rules are their own, you would define this person as CN.   As you said, nothing wrong with disagreeing with 1e, 2e, and PF raw.  I'm not sure any dictionary definition of the words Chaotic and Neutral would agree with it either though.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> I considered BW and Fate to be similar when viewed in extremely broad strokes. In this case, one big difference is that you don't really have to frame your aspects in any deep moral or ethical way. You could, for instance, have an aspect _Why does it always have to be snakes?_ which isn't really going to put any big questions on the table.



Yes, in BW you'd have to implement that as an instinct - something like "Always shies away from snakes". (I'm sure there's a a more flavourful way to do this, but it's not coming to me at the moment.)



Ratskinner said:


> If  extended discussion is required to determine what LG (or any alignment) means for this character or another...then that just makes the calling it LG that much more useless. Just skip that part and move on to writing down the character's values.



Agreed.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> IMO, your argument is similar to claiming the creation of weapon shops shouldn't be under DM control because without them a rogue and fighter can't fight



If players are playing weapon-dependent PCs, then as a GM I wouldn't severely restrict their access to weapons - whether that be via weaponsmiths, gifts from mentors, loot from enemies, or some other means.



Imaro said:


> the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation)  need tools to counteract GM control



This is not my view. I am overwhelmingly a GM, and my players don't need tools to control me. What I don't want to do, as GM, is to have to evaluate my players' action declarations for their PCs as part of my refereeing role. And I don't want the apprehension of such evaluation to be influencing my players' decisions.



N'raac said:


> If we have a character who derives his powers from adherence to his moral philosophy, and those powers are granted by an outside force or person in recognition of his adherence, then that philosophy becomes quite relevant and needs definition.





N'raac said:


> In the fantasy world, for Good and Evil to be objective forces, they must in some way be defined.



I don't agree with this. In the fantasy world, for the wind to be an objective force, it needn't be defined. I just tell my players the wind is blowing, and they respond by having their PCs cast control winds, or perhaps unfurl the sails on their ships, or something else.

I have a PC in my game who gains (chaotic) power from Chan, one of the non-evil primordials who is Queen of Good Air Elementals. The PC can be played, and his relationship to Chan can be played, without defining "Queenship" or "Good" in mechanical terms. I know this, because I see it happen every session.

For instance, when the wind blows the PC might look for a sign from Chan (or worry that it is a deception from Chan's nemesis Yan-C-Bin, the Prince of Evil Air Elementals). This does not require an definition of "Princeship" or "Evil" (or "wind", for that matter) in game terms.



N'raac said:


> Your choice of Star Wars is an interesting one, as the Dark Side and Light Side of the Force are very much akin to D&D Alignment, and we have a lot more info on them than on the number of dials on the Falcon’s dash.



I don't know about all the "Expanded Universe" material - but from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.

Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings counsels Frodo against hubris (particularly in the conversation about Bilbo not having killed Gollum; and not also Aragorn's lack of hubris upon his arrival at Minas Tirith). I don't need a mechanical definition of "hubris" in order to make sense of these passages, and achieve similar episodes in RPG play.



N'raac said:


> I agree that not every action can be simply classified as “good” or “evil”.  Perhaps more accurately, the precepts of Good or Evil may sometimes require compromise, as they come into conflict with one another
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The character has no easy, obvious choice.  Whatever choice he makes compromises a precept of Good.  To me, this means either choice must be accepted as consistent with the ideals of Good.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Both Thor and Aphrodite have been defined as CG.  I would expect their followers to have very different problem solving techniques and perspectives on the world.  However, both would value freedom and protection of the innocent, and neither would think it appropriate that their followers rip out the throats of babies to show their devotion to their religion.



And so what point is being served by the use of mechanical alignment?



N'raac said:


> I am not my character.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> “My character” can readily espouse views that I myself do not hold, or even violently disagree with.



I think this is obvious. I don't see what bearing it has on the question, though, of whether or not I want the GM to impose his/her judgement on a player's action declaration for a PC.

For instance, I once had a player who played his PC's collapse into degradation and addiction. It would have added nothing to those episodes of play for me to be hovering over him telling him whether or not his PC had become chaotic, evil etc. The play of the character is the player's business. He is trying to achieve some aesthetic goal, or make some point, or just enjoy trying out some particular storyline for his character. I don't see what would be added by me overlaying some stipulated moral characterisation.



N'raac said:


> Should a player be able to decide that the Raven Queen [note:  I am not a 4e player, so I am, not familiar with the entity – substitute a Good deity of peaceful repose if that better suits the scenario] will be OK with him animating a horde of undead to turn back the Orcish hordes?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Perhaps my character believes, with all his heart, that sending his victims to the Goddess of Death is their rightful fate in her eyes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Since the morality of my PC is not yours to command, and as my choice of the Raven Queen as patron makes her my resource or a shared resource.



The description of the Raven Queen states that she hates undead and those who create them. So when - as I did - I tell my players that we are playing a game in the default 4e world, I trust that they will not disregard these elements of the setting description.

If they want to play a necromancer - putting to one side the difficulties of mechanical implementation of the necromancer in 4e - there are other entities to serve, such as Vecna or Orcus.



N'raac said:


> “should there be any mechanic to guide PC behaviour?”  Hero has psychological disadvantages/complications, Fate has aspects, etc.  Certainly, some games lack these entirely, and I believe that is the model pemerton supports.



I wouldn't play with HERO/GURPS style "disadvantages", for similar reasons to alignment.

FATE aspects, BW beliefs etc have very little in common in play with those other mechanics, though. In particular, they are not mechanical constraints on player action declaration.

With alignment or HERO/GURPS disadvantages, a player has no incentive to have regard to the constraint except as a boundary upon behaviour; and when that boundary is drawing near, the player has a reason to hope the GM overlooks it. (Because crossing the boundary causes the GM to inflict penalties.)

Whereas with aspects, beliefs etc the player has an incentive to pursue/activate the belief/aspect, and want the GM to keep it constantly in mind in framing situations and resolving conflicts. In my D&D game, I asked each player to indicate one loyalty for his/her PC as part of PC building. Although these don't have any mechanical role like aspects or beliefs, they have helped play the same "hook the GM" role.



N'raac said:


> You have still not directly answered the question of how much control devolves to the player versus the GM, by the way.  Instead, you continue to evade the question asking instead why a player might make this choice.  It seems you hold a preconceived notion that no reasonable player could ever make such a choice, contrary to your stated assertion that we should have no preconceived notions, but let matters develop in the fiction through play.



I thought I'd answered this multiple times. I've given multiple actual play examples in this thread (and I believe I am the only person besides [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] to have done so).

I don't have any "preconceived notions". I have experiences and knowledge. You are, in effect, asking "What would I do if a player disregarded agreed elements of the fiction, such as the Raven Queen's hatred of undead?" Or "What would I do if a player built his/her PC as an honourable warrior, and then set about having his/her PC torture peasants?" Because I've never had these issues come up, I don't know how I'd respond. If you're suggesting that alignment mechanics would help, I've got no real reason to believe that's so. If a player isn't interested in taking the shared fiction seriously, or their own PC build seriously, why would I expect them to take a GM's stipulations in relation to alignment seriously?


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION], I think your comments on chaos and codes are sensible. I think they also highlight a more general issue for law/chaos. (And in my posts on this thread I've mostly focused on good/evil.)

The most mainstream way of expressing individualism, in contemporary English-speaking political philosophy and jurisprudence, is to support human rights or a bill of rights, constitutionalised in some fashion and able to be used as a source of individual rights to be litigated in court.

This juridicalised rule-of-law approach to protecting the individual was invented by (among other) the US "founding fathers".

Is it chaotic or lawful?

Some of the strongest opposition to this sort of legal system, although less significant in the post-WWII era, has come from left-wing criticism of rights adjudication and advocacy of populist democracy. (Aspects of this can be seen in some of the issues around FDR's New Deal.) These advocates emphasise solidarity, collective interests, and (on this basis) hostility to liberal legal systems.

Are they lawful or chaotic?

The only utility I personally see for law vs chaos is with the presupposition of some sort of fundamental cosmological conflict (Moorcock, 4e D&D). I think the notion of lawfulness (without being framed in opposition to chaos) can also make some sense if there is a presupposition that rhe requirements of self-discipline, honour and duty to others will all coincide - but (as I did post quite a way upthread) I think this is a very anti-modern perspective which I have rarely seen D&D material treat well.


----------



## Cadence

So, by RAW, Law-Good, Chaos-Evil often fulfill a role in the cosmology that are particularly tied into a number of spells, Paladins (and Clerics to a lesser extent), and particular outsiders. 

At first blush, I think alignments add to the gaming experience by allowing for the battle of capital letter Good versus Evil with associated spells and outsiders and all.  I like the possibility of having the Crawling Chaos out there and, even if I haven't used them, the chance to have the Lords of Order.

For a general guideline I'm inclined to view lawful as the scrupulous following of some underlying set of principles that the player should specify (national laws, religious dogma, personal code of honor), where chaos is the active confounding of rules in general just for the sake of going against them.  For good, maybe have it be the willingness to suffer pain/loss for the benefit of non-associates and no personal gain. For evil it could be the willingness to make expenditure of pain/loss for the sole purpose of harming others.   Going with those, are most people closer to Neutral-Neutral than anything else?  Is it impossible for a human to be good or evil or chaotic in even most of their actions?

I like @_*pemerton*_ 's idea of whether each border case action is particularly good or evil, lawful or chaotic, until there is a necessity to do so.

In terms of use to PCs, I confess to having put down some other descriptors on that character sheet line  before (Lawful Greedy, Angry, Neutral-Neutral Good, or Zen for a few examples) until the DM needed it to be nailed down for cosmological reasons.  Even from this viewpoint, I'm inclined to think that the canonical nine have some value if viewed as a projection of the richer space of descriptors into something more concise that matches the cosmology.  I think they add to the gaming experience by giving an easy system to help clarify a character.  I wouldn't say this adds a lot though, especially if used like a straight jacket.  And like any projection, of course it loses something.

I think I get @_*pemerton*_ 's argument that playing enforcer to the PCs is (at best) an annoyance.  I'm not sure it's that big or regular of a problem in experienced groups that could stand each other long enough to keep playing together.  I think the DM is always screening the PC choices and actions - kind of like a PC in a game with passive perception is always looking for traps.  Unless the PCs are trying to make phasers and tricorders using craft, or the Paladin is killing children for fun, I don't think the passive perception will be tripped and cause the DM to intervene and say no.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, I would say this is no more of an inherent assumption by those who like alignment than the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation)  need tools to counteract GM control...
> 
> 
> 
> And in the same vein I could claim all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "GM's can't be trusted or relied upon to fairly adjudicate the cosmological forces they created for their world and need to be dis-empowered or else their unchecked creative control over the setting will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn...
> 
> Of course in reality I think the positions have much more nuance to them than either of us is presenting in these posts...




But, no one in this thread has actually argued this.  Throughout this thread, I've posited that both the DM and the Players are reasonable people.

However, with two reasonable people, you can still have pretty differing opinions on morality.  D&D alignments however, empower the DM to say, "Well, that's your opinion, but, this is my game so you're wrong."  Which is something I'm not comfortable with as a DM.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] - I believe you are conflating "I" the player and "I" the character.  The character doesn't set a code of conduct, the player does and then applies that to his character.

Then again, even if we go with the idea that this is all being done in game, then the character most certainly isn't Chaotic, as defined by D&D.  He is making a code of conduct and sticking to it.  That's lawful, not chaotic.  I suppose it could be Chaotic if it was a code that said, "Follow no rules, obey no laws, and do whatever the hell you feel like at the moment", but, I think that's not what's being talked about here.

And, this little back and forth with [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] perfectly outlines the problem.

Both of you are making what you feel to be accurate assessments of alignment.  Neither of you is being unreasonable.  Yet, depending on who is DM, one of you is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Now, do you feel comfortable sitting down at Cadence's table knowing that your interpretations of alignment, at that table will be wrong?  Will this help you play the game?  Will it enhance your enjoyment of this game?

Conversely, Cadence, sitting at your table, is going to be in the same situation.

How has alignment improved your gaming experiences?


----------



## N'raac

Ratskinner said:


> You can certainly choose your slate of  5 aspects such that no (or very few) moral/ethical concerns are relevant. Aspects in Fate cover much more ground than alignments do in D&D, including some parts of what D&D does with class and the like. To implement them as a replacement for alignment while preserving the rest of D&D's mechanics would be necessary, and I couldn't guess right off how that would look.




I can play a D&D character for whom alignment has little or no mechanical effect as well.  If I play a Paladin, I expect morality comes into play in  either system.



pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this. In the fantasy world, for the wind to be an objective force, it needn't be defined. I just tell my players the wind is blowing, and they respond by having their PCs cast control winds, or perhaps unfurl the sails on their ships, or something else.




It is defined to the extent they know what the wind is.  It need not be defined to the ultimate degree of knowing precisely how fast, what direction, etc. the wind blows.  Neither do we need to define a hierarchy for the principals of Good.



pemerton said:


> I don't know about all the "Expanded Universe" material - but from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.




My two quotes were pretty solid indicators, and come from the initial trilogy.



pemerton said:


> The description of the Raven Queen states that she hates undead and those who create them. So when - as I did - I tell my players that we are playing a game in the default 4e world, I trust that they will not disregard these elements of the setting description.
> 
> If they want to play a necromancer - putting to one side the difficulties of mechanical implementation of the necromancer in 4e - there are other entities to serve, such as Vecna or Orcus.




and yet



pemerton said:


> I don't have any "preconceived notions". I have experiences and knowledge. You are, in effect, asking "What would I do if a player disregarded agreed elements of the fiction, such as the Raven Queen's hatred of undead?" Or "What would I do if a player built his/her PC as an honourable warrior, and then set about having his/her PC torture peasants?" Because I've never had these issues come up, I don't know how I'd respond. If you're suggesting that alignment mechanics would help, I've got no real reason to believe that's so. If a player isn't interested in taking the shared fiction seriously, or their own PC build seriously, why would I expect them to take a GM's stipulations in relation to alignment seriously?




You have preconceived notions of the Raven Queen's morality.  She hates undead.  Thus, a character who considers animating the dead for his purposes is not serving the Raven Queen's morality.  They cannot define their own code, deciding that as a dedicated follower of RQ, they will Animate a horde of Zombies for the greater good.

The question is not whether you have preconceived notions of the entity's views on morality, but which notions are and are not preconceived.  That you choose not to label them "good" or "evil" in no way changes that.


----------



## Hussar

The difference N'raac is that there  is no way that two DM's, seeing a PC devoted to the Raven Queen will give diametrically opposed rulings while following the rules of the game. 

The same is obviously not true of alignment given the comments between Cadence and Celebrim above.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> I don't know about all the "Expanded Universe" material - but from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.
> 
> Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings counsels Frodo against hubris (particularly in the conversation about Bilbo not having killed Gollum; and not also Aragorn's lack of hubris upon his arrival at Minas Tirith). I don't need a mechanical definition of "hubris" in order to make sense of these passages, and achieve similar episodes in RPG play.
> 
> And so what point is being served by the use of mechanical alignment?




Apologies if I am misunderstanding you here if I have drawn up a strawman, but are you saying that due to the Star Wars movies you understand the Dark and Light side - and they originate from broader cultural and mythical tropes? Can not the same be said for Good and Evil in D&D and the bucket loads of novels which have comes out? The "fall" of Raistlin comes to mind in Dragonlance. In the Lone Wolf series it was Vonotar the traitor..etc 
Surely we can agree that the D&D alignment tropes are not that removed for us not be able to understand them. 

If your answer is yes, why would you be so adverse to mechanical alignment. All mechanical alignment does is enforce the stereotype described. It sets a general guideline.  

I also firmly believe that the fall of a paladin, cleric & druid has not been set in stone in the books, for instance it has not been broken down, no skill challenge has been displayed of how it happens and merely is commented on through a paragraph as it is meant to become each DM's interpretation for roleplay purposes, hence strict mechanics have not been set. 

But we do not have to go so far as alignment to think of where a DM takes control of a situation if the need arises: For instance, think of a PC Fighter who through the story was elevated to Knight status (this can easily happen in Mystara in the Karameikos Duchy). Should the Knight behave "un-knightly" his status can be taken away. And it is not the Player who decides on the fate of his character of whether or not he loses his status, it is the DM. Do you also oppose this "DM empowerment"?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> The difference N'raac is that there  is no way that two DM's, seeing a PC devoted to the Raven Queen will give diametrically opposed rulings while following the rules of the game.




Your argument against alignment is that two DMs will roleplay it differently in a campaign? A cleric of the Raven Queen who animates undead will be treated the same in both campaigns? Perhaps one DM will punish the cleric by refusing him access to Divine Powers altogether and permanently, one DM might decided that the cleric will have to pay penance, another might send someone/thing to punish him (lose a hand, an eye), another would have him flogged by his spiritual equals..etc
I think its great no two DMs are the same.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> It is defined to the extent they know what the wind is.  It need not be defined to the ultimate degree of knowing precisely how fast, what direction, etc. the wind blows.  Neither do we need to define a hierarchy for the principals of Good.



You seem to be using "defined" as something like a synonym for "known". In that case, we know what a paladin is too: s/he is a heroic warrior who is in the calling of a deity, and who values honour and duty above all else. (It is tempting to say "above his/her personal welfare, but on some theories of welfare - eg certain Socratic/Platonic ones - valuing honour and duty are the best ways to serve one's genuine welfare.)

Here is the class description from the 4e PHB, for instance (pp 89-90 - the text alternates between third and second person):

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. . .

Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations. . .

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve . . .​
That is all pretty clear, and we get extra information when we learn that paladins are proficient in all armour, even plate, and also are proficient in shields, and have as their key abilities either STR or CHA. They are knights in shining armour, either on the model of Lancelot/Gawain (STR) or Galahad/Percival (CHA). The power load-out for a typical paladin only further reinforces that a paladin is a knight in shining armour. oN pp 89 & 91 of the PHB we even get a summary of what paladin powers permit the PC to do:

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. . .

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .

In battle, paladins rely on their deities to strengthen their sword-arms and fortify them against the attacks of their enemies.​
For completeness, here is the corresponding text from the AD&D 2nd ed PHB (as published on the WotC website as part of their promotion of the reprint - its p 35 of that printing):

The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. Like the fighter, the paladin is a man of combat. However, the paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others might learn from him as well as gain by his actions.​
I imagine a person who had no familiarity with those Arthurian (or similar) tropes - eg a person raised in a very strict and sheltered pacifist community - would have trouble identifying what the archetype of a paladin is. (For instance, such a person might reflexively see righteousness and devotion as at odds with being a warrior.) But I also imagine that comparatively few such people are playing D&D. In practice I've never had this problem. (Note that you don't need to endorse the trope in order to play a paladin: you just have to recognise it. It's a fantasy game, after all.)

What we don't need, in order for someone to play this class, is a definition in the stricter sense of what counts as "devotion", "taking the high road", "refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations" or "fervently crusading [in the service of] a specific faith". Or, in other words, what we don't need in order for this class to work in the game is anything approaching the application of mechanical alignment.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'raac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Dark Side and Light Side of the Force are very much akin to D&D Alignment <snippage>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yoda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's pprentice.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palpatine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from watching the original Star Wars movie, all my cues about the Dark Side (and anger, hate etc) come from it's playing on broader cultural and mythical tropes which don't rely upon definition in mechanical terms in order to have their literary power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My two quotes were pretty solid indicators
Click to expand...


The way you present this, it's as if the choice of anger, fear, aggression and hatred as triggers for corruption was arbitrary: as if, in some alternative "Star Wars universe", Yoda might warn Luke not to help too many old ladies across the road, because generosity, compassion, loving kindness and equanimity are the ways of the dark side!

The idea that those sorts of emotions lead to corruption is not invented by Lucas - it's an idea with broad resonance, although worked out in perhaps the greatest detail within Buddhism. They are not simply "external" triggers for the dark side - as if the god of the Jedi doesn't like them to do these things, and after three strikes will boot them out of the team. They are "internal" triggers for the dark side, corrupters of personality which eventually - and drawing on another fantasy trope that predates Lucas - manifests itself in external transformation.

The analogue of alignment debates in a Star Wars RPG would be the GM trying to tell the Jedi player whether or not a particular action manifested an excessive degree of aggression. I would not be interested in that for the same reason I'm not interested in mechanical alignment. If the player is being sincere in playing a Jedi, s/he will avoid excessive aggression. If s/he wants to play out a fall to the dark side, then that can be played out. (Obligatory Darths & Droids reference here.)



N'raac said:


> You have preconceived notions of the Raven Queen's morality.  She hates undead.  Thus, a character who considers animating the dead for his purposes is not serving the Raven Queen's morality.



By "morality" here you seem to mean what she thinks is right and wrong. Yes, that is defined as part of the gameworld. As I posted upthread, when I tell my players that I want to run a game using the default 4e world, then I am including the Raven Queen as written up for that world. Here are the relevant passages (PHB p 22):

The name of the god of death is long forgotten, but she is called the Raven Queen. She is the spinner of fate and the patron of winter. She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.

She expects her followers to abide by these commandments:

* Hold no pity for those who suffer and die, for death is the natural end of life.

* Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the Raven Queen, you must punish hubris where you find it.

* Watch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The Demon Prince of the Undead seeks to claim the Raven Queen’s throne.​


N'raac said:


> They cannot define their own code



I never said that they could (though in fact the players have worked out details  - eg the paladin decided himself that he sleeps standing up). That is a view you've imputed to me, perhaps in part because - in this as in other conversations - you don't distinguish between backstory and  action resolution as components of the fiction.

Just as the players chose to have their PCs worship the Raven Queen _because they liked what they read about her in the background material_, so the player of the dwarf who got to specify sociological details of dwarven society didn't disregard what was written about dwarves. For instance, p 36 of the PHB tells us that "dwarves endured an age of servitude to giants before winning their freedom. Their mighty mountain fortress-cities testify to the power of their ancient empires." The player's backstory for dwarves therefore included details of their compulsory military service within those fortress-cities rather than (say) their tendency to enjoy cavorting with the stone giants in the mountains.



N'raac said:


> The question is not whether you have preconceived notions of the entity's views on morality, but which notions are and are not preconceived.  That you choose not to label them "good" or "evil" in no way changes that.



That might be your question - though I'm not sure what you think is at stake in answering it. It's not my question, though. My question is "Why would I want to impose evaluative judgements on the choices that my players' make for their characters?"

For me, the answer to that question is "I wouldn't". It's up to them to decide what is involved in honouring the Raven Queen's commandments. It's up to them to decide what it means to be a dwarf, and what counts as embracing or repudiating one's dwarven heritage. To echo something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said repeatedly,_ it's up to them to play their characters_, and it's not my role to judge whether or not they're doing it properly.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> are you saying that due to the Star Wars movies you understand the Dark and Light side - and they originate from broader cultural and mythical tropes?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If your answer is yes, why would you be so adverse to mechanical alignment. All mechanical alignment does is enforce the stereotype described. It sets a general guideline.



I'm saying the opposite - that the reason the Star Wars movies are able to evoke the Dark and Light side is because the audience is already familiar with the idea that hate, aggression, and the like are emotions that are to be avoided rather than cultivated, because they can tend to have a corrupting influence. (The audience of course may not all agree with this idea - the point is that they are familiar with it.)

That said, my objection to mechanical alignment is precisely that it enforces the GM's conception of the trope/stereotype in the face of the players' alternative interpretation. And I don't see any reason to do this.



Sadras said:


> think of a PC Fighter who through the story was elevated to Knight status (this can easily happen in Mystara in the Karameikos Duchy). Should the Knight behave "un-knightly" his status can be taken away. And it is not the Player who decides on the fate of his character of whether or not he loses his status, it is the DM. Do you also oppose this "DM empowerment"?



This depends to a significant extent on what resources the player spent for the benefit.

If it was a feat or (in 4e) a paragon path or (in 3E) a prestige class benefit, then I would not support the GM simply stripping it away, no. If the player is now repudiating being a knight, it's time for a rebuild of some sort. If the player doesn't agree with the GM that his/her PC is behaving improperly, then I don't favour the GM acting unilaterally.

To relate this to what I said above in this post - I don't think it makes for a better game for all interpretations of knightliness, or good, or evil, or courage, or honour, or combatting hubris, or protecting people from undead (to allude back to [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s Raven Queen example) to be imposed upon the game by the GM. To me, at least, part of the point of playing a PC is to put forward one's own interpretations of the character and the tropes in question. And part of the point of participating in an RPG (as player or GM) is to see what other interpretations one's fellow participants put forward.

I don't want to exaggerate the creative dimension of RPGing - it's not high art - but the creative, interpretive, responsive dimension is nevertheless a part of it that is important to me. I don't want or need my players to play out my conception of what (for instance) honour requires - I could work that out on my own via my own imagination. For me, the enforcement of alignment leeches this creative dimension out of the game, and tends to reduce the players to a very narrow role in the game: they get to coin some dialogue and make some decisions having procedural consequences, but the really big questions have already been answered in advance by the GM.



Sadras said:


> I also firmly believe that the fall of a paladin, cleric & druid has not been set in stone in the books



I'm not sure which books you mean. On this issue my greatest familiarity is with Gygax's AD&D books. In his DMG he tells us that a cleric who changes allegiance for a third time will be struck down. In his PHB he tells us that changing alignment is rare and hard, and that once you change one way you will almost never be taken back. And I don't have it in front of me, but I have a feeling that the paladin class tells us that a paladin who knowingly does an evil deed is immediately stripped of paladinhood. (OSRIC v2 p 18 says that "the paladin instantly loses his or her enhanced status as a paladin and may never regain it." I doubt that is very different from what is found in the AD&D PHB.)

I don't think we're told what happens to non-neutral druids. And I can't remember what we're told about monks. (OSRIC doesn't have monks, and is silent on what happens to a non-neutral druid, though p 11 has the cryptic remark that "druids of differing alignments may be found as non-player characters in some GMs’ campaigns.")


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> I'm saying the opposite - that the reason the Star Wars movies are able to evoke the Dark and Light side is because the audience is already familiar with the idea that hate, aggression, and the like are emotions that are to be avoided rather than cultivated, because they can tend to have a corrupting influence. (The audience of course may not all agree with this idea - the point is that they are familiar with it.)




Okay but are you saying the audience (players) are not familiar with the general premises put forward for the various alignment types in D&D? IMO, it really is not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't need a George Lucas film to explain it to me.



> This depends to a significant extent on what resources the player spent for the benefit.




The Knighthood was merely a title or status not anything related to the PB, but in terms of resources it would have to be invested time.



> If it was a feat or (in 4e) a paragon path or (in 3E) a prestige class benefit, then I would not support the GM simply stripping it away, no. If the player is now repudiating being a knight, it's time for a rebuild of some sort. If the player doesn't agree with the GM that his/her PC is behaving improperly, then I don't favour the GM acting unilaterally.




Okay, in one of my recent sessions, the barbarian PC acted unruly within a rather gnomish mining town and got into a scuffle at a local tavern, made some choice remarks about their deity and was eventually arrested and taken into custody by the town guard. In another part of the town an investigation was being lead by 2 PCs and a NPC cleric official. It was revealed during the investigation that one of the PCs was lying to the clerical official and was deliberately keeping evidence as he believed he could do a better job in the investigation with the physical evidence found. When confronted by both the NPC and the other PC he was rather arrogant and blase about the whole thing.
Needless to say, with some other choice events to add spice to the situation, the ruling council of this rather recluse gnomish town ordered the PCs to leave and that they would continue the investigation without them.

Now from the above from the above one could also make the statement that "the player doesn't agree with the GM that his/her PC is behaving improperly" and that the party should not have been given the boot from the town. How is this different to alignment? I get the feeling from your answers that it has a lot to do with powers, feats & abilities - because you mentioned investment by the player, which in my mind, should not make a difference to the debate.



> I don't think it makes for a better game for all interpretations of knightliness, or good, or evil, or courage, or honour, or combatting hubris, or protecting people from undead (to allude back to @_*N'raac*_'s Raven Queen example) to be imposed upon the game by the GM. To me, at least, part of the point of playing a PC is to put forward one's own interpretations of the character and the tropes in question. And part of the point of participating in an RPG (as player or GM) is to see what other interpretations one's fellow participants put forward.
> 
> I don't want to exaggerate the creative dimension of RPGing - it's not high art - but the creative, interpretive, responsive dimension is nevertheless a part of it that is important to me. I don't want or need my players to play out my conception of what (for instance) honour requires - I could work that out on my own via my own imagination. For me, the enforcement of alignment leeches this creative dimension out of the game, and tends to reduce the players to a very narrow role in the game: they get to coin some dialogue and make some decisions having procedural consequences, but the really big questions have already been answered in advance by the GM.




Well I find this supposed "enforcement" is made when the player selects their class. If they do not want to be restricted via alignment or code or idea, they would choose something other than a cleric, paladin or druid...etc The "narrow role" is baked into the class - to say that the DM leeches a creative dimension for a player is very misleading.
The restriction is all in the class description.  

I find the the player who plays the paladin in my group a breath of fresh air - he plays him within this "narrow role" and alignment doesn't even come up not that it even has to - it just doesn't, he is more aware of it than I. And I find he constantly surprises me (in a good way) and his PC challenges the other PCs within the group regarding their words and actions.
As a DM I have decided to shower him with visions (divine messages) from time to time, and as he follows the righteous path more and more, the greater the frequency of these visions. As a player and character he is not aware of this. Should he falter, the visions might become less frequent. Do I need alignment for this? No. It is a guideline, everyone in our group knows this - its there only when it is necessary or for story purposes. 

I think players that want that sense of order and morale ethical heaviness do not require the DM to enforce it - I think the alignment guideline is mostly utilised for those that do not take the heavy classes seriously. So its not about DM enforcement as opposed to a means in "controlling" unruly players. Your good role-players usually will not have any need for alignment to come into play, not unless they want to for narrative purposes.

So any rule that clamps down on terrible play is good in my book, and this is besides its other uses.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Your argument against alignment is that two DMs will roleplay it differently in a campaign? A cleric of the Raven Queen who animates undead will be treated the same in both campaigns? Perhaps one DM will punish the cleric by refusing him access to Divine Powers altogether and permanently, one DM might decided that the cleric will have to pay penance, another might send someone/thing to punish him (lose a hand, an eye), another would have him flogged by his spiritual equals..etc
> I think its great no two DMs are the same.




No. The problem is one DM will penalize the PC in some fashion while the next one pats him on the back. And according to the rules they are both right.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:
			
		

> So any rule that clamps down on terrible play is good in my book, and this is besides its other uses.




Hrmmmm. I was just told in no uncertain term that this POV was not held by anyone here. Heh. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. Are your ears burning?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Hrmmmm. I was just told in no uncertain term that this POV was not held by anyone here. Heh. @_*Imaro*_. Are your ears burning?




In our campaign, I have introduced a house rule for the setting whereby spamming of cantrips over a continuous period of 4-5 minutes might result in the caster being affected by a migraine/headache, temporary blindness, temporary deafness...etc even perhaps render the caster unconscious. The period for these negative experiences is undefined all the character knows is that playing around with the arcane on that level has consequences even for 0-level spells. 
Why did I create this house rule? Because I saw an opening for abuse within the system that wasn't to my liking.
Have I exercised it yet? No, but its there. 

Same with alignment. You might have an ass-hat roleplayer who decides to play a paladin for all the benefits and does everything under the sun which is contrary to how a paladin ought to behave, and not because he wants to express his freedom, not because of narrative conflict - but because the player is an asshat and wanted all the benefits of the class without adhering to the class's code. That's when the DM can come in and be the big bully.
Have I had to do it. Thankfully not. Alignment has never been an issue in our campaigns. Wizards more so 

This is not to say that this is Alignment's only feature - I'm just reflecting on that because this seem to be the most contentious topic regarding it.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Hrmmmm. I was just told in no uncertain term that this POV was not held by anyone here. Heh. @_*Imaro*_. Are your ears burning?




No, they're not.  I think you're mistaken on what I said... I never claimed this view wasn't held by anyone in the thread.  What I objected to was it being stated as a broad brush reason and/or as the "crux" of the argument for the *majority* of people on the pro-alignment side.  as far as it being some individuals reasons, I never denied that.

For further clarification...

Here was the original post I responded too...




Hobo said:


> No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess. That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good. The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.




...and below is my response.




Imaro said:


> Wrong, we've been asked why the DM is a better arbitrator for alignment than an individual player... we've given examples (some extreme) for why that is... but it wasn't the crux of why those of us who like alignment do, I think both @






Imaro said:


> _*Umbran*_ and @_*Bedrockgames*_ have given the reasons (at least for me) that I enjoy a game with alignment... but then I guess those don't count for some reason.





Where did I assure you that *no one* held a particular view


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> No. The problem is one DM will penalize the PC in some fashion while the next one pats him on the back. And according to the rules they are both right.




A 1st level character may also find a +5 sword in a goblin's lair and that is fine according to the rules.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Okay but are you saying the audience (players) are not familiar with the general premises put forward for the various alignment types in D&D? IMO, it really is not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't need a George Lucas film to explain it to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I find the the player who plays the paladin in my group a breath of fresh air - he plays him within this "narrow role" and alignment doesn't even come up not that it even has to - it just doesn't, he is more aware of it than I. And I find he constantly surprises me (in a good way) and his PC challenges the other PCs within the group regarding their words and actions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So any rule that clamps down on terrible play is good in my book, and this is besides its other uses.



I don't need a rule to clamp down on terrible play. And the players of paladins in my game challenge the other PCs too - upthread I posted a lengthy example of play where this sort of thing led to a significant campaign loss for the party. They don't need alignment to do this, just PCs with convictions and then roleplaying those PCs.

As for the general premise of alignments in D&D. I posted upthread the basic premises for the paladin class from two editions - in my view mediating that via alignment adds no new information. And I don't agree that the alignments themselves are well-understood premises. For instance, is Thomas Jefferson lawful (rule of law) or chaotic (individual liberties)? Is FDR chaotic (threatening to stack the Supreme Court) or lawful (defending the solidarity of the New Deal against interventionist judges)? Is Peter Singer evil (euthanasia is permissible) or good (greatest happiness of the greatest number)? I don't expect anyone to answer those questions in this thread - that would probably breach board rules. I'm just making the point that, as they are presented, D&D alignments don't actually capture or correspond to any well-understood genre tropes.

Even if they did, I would not favour a game in which the GM enforces those tropes.



Sadras said:


> Okay, in one of my recent sessions, the barbarian PC acted unruly within a rather gnomish mining town and got into a scuffle at a local tavern, made some choice remarks about their deity and was eventually arrested and taken into custody by the town guard. In another part of the town an investigation was being lead by 2 PCs and a NPC cleric official. It was revealed during the investigation that one of the PCs was lying to the clerical official and was deliberately keeping evidence as he believed he could do a better job in the investigation with the physical evidence found. When confronted by both the NPC and the other PC he was rather arrogant and blase about the whole thing.
> Needless to say, with some other choice events to add spice to the situation, the ruling council of this rather recluse gnomish town ordered the PCs to leave and that they would continue the investigation without them.



This just looks like consequences of action resolution. The situation around the barbarian PC has been reframed, but the player of the barbarian has not been stripped of the mechanical resources s/he chose as his/her tools for engaging the game. Nor has his/her conception of his/her PC been validated - for example, nothing in the story you've told implies that s/he has to think the town council did the right thing.

Turning a paladin into a fighter is, in my view, quite a different matter. It deprives the PC of his/her resources. And (putting to one side [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s view that a person who is forsaken by the gods of good might form the view that they are not really good, which I still don't understand) it tells the player that his/her PC did the wrong thing.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> I don't need a rule to clamp down on terrible play.




Yes, but it certainly helps new DMs to have a guideline. 



> And I don't agree that the alignments themselves are well-understood premises. For instance, is Thomas Jefferson lawful (rule of law) or chaotic (individual liberties)? Is FDR chaotic (threatening to stack the Supreme Court) or lawful (defending the solidarity of the New Deal against interventionist judges)? Is Peter Singer evil (euthanasia is permissible) or good (greatest happiness of the greatest number)? I don't expect anyone to answer those questions in this thread - that would probably breach board rules. I'm just making the point that, as they are presented, D&D alignments don't actually capture or correspond to any well-understood genre tropes.




I don't recall Star Wars's Dark or Light side capturing that level of detail either, I do not understand why you need that level of detail of alignment within D&D. 



> Even if they did, I would not favour a game in which the GM enforces those tropes.




It appears you have a misconception that everything the Paladin does is questioned, deliberated, analysed when this is not the case. The DM is not a pro-active policeman.



> Turning a paladin into a fighter is, in my view, quite a different matter. It deprives the PC of his/her resources. And (putting to one side @_*N'raac*_'s view that a person who is forsaken by the gods of good might form the view that they are not really good, which I still don't understand) it tells the player that his/her PC did the wrong thing.




So the question/s I pose is: Can the player ever do the wrong thing in your mind? Or is the answer only yes, if the DM does not deprive him/her of his/her resources?


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> The difference N'raac is that there  is no way that two DM's, seeing a PC devoted to the Raven Queen will give diametrically opposed rulings while following the rules of the game.




No?  Let’s chat more about Her Highness below, in conjunction with her tenets.



Sadras said:


> Your argument against alignment is that two DMs will roleplay it differently in a campaign? A cleric of the Raven Queen who animates undead will be treated the same in both campaigns? Perhaps one DM will punish the cleric by refusing him access to Divine Powers altogether and permanently, one DM might decided that the cleric will have to pay penance, another might send someone/thing to punish him (lose a hand, an eye), another would have him flogged by his spiritual equals..etc




The fact that each GM will run a game differently is no different than the fact that each player will run characters differently.  This is a key difference, at least to me, between a board game and a tabletop RPG.



pemerton said:


> For completeness, here is the corresponding text from the AD&D 2nd ed PHB (as published on the WotC website as part of their promotion of the reprint - its p 35 of that printing):
> The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. Like the fighter, the paladin is a man of combat. However, the paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others might learn from him as well as gain by his actions.​
> I imagine a person who had no familiarity with those Arthurian (or similar) tropes - eg a person raised in a very strict and sheltered pacifist community - would have trouble identifying what the archetype of a paladin is. (For instance, such a person might reflexively see righteousness and devotion as at odds with being a warrior.) But I also imagine that comparatively few such people are playing D&D. In practice I've never had this problem. (Note that you don't need to endorse the trope in order to play a paladin: you just have to recognise it. It's a fantasy game, after all.)




Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are also tropes, as the Star Wars discussion notes.  I find it hard to believe every GM will concur as to how one best reflects “a living example of ” the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry”.  Your answer, as I read it, is that the players may interpret this as they will, and you will let any disagreement slide.  Yet you have indicated you reject one of my possible character interpretations for the Raven Queen.  As well, your willingness to let any disagreement slide seems to be conditional on the players not deviating too far from your own view, in that you have noted this has never been an issue for you because your players “are reasonable”, ie do not play characters in a manner you see as deviating excessively from the values set out.

This seems a lot more practical than [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s expectation every GM’s ruling on every issue would be identical.  I don’t see any less room for debate over the virtues outlined above for the Paladin, nor how hard he must strive to exemplify them, nor how successful he must be, than to shorthand this to exemplifying the ideals of the LG alignment.



pemerton said:


> What we don't need, in order for someone to play this class, is a definition in the stricter sense of what counts as "devotion", "taking the high road", "refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations" or "fervently crusading [in the service of] a specific faith". Or, in other words, what we don't need in order for this class to work in the game is anything approaching the application of mechanical alignment.




I agree with your first sentence.  We need not analyze each and every action in depth, classifying it to the Nth degree.  I disagree with your second sentence’s implication that implies such classification is needed to even approach the application of mechanical alignment.



pemerton said:


> The way you present this, it's as if the choice of anger, fear, aggression and hatred as triggers for corruption was arbitrary: as if, in some alternative "Star Wars universe", Yoda might warn Luke not to help too many old ladies across the road, because generosity, compassion, loving kindness and equanimity are the ways of the dark side!
> 
> The idea that those sorts of emotions lead to corruption is not invented by Lucas - it's an idea with broad resonance, although worked out in perhaps the greatest detail within Buddhism. They are not simply "external" triggers for the dark side - as if the god of the Jedi doesn't like them to do these things, and after three strikes will boot them out of the team. They are "internal" triggers for the dark side, corrupters of personality which eventually - and drawing on another fantasy trope that predates Lucas - manifests itself in external transformation.




You keep telling me the character should define his own morality, as there is no way that the GM and player can be expected to agree on what is “moral/good” and what is not.  Yet you say above, and I agree, that we have a pretty good idea what exemplifies Good and what exemplifies Evil.  So how is it hard to envision a judgement in game that a character’s actions taken as a whole (or an extreme action) indicates a trend to the Dark Side?



pemerton said:


> The analogue of alignment debates in a Star Wars RPG would be the GM trying to tell the Jedi player whether or not a particular action manifested an excessive degree of aggression. I would not be interested in that for the same reason I'm not interested in mechanical alignment. If the player is being sincere in playing a Jedi, s/he will avoid excessive aggression. If s/he wants to play out a fall to the dark side, then that can be played out. (Obligatory Darths & Droids reference here.)




And, again, I don’t see the need to analyze each and every action, but actions in general.  A player sincere in playing a Jedi or a Paladin will certainly not undertake an extreme action which, in and of itself, would indicate he has “gone to the Dark Side” (or fallen as a Paladin).



pemerton said:


> By "morality" here you seem to mean what she thinks is right and wrong. Yes, that is defined as part of the gameworld. As I posted upthread, when I tell my players that I want to run a game using the default 4e world, then I am including the Raven Queen as written up for that world. Here are the relevant passages (PHB p 22):
> 
> The name of the god of death is long forgotten, but she is called the Raven Queen. She is the spinner of fate and the patron of winter. She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.
> 
> She expects her followers to abide by these commandments:
> 
> * Hold no pity for those who suffer and die, for death is the natural end of life.
> 
> * Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the Raven Queen, you must punish hubris where you find it.
> 
> * Watch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The Demon Prince of the Undead seeks to claim the Raven Queen’s throne.​
> I never said that they could (though in fact the players have worked out details  - eg the paladin decided himself that he sleeps standing up). That is a view you've imputed to me, perhaps in part because - in this as in other conversations - you don't distinguish between backstory and  action resolution as components of the fiction.




You first told me the players define their own codes and the GM has no right to evaluate them.  But it seems this only holds true if the players define their codes within your parameters – that is, consistent with the tenets of the Raven Queen.

So why was my example character dismissed as inappropriate to the Raven Queen?  His efforts to bring death to the masses do not seem, from where I sit, to violate any of the commandments above.  I also note that all references to date have indicated the RQ is opposed to Undead in general, but I only see Orcus referenced above.  It seems my character could reasonably decide it is OK to utilize undeath in the services of the Raven Queen, rather than in the service of the Demon Queen.

I also find that first could cast moral judgement.  I don’t really envision a classic Paladin looking at the starving, suffering villagers and telling them “Silence, wretched ones – your suffering is the natural order of things, and soon you shall die, as is right and proper”, yet  that seems a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the first commandment.  In fact, seeking to ease their suffering seems to violate that commandment.

 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I suspect not every GM would agree with my interpretations above.  Does that mean these commandments should also be stricken from the rules?



pemerton said:


> For me, the answer to that question is "I wouldn't". It's up to them to decide what is involved in honouring the Raven Queen's commandments.
> 
> _ it's up to them to play their characters_, and it's not my role to judge whether or not they're doing it properly.




So why did you dismiss my character who murders in the name of the Raven Queen?  In what way was he clearly not honoring those commandments?  You judged that character before it was even created.



Hussar said:


> No. The problem is one DM will penalize the PC in some fashion while the next one pats him on the back. And according to the rules they are both right.




And yet the thrust of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s comments has been that two players could take entirely different interpretations of, say, service to the Raven Queen and both be right.  



pemerton said:


> Turning a paladin into a fighter is, in my view, quite a different matter. It deprives the PC of his/her resources. And (putting to one side @_*N'raac*_'s view that a person who is forsaken by the gods of good might form the view that they are not really good, which I still don't understand) it tells the player that his/her PC did the wrong thing.




To the mechanics issue, I agree the character should be able to regain equivalent mechanics, not be forced to play a character who lags far behind his peers.  But then, doesn’t Raise Dead cost a character a level?  Doesn’t that mechanic cause a lag for a period of time, at least?  Why can falling as a paladin or cleric not impose a disadvantage, albeit one I agree should not be indefinite or permanent?

You continue to assert that any assessment of alignment means the character “did wrong”.  If the player consistently eases the suffering of the hurt and dying, expressing remorse for the tragedy of their pain and death, that directly violates the first RQ commandment above.  To her, it is wrong.  The PC is not acting in her service.  Does that mean the character objectively “did wrong”?  No.  Is the PC doing wrong in the eyes of the Raven Queen?  I suggest breaking her commandments is “doing wrong” in her eyes.  It would be appropriate for her to take action  against a follower “doing wrong” just as it would be appropriate for the Prince to take action against a Cleric breaking his edicts.  

Every alignment has its own outlook.  To “do right” under one will certainly “do wrong” under another.  It does not establish an objective “right” or “wrong” unless we have defined one alignment to be morally superior.  I think we do consider “good” to be morally superior to “evil” under the tropes of fantasy literature, but I don’t believe we assess that a Druid (or RQ follower) who views death as the natural order, and opposes efforts to unnaturally prolong life (say, in our world, life support machinery) is “wrong”.  



Sadras said:


> I don't recall Star Wars's Dark or Light side capturing that level of detail either, I do not understand why you need that level of detail of alignment within D&D.
> 
> It appears you have a misconception that everything the Paladin does is questioned, deliberated, analysed when this is not the case. The DM is not a pro-active policeman.




100% agree



Sadras said:


> So the question/s I pose is: Can the player ever do the wrong thing in your mind? Or is the answer only yes, if the DM does not deprive him/her of his/her resources?




Answers I’ve been looking for as well, but my questions have been far less succinct.  Although it seems my murdering follower of the RQ was perceived as “wrong”…funny, it seems more “right” now than it did when I first posited it.  It seems like the RQ is perceived more positively in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s game than her precepts above would suggest.


----------



## N'raac

Hey, back to Fate Aspects.  

An example for someone familiar to comment on.  The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  The rest don't play in.  The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case.  Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.

Player:  "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"

GM:  "whoa there, cowboy.  What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  You should be cowering back in that cave.  Compel.  Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."

Player:  "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"

GM:  "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."

We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated.  And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Both of you are making what you feel to be accurate assessments of alignment. Neither of you is being unreasonable. Yet, depending on who is DM, one of you is absolutely, 100% wrong.
> 
> Now, do you feel comfortable sitting down at <insert DM>'s table knowing that your interpretations of alignment, at that table will be wrong? Will this help you play the game? Will it enhance your enjoyment of this game?




"Seriously, have you met a dictiona... no, no, it's fine.  Chaotic Neutral it is."

And then I go on playing the Zen Bugbear like I would describe as lawful neutral.  As long as he's ok with me always keeping my word and following the laws unless they seem wrong then there isn't a problem.   (Well, I would likely have to resist the urge to continually put myself in situations that show how non-chaotic I am, but I think I could resist... sometimes...).

If he tries to tell me I can't act that way since I'm CN, I'll redescribe my character and let him tell me what words I need on the paper.

If I end up having the Lord's of Order not like me because it says CN, that seems the same as some of the problem's I've had with some settings theologies before.  (I had a gnome who was devestated to find out some of the things the benevolent creator deity had in that wold.  Definitely made me decide against trying to convert into a Paladin though).

Both of those situations would take a bit more mental readjustment on my part if I were already playing the Paladin and I might have to decide whether the Paladin would abandon his calling or if I'd frustratedly ask to make up another character.

In my own game I tend to take a view like several others have described of letting the players help flesh things out.   In the case of the character who follows his own code of honor but wanted to call that CN, I think all of the NPCs would react to him the same way as if I had labeled him LN.  I'd have to think on how the spells and such would recognize him.



> How has alignment improved your gaming experiences?




The line on the character sheet can lead me to think about issues in ways I hadn't before.  Maybe it would benefit from an * with *=If no alignment really fits then choose the "closest" and a pithy phrase describing your world view.   Mostly, it just adds those outsiders and some spells.


----------



## Imaro

N'raac said:


> Hey, back to Fate Aspects.
> 
> An example for someone familiar to comment on.  The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  The rest don't play in.  The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case.  Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.
> 
> Player:  "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"
> 
> GM:  "whoa there, cowboy.  What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  You should be cowering back in that cave.  Compel.  Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."
> 
> Player:  "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"
> 
> GM:  "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."
> 
> We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated.  And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.
> 
> What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?




You're not missing anything and it's definitely a plausible scenario, but...

Cue the...

"This is theoretical, it would never happen in a real game, a player wouldn't play like that, so it doesn't matter??" statement that seems to have become the universal auto-magical non-answer to any problems brought up in this thread surrounding Fate's aspects....


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Yes, but it certainly helps new DMs to have a guideline.



I don't really see how. What problem does a new GM face that alignment will help with?

To give a somewhat concrete (but hypothetical) example: I learn from a friend that a new, simpler version of D&D is available online for free. Curious about this game I've never played but have heard a bit about, I download the D&Dnext rules, plus the rewrite of Keep on the Borderlands.

I get some friends over and they make some characters - say, a cleric, a fighter, a rogue and a paladin. We play through the arrival at the keep. They then head out to the Caves. They have a chat with the mad hermit then invade the kobold lair.

What problems might I have as a new GM that alignment would help with? The most obvious issue I can see here is that the player of the rogue is likely to want to sneak into the lair, whereas the player of the paladin might want to stand at the entrance and challenge the kobold champion to single combat. (Or some similar difference of approach between thief and knight.)

I can see how that would be an issue, both for the players - how do they resolve disagreement among players in a game based around party play? - and for the GM - what am I meant to do if there is a collision between a PC trope (noble knight) and the framing of my adventure (less than fully overt commando mission)? But I don't see how alignment would help resolve it.

I don't recall Star Wars's Dark or Light side capturing that level of detail either[/quote]That's part of my point, though. They're genre tropes, or literary devices for expressing and reflecting on certain culturally significant phenomena. Likewise the idea of the holy warrior. But they're obviously ripe for differeing, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations.

As long as the player is familiar with the trope/device, s/he should be able to interpret it as well as the GM.



Sadras said:


> So the question/s I pose is: Can the player ever do the wrong thing in your mind?



What do you mean "do the wrong thing?" Yes, s/he can be rude to other people at the table. S/he can get angry at a die roll and storm off in a huff. But these aren't things that I need game rules to deal with - the rules of chess don't tell me what to do when my oppoenent gets angry and tips the board over, either!

If you mean, can the player do the wrong thing in playing his/her PC, then the answer is no. Playing your PC isn't something you do right or wrong. Of course it's something that can be done more or less interestingly, or with more or less engagement with the game. But as long as you're not pissing other people off, your PC is yours to play. (And if you are pissing other people off, once again that's not an issue I need game rules to solve. That's a social issue that I handle like any other social issue.)

There is an implicit idea in at least some of the posts on this thread  - and maybe in yours, though I'm not sure - that the player has an incentive to write (say) LG on his/her PC sheet, but then to get the "benefits" of playing CE. And hence that the GM has to police that. My response upthread to that idea, which I now reiterate, is that I don't see how playing an honourable PC is a disadvantage, or playing CE is a benefit. So I don't see how the player has any incentive to do these things. So I don't see the need for GMing policing.

An exception to the above would be if the game is a classic Gygaxian dungeon game, where the players' only motivatin, within the game, is to maximise treasure gained and monsters killed. In that sort of game being LG is a disadvantage of sorts (it puts constraints on your killing and looting), and in that sort of game - as I said upthread - I can see the function of GM policing of a paladin or cleric's alignment. But I don't run that sort of game, and haven't for nearly 30 years.



Cadence said:


> Mostly, it just adds those outsiders and some spells.



This was the conclusion that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] (and maybe someone else) reached upthread.

It's actually never ocurred to me that someone would think these aspects of mechanical alignment are what alignment is good for - especially becasue some of them, like the full spectrum of alignment spells, only exist in 3E (in classic D&D it's mostly about swords, isn't it?). They've always struck me as downstream bells and whistles added to a pre-existing mechanic, rather than the raison d'etre of the mechanic. But if others see them differently, good luck to them! As long as alignment is not built into the game from the ground up (which it's not in AD&D or in 4e, at least) it doesn't worry me if others are using it.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> It's actually never ocurred to me that someone would think these aspects of mechanical alignment are what alignment is good for - especially becasue some of them, like the full spectrum of alignment spells, only exist in 3E (in classic D&D it's mostly about swords, isn't it?). They've always struck me as downstream bells and whistles added to a pre-existing mechanic, rather than the raison d'etre of the mechanic. But if others see them differently, good luck to them! As long as alignment is not built into the game from the ground up (which it's not in AD&D or in 4e, at least) it doesn't worry me if others are using it.




Wait, are you saying spells like Protection from Evil/Good, Detect Evil/Good, know alignment... alignment languages, etc. didn't exist in AD&D?  Could someone with experience with older editions confirm this because I thought these types of spells and interactions with alignment have always existed....

EDIT: Another example is the cleric and how his/her alignment affected how they interacted with undead...  was this in AD&D or is this also a 3.x only thing?


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  The rest don't play in.  The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case.  Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.
> 
> Player:  "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"
> 
> GM:  "whoa there, cowboy.  What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  You should be cowering back in that cave.  Compel.  Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."
> 
> Player:  "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?





Imaro said:


> You're not missing anything and it's definitely a plausible scenario



I don't understand why the player is out of Fate points, given that the GM just compelled him/her.

I also found this in the Spirit of the Century SRD:

It’s important to note that an aspect may dictate the _type _of action, but it usually shouldn’t dictate the precise action, which is always the player’s decision. In this way, the compel highlights the difficulty of the choices at hand by placing limits on those choices.​
That suggests that the GM can compel that the PC not approach the snake, but can't compel that the PC cower and do nothing. At which point the PC could use his/her newly-acquired Fate Point, plus other abilities (including his/her "Defend the Innocent" aspect? I'm not sure in Fate exactly how a player makes his/her aspects work for him/her) to do something back to the snake.



Imaro said:


> Cue the...
> 
> "This is theoretical



Well it _is_ theoretical. It's not an actual play example, nor even based remotely in an actual play experience. I therefore personally regard it as having basically no value as a model of Fate play. Particularly because less than five minutes of looking through the SRD for a game I don't even play showed me both the text I quoted above, and also this:

Occasionally a character’s aspects will be in head to head conflict with one another. This should not be seen as a problem — rather, it’s an opportunity for high drama! When two aspects are in conflict with one another, they are both subject to a compel. If the player can’t see a way to act in accordance with both aspects, he must buy off at least one of them. In a number of cases, this can lead to a “zero sum”, where one compel is accepted, gaining a fate point, and the other is refused, spending that fate point. If the player can see clear to acting in accordance with both – fantastic! He’s just gotten himself two fate points (and a world of trouble).

The GM needn’t always press the issue in this fashion. Nothing says she has to compel both aspects. But occasionally it’s more interesting if she does.​
Which, apart from anything else it tells us about the general approach to GMing against conflicting aspects, also makes clear that the point earned from the compel can be used for other purposes in the same scene (such as buying off a second compel or, as I suggested, taking some sort of action against the snake).

Whereas those in this thread pointing out their reasons for not using alignment aren't talking about theoretical problems. They're talking about actual play experiences which make them not like alignment, and in my case are presenting actual play experiences that have arisen in the context of alignment-free play.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Wait, are you saying spells like Protection from Evil/Good, Detect Evil/Good, know alignment... alignment languages, etc. didn't exist in AD&D?



As I said, B/X and 1st ed AD&D don't have the full spectrum of alignment spells. And to the best of my knowledge nor does 2nd ed AD&D.

There is know alignment  and alignment languages. They are discrete game elements which can be dropped without changing antyhing else. Didn't 2nd ed AD&D drop alignment languages, and 3E drop know alignment?

There is detect evil, which at least in B/X is not an alignment-based ability (from Moldvay Basic, p B17):

This spell can be used to detect evil intentins, or evilly enchanted objects . . . The exact definition of "evil" is left to each referee, and players should discuss this point so that all are in agreement . . .​
In AD&D at least there is no Detect Law or Detect Chaos.

There is Protection from Evil, but no Protection from Law/Chaos; there is Dispel Evil and Holy Word, but no Dispel Chaos, or Dictum, or any of the "Hammer of Chaos" lline of spells. And there are no alignment subtypes which interact with the general damage reduction rules (which I think is how 3.5 works).



Imaro said:


> Another example is the cleric and how his/her alignment affected how they interacted with undead



What's the tail and what's the dog? I can have an anti-cleric who commands rather than turns undead, and who casts cause wounds spells rather than cure wounds spellls, without needing the alignment rules as window dressing.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> As I said, B/X and 1st ed AD&D don't have the full spectrum of alignment spells. And to the best of my knowledge nor does 2nd ed AD&D.




You also said...

"As long as alignment is not built into the game from the ground up (*which it's not in AD&D* or in 4e, at least)..."

Yet it seems that alignment is built into AD&D since you still need alignment for these spells and the languages and the cleric differentiation and the paladin class, and so on... to work.  So I'd say Alignment is a part of AD&D... now 4e I won't argue with, nothing really interacts with alignment in 4e...



pemerton said:


> There is know alignment  and alignment languages. They are discrete game elements which can be dropped without changing antyhing else. Didn't 2nd ed AD&D drop alignment languages, and 3E drop know alignment?




If this is your criteria for whether alignment is built in or not, then you can do the same thing for 3.x as well... just drop everything that uses it... what in 3.x can't be excised that uses alignment?



pemerton said:


> There is detect evil, which at least in B/X is not an alignment-based ability (from Moldvay Basic, p B17):This spell can be used to detect evil intentins, or evilly enchanted objects . . . The exact definition of "evil" is left to each referee, and players should discuss this point so that all are in agreement . . .​
> In AD&D at least there is no Detect Law or Detect Chaos.
> 
> There is Protection from Evil, but no Protection from Law/Chaos; there is Dispel Evil and Holy Word, but no Dispel Chaos, or Dictum, or any of the "Hammer of Chaos" lline of spells. And there are no alignment subtypes which interact with the general damage reduction rules (which I think is how 3.5 works).




But these spells still affect those of a specific alignment and thus it may not be formalized into a "keyword"  but the description of how the spell works clearly draws on alignment.... either good or evil, rather lawful, neutral or chaotic are affected by the Protection from good/evil spell.  So is your argument there are less spells, classes, etc. that interact with alignment in AD&D than in 3.x, because that's different from claiming AD&D didn't have alignment built into it's rules... and if that is your point I would say 3.x has alot more of everything in general than AD&D did... more classes, more spells, more races, etc.



pemerton said:


> What's the tail and what's the dog? I can have an anti-cleric who commands rather than turns undead, and who casts cause wounds spells rather than cure wounds spellls, without needing the alignment rules as window dressing.




I'm not trying to answer this question, what I was doing in bringing up the differences in the way cleric's of differing alignments interact with undead was show another area in AD&D where alignment is integrated into the mechanics...


----------



## Bedrockgames

I am not going to comb through the phb just to find examples here, but off the top of my head in 2E the spell Forbiddance interacts with both the Law/Chaos axis of alignment and the Good/Evil axis.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> I don't understand why the player is out of Fate points, given that the GM just compelled him/her.




The description here has an order of operations issue.

Let's say the player has one fate point left.

The Player Says "I try to attack the snake."

The GM now decides whether to compel or not.

If the GM does compel, he says, "Hey, I know you don't like snakes!  I compel you to stay back!"  And offers a Fate point.  The player either accepts (and now has two Fate Points, but will have to change what they intend to do) or declines (and pays his or her last point for that, and can go ahead and attack.)

If the GM does not compel, the player rolls the dice, and then after seeing the die result, can pay a Fate Point to invoke "Defender of the Innocent". 

The problem is that in practice, the player will often announce their intention to invoke their own aspect along with their intent to act - "I spend a fate point to invoke 'Defender of the Innocent' to attack!"  If you unravel it into the official order of operations, though, there's no issue.




> I also found this in the Spirit of the Century SRD:
> 
> It’s important to note that an aspect may dictate the _type _of action, but it usually shouldn’t dictate the precise action, whote




Yep.  The GM probably shouldn't say, "You cower in the corner."  Perhaps better would be, "You can't approach within melee striking range," or something similar.



> I'm not sure in Fate exactly how a player makes his/her aspects work for him/her) to do something back to the snake.




In invoking their own aspects, a player generally rolls the dice, sees the result, and spends a Fate point to either get a bonus of +2 on the die roll, or a reroll of all the dice.



N'raac said:


> What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?




See above, about the order of operations.  

The thing is that there is no order of precedence among Aspects.  You are both a "defender of the Innocent" and "Afraid of snakes", and the player doesn't get to demand that only one applies, except through spending fate points.  If the player is running low on fate points, then in the fiction, we can say the characters running low on willpower - and maybe his fears overrides his honor.  If he didn't want that to happen, he shouldn't have chosen that aspect.

Mind you, I'd also say that the "Snakes, why'd it have to be snakes" isn't a great Aspect to have chosen.  It is very difficult to invoke positively.  Aspects are more useful if they are written as two-edged swords.  "Defender of the Innocent" is better - the player can invoke it for a bonus when defending the innocent, and the GM can compel it to force the PC into a confrontation they may not want to get into,.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> You continue to assert that any assessment of alignment means the character “did wrong”.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Every alignment has its own outlook.  To “do right” under one will certainly “do wrong” under another.



This is a relativism which strikes me as sitting well with Planescape, but at odds with the idea of good and evil as objective forces.

To "do right" by the lights of evil is to do evil, ie wrong, ie to act in a way that is not supported by right reason.

The only way to act properly is to "do right" by the lights of good. That is, roughly, what good means. It is not simply a description of an outlook, or of some principles. It is the most general term available, in English, for commending bonduct or people as valuable and worthy of pursuit or emulation or admiration.

Hence, if the GM judges that a PC's behaviour was "not right" (ie was objectionale) by the lights of good, s/he is judging that it was not right simpliciter, ie that it was wrong.

(I say "roughly" because it can be argued that ethics doesn't exhaust the relevant considerations for proper behaviour. But the other sorts of considerations that authors like Nietzsche or Bernard Williams point to play little to no role in any D&D material or play that I have ever encountered or seen described.)



N'raac said:


> Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are also tropes



Good and evil aren't tropes in any normal sense of that term. Law and Chaos are, but many D&D worlds don't deploy those tropes - the exceptions here are the Morcockian interpretation of pre-AD&D, and 4e.

A knight in shing armour, and a holy warrior, are tropes.



N'raac said:


> I find it hard to believe every GM will concur as to how one best reflects “a living example of ” the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry”.



Yes. I've been asserting this for some time now.

Nor will every player.

That's why I don't like alignment rules, which require one participant in the game to impose his/her interpretation onto the game.



N'raac said:


> You keep telling me the character should define his own morality
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You first told me the players define their own codes and the GM has no right to evaluate them.



I have never told you that the character defines his/her own morality. Nor have I told you that the player defines his/her own code. These are both views that you are imputing to me.

I have said that the player plays his/her PC, and that in my view and my experience the successful play of the game does not require the GM to impose an evaluation upon that play.



N'raac said:


> how is it hard to envision a judgement in game that a character’s actions taken as a whole (or an extreme action) indicates a trend to the Dark Side?



It's not. If the player makes that judgement, s/he can act on it.

The GM's judgement would only be relevant if it differed from the player's. If it differed from the player's, why should I prefer the GM's judgement? Why is it the GM's job to tell the player how to play his/her character, or to tell the player what his/her character has become?



N'raac said:


> Your answer, as I read it, is that the players may interpret this as they will, and you will let any disagreement slide.  Yet you have indicated you reject one of my possible character interpretations for the Raven Queen.  As well, your willingness to let any disagreement slide seems to be conditional on the players not deviating too far from your own view
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So why was my example character dismissed as inappropriate to the Raven Queen?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So why did you dismiss my character who murders in the name of the Raven Queen?  In what way was he clearly not honoring those commandments?  You judged that character before it was even created.



What character? The paladin of the Raven Queen who tears out the throats of children? The cleric of the Raven Queen who raises hosts of undead? These aren't characters being created for actual play. They're message board examples, which were never intended for actual play, will never see actual play, and have no bearing on actual play.

I don't believe that they're sincere attempts to interpret the notion of a knight in shining armour, nor to interpret the tenets of a god of death and fate. For instance, you haven't said anything about why you want to play this PC, how you see him/her being a knight (where is the honour?), and how you see him/her relating to the convictions of the Raven Queen (why would people invoke this character's god at funerals, except out of fear?).

If you were actually joining my game, and suggested that the PC you wanted to play was a paladin who tears the throats out of children as sacrifices to a god of death, I would probably suggest that you consider a blackguard of fury in service to Demogorgon, or perhaps a blackguard of domination in service to Orcus, Vecna or Kas. If you sincerely believe that the murderous torturer you have described is a viable instantiation of the trope of the paladin, then perhaps our genre conceptions are so far apart that we can't RPG together - at least, not in fantasy gaming.

But anyway, working out what fits within the scope of the game, what fits the genre and so on is of course quite different from judging a player's play of his/her PC. Apart from anything else, (i) there is no play to judge, and (ii) it is part of prep, not part of play.

EDIT:You said that no where in the Raven Queen's descrition does it mention her opposition to undead. I know at least 6 people, though - namely, me and my 5 players - who read that, noted that people pray to her at funerals to protect their loved ones from the curse of undeath, noted that she is opposed to Orcus, the demon prince of undeath, and inferred without hesitation to the conclusion that she is not a god who is favourably disposed to undeath. I've never seen any other interpretatin suggested.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't understand why the player is out of Fate points, given that the GM just compelled him/her.




The situation was that he is out of Fate points and he doesn't have a Fate point to spend... until he accepts the offered compel.



pemerton said:


> I also found this in the Spirit of the Century SRD:It’s important to note that an aspect may dictate the _type _of action, but it usually shouldn’t dictate the precise action, which is always the player’s decision. In this way, the compel highlights the difficulty of the choices at hand by placing limits on those choices.​
> That suggests that the GM can compel that the PC not approach the snake, but can't compel that the PC cower and do nothing. At which point the PC could use his/her newly-acquired Fate Point, plus other abilities (including his/her "Defend the Innocent" aspect? I'm not sure in Fate exactly how a player makes his/her aspects work for him/her) to do something back to the snake.




First, SotC is an outdated version of the Fate rules... but putting that aside for a moment, I don't see how this fundamentally changes the issue... he still can't get near the snake to stop it from eating the innocents... better yet, flee is a general action as well... so he could compel the "paladin" to flee from the snake.

Here are some relevant points from the current Fate system SRD...

The complication from a compel occurs regardless of anyone’s efforts—once you’ve made a deal and taken the fate point, you can’t use your skills or anything else to mitigate the situation. You have to deal with the new story developments that arise from the complication.


There are two major categories for what a compel looks like in the game: events and decisions. These are tools to help you figure out what a compel should look like and help break any mental blocks.
[h=4]Events[/h]An event-based compel happens to the character in spite of herself, when the world around her responds to a certain aspect in a certain way and creates a complicating circumstance. It looks like this:


You have ____ aspect and are in ____ situation, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, ____ would happen to you. Damn your luck.

So it seems the situation proposed is valid under the rules.



pemerton said:


> IWell it _is_ theoretical. It's not an actual play example, nor even based remotely in an actual play experience. I therefore personally regard it as having basically no value as a model of Fate play.




Well I can't argue with how you feel... so ok.



pemerton said:


> Particularly because less than five minutes of looking through the SRD for a game I don't even play showed me both the text I quoted above, and also this:Occasionally a character’s aspects will be in head to head conflict with one another. This should not be seen as a problem — rather, it’s an opportunity for high drama! When two aspects are in conflict with one another, they are both subject to a compel. If the player can’t see a way to act in accordance with both aspects, he must buy off at least one of them. In a number of cases, this can lead to a “zero sum”, where one compel is accepted, gaining a fate point, and the other is refused, spending that fate point. If the player can see clear to acting in accordance with both – fantastic! He’s just gotten himself two fate points (and a world of trouble).​
> The GM needn’t always press the issue in this fashion. Nothing says she has to compel both aspects. But occasionally it’s more interesting if she does.​
> Which, apart from anything else it tells us about the general approach to GMing against conflicting aspects, also makes clear that the point earned from the compel can be used for other purposes in the same scene (such as buying off a second compel or, as I suggested, taking some sort of action against the snake).




Your interpretation of this seems off... What does this prove exactly?  the fact that they mention this seems to imply that the example, where aspects are in conflict is valid and can happen in game, at least enough where advice about it needed to be published.  they even say occasionally it's more interesting if the GM does do this.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> or seen described.)
> 
> Good and evil aren't tropes in any normal sense of that term. Law and Chaos are, but many D&D worlds don't deploy those tropes - the exceptions here are the Morcockian interpretation of pre-AD&D, and
> 
> Psted.




I am not much of a literature guy, so i will defer those who know more about it, but this feels incorrect to me. Good versus Evil seems like a very old trope. If chaos can be a trope, i would think evil can as well. Maybe i am missing something though.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> it seems that alignment is built into AD&D
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If this is your criteria for whether alignment is built in or not, then you can do the same thing for 3.x as well... just drop everything that uses it
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not trying to answer this question



OK, you're not interested in expressing your view as to what is the tail and what the dog, but you're very interested in what _my_ view of that is!

In AD&D if I drop alignment I have to go back to the B/X interpretatin of detect evil, dispel evil and protection from evil (none of which is an alignment-oriented spell in B/X); and know alignment and alignment languages become redundant (though the latter could easily be replaced with secret religious languages, if desired).

As I said upthread, the biggest mechanical impact is actually in relation to magic swords, which now lose a good chunk of their mechanical heft.

In 3E if I drop alignment I lose a good chunk of the cleric spell list (including alignment-specific attack spells at levels well below that of Holy Word, which comes into play in AD&D only for a 16th level cleric), plus a good chunk of the cleric domains, plus the 3.5 damage reduction system. I think that counts as more deeply built in.

In other words, I think that by 3E the tail has become the dog: it's a pain to try and expunge it.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> The description here has an order of operations issue.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you unravel it into the official order of operations, though, there's no issue.



I read this as more-or-less agreeing with my post. Am I right or wrong in that?



Imaro said:


> The situation was that he is out of Fate points and he doesn't have a Fate point to spend... until he accepts the offered compel.



At which point the player has a fate point to spend to try and do stuff, including leveraging "Defender of the Innocent".



Imaro said:


> Here are some relevant points from the current Fate system SRD...
> 
> The complication from a compel occurs regardless of anyone’s efforts—once you’ve made a deal and taken the fate point, you can’t use your skills or anything else to mitigate the situation. You have to deal with the new story developments that arise from the complication.



So we are positing that the "situation that can't be mitigated" is the giant serpent eating the NPCs. 

Has the GM simply framed the player into that scene: "You fall down a rabbit hole and see a giant serpent about to eat Alice - now, I'm compelling you to run away so you can't stop the serptent"? I assume everyone would agree that's crap GMing.

Or is the scene the culmination of some struggle, in which the player spent all his/her fate points on other things, and gets to the climax without the resources necessary for victory? In that case, how is it any different to a D&D paladin fighting the snake and dropping to zero hp before the snake does? In which case, what does it have to do with alignment again? (It's certainly not an examle of the GM overriding the player's conception of his/her PC, given that the player chose the aspect "Why does it have to be snakes".)


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not much of a literature guy, so i will defer those who know more about it, but this feels incorrect to me. Good versus Evil seems like a very old trope. If chaos can be a trope, i would think evil can as well. Maybe i am missing something though.



Satan is (among other things) a trope. So is Hannibal Lecter (qv Steve Busemi's memorable portrayal of this trope in Con Air). The eternal struggle of good vs evil is a trope. I don't think that good and evil are themselves tropes, any more than red or bigness are tropes. They are values (or, if you prefer, terms for expressing evaluations).

You might say that when it comes to law and chaos the real trope is the conflict between the two, Morcockian style or gods vs titans style. That would be fine by me.


----------



## Cadence

Fate questions for @_*Umbran*_ , @_*Imaro*_ , or any other regular players...

So, would that be a Decision compel or an Event compel.  The player is choosing how to react in fear to the snakes... does that make it a decision one?  Would the Event one be the environment doing something to him?

Is it cheesy to compel when the other person is out of fate points (too close to rail-roading, or does getting the fate point make up for that)?  

Can you use the Fate point earned from accepting the compel to essentially mitigate the compel?

I wonder how often...



			
				Fate Core said:
			
		

> GMs, remember that a player is ultimately responsible for everything that the character says and does. You can offer decision-based compels, but if the player doesn’t feel like the
> decision is one that the character would make, don’t force the issue by charging a fate point. Instead, negotiate the terms of the compel until you find a decision the player is comfortable making, and a complication that chains from that decision instead. If you can’t agree on something, drop it.




... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.


 @_*pemerton*_ - RE: Alignment and 1E: I always picture the great wheel cosmology from 1e when alignment comes up.  I don't know if I've ever seen anyone in 3/3.5/PF cast a chaos or law spell.   The 3/3.5/PF addition of Law/Chaos spells seems like just trying to have some symmetry.


----------



## N'raac

N'raac said:


> An example for someone familiar to comment on. The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.
> 
> Player: "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"
> 
> GM: "whoa there, cowboy. What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes? You should be cowering back in that cave. Compel. Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."
> 
> Player: "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"
> 
> GM: "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."
> 
> We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated. And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.
> 
> What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?






Umbran said:


> The description here has an order of operations issue.
> 
> Let's say the player has one fate point left.




Let’s stick with the scenario painted.  He has no Fate points left.



Umbran said:


> If the GM does compel, he says, "Hey, I know you don't like snakes! I compel you to stay back!" And offers a Fate point. The player either accepts (and now has two Fate Points, but will have to change what they intend to do) or declines (and pays his or her last point for that, and can go ahead and attack.)[/quote’
> 
> He has no Fate Point to spend and must, as I understand it, accept the Fate Point and the Compel.  Then he must flee, based on that general descriptor as set out by another poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that there is no order of precedence among Aspects. You are both a "defender of the Innocent" and "Afraid of snakes", and the player doesn't get to demand that only one applies, except through spending fate points. If the player is running low on fate points, then in the fiction, we can say the characters running low on willpower - and maybe his fears overrides his honor. If he didn't want that to happen, he shouldn't have chosen that aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like the GM sets an order of precedence by selecting which to invoke.  I think the player chose the aspect, just as a D&D player might choose to play a Paladin, and it is reasonable that both are bound by the constraints this imposes on them.  That includes, in the former case, the GM Compelling the aspect the player wishes to downplay, and in D&D, the GM judging the behaviour of the Paladin.
> 
> 
> 
> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, I'd also say that the "Snakes, why'd it have to be snakes" isn't a great Aspect to have chosen. It is very difficult to invoke positively. Aspects are more useful if they are written as two-edged swords. "Defender of the Innocent" is better - the player can invoke it for a bonus when defending the innocent, and the GM can compel it to force the PC into a confrontation they may not want to get into,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was offered as a legitimate aspect.  I intentionally restricted the choice to aspects others had suggested were reasonable Fate aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read this as more-or-less agreeing with my post. Am I right or wrong in that?
> 
> At which point the player has a fate point to spend to try and do stuff, including leveraging "Defender of the Innocent".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  After he has followed the requirement of the Compel and fled.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are positing that the "situation that can't be mitigated" is the giant serpent eating the NPCs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The situation that cannot be mitigated seems to be the PC having no ability to prevent the snake consuming its prey given that it has fled the scene.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not an examle of the GM overriding the player's conception of his/her PC, given that the player chose the aspect "Why does it have to be snakes".)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The player also chose the aspect “Defender of the Innocent” and his conception of the character was that his devotion to this duty would override his fear of snakes.  Conception overridden.
> 
> Or he felt his fear of snakes would override and the GM compels him to attack the snake.  Again, PC conception overridden by GM.
> 
> For that matter, what is the whole Compel mechanism other than a GM being able to call the player on not playing to one of his aspects, overriding player assessment of how his character’s various personality traits would combine into action in this specific situation?
> 
> 
> 
> Cadence said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how often...
> 
> ... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it happens with very similar frequency, if we assume the same players and GM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cadence said:
> 
> 
> 
> @pemerton - RE: Alignment and 1E: I always picture the great wheel cosmology from 1e when alignment comes up. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone in 3/3.5/PF cast a chaos or law spell. The 3/3.5/PF addition of Law/Chaos spells seems like just trying to have some symmetry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OD&D had Law and Chaos.  Early Basic had the five alignment square.  AD&D had the Great Wheel/9 alignment square.  Later Basic/Expert reverted to Law and Chaos.
Click to expand...


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> This is a relativism which strikes me as sitting well with Planescape, but at odds with the idea of good and evil as objective forces.




So one player choosing a Lawful approach and another choosing a Chaotic approach to do Good is “moral relativism” if both are right.  But one player wishing the prisoner to face the punishment for her crimes and the other sparing her of that punishment, with both being right, is not moral relativism.  Seems clear as mud!



pemerton said:


> To "do right" by the lights of evil is to do evil, ie wrong, ie to act in a way that is not supported by right reason.
> 
> 
> The only way to act properly is to "do right" by the lights of good. That is, roughly, what good means. It is not simply a description of an outlook, or of some principles. It is the most general term available, in English, for commending bonduct or people as valuable and worthy of pursuit or emulation or admiration.
> 
> Hence, if the GM judges that a PC's behaviour was "not right" (ie was objectionale) by the lights of good, s/he is judging that it was not right simpliciter, ie that it was wrong.




Define “level”.  I suspect you will find several definitions in the dictionary.  D&D, however, uses the word as a term of gameplay, where it does not match its various dictionary definitions.  Even there, the context must be known (spell level?  Character level?  Class level?  Caster level?)

Good is defined in the rules.  In game, that is the definition of “good” as it is used in the alignment context. It overrides all other definitions for that purpose.

And Alignment posits two axes, Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic.  Arthur and Robin Hood are Good.  Will they agree on how to deliver Good?  Likely not – one is lawful and one is chaotic.



pemerton said:


> I have never told you that the character defines his/her own morality. Nor have I told you that the player defines his/her own code. These are both views that you are imputing to me.




You have indicated that only the player’s determination of whether their code is being followed matters.  I’m not going to comb through the whole thread to track down the quotes.



pemerton said:


> The GM's judgement would only be relevant if it differed from the player's. If it differed from the player's, why should I prefer the GM's judgement? Why is it the GM's job to tell the player how to play his/her character, or to tell the player what his/her character has become?
> 
> What character? The paladin of the Raven Queen who tears out the throats of children? The cleric of the Raven Queen who raises hosts of undead? These aren't characters being created for actual play. They're message board examples, which were never intended for actual play, will never see actual play, and have no bearing on actual play.




The character who believes that killing people is a service to the Raven Queen, bringing them to her realm of death.  You are judging that character.  You are saying your judgment is to be preferred over mine.  So you tell me – why should YOUR judgment be preferred in this instance, and what makes this instance different from your general mantra that the GM should not exercise moral judgment.



pemerton said:


> I don't believe that they're sincere attempts to interpret the notion of a knight in shining armour, nor to interpret the tenets of a god of death and fate.




Wasn’t looking for a Knight in Shining Armor.  And why does your judgment whether my attempts are sincere relevant?  I thought you specifically would not judge the players’ approach to playing their character?



pemerton said:


> EDIT:You said that no where in the Raven Queen's descrition does it mention her opposition to undead. I know at least 6 people, though - namely, me and my 5 players - who read that, noted that people pray to her at funerals to protect their loved ones from the curse of undeath, noted that she is opposed to Orcus, the demon prince of undeath, and inferred without hesitation to the conclusion that she is not a god who is favourably disposed to undeath. I've never seen any other interpretatin suggested.




Here is your quote of the relevant passages again:



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> As I posted upthread, when I tell my players that I want to run a game using the default 4e world, then I am including the Raven Queen as written up for that world. Here are the relevant passages (PHB p 22):
> The name of the god of death is long forgotten, but she is called the Raven Queen. She is the spinner of fate and the patron of winter. She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.
> 
> She expects her followers to abide by these commandments:
> 
> * Hold no pity for those who suffer and die, for death is the natural end of life.
> 
> * Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the Raven Queen, you must punish hubris where you find it.
> 
> * Watch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The Demon Prince of the Undead seeks to claim the Raven Queen’s throne.




If they have to invoke RQ to guard their loved ones from the threat of undeath, how does that mean she is diametrically opposed to it?  That can as easily be taken to mean “I pray thee, take someone else’s loved one to be your undead servant and leave my father to his rest” as “The RQ is a staunch foe of all that is undead.”  By the way, they ARE invoking her out of fear – fear that their loved ones will return as undead.

So, the Demon Prince wants what RQ has – again, why can that not be interpreted as “The Demon Prince longs to join the Raven Queen’s legions of Undead warriors with his own, the better to conquer all the lands.”

I do not believe my interpretation of the words – to cast the RQ is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead – is a less reasonable interpretation of the words above.  So why is a character who holds those beliefs categorically “wrong” rather than someone whose beliefs can be tested in play?  How is your dismissal of my interpretation consistent with your statement that “It's up to them to decide what is involved in honouring the Raven Queen's commandments.”?


If we were giving control of the cosmology to the GM, then your interpretation should certainly hold for your campaign.  But I wrote her into my background, based on what I read and what I interpreted.  If that makes her mine at least as much as yours, then my vision must also be respected, not cast down as “wrong”.  We should discover in play who is right and who is wrong.



pemerton said:


> The eternal struggle of good vs evil is a trope. I don't think that good and evil are themselves tropes, any more than red or bigness are tropes. They are values (or, if you prefer, terms for expressing evaluations).




Really not interested in discussing hair-splitting semantics.  How can you have the eternal struggle of good vs. evil if we cannot have either “good” or “evil” in any way defined?


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I wonder how often...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GMs, remember that a player is ultimately responsible for everything that the character says and does. You can offer decision-based compels, but if the player doesn’t feel like the decision is one that the character would make, don’t force the issue by charging a fate point. Instead, negotiate the terms of the compel until you find a decision the player is comfortable making, and a complication that chains from that decision instead. If you can’t agree on something, drop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.
Click to expand...


I can't comment on Fate play, but I think this quote is largely consistent with the tenor of games that I am familiar with, like HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel, that use free-descriptor approaches to link mechanics and convictions.

In Burning Wheel, for instance, a player (i) can earn fate points by engaging in play that expresses one of his/her PC's beliefs; (ii) can earn fate points by choosing to have his/her PC engage in complicating behaviour that expresses an instinct or trait; and (iii) can earn a better grade of fate point by roleplaying out an agonised choice when multiple beliefs, instincts and/or traits come into conflict.

An example of (i) which doesn't involve complications: the player a devotee of Pelor, and has chosen as a belief "Pelor's light is my guide". Entering a dungeon, the PC lights a torch. +1 fate point. The GM has basically no policing role here.

An example of (i) which does involve complications: the devotee of Pelor is also a holy warrior, has as a belief "Honour is the only true path." Coming upon an orc sentry who is asleep at its post, the PC wakes the sentry and gives it the opportunity to surrender, or alternatively to duel for its life. This is also +1 fate point. The GM doesn't have a policing role here, but does have a role that relates to "fail forward" and "say yes" - namely, the GM shouldn't resolve the orc's response in a way that completely hoses the player (eg by having the orc agree to the duel, and then sound the alarm before the player has a chance to declare any action that would stop the orc doing so). As well as these expectations around GM framing and adjudication, the game also has mechanical systems to allow the player to dictate the response of the orc, at least within limits (eg various forms of resolving social conflict - and suppose the player of the paladin wants to make the orc surrender by succeeding at an intimidate check, there are rules to set the DC, to grant the player bonuses to the check for the PC being in the clearly superior position over the just-woken orc, etc.)

Some examples of (ii): a PC has the trait "Spooky". When making a Circles check (something like a cross between a Gather Information check and a reaction roll) to meet some friendly villagers, the player describes how wild and scary his/her PC looks, and the GM imposes a penalty to the check. +1 fate point.  The GM has no policing role here. And the game is set up so that the player has reason to choose this: for most abilities (including Circle) making the check counts towards advancement whether or not it succeeds (and can actually count more towards advancement if it is harder, which in this case it has become because of how spooky the PC has seemed to the NPCs); and "fail forward" means that the player won't be left high and dry in the game if the check fails. It's just that instead of the PC getting to meet some friendly villagers, the GM will be setting some challenge in his/her path.

Another example of (ii): a PC has the trait "Always in the way", and during an archery exchange in which one of the other PCs is drawing arrows from where they are stuck into the ground, the player of the PC with the trait describes how his/her PC is getting in the way of the other PC trying to draw arrows - thus giving that other PC a penalty to his/her archery. +1 fate point. The GM has no formal policing role here, but obviously too much of this thing could cause intra-group friction, and so the GM, like every other participant, has a role in the informal table discussions and negotiations that keep everyone happy with what's going on.

Another example of (ii), adapted from the Revised rulebook example of play: a PC has the instinct "When surprised, hit them with The Fear". (The Fear is a spell similar to Spook or Cause Fear in D&D.) The GM describes the PC coming home when suddenly a stranger in the shadows, whom the PC hadn't noticed, speaks his name. The player declares "The Fear" - and succeeds on the casting roll, so the strange NPC runs away. And when she comes out of the shadows as she runs, the PC sees that it was his sister, whom he is relying on to help advance his ambitions in the city - which just got harder! +1 fate point.

In relation to all the above cases, the GM is expected to be providing opportunities, in play, for the players to do these sorts of things. And the players, assuming they want fate points, will be looking to create their own opportunities too. (And are expected to author their belief and instincts keeping the need for such opportunities in mind.) The rules don't specify any procedure for resolving disagreement over whether or not a fate point had been earned - I think it's taken for granted that the players won't be half-hearted in playing their PCs, and the GM won't be half-hearted in providing relevant opportunities, and most of the advice to both players and GMs in the books is aimed at not being half-hearted.

(iii) above - earning higher-grade fate points (called "persona points") by roleplaying out conflict - is an example where the BW rules do specify a particular procedure: to get the persona point, a player has to be nominated for it at the end of the session by one of the other participants, and a majority vote must be made in favour of the award. This makes it clear that this is a bigger deal, but is not solely in the hands of the GM. And again the GM is expected to be providing opportunities for the players to do this sort of thing, by putting them into situations of conflict. The GMing advice also indicates that if a player is regularly departing from a particular belief during episodes of conflict then the GM might talk to the player about whether or not s/he wants to rewrite that belief, but ultimately it is the player's call, and the onus is on the GM to frame situations so as to accommodate those beliefs that the player has chosen.



Cadence said:


> RE: Alignment and 1E: I always picture the great wheel cosmology from 1e when alignment comes up.



It's a long time since I've used the great wheel (as in, over 25 years) but I can see some of its charm (in Appendix IV form; I'm not talking about Planescape). Reflecting on it now, I think I would like it better if the various pantheons weren't split up, so that each plane was the home of one particular pantheon, and broadly reflected the ethos of that pantheon and its culture. So the Seven Heavens would have Bahamut and Moradin - the "paladin gods" - and the Twin Paradises and Arcadia would be essentially adjuncts to the Seven Heavens, where less stern or more stern gods, saints and worshippers end up.

Elysium could then just be the Greek paradise as its name suggests, and Olympus and Gladsheim could likewise house their pantheons. The only oddity is that the Happy Hunting Grounds - for shamanic totem spirits and allied gods - mucks up the geography.

Limbo and Nirvana can then be as their names suggest - nothingness as either dissolution (Limbo) or enlightenment (Nirvana) - while the lower planes can be pretty much as they are standardly presented: Pandemonium as an adjunct to the demonic Abyss, Tarterus and Hades having their standard relationship to the Greek and Norse pantheons, and the Hells for the devils. The only oddities, then are Gehenna and Acheron, and my inclination would be to treat them as adjuncts of the Hells in the same way that I would treat the Twin Paradises and Arcandia as adjuncts to the Heavens.

I don't think I would need mechanical alignment to make this work - that is, I think the alignment descriptions in conjunction with the tropes evoked by the planar names and allusions would be enough to let people know what is what with these planes, and they could then travel them and devote themselves to the gods who live on them without needing mechanical alignment to be enforced.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> The player also chose the aspect “Defender of the Innocent” and his conception of the character was that his devotion to this duty would override his fear of snakes.



On what basis do you say this?



N'raac said:


> Or he felt his fear of snakes would override and the GM compels him to attack the snake.



Or this?

In the scenario you describe, if the player really thought that "Defender of the Innocent" was more important to the PC than "Why does it have to be snakes", s/he could use "Defender of the Innocent" to earn a fate point to buy off the GM's compel - eg by blindly charging the serpent without readying his/her defences (+1 fate point for self-invoked compel - I'm referring to 1.8.2 in the Spirit of the Century SRD, and I'd be very surprised if there is not some similar mechanism in Fate Core).



N'raac said:


> For that matter, what is the whole Compel mechanism other than a GM being able to call the player on not playing to one of his aspects



If that's how you see aspects, I really feel you don't have a good feel for how Fate (and similar games) are intended to be played.

A compel is not a device for the GM to force a player to stay "true to character". A big part of the idea of writing aspects for your character is to give the GM hooks on which to hang compels. The idea is that you are choosing the story elements you want to pose challenges to your PC. 

While there is a historical trajectory in RPG design from HERO or GURPS-style disadvantages, through Pendragon's personality mechanics, to mechanics like aspects in Fate and beliefs in Burning Wheel, the intended function in game play has changed practically 180 degrees. So whereas in HERO (say) it is normal to try and choose disadvantages that you think won't come up, and thereby to get a points advantage, in Fate if you choose as your aspect "Why did it have to be snakes" than you are practically screaming at the GM "Put my PC into situations where s/he is threatened by snakes, and avoiding dealing with them isn't easy".


----------



## Ratskinner

N'raac said:


> Hey, back to Fate Aspects.
> 
> An example for someone familiar to comment on.  The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  The rest don't play in.  The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case.  Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.
> 
> Player:  "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"
> 
> GM:  "whoa there, cowboy.  What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes?  You should be cowering back in that cave.  Compel.  Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."
> 
> Player:  "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"
> 
> GM:  "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."
> 
> We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated.  And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.
> 
> What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?




The scenario above is a little off/awkward for a typical Fate game, IME, but: If the scenario did play out as above, the player would advisably accept the compel for _Why did it have to be snakes?..._and then immediately spend it to invoke his _Defender of Innocents_ aspect. This might or might not take the form of some kind of contest of PC Will vs. Snake Intimidation. The usual method for forcing a PC to "Cower in the corner" would be to make an Intimidation (either Attack, or perhaps Create and Advantage) roll vs. the PCs will.

Compels don't happen post-facto (generally). That is, the player probably accepted a compel on _Why did it have to be snakes?_ that made the giant monster a snake (the act of tweaking nets the player the FP). Using the character's phobia against him  to keep him out of range or something, would be an invoke of the aspect, probably on some kind of Intimidation roll by the snake. Such an invocation could either a) provide a +2 to the snake's roll somehow, or raise the difficulty of the character's (relevant) action by 2. This would also net the player a Fate point.

Normally, I would expect this scenario to first hit the other aspect...that is compel _Defender of Innocent_ to draw the PC into the combat where the GM/snake will use any Fate points it has to invoke the character's _Why did it have to be snakes?_ aspect against him during the conflict. (This may include Intimidation attacks as well as perhaps physical ones.) These invokes will transfer FP to the PC, as well. Depending on the challenge that the snake poses to the character, the player may end up spending some or all of those invoking his _Defender of the Innocent _aspect for similar bonuses during the combat. 

If, as you presented the scenario, the GM didn't realize/recognize that he was relying on _Defender of the Innocent_ to draw the PC into the combat. The player is perfectly within his rights to point that out and request a Fate point for it. Sometimes this sort of thing is called a "self-compel", but I don't think that's an official game term.

I hope that helps.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> On what basis do you say this?
> 
> Or this?




On the simple basis that I set the premise, and it is reasonable for the player to have a conception of his character which suggests he will behave heroically in this situation, or will be cowed by his fear of snakes.  If, as you have suggested, the player is to be permitted carte blanche to play his character, then which one overrides should be his call.  It does not appear to be his call once the Compel is played.

For myself, I'm good with him making the choice himself, or with a mechanic which pits his Defender of the Innocent heroism against his fear of snakes.  Now, if he had only one or the other, I would expect him to play the one he has appropriately.  

One can view this "each setback grants you a bonus" style of play as needing to be bribed to role play your character where his personality is disadvantageous.  If it is a bad mechanic which assumes the PC's may not adequately role play those drawbacks (which seems to be the main charge against alignment), why would those same reasonable players, role playing their characters to conception, need to be bribed to do so?  The same logic suggests the bribe mechanic is also a poor one.



pemerton said:


> In the scenario you describe, if the player really thought that "Defender of the Innocent" was more important to the PC than "Why does it have to be snakes", s/he could use "Defender of the Innocent" to earn a fate point to buy off the GM's compel - eg by blindly charging the serpent without readying his/her defences (+1 fate point for self-invoked compel - I'm referring to 1.8.2 in the Spirit of the Century SRD, and I'd be very surprised if there is not some similar mechanism in Fate Core).




It was indicated earlier that the fate point gained by accepting a Compel cannot be used to mitigate the effects of the compel.  As I see that, the player does not get to trade the Fate point back to override the compel.  Why would he ever spend a Fate point up front to resist the Compel if he can get the same result by immediate override with the Fate point he receives for accepting (but not really) the Compel?



pemerton said:


> While there is a historical trajectory in RPG design from HERO or GURPS-style disadvantages, through Pendragon's personality mechanics, to mechanics like aspects in Fate and beliefs in Burning Wheel, the intended function in game play has changed practically 180 degrees. So whereas in HERO (say) it is normal to try and choose disadvantages that you think won't come up, and thereby to get a points advantage, in Fate if you choose as your aspect "Why did it have to be snakes" than you are practically screaming at the GM "Put my PC into situations where s/he is threatened by snakes, and avoiding dealing with them isn't easy".




I can tell you that Hero gamers have not universally, or even broadly, taken your view of the disadvantage system.  Rather, many select their disadvantages (renamed complications in 6th Edition) based on their vision of the character - that is, on the same basis of Fate aspects, that these are the types of challenges the player wishes to face.  My experience is that most players role play those disadvantages, and neither mechanically seek to avoid them nor try to take disadvantages that minimize their down side and maximize their point value.  Indeed, a guiding precept of Hero is that a Disadvantage that does not disadvantage the character (or a Complication that does not cause complications) is worth no points.

I can't speak to GURPS in this regard as I have not played that system, nor have I had any real contact with the GURPS community.

Nor does alignment have to be a bludgeon used against the PC's.  Alignment or disadvantages/complications certainly can be used to bludgeon the characters (and their players) and so can aspects in Fate, as set out above.  That does not make them inherently abusive - the GM who would abuse them, IME, will find something else to abuse if that mechanic is removed.  It is not alignment, disadvantages or aspects (or any other similar mechanic) that causes the problem, it is poor use of the mechanics by the GM and/or the players.


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> Here are some relevant points from the current Fate system SRD...
> 
> The complication from a compel occurs regardless of anyone’s efforts—once you’ve made a deal and taken the fate point, you can’t use your skills or anything else to mitigate the situation. You have to deal with the new story developments that arise from the complication.
> 
> 
> There are two major categories for what a compel looks like in the game: events and decisions. These are tools to help you figure out what a compel should look like and help break any mental blocks.
> [h=4]Events[/h]An event-based compel happens to the character in spite of herself, when the world around her responds to a certain aspect in a certain way and creates a complicating circumstance. It looks like this:
> 
> 
> You have ____ aspect and are in ____ situation, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, ____ would happen to you. Damn your luck.
> 
> So it seems the situation proposed is valid under the rules.




Incorrect. Although I would describe it more as something awkward that might happen in a game with folks who are all unfamiliar with Fate.

 Read the examples after that formulation of the compel. That formulation is used for events that are outside the character's control. In this case, that's the compel that would earn the characters a FP simply because its a snake.

You have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, this giant snake is threatening them. Damn you luck.

The character might also earn a second FP from another similar compel:

You have _Defender of the Innocent_ as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that a giant monster is threatening them.

If the GM didn't recognize this, the player would be completely in their rights to point it out and demand the Fate points. (Retroactive Compels, Fate Core p. 74)

Causing the character to do something, requires the second formulation:

• You have ____ aspect in ____ situation, so it makes sense that you’d decide to ____. This goes wrong when ____ happens.

...and the third example for that formulation roughly corresponds to the proposed scenario:

Zird has _Not the Face! _when he gets challenged to a barfight, so it makes sense that he’d decide to back down from the challenge. This goes wrong when the rest of the patrons decide he’s a coward and throw him unceremoniously out into the street.

So: You have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect and you're facing a giant snake, so it makes sense that you'd flee rather than face the monster. This goes wrong when the people it threatens are devoured and you fail <whatever mission got us here>.

Presenting the character with the giant snake attacking the innocents earns him at least 1 and possibly 2 FP just from showing up in the scene at all. If the player chooses, he can easily spend the first to buy off the cowardice compel.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So one player choosing a Lawful approach and another choosing a Chaotic approach to do Good is “moral relativism” if both are right.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Alignment posits two axes, Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic.  Arthur and Robin Hood are Good.  Will they agree on how to deliver Good?  Likely not – one is lawful and one is chaotic.





N'raac said:


> But one player wishing the prisoner to face the punishment for her crimes and the other sparing her of that punishment, with both being right, is not moral relativism.



On the second quote - who said they're both right? I never did. My point is that I don't have to decide as part of my adjudication of the game. Nor as part of my enjoyment of the game. (Just as, say, I can watch Pulp Fiction without having to form a definitive view on the morality of the hit-men characters.)

On the first thing, I don't actually understand it. (And never have - it's a part of the AD&D alignment system that has never made sense to me.) The way you put it, doing good via a lawful approach and doing good via a chaotic approach is like doing good by being a blacksmith (it's handy for people to have horseshoes and ploughshares) or doing good by being a weaver (it's handy for people to have cloth). But nothing in the blacksmith/weaver set up suggests that smiths should hate weavers, or vice versa. They're just different approaches to living a virtuous life.

But in D&D 9-point alignment the LG character is meant to have moral objections to the CG character - not to simply regard him/her as someone who chose different means. To try to give it some sort of (caricatured) context, when Superman regards Batman as somewhat suspect for not being fully above-board in his approach to crime fighting, Superman is suspecting that Batman is not entirely, or really, good. Conversely the idea that Superman would regard Batman as entirely good, _and_ would regard Batman as using objectionable methods, makes no sense. And if Superman regards Batman as entirely good because he regards Batman's methods as _not_ objectionable, although not the ones Superman himself chooses to deploy, then there is no conflict between law and chaos - contrary to what D&D's alignment system asserts.



N'raac said:


> How can you have the eternal struggle of good vs. evil if we cannot have either “good” or “evil” in any way defined?



Here is a candidate definition of "good": a general terms of commendation. Here is another: "good" = "admirable or worthy of emulation". Those are both mine. Dictionary.com gives me 41 definitions of "good" as an adjective. Some of the relevant ones include "morally excellent", "virtuous", "righteous", "satisfactory in quality", "excellent". As you can see, those are also all general terms of commendation, used to describe things that are admirable or worthy of emulation. "Admirable" and "worthy" are themselves general terms of commendation.

There is no more specific, generally accepted definition of "good" - it's one of the most flexible words in the English language, in terms of the objects, states, persons, behaviours etc it can be applied to.

The eternal struggle of good and evil is a trope because we are familiar with it as part of both religious and literary traditions going back for thousands of years. We recognise it in virtue of trappings (eg light vs dark) and context (eg betrayal of innocence or seduction by power), not to mention the deployment of other stereotypes (eg nobility and honour vs deceit and expedience).

Gygax incorporates the trope into Greyhawk by giving us Iuz and the Horned Society at war with Furyondy, Veluna and the Shield Lands. We can recognise the trope without needing any sort of definitive account of what constitutes good or evil: there are Knights of the Hart and Knights of Holy Shielding, guarding lands ruled by an archcleric and a paladin, from a group of hierarchs (already a sinister appellation!) who lead orcs and goblins, and from the child of a witch and a demon prince.

In fact, in some ways - as with Tolkien's LotR - the fiction works better if we _don't _inquire too closely into what makes Sauron or Iuz evil, because when we do make that inquiry we tend not to find much of an answer, at least if modernist sensibilities are deployed. Likewise, it's helpful if we don't inquire too closely into what makes Aragorn, or Furyondy, or The Shire for that matter, good. After all, is it _really_ good that Bilbo and Frodo live in wealth from birth, while Sam only gets to move out of his gaffer's digs as a reward for saving the universe? And how many contemporary readers of Tolkien or players of D&D really regard any form of monarchy (and associated notions of "noblesse oblige") as a good form of government that best maximises altruism and minimise harm to the common folk?

This is not just a feature of contemporary fantasy, either. It's also a feature of superhero comic books. (Obviously there are exceptions - Wagner's Ring would be an exception in the domain of fantasy, and Watchmen in the domain of super heroes, where the audience is expected to engage in that closer inquiry, and to be impressed by what the author offers up as an answer.)



N'raac said:


> Good is defined in the rules.  In game, that is the definition of “good” as it is used in the alignment context. It overrides all other definitions for that purpose.



As I've already pointed out, that definition relies upon using other evaluative language - such as "altruism" (= furthering the interests of others - but what counts as an interest?), or "harm" (=, let's say, wrongly setting back the interests of others - but what counts as an interest, or as wrongful setting back?).



N'raac said:


> You have indicated that only the player’s determination of whether their code is being followed matters.



Yes. That's not saying that they define their code. It is saying that their interpretation is paramount. But interpretation is not definition - and that's not just a point of semantics, either in general or in the context of RPG play. The general point probably doesn't matter here, but the RPG point is this: definition corresponds roughly to backstory; interpretation corresponds roughly to play, including action resolution. I have never said that players have sole authority, or even necessarily primary authority, over backstory. I've said they have primary authority to play their PCs, including interpreting what does or doesn't fit with their PCs' moral convictions.



N'raac said:


> So, the Demon Prince wants what RQ has – again, why can that not be interpreted as “The Demon Prince longs to join the Raven Queen’s legions of Undead warriors with his own, the better to conquer all the lands.”



If you want to change the campaign backstory, that's either something that happens prior to play; or, alternatively, is something that might unfold as a big reveal arising out of actual play and action resolution. I don't see it's relevance to who, if anyone, is obliged to evaluate the conduct that a player declares for his/her PC.



N'raac said:


> I do not believe my interpretation of the words – to cast the RQ is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead – is a less reasonable interpretation of the words above.  So why is a character who holds those beliefs categorically “wrong” rather than someone whose beliefs can be tested in play?



There seems to be some confusion here over what "belief" means when a game like Burning Wheel talks about "beliefs being tested in play". Beliefs in that usage is synonymous with "commitments", or "moral convictions". It's not about testing whether your belief that the Raven Queen likes pizza but not donuts is true or false.

So if you want to change the backstory of the Raven Queen so that she is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead then - at least at my table - that is typically not something to be done in the course of play. That is something to be established by general consensus prior to play. Much like, if one of the players wants to play a seafaring character, then before play starts we would have to all agree on whether the starting town or village is coastal or inland.

(I know there are some RPGs, and some approaches even to 4e, that allow the players to make far-ranging determinations about backstory as part of the process of action resolution. My game is not one of those, though.)



N'raac said:


> If they have to invoke RQ to guard their loved ones from the threat of undeath, how does that mean she is diametrically opposed to it?



Because the word used is "curse", not "threat", and the entry is written from the point of view of explaining why the god is worthy of devotion.



N'raac said:


> The character who believes that killing people is a service to the Raven Queen, bringing them to her realm of death.  You are judging that character. You are saying your judgment is to be preferred over mine.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And why does your judgment whether my attempts are sincere relevant?



I'm not judging that character. There is no character. There is no play or prospect of play. And that is also the relevance of sincerity. You haven't sat down, read through the 4e PHB, and said "I know what, I want to play a murder who slays people in devotion to the Raven Queen." As best I can tell, you didn't even know the backstory for the Raven Queen until I posted it. You haven't talked about a class that might make this character work (I would suggest Avenger, or perhaps Executioner Assassin with an Avenger or Cleric multi-class). You're not pitching a character at all.

So I'm not making any judgement of any actual or prospective character.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Presenting the character with the giant snake attacking the innocents earns him at least 1 and possibly 2 FP just from showing up in the scene at all. If the player chooses, he can easily spend the first to buy off the cowardice compel.



Thanks for posting that (and the one above it). I thought I had to be on the right track when I suggested that the player in the situation could get the needed fate point via a "self-compel" of "Defend the Innocent" (given that innocents were being threatened), but it's good to have someone who actually know the system explain the details.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> It was indicated earlier that the fate point gained by accepting a Compel cannot be used to mitigate the effects of the compel.  As I see that, the player does not get to trade the Fate point back to override the compel.  Why would he ever spend a Fate point up front to resist the Compel if he can get the same result by immediate override with the Fate point he receives for accepting (but not really) the Compel?



 [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] has explained how this actually works.

As to why the player might buy off the compel? - perhaps because they don't want to fight a snake who has a standing advantage against that PC in virtue of the aspect in question.



N'raac said:


> It is not alignment, disadvantages or aspects (or any other similar mechanic) that causes the problem



They are not similar mechanics. Aspects are not tools for guiding characterisation. They are not "disadvantages" or limits. They are tools to be used (by both players and GM) for creating situations in play. They engage the mechanics of the game - both scene-framing and action resolution mechanics - and thereby generate a certain sort of fiction as the outcome of play.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> Incorrect. Although I would describe it more as something awkward that might happen in a game with folks who are all unfamiliar with Fate.
> 
> Read the examples after that formulation of the compel. That formulation is used for events that are outside the character's control. In this case, that's the compel that would earn the characters a FP simply because its a snake.
> 
> You have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, this giant snake is threatening them. Damn you luck.
> 
> The character might also earn a second FP from another similar compel:
> 
> You have _Defender of the Innocent_ as an aspect and are trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that a giant monster is threatening them.
> 
> If the GM didn't recognize this, the player would be completely in their rights to point it out and demand the Fate points. (Retroactive Compels, Fate Core p. 74)
> 
> Causing the character to do something, requires the second formulation:
> 
> • You have ____ aspect in ____ situation, so it makes sense that you’d decide to ____. This goes wrong when ____ happens.
> 
> ...and the third example for that formulation roughly corresponds to the proposed scenario:
> 
> Zird has _Not the Face! _when he gets challenged to a barfight, so it makes sense that he’d decide to back down from the challenge. This goes wrong when the rest of the patrons decide he’s a coward and throw him unceremoniously out into the street.
> 
> So: You have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect and you're facing a giant snake, so it makes sense that you'd flee rather than face the monster. This goes wrong when the people it threatens are devoured and you fail <whatever mission got us here>.
> 
> Presenting the character with the giant snake attacking the innocents earns him at least 1 and possibly 2 FP just from showing up in the scene at all. If the player chooses, he can easily spend the first to buy off the cowardice compel.




Actually I think your understanding of a compel is wrong.... compelling an aspect is a pro-active action. 

The other way you use aspects in the game is called a *compel*. If you’re in a situation where having or being around a certain aspect means your character’s life is more dramatic or complicated, someone *can* compel the aspect. That aspect can be on your character, the scene, location, game, or anywhere else that’s currently in play...

In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is.

The last part clearly shows the GM has (the choice, hence the word "can") to make an offer on a specific complication concerning the aspect, it's not enough that a giant snake is there, that isn't the complication that the offer is being made on.  The snake isn't in and of itself a complication created by the compel... the snake is there, the compel has to be a situation the GM specifically offers a FP for.  This is like saying if one of my aspects is "Why'd it have to be monsters" in a Fate D&D inspired game... I'd get a FP every time a monster appears in a scene.  that makes no sense... the GM has to pro-actively contrive a specific complication around the aspect and formally offer a FP for it.  I mean the snake being there in Fate could just as easily be invoked by the player as a positive... "Why'd it have to be snakes?"... I hate loathe them so much sometimes I go into a murderous rage and attack them relentlessly (spend my Fate point and give me my +2)... that's why a snake just being there isn't anything until someone chooses to compel (or invoke) that aspect in some way...


----------



## Umbran

Cadence said:


> So, would that be a Decision compel or an Event compel.




I always saw that distinction as really only one way to help a GM think about compels to generate them.  Once you have the idea, there's no need to shove it back into that framework.



> Is it cheesy to compel when the other person is out of fate points (too close to rail-roading, or does getting the fate point make up for that)?




If the player is out of fate points, he or she either wants the session to end (so they get a refresh for next session) or to be compelled. The player should be inviting them, suggesting them as often as possible if they're out of points. If you are out of fate points, you're stuck with die rolls, which on average will be no help whatsoever!  You can't make any powers or stunts that require fate points work.  

It is utterly cheesy to use the opportunity to "beat" the player.  If you're in an adversarial mindset playing a FATE based game, just stop, 'cause (IMHO) you're doin' it wrong.  The whole purpose of the fate point economy, and that ebb and flow, is to build an awesome narrative.  This is not a simulation, or a gamist win/lose thing.  You want to build a narrative.  You want ot get that player a point or two so they have a chance to try to squeak out of the tight spot.  They may fail, of course, but if you've given them the point, then they fail dramatically, which is the best kind of fail.



> Can you use the Fate point earned from accepting the compel to essentially mitigate the compel?




Mitigate?  Well, overcome or work around, at least.

"I compel you to stay out of striking distance of the serpent!"

"Okay, I'll take that.  So, can I use that fate point to stipulate there's a chandelier above that serpent, and the rope holding it up is right... over...here...?" (declaring a story detail, rather than invoking an aspect)

or

"Okay, I'll take that.  So, I am going to just throw my sword at it, and I want to hit it right in the eye!  I am a 'Defender of the Innocent', can that apply?"



> I wonder how often...
> 
> ... happens in actual play relative to player-GM fights over alignment interpretation.




Well, FATE is supposed to be rather more cooperative than your traditional D&D game.  The players are handed a lot more narrative control - negotiation happens all the time, in my experience.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> Mitigate?  Well, overcome or work around, at least.
> 
> "I compel you to stay out of striking distance of the serpent!"
> 
> "Okay, I'll take that.  So, can I use that fate point to stipulate there's a chandelier above that serpent, and the rope holding it up is right... over...here...?" (declaring a story detail, rather than invoking an aspect)



I like that as another way to use the newly acquired fate point to do something about the serpent.



Umbran said:


> "Okay, I'll take that. So, I am going to just throw my sword at it, and I want to hit it right in the eye! I am a 'Defender of the Innocent', can that apply?"



That too.


----------



## Ratskinner

[/QUOTE]







Imaro said:


> Actually I think your understanding of a compel is wrong.... compelling an aspect is a pro-active action.




That's the way is supposed to work. That is, the GM intentionally and knowingly using your aspects to design the scenario. A Retroactive Compel is used for (basically) when the GM forgets or overlooks that he's doing that:



			
				Fate Core said:
			
		

> *Retroactive Compels*
> Sometimes, you’ll notice during the game that you’ve fulfilled the criteria for a compel without a fate point getting awarded. You’ve played your aspects to the hilt and gotten yourself into all kinds of trouble, or you’ve narrated crazy and dramatic stuff happening to a character related to their aspects just out of reflex. Anyone who realizes this in play can mention it, and the fate point can be awarded retroactively, treating it like a compel after the fact.
> 
> GMs, you’re the final arbiter. It should be pretty obvious when something like this occurs, though—just look at the guidelines for event and decision compels above, and see if you can summarize what happened in the game according
> to those guidelines. If you can, award a fate point.




In my games, that usually takes the form of a player saying "Oh! Hey, I've got <such-and-such> aspect, does that get me Fate point?" To which the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on whether the situation (see below).



Imaro said:


> The other way you use aspects in the game is called a *compel*. If you’re in a situation where having or being around a certain aspect means your character’s life is more dramatic or complicated, someone *can* compel the aspect. That aspect can be on your character, the scene, location, game, or anywhere else that’s currently in play...
> 
> In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is.
> 
> The last part clearly shows the GM has (the choice, hence the word "can") to make an offer on a specific complication concerning the aspect, it's not enough that a giant snake is there, that isn't the complication that the offer is being made on.  The snake isn't in and of itself a complication created by the compel... the snake is there, the compel has to be a situation the GM specifically offers a FP for.




You need to consider whether the situation fulfills (or can fulfill) the circumstances as presented in the two example compels (there are other similar formulations that other folks use.) It is explicitly not just when a monster shows up, but only when it causes problems for the character of the types that you can work out with those fill-in-the-blank phrases. In the big snake scenario presented, both are true for that character's aspects...hence he can collect two FP. Rather than a trap, the situation is a bit of bonanza for the PC, the innocents and the snake trigger two aspects at once and its not clear that either would alone! That bit of story is focusing intently on that PC's aspects and is precisely the kind of thing that the whole FP economy is designed to encourage. However, if he is just walking through the marketplace and I unthinkingly narrate walking past an inconsequential snake charmer, that doesn't net him a point, because it doesn't fill in the rest of the blanks very well:

You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect and are walking through the marketplace, so it makes sense that,
unfortunately, there is a snake charmer would happen to you. Damn your luck. 

In that case, the existence of the snake isn't presenting a problem for the character, and hence no FP/compel. Which is not to say that the GM or player couldn't suggest such a compel vis-a-vis the second formulation:

You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect when you see a snake charmer while crossing the marketplace, so it makes sense that you’d decide to swing to the other side of the plaza to avoid it. This goes wrong when the thief you're tailing uses that opportunity to escape. (or some other adventure-appropo mishap)

However, that's different from what we were seeing in the scenario as presented. _That_ scenario easily triggered both aspects as I noted in the previous post.



Imaro said:


> This  is like saying if one of my aspects is "Why'd it have to be monsters" in  a Fate D&D inspired game... I'd get a FP every time a monster  appears in a scene.  that makes no sense... the GM has to pro-actively  contrive a specific complication around the aspect and formally offer a  FP for it.  I mean the snake being there in Fate could just as easily be  invoked by the player as a positive... "Why'd it have to be snakes?"...  I hate loathe them so much sometimes I go into a murderous rage and  attack them relentlessly (spend my Fate point and give me my +2)...  that's why a snake just being there isn't anything until someone chooses  to compel (or invoke) that aspect in some way...




With _Why'd it have to be snakes?_,I think we are all relying on Indiana Jones' phobia as the inspiration. If a player took an aspect like _Why'd it have to be monsters?_ in a fantasy game I'm running, I'd first make sure that they were intending it that way. Then I would beat on that aspect like bongo drum. Every single monster has a ready hook to invoke to add damage or insult to injury. Every...Single...One. IMO, that would be awesome theater: an adventurer who fears monsters?...hilarity ensues.

 If on the other hand, the player intended that they hated snakes in the way you describe, then I'd ask that they rename that aspect to better reflect that. If you have _Snakes enrage me!_ or _The only good snake is a dead snake_ those are good, too. I can envision ways to both compel and invoke either one.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> On the first thing, I don't actually understand it. (And never have - it's a part of the AD&D alignment system that has never made sense to me.) The way you put it, doing good via a lawful approach and doing good via a chaotic approach is like doing good by being a blacksmith (it's handy for people to have horseshoes and ploughshares) or doing good by being a weaver (it's handy for people to have cloth). But nothing in the blacksmith/weaver set up suggests that smiths should hate weavers, or vice versa. They're just different approaches to living a virtuous life.




Perhaps a lack of understanding of the two axis model could be a reason one would not like alignment?  Does each sect of a deity's worshippers detest the others and consider theirs the One True Way?  I do find that most games focus on the Good/Evil axis rather than the Law/Chaos axis, but there is certainly conflict to be had in both.  To the real world, consider "nanny states" and "libertarians".  Heirachical models versus independent action.  A leader or a team of equals.



pemerton said:


> There is no more specific, generally accepted definition of "good" - it's one of the most flexible words in the English language, in terms of the objects, states, persons, behaviours etc it can be applied to.




Knowing the definition of "Level" in a dictionary will not assist in reading its use in a D&D context either.  The terms are defined within the game system differently than they may appear in the dictionary.



pemerton said:


> Yes. That's not saying that they define their code. It is saying that their interpretation is paramount. But interpretation is not definition - and that's not just a point of semantics, either in general or in the context of RPG play. The general point probably doesn't matter here, but the RPG point is this: definition corresponds roughly to backstory; interpretation corresponds roughly to play, including action resolution. I have never said that players have sole authority, or even necessarily primary authority, over backstory. I've said they have primary authority to play their PCs, including interpreting what does or doesn't fit with their PCs' moral convictions.




So I'm back to months and levels of play before we discover that the character who claims to derive all of his abilities from his devotion to a specific moral code, being rewarded with these abilities by the deity which supports that code, is not actually following that deity's code.  So where DO his abilities come from?  And how is that consistent with his conception of his character?



pemerton said:


> There seems to be some confusion here over what "belief" means when a game like Burning Wheel talks about "beliefs being tested in play". Beliefs in that usage is synonymous with "commitments", or "moral convictions". It's not about testing whether your belief that the Raven Queen likes pizza but not donuts is true or false.




So was your extensive discussion some time back about a character whose belief was that he was rightful heir to the throne (fact of parentage and background) not consistent with BW?



pemerton said:


> So if you want to change the backstory of the Raven Queen so that she is a cold, ruthless, feared Monarch of the Dead then - at least at my table - that is typically not something to be done in the course of play. That is something to be established by general consensus prior to play.




You provided a quote saying "this is the relevant passage".  I read that passage and made my interpretations.  Then you come back and say "Oh, that's a huge change to my backstory".  I thought you were opposed to "hidden backstory". 



pemerton said:


> I'm not judging that character.




You are judging the core concept of a possible character so, yes, you are judging my concept's consistency with not the words you presented as "the relevant passage", but your interpretation of those words guided by your campaign backstory.  Now, if your perspective is that you would make that assessment only once it has been determined a given player will play in your game, then dismissing this concept is fine.  However, that assumes the player in question has demonstrated he is a fit for your game, which seems to mean that he shares your base assumptions.  If everyone at the table shares your assumptions then of course there will never be any debate as to those assumptions.  It seems like "reasonable player" is defined in your model as "player who agrees with me".


----------



## Ratskinner

Cadence said:


> Fate questions for @_*Umbran*_ , @_*Imaro*_ , or any other regular players...
> 
> So, would that be a Decision compel or an Event compel.  The player is choosing how to react in fear to the snakes... does that make it a decision one?  Would the Event one be the environment doing something to him?




At least historically, the distinction is unimportant. That is, the important thing is that the compel is somehow complicating the PC's life/adventure. Those two types of compel are just a sort of guideline to determining if that's happening or not. Other Fate folks have written similar formulas (it seems like Fate Accelerated has more need of this, for whatever reason). However, yes, "Event" compels means something external to the character while "Decision" compels usually mean something the character does.



Cadence said:


> Is it cheesy to compel when the other person is out of fate points (too close to rail-roading, or does getting the fate point make up for that)?




hmm....that's a tougher question (especially as folks have differing views on what entails rail-roading). Being totally out of FP in a Fate game typically indicates that you've just been in a really big, climactic, draining, conflict, and have resolved a bunch of storylines (and earlier compels). At least in my experience, refusing a compel is relatively rare and  usually means that the players feel they have enough on their plate  already. The scenario presented by the "rail-roading" side seems to be that FP are used heavily to avoid compels, and that is how you would end up drained. I must say that this has never happened IME. I don't know what the situation looks like in play, but I suspect it indicates a highly dysfunctional table. At the very least, it would indicate that several times in a row, the GM has offered you the chance to put your character in a situation that your aspects indicate you'd like to see....and then you refused them all.



Cadence said:


> Can you use the Fate point earned from accepting the compel to essentially mitigate the compel?




Not directly, that is, you can't accept and deny the compel simultaneously. However, if the compel got you in a fight or hampered an investigation, you could certainly use the FP during the ensuing action. That's part of the point of giving it to you.


----------



## N'raac

ratskinner said:
			
		

> In my games, that usually takes the form of a player saying "Oh! Hey, I've got <such-and-such> aspect, does that get me Fate point?" To which the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on whether the situation (see below).




Leaving aside the specifics of the Fate mechanics, may I suggest this thread indicates they are also susceptible to different interpretations and disagreement on how the mechanic works, or is intended to work?  I'm seeing differences in when fate points are awarded, which aspects are "good aspects" or "bad aspects", etc.

Ratskinner's statement makes it pretty clear that the GM is making the judgment of when that aspect merits, or does not merit, a mechanical award.  It seems the player believes his character merits a Fate point and the GM can disagree.  That seems similar to a player believing an action is consistent with his alignment and the GM disagreeing.  

Whether this becomes an argument at the table or not does not depend primarily on whether we are dealing with aspects or alignments, but on whether the people at the table can "agree to disagree" and accept a ruling of "NO".

Using the following to highlight differences in "how the rules work", not to suggest who may be right or wrong.


----------



## Ratskinner

N'raac said:


> One can view this "each setback grants you a bonus" style of play as needing to be bribed to role play your character where his personality is disadvantageous.  If it is a bad mechanic which assumes the PC's may not adequately role play those drawbacks (which seems to be the main charge against alignment), why would those same reasonable players, role playing their characters to conception, need to be bribed to do so?  The same logic suggests the bribe mechanic is also a poor one.




The "economy" facet of Fate points is actually more of an automatic limiter on the scope of your aspects, rather than the bribery mechanism as you describe. That is, when you take an aspect like "Follow the code of Pelor", we determine how much that is worth during play by you accepting compels on it. In D&D, this is determined ab initio, and basically resorts to the binary situation of the DM calling the PC "in" or "out" of bounds for the Code of Pelor. He is encouraged to judge you harshly, because you have a raft of special abilities that are dependent upon being judged "in".  With the Fate way of doing it, the DM and player both determine how much it is worth. Each compel accepted is a vote for the code being harsher and worth more, each compel refused is a vote for to not mean as much. The reward is FP, which you can use to promote your PC's heroism later. 



N'raac said:


> Nor does alignment have to be a bludgeon used against the PC's.  Alignment or disadvantages/complications certainly can be used to bludgeon the characters (and their players) and so can aspects in Fate, as set out above.




It is, I would hope clear by my recent posts, that it is much more difficult for the Fate DM to use Aspects as a bludgeon against his PCs.


----------



## Sadras

@_*pemerton*_



> If you mean, can the player do the wrong thing in playing his/her PC, then the answer is no.




You covered more or less interesting actions/pissing others off, but what about inconsistency in roleplaying one's character? Are you saying it doesn't happen?



> There is an implicit idea in at least some of the posts on this thread  - and maybe in yours, though I'm not sure - that the player has an incentive to write (say) LG on his/her PC sheet, but then to get the "benefits" of playing CE. And hence that the GM has to police that. My response upthread to that idea, which I now reiterate, is that I don't see how playing an honourable PC is a disadvantage, or playing CE is a benefit.




In earlier editions of the game - the Fighter was very bare in terms of class features, while the Paladin had many benefits. Playing a dishonourable Paladin, allowed one to benefit from all the class features without having any of the social/ethical restrictions. That right there is an advantage. 



> An exception to the above would be if the game is a classic Gygaxian dungeon game, where the players' only motivation, within the game, is to maximise treasure gained and monsters killed. In that sort of game being LG is a disadvantage of sorts (it puts constraints on your killing and looting), and in that sort of game - as I said upthread - I can see the function of GM policing of a paladin or cleric's alignment. But I don't run that sort of game, and haven't for nearly 30 years.




Fair enough. Are you saying players have changed over the years and min/maxing does not occur anymore so DM's are not required to police PC's motivations anymore? So due to players becoming so honourable and trust-worthy without meta-game influences these days, all PCs can only but roleplay right? If that is so, that is quite a harsh statement to make.


----------



## Ratskinner

N'raac said:


> Leaving aside the specifics of the Fate mechanics, may I suggest this thread indicates they are also susceptible to different interpretations and disagreement on how the mechanic works, or is intended to work?  I'm seeing differences in when fate points are awarded, which aspects are "good aspects" or "bad aspects", etc.
> 
> Ratskinner's statement makes it pretty clear that the GM is making the judgment of when that aspect merits, or does not merit, a mechanical award.  It seems the player believes his character merits a Fate point and the GM can disagree.  That seems similar to a player believing an action is consistent with his alignment and the GM disagreeing.




I couldn't say that all aspects ever are always clear to everyone....but I can say that, because of the surrounding mechanics, that any confusion has much less impact on play. In fact, one critical difference I see is that if a GM and Paladin disagree over some course of action...play in D&D has to stop while they argue it out, play in Fate doesn't. This is partly because the stakes aren't has high for the character and partly because the game incorporates some of that argument into the mechanics. In Fate, much like in fictional sources, we don't start knowing all there is to know about a character, and uncovering something like the Code of Pelor can be an important part of play.



N'raac said:


> Whether this becomes an argument at the table or not does not depend primarily on whether we are dealing with aspects or alignments, but on whether the people at the table can "agree to disagree" and accept a ruling of "NO".




I can only say that I haven't seen it in practice. The Fate mechanics rely, in part, on negotiation of such things. Even within the compel rules there is advice for negotiating the options to tempt the player. What becomes an alignment argument in D&D becomes interesting play in Fate.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> Actually I think your understanding of a compel is wrong.... compelling an aspect is a pro-active action.




Except for retroactive compels, where the GM realizes (or is reminded) that the player has been actively and intentionally playing to an Aspect such that it has been complicating their lives in an interesting way, so that they earn a Fate point after the fact.  This is not uncommon - in a Spirit of the Century game, for example, each character has 10 Aspects.  If you've got a party of five characters, that's 50 Aspects the GM is supposed to keep in mind, aside from those of the NPCs and locations.  The GM *will* forget, occasionally.

While the snake charmer is not a great example, there are similar compels that can be used.  Say your character has the Aspect, "Mortal enemy of the Great Danton".  There may be a compel in which the GM decides that, though the original writeup didn't include it, the Great Danton is now one of the evil masterminds behind the current scenario.  

The mere presence of a snake charmer isn't a complication, because the character doesn't *have* to interact with the charmer - complication of the character's life is not assured.  The charmer is merely a setup that makes compels more likely.  However, when Danton shows up, he'll actively target the PC - and that is a complication that the character can't just walk past.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> That's the way is supposed to work. That is, the GM intentionally and knowingly using your aspects to design the scenario. A Retroactive Compel is used for (basically) when the GM forgets or overlooks that he's doing that:




A GM drawing on character's aspects to create a scenario... is not the same as compelling them.  Compelling an aspect is a specific action that is laid out in the rules, and it is not interchangeable with designing a scenario.  A retro compel is when the GM is laying complications (that actually affect you character in a negative way) down on your character but not giving you a fate point... again just sticking a snake in a scenario isn't doing that.




Ratskinner said:


> In my games, that usually takes the form of a player saying "Oh! Hey, I've got <such-and-such> aspect, does that get me Fate point?" To which the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on whether the situation (see below).




Okay the retro fate point depends on 2 things... the situation and the GM deciding if it is warranted...  So now were back in different GM's equal different judgments on what applies territory.




Ratskinner said:


> You need to consider whether the situation fulfills (or can fulfill) the circumstances as presented in the two example compels (there are other similar formulations that other folks use.) It is explicitly not just when a monster shows up, but only when it causes problems for the character of the types that you can work out with those fill-in-the-blank phrases. In the big snake scenario presented, both are true for that character's aspects...hence he can collect two FP. Rather than a trap, the situation is a bit of bonanza for the PC, the innocents and the snake trigger two aspects at once and its not clear that either would alone! That bit of story is focusing intently on that PC's aspects and is precisely the kind of thing that the whole FP economy is designed to encourage. However, if he is just walking through the marketplace and I unthinkingly narrate walking past an inconsequential snake charmer, that doesn't net him a point, because it doesn't fill in the rest of the blanks very well:




Again, what complication based on his aspects has arisen... before the snake does anything it is just there.  Now if the GM has the snake actually attack some innocents (which it has not done at this point) and then makes the character defend them... that could be a compel on "Defends Innocents" because the actual complication is that the character must put himself in danger to save them.  However the GM is just as right if he compels the character's "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect to make him flee from the giant snake, again the complication from the snake being in the scene is that he has to flee from it... and then attack the innocents (At this point the player would get another Fate point but he cannot use it or anything else to mitigate the fact that he is fleeing from the snake).  What I'm saying is the snake being there isn't directly causing a complication for the character so he should not get a FP just because a snake shows up in a scene.



Ratskinner said:


> You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect and are walking through the marketplace, so it makes sense that,
> unfortunately, there is a snake charmer would happen to you. Damn your luck.
> 
> In that case, the existence of the snake isn't presenting a problem for the character, and hence no FP/compel. Which is not to say that the GM or player couldn't suggest such a compel vis-a-vis the second formulation:
> 
> You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect when you see a snake charmer while crossing the marketplace, so it makes sense that you’d decide to swing to the other side of the plaza to avoid it. This goes wrong when the thief you're tailing uses that opportunity to escape. (or some other adventure-appropo mishap)
> 
> However, that's different from what we were seeing in the scenario as presented. _That_ scenario easily triggered both aspects as I noted in the previous post.




No it didn't the snake hasn't caused a complication for the character when the scenario starts, it is only after the GM decides what the snake will do and how it will cause a complication for the character thatan actual compel takes place, and as I stated the snake could just as easily scare the character as attack the innocents, triggering either of those aspects.  your fitting of the giant snake scenario into the formula of the compel is exactly like the first one above about the snake charmer... it's not causing a direct complication for the character yet.





Ratskinner said:


> With _Why'd it have to be snakes?_,I think we are all relying on Indiana Jones' phobia as the inspiration. If a player took an aspect like _Why'd it have to be monsters?_ in a fantasy game I'm running, I'd first make sure that they were intending it that way. Then I would beat on that aspect like bongo drum. Every single monster has a ready hook *to invoke to add damage or insult to injury.* Every...Single...One. IMO, that would be awesome theater: an adventurer who fears monsters?...hilarity ensues.




Emphasis mine... a giant snake just being in the scene (especially since even you admit the aspect is supposed to be centered around a phobia) doesn't add damage, or insult to injury... now once it's invoked to cause the player to run away in fear or attacks the innocents... then it does that.  



Ratskinner said:


> If on the other hand, the player intended that they hated snakes in the way you describe, then I'd ask that they rename that aspect to better reflect that. If you have _Snakes enrage me!_ or _The only good snake is a dead snake_ those are good, too. I can envision ways to both compel and invoke either one.




Well IMO oppinion fear can cause a flight or fight respeonse and so the character would be able to draw on either when it comes to his fear of snakes... of course this is more of that ambiguity, and different GM decisions we were talking about before...


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> The mere presence of a snake charmer isn't a complication, because the character doesn't *have* to interact with the charmer - complication of the character's life is not assured.  The charmer is merely a setup that makes compels more likely.  However, when Danton shows up, he'll actively target the PC - and that is a complication that the character can't just walk past.



 [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] ...  The above is my point, when the scenario starts the snake is in the scene but hasn't caused a complication for the character either way... the player doesn't have any FP's so he can't invoke anything and the DM decides to compel the character with his "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect with the condition that he flee from the snake...


----------



## Umbran

N'raac said:


> Leaving aside the specifics of the Fate mechanics, may I suggest this thread indicates they are also susceptible to different interpretations and disagreement on how the mechanic works, or is intended to work?  I'm seeing differences in when fate points are awarded, which aspects are "good aspects" or "bad aspects", etc.




My experience is that the mechanic is more subject to mistake or misunderstanding than to interpretation - not remembering the order of operations, for example, can make things weird.

The individual aspects are subject to interpretation.  This is by no means a bad thing, more often a feature than a bug, in my experience.

For example, in a Dresden Files game I occasionally play in, my character is a musician.  For thematic reasons, I tried to phrase several of his Aspects in term so song lyrics.  One of them is from Hotel California, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."  The character has former entanglements with Fae powers, and I put it there so the GM could compel me to keep me entangled (or, I could ask for an occasional fate point when I willfully failed to try to extract the character from fae business).  It is an instance of an aspect that I would now call poorly phrased, as it is difficult to see how it could be used to invoke for a bonus or reroll.

However, the GM is a bright and creative dude, and he saw a way - a different interpretation.  That phrase doesn't just represent the character's fae entanglements, it represents an even larger theme - the fact that his life, and everything in it, is tangled, and once you're in the web, it can be hard to get out.  So, when he's in a fight, or a social encounter, I can often invoke it for a bonus on actions that are trying to keep the enemy from escaping.



> Ratskinner's statement makes it pretty clear that the GM is making the judgment of when that aspect merits, or does not merit, a mechanical award.  It seems the player believes his character merits a Fate point and the GM can disagree.  That seems similar to a player believing an action is consistent with his alignment and the GM disagreeing.




Not quite.  Note that the aspect, in and of itself, *never* merits a mechanical reward.  In FATE, it is not enough to behave consistently with the aspect (or alignment) to get a fate point.  That behavior must also complicate the character's life to a significant degree.  Bloviating religious dogma isn't enough - you have to cheese off the shopkeeper with your bloviating, such that he won't sell you the new weapon you kinda needed.



> Whether this becomes an argument at the table or not does not depend primarily on whether we are dealing with aspects or alignments, but on whether the people at the table can "agree to disagree" and accept a ruling of "NO".




Actually, the difference between aspects and alignments is important here, as others have noted.

If, in FATE, at a given time, the GM doesn't think you're really in line with your Aspect, you fail to get a point that'll give you a +2 on one die roll.  It isn't really worth an argument.  There' will be more opportunities - heck you may be able to immediately ask if another Aspect applies instead.

In D&D, if the GM thinks you've seriously deviated from your alignment, your cleric character could, for example, lose all spellcasting power!  Alignment stakes are often much larger than Aspect stakes, so are more likely to become arguments - the player has a lot more to lose.

There are mechanics in FATE that can mirror the major loss from deviation from alignment (called Consequences), but you can't just assign a big consequence for no reason, or for not playing to one aspect.  Such a consequence would be the result of some major failure for the character - he can take the consequence instead of damage in a conflict.


----------



## sheadunne

I find this discussion on Fate interesting. It would be even more interesting to see how it might be integrated into the D&D Paladin framework (obviously with changes to reflect the D&D system). 

Let's see, a Paladin has a list of requirements related to his code (based on whatever the forces of law and good provide in the context of the game world). Let's say it looks like this

Paladin's Code
1. Defend the Innocent 
2. Vanquish evil
3. Act Honorably 

Each of this requirements can be compelled by the DM, granting a bonus to the Paladin (say the effects of a Shield of Faith spell or something). The Paladin can refuse the compel with a successful Will save (DC=10+character level)? If he succeeds, he continues as normal (perhaps representing false visions sent by the forces of chaos and evil), if he fails, he is compelled but does not receive the bonus (perhaps representing a moment of weakness or hesitation). 

Anyway, interesting stuff.


----------



## Umbran

sheadunne said:


> I find this discussion on Fate interesting. It would be even more interesting to see how it might be integrated into the D&D Paladin framework (obviously with changes to reflect the D&D system).




Fate usually keeps the effects of Aspects pretty uniform.  You can invoke an aspect for a +2, or a reroll, or to stipulate a detail in the world.  You may be able to invoke the aspect "Holy Priest" to give you a +2 bonus on a defense roll against a vampire at bay, but that isn't a roll another person without that aspect couldn't make, at least in theory.

Outright magical powers are usually handled by Skills, Stunts, or other extras.  



> Each of this requirements can be compelled by the DM, granting a bonus to the Paladin (say the effects of a Shield of Faith spell or something).




GM compels are for complications, not bonuses.  You get a fate point from the GM when something *bad* happens to you, not when something good (like your defenses turning on) happens to you!

Some stunts or extras may require a fate point to make run - so allowing yourself to be compelled helps make your powers run, but it is indirect. You can have a Paladin with those Aspects, and a Stunt called "Shield of Faith" that needs a fate point to activate, for example - following his code will generally mean he has the power to make his magic happen.


----------



## Ratskinner

[/QUOTE]







Imaro said:


> A GM drawing on character's aspects to create a scenario... is not the same as compelling them.  Compelling an aspect is a specific action that is laid out in the rules, and it is not interchangeable with designing a scenario.  A retro compel is when the GM is laying complications (that actually affect you character in a negative way) down on your character but not giving you a fate point... again just sticking a snake in a scenario isn't doing that.




In the original presentation, the fact that the monster is a snake is presented as a modification/inspiration made with the character's aspect in mind. That's exactly what a compel (retro or otherwise) is designed for. As I mentioned elsewhere, its not just the snake alone. The snake and the innocents being posed together like that is what makes it a viable double-compel. Take one out, and other (at least as far as we know from the scenario as presented) ceases to be an issue.



Imaro said:


> Again, what complication based on his aspects has arisen... before the snake does anything it is just there.





N'raac said:


> Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the  character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.




Right there.

My read of the original scenario is that the innocents and (some monster) were already there, and the GM made it a snake, just for the purpose of that aspect..._that is_ the complication that arises from the snake just being there, because snakes have a special relationship to the PC. As I said before:

Because you have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect, it makes sense that when you try to rescue these people that a huge snake is threatening them. Damn your luck.

That's a textbook retroactive event compel. Because now, even with the compel to flee, the character has a choice to make: Fight the snake, with the GM beating on my fear of snakes the whole time, or flee. The scenario doesn't exist until it sees the table, it doesn't matter if the GM wrote it down last week or just came up with it now.

When the character encounters the tableau of snakes and innocents and the GM tries to compel him via _Defender of Innocents_ to protect them from the snake. However, at that point, the character should be walking in with 3 FP and this whole issue goes away.

Now, take away the snake, make it instead an ogre or something. Then the DM can only compel _Defender of Innocents_ to provoke the character to engage. If the PC came into the situation with no FP, then he pretty much has to enter the fray with the 1 FP from the compel. (The book is actually silent on this, AFAICT.)



Imaro said:


> What I'm saying is the snake being there isn't directly causing a complication for the character so he should not get a FP just because a snake shows up in a scene.




But it is, in this case, creating a complication for the character. If it was an ogre, then the character's phobia is irrelevant, and if there is not a need for the character to enter the room (the innocents), it doesn't create a complication. However, the fact that there is a huge snake in the room with innocents that I wish to defend _does_ create extra complications for the character. If for no other reason than the GM being able to invoke _Why'd it have to be snakes?_ against him during the fight. That makes the decision to enter the room/fight non-trivial for the PC.



Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... a giant snake just being in the scene (especially since even you admit the aspect is supposed to be centered around a phobia) doesn't add damage, or insult to injury... now once it's invoked to cause the player to run away in fear or attacks the innocents... then it does that.




This paragraph demonstrates confusion about how several facets Fate works (but that may be just rushed typing):

An invoke is a different thing from a compel and (generally speaking) cannot be used to "cause the character to run away in fear". An invoke could be used by the GM to give a +2 bonus to the snake's Intimidation mental attack against the character which would (presumably) deal damage...the nature of which is up to the player. He may take a consequence like _Shaking in my boots!_ instead of fleeing. 

The examples for the Event type of compel are quite clear, I think, in that when the GM introduces a plot element to drag the character around by his aspects...that's a compel.



Imaro said:


> Well IMO oppinion fear can cause a flight or fight respeonse and so the character would be able to draw on either when it comes to his fear of snakes... of course this is more of that ambiguity, and different GM decisions we were talking about before...




In this case, if the narrative fits, use it. Its not about whether or not the GM will "allow" it as a blanket rule, but whether it makes sensible/good fiction. I could see invoking _Why did it have to be snakes?_ to get bonuses to flee snake-filled rooms, to detect the presence of snaky things, etc. Fate GMs don't get to decide that an aspect can't be invoked as a blanket rule, but decide it on a case by case basis. Personally, I usually interpret it pretty liberally, and the Fate Core book advice encourages GMs to do likewise.


----------



## Ratskinner

sheadunne said:


> I find this discussion on Fate interesting. It would be even more interesting to see how it might be integrated into the D&D Paladin framework (obviously with changes to reflect the D&D system).
> 
> Let's see, a Paladin has a list of requirements related to his code (based on whatever the forces of law and good provide in the context of the game world). Let's say it looks like this
> 
> Paladin's Code
> 1. Defend the Innocent
> 2. Vanquish evil
> 3. Act Honorably
> 
> Each of this requirements can be compelled by the DM, granting a bonus to the Paladin (say the effects of a Shield of Faith spell or something). The Paladin can refuse the compel with a successful Will save (DC=10+character level)? If he succeeds, he continues as normal (perhaps representing false visions sent by the forces of chaos and evil), if he fails, he is compelled but does not receive the bonus (perhaps representing a moment of weakness or hesitation).
> 
> Anyway, interesting stuff.




That's an interesting idea, although I'm not so keen on the Will to refuse. I think I'd make it so that the the Paladin gains points of some kind when performing "code" acts. Those points are then used to power his paladinic abilities. So _Lay on Hands_ might require one Righteous Point. I suppose some might be zero cost or continuous.  Heck, you could make things like _Detect Evil_ radii dependent on the number of Righteous Points: 10' per Righteous points.

What's nice is that different orders of Paladins (or even clerics) could choose different aspects for their code.


----------



## Umbran

Ratskinner said:


> As I mentioned elsewhere, its not just the snake alone. The snake and the innocents being posed together like that is what makes it a viable double-compel. Take one out, and other (at least as far as we know from the scenario as presented) ceases to be an issue.




If there is already supposed to be a monster there, making it a snake, in and of itself, is not a complication.  The character could attack the other monster, or the snake.  Having the snake-phobic aspect does not restrict character action by its mere existence.  It is only when the GM *further* compels the PC (to stay back from fear) that the character's life gets more difficult.  So, putting the snake is not a compel, on its own.

Thus my distinction:

If you make it a snake, you're just setting up.

If you make it a snake, and *with* that you stipulate that the character cannot get close, it is a compel.

If you make it a snake, and the player volunteers, "Crap, I'm a melee character, but I'm scared of snakes, so I have to stand back and find another way to help those innocents," you make it a retroactive compel.


----------



## sheadunne

Umbran said:


> GM compels are for complications, not bonuses.  You get a fate point from the GM when something *bad* happens to you, not when something good (like your defenses turning on) happens to you!
> 
> Some stunts or extras may require a fate point to make run - so allowing yourself to be compelled helps make your powers run, but it is indirect. You can have a Paladin with those Aspects, and a Stunt called "Shield of Faith" that needs a fate point to activate, for example - following his code will generally mean he has the power to make his magic happen.




Yes, but that's using a system where the player can invoke their own aspect. Here it would be working as a balancing method (for those that think one is necessary). The Paladin wants to kill the innocent orc baby, which the DM thinks would be against his code. Rather than make him lose his powers if he does it (which is the current system), he instead compels the character not to act. The player can go along with it, gaining a bonus of some sort or he can resist it and possibly justify his actions or be forced to not take the action and not gain a bonus. It's probably not the best method, but I'm just throwing ideas out. 

I wasn't trying to mimic the system, just see if something similar could be used within the current 3x framework of the Paladin. The divine force is compelling the character rather than the DM compelling the player. 

As it stands right now in 3x, the Paladin is balanced with the fighter (whether it actually is might be up for debate) and yet also has a negative strapped to his neck (possibly losing his powers). If the paladin had abilities that surpassed the fighter (as in older editions), then it might make sense. Otherwise, there needs to be a bonus system of some sort in order to justify the negative. Either that needs to be built into the paladin (something he gets) or some other system (such as the one I mentioned) needs to be used to balance the negative. 

Anyway, just some thoughts.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> If there is already supposed to be a monster there, making it a snake, in and of itself, is not a complication.  The character could attack the other monster, or the snake.  Having the snake-phobic aspect does not restrict character action by its mere existence.  It is only when the GM *further* compels the PC (to stay back from fear) that the character's life gets more difficult.  So, putting the snake is not a compel, on its own.
> 
> Thus my distinction:
> 
> If you make it a snake, you're just setting up.
> 
> If you make it a snake, and *with* that you stipulate that the character cannot get close, it is a compel.
> 
> If you make it a snake, and the player volunteers, "Crap, I'm a melee character, but I'm scared of snakes, so I have to stand back and find another way to help those innocents," you make it a retroactive compel.




This was my understanding of how a compel would work in this situation as well...


----------



## sheadunne

Ratskinner said:


> That's an interesting idea, although I'm not so keen on the Will to refuse. I think I'd make it so that the the Paladin gains points of some kind when performing "code" acts. Those points are then used to power his paladinic abilities. So _Lay on Hands_ might require one Righteous Point. I suppose some might be zero cost or continuous.  Heck, you could make things like _Detect Evil_ radii dependent on the number of Righteous Points: 10' per Righteous points.
> 
> What's nice is that different orders of Paladins (or even clerics) could choose different aspects for their code.




In Pathfinder, which already has systems of points (such as Ki for Monks, Ninjas, etc) it would make sense. In 3x it's a little different. But yeah, I was thinking "Faith" points to power Lay on Hands, Divine Channeling, Smites, etc. It's certainly one direction it could go. In this case the Paladin would be earning points for acting with the code and simply gaining nothing by not acting in code. I think some people want a punishment aspect rather than a not gaining aspect. I don't know.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Again, what complication based on his aspects has arisen... before the snake does anything it is just there.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> No it didn't the snake hasn't caused a complication for the character when the scenario starts, it is only after the GM decides what the snake will do and how it will cause a complication for the character thatan actual compel takes place



As [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] described the scenario, the giant snake is about to eat some innocent NPCs whom the PC in question is trying to rescue. There's your complication right there - and as [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] has pointed out, it operates on both aspects: the presence of the snake complicates the Defence of the Innocent; and the presence of the innocent NPCs complicates Why Does It Have To Be Snakes.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> You covered more or less interesting actions/pissing others off, but what about inconsistency in roleplaying one's character? Are you saying it doesn't happen?



Sure, though I'm not sure it happens more than inconsistency in being onself in real life - or to put it another way, I think strict consistency in characterisation can be taken too far in a non-verisimilitudinous direction. Or to put it yet another way, the play of the PC reflects the desires of a single continuing player, so unless the player's desires in relation to the character and the game change radically, there's no reason to expect any problematic inconsistency.



Sadras said:


> In earlier editions of the game - the Fighter was very bare in terms of class features, while the Paladin had many benefits. Playing a dishonourable Paladin, allowed one to benefit from all the class features without having any of the social/ethical restrictions. That right there is an advantage.



This depends on how much of a power-up you think a paladin is.

In 4e not at all. My understanding is that, in 3E, a paladin is generally weaker than a fighter. (I could be misinformed on that, though.) In AD&D a paladin already has taken a big hit in having to put 17 in CHA, plus potentially having to put a second decent score in WIS rather than CON. I'm not sure that the ethical restrictions factor in as a further balancing factor. Also, at least in my style of gaming, it's not a disadvantage to be an honourable warrior. And hence there is no incentive for the player to be insincere in his/her approach to playing a paladin as a paladin.



Sadras said:


> Fair enough. Are you saying players have changed over the years and min/maxing does not occur anymore so DM's are not required to police PC's motivations anymore?



I'm not talking about players in general. I'm talking about my players and my game.

But the min-maxing thing is interesting. Why is it min-maxing to write down LG but have your PC act dishonourably? What is the advantage gained by being dishonourable? In my game there is no advantage gained in that way and hence there is no min-maxing of behaviour. And hence no need to police.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> As @_*N'raac*_ described the scenario, the giant snake is about to eat some innocent NPCs whom the PC in question is trying to rescue. There's your complication right there - and as @_*Ratskinner*_ has pointed out, it operates on both aspects: the presence of the snake complicates the Defence of the Innocent; and the presence of the innocent NPCs complicates Why Does It Have To Be Snakes.




Here's the situation as it was presented...



N'raac said:


> Hey, back to Fate Aspects.
> An example for someone familiar to comment on. The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.




The Snake is threatening the mother and child... but again that is not a compel on the character (the fact that the snake is there threatening them does not in any way force the character to act a certain way the GM is not stipulating he do anything), at this point he could just walk away if he wanted to... 

Now, in that situation the GM could compel "Defender of the Innocent" to force him into the fight with the snake (and he would get a FP for it) or the GM could compel "Why'd it have to be Snakes" to make him flee from the snake (and he'd get a FP for it).  What you don't get is a FP for just playing the game or even for just playing your character (though if this is what is happening it could explain why FP's are so abundant in some GM's games and not others)... it's when the aspect(s) of your character are used by the GM to create a specific situation that you must accept and which you agree to play along with that you get a FP.  Again what you are noting is the set up... especially since the character was not trying to defend these people against say a group of bandits and then all of a sudden a giant snake bursts out of the woods to attack the character and *complicates* the situation (that would be a compel)...  the snake already being there and the player being free to determine what he does about it is not a compel... it's just the situation.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Perhaps a lack of understanding of the two axis model could be a reason one would not like alignment?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To the real world, consider "nanny states" and "libertarians".  Heirachical models versus independent action.  A leader or a team of equals.



You may have missed my point.

When (say) libertarians and liberals argue, that don't hold one axis constant - good vs evil - and debate the other one - law vs chaos. They simply present reasons for thinking that the other's account of what is good or bad is in fact wrong. (Eg Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia argues that Rawls's claims about what justice requires are flawed.)

Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon. Applying the two axes in D&D produces the relativism that was evident in your earlier post: namely, that it is meant to be true at one and the same time that A and B both agree on what is good, yet disagree on what behaviour is proper. As a sentence in ordinary English, that makes no sense.

And D&D does not provide a "definition" of good that alleviates the problem because it's "definition" of good simply appeals to further terms that exhibit the same phenomenon: for instance, it is meant to be true that A and B both agree that certain behaviour is altruistic (because both agree it is good) yet they disagree on whether that behaviour is proper (because one is LG and the other CG). That makes no sense. In the real world, such people are disagreeing over what counts as altruism, and hence over whether the other is really acting altruistically, because they have differenct accounts of what sorts of interests people have. (As, for instance, Rawls and Nozick do.)



N'raac said:


> You provided a quote saying "this is the relevant passage".  I read that passage and made my interpretations.  Then you come back and say "Oh, that's a huge change to my backstory".  I thought you were opposed to "hidden backstory".



First, you did not come up with an interpretatin in discussion with me, or anyone else, about playing the game. You confected an interpretation to try and score a point on an internet message board.

Secondly, the backstory in question is hardly hidden. It's completely out in the open! If this were actually a discussion about a character pitch, we're discussing the backstory as part of the pitch. Where's the concealment?



N'raac said:


> So was your extensive discussion some time back about a character whose belief was that he was rightful heir to the throne (fact of parentage and background) not consistent with BW?



You are confusing an interpretation that you and [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] imputed to me with what I said at the time. As I said at the time, the belief "I am the rightful ruler of this land" was not intended as a factual belief about bloodlines. It was intended as a moral conviction about entitlement. (Which may or may not be backed up by some backstory about bloodlines - is the PC playing Aragorn or a peasant rebel? Burning Wheel has mechanical and story scope for either.) When I say that we will find out in play whether or not its true that you are the rightful ruler, I'm not talking about genealogy. I'm talking about Conan proving he's the rightful king of Aquilonia by treading the thrones of the earth beneath his sandalled feat!

A comparable example belief in the Revised Character Burner is "I shall rule this town from the Black Wizard's tower." The player doesn't have to discover, in play, whether or not that tower exists: it is established as part of the backstory. Nor is the belief a prediction (like a meteorological forecast). It is a statement of intent and desire.



N'raac said:


> So I'm back to months and levels of play before we discover that the character who claims to derive all of his abilities from his devotion to a specific moral code, being rewarded with these abilities by the deity which supports that code, is not actually following that deity's code.



I don't understand this. Your character is a paladin of the Raven Queen. His/her power comes from the Raven Queen. Where is the doubt?

I've lost track of your purpose. Are you curious as to how I run my game? Are you trying to prove that my game would be better if I used mechanical alignment? Are you trying to prove that I am mistaken in thinking that I don't use mechanical alignment?

Do you think it's relevant to understanding my game that the player of one of the paladins (the fighter/priest who serves Moradin) regards the Raven Queen devotees in the party as a necessary evil? Or that the paladin of the Raven Queen regards that dwarf as a simpleton who doesn't understand the real significance of life and death, and therefore is good for nothing but pointing at foes that need to be defeated? For me, these interactions between players (and their PCs) on the basis of such judgements are at the heart of play. They can take place without any overlay of alignment judgements. And alignment judgements would impede them. (For instance, at least one of the characters would turn out not to be acting and judging well, though each believes that he is. So the debate, and concomitant dramatic tension, would be shut down rather than further developed.)


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The Snake is threatening the mother and child
> 
> <snip>
> 
> especially since the character was not trying to defend these people against say a group of bandits and then all of a sudden a giant snake bursts out of the woods to attack the character and *complicates* the situation (that would be a compel)



The character is trying to rescue the innocents, but finds them threatened by a giant snake! I don't see how it matters whether or not there were bandits already in the scene - the presence of the snake is still a complicating factor for their rescue.



Imaro said:


> that is not a compel on the character (the fact that the snake is there threatening them does not in any way force the character to act a certain way the GM is not stipulating he do anything), at this point he could just walk away if he wanted to...



To frame it using [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s formulation:

You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake between you and them would happen to you. Damn your luck.​
I gather that this is what is labelled an "event compel" rather than a "decision compel".


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> The character is trying to rescue the innocents, but finds them threatened by a giant snake! I don't see how it matters whether or not there were bandits already in the scene - the presence of the snake is still a complicating factor for their rescue.




Trying to rescue them from what??  _Hint: If your answer is the giant snake... well that's not a complication that is the situation as it stands._

Now within the situation the character can be compelled by the GM to attack the snake using his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect and the player would receive a FP for that compel)... He could also be compelled to flee in fear using his "Why'd it have to be Snakes" aspect, which is what happened in our example ( and he would get a FP for that).  What he doesn't get a Fate point for is just playing the game or playing his character.  Him being in a *situation* with snakes isn't a compel because he is not being forced to do anything or act a certain way.  In the above scenario, if the GM doesn't compel the character he is free to do whatever he wants... including walk away from the innocents and suffers no repercussions for doing so... however once the GM compels him, it creates a complication because he *must* do something, or something *must* happen.   



pemerton said:


> To frame it using @_*Ratskinner*_'s formulation:You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake between you and them would happen to you. Damn your luck.​
> I gather that this is what is labelled an "event compel" rather than a "decision compel".




Yes and if he was rescuing the NPC's from something else this compel would make sense... since the snake showing up is then an actual complication.... him rescuing them from the snake isn't a complication... it's a situation... that's why I included the bandits in my previous example because then the situation is that the character is trying to rescue them.  *Key Point Here: *From what?  Bandits...then things get complicated when I as GM say hey, you're near a swamp wouldn't a great *complication* of this situation (actual rescuing of the NPC's from something) be the appearance of a giant snake??  the player then says "yeah it would" (and gets a FP) or says..."No, I don't think it would be" (and pays the GM a fate point to cancel it out). 

In other words...

You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs from some bandits in a swamp, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake would suddenly burst forth from the muck and get between you and them. Damn your luck.


----------



## Celebrim

pemerton said:


> You may have missed my point.
> 
> When (say) libertarians and liberals argue, that don't hold one axis constant - good vs evil - and debate the other one - law vs chaos. They simply present reasons for thinking that the other's account of what is good or bad is in fact wrong. (Eg Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia argues that Rawls's claims about what justice requires are flawed.)
> 
> Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon.




I didn't and don't miss the point, though I consider your point somewhat irrelevant.  After all, what people do does not necessarily imply what they ought to do.   Perhaps when liberals and libertarians argue, they would profit from understanding that the are arguing over something other than good and evil, and that disagreement didn't necessarily imply evil or even stupidity on the other's part.   After all, I think most people understand that there is a difference between being 'wrong' and being 'evil'.   Perhaps a two axis system would increase the nuance of their thoughts.   Perhaps the reason that people argue in such a way is that there language is impoverished.  But perhaps the reason they don't argue in this way is that law and chaos aren't meaningful concepts.   Whatever the case about the real world, it need not apply to our fantasy one



> After all, there  Applying the two axes in D&D produces the relativism that was evident in your earlier post: namely, that it is meant to be true at one and the same time that A and B both agree on what is good, yet disagree on what behaviour is proper. As a sentence in ordinary English, that makes no sense.




I don't agree with that at all.   A good example is the concept of pacifism.  Pacifism often carries great weight as a mode of behavior in certain religions and is often held by certain groups as being a laudable moral standard.  Equally though, the chivalrous warrior can be held as a standard of virtue.   Now it wouldn't be hard to think of religions that had both the chivalrous warrior model and the pacifist as standards of virtue.   Within that religion there could (and to be frank does) exist people who admire both modes of behavior and the bravery and piety implied by rigorously adhering to such a code of conduct.   This is true even when they don't in fact agree with the code of conduct.   The chivalrous warrior could greatly esteem with the pacifist and his reasoning and intentions, and yet obviously disagree - yet it would not follow that the believes the pacifist is not good.   And conversely, those that have taken pacifist oaths may esteem the chivalrous warrior without believing such a calling is proper.   Particularly within faiths, there can be a belief that there is a single highest truth, but that for humanity in its weakness this highest truth can be difficult to ascertain and a dispute arise over methodology without in the slightest believing that the other person is not good.   This used to be called tolerance, before that word was robbed of any real meaning.



> And D&D does not provide a "definition" of good that alleviates the problem because it's "definition" of good simply appeals to further terms that exhibit the same phenomenon: for instance, it is meant to be true that A and B both agree that certain behaviour is altruistic (because both agree it is good) yet they disagree on whether that behaviour is proper (because one is LG and the other CG). That makes no sense.




What???  That's entirely common.  In the real world I've literally had this conversation recently, and yes, it did involve arguing over what constituted charity but there certainly had to be an appeal to some further value that the term 'charity' didn't encompass on its own.   At no point do I think that either person had the sense that the other wasn't motivated by charity.   In D&D terms, we were arguing over 'law' versus 'chaos' and through which could good be best implemented.  Each believed the other detracted from rather than enhanced good, but neither was questioning the others commitment to goodness.

Somewhat tongue and cheek, I would say real world people when they argue Good/Evil argue a spectrum of good and evil (each saying that they are good), but when they argue Chaos/Law they substitute a spectrum of wise and unwise (each saying that they are wise).


----------



## Ratskinner

Umbran said:


> If there is already supposed to be a monster there, making it a snake, in and of itself, is not a complication.  The character could attack the other monster, or the snake.  Having the snake-phobic aspect does not restrict character action by its mere existence.  It is only when the GM *further* compels the PC (to stay back from fear) that the character's life gets more difficult.  So, putting the snake is not a compel, on its own.
> 
> Thus my distinction:
> 
> If you make it a snake, you're just setting up.
> 
> If you make it a snake, and *with* that you stipulate that the character cannot get close, it is a compel.
> 
> If you make it a snake, and the player volunteers, "Crap, I'm a melee character, but I'm scared of snakes, so I have to stand back and find another way to help those innocents," you make it a retroactive compel.




I used to very much agree with you, and I still there's room for interpretational differences amongst Fate players, with the game still functioning very well in either case. I think it depends on the playstyle your group is using or shooting for. My personal feelings on this have changed over the course of Fate's development. The primary change in my thinking comes from playing Fate "freeform" or without very much prep at all under the Fate Core rules. Doing so makes scene and plot framing much more of a collaborative effort, where FP are often exhanged before action actually starts. I can imagine a GM looking at his FP-less PC and offering FP to make the enemy a giant snake just as easily as I can see the later compel to flee.  Additionally, I think some of it depends on the context of the scenario  in question (are the innocents in question previously established as a  goal, how has the aspect previously been established, etc. The monster's identity, for instance, appears to be indeterminate as the scenario starts)...There must be some reason why abandoning the innocents is complicating  for the character, or the flee compel doesn't work out of context, either.

To further illustrate our difference of opinion : I'm not sure I actually like the idea of a compel for "you can't get close to it" (however you wish to phrase it) because that, to me, sounds much more like a situational aspect than the results of a compel. To establish that in the fiction, I would (instead of a compel) make a Create an Advantage attempt (Snake's Intimidate vs Character's Will...or similar) then put a "keeping my distance" aspect on the scene/character. (This would also net the player a FP for invoking his aspect against him.) If the player wants to establish that, then he his also free to make a roll and establish free invokes on that aspect. (Probably by using whatever combat skill he has.) Compel results need to be things that either happen or don't, IMO. Having a compel result linger in an easily overturned way is a recipe for trouble, IME. I'm not sure there's actually a rule for that, though.

The more I think about the example as proposed, the more I think the solution is that when the GM offers the "flee" compel, the player counter-offers the "charge in" self-compel (via _Defender of Innocents) _and uses that to pay-off the flee compel....if he wanted to. Who knows, he may be injured or something and want to flee anyway.


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> Trying to rescue them from what??  _Hint: If your answer is the giant snake... well that's not a complication that is the situation as it stands._




The most recent incarnations of Fate don't make much distinction between scene-framing and play. Determining the nature of the critter is part of play (or at least can be), consider the advice on p. 239 Fate Core (emphasis added):



> Asking the players to contribute something to the beginning of your first scene is
> a great way to help get them invested in what’s going on right off the bat. If there’s
> anything that’s flexible about your opening prompt, ask your players to fill in the
> blanks for you when you start the scene. *Clever players may try to use it as an
> opportunity to push for a compel and get extra fate points right off the bat—we
> like to call this sort of play “awesome.”*




It would be perfectly legit for a FP-less player to happen upon the situation with an Ogre guarding/theatening the innocents and suggest a compel for it to be a snake: "Are you sure it isn't a giant snake?" or better yet "Since I have _Why did it have to be snakes?_, are you sure that it isn't a big snake?"



Imaro said:


> Yes and if he was rescuing the NPC's from something else this compel would make sense... since the snake showing up is then an actual complication.... him rescuing them from the snake isn't a complication... it's a situation... that's why I included the bandits in my previous example because then the situation is that the character is trying to rescue them.




It is true that context is critical here. I would say though, that having the additional aspect _Defender of Innocents_ is plenty for me to conclude that the character's interest will lie in rescuing the victims (aspects are always true). The discovery of innocents to defend and the character taking up the challenge is the thing that happens narratively to earn the FP. That could happen as the character rounds the corner and spies them there with the snake, or it could have happened back in town when the character heard about these two getting nabbed by the bandits.



Imaro said:


> You have _Why did it have to be snakes_ as an aspect and are  rescuing some NPCs from some bandits in a swamp, so it makes sense that,  unfortunately, a giant snake would suddenly burst forth from the muck  and get between you and them. Damn your luck.




That would be legit, IMO, and functionally no different from the scenario presented.


----------



## Ratskinner

sheadunne said:


> In Pathfinder, which already has systems of points (such as Ki for Monks, Ninjas, etc) it would make sense. In 3x it's a little different. But yeah, I was thinking "Faith" points to power Lay on Hands, Divine Channeling, Smites, etc. It's certainly one direction it could go. In this case the Paladin would be earning points for acting with the code and simply gaining nothing by not acting in code. I think some people want a punishment aspect rather than a not gaining aspect. I don't know.




If you wanted to add in the "punishment" aspect, then the simplest method is to have them "buy off" opportunities to act according to code. However, that doesn't handle "sins" that aren't simply sins of code omission. To do that, you'd need to list some "sins" and have them cost points. I think, as you seem to, that whether that's a good idea or not would be a group decision.


----------



## Hussar

I'm a little confused about the Fate example above. 

The character comes across an ogre threatening a mother and child. 

Is there any reason the player would not invoke the Defender of Innocents aspect?  Even if the DM didn't compel the action, why wouldn't the player step up here?


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> I'm a little confused about the Fate example above.
> 
> The character comes across an ogre threatening a mother and child.
> 
> Is there any reason the player would not invoke the Defender of Innocents aspect?  Even if the DM didn't compel the action, why wouldn't the player step up here?





The player may not believe his character can successfully confront the ogre.  
The player may have intimations the situation is not as presented and want to wait for confirmation.  
The player may feel his character is exhausted/demoralised and looking to avoid the fight.
The player may feel he's has too much time in the spotlight and wants to defer to other players.
The player may not feel the mother and child should be considered innocents based upon previous history in the campaign.

I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I'm a little confused about the Fate example above.
> 
> The character comes across an ogre threatening a mother and child.
> 
> Is there any reason the player would not invoke the Defender of Innocents aspect?  Even if the DM didn't compel the action, why wouldn't the player step up here?




There could be numerous reasons that he doesn't... 

1. Perhaps he's hurt from a previous battle and isn't in good enough shape to handle another fight...
2. Perhaps said monster is way out of his league...
3. Maybe he is doing something (since he has other aspects as well that may have been compelled) else/more important and cannot engage with the     situation
4. and so on...


Oh 5.  He got ninja'd like I just did...


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> Sure, though I'm not sure it happens more than inconsistency in being oneself in real life




I agree with this.



> Or to put it yet another way, the play of the PC reflects the desires of a single continuing player, so unless the player's desires in relation to the character and the game change radically, there's no reason to expect any problematic inconsistency.




Underlined emphasis mine - cue below ***

I also agree there's no reason to expect any problematic inconsistency, most players are not douche-bags, in most instances a DM will kindly point out the inconsistent behaviour that is about to happen, and the player will generally agree and take-back the said action he proposed or he might provide a motive the DM never thought about and play will continue. Alignment reaffirms how the PC should behave in a generalist sense. PHB 2e "Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket."  



> This depends on how much of a power-up you think a paladin is.




From the 2e PHB the 2e Fighter has additional attacks per round and followers. On the other hand a Paladin had detect evil, +2 saving throws, immunity to disease, lay on hands, cure diseases, aura of protection, use of holy sword, turn undead, summoning war horse, casting priest spells.
In later editions they definitely started balancing the classes, especially when XP progression became uniform.



> Also, at least in my style of gaming, it's not a disadvantage to be an honourable warrior. And hence there is no incentive for the player to be insincere in his/her approach to playing a paladin as a paladin.
> 
> I'm not talking about players in general. I'm talking about my players and my game.
> 
> But the min-maxing thing is interesting. Why is it min-maxing to write down LG but have your PC act dishonourably? What is the advantage gained by being dishonourable? In my game there is no advantage gained in that way and hence there is no min-maxing of behaviour. And hence no need to police.




Okay with regards to the advantage gained by a dishonourable Paladin "min-max LG bad roleplaying" I have answered it up-thread re 2e Paladin vs Fighter. 

As for the rest of the arguments against alignment - 

That it restricts players to roleplay their PCs as they want by the DM:
The 2e PHB (page 49) says "Alignment is a tool not a straight jacket."
The 2e DMG (page 24) says "Never tell a player that his character cannot do something because of his alignment. PCs are controlled by players. The DM intervenes only in rare cases (when the character is controlled by a spell or magic item, for example)."
The same advice is reiterated on page 27, and goes on further to say "Let players make their own decisions and their own mistakes. The DM has enough to do without taking over the players' jobs."

That the DM is the adjudicator of Good and Evil:
In the 2e PHB "Good" is described as 

honest, charitable and forthright
People are not perfect, so few are good all the time.
There are always occasional failings and weaknesses.
Goodness has no absolute values.
Differing cultures impose their own interpretations on what good and what evil is
I think everyone can all agree the above is a simple definition, it is not astrophysics. I do not believe good needs be more defined in the similar vain that not  every hit point is analysed. And since the setting is the DM's as are the differing cultures populating that setting and the deities loitering in that setting's sky, I think its only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM. The only responsibility of the DM in that regard is to inform the players of said interpretations so they can make informed decisions.

From this we can agree that a Paladin does not fall from grace for something minor. It has to be rather identifiable or a significant lapse in ethical actions over a continuous period.    

That Players are Policed and Punished by the DM:
2e DMG (page 24) "Finally as in all points of disagreements with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs. Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone - it belongs to your players as well."

Page 27 gives examples were the DM reflects concern of a PCs actions - the DM can be brazen or subtle weaving warnings through the storyline. It's not "Bam! I got you! You are forever a fighter now!"
3 Types of alignment changes exist: 

Deliberate: changed engineered by the player;
Involuntary: forced on the character usually due to magic item or spell; and
Unconscious: when a characters actions are suited to a different alignment without the player realising it
Page 28 goes on saying "An unconscious alignment change should not surprise the player" which means the DM engages the player and discussion ensues. Forewarning is therefore given and this is understood by the player.
I truthfully cannot foresee two reasonable individuals disagreeing over classification of an act as Evil or non-Evil with the severity that said act would warrant a paladin falling from grace and this again in similar vain to @_*pemerton*_'s expectation of a problematic character-roleplaying inconsistency.***   

Please note I'm not going to sit and defend bad DMing as that can affect all aspects of the game, its not precluded to the topic of Alignment only.

I have not covered the benefits of alignment merely what seems to be the most contentious element on this thread regarding the use or non-use of alignment, but I will say this, which I believed I touched on my first (I think) post in this thread: I view Alignment as a character descriptor mostly - similar to having the race or class as a descriptor of one's character on their character sheet. 

And the anti-alignment crowd might argue that one might not lose one's abilities if one roleplays contrary to their race or class - but each has their own penalty. Different items on your character sheet affect different aspects of the roleplaying game:
1. Play your dwarf un-dwarvern like - your dwarf gets ostracized from the dwarvern community.
2. Do not play to your class's strengths  - and you will get punished within the mechanics  
3. As a Paladin play contrary to your alignment - and you may have your divine power denied by your deity, and given     that later editions "balanced" their classes more - you're not gimped, you just gain fighter abilities. 

For the record, in my entire roleplaying career I have never witnessed a DM (myself included) enacting the class change on a PC paladin due to their deviation from their prescribed alignment, however I do understand and appreciate alignment's significance and inclusion within the game.


----------



## Cadence

Sadras said:


> From the 2e PHB...





Thanks for the outstanding post.  I'm so used to going back to 1e for my examples that I always overlook 2e and forget all the years we played the heck out of that system.


[As an aside, I'm now wondering how the "Hot Games" counter counts posts in this thread since its been Fate-ified...]


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> The more I think about the example as proposed, the more I think the solution is that when the GM offers the "flee" compel, the player counter-offers the "charge in" self-compel (via _Defender of Innocents) _and uses that to pay-off the flee compel....if he wanted to. Who knows, he may be injured or something and want to flee anyway.



Makes sense. It seems to me that, within the broad parameters of Fate as you and [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] are presenting it, there are a range of ways in which the snake scenario could be handled - but that, provided you keep in mind the book's injunction to foster "awesome" play, few or none of those are going to involve the PC running away from the snake because the GM said so.



Ratskinner said:


> It is true that context is critical here. I would say though, that having the additional aspect _Defender of Innocents_ is plenty for me to conclude that the character's interest will lie in rescuing the victims (aspects are always true). The discovery of innocents to defend and the character taking up the challenge is the thing that happens narratively to earn the FP. That could happen as the character rounds the corner and spies them there with the snake, or it could have happened back in town when the character heard about these two getting nabbed by the bandits.
> 
> That would be legit, IMO, and functionally no different from the scenario presented.



Makes sense too. In particular I agree about the functional equivalence. From the player's point of view, why should it make a difference when the GM decides that the innocent NPCs are threatened by a giant snake.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> The player may not believe his character can successfully confront the ogre.
> The player may have intimations the situation is not as presented and want to wait for confirmation.
> The player may feel his character is exhausted/demoralised and looking to avoid the fight.
> The player may feel he's has too much time in the spotlight and wants to defer to other players.
> The player may not feel the mother and child should be considered innocents based upon previous history in the campaign.
> 
> I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons.




But all of these are from the perspective that the player wants to avoid the fight.  Or significantly
changing the situation. Ie. the mother and child are not innocents. 

I thought the issue was the player is going into the encounter but not getting Fate Points. 

If the gm compels the PC into the encounter he gets a fate point. If the player chooses to engage the encounter, he gets a fate point. 

What's the problem here?


----------



## Feldspar

My problem is with alignment as a game mechanic; the crunchy bits. Spells and powers with variable effect based on the alignments of those involved are, for me, the real problem and should be removed from the game. Should we be suprised that interpretation of alignment varies from person to person when it has differences between editions? A person may even want to interpret it differently across campaign settings based on cosmology and desired tone.

This thread had a perfect example of the problem where the description of a particular person's moral code was viewed as CN by Celebrim and LN by, ummm, I forget (sorry!). I don't think its the case that one of them doesn't understand the stated moral code and wouldn't be able to evaluate whether the character adhered to it ... the disagreement soley arises out of where to place it in the alignment grid. But that creates problem's in game when someone casts Dictum or Word of Chaos. 



Celebrim said:


> The vast majority of evil characters in my campaign have never murdered anyone.   What the evil (or good) alignment marker indicates for the DM whether, if they felt that murder advanced their interests, they would do so.



 Spells such as Protection from Evil also raise some questions about the metaphysics (if thats the right word) of alignment. Alignment can't just *describe* a person; it has to be a tangible, to magic, part of their being. If actions, or even just thoughts, leave their mark upon a person in some way, causing their alignment to move in ways that make them susceptible to spells ... well, I can understand people who want an accounting system for such a thing. 

Its one thing to think about a diety cutting off a paladin instantly in disapproval over an action. But just how much, or little, marks you such that a Holy Word would eff you up. I think its useful to look back to Gygax and 1st ed. The evil characters Celebrim described wouldn't be evil for the reason he gave. They'd be evil because they'd joined Team Evil. They'd prayed and sacrificed to some evil god. Oh, they'd definately would murder someone if it advanced their interests, but whether that willingness was there before they started worshipping powers from evil planes or came as a result doesn't really matter. What matters is the outer planar power they have *ALIGNED *themselves with.

In Gygax's AD&D, everyone has to pick a side. Even neutral was True Neutral; an active faith trying to maintain a balance between good and evil and law and chaos.  Choosing an alignment seemed almost like joining a political party. 

I was hoping to be the first one to bring up alignment languages but someone beat me to it. I can still remember the time, back in the 80's when I was like a second grader playing with my older brother and his friends, diffusing a potentially deadly situation by saying something like "Oh! If that's a gold dragon then its lawful good. I'm also lawful good so I talk to it *in lawful good* so that it knows we're not bad guys and that it can trust us."  I was rather proud of that at the time. 

The notion of players being pawns on the chessboard of the gods was brought up earlier. Here's a choice Gygax quote from one of his Gord the Rogue novels: 







			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> the assembled lords of neutrality explain that the ongoing struggle is like a vast and complex chess game ... Gord has progressed from being a mere pawn to one of the most powerful pieces on the cosmic playing board.




Of course, to make it easier to track the pieces on the board they all get coded by alignment: 







			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> On the gameboard of the multiverse, the pawns and pieces of black swept outward to slay those of dull red, rust purple and other colors. Those of gold captured pieces of tawny and red, while the forces of white fell upon gray, and the blue position remained aloof. Huddled in the center, the little array of emerald warriors formed itself into a ring and waited.




Personally, I don't like Gygax's model. I could never understand the idea that True Neutral would want to maintain some balance between Good and Evil. Hunger may be the best sauce, but no sane person would think that engineering the occasional famine so that the survivors will enjoy and appreciate the good days more is a worthy pursuit. 

Balancing Law and Chaos? I can understand that just fine.  But good is good for everyone. Even an Evil person would be happy if some heroes brought some measure of good to the land that they got to benefit from (as long as it did not disrupt any of their own plots). By the same token, some chaotic evil jack the ripper type who stumbles upon another chaotic evil madman planning to unleash a plague that would kill off half the population of the city is more likely to kill them out of his own self interest and survival than to cheer him on over the great blow he's about to strike for the CE cause.

Some may pursue a good as a means to an end, like public charity to curry popular favor and opinion. Others will pursue good as an end in itself. Most who pursue an evil do so as a means to some other end such as power, wealth or pleasure. But to pursue evil as an end in itself is the realm of psychopaths. So, how do those true neutral druids maintain balance - what evils would they perpetrate in the name of countering excessive good.


----------



## pemerton

Celebrim said:


> Pacifism often carries great weight as a mode of behavior in certain religions and is often held by certain groups as being a laudable moral standard.  Equally though, the chivalrous warrior can be held as a standard of virtue.   Now it wouldn't be hard to think of religions that had both the chivalrous warrior model and the pacifist as standards of virtue.   Within that religion there could (and to be frank does) exist people who admire both modes of behavior and the bravery and piety implied by rigorously adhering to such a code of conduct.   This is true even when they don't in fact agree with the code of conduct.   The chivalrous warrior could greatly esteem with the pacifist and his reasoning and intentions, and yet obviously disagree - yet it would not follow that the believes the pacifist is not good.



This is all fine. Most non-utilitarians allow for forms of value pluralism which can account for the sort of case you present. In pre-modern societies in particular (but also in some aspects of modern societies, eg attitudes towards police officers) there are also dimensions of role morality that can provide structure to the pluralism: the ascetic has his/her way of being virtuous, the holy warrior his/her way. It's impossible, let's say, to be both at once, but that's fine - each is playing the (valuable) role ordained for him/her.

But this isn't how Law and Chaos work in D&D. The LG person doesn't take the view that the CG person is simply choosing a different value to pursue out of some range of equally good (or perhaps incommensurably good) options. The LG person regards the CG person as morally flawed. Heck, in Planescape at least I think it's expected that the LG person might ally with the LE person to fight the CG person.

That makes no sense. It can't be both that the LG person regards the CG form of life as fully permissible, _and_ regards the CG form of life as needing to be opposed.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> I also agree there's no reason to expect any problematic inconsistency, most players are not douche-bags, in most instances a DM will kindly point out the inconsistent behaviour that is about to happen, and the player will generally agree and take-back the said action he proposed or he might provide a motive the DM never thought about and play will continue.



This is the bit where I think we have differences of approach. It would never occur to me, as a GM, to suggest to a player that some declared action should be withdrawn because it is out of character.

If I think the behaviour is outrageous I might say so, as might anyone else at the table - "You're doing what?!" - but that's an invitation to the player to think about what's at stake, not to ensure fidelity to a pre-established character.



Sadras said:


> Alignment reaffirms how the PC should behave in a generalist sense.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I view Alignment as a character descriptor mostly - similar to having the race or class as a descriptor of one's character on their character sheet



I don't have any conception of how the PC should behave in a general sense. That is up to the player. Hence I don't need a tool - alignment, personality descriptors, or anything else - to do that.

I don't mind mechanics like the Fate mechanics being discussed which push players towards certain sorts of action declaration for their PCs: for instance, the mechanics of a 4e paladin push the player towards declarations of valiant rather than sneaky actions - but that is the player buying into that archetype by building that sort of PC. If it turns out they want to take their PC in a different direction I would expect them to change the relevant mechanical components (in the extreme case, by doing a complete rebuild). And in the meantime it's up to the player to do what they want to do with their PC and its mechanics: I don't have to get involved.



Sadras said:


> Do not play to your class's strengths  - and you will get punished within the mechanics



As I said, with the second of these I don't have to get involved. The player gets to play as s/he likes. If it turns out s/he's chosen the wrong class, rebuild!



Sadras said:


> The 2e PHB (page 49) says "Alignment is a tool not a straight jacket."
> The 2e DMG (page 24) says "Never tell a player that his character cannot do something because of his alignment. PCs are controlled by players. The DM intervenes only in rare cases (when the character is controlled by a spell or magic item, for example)."
> The same advice is reiterated on page 27, and goes on further to say "Let players make their own decisions and their own mistakes. The DM has enough to do without taking over the players' jobs."



My concern is that, if the GM then forms the view that the player has changed alignment, this has ramifications straight away for a paladin and cleric, and potentially for any player if the GM is running a (quite common, in my experience) "no evil PCs" campaign. Allowing the players to choose their PCs' actions but then rendering their PCs unplayable in the campaign as a result of an alignment adjudication is precisely one of the things I'm concerned about.



Sadras said:


> In the 2e PHB "Good" is described as
> 
> honest, charitable and forthright
> People are not perfect, so few are good all the time.
> There are always occasional failings and weaknesses.
> Goodness has no absolute values.
> Differing cultures impose their own interpretations on what good and what evil is
> I think everyone can all agree the above is a simple definition, it is not astrophysics.



It seems to me that basically all the work is done by "honesty, charitableness and forthrightness". (Which are not absolute values?)

On the face of it, the commander of the hobgoblin army, who doesn't lie, who is forthright, and who looks after the hobgoblin widows and children, could be good by these lights. I assume that's not what is intended, though. I assume that 2nd ed good is also meant to pick up the stuff in 1st ed AD&D and in 3E about regard for the welfare and lives of others. (Perhaps charitable is meant to cover that - in which case the same issues arise. Is killing the orc babies to stop them growing up to be orc warriors charitable or not? It strikes me as pretty forthright at least!)



Sadras said:


> since the setting is the DM's as are the differing cultures populating that setting and the deities loitering in that setting's sky, I think its only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM. The only responsibility of the DM in that regard is to inform the players of said interpretations so they can make informed decisions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 2e DMG (page 24) "Finally as in all points of disagreements with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs. Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone - it belongs to your players as well."



Informed decisions are fine - this is the players knowing the backstory. My concern is with who gets to interpret what actually happens in play. Once the players have read the backstory and are playing their PCs on the basis of it, is the GM allowed to tell them that they've got it wrong?

I'm also confused as to why you quote the DMG saying that "the campaign world is not the GM's alone" yet also say that, "since the setting is the DM's, it is only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM". You seem to be disagreeing with what the DMG says.



Sadras said:


> Play your dwarf un-dwarvern like - your dwarf gets ostracized from the dwarvern community.



This strikes me as another one of those things where "the campaign world is not yours alone". If the player has chosen to play a dwarf, presumably part of what s/he is interested in is contributing to "dwarfiness" as understood in the game. If we want certain preconceptions of dwarves to be guaranteed, then build them in mechanically (eg I have no objection to the group agreeing that there are no dwarf wizards, or elven assassins).



Sadras said:


> From this we can agree that a Paladin does not fall from grace for something minor. It has to be rather identifiable or a significant lapse in ethical actions over a continuous period.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Page 27 gives examples were the DM reflects concern of a PCs actions - the DM can be brazen or subtle weaving warnings through the storyline. It's not "Bam! I got you! You are forever a fighter now!"



In this respect the advice in 2nd ed AD&D is different from the advice in Gygax's books.

It also seems different from 3E, which says:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. . .

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities . . . [and] may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin.​
That makes it clear that you don't need to change alignment to lose paladinhood, and that it is sufficient to wilfully commit an evil act.

Both 1st ed AD&D and 3E also have the phylactery of faithfulness as an item, which somewhat implies that it is generally up to the player to anticipate the GM's reaction.

Even if the GM warns the player, there is still the point that it is the GM, not the player, deciding what sort of conduct the PC must engage in order to keep his/her class abilities.



Sadras said:


> As a Paladin play contrary to your alignment - and you may have your divine power denied by your deity, and given that later editions "balanced" their classes more - you're not gimped, you just gain fighter abilities.



My concern is that, first, if the player wants to keep playing a holy warrior, why should s/he not be allowed to just because, were the GM in his/her shoes, s/he would play it differently? That is to say, my concern is with the player who _wants_ to play a paladin or cleric. Why should the GM be sitting in judgement over the adequacy of their evaluative choices in playing that character? It would be like the GM telling the player of the fighter how to tactically engage the monsters, or telling the wizard which spell to use - namely, the GM is taking over the very thing that the player chose the class to do.

We don't do let the GM strip class abilities from the player of the thief because s/he thinks not enough theft is going on; of from the player of the bard because the PC is perceived as having the wrong taste in music. Why should religiously devoted PCs be treated differently? This is the core of my objection to alignment, though it generalises to issues of valuation more broadly.

(Also, on the gimped point: in 3E you don't suddenly get a slew of bonus feats. In AD&D you don't get to go up levels to reflect your greater XP total. But the more fundamental issue is you're no longer playing the PC you wanted to play.)



Sadras said:


> I truthfully cannot foresee two reasonable individuals disagreeing over classification of an act as Evil or non-Evil



This isn't my personal experience, but each to his/her own! My main concern with alignment is that, as a descriptor, it either (i) gives the GM a tool to tell the players how to play their PCs (or else suffer the consequences of alignment change, falling from grace, etc), or (ii) if the GM changes his/her mind to agree with the player, requires a needless discussion about the alignment question before the player's action declaration is resolved, and either way (iii) invites the GM to sit in constant moral judgement over the actions of the PCs. To what end? I personally don't see one.



Sadras said:


> From the 2e PHB the 2e Fighter has additional attacks per round and followers. On the other hand a Paladin had detect evil, +2 saving throws, immunity to disease, lay on hands, cure diseases, aura of protection, use of holy sword, turn undead, summoning war horse, casting priest spells.



But also a higher XP requirement, moreso because - in 2nd ed AD&D - I think the paladin doesn't get +10% XP for high stats. (Or am I wrong on that last point?)

The healing is 2 hp per level, but the fighter gains HD more rapidly due to needing fewer XP. In my experience both the immunity to disease and the cure disease are somewhat boutique as benefits (others may have had different experiences). And the priest spells and holy avenger become relevant only at high levels.

The turning and the detect evil I find hard to evaluate. Clearly stronger than the stuff I've mentioned so far (it seems to me) but somewhat situational. The big power up for the paladin, in my view, is the +2 to save (especially because fighter saves tend to suck a bit at low levels) and the aura of protection. I don't know the AD&D maths well enough off the top of my head (XP charts, typical AC and to hit bonuses for NPCs/monsters, etc) to work out how these compare mechanically to weapon specialisation. But I think the fact that the paladin has to put high scores into two non-physical stats - CHA and WIS - is a significant power-down. Even with 4 18s (plus a 10 and an 11) you'd still notice that, because the fighter would have 18 STR, CON and DEX whereas the paladin would have to forego one of those.



Sadras said:


> Okay with regards to the advantage gained by a dishonourable Paladin "min-max LG bad roleplaying" I have answered it up-thread re 2e Paladin vs Fighter.



Sorry, I'm not sure what the answer is. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a LG paladin is balanced. Why is a non-LG paladin more powerful than a LG one? In other words, what advantage does the player of the paladin gain in having his/her PC act in ways that the GM would judge to not be LG?


----------



## pemerton

Feldspar said:


> I could never understand the idea that True Neutral would want to maintain some balance between Good and Evil. Hunger may be the best sauce, but no sane person would think that engineering the occasional famine so that the survivors will enjoy and appreciate the good days more is a worthy pursuit.
> 
> Balancing Law and Chaos? I can understand that just fine.  But good is good for everyone. Even an Evil person would be happy if some heroes brought some measure of good to the land that they got to benefit from (as long as it did not disrupt any of their own plots). By the same token, some chaotic evil jack the ripper type who stumbles upon another chaotic evil madman planning to unleash a plague that would kill off half the population of the city is more likely to kill them out of his own self interest and survival than to cheer him on over the great blow he's about to strike for the CE cause.
> 
> Some may pursue a good as a means to an end, like public charity to curry popular favor and opinion. Others will pursue good as an end in itself. Most who pursue an evil do so as a means to some other end such as power, wealth or pleasure. But to pursue evil as an end in itself is the realm of psychopaths. So, how do those true neutral druids maintain balance - what evils would they perpetrate in the name of countering excessive good.



I liked the whole post.

This bit captures well (for me, at least) why I find the D&D alignment model, and especially the two-axis model, pretty incoherent, unless located within the relativist framework of Planescape, or used simply as personality descriptors to help play NPCs (ie not _alignments _at all - I still think it's pretty poor for that but not necessarily incoherent): but in the latter case there is no room for alignment-dependent PC abilities in the game.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> But all of these are from the perspective that the player wants to avoid the fight.  Or significantly
> changing the situation. Ie. the mother and child are not innocents.
> 
> I thought the issue was the player is going into the encounter but not getting Fate Points.
> 
> If the gm compels the PC into the encounter he gets a fate point. If the player chooses to engage the encounter, he gets a fate point.
> 
> What's the problem here?




The PC is in the encounter as soon as the situation is described; he sees the ogre menacing the family.  

The player can choose how the PC will respond to the situation presented: he can try to negotiate, engage in social combat, physical combat, or attempt to use an Aspect in the environment to help resolve (if a Fate point is available).  You don't get a Fate point for facing a situation.

You get a Fate point when an Aspect leads to a complication of the situation or the encounter resolution.  Defender of Innocents aspect would more likely drive Fate point delivery when the innocents are tangential or irrelevant to the goal of the situation.  For example, the PCs have finally cornered the BBEG and plan to take him down for good this time when suddenly a hapless bystander walks around the corner and into grave danger!  The GM smiles and offers a Fate point if the PC tries to save the victim, but without the PC acting against the BBEG, he may be able to strike/escape/whatever.  Another use might be if the PC is undercover/incognito and the GM offers a Fate point to save a victim at the risk of blowing cover.

The player may decide to activate Defender of Innocents to aid his attempt to deal with the ogre.  That _costs_ a Fate point rather than gaining one and provides a bonus to the roll.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> The most recent incarnations of Fate don't make much distinction between scene-framing and play. Determining the nature of the critter is part of play (or at least can be), consider the advice on p. 239 Fate Core (emphasis added):
> 
> 
> 
> It would be perfectly legit for a FP-less player to happen upon the situation with an Ogre guarding/theatening the innocents and suggest a compel for it to be a snake: "Are you sure it isn't a giant snake?" or better yet "Since I have _Why did it have to be snakes?_, are you sure that it isn't a big snake?"




There are a few things wrong with your example above...

1.  this isn't the situation we discussed.
2.  this still isn't creating an actual complication for the character, all he is doing is switching one monster out for another... How does this in and      of itself complicate the situation??  (This is what is necessary, as so many have tried to explain in this thread, for a FP to be given)
3.  Whether it's a big or little snake again doesn't matter unless it creates a tangible complication that wasn't in the situation as it stood before.
4.  All the player is doing in the above example is trading out window dressing (one monster for another) not complicating things for himself.




Ratskinner said:


> It is true that context is critical here. I would say though, that having the additional aspect _Defender of Innocents_ is plenty for me to conclude that the character's interest will lie in rescuing the victims (aspects are always true). The discovery of innocents to defend and the character taking up the challenge is the thing that happens narratively to earn the FP. That could happen as the character rounds the corner and spies them there with the snake, or it could have happened back in town when the character heard about these two getting nabbed by the bandits.




No, only if the defending of the characters in some way complicates the situation he already finds himself in... otherwise we are back at everytime a monster threatens anyone the player just gets FP's...  He could compel himself using "Defender of the Innocents" to have to fight the snake to the death (and at this point cannot flee or get away without battling the snake, though I'd question why getting the innocents to safety wasn't his major concern...) that is a complication to the scenario since now he has no choice but to fight no matter what... but just being in a situation with a snake or with threatened innocents does not garner a Fate point.  If you choose to play that way cool, but that is not how the books put forth that aspects and compels work.




Ratskinner said:


> That would be legit, IMO, and functionally no different from the scenario presented.




Legit yes, functionally the same... no... especially since I don't think how you're claiming aspects and compels work is legit by the rules.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Makes sense. It seems to me that, within the broad parameters of Fate as you and @_*Umbran*_ are presenting it, there are a range of ways in which the snake scenario could be handled - but that, provided you keep in mind the book's injunction to foster "awesome" play, few or none of those are going to involve the PC running away from the snake because the GM said so.




I think your interpretation of "awesome" play as it relates to Fate is wrong and doesn't fit with the paradigm of aspects in Fate.  First you can have negative aspects in Fate and most games of Fate require that you have at least one negative aspect (called a trouble aspect).  If you take a trouble aspect centered around a phobia of snakes... you have basically chosen that your character's weakness is an irrational fear of snakes and "awesome" play isn't awesome if it lets you squirm your way around or negate that fact.  Playing upon that weakness and the bad things that happen because of it (like say your courage as a knight being called into question, by both you and others, when innocents are eaten by a giant snake and you ran instead of saving them) IS "awesome" play... unless of course awesome now means, play where weaknesses don't have a tangible effect on play.  So I think if you have "Why'd it have to be Snakes" and the GM is offering you a Fate point if you flee form a horrific, gigantic snake about to gobble some people up... he's compelling that trouble aspect like he should be doing.



pemerton said:


> Makes sense too. In particular I agree about the functional equivalence. From the player's point of view, why should it make a difference when the GM decides that the innocent NPCs are threatened by a giant snake.




It's not functionally the same.  It's not about when or if the GM decides the innocents are in danger... it's about whether that complicates matters for the PC (not sure how many times, by how many different people this has to be said).  Even if the PC charges forward and engages the snake it is not a complication because the PC isn't forced to fight the snake, if things go bad the PC can still run, or can decide to grab the innocents and book it, etc.  A complication would arise if the PC has no choice but to fight the snake (that's a *complication[?b] for the PC in the encounter, or must run from the snake (another complication for the PC in the encounter), or has no choice but to get the "innocents" away from the snake even though he is on a time sensitive mission to save the entire kingdom(this is a complication added to the situation of him racing to save the kingdom and also demonstrates why the assumption that he will always run in and fight for innocents shouldn't take place).*


----------



## Bedrockgames

So far, this thread has only convinced me to keep alignment but avoid Fate.


----------



## N'raac

Bedrockgames said:


> So far, this thread has only convinced me to keep alignment but avoid Fate.




The last four pages certainly reinforce my belief that arguments arising from differences of opinion on aspects are no less likely than arguments from differences of opinion on alignment. While the consequences of an alignment issue may be more significant, the Aspect arises much more frequently, so that’s probably even odds for a heated debate.  As well, every Fate character must have aspects in pretty much constant play to be effective, it seems, so every character is affected.

I suspect Fate players more quickly find groups whose interpretations match their own as the issue is constantly at the forefront, though.


----------



## sheadunne

Bedrockgames said:


> So far, this thread has only convinced me to keep alignment but avoid Fate.




Which is kinda funny because it's convinced me in the opposite direction. And hence the thread was successful for both of us!


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Secondly, the backstory in question is hardly hidden. It's completely out in the open! If this were actually a discussion about a character pitch, we're discussing the backstory as part of the pitch. Where's the concealment?




You posted “the relevant passage”, then add a bunch more “relevant” details later.  If those details were also “the rules”, why were they not part of the relevant passage?  I don’t find it any more enjoyable to have the hidden backstory come out in some extended interchange over PC design.  I’d much rather what my character does not know come out in play, actually. 

I suspect if the same amount of time and effort were expended in discussing how a proposed Paladin or Cleric would interpret his alignment restrictions to ensure you and the player were on common ground, there would be no major surprises on alignment in play either.



pemerton said:


> I don't understand this. Your character is a paladin of the Raven Queen. His/her power comes from the Raven Queen. Where is the doubt?




When we discover, 15 levels later, that my interpretation of the RQ’s code was not correct (the other PC, with whom I disputed that code, turns out to be correct) I question why she kept granting those powers which I used to violate her wishes.

To “Moradin vs RQ”, that same tension can exist when we are confident in the viewpoints of both deities.  Their servants will still not concur on how we should get things done, or perhaps even what things should be done.


----------



## Celebrim

pemerton said:


> But this isn't how Law and Chaos work in D&D.




But it isn't how it works out in the real world either.   The CG and the LG may have some measure of mutual respect for each while each feeling the other is unwise and corrupted by a flawed ideology, and they may stay out of conflict with each other - until you put those values in conflict.   In the same way, the soldier and the pacifist may respect each other right up until you put those values in conflict.   I mean, haven't you ever seen the movie 'Sergeant York'?  

At some point, people with strongly differing values do come into conflict in the real world.  And at some point in the real world, when you put them under pressure, individuals and societies do invoke the 'enemy of my enemy' principle and decide which values they are going to compromise on.   "Sure, he may be a thug, but at least he isn't communist..." or "Sure, he may be a thug, but he's fighting Hitler...", or whatever.   Maybe law and chaos aren't the best axis to describe the tension of these choices, or maybe the real world has multiple axis or none, but that doesn't mean that in are fantasy setting the outcomes of assuming the law/chaos axis is part of the social understanding (and indeed is a real and tangible thing) produces results in the social or political spheres that are unbelievable.



> The LG person doesn't take the view that the CG person is simply choosing a different value to pursue out of some range of equally good (or perhaps incommensurably good) options. The LG person regards the CG person as morally flawed.




To make this really personal, in the case of something like pacifism, I do consider this a sort of moral failing.   Evil has to be confronted.   You confront evil on the basis that the person is your fellow human, and with compassion for that person, which strongly moves one toward preferring a pacifist approach.   But by taking an absolute stance against violence, you are at some point enabling evil.  Further, you have ceased to choose life over death and instead have chosen the death of the nonviolent as preferable to the death of the violent.   Pacifist societies exist at the sufferage of the violent societies that enclose them, tacitly allowing others to use force on their behalf so that they can maintain a false righteousness.   I have great respect for the intentions of my pacifist brothers, but ultimately if you look at a figure like Ghandi and where advocating utter pacifism takes one morally, I consider it not only morally flawed but a very dark place.

So in the same way I can see this in myself (and also see that others my strongly disagree for reasons I find sympathetic and comprehensible), I don't find it hard at all to imagine the dynamics between LG and CG, or LG and LE.    For example, I think you can see in analogy dynamics between LG and LE or CG and LG when you consider the respect figures like Robert E. Lee or even Erwin Rommel invoke even in (and maybe especially in) people who abhor the values that they were ultimately defending.  This is particularly interesting in the case of say Robert E. Lee, whose 'lawfulness' (as it were) seems to have motivated him to defend an intuition (slavery) that he himself found morally repulsive.   



> Heck, in Planescape at least I think it's expected that the LG person might ally with the LE person to fight the CG person.
> 
> That makes no sense. It can't be both that the LG person regards the CG form of life as fully permissible, _and_ regards the CG form of life as needing to be opposed.




I didn't say that the LG regards the CG form of life as fully permissible.  I said that LG and CG could both find common values AND sharply disagree.   So my question to you was, "If we can both have common values and sharply disagree IRL, what is unbelievable about representing morality with two axis?"


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> So far, this thread has only convinced me to keep alignment but avoid Fate.




Yeah, IME... I have Fate and enjoy it upon occasion, but I am only ever willing to play it with certain people in my wider gaming group and so it tends to get limited play among us.  I think to pull off a good game of Fate there has to be a lot of transparency, a lot of discussion, and like @_*Umbran*_ said earlier... players who can suppress their natural gamist and/or simulationist desires and set narrativism as the driving goal of the game  (which for my group especially as it concerns gamism has been hard to do).  Even then in our last game, an urban fantasy one-shot based loosely upon the rules for White Picket Witches and using FAE... there were plenty of "discussions" during the game that mirrored D&D's alignment discussions since aspects are so open to interpretation... it's almost unavoidable, especially when using a free-form magic system based (at least partially) around aspects as well as when players get in a bad situation and they are trying to connect any and every aspect they possibly can to the situation in order to get a chance to invoke.  Even keeping genre coherent was hard at times as our game started in a drama-horror vein similar to shows like "The Gates", "The Secret Circle", "Teen Wolf", etc.  and by the end seemed to lean much more towards action-horror in the vein of "Blade" or "Vampire Hunter D".

EDIT:  As a side note I will say that I think Fate reads much better then it plays (I remember being really enamored with it after my first read through, but after playing it a few times I wouldn't say it ranks anywhere near my or my groups favorite games to play)... but that's just my opinion


----------



## Celebrim

Bedrockgames said:


> So far, this thread has only convinced me to keep alignment but avoid Fate.




I think I could be ok with Fate, especially as a player, but I generally dislike 'rules light' systems as a GM.   I look at them somewhat as I would look on an incomplete requirements document as a programmer.  It may be easier to read, but it doesn't take less time to understand and once you get down to the actual practice, what an incomplete rules document actually means is that the writer has shifted a good portion of the work and mental burden of writing the rules off to the person who actually has to run the game.  I'd rather spend my time running the game, not patching the rules with a bunch of ad hoc rulings. 

As a player, the fact that the rules are incomplete isn't my problem, and as long as the GM is reasonably competent and I'm having fun I'm ok.   I probably hold my GM's to a lower standard than I hold myself to as a GM.   Possibly this is because it is a real treat for me to get to be a player, sense I'm almost invariably asked to run games.


----------



## Umbran

sheadunne said:


> Yes, but that's using a system where the player can invoke their own aspect. Here it would be working as a balancing method (for those that think one is necessary).




Having to have the GM initiate your power use sounds like a non-starter to me.  Plus, there's already a better method implemented in several FATE-based games.

Typically, at the beginning of a session, your Fate Point pool refreshes.  Your character has a "refresh" score, that says where your pool goes up to.  In, say, the Dresden Files game, each supernatural power the character has costs some number of Refresh points - the more supernatural powers you have, the fewer Fate Points you start the session with.

So, if you have power, you have fewer points, and you may need those points to activate some of your powers.  But, if you behave according to the code, you can get some points - the economy can be used to balance. 

FATE also has a method to "punish" characters for misbehaving - Consequences.  At some point, the character's going to take some damage.  If he takes enough that he might die, the player can shove that off into a "consequence" - a temporary aspect that describes some difficulty inflicted on the character.  In FATE, for example, a character can get into a fight and come out of it with a consequence, "Broken Wrist", or "Sprained Ankle".   A big consequence may be, "Lost favor of Pelor"...


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon.




You say that as if it is a feature, not a bug.  Failure to have a framework in debate leads to misunderstanding and inconsistency in analysis.  

I often walk to the subway to get to work.  To me, it isn't really far.  To my friend, it is a long, long way.  What it is, is 2 miles.


----------



## D'karr

Umbran said:


> What it is, is 2 miles.




But that is a really far 2 miles.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> The character is trying to rescue the innocents, but finds them threatened by a giant snake! I don't see how it matters whether or not there were bandits already in the scene - the presence of the snake is still a complicating factor for their rescue.




If there was going to be no monster at all, adding a snake complicates matters.

If, however, there was going to be a monster, it isn't a complication.  If there was going to be an ogre, and now there's a snake instead, that's not a big deal.  It is only when the fact that it is a snake, instead of an ogre, is specifically relevant to the character that it is a ocmplication.


----------



## sheadunne

Umbran said:


> Having to have the GM initiate your power use sounds like a non-starter to me.  Plus, there's already a better method implemented in several FATE-based games.
> 
> Typically, at the beginning of a session, your Fate Point pool refreshes.  Your character has a "refresh" score, that says where your pool goes up to.  In, say, the Dresden Files game, each supernatural power the character has costs some number of Refresh points - the more supernatural powers you have, the fewer Fate Points you start the session with.
> 
> So, if you have power, you have fewer points, and you may need those points to activate some of your powers.  But, if you behave according to the code, you can get some points - the economy can be used to balance.
> 
> FATE also has a method to "punish" characters for misbehaving - Consequences.  At some point, the character's going to take some damage.  If he takes enough that he might die, the player can shove that off into a "consequence" - a temporary aspect that describes some difficulty inflicted on the character.  In FATE, for example, a character can get into a fight and come out of it with a consequence, "Broken Wrist", or "Sprained Ankle".   A big consequence may be, "Lost favor of Pelor"...




That's using Fate as the core. I was explore using D&D as the Core with simply a look at how to effect the Paladin without changing anything else in the D&D system. I'm not saying it's a good idea, only to explore the possibilities. Otherwise, bringing up Fate mechanics in a D&D Alignment thread doesn't hold much relevance. How Fate does things isn't relevant to a discussion of D&D alignment unless we want to explore changing D&D alignment to function more like Fate in some way. Can that be done without changing the core of D&D? If so, how? 

On a side note, I hadn't looked at it as the GM initiating the power, rather the GM arbitrating the alignment dispute. The power was a side effect of that arbitration. It's not the direction I would want to go (I prefer mechanics supporting the action not punishing the action) but it seemed like others in the thread want to have a method for punishing character behavior (ie paladin and alignment). 

I like the intention of the damage mechanic in fate, it's not quite what I would want in the game (too free form), but it's on the right track for me.


----------



## Celebrim

Imaro said:


> Yeah, IME... I have Fate and enjoy it upon occasion, but I am only ever willing to play it with certain people in my wider gaming group and so it tends to get limited play among us.  I think to pull off a good game of Fate there has to be a lot of transparency, a lot of discussion...




This is a tangential rant, but this is the biggest problem I foresee with FATE.  When I play an RPG, I try to achieve a very naturalistic style where the rules don't intrude and are mentioned as little as possible.  What I'm going for is something 'theatrical' in the emulation of drama, that has a tactical sub-game you drop into to resolve the action scenes.   Ironically, the games that seem to be aiming for Narrativism as a primary goal, seem to me missing the mark on the part of an RPG I consider critical to the narrative experience.   Instead of enabling a Theater Game and producing Drama, they turn the 'Role-Playing' part of 'Role-Playing Game' into another tactical subsystem so that rather than producing naturalistic play they produce a story that never achieves any sort of 'theatrical' tone to it.  And to the extent that it does achieve it, it achieves it as fully ignoring the rules and playing Theater Games as any non-Nar game does.

So much of what the Indy Nar games create seems fundamentally backwards to me, and the opposite of where I would go to create story.   If the experience of a great RPG is to be like the experience of reading a great novel or watching a great movie, where you are determining the story as you go along, then the Indy Nar games seem to have created the experience of creating a novel or movie or video game as part of a creative team - which is not at all the same thing.  I don't want to be hashing out the story of the story in out of character language and figuring out how the rules apply or don't apply here.  I just want to be IN the story and transported by it, in the same way that I'm transported by and IN the story of a great novel or movie.

Every time I sit down to learn one of the Nar 'story first' games, I end up putting down the rules in disgust precisely because they don't seem to put 'story first'.  

Which isn't to say that I wouldn't enjoy playing them with the right GM and group.   I just don't happen to know any GM or group that could pull it off.



> Even then in our last game, an urban fantasy one-shot based loosely upon the rules for White Picket Witches and using FAE... there were plenty of "discussions" during the game that mirrored D&D's alignment discussions since aspects are so open to interpretation... it's almost unavoidable, especially when using a free-form magic system based (at least partially) around aspects as well as when players get in a bad situation and they are trying to connect any and every aspect they possibly can to the situation in order to get a chance to invoke.  Even keeping genre coherent was hard at times as our game started in a drama-horror vein similar to shows like "The Gates", "The Secret Circle", "Teen Wolf", etc.  and by the end seemed to lean much more towards action-horror in the vein of "Blade" or "Vampire Hunter D".




If you've got specific genera emulation you want to do, I find you have to write the rules of the genera into the rules.  I wouldn't expect to be able to emulate horror well in a universal system, least of all a Nar system.  Ironically, to do horror well I think you need a highly gamist system that simply crushes the players ability to win.  None of the "failing forward" and "say yes" crap.   CoC with its monsters basically immune to damage and its sanity death spiral, or Dread with its inevitably crumbling tower get the psychology really well I think. 

I still think Toon got it right.  The Nar mechanics popular in Indy games... do really well at emulating cartoons.  Dresden Files; yeah I see that.   Anime makes sense too.   I might run GI Joe using Nar rules; failing forward is a rule of the genera in after school cartoons.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> When (say) libertarians and liberals argue, that don't hold one axis constant - good vs evil - and debate the other one - law vs chaos. They simply present reasons for thinking that the other's account of what is good or bad is in fact wrong. (Eg Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia argues that Rawls's claims about what justice requires are flawed.)
> 
> Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon. Applying the two axes in D&D produces the relativism that was evident in your earlier post: namely, that it is meant to be true at one and the same time that A and B both agree on what is good, yet disagree on what behaviour is proper. As a sentence in ordinary English, that makes no sense.




No, real life moral debate typically incorporates a whole lot *more* than just two axes. You may have people agreeing that a war on drugs is pointless government interference in a private individual's life yet see them disagree vehemently on the role of the state in dealing with poverty and taxation all the while agreeing that religion is a delusional waste of time yet disagreeing whether John Lennon saying the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ was disrespectful. 

We could add a lot more granularity to game morality and behavior by adding more axes (consider Pendragon's personality characteristics and how they can promote particular moralities, for example), but I'm not sure that necessarily serves D&D better than simplification into 2 axes (good/evil, group-structured/individual-unstructured).


----------



## Umbran

Ratskinner said:


> To further illustrate our difference of opinion : I'm not sure I actually like the idea of a compel for "you can't get close to it" (however you wish to phrase it) because that, to me, sounds much more like a situational aspect than the results of a compel. To establish that in the fiction, I would (instead of a compel) make a Create an Advantage attempt (Snake's Intimidate vs Character's Will...or similar) then put a "keeping my distance" aspect on the scene/character. (This would also net the player a FP for invoking his aspect against him.)




Except "invoking his aspect against him" *is* a compel!

So, what you've managed to do is decide the snake needs to take an action to place an aspect on the character, and then compel that aspect.  

But there's already an aspect on the character that could be compelled directly to the same effect.  In the fiction - the character is already phobic of snakes.  You don't have to induce fear, as he's fearful naturally.


----------



## sheadunne

Celebrim said:


> This is a tangential rant, but this is the biggest problem I foresee with FATE.  When I play an RPG, I try to achieve a very naturalistic style where the rules don't intrude and are mentioned as little as possible.  What I'm going for is something 'theatrical' in the emulation of drama, that has a tactical sub-game you drop into to resolve the action scenes.   Ironically, the games that seem to be aiming for Narrativism as a primary goal, seem to me missing the mark on the part of an RPG I consider critical to the narrative experience.   Instead of enabling a Theater Game and producing Drama, they turn the 'Role-Playing' part of 'Role-Playing Game' into another tactical subsystem so that rather than producing naturalistic play they produce a story that never achieves any sort of 'theatrical' tone to it.  And to the extent that it does achieve it, it achieves it as fully ignoring the rules and playing Theater Games as any non-Nar game does.
> 
> So much of what the Indy Nar games create seems fundamentally backwards to me, and the opposite of where I would go to create story.   If the experience of a great RPG is to be like the experience of reading a great novel or watching a great movie, where you are determining the story as you go along, then the Indy Nar games seem to have created the experience of creating a novel or movie or video game as part of a creative team - which is not at all the same thing.  I don't want to be hashing out the story of the story in out of character language and figuring out how the rules apply or don't apply here.  I just want to be IN the story and transported by it, in the same way that I'm transported by and IN the story of a great novel or movie.
> 
> Every time I sit down to learn one of the Nar 'story first' games, I end up putting down the rules in disgust precisely because they don't seem to put 'story first'.




This is a very interesting analysis. As with you, I want to put story first. The question becomes whose story? I'm guessing from your post you want a single story with the GM in charge of the story? It seems to be that Indy games are about each character having a story and each character in charge of that story development. The role of the GM becomes the facilitator of those stories rather than the single developer of that story. The GM focuses on genre and themes, but each individual character determines where their particular story leads. Which may create the disconnect you feel toward those game. They're very good at producing shared individual stories, but less effective at creating a single unified story.


----------



## Umbran

Nagol said:


> The PC is in the encounter as soon as the situation is described; he sees the ogre menacing the family.
> 
> The player can choose how the PC will respond to the situation presented: he can try to negotiate, engage in social combat, physical combat, or attempt to use an Aspect in the environment to help resolve (if a Fate point is available).  You don't get a Fate point for facing a situation.




Or, he could walk away.  You get a Fate point for facing a situation when you otherwise would not have, except that you have an Aspect that says you should.

The Player is out of Fate points.  The character has several stress boxes checked, and a consequence from a previous fight.  Overall, the character is kinda battered, and a rational person would be trying to get out of the dungeon to rest.  The character stumbles into the room, seeking an exit...

He sees the ogre and the family.  He *could* just turn and walk away.  He does not have to respond to the situation at all!

The player says, "Screw this, I don't want to get more beat up, I'm leaving!"  And the GM holds up a Fate Point and says, "But you're a Defender of the Innocent..."  That's a compel.

If the player says, "Crap.  My character's beat up.  A sane man would walk away.  GM,  I'm a Defender of the Innocent, do I get a Fate point if I engage?"  That's the player suggesting a compel.

Mind you, this is on the edge of being a double-compel, as the character really is beat up, and didn't have a choice.  If you're going to *force* a character into a life threatening situation, giving two points might be warranted.

-----

Now, make it a giant snake, instead of an ogre.

The player says, "Screw this, I'm leaving!"  The GM says, "But you're a Defender of the Innocent" and holds up a Fate point (or two, if the GM feels this is risky enough to be a double).

The player, having no Fate Points left, doesn't really have a choice in the matter.  He gets a Fate point and steps forward.

The fact that it is a snake is not yet a complication!  The player is still free to deal with the snake in any way he pleases.  The situation is not yet more complicated for the character than the ogre would have been.   The fight may actually run for a little while normally...

The GM now says, "Why did it have to be a snake?  You're beat up and didn't want to get into this fight, and you're not winning fast.  Your fear is rising, and you find you have to keep your distance..." and holds up *another* Fate Point.

The player can now either keep his distance (and have two Fate points to be creative with) or buy off that compel with the earlier Fate point and attack normally.

----

This partially demonstrates how "Why did it have to be snakes?" is not a great aspect to have.  We think, "He has that aspect, so facing a snake is risky for him, and is thus a complication!"  That's because it is written to seem only negative - we don't see how the player can turn that Aspect into an asset.  But, if the player is creative, he can turn that around...

The player is compelled to fight the snake, and has been given one Fate point.  He's not yet been compelled to keep his distance.

The player says, "Why'd it have to be a *snake*?  My character has had a hard day.  He's been knocked around, abused, insulted, and all.  He's fed up.  He looks a the serpent and thinks, 'Insult on top of injury?  A snake?  Really?  REALLY?!?!  ARRRGH!' and flies into a rage and attacks."  Passing the Fate point back to the GM, he rolls dice, and adds two to the roll for his righteous anger.

So, now we see that it being a snake can be used by the player, making the thing easier, not more complicated.

Thus, the snake isn't a complication until it restricts the players action, and not before.


----------



## Umbran

Celebrim said:


> This is a tangential rant, but this is the biggest problem I foresee with FATE.  When I play an RPG, I try to achieve a very naturalistic style where the rules don't intrude and are mentioned as little as possible.  What I'm going for is something 'theatrical' in the emulation of drama, that has a tactical sub-game you drop into to resolve the action scenes.




Fair enough.  One point to make, though...

We are discussing this in extreme detail, stating all bits explicitly, because several people are not familiar with the game.  And it may kind of play clumsily like this as folks are new to it.  Just like when folks are new to D&D, they may have to say, "I attack... and I have this feat, and my sword is +2, and he's flanked...."  And that slows play down and is intrusive.

But, as player familiarity with the system rises, in practice things aren't bad.  Everyone at the table becomes familiar with the characters, and play progresses pretty smoothly and unobtrusively.  Except in very tense situations (like a fight), folks aren't invoking and passing Fate points back and forth every three seconds or anything.  That, at least, is my experience.  The problem you foresee doesn't arise much in practice.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Yeah, IME... I have Fate and enjoy it upon occasion, but I am only ever willing to play it with certain people in my wider gaming group and so it tends to get limited play among us.  I think to pull off a good game of Fate there has to be a lot of transparency, a lot of discussion, and like @_*Umbran*_ said earlier... players who can suppress their natural gamist and/or simulationist desires and set narrativism as the driving goal of the game  (which for my group especially as it concerns gamism has been hard to do).  Even then in our last game, an urban fantasy one-shot based loosely upon the rules for White Picket Witches and using FAE... there were plenty of "discussions" during the game that mirrored D&D's alignment discussions since aspects are so open to interpretation... it's almost unavoidable, especially when using a free-form magic system based (at least partially) around aspects as well as when players get in a bad situation and they are trying to connect any and every aspect they possibly can to the situation in order to get a chance to invoke.  Even keeping genre coherent was hard at times as our game started in a drama-horror vein similar to shows like "The Gates", "The Secret Circle", "Teen Wolf", etc.  and by the end seemed to lean much more towards action-horror in the vein of "Blade" or "Vampire Hunter D".
> 
> EDIT:  As a side note I will say that I think Fate reads much better then it plays (I remember being really enamored with it after my first read through, but after playing it a few times I wouldn't say it ranks anywhere near my or my groups favorite games to play)... but that's just my opinion




I dont think my players think or behave in terms of GNS categories (not something i really think abiut for systems). It just seems it would clash with our style.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I dont think my players think or behave in terms of GNS categories (not something i really think abiut for systems). It just seems it would clash with our style.




well I was more so using it as shorthand for the fact that more than a few of my players don't want to create a story outside experiencing it as their characters (they see it as... if they did want to experience the game in that fashion then they would GM).  They aren't trying to construct a "story" per se (at least not in the way that Fate does it)... they want their characters to be challenged within the course of a game whether it's mentally, physically, or spiritually and want to succeed or fail at endeavors from the view point of and on the basis of the character they have chosen to play and the actions they take... and what results is the "story". Not sure if that's a more clear or less clear explanation... if not, let me know and I will try and elaborate more on it.

EDIT: In other words some just aren't that big on narrative control outside of the influence of their character (i.e. special powers, spells, etc.).  while a few would probably actively game the "narrative" system of Fate to squeeze as much advantage (super-wide aspects, absurd ways to apply aspects, etc.) to "win" the game part.


----------



## Nagol

Imaro said:


> well I was more so using it as shorthand for the fact that more than a few of my players don't want to create a story outside experiencing it as their characters (they see it as... if they did want to experience the game in that fashion then they would GM).  They aren't trying to construct a "story" per se (at least not in the way that Fate does it)... they want their characters to be challenged within the course of a game whether it's mentally, physically, or spiritually and want to succeed or fail at endeavors from the view point of and on the basis of the character they have chosen to play and the actions they take... and what results is the "story". Not sure if that's a more clear or less clear explanation... if not, let me know and I will try and elaborate more on it.
> 
> EDIT: In other words some just aren't that big on narrative control outside of the influence of their character (i.e. special powers, spells, etc.).  while a few would probably actively game the "narrative" system of Fate to squeeze as much advantage (super-wide aspects, absurd ways to apply aspects, etc.) to "win" the game part.




Which was my experience when I played a _Strands of Fate_ game.  I had all these tools as a player that I didn't want.

I'm happy to GM that sort of game though as a player I'll likely pass next time it is offered.


----------



## Celebrim

Bedrockgames said:


> I dont think my players think or behave in terms of GNS categories (not something i really think abiut for systems). It just seems it would clash with our style.




GNS is filled with all sorts of untruths and half-truths IMO.  The biggest untruth is that a game system or session can only fulfill one agenda of play at a time, and it tries to do more than one it becomes badwrongfun.  On the contrary, I believe that an RPG that fulfills only one agenda of play at a time fails as a game, because in general players don't have a single agenda of play and certainly a table of players doesn't have a single agenda of play.   And there are probably some agendas of play that aren't even GNS.   

(For example, I think there are some players for whom the aesthetics of play - the PnP equivalent of eye and ear candy - is at the top of their agenda.   They want to participate, but their enjoyment comes out of listening to others create beauty as much as it comes out of any particular play agenda.  As a GM, this agenda gets fulfilled for me when two players in the group roleplay with each other well, and speaking as a GM when that agenda is not being fulfilled it's still not a full game even when the story is advancing, the setting is realistically granular and alive, and the players are being challenged)

People who designed video games have already figured this out; GNS advanced RPG design theory for a while, but now its become a huge creative road block.


----------



## Celebrim

Imaro said:


> well I was more so using it as shorthand for the fact that more than a few of my players don't want to create a story outside experiencing it as their characters (they see it as... if they did want to experience the game in that fashion then they would GM).  They aren't trying to construct a "story" per se (at least not in the way that Fate does it)... they want their characters to be challenged within the course of a game whether it's mentally, physically, or spiritually and want to succeed or fail at endeavors from the view point of and on the basis of the character they have chosen to play and the actions they take... and what results is the "story". Not sure if that's a more clear or less clear explanation... if not, let me know and I will try and elaborate more on it.
> 
> EDIT: In other words some just aren't that big on narrative control outside of the influence of their character (i.e. special powers, spells, etc.).  while a few would probably actively game the "narrative" system of Fate to squeeze as much advantage (super-wide aspects, absurd ways to apply aspects, etc.) to "win" the game part.




There are several ways that giving players narrative control ultimately undermines player empowerment and wholly undermines the player goal of "story first".

First, the experience of reading a book or watching a movie is in part enjoyable because you don't really know what the story is, where it is going, or how it is going to end.   You are watching because there are hidden secrets that you expect to be revealed in due course, and your enjoyment is in part derived from that.   If you know what story you are agreeing to, or you are story boarding the story out ahead of time, you are reduced from the empowering experience of reading a story to the sometimes drudgery of creating one.   

Secondly, if you agree to the story with everyone, well, haven't you just agreed to the story?  It puts you under and obligation you don't have when you don't know what the story is.   Not acting on the story you agreed to puts you in the same position you'd be in D&D if you agreed to play a character with alignment constraints and then don't live up to that.  It's time to stop the story and have a discussion because something clear has gone wrong.   For a game like BW, there is a massive amount of the game structure that is invested in storyboarding and reviewing the story that has just been created.  Stopping and having a discussion about the story is a mechanic of play.   As a player it would drive me nuts.   Instead of playing, let's just work together to publish a module - it would be the same freaking experience of play and we would have something tangible to show for it at the end.  

Secondly, many stories that people like have moments of triumph for the readers/audience experiences vicariously.  If an RPG is to capture that experience from the perspective of being in that story, then there is a vast difference between the story of being handed an Olympic medal and earning an Olympic medal.   When you hand narrative control over to a player, it's like saying, "Here, just have what you want."   For many players, that's just hugely deflating.  Again, it becomes like the experience of being a writer of the story and not the experience of being in the story.  The experience of the writer of the story is he has the power of plot and can manipulate the circumstances for or against his characters.  But that's just not the experience of the characters in the story, who have only their wherewithal to deal with the challenges that they face.   To make another analogy, has anyone watched the BattleStar Galactica remake?   I was initially through the first season a huge huge fan.   But by the middle of the second season I stopped watching it.  Why?  Because as a member of the audience, the carpet got pulled out from other me in exactly this way.   As long as 'The Plan' of the Cylons had been exterminate humanity, then the survival of the protagonists was something that had depended on their courage and skill, and I was rooting for them.   When it was revealed that the Cylons were basically letting the Galactica win because they had a much less cool plan, I lost anyone to root for and with it, any concern over what happened.  I think all too often, in the name of "narratively empowering the players", we're pulling out from under them any real depth of caring about what happens to the character.  That may make sense for a game like Fiasco, but for many other sorts of games... not so much.


----------



## Umbran

Celebrim said:


> GNS is filled with all sorts of untruths and half-truths IMO.  The biggest untruth is that a game system or session can only fulfill one agenda of play at a time, and it tries to do more than one it becomes badwrongfun.




Agreed.  The theory has its uses, but should be taken with a grain of salt.  Also, applying it to individuals is probably not a good idea, IMHO.



Celebrim said:


> There are several ways that giving players narrative control ultimately undermines player empowerment and wholly undermines the player goal of "story first".
> 
> First, the experience of reading a book or watching a movie is in part enjoyable because you don't really know what the story is, where it is going, or how it is going to end.   You are watching because there are hidden secrets that you expect to be revealed in due course, and your enjoyment is in part derived from that.   If you know what story you are agreeing to, or you are story boarding the story out ahead of time, you are reduced from the empowering experience of reading a story to the sometimes drudgery of creating one.




While there are some games that may do this, I think it is an inaccurate description of games that give players more narrative control, in general.  You aren't necessarily (or even commonly) story-boarding out the whole thing in advance.



> Secondly, many stories that people like have moments of triumph for the readers/audience experiences vicariously.  If an RPG is to capture that experience from the perspective of being in that story, then there is a vast difference between the story of being handed an Olympic medal and earning an Olympic medal.   When you hand narrative control over to a player, it's like saying, "Here, just have what you want."




And here's where I think you go a bit overboard.  Narrative control isn't digital - all or nothing.  There are degrees of narrative control, and giving a player a little more direct control than is seen in, say, a typical D&D game, doesn't suddenly give them everything on a silver platter.


----------



## Bedrockgames

My experience is players all have very different reactions to narrative mechanics. Some love them and want robust mechanical tools toward that end, some hate them and don't want a trace in the system, and some dont mind a bit here or there. There are also people who like these mechanics for things beyond the end goal of narrative. Other wouldn't notice one way or the other if they are present. Personally, i do tend to get irked by stuff that breaks the fourth wall for me, and a lot of these narrative mechanics do that (but so do wish lists for magic items). I can handle it in small doses though or when it feels very appropriate to the genre, like in the form of bennies for example. I think it is just preference.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> My experience is players all have very different reactions to narrative mechanics. Some love them and want robust mechanical tools toward that end, some hate them and don't want a trace in the system, and some dont mind a bit here or there.




Certainly.  Not everybody likes the same thing.  If we did, there'd be one heck of a haggis shortage.

I like FATE, but that's not saying I use it for all my gaming now.  I'm still using Classic Deadlands for the campaign I run, and it's rather baroque, and beyond a form of action point, it largely devoid of narrative control mechanics.  Tnarrative control is not an end-all, be-all of game design, or anything.

Each game does some things well, and other things less well.  The only trick is to figure out what you want to do, and use a game that fits the bill.  Sometimes, when new games come out, it pays to try them, as they may well do things well that you never realized a game could do at all, much less do well.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> This is the bit where I think we have differences of approach. It would never occur to me, as a GM, to suggest to a player that some declared action should be withdrawn because it is out of character.
> 
> If I think the behaviour is outrageous I might say so, as might anyone else at the table - "You're doing what?!" - but that's an invitation to the player to think about what's at stake, not to ensure fidelity to a pre-established character.




Both are invitations. In my opinion you're doing it tacitly my approach is more overt. I am merely asking as DM to understand the character better not asking him to withdraw an action but to consider it, unless as DM I have understood him wrong. The difference between our approaches is superficial.  



> I don't have any conception of how the PC should behave in a general sense. That is up to the player. Hence I don't need a tool - alignment, personality descriptors, or anything else - to do that.




Some people do not need a battle grid for combat and prefer theatre of mind combat, hence they rejected 4e on that basis outright. Good for you not having to need the the Alignment aid as DM but can you at least be open to the idea that there are others out there (DMs and Players) that might like to use it?



> My concern is that, if the GM then forms the view that the player has changed alignment, this has ramifications straight away for a paladin and cleric, and potentially for any player if the GM is running a (quite common, in my experience) "no evil PCs" campaign. Allowing the players to choose their PCs' actions but then rendering their PCs unplayable in the campaign as a result of an alignment adjudication is precisely one of the things I'm concerned about.
> 
> Is killing the orc babies to stop them growing up to be orc warriors charitable or not? It strikes me as pretty forthright at least!)




If we have to debate if the slaying of the young is an evil or good act, we will probably not agree on anything. Common sense must apply at some point in order for this debate to be meaningful. 
Hypothetical: *In your campaign your Paladin decides to slay orc babies so they do not grow up as evil orc warrriors, and he still envisions himself as LG - what do you do as DM? *



> Informed decisions are fine - this is the players knowing the backstory. My concern is with who gets to interpret what actually happens in play. Once the players have read the backstory and are playing their PCs on the basis of it, is the GM allowed to tell them that they've got it wrong?




No, why do you assume this.



> I'm also confused as to why you quote the DMG saying that "the campaign world is not the GM's alone" yet also say that, "since the setting is the DM's, it is only right that all those various interpretations of good and evil are defined by the DM". You seem to be disagreeing with what the DMG says.




The various interpretations of good and evil are part of the setting for the cultures, civilizations and deities which is all part of the setting backstory created by the DM. The DMG quote is on advice for the DM not to act as an obnoxious authoritarian when dealing with players actions but to listen to their notions or reasons for their actions and not simply dismiss them on the basis that they are players and he/she is the DM, that the game is not the DM's alone.



> This strikes me as another one of those things where "the campaign world is not yours alone". If the player has chosen to play a dwarf, presumably part of what s/he is interested in is contributing to "dwarfiness" as understood in the game. If we want certain preconceptions of dwarves to be guaranteed, then build them in mechanically (eg I have no objection to the group agreeing that there are no dwarf wizards, or elven assassins).




Why does the system have to build it in mechanically? The game consists of roleplay and rollplay. I do not need numbers to define my character's ethical code, using your argument above: You do not need an alignment aid and a descriptor is just fine for my purposes with regards to alignment.



> Even if the GM warns the player, there is still the point that it is the GM, not the player, deciding what sort of conduct the PC must engage in order to keep his/her class abilities.
> 
> My concern is that, first, if the player wants to keep playing a holy warrior, why should s/he not be allowed to just because, were the GM in his/her shoes, s/he would play it differently? That is to say, my concern is with the player who _wants_ to play a paladin or cleric. Why should the GM be sitting in judgement over the adequacy of their evaluative choices in playing that character? It would be like the GM telling the player of the fighter how to tactically engage the monsters, or telling the wizard which spell to use - namely, the GM is taking over the very thing that the player chose the class to do.




From the above paragraph it appears you have not comprehended anything from the 2e DMG I quoted for you and you default back to, IMO, a weak argument that is based around implying Alignment DMs are poor DMs and Players using Alignments wear straight-jackets. 
*What actions would you like your paladin to perform which you imagine an alignment DM would restrict?* Enlighten me please because all I have heard are fears, concerns and conjectures of GMs controlling players and I think it is only fair you list some examples, otherwise we will continue to talk around each other.



> We don't do let the GM strip class abilities from the player of the thief because s/he thinks not enough theft is going on; of from the player of the bard because the PC is perceived as having the wrong taste in music. Why should religiously devoted PCs be treated differently? This is the core of my objection to alignment, though it generalises to issues of valuation more broadly.




IMO, these are extremely poor examples used to defend ones core objection since:

They are irrational at their core.
Assume the DM lacks common sense.
There might be more problems one could identify with these examples, but those are the primary ones I desire to reflect on.



> But the more fundamental issue is you're no longer playing the PC you wanted to play.




Which paladin did you want to play? The paladin with the nick "slayer of orc infants"? Is that the avenue you would like to pursue with your paladin but the common-sense lacking DM is denying you? How dare he? If only Lancelot were here to tell us how its done...



> Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a LG paladin is balanced. Why is a non-LG paladin more powerful than a LG one? In other words, what advantage does the player of the paladin gain in having his/her PC act in ways that the GM would judge to not be LG?




For that comparison one would have to assume the non-LG paladin is able to change alignment and not lose their Divine Power. Now with regards to her/his power - it is the freedom to do what he/she likes not having to answer to anyone.   
Divine or Arcane Magic is deemed powerful within a D&D setting - and it is tempered with restrictions: Training, Research, High Abilities, Longer Casting Times, Opposition Schools, Verbal Somatic Material Components, Learning , Low Hit Points, Max No of Spells per Level, Chance to Learn Spell, Higher XP progression...etc Alignment is another such restriction.     

I might be a hopeful romantic but I'm closing with another quote which you are welcome to ignore again:
2e DMG (page 28) "If a paladin rides through a town ravaged by disease and ignores the suffering of the inhabitants, he has transgressed his alignment in an obvious, but small, way. Several such failures could lead to an alignment change. 
In the meantime, the paladin could recognise his danger and amend his ways, preventing the change and preserving his paladinhood. If the paladin burns the village to prevent the disease from spreading he commits a seriously evil act.
In this case, the DM is justified in instituting an immediate alignment change to lawful evil or even chaotic evil. The character eventually may be able to change back to lawful good alignment, but he will never again be a paladin."

Now in this instance I am more inclined to agree with you that the Paladin's alignment should not change 
(per 3e) on one act alone. But on the losing of his/her abilities, well that's up to each DM to decide. In fiction this is really simple - if Galahad or Lancelot burnt a village and its community, despite the threat of a disease outbreak, we would consider them fallen from grace. Apparently that is frowned upon in D&D, it seems like the fiction we draw from must be flawed.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> You posted “the relevant passage”, then add a bunch more “relevant” details later.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don’t find it any more enjoyable to have the hidden backstory come out in some extended interchange over PC design.



It's fine that you prefer a different approach to campaign backstory set up than me. That still doesn't make the backstory hidden, if in fact it's all out in the open before play starts! 



N'raac said:


> When we discover, 15 levels later, that my interpretation of the RQ’s code was not correct (the other PC, with whom I disputed that code, turns out to be correct) I question why she kept granting those powers which I used to violate her wishes.



Because this is not being related to any actual play episode, I'm having a lot of trouble making sense of it in practical terms. I simply have no idea what 15 levels of play would look like in which two devotees of a single god disagree over what devotion to that god requires, _and_ that comes out i play, _and_ the god cares which of them is right, _and_ no sort of information or resolution or development or compliation has occured within those 15 levels, until it is suddenly sprung on everyone like a rabbit from a hat.

If alignment is meant to help me deal with such a situation, OK - but because I can't even envisage such a situation occuring, or what it would look like, that might be part of why I don't like mechanical alignment.



Sadras said:


> The difference between our approaches is superficial.



Not for me. I see a deep difference between the GM responding to declared action in terms of "is that consistent with your prior characterisation?" and the GM responding in terms of "Are you doing _that_?" Both invovle valuation, but the first focuses more narrowly on one sort of aesthetic value (consistency of character) which is not that important to me. 



Sadras said:


> Why does the system have to build it in mechanically?



My general preference, if the game is to engender a certain sort of behaviour by the PCs, is for the mechanics to support the behaviour in question. Conversely, if the mechanics don't push any sort of behaviour, then I assume that the players will make their own choices as they see fit, and wouldn't expect the game, in its design, to assume they would choose any particular way.



Sadras said:


> What actions would you like your paladin to perform which you imagine an alignment DM would restrict? Enlighten me please because all I have heard are fears, concerns and conjectures of GMs controlling players and I think it is only fair you list some examples, otherwise we will continue to talk around each other.



I mostly GM, and I am not interested in restricting or permitting my players' action declarations.

As a player, I am not interested in the GM monitoring my PC's behaviour for consistency, so that s/he is "the only one who knows for sure" whether my PC is being true to his/her ideals. That is distracting the focus of play and the mental energy of the participants from where I want it to be - on play, and the actual consequences of play in the fiction, and evaluative responses to that. A practical example I gave upthread was my PC's dilemma as to whether or not to propose marriagne: I want to play this out as part of the game. I am happy for the GM to be part of the play, both playing NPCs and kibbitzing as part of the metagame. I am not interested in the GM trying to answer by asking the abstract (and, in my view, irrelevant) question as to whether or not getting married would be consistent with my alignment.



Sadras said:


> Hypothetical: *In your campaign your Paladin decides to slay orc babies so they do not grow up as evil orc warrriors, and he still envisions himself as LG - what do you do as DM?*



*I would stop using alignment rules to the hypothetical doesn't come up. Also, if I didn't want the issue of "what to do with the orc babies" to come up at all, I wouldn't place any orc babies in the scenario.

I've described an actual play episode above in which a PC did summarily executve some unconscious hobgoblin warriors, and I described how I dealt with that: I expressed my shock (as did the other players), and within the game, I had most of the NPCs present in the situation express support for what the PC did.



Sadras said:



			If only Lancelot were here to tell us how its done
		
Click to expand...


Lancelot is actually an interesting example: in one of the Chretien de Troyes stories Lancelot kills half-a-dozen of his fellow knights while escaping from Gawain, who is pursuing him for his wrongdoing with Guinevere. I think to modern sensibilities this would seem quite outrageous, but there is no suggestion in the work that Lancelot does the wrong thing with such killings. Attitudes to death, including who is a permissible target of lethal violence - and particularly role-basd attitues (eg by being knights they have chosen to take the risk of being killed in interpersonal violence, and so can have no complaint if they are killed) - are variable across times and places.

To have the GM making judgements about these things in response to players' declarations of their PCs' actions has no appeal for me. It adds nothing to play, and sets up impediments to play in the ways I have described.



Sadras said:



			From the above paragraph it appears you have not comprehended anything from the 2e DMG I quoted for you and you default back to, IMO, a weak argument that is based around implying Alignment DMs are poor DMs and Players using Alignments wear straight-jackets.
		
Click to expand...


I think I understood it quite well.

I'll add to what you quoted the following from the 2nd ed PHB, original printing, p 49:

It is possible for a player to change his character's alignment after the character is created . . . However, changing alignment is not without its penalties. . .

Although the player may have a good idea of whre the character's alignment lies, only the DM know for sure. . .

Changing the way a character behaves and thinks will cost him experience points and slow his adancement.​
This implies to me that the GM is expected to constantly measure the players' play of their PC, and to form judgements about it, and hence to decide whether or not alignment has changed. And because the PHB (p 46) defines good in this way - "Good characters are just that" - that judgement is going to require deciding whether what the players have their PCs do is good or not.

Part of the point of this measurement seems to be because the game takes the view that playing an alignment consistently (which means, given that "only the DM knows for sure", in accordance with the GM's conception) is a good thing in itself: after all, the PHB (at p 49) says "finding the right course of action within the character's alignment is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying."

As that is actually, for me, not part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying, and in fact something that I find inimical to my enjoyment of the game (both as player and GM), I therefore do not use alignment.



Sadras said:



			I'm closing with another quote which you are welcome to ignore again:
2e DMG (page 28) "If a paladin rides through a town ravaged by disease and ignores the suffering of the inhabitants, he has transgressed his alignment in an obvious, but small, way. Several such failures could lead to an alignment change. 
In the meantime, the paladin could recognise his danger and amend his ways, preventing the change and preserving his paladinhood. If the paladin burns the village to prevent the disease from spreading he commits a seriously evil act.
In this case, the DM is justified in instituting an immediate alignment change to lawful evil or even chaotic evil. The character eventually may be able to change back to lawful good alignment, but he will never again be a paladin."
		
Click to expand...


For me this also drives home difference in playstyle.

At least as I play the game, it doesn't just happen that the paladin PC is riding through a diseased-ravaged town. The GM frames scenes like that. So, if I frame such a scene, I am doing it for a reason: to see how the players engage the scene via their PCs. If I have predetermind that only one response is permissible, than what was the point of framing the scene? Or, if I think that stopping the general momentum of play to have the paladin PC deal with these comparative mundanities would simply be derailing - and so, in effect, the scene would force the player to choose between an interesting session that is not true to their character, or a tedious session that is true to their character - then I wouldn't frame the scene.

Alignment doesn't add anything to my decision-making framework as a GM here.



Sadras said:



			Good for you not having to need the the Alignment aid as DM but can you at least be open to the idea that there are others out there (DMs and Players) that might like to use it?
		
Click to expand...


As I've posted multiple times upthread, it's no skin of my nose if others find it useful.

But I was asked, had I ever had a real play experience to which alignment would have been an impediment. And I've been answering that question.*


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> real life moral debate typically incorporates a whole lot *more* than just two axes.





Umbran said:


> You say that as if it is a feature, not a bug.  Failure to have a framework in debate leads to misunderstanding and inconsistency in analysis.



Contemporary English-speaking moral philosophy has a very sophisticated framework and vocabulary. I'm a professional participant in this debate, and am quite familiar with the technicalities of it.

My point is simply that I find AD&D/3E two-axis, 9-point alignment, which intends to give a general framework for classifying human moral outlooks (eg 2nd ed PHB, original printing, p 46: "These nine alignments serve well to define the attitudes of most of the people in the world), hopeless for the purpose. And I don't think it's a coincidence, in this respect, that it uses a classificatory scheme that no actual serious thinker about value and morality in human life has ever adopted.

Here's a reason why I think it's hopeless as a general scheme: it can't tell me whether Jefferson and Hamilton and their friends were chaotic (because favouring individual rights) or lawful (because believing that the rule of law was utterly crucial for securing such rights); nor can it tell me whether FDR was lawful (because running a social and economic programme - the New Deal - based on ideas of solidarity and common welfare) or chaotic (because prepared to threaten the rule of law in order to get his programme through).

Here's a reason why I think it's hopeless as a scheme in one version its own favoured domain, namely romantic fantasy adventure fiction: because key to the idea of a paladin, or monk, or other classic alignment-oriented archetype is that there is a profound unity between fulfilling one's duty to onself and fulfilling one's duty to others, and codes of honour and the like are grounded in this unity. Whereas alignment, by treating (for instance) LG and CG as equally viable forms of life, implicity denies this unity and hence the validity of these world views. The paladin and monk are, essentially, mistaken. (Hence my characterisation of Planescape, which correctly intuits this feature of alginment and takes it to its natural extension within the fiction, as cycnial and relativist.)

As I've posted upthread, there's one style of fantasy in which I think alignment can potentially make sense: if you assume an REH-esque worldview in which the world itself is devoid of value, and a protagonist shapes his/her own value through actions and choices; and if you put to one side all the standard debates of post-enlightenment politics (in which Jefferson, Hamilton and FDR were all engaged) and essentially frame political or social questions as civilisation/order vs barbarism/individual prowess; then you might use 9-point alignment as a shorthand descriptor for the outlook and inclinations of individual characters. But in this sort of world there is no room for clerics or paladins or monks - and it's no coincidence that such characters are not found in the Conan stories. (Yes there are priests, but they're either cynical, or sorcerers, or self-deluded, or more than one of the above.)

Even then I'm not sure that alignment would actually add to the game - I'm not surprised, for instance, that OGL Conan doesn't see the need for it.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I think your interpretation of "awesome" play as it relates to Fate is wrong and doesn't fit with the paradigm of aspects in Fate.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you take a trouble aspect centered around a phobia of snakes... you have basically chosen that your character's weakness is an irrational fear of snakes and "awesome" play isn't awesome if it lets you squirm your way around or negate that fact.





Imaro said:


> I think to pull off a good game of Fate there has to be a lot of transparency, a lot of discussion, and  <snip> players who can suppress their natural gamist and/or simulationist desires and set narrativism as the driving goal of the game



Maybe I've misunderstood, but the worry that a player is "squirming his/her way around or negating a weakness" strikes me as a gamist concern - it's a worry that the player is cheating to gain a mechanical advantage.



Umbran said:


> If there was going to be no monster at all, adding a snake complicates matters.
> 
> If, however, there was going to be a monster, it isn't a complication.





Umbran said:


> The fact that it is a snake is not yet a complication!  The player is still free to deal with the snake in any way he pleases.  The situation is not yet more complicated for the character than the ogre would have been.



I'm not 100% sure about what is meant by "there was going to be a monster". Are we talking about established backstory, or the GM's private intentions. If the latter, I don't see how those are relevant to adjudicating the game.

If the former, then yes I can see it. I had been envisaging the situation as the player rescuing some innocents; and the presence of the snake (or ogre, or whatever) is a complication (and if a snake triggers a Fate Point because it plays off the PC's aspect). If the established situation is not "the player rescuing some innocents" but "the player rescuing some innocents from an ogre" then the ogre is not, per se, an additional complication, given it's an already-established feature of the scene.

On the issue of "awesome play", I had in mind this passage that [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] cited (and I've seen others cite it before):

Asking the players to contribute something to the beginning of your first scene is a great way to help get them invested in what’s going on right off the bat. If there’s anything that’s flexible about your opening prompt, ask your players to fill in the blanks for you when you start the scene. Clever players may try to use it as an opportunity to push for a compel and get extra fate points right off the bat—we like to call this sort of play “awesome.”​
It seems to me that this an invitation to the player, who is out to rescue some innocents, to remind the GM that s/he has a special thing for snakes, and to earn a fate point rom doing so. It certainly doesn't imply, to me, that the GM is meant to frame the snake situation from the get go and thereby deny the player the requested fate point on the ground that the snake was always going to be there and so isn't a complication!


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Here's a reason why I think it's hopeless as a general scheme: it can't tell me whether Jefferson and Hamilton and their friends were chaotic (because favouring individual rights) or lawful (because believing that the rule of law was utterly crucial for securing such rights); nor can it tell me whether FDR was lawful (because running a social and economic programme - the New Deal - based on ideas of solidarity and common welfare) or chaotic (because prepared to threaten the rule of law in order to get his programme through).




Such pointless dualism. Ever heard of Neutral? It's all the rage when the target you're trying to classify exhibits substantial elements of both extremes.


----------



## pemerton

On the topic of 2nd ed AD&D and paladins:

PHB, original printing, p 27:
If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood: He is eer after a fighter . . . bound by the rules for fighters. He does not gain the benefits of weapon specialization . . . since he did not select this for his character at the start.​
That looks pretty cut-and-dried to me. In conjunction with the passage I quoted upthread that says "Only the DM knows for sure", that looks to me like it is not radically different from 1st ed AD&D or 3E: the player declares actions  for his/her PC and the GM decides whether or not they are good or evil, and hence whether or not the player loses his/her class abilities and becomes a second-tier fighter.


----------



## Feldspar

billd91 said:


> Such pointless dualism. Ever heard of Neutral? It's all the rage when the target you're trying to classify exhibits substantial elements of both extremes.



Heh, under that approach then a paladin who commits an evil act for some greater good has in fact committed a neutral act and is safe from the wrath of their diety.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Such pointless dualism. Ever heard of Neutral? It's all the rage when the target you're trying to classify exhibits substantial elements of both extremes.



I'm not bowled over by the power of a classificatory scheme which has a "lawful" category, and yet which does not place the most prominent champions of the rule of law (which these days is most often defended on its role in upholding individual dignity) within that category!

Here's another one I just noticed, having Gygax's DMG in front of me (from p 23):

*Neutral Good*: . . . law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness and prosperity to all deserving creatures. Order is not good unless it brings this to all . . . 

*Lawful Good*: . . . order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and . . . good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greatest number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.​
So the only difference between NG and LG is over the sociological question of whether order is per se a source of welfare - apparently they don't actually have differing conceptions of welfare, nor of desert!

No wonder paladins cause so much heartache - if played at all according to archetype, they have radically different conceptions of welfare and of desert from Bentham, Jefferson and Hamilton.


----------



## pemerton

Feldspar said:


> Heh, under that approach then a paladin who commits an evil act for some greater good has in fact committed a neutral act and is safe from the wrath of their diety.



Cute!


----------



## Feldspar

One idea I had as part of a plan to remove crunchy alignment mechanics from 3.x was to replace the Paladin Detect Evil ability with a bonus to Sense Motive equal to their class level.  Just throwing it out there apropo of nothing since I thought it was cool


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think if you are looking for a real world classification of morality, then alignment isn't a good choice. It is an artificial construct baked into the setting of D&D. If you don't find it useful, then it probably isn't fir you. But I think a lot of people are just not having the difficulty you seem to have pemerton. I think you may be over analyzing it. Given all the threads where historical and pop culture figures are talked abt in terms of what alignment they would have, and given that on those threads most people seem fine using the alignment system as a lens for judgement (though there is certainly debate over whether the behavior of a given character or person falls into L or C or N) I think it is fair to say the probems are not as bad in practice as you paint them in theory. Now, for some people alignment wont click, orr presents problems due to arguments and issues about the role of the GM. That is fair. Not everyonef is going to like it. But you seem to be arguing that it is incomprehensible and drawing on your real world experience with philosophy to make that point. It is great that you have a passion for the subject, but i dontthink most gamers are examining alignment through the framework of western philosophy.


----------



## howandwhy99

I've been thinking about this some more and it struck me how Alignment in D&D is the rule system which leads players to cooperative play. That and being key to a whole realm of discovery for one of the core classes.  But I can definitely see how Alignment is indispensable to the game as a mechanic.

Also Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic is best be described as the physical laws they represent. Creation, Stasis, and Entropy. Alignments shift depending upon behavior falling into those 3 categories: overall constructive behavior, overall sustaining acts, and overall destructive. And in player to player game play it means cooperation, solo play, and competition.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Maybe I've misunderstood, but the worry that a player is "squirming his/her way around or negating a weakness" strikes me as a gamist concern - it's a worry that the player is cheating to gain a mechanical advantage.




I'm not sure I agree with this statement.  It's not about cheating to gain a mechanical advantage since denying or avoiding your *TROUBLE* aspect isn't going to garner you a mechanical benefit.  Instead I would say it's about creating an interesting story... a character without a weakness or whose weakness never comes into play doesn't (IMO) make for a good story and begs the question why did you pick that as a *TROUBLE* aspect if it then is negated, ignored or whatever when a negative situation arises from it?  Again you knew that in picking "Why''d it have to be Snakes" as a negative aspect... well negative things surrounding that aspect were going to happen to you in the game.  Using "awesome" play as a reason the GM should avoid troubles centered around the aspect seems to totally miss the point of having a *TROUBLE* aspect.




pemerton said:


> I'm not 100% sure about what is meant by "there was going to be a monster". Are we talking about established backstory, or the GM's private intentions. If the latter, I don't see how those are relevant to adjudicating the game.




We are talking about the situation as it was first presented and going from there.  Everyone else seems to get it not sure why you don't??  Maybe this will help.... the scene is framed with a monster already there... so the monster is not an *added* complication to the scene.



pemerton said:


> If the former, then yes I can see it. I had been envisaging the situation as the player rescuing some innocents; and the presence of the snake (or ogre, or whatever) is a complication (and if a snake triggers a Fate Point because it plays off the PC's aspect). If the established situation is not "the player rescuing some innocents" but "the player rescuing some innocents from an ogre" then the ogre is not, per se, an additional complication, given it's an already-established feature of the scene.




Again, what is the player "rescuing" the innocents from?  If it's the monster then the scene was framed with the monster and it is not a "Complication" it is a part of the scene/encounter/whatever...



pemerton said:


> On the issue of "awesome play", I had in mind this passage that @_*Ratskinner*_ cited (and I've seen others cite it before):Asking the players to contribute something to the beginning of your first scene is a great way to help get them invested in what’s going on right off the bat. If there’s anything that’s flexible about your opening prompt, ask your players to fill in the blanks for you when you start the scene. Clever players may try to use it as an opportunity to push for a compel and get extra fate points right off the bat—we like to call this sort of play “awesome.”​
> It seems to me that this an invitation to the player, who is out to rescue some innocents, to remind the GM that s/he has a special thing for snakes, and to earn a fate point rom doing so. It certainly doesn't imply, to me, that the GM is meant to frame the snake situation from the get go and thereby deny the player the requested fate point on the ground that the snake was always going to be there and so isn't a complication!




Again if the player is rescuing the innocents from a monster anyway, and that is the scene... changing the nature of the monster does not create a complication for the character... It just changes the window dressing of the scene.  *A compel has to create a complication for the character*.  What has become more complicated for the player if a snake takes the place of a monster he was going to rescue the innocents from?  The player could add the snake in to the scene *with* the original monster and that would complicate things... but swapping it out doesn't in and of itself create a complication

Let's look at [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s example in more depth... let's look at the actual examples for the passage he quoted.  Here is the the character's aspect that is in question...  

Zird has *Rivals in the Collegia Arcana,* which implies that some or many of them are scheming against him constantly. Because of that, a series of concentrated assassination attempts from someone or several people who know how to get past all his magical defenses would probably be a big problem for him.

The scene set up... 

An Arcane Conspiracy: The Opening Scene
Amanda mulls over her questions and thinks about what she wants as her opening scene. A couple of obvious suggestions come to mind:


Enforcers from the Collegia show up at Zird’s door and serve him papers, demanding he come with them.
Cynere receives the contract and job details from a mysterious employer, and must decide whether or not to sign.
She decides to go with the latter scene, because she figures that if Cynere rebuffs the contract and then finds out that Zird’s going to the Collegia anyway, it might create a fun scene where she tries to get the mysterious employer to reconsider. And even if she sticks to her guns, it’ll establish whether or not they’ll have to deal with any drama on the way there, as the mysterious employer’s lackeys harass them on the way.
That doesn’t mean she’s going to just toss the scene with Zird aside—she’s just going to save it for a follow-up to the first scene.

Now here is the suggestion from a player that garners him a Fate point...

Let’s look at our example scenes above. The prompts don’t specify where the PCs are when they get confronted with their first choices. So, Amanda might start the session by asking Ryan, “Where exactly is Zird when the brute squad from the Collegia comes looking for him?”
Now, even if Ryan just replies with “in his sanctuary,” you’ve solicited his participation and helped him set the scene. But Ryan is awesome, so what he says instead is, “Oh, probably at the public baths, soaking after a long day of research.”
“Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that yourRivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear, right?”
Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

Now according to your logic and [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] 's view...  Ryan should get a Fate point anytime someone from the collegia comes looking for him... but that's not a complication.  Even Ryan suggesting the bath house isn't in and of itself a complication both of these are just scenery.  It's only when Ryan is in that scene where they show up *and* looses access to his magical gear (i.e. a complication above and beyond his enemies just showing up) that Ryan gets the FP...

This doesn't seem that difficult to grasp and honestly I feel the way [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] runs his game is slightly divergent from the game the rules lay out (freeform scene creation. FP"s for enemies just showing up, etc.) so perhaps that is causing you some confusion as well.  I'm not sure how to explain it in a more simple way than the examples above.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Given all the threads where historical and pop culture figures are talked abt in terms of what alignment they would have, and given that on those threads most people seem fine using the alignment system as a lens for judgement (though there is certainly debate over whether the behavior of a given character or person falls into L or C or N) I think it is fair to say the probems are not as bad in practice as you paint them in theory.



Whereas my view is that the (practically inevitable) debates over whether someone is L or C or N show that the problems are as bad in practice as they are in theory.

Have a look over the description of alignments in the 2nd ed PHB (as I was this morning) and tell me how the description of CE and NE differ in any meaningful way: they both boil down to "will do anything to get what s/he wants", with the added bit that the CE enjoys bullying people. But enjoying bullying is a personality trait,  not a moral judgement. Yet we're told in various places that alignment is not a personality mechanic!

There are other ones that I think aren't meaningfully different either - NG and CG, for instance. And I'm told that the hardworking serf is LG, but what if s/he is hardworking only out of fear and a lack of other choices, and - if the opportunity came up - would really rather live like that CG frontiersman? Which also looks to me like a personality issue rather than a moral issue - the frontiersman, for instance, needn't think that law and order in general are bad. He just doesn't personally want to be subjected to them. But there's no reason to think he's a rebel or an anarchist, and if the call is sent out for soldiers to defend the kingdom, for all we know he'll be the first to respond!


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> We are talking about the situation as it was first presented and going from there.  Everyone else seems to get it not sure why you don't??



Because I'm stupid? I dunno - I'm not sure what sort of answer you're expecting to this question.



Imaro said:


> what is the player "rescuing" the innocents from?



I was assuming that, in the fiction, it's established that there are some innocents to be rescued (because otherwise why is the PC in the scene at all?). From what? I was imagining that to be up for grabs. Maybe they've been kidnapped. Maybe they've fallen down a pit and have broken ankles.

I was envisaging, as the complication, that instead of being able to simply haul the NPCs out (via a strength check or whatever the relevant FATE mechanic is, or even "say yes" once they've been found, if the interesting challenge was tracking them down), the GM interposes a monster between the PC and the NPCs - and that monster is a snake because, after all, "Why does it have to be snakes?" To my mind that would be a complication - an obstacle between PC and goal that would otherwise be achieved as the resolution to the scene.



Imaro said:


> denying or avoiding your *TROUBLE* aspect isn't going to garner you a mechanical benefit.  Instead I would say it's about creating an interesting story... a character without a weakness or whose weakness never comes into play doesn't (IMO) make for a good story and begs the question why did you pick that as a *TROUBLE* aspect if it then is negated, ignored or whatever when a negative situation arises from it?  Again you knew that in picking "Why''d it have to be Snakes" as a negative aspect... well negative things surrounding that aspect were going to happen to you in the game.



I don't understand how getting a fate point for the snake being between you and the NPCs you were hoping to rescue is ignoring your trouble.

Presumably the GM, playing the snake, can use your aspect against you to make it harder for you to rescue the NPCs then if it were an ogre between you and them. (I don't know the mechanical details, but I'm assuming that this is how a negative aspect plays out in action resolution.) _That's_ the interesting story that results.

I personally don't see  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s original suggestion - that the GM compels the PC to flee, and hence the NPCs get killed by the snake - as narratively all that satisfying, though I guess that would depend in part upon what had come before, and so where we were in the rising action. But if the player is out of fate points doesn't that tend to suggest that we're getting towards the climax? And resolving the climax via a GM compel strikes me as unsatisfactory. If that's what the game permits, it suggests a flaw in the design.



Imaro said:


> according to your logic and Ratskinner's view...  Ryan should get a Fate point anytime someone from the collegia comes looking for him... but that's not a complication.



It seems to me that it depends on context, doesn't it? If Ryan's PC has been framed into a scene at the bathhouse, and is currently resolving that scene, and then the Collegia brute squad suddenly turn up, that strikes me as a complication that (if I'm getting event compels right) warrants a fate point.

In the example you give, the GM has already made it clear (and not just in her head - in actual play) that Ryan is being framed into a Collegia brute squad scene. So the complication is "no gear".

Applying this to N'raac's example, then, we're being asked to think about a situation in which the GM frames the PC into a scene where s/he has to rescue some NPCs from a snake, _and_ the GM (presumably) knows that player has not fate points left, _and_ the GM then uses a compel to have the PC flee the scene and thereby fail in his/her goals in the scene. Even if the rules of the game allow for that - and as I don't know them very well I have to concede that they might - how does that possibly look like good GMing? To me it seems terrible - what's the point of framing the PC into a scene only to then resolve it, without the player ever engaging the action resolution mechanics, via a compel?

I also wonder - is there anything (rule or guideline) which discusses the use of compels to bring a scene to an end? The basic idea seems to be that it's about complicating scenes rather than terminating them.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> Whereas my view is that the (practically inevitable) debates over whether someone is L or C or N show that the problems are as bad in practice as they are in theory.




But debates about players having more control over the shared fiction only shows problems in theory with no reason to believe they're bad in practice?       It would be neat to have a couple mirrors of scrying and a hoard of obedient servants to scan around to see how often either of these are actually problems at specific tables or tables in general.

Going by some conversation in the "try PF again thread", I'm also pondering the power that disliking a system element (for whatever reason) has to cause unhappiness in actual play.  If a player doesn't like system A from but likes system B, will they be much more likely to grumble about things that are common in both rule sets only when system A is being played?  If the system has element A that the player doesn't like, will their be a temptation to insert situations into the game to show how bad that element is? 



pemerton said:


> Have a look over the description of alignments in the 2nd ed PHB (as I was this morning) and tell me how the description of CE and NE differ in any meaningful way:




Rereading 2e again, they could definitely be clearer!  There seems a general vibe that the chaotic character actively chafes against any order (and so can only be part of an organization for the short term), while the neutral can take it or leave it as it serves there goals. 

So the lawful privateer crew will obey their captain as long as he follows the unwritten rules of the occupation, the neutral pirate crew that is raking in the dough is likely to keep their captain as long as the money keeps coming in or seems likely to, and the chaotic pirate crew will probably be able to justify a mutiny at some point even when things are going well.

PF almost does a nice job of laying that out... and then keeps adding more words or trying to put in specific examples without enough discussion.  So you get the possible overlap between CG and LN and that LN seems to contradict some of the example up in the general law versus chaos section.  (Now I'm getting tempted to give writing something up a try.)

In any case, like every game element, the alignment rules are just a projection of something very complicated in the real world down to a game element that seems manageable and useful to most people.  If people have all kinds of house rules about initiative and hit points and healing and etc...  I don't see any reason alignment needs to be any more sacrosanct.


----------



## Ratskinner

I think applies to some of what  @_*Umbran*_  is objecting to in my formulation as well.



pemerton said:


> Makes sense too. In particular I agree about the functional equivalence.  From the player's point of view, why should it make a difference when  the GM decides that the innocent NPCs are threatened by a giant  snake.





Imaro said:


> It's not functionally the same.  It's not about when or if the GM decides the innocents are in danger... it's about whether that ....




The existences of retroactive compels effectively makes Fate Core a highly functional "No Myth" narrativist game, AFAICT. The text on p.74 makes no distinction between "Event" or "Decision" compels and their use in retroactive compels. It also explicitly encourages GMs to hand out Fate points rather liberally for such things; "-just look at the guidelines for event and decision compels above, and see if you can summarize what happened in the game according to those guidelines. *If you can*, award a fate point." (Fate Core, p. 74, emphasis added)



Imaro said:


> There are a few things wrong with your example above...
> 
> 1.  this isn't the situation we discussed.




No, but it demonstrates that Fate Core expects players to be proposing "Event" compels before Narrative Action is even taking place in a scene, that is, during framing. The GM proposes his first "hook" and the players suggest modifications that are effectively retroactive "event" compels. Earning FP without complicating any existing situation, but by creating one. The GMs suggestion for the opening scene (if he has one) isn't established until its effectively agreed upon at the table. Since this can also happen retroactively via retroactive compels, the framing of the scene is always available for FP mining. This means that the nature of the opposition is a viable source for Event compels. It is not, as in traditional games, merely the province of GM decision/design and beyond the players' reach.

 Consider the example text immediately below the quote I gave (Fate Core, p.239). The PC wizard Zird is in the public bath, and his _Rivals in the Collegia Arcana_ divine that it is the perfect time to catch him without his magical gear. Zird has no other established goal (this is the first scene of play) for this to complicate. The compel is completed (and the Fate point given) before any action is taken, and Zird is not required to do anything to receive said FP. He _is_ caught without his magical gear and whatnot, but that is merely flavor with no mechanical weight (the magic system he is using is conveniently on p. 275 and mentions no gear requirements.) If I understand your thinking  @_*Imaro*_  (and possibly Umbran), Zird shouldn't get the Fate points, because the GM was planning on pestering him anyway (he is a PC, after all), yet the text says he does.



Imaro said:


> 2.  this still isn't creating an actual complication for the character, all he is doing is switching one monster out for another... How does this in and      of itself complicate the situation??  (This is what is necessary, as so many have tried to explain in this thread, for a FP to be given).
> 
> 3.  Whether it's a big or little snake again doesn't matter unless it creates a tangible complication that wasn't in the situation as it stood before.




Complications to the characters life don't have to be the result of compels, they _can _just happen. Changing it to the snake makes it a viable compel on the_ snakes_ aspect:


You have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect and are  trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, you find them and an Ogre/Bandit/not-snake is threatening them. Damn your luck.

vs.

You have _Why did it have to be snakes?_ as an aspect and are  trying to rescue these people, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, you find them and a giant snake is threatening them. Damn your luck.

(If the family and _Defender_ aspect both aren't present, it might not matter, anyway, because that would remove the need to confront the snake. Simply finding a huge snake by itself, wouldn't, IMO, be enough. If the character has other motivation/need to get past the snake, we don't know that from the scenario presented.)

More to the point, there _is_ no monster to "switch out." The  character rounds the corner and voila, there it is; snake, ogre, bandit,  bandersnatch is undetermined until all the possible compels and whatnot  are shaken out and the scene framing is complete. The existence of any opponent at all is (presumably) a  bit of complication to <whatever motivation brought the character to wherever he  his and what he's doing there>. However, the fact that its a large  snake now means that it fits the "event" compel formulation for the  character. Whether the GM had planned the encounter before and modified  it, made it up on the spot, or it was suggested by the player is  irrelevant. 

To be clear, I think this kind of thing has evolved in Fate over time. The earliest versions were fairly straightforward with scene framing happening in a much more traditional manner. Some of the non-Evil Hat versions have impacted this as well. Its also not for everyone, to be sure, and Fate still works in that traditional manner. 

I'm also not 100% certain that this means that a Fate GM can't ever force a character to accept a compel when he has no FP. But forcing a particular de-protagonizing action on a character seems against the spirit, if not letter of the rules as presented in Fate Core:



> In order to compel an aspect, explain why the aspect is relevant, and then make an offer as to what the complication is. You can negotiate the terms of the complication a bit, until you reach a reasonable consensus.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Because I'm stupid? I dunno - I'm not sure what sort of answer you're expecting to this question.




No, I'm starting to think (and I could be off here...) that you already have made up your mind about how compels *should* work and that along with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] 's examples (which again I believe are slightly divergent to how the game is presented purely by reading the books) are combining to make it very hard for you to be open to the possibility that your assumptions about the game are wrong.



pemerton said:


> I was assuming that, in the fiction, it's established that there are some innocents to be rescued (because otherwise why is the PC in the scene at all?). From what? I was imagining that to be up for grabs. Maybe they've been kidnapped. Maybe they've fallen down a pit and have broken ankles.




No the original scene as @N'racc presented it is that they were being rescued from the monster... then said monster was turned into a snake further along in the conversation.  No mention of rescuing the NPC's from a pit or anything else, and I'm not sure why you assumed that when no one else in the discussion including [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] did.



pemerton said:


> I was envisaging, as the complication, that instead of being able to simply haul the NPCs out (via a strength check or whatever the relevant FATE mechanic is, or even "say yes" once they've been found, if the interesting challenge was tracking them down), the GM interposes a monster between the PC and the NPCs - and that monster is a snake because, after all, "Why does it have to be snakes?" To my mind that would be a complication - an obstacle between PC and goal that would otherwise be achieved as the resolution to the scene.




Yes and I already stated that if the character were fighting another monster and the snake showed up during the battle it would be a complication.  Even the situation above could rank as a complication but none of that was presented in the example... you're now changing the example to fit your own desires for the snake to be a complication.



pemerton said:


> I don't understand how getting a fate point for the snake being between you and the NPCs you were hoping to rescue is ignoring your trouble.




First this wasn't what the "ignoring your trouble" comment was referring to, please go back and re-read the posts... I was commenting on your "awesome" philosophy where it wouldn't be "awesome" if the character ran from the snake... Second again you don't get a FP unless the snake is complicating the situation, as originally outlined by @N'racc this is not the case.  



pemerton said:


> Presumably the GM, playing the snake, can use your aspect against you to make it harder for you to rescue the NPCs then if it were an ogre between you and them. (I don't know the mechanical details, but I'm assuming that this is how a negative aspect plays out in action resolution.) _That's_ the interesting story that results.




Yes, but you are dictating how it should or shouldn't be used against him which is a purely pemerton thing.  For some him having to run away and redeem himself or overcome his fear later would be an awesome story... in fact it's a staple of fantasy fiction.  The fact that the GM can use the snake against you (through compels, invokes, etc.) doesn't get you a FP... you only get one when this actually becomes the case. 



pemerton said:


> I personally don't see  @_*N'raac*_'s original suggestion - that the GM compels the PC to flee, and hence the NPCs get killed by the snake - as narratively all that satisfying, though I guess that would depend in part upon what had come before, and so where we were in the rising action. But if the player is out of fate points doesn't that tend to suggest that we're getting towards the climax? And resolving the climax via a GM compel strikes me as unsatisfactory. If that's what the game permits, it suggests a flaw in the design.




Why would a player being out of Fate points necessarily signal that to you?  Since there is no constraints on expenditure of Fate points that coincides with where you are in the story I think your drawing of a connection between the two is mistaken.  Just as an example, a series of bad rolls in a single scene could leave a character with no FP's.

As far as it being narratively satisfying... I could certainly see a Moby Dick like story arising from the character having allowed this gigantic snake to devour the PC's in his moment of fear and weakness.  I could see him redeeming himself by hunting the beast down at a later date or even this being the catalyst that causes him to overcome his fear of snakes (i.e. change his trouble aspect) upon reflection of what it cost him... and to me those are awesome stories... the kind you don't get if you always succeed.



pemerton said:


> It seems to me that it depends on context, doesn't it? If Ryan's PC has been framed into a scene at the bathhouse, and is currently resolving that scene, and then the Collegia brute squad suddenly turn up, that strikes me as a complication that (if I'm getting event compels right) warrants a fate point.




Yes but that is not what happened...



pemerton said:


> In the example you give, the GM has already made it clear (and not just in her head - in actual play) that Ryan is being framed into a Collegia brute squad scene. So the complication is "no gear".




Yes and our example framed the character into a scene where a monster was already threatening the NPC's...



pemerton said:


> Applying this to N'raac's example, then, we're being asked to think about a situation in which the GM frames the PC into a scene where s/he has to rescue some NPCs from a snake, _and_ the GM (presumably) knows that player has not fate points left, _and_ the GM then uses a compel to have the PC flee the scene and thereby fail in his/her goals in the scene. Even if the rules of the game allow for that - and as I don't know them very well I have to concede that they might - how does that possibly look like good GMing? To me it seems terrible - what's the point of framing the PC into a scene only to then resolve it, without the player ever engaging the action resolution mechanics, via a compel?




Because PC's do actually fail, because it could add to the story, as I outlined above in numerous ways.  Because failure is sometimes part of the trouble aspect... because the player may be about to face something else that he will need the FP's for, and so on... I don't think it's bad GM'ing at all but then I suspect we have pretty big differences in how we look at failure in our games.



pemerton said:


> I also wonder - is there anything (rule or guideline) which discusses the use of compels to bring a scene to an end? The basic idea seems to be that it's about complicating scenes rather than terminating them.




Here's what it says about scenes...

A scene is a unit of game time lasting anywhere from a few minutes to a half hour or more, during which the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario...


Whenever you’re trying to come up with ideas for what should happen in a scene, you should think about the basic ideas of Fate that were talked about in The Basics—competence, proactivity, and drama.
In other words, ask yourself if your scene is doing at least one of the following things:


Giving your PCs the chance to show off what they’re good at, whether by going up against people who don’t hold a candle to them or by holding their own against worthy opponents.
Giving your PCs the chance to do something you can describe with a simple action verb. “Trying to find out information” is too muddy, for example. “Breaking into the mayor’s office” is actionable and specific. Not that it has to be physical—“convince the snitch to talk” is also a clear action.
*Creating some kind of difficult choice or complication for the PCs. Your best tool to do this with is a compel, but if the situation is problematic enough, you might not need one.*

Emphasis mine... This scene clearly meets the last requirement and since a scene only needs to meet one of these goals, by the book a scene like this is valid.  We have created a difficult complication for the PC that could/would (in the hands of a good GM & player) both come back to haunt the player and possibly cause character growth or development.  Always succeeding is not a requirement for a scene.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> Snip...





Please o read the example I provided to @_*pemerton*_ where a character is threatened by the Collegia but doesn;t get a FP until the complication of him not having his magical instruments arises... it pretty much supports everything I, and @_*Umbran*_ have been saying about situations and compels up to this point... unless of course like pemerton, you assumed the NPC's were in a pit with a broken foot or something along those lines... in which case my reply is that the scene wasn't set up like that.

EDIT:  Here's the post so you don't have to go looking for it...

Zird has *Rivals in the Collegia Arcana, which implies that some or many of them are scheming against him constantly. Because of that, a series of concentrated assassination attempts from someone or several people who know how to get past all his magical defenses would probably be a big problem for him.

The scene set up... 

An Arcane Conspiracy: The Opening Scene
Amanda mulls over her questions and thinks about what she wants as her opening scene. A couple of obvious suggestions come to mind:



Enforcers from the Collegia show up at Zird’s door and serve him papers, demanding he come with them.
Cynere receives the contract and job details from a mysterious employer, and must decide whether or not to sign.

She decides to go with the latter scene, because she figures that if Cynere rebuffs the contract and then finds out that Zird’s going to the Collegia anyway, it might create a fun scene where she tries to get the mysterious employer to reconsider. And even if she sticks to her guns, it’ll establish whether or not they’ll have to deal with any drama on the way there, as the mysterious employer’s lackeys harass them on the way.
That doesn’t mean she’s going to just toss the scene with Zird aside—she’s just going to save it for a follow-up to the first scene.

Now here is the suggestion from a player that garners him a Fate point...

Let’s look at our example scenes above. The prompts don’t specify where the PCs are when they get confronted with their first choices. So, Amanda might start the session by asking Ryan, “Where exactly is Zird when the brute squad from the Collegia comes looking for him?”
Now, even if Ryan just replies with “in his sanctuary,” you’ve solicited his participation and helped him set the scene. But Ryan is awesome, so what he says instead is, “Oh, probably at the public baths, soaking after a long day of research.”
“Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that yourRivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear, right?”
Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

Now according to your logic and @Ratskinner 's view... Ryan should get a Fate point anytime someone from the collegia comes looking for him... but that's not a complication. Even Ryan suggesting the bath house isn't in and of itself a complication both of these are just scenery. It's only when Ryan is in that scene where they show up and looses access to his magical gear (i.e. a complication above and beyond his enemies just showing up) that Ryan gets the FP...



*


----------



## XunValdorl_of_Kilsek

In answer to the OP:

It improves "my" gaming experience.


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> Please o read the example I provided to @_*pemerton*_ where a character is threatened by the Collegia but doesn;t get a FP until the complication of him not having his magical instruments arises... it pretty much supports everything I, and @_*Umbran*_ have been saying about situations and compels up to this point... unless of course like pemerton, you assumed the NPC's were in a pit with a broken foot or something along those lines... in which case my reply is that the scene wasn't set up like that.




Just read it.

Let me pose you the opposite question: Same scene as in the example from the book, but its street thugs that are unrelated to Zird's aspects at all. Does Zird get the Fate Point?


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> Applying this to N'raac's example, then, we're being asked to think about a situation in which the GM frames the PC into a scene where s/he has to rescue some NPCs from a snake, _and_ the GM (presumably) knows that player has not fate points left, _and_ the GM then uses a compel to have the PC flee the scene and thereby fail in his/her goals in the scene. Even if the rules of the game allow for that - and as I don't know them very well I have to concede that they might - how does that possibly look like good GMing? To me it seems terrible - what's the point of framing the PC into a scene only to then resolve it, without the player ever engaging the action resolution mechanics, via a compel?




Agreed, that's why my first impression was one of unfamiliarity with the game. That is, such a thing might happen, but its very clumsy vis-a-vis Fate's typical functioning. 



pemerton said:


> I also wonder - is there anything (rule or guideline) which discusses the use of compels to bring a scene to an end? The basic idea seems to be that it's about complicating scenes rather than terminating them.




The stated goal of a scene is "the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario." The advice a few pages later is to end the scene as soon as that's resolved. I definitely agree that complicating scenes (or framing them in interesting ways) is the primary purpose of the compel mechanic. There is no particular advice about using compels to resolve such a thing. As above, I'd say its bad form...that is, it creates a "non-scene" rather than scene, for the DM to use it as presented in the scenario. However, I could envision a situation where the GM uses compels on situational aspects (that is, aspects attached to the scene, location, setting, etc.) especially ones that have been created during the course of the scene like: _The fire is spreading!_ to compel the characters to leave a building without attaining their goal.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> Just read it.
> 
> Let me pose you the opposite question: Same scene as in the example from the book, but its street thugs that are unrelated to Zird's aspects at all. Does Zird get the Fate Point?




Well my thoughts would be that the DM wouldn't be able to compel Zird's aspect since it doesn't concern street thugs.  Thus he wouldn't be able to offer him a point for a complication concerning a situation where they show up because no aspect can be compelled concerning them.    

In other words Zird doesn't tend to get in seriously complicated situations with street thugs because he doesn't have an aspect concerning them... His interactions with the Collegia however always seems to be a little more complicated, this is because his aspect allows them to be compelled and made more complicated by the GM on a meta-game level.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> The stated goal of a scene is "the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario." The advice a few pages later is to end the scene as soon as that's resolved. I definitely agree that complicating scenes (or framing them in interesting ways) is the primary purpose of the compel mechanic. There is no particular advice about using compels to resolve such a thing. As above, I'd say its bad form...that is, it creates a "non-scene" rather than scene, for the DM to use it as presented in the scenario. However, I could envision a situation where the GM uses compels on situational aspects (that is, aspects attached to the scene, location, setting, etc.) especially ones that have been created during the course of the scene like: _The fire is spreading!_ to compel the characters to leave a building without attaining their goal.




This is not the *only* goal of a scene, I just listed the 3 purposes of a scene earlier.  By leaving out the other two you give a false perception of all the functions that a scene can be used for.


EDIT: Again here is the relevant info from a post I addressed to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

Whenever you’re trying to come up with ideas for what should happen in a scene, you should think about the basic ideas of Fate that were talked about in The Basics—competence, proactivity, and drama.
In other words, ask yourself if your scene is doing at least one of the following things:


Giving your PCs the chance to show off what they’re good at, whether by going up against people who don’t hold a candle to them or by holding their own against worthy opponents.
Giving your PCs the chance to do something you can describe with a simple action verb. “Trying to find out information” is too muddy, for example. “Breaking into the mayor’s office” is actionable and specific. Not that it has to be physical—“convince the snitch to talk” is also a clear action.
*Creating some kind of difficult choice or complication for the PCs. Your best tool to do this with is a compel, but if the situation is problematic enough, you might not need one.*

Emphasis mine... This scene clearly meets the last requirement and since a scene only needs to meet one of these goals, by the book a scene like this is valid. We have created a difficult complication for the PC that could/would (in the hands of a good GM & player) both come back to haunt the player and possibly cause character growth or development. Always succeeding is not a requirement for a scene.


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> This is not the *only* goal of a scene, I just listed the 3 purposes of a scene earlier.  By leaving out the other two you give a false perception of all the functions that a scene can be used for.




Fate Core, p. 240


> *
> Defining Scenes*
> A scene is a unit of game time lasting anywhere from a few minutes to a half hour or more, during which the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario.




Seems pretty clear to me. The advice you quoted is about creating scenes and what sorts of things the GM should look for in framing them. It is giving more specification to the definition above. I don't see them as contradictory, nor is the part you emphasized to  @_*pemerton*_  a matter of dispute. I guess I'm a little confused by this response.

EDIT: Oh wait, I think I might understand now, but maybe not:

I characterized the snake scenario as presented as a bit of a "non-scene". Are you disagreeing with that on that grounds that compels are used to force hard choices?


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> Well my thoughts would be that the DM wouldn't be able to compel Zird's aspect since it doesn't concern street thugs.  Thus he wouldn't be able to offer him a point for a complication concerning a situation where they show up because no aspect can be compelled concerning them.
> 
> In other words Zird doesn't tend to get in seriously complicated situations with street thugs because he doesn't have an aspect concerning them... His interactions with the Collegia however always seems to be a little more complicated, this is because his aspect allows them to be compelled and made more complicated by the GM on a meta-game level.




So its the same situation, the same complication...yet the opponent taking advantage of them is different, and this is the critical difference that earns a Fate point. Yes?


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> So its the same situation, the same complication...yet the opponent taking advantage of them is different, and this is the critical difference that earns a Fate point. Yes?




No...How is it the same situation?  The enemies being there is the set-up or situation... irregardless of what enemies happen to be in the scene...  

This is where the compel and exchange of a FP actually take place...

“Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that *yourRivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear,* right?”
Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

Emphasis mine... this is the complication from the compel that earns a fate point... not the fact that the Collegia Arcana shows up but the fact that the aspect was compeled to create the complication that Zird has none of his magical gear with him when he is confronted by them due to their divinatory powers... this is above and beyond just having a confrontation with them. 

What couldn't happen is the GM, using that same aspect, compel the player of Zird to confront the thugs without his magical gear... so no compel and no fate point.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> EDIT: Oh wait, I think I might understand now, but maybe not:
> 
> I characterized the snake scenario as presented as a bit of a "non-scene". Are you disagreeing with that on that grounds that compels are used to force hard choices?




 Disagreeing because that scene both creates drama and forces a hard complication on the player...  It may not be a scene you personally would enjoy, but I think it's a scene nonetheless.


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> Disagreeing because that scene both creates drama and forces a hard complication on the player...  It may not be a scene you personally would enjoy, but I think it's a scene nonetheless.




I honestly couldn't say from the brief description of the scenario whether it does those things or not, lack of context.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> I honestly couldn't say from the brief description of the scenario whether it does those things or not, lack of context.




So why judge it a non-scene instead of stating that??


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> No...How is it the same situation?  The enemies being there is the set-up or situation... irregardless of what enemies happen to be in the scene...
> 
> This is where the compel and exchange of a FP actually take place...
> 
> “Perfect!” says Amanda, and holds out a fate point. “So, it’d make sense that *yourRivals in the Collegia Arcana would have divined precisely the right time to catch you away from all your magical implements and gear,* right?”
> Ryan grins and takes the fate point. “Yeah, that sounds about right.”
> 
> Emphasis mine... this is the complication from the compel that earns a fate point... not the fact that the Collegia Arcana shows up but the fact that the aspect was compeled to create the complication that Zird has none of his magical gear with him when he is confronted by them due to their divinatory powers... this is above and beyond just having a confrontation with them.
> 
> What couldn't happen is the GM, using that same aspect, compel the player of Zird to confront the thugs without his magical gear... so no compel and no fate point.




Keeping in mind that Zird's sheet says nothing about any gear, what's your response to the following:

Inspired by recent headlines, the GM wants to introduce a storyline about local gangs attacking civilians. "Where does Zird go to relax after a long day at the Collegia Lab?" 
"hmm....the public baths!"
"Okay, you're there and soaking in the tub without your gear, when a group of teenage thugs bursts into the room brandishing knives and coming for you!"


----------



## Ratskinner

Imaro said:


> So why judge it a non-scene instead of stating that??




...because, the lack of it makes is non-scene? I mean, taken as presented I really don't know if this is in the middle of some other scene, part of the setup for another scene, or what. _Did_ anything important to advance the scenario happen? I have no idea. I mean, its not as if its feelings are hurt.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> It's fine that you prefer a different approach to campaign backstory set up than me. That still doesn't make the backstory hidden, if in fact it's all out in the open before play starts!




Too bad it wasn’t out in the open to facilitate character conception



pemerton said:


> I mostly GM, and I am not interested in restricting or permitting my players' action declarations.




A key difference here seems to be your view that this is the GM judging the character, rather than the GM determining an NPC’s judgment, be that his deity or the LG empowering force which provides a Paladin his powers.  I’m not sure why you feel such difficulty segregating your interpretation from that of an NPC in this regard, but clearly could divorce your own judgment from that of an NPC’s when:



pemerton said:


> I've described an actual play episode above in which a PC did summarily executve some unconscious hobgoblin warriors, and I described how I dealt with that: I expressed my shock (as did the other players), and within the game, I had most of the NPCs present in the situation express support for what the PC did.






pemerton said:


> I would stop using alignment rules to the hypothetical doesn't come up. Also, if I didn't want the issue of "what to do with the orc babies" to come up at all, I wouldn't place any orc babies in the scenario.




So we invade the Orc tribe’s home and there are no young?  Do they reproduce by cloning?



pemerton said:


> Lancelot is actually an interesting example: in one of the Chretien de Troyes stories Lancelot kills half-a-dozen of his fellow knights while escaping from Gawain, who is pursuing him for his wrongdoing with Guinevere. I think to modern sensibilities this would seem quite outrageous, but there is no suggestion in the work that Lancelot does the wrong thing with such killings. Attitudes to death, including who is a permissible target of lethal violence - and particularly role-basd attitues (eg by being knights they have chosen to take the risk of being killed in interpersonal violence, and so can have no complaint if they are killed) - are variable across times and places.




But our games are not scattered over times and places.  They exist, typically, in one AD&D world. So, in the GM defining the mores of that world, he would define where killing sits in the views of the powers dictating the various alignments.



pemerton said:


> Contemporary English-speaking moral philosophy has a very sophisticated framework and vocabulary. I'm a professional participant in this debate, and am quite familiar with the technicalities of it.




I suspect most lawyers can rip apart the legal system in any game setting, and anyone with a grasp of the fundamentals of economics can shred the D&D economy.  The geography and climate of most game worlds will not stand up to scrutiny by an expert in the field, and the sociological implications of races that live hundreds or thousands of years are not thought out in any game world I am aware of. So why would it be surprising that the game world will not have an ethical framework which would be consistent with hundreds of years of philosophical debate which has yet to reach anything approaching a consensus?

So put the real aside – it is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no need to determine whether Jefferson and Hamilton and their friends were chaotic (because favouring individual rights) or lawful (because believing that the rule of law was utterly crucial for securing such rights); whether FDR was lawful (because running a social and economic programme - the New Deal - based on ideas of solidarity and common welfare) or chaotic (because prepared to threaten the rule of law in order to get his programme through) in order to play or run the game.  That determination would be made in light of the absolute powers of Law and Chaos in this game world.

If a character generally seeks to enhance the well being of society, using whatever means seem best able to achieve that goal at each step along the way, that sounds like NG to me.  May we please now move on from real world analysis?



Feldspar said:


> Heh, under that approach then a paladin who commits an evil act for some greater good has in fact committed a neutral act and is safe from the wrath of their diety.




Emphasis added.  If he has committed an evil act, we’re done. His alignment may not change – it was one, single evil act.  Now, I think we have to judge this in the framework of the game system.  “Respect for life” is not “killing a foe”, and I don’t see anyone arguing that Paladins can never kill.  So it must be possible for an act to have both good and evil components, and not be an evil act.



pemerton said:


> Applying this to N'raac's example, then, we're being asked to think about a situation in which the GM frames the PC into a scene where s/he has to rescue some NPCs from a snake, _and_ the GM (presumably) knows that player has not fate points left, _and_ the GM then uses a compel to have the PC flee the scene and thereby fail in his/her goals in the scene. Even if the rules of the game allow for that - and as I don't know them very well I have to concede that they might - how does that possibly look like good GMing? To me it seems terrible - what's the point of framing the PC into a scene only to then resolve it, without the player ever engaging the action resolution mechanics, via a compel?




A number of people have weighed in suggesting it is the result under the game system, and you now seem prepared to accept that the game may well allow for this.  I suggest that your analysis indicates agreement that Fate points can carry problems similar to alignment if the GM chooses to use them in a poor manner.  The difference is that you seem unable to envision the use of alignment in a positive manner, I suspect because your perspective is coloured by bad experiences in the past.

Does your model imply there may never be complications unless the player has a Fate point to invalidate them? Well, I guess in your game one should use up Fate points ASAP as nothing bad can happen once you run out.



Ratskinner said:


> Agreed, that's why my first impression was one of unfamiliarity with the game. That is, such a thing might happen, but its very clumsy vis-a-vis Fate's typical functioning.




The negative alignment examples I see posited regularly by detractors of alignment seem equally clumsy to me.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> ...because, the lack of it makes is non-scene? I mean, taken as presented I really don't know if this is in the middle of some other scene, part of the setup for another scene, or what. _Did_ anything important to advance the scenario happen? I have no idea. I mean, its not as if its feelings are hurt.





If it accomplishes one of those 3 things I listed it is considered a scene per the Fate Core rules... Now whether you personally accept it as such is a totally different matter.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Whereas my view is that the (practically inevitable) debates over whether someone is L or C or N show that the problems are as bad in practice as they are in theory.
> 
> !




Perhaps for you, these debates are inevitable. I never really encounter them when I play.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> But debates about players having more control over the shared fiction only shows problems in theory with no reason to believe they're bad in practice?



Hey, I'm not saying anyone who doesn't want to should play Fate.

In practice, I imagine any given table who enjoys playing Fate settles down into some sort of relatively stable unerstanding of what counts as "complication".

I assume that tables who enjoys using alignment do likewise with who is "lawful" and who "chaotic".

A diffrence, I think, is that probalby those who don't want to work through what counts as a complication triggered by an aspect probably just don't play Fate. Whereas I believe that there are plenty of tables who want to play D&D, but don't enjoy alignment. And at least in some versions of D&D (4e, B/X, 1st ed AD&D are the ones I'm confident in talking about) alignment is pretty easily dropped without disrupting other elements of the game, at least for certain playstyles.



Cadence said:


> In any case, like every game element, the alignment rules are just a projection of something very complicated in the real world down to a game element that seems manageable and useful to most people.  If people have all kinds of house rules about initiative and hit points and healing and etc...  I don't see any reason alignment needs to be any more sacrosanct.



Useful to some people, sure. Useful to _most_ people, I don't know - alignment seems to be up there with experience points (and I think ahead of initiateive and healing) for being ignored or house-ruled.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> The stated goal of a scene is "the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario." The advice a few pages later is to end the scene as soon as that's resolved. I definitely agree that complicating scenes (or framing them in interesting ways) is the primary purpose of the compel mechanic.



Once again that all makes sense to me.



Imaro said:


> Here's what it says about scenes...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Creating some kind of difficult choice or complication for the PCs. Your best tool to do this with is a compel, but if the situation is problematic enough, you might not need one.





Imaro said:


> If it accomplishes one of those 3 things I listed



My understanding of the examle was that the PC arrives on the scene ready to rescue the innocents from whatever is threatening, sees that they're threatened by a giant snake, and (due to the compel) runs away.

I don't see the difficult choice there - the player, to me, doesn't seem to have had a choice.

I don't really see the complication, either, unless you treat failure as a limiting case of complication.

While I'm not that familiar with Fate, I am fairly familiar with Marvel Heroic RP. In that system, the mechanical analogue of the "compel" would be the imposition of a "Trembling with fear" or "Running away" complication on the PC; but the action resolution mechanics in MHRP are such that a complication of that sort won't end the scene unless it reaches a certain degree of mechanical severity. Which seems, to me at least, an important difference from the scene-ending compel.

My feeling is that [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] was thinking along similar lines to me when he suggested that the consequence of the snake acting against the player would be some sort of negative aspect imposed by the snake: that adversely affects that players' prospects of action resolution within the scene, but isn't in and of itself scene-ending.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> A key difference here seems to be your view that this is the GM judging the character, rather than the GM determining an NPC’s judgment
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The negative alignment examples I see posited regularly by detractors of alignment seem equally clumsy to me.



What's clumsy about not using alignment, and about not wanting to have a game mechanic which obliges me to decide whether near-omnipotent, near-omniscient exemplars of goodness agree with what the players are having their PCs do?

You obviously think I'm making a mistake in not using alignment in my games. What is the mistake?


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> What's clumsy about not using alignment, and about not wanting to have a game mechanic which obliges me to decide whether near-omnipotent, near-omniscient exemplars of goodness agree with what the players are having their PCs do?
> 
> You obviously think I'm making a mistake in not using alignment in my games. What is the mistake?




I can't think of any problems with either wanting to make it so that the player interprets their own alignment if it works for a table, or scrapping alignment and much of its accompaniments altogether.   Of course I also don't have any problem with it being used  in the ways I've always seen it done.  :::shrugs::

On the other hand, I can see plenty of flaws in your view on what the right way to have fun is.     <- Joke!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Useful to some people, sure. Useful to _most_ people, I don't know - alignment seems to be up there with experience points (and I think ahead of initiateive and healing) for being ignored or house-ruled.




Wait, since when has XP really been all that controversial? (or initiative for that matter?).


----------



## Jacob Marley

Bedrockgames said:


> Wait, since when has XP really been all that controversial? (or initiative for that matter?).




Presumably he is referring to threads like this, and the frequent number of posters who state that they have given up using experience in favor of leveling characters at milestones, for pacing reasons, or after X number of sessions. The initiative debate is one I have never witnessed, though.


----------



## Umbran

Ratskinner said:


> No, but it demonstrates that Fate Core expects players to be proposing "Event" compels before Narrative Action is even taking place in a scene, that is, during framing.




Well, there's "expects" as in "I am prepared for this to happen" and there expects as in, "this is really central to function, and failing to do so is a problem".  The situation for the game is more the former than the latter.

Players can suggest compels.  Period.  The game tries its best to not get in the way of that, so it allows them to come just at framing, during the scene, or retroactively.  If characters are going to do cool stuff, the Fate points must flow. So, stand back and give folks opportunities.  



> The GM proposes his first "hook" and the players suggest modifications that are effectively retroactive "event" compels.




In practice, in my experience, doesn't happen much.  The game allows for it, but the players generally look to the GM to frame the scene, in fairly traditional manner.



> Complications to the characters life don't have to be the result of compels, they _can _just happen. Changing it to the snake makes it a viable compel on the_ snakes_ aspect:




Correct.  You may get a Fate point not just when your situation gets more complicated, but when it does so in a manner that is thematically appropriate for the character, specifically.  Which is to say, is a complication in line with your specific aspects.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Wait, since when has XP really been all that controversial? (or initiative for that matter?).



 [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION] is right about XP - a lot of people don't use them, as far as I can see, and "level when it seems right" is a supported option in the 4e DMG.

On initiative, I think there's less variation, but I certainly see posts where people have strong views about whether classic D&D-style "side vs side" initiative is better or worse than 3E and 4e-style "turn by turn" initiative.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Joke!



I think we need a many page thread on whether or not your preference is joke-telling is acceptable. Preferably with a poll!


----------



## S'mon

The lack of mechanically-enforced Alignment in my 4e game seems to have had a positive effec on the game. People seem more comfortable playing genuinely heroic characters when there's no Alignment monitor breathing down their neck. Moral questions "How far will you go? Whay will you do?" bcome meaningful when there is no checkbox 'right answer'.

I find the Classic D&D Law/Neutrality/Chaos Alignment system works great, but I've never seen ninefold alignment work well in play. For my new Pathfinder game I'm planning to de-emphasise the knowability of alignment, only very strongly aligned characters will radiate Law/Evil/Good/Chaos, and I'm not planning to harrass the Paladin over whether her actions conform precisely to my or Paizo's notion of 
LG -and I suspect we may have quite different notions anyway. 

Incidentally, I've been reading a lot recently about the development of Western society in terms of the loosening of kinship networks through outbreeding - with the end of cousin marriage in 
much of Europe ca AD 700-900 (mostly through the efforts of the Catholic church), tribes & clans were replaced by nuclear families, guilds, manorialism, and eventually nation states.   It strikes me that the D&D concept of Good (at least post-1e) is very closely embedded in this relatively recent Western kinship structure - altruism to relatives (family, clan) is merely Neutral, while Good is defined as universal altruism. This makes using D&D Alignment to play in any society outside of the West ca 
900 AD+ a poor fit. The Alignment system is constantly telling you (the PC) that your society's 
moral norms are objectively wrong!

edit: Can't edit the top lines due to crappy interface, *grr*


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> I've been reading a lot recently about the development of Western society in terms of the loosening of kinship networks through outbreeding - with the end of cousin marriage in
> much of Europe ca AD 700-900 (mostly through the efforts of the Catholic church), tribes & clans were replaced by nuclear families, guilds, manorialism, and eventually nation states.   It strikes me that the D&D concept of Good (at least post-1e) is very closely embedded in this relatively recent Western kinship structure - altruism to relatives (family, clan) is merely Neutral, while Good is defined as universal altruism. This makes using D&D Alignment to play in any society outside of the West ca
> 900 AD+ a poor fit. The Alignment system is constantly telling you (the PC) that your society's
> moral norms are objectively wrong!



I agree that D&D alignment doesn't fit with the social structures and outlook of the medieval worlds we're meant to be emulating. Inlcuding paladins - because the detachability of good from law (and vice versa) in 9 point alignment means that a paladin's convictions about honour and duty make no sense. If a paladin _knows_, objectively, that a person can be good while being chaotic, or can be fully lawful yet also fully evil, then the attachement to the code becomes a mere fetish. Which in my view is silly, and makes something of a mockery of the archetype.


----------



## Hussar

An Anecdote - Where the lightbulb came on when I really stopped using alignment.

Some years ago, in a 3e game, I had a new (well, new to the group) player join the campaign.  He created his character and i was looking it over and noticed that he had picked Chaotic Neutral for his character.  

Me:  Why is this character CN?
Player:  I want to be a free spirit and do whatever I want.

To be honest, i wasn't thrilled with this.  In the past, whenever I'd seen a player come with a CN character it was often seen as a license to be a disruptive player.  "I'm not being a jerk, I'm just playing my character - he's supposed to be this way".  But, I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt and didn't make a fuss about it.

So, time passes, four, five levels and twenty or thirty sessions later, I'm talking with the player about his character.

Me:  Your character really isn't CN.  
Player (bristling):  Yes he is.  He's totally CN.
Me:  Well, no.  I don't think so.  Your character is totally dependable, never acts impulsively.  He plans pretty far in advance and frequently places the group's goals and welfare ahead of himself.  He's Lawful at least, and I'd peg him as Lawful Good.
The player reacted something like this:

[video=youtube_share;x9H1ufqMBg4]http://youtu.be/x9H1ufqMBg4[/video]

Player:  My character is CN so he can do whatever he wants.  He wants to do what he's doing.

So, I stepped back a second and read between the lines.  It wasn't that he was trying to do an end run or anything like that.  What he was doing was putting up a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on his character.  He'd had DM's in the past who used alignment as a crowbar to force him to act in particular ways and he absolutely did not want that.

And, that's when the light went off.  I realised that I actually completely agreed with his point of view.  I've seen DM's over the years do exactly what's been advocated several times in this thread - use alignment to influence or force behaviour from the players.  And I always hated it.  Now, I don't use alignment at all and it has done nothing but make the game better.  Removing the Damocles Sword of alignment from over the heads of the players is an excellent way to allow those players to see that you trust their ability to portray their character.  And that leads to better, more engaged players who no longer need to play "Read the DM's mind" games in portraying their own characters.

Will this be the same for everyone?  No, obviously not.  But, I know that I certainly won't be adding alignment back into D&D anytime soon.  It's, IMO, a completely unnecessary mechanic that does nothing but cause arguments and fights at the table and adds nothing of value.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> @_*Jacob Marley*_ is right about XP - a lot of people don't use them, as far as I can see, and "level when it seems right" is a supported option in the 4e DMG.
> 
> s ve.




I have certainly met the occassional person who doesn'y use experience or uses it differently, but they are quite in the minority, and it has never been the subject of debate that i have seen (pretty much every major rpg out there uses experience of some kind, whereas alignment is not nearly so universal).


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> What's clumsy about not using alignment, and about not wanting to have a game mechanic which obliges me to decide whether near-omnipotent, near-omniscient exemplars of goodness agree with what the players are having their PCs do?




Nothing.  My comment on clumsy implementation is aimed at those who feel alignment must necessarily go wrong.  I find those anecdotes where the GM uses alignment to straightjacket the choices of the PCs indicates clumsy usage of the rules, not an inherent flaw in the rules themselves, just as it is suggested that use of "Why did it have to be snakes" to force a character to flee the scene is suggested to be poor usage of those rules.

That said, if a character is granted powers by some near-omnipotent and near-omniscient force in order to advance his objectives, I would expect maintaining those powers without attention to that force's objectives to be problematic at best.

And you are still holding my murderous servant of the Raven Queen is an inappropriate character, so you are still deciding whether that near-omnipotent, near-omniscient entity agrees or disagrees with the values of my character.  You are largely doing this before play, but I suspect my character having an epiphany a few weeks into the game where he realizes proper devotion to the Raven Queen requires sending as many living people as possible to her Realm of the Dead would not be well received, despite the consistent assertion that the player can play his character ay way desired, and the GM will not judge the consistency of his values with those of a patron deity, or anyone else.



Cadence said:


> I can't think of any problems with either wanting to make it so that the player interprets their own alignment if it works for a table, or scrapping alignment and much of its accompaniments altogether.   Of course I also don't have any problem with it being used  in the ways I've always seen it done.  :::shrugs::




Pretty much my point.  I don't see huge problems caused by its removal (the challenges of removal of alignment-based spells and alignment-based abilities can be resolved).  But I see no reason to remove it when the flaws and issues are, in my experience, vastly overstated.



Bedrockgames said:


> I have certainly met the occassional person who doesn'y use experience or uses it differently, but they are quite in the minority, and it has never been the subject of debate that i have seen (pretty much every major rpg out there uses experience of some kind, whereas alignment is not nearly so universal).




I have seen a lot more support for leveling at the speed of plot in recent years.  I think most games use some system for character advancement and improvement, many calling it "experience points", but there is a wide variety of different implementations other than "leveling up".  Most changes I see in the D&D model change the determination of timing of leveling up, and not the mechanic itself.


----------



## Bedrockgames

N'raac said:


> I have seen a lot more support for leveling at the speed of plot in recent years.  I think most games use some system for character advancement and improvement, many calling it "experience points", but there is a wide variety of different implementations other than "leveling up".  Most changes I see in the D&D model change the determination of timing of leveling up, and not the mechanic itself.




I haven't seen this very much. I see most major games using an xp mechanic (not necessarily levels, which are strongly identified with D&D) but an xp reward system. In D&D, i have encountered folks who simplify leveling or alter it, but only rarely do I see this. I think for most players, XP is a pretty core part of the D&D experience and and important aspect of play (the desire for xp in many ways drives the game forward). I am not saying it is inst out there, but i dont think remval of xp is seriiously being debated, and I do not think it is as subject to debate as say alignment. Same with initiative. There have been different methods, and by 2E you have lots of optional approaches, but initiative is a standard feature of most rpgs. XP is also a pretty standard rog mechanic. Alignment isn't. Its part of D&D, but lots if other big rpgs dont use anything like it. So while i dont think the issues with alignment are as inevitable as people say, and i think removing it from D&D for next would be a huge mistake, i do at least see it has its detractors. Not really encountering much opposition to XP or initiative though.


----------



## Imaro

Ratskinner said:


> Keeping in mind that Zird's sheet says nothing about any gear,




From the Fate corebook...

Skills and Gear
Some of the skills, like Shoot and Crafts, imply the need for gear. *We
presume by default that if you have a skill, you also have the tools
you need to use it, and that the effectiveness of those tools is built
into the skill result.* If you want to make gear special, you’ll want to
look at the Extras chapter.

This answers the question of Zird's gear as his magic is based on the Lore skill.  It also infers that if a character is purposefully lacking the gear he needs, then his skills will be less effective.  Once the complication of Zird's gear being missing is established... different GM's can handle the decreased effectiveness of his lore skill in different ways.





Ratskinner said:


> what's your response to the following:
> 
> Inspired by recent headlines, the GM wants to introduce a storyline about local gangs attacking civilians. "Where does Zird go to relax after a long day at the Collegia Lab?"
> "hmm....the public baths!"
> "Okay, you're there and soaking in the tub without your gear, when a group of teenage thugs bursts into the room brandishing knives and coming for you!"




My reaction would be that the GM is breaking the fundamental assumptions of the game since the default is that characters always have the necessary gear to use their skills and this is factored into their total score.  So I would expect the GM, to find a way to make this a compel, or find some other way to give the player a FP for doing this to them.  The only way this wouldn't be an issue is if the GM still allowed the player to use his skills without any type of mechanical disadvantage since, at that point for all intents and purposes, it is just window dressing.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Once again that all makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> My understanding of the examle was that the PC arrives on the scene ready to rescue the innocents from whatever is threatening, sees that they're threatened by a giant snake, and (due to the compel) runs away.
> 
> I don't see the difficult choice there - the player, to me, doesn't seem to have had a choice.
> 
> I don't really see the complication, either, unless you treat failure as a limiting case of complication.




How is having to run from a giant snake when you came to rescue people from it not a complication.  the fact that you don't like the complication is evident, because you are arguing against the situation in general... but you not liking it doesn't make it any less of a complication.



pemerton said:


> While I'm not that familiar with Fate, I am fairly familiar with Marvel Heroic RP. In that system, the mechanical analogue of the "compel" would be the imposition of a "Trembling with fear" or "Running away" complication on the PC; but the action resolution mechanics in MHRP are such that a complication of that sort won't end the scene unless it reaches a certain degree of mechanical severity. Which seems, to me at least, an important difference from the scene-ending compel.




It is different in that a compel doesn't need to be resolved mechanically since usually (Unless you are going nova with FP's or have had a run of bad luck) you can just say no thanks and not deal with it.  But the fact that you don't have a FP left is what allows for a scene ending compel.  In fact the GM may be doing you a favor by having you flee, when you have no FP's left and are trying to face off against something that could probably beat you.



pemerton said:


> My feeling is that @_*Ratskinner*_ was thinking along similar lines to me when he suggested that the consequence of the snake acting against the player would be some sort of negative aspect imposed by the snake: that adversely affects that players' prospects of action resolution within the scene, but isn't in and of itself scene-ending.




That wouldn't be a compel though, that would be having your "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect invoked by the snake during the conflict which the GM could also have done (though the player wouldn't get his FP until the end of the scene).


----------



## N'raac

Bedrockgames said:


> I haven't seen this very much. I see most major games using an xp mechanic (not necessarily levels, which are strongly identified with D&D) but an xp reward system. In D&D, i have encountered folks who simplify leveling or alter it, but only rarely do I see this. I think for most players, XP is a pretty core part of the D&D experience and and important aspect of play (the desire for xp in many ways drives the game forward). I am not saying it is inst out there, but i dont think remval of xp is seriiously being debated, and I do not think it is as subject to debate as say alignment. Same with initiative. There have been different methods, and by 2E you have lots of optional approaches, but initiative is a standard feature of most rpgs. XP is also a pretty standard rog mechanic. Alignment isn't. Its part of D&D, but lots if other big rpgs dont use anything like it. So while i dont think the issues with alignment are as inevitable as people say, and i think removing it from D&D for next would be a huge mistake, i do at least see it has its detractors. Not really encountering much opposition to XP or initiative though.




I don't see xp as a controversial inclusion.  The most common complaint I see is the "grind" where numerous encounters of dubious relevancy occur to provide needed xp, but the "story award" tens to be used to smooth that out.  I think the  biggest difference between these other areas and alignment is that no one argues that some means of character advancement, initiative, etc. would not be needed, only whether the current choice is the best choice.  By contrast, replacements or revisions to alignment tend not to be suggested.

The suggested replacements (Aspects on this thread) seem no less susceptible to disagreements and/or bad GMing.  Someone noted a while back that many games that lack such "personality/morality systems" typically assume PC's will be on one side (Superhero games; monster hunting games) and aren't written for characters following the "other side" at all.  

This seems a lot like "no system in play but I will vet the characters up front for consistency with the game world and group consensus", not to remove all likely character disagreements but certainly to limit them to permit the game to go on with the characters in question.  Many of those opposed to alignment on this thread have indicated a preference for a group character creation model which ensures the characters have common goals and objectives to tie them together, much like many GM's using alignments restrict the choices to attain a compatible group of characters.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> pretty much every major rpg out there uses experience of some kind, whereas alignment is not nearly so universal



By "experience" do you mean "PC advancement"? In which case Traveller may be one of the few exception among major RPGs.

If by "experience" you mean "experience points as a way of measuring advancement" then plenty of games use other techniques (Runequest "advancement via use" being probably the best known).



Bedrockgames said:


> i dont think remval of xp is seriiously being debated, and I do not think it is as subject to debate as say alignment.



In 4e the core purpose of experience points is for encounter budgeting.

The game's default assumption is that XP will also be used to measure PC advancement, but the DMG expressly canavasses a "level when it seems right - typically after N encounters" option. I think it would be crazy for Next not to at least emulate 4e in this respect - why would the ostensibly "modular" edition be less modular than the edition it is replacing, which was the ostensibly "you can only play thrash metal with this guitar" edition?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> By "experience" do you mean "PC advancement"? In which case Traveller may be one of the few exception among major RPGs.
> 
> If by "experience" you mean "experience points as a way of measuring advancement" then plenty of games use other techniques (Runequest "advancement via use" being probably the best known).




i meant some kind of points for experience. Obviously there are exceptions, i never claimed otherwise. But most of the big rpgs on the market use them. I am not saying to use another method is bad, just that it is quite a common approach and not controversial. I happen to like BRP quite a bit actually. You see something like XP in GURPS, Savage Worlds, D&D, pathfinder, WoD, etc. Either way though, the main I was responding to was the suggestion you made that XP is a much debated feature of D&D, which i just dont see a lot of evidence for. 



> In 4e the core purpose of experience points is for encounter budgeting.
> 
> The game's default assumption is that XP will also be used to measure PC advancement, but the DMG expressly canavasses a "level when it seems right - typically after N encounters" option. I think it would be crazy for Next not to at least emulate 4e in this respect - why would the ostensibly "modular" edition be less modular than the edition it is replacing, which was the ostensibly "you can only play thrash metal with this guitar" edition?




i dont know a whole lot about the 4E XP system, but that still sounds like an xp system if sorts to me. I wouldn't object at all to offering other options in next for advancement, but i would object to removing it entirely (which is what my quoted post was saying). So not arguing it should be the "thrash guitar only" edition.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> you are still holding my murderous servant of the Raven Queen is an inappropriate character



Allow me to repeat: from my point of view _there is no such character_. You haven't read the relevant books. You're not interested in talking about backstory - indeed, when I talked about backstory (as I do with my players when PCs are created and introduced into the game) you complained about "hidden" backstory, using some strange equivalence I don't understand between "overt" and "covert". You haven't said anything about why it's important to you that your hypothetical character serve the Raven Queen rather than, say, Demogorgon or Orcus.

In other words, you're trying to score points on an internet discussion. That's fine, but don't think you can draw any inferences about how my game is run from your point-scoring attempts. If you want to know how my game is run, read my actual play posts (I've linked to plenty of them, and I'm sure Google will bring up more).



N'raac said:


> you are still deciding whether that near-omnipotent, near-omniscient entity agrees or disagrees with the values of my character.



Even to the extent that this is so - and a view as to the opinions of a shared backstory element, reached by consensus either at character creation or in the course of play, is not a view that I, the GM, have unilaterally imposed upon you - you're not being told whether or not that entity is good or evil, and hence whether or not you (and your PC) are right or wrong to depart from its views.



N'raac said:


> I suspect my character having an epiphany a few weeks into the game where he realizes proper devotion to the Raven Queen requires sending as many living people as possible to her Realm of the Dead would not be well received



That suspicion is without foundation. You don't know how it would be received - heck, I don't know how it would be received - because those few weeks of play _have not happened_. The mooted epiphany has no context, and without the context of actual play is meaningless.

In the games I've run without alignment mechanics, here are just some of the things that I remember when I reflect back on 25+ years of campaigns:

* a samurai PC, travelling to an ogre stronghold in the mountains, has treated with them, and played civilised games of dice, in order to ensure that they do not join forces with the enemies of his clan;

* one PC has sacrificed another to a dark god as part of a total betrayal of team A (for whom the PCs were working) in favour of team B (for whom the PCs then commenced working); 

* a PC has sold out his hometown to invaders in order to raise the money to repurchase his home which he had lost because he couldn't finance his drug addiction; then, having found love, has got clean of drugs; then, having lost his love to violence, has suffered a brief relapse, before rededicating himself to higher causes and persuading his world-wide order of wizards, against the views of its highest leaders, to oppose policies of racial supremacy and enslavement;

* the PCs have rebelled against the heavens to save the mortal world from the consequences of a foolish pact the gods had entered into at the beginning of the world;

* a PC, by means of impassioned argument, has persuaded an angel who was a "living gate" to the demiplane entrapping an exiled god that the only way to save the world and redeem the heavens was to permit the PC to strike her down, so that the PCs could then journey through the gate that would open about her dead body in order to learn the exiled god's secrets;

* a drow servant of chaos has worked with fellow Corellon-worshippers to oppose Lolth, because she (like the rest of the Abyss) taints the purity of chaos - change and transformation - with lies and pointless destruction;

* a servant of the gods has implanted the Eye of Vecna in his imp familiar as part of his attempts to balance various loyalties and liabilities to Vecna, to Levistus and to the other entities with whom he has a complex web of relationships (the same PC has also been forbidden by his allies from wielding the Crystal of Ebon Flame, which houses the essence of Miska the Wolf-Spider and perhaps Tharizdun too; but he has stored it in a Leomund's Secret Chest so that he can recover it at speed if necessary);

* the PCs, in play, have found the Asmodeus-worshipping duergar of the Underdark to be some of their most dependable allies;

* a paladin of the Raven Queen has discussed theology with the Whips and Lashes in the Shrine of the Kuo-toa, and has thereby been able to save the rest of the party from being caught and sacrificed to Blibdoolpoolp;

* the PCs have redeemed a fallen paladin of Pelor from his enslavement to a devil and his subsequent leadership of that devil's cult, so that he could return home a hero;

* in one particular campaign, both times the party encountered a hostile bear, at the behest of one particular player (and his PC) the bear was able to be tamed without being seriously hurt, leading to a situation (as that player said) in which "I feel good about not having killed that bear".​
I can't speak for other posters, but when I talk about a "player driven game" or a game which is not shaped by the GM's preconceptions, these are the sorts of events that I have in mind: events that came about in actual play because the players made choices for their PCs that weren't just about "side quests", nor about which door in the dungeon to travel through or which room to loot first, but were about fundamental matters like who is right and who is wrong, who should be supported and who opposed, what goals are worth pursuing and what are not. This is what I play the game for. And I utterly deny (and by way of posted actual play examples, refute) the contention that you, or me, or anyone else can know how these things are going to play out in advance.



N'raac said:


> I think the  biggest difference between these other areas and alignment is that no one argues that some means of character advancement, initiative, etc. would not be needed, only whether the current choice is the best choice.  By contrast, replacements or revisions to alignment tend not to be suggested.
> 
> The suggested replacements (Aspects on this thread) seem no less susceptible to disagreements and/or bad GMing.



My concern with alignment is not about "bad GMing". It is about the fact that it involves the GM, at all, in having to adjudicate on evaluative questions that arise as a result of the players' decisions for their PCs. Whether the GM is doing his/her job well or poorly, if that job includes making alignment adjudications then the GM is doing something that I don't want him/her (or me, when I GM) to have to do.

Because adjudicating Fate aspects or Burning Wheel beliefs or Marvel Heroic distinctions and milestones doesn't actually have that element - the _player_ is the one who takes the lead in playing his/her PC in accordance with his/her own conception, and from time to time, if the GM doesn't notice, reminds the GM to hand out the requisite tokens - they do not for me raise the same issues at all.



N'raac said:


> I don't see huge problems caused by its removal (the challenges of removal of alignment-based spells and alignment-based abilities can be resolved).  But I see no reason to remove it when the flaws and issues are, in my experience, vastly overstated.



I'm sure that you find alignment excellent for your purposes. But our whole exchange on this thread was triggered by me answering the question, Have I ever found alignment to be an impediment in play, that detracts from the play experience? And my answer hasn't changed. Above are just some of the play experiences that I have had which would have been impeded by alignment - because were I using mechanical alignment then on each of those occasions the players, instead of just playing their PCs, would also have been wondering how I as GM are judging those decisions and making notes on the alignment graph, and would have been waiting to learn whether they were still good or evil or lawful or chaotic or whatever else.

And what would the point of that be?

Unlike [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], you haven't actually answered that question. Sadras _has_ answered the question, by quoting from the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks: the point of alignment is that it is a roleplaying challenge to stick within the alignment parameters, and the GM adjudicates whether or not the challenge has been met. Bedrockgames _has_ answered the question, by saying that, when playing, he likes to explore the GM's cosmological and moral conception of the gameworld, and for this reason is of course happy to defer to the GM's judgement as to those matters.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I am not interested in either of those as goals of play, either as a player or as a GM. Both give the judgements of the GM a prominence in the game that I do not like, and both to me suggest a degree of prescripting - of character, of answers to difficult questions - that I don't like either. (Also note: neither of these two goals of play is supported by the use of aspects in Fate, or beliefs in Burning Wheel, or distinctions in Marvel Heroic, because none of those mechanics supports the idea that playing your PC correctly is a challenge, nor that the goal of playing your PC is to explore the GM's world).

Because of my preferences, I do not think I am at all exaggerating the disutility to me of mechanical alignment.

But enough about me: what do you, [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], find valuable about mechanical alignment in your play?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I don't use alignment at all and it has done nothing but make the game better.  Removing the Damocles Sword of alignment from over the heads of the players is an excellent way to allow those players to see that you trust their ability to portray their character.  And that leads to better, more engaged players who no longer need to play "Read the DM's mind" games in portraying their own characters.



100% this.

If you want there to be a "challenge" for players in RPing their PCs - can they remain consistent with some predefined parameters - than alignment may be helpful. (This is how the 2nd ed AD&D PHB presents things, as quoted a little bit upthread.)

If you want players play of their PCs to be some sort of exploration of parameters pregiven by the GM as part of authoring the campaign backstory, then again alignment may be helpful.

But if you want the players to play their own PCs according to their own conceptions of them, and see what happens in the game as a result, then alignment is nothing but an obstacle to that.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> How is having to run from a giant snake when you came to rescue people from it not a complication.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the fact that you don't have a FP left is what allows for a scene ending compel.



I don't have enough of a handle on standard Fate procedures, nor on what    [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] intended by his example, to fully respond to this. Here are some thoughts:

If the player's goal is to rescue the innocents; and if, as a result of the compel to flee, the innocents get eaten; then that is not a complication. It is a failure, and furthermore a failure which is resolved, at the final moment, without the player actually engaging the action resolution mechanics. If I knew nothing more of an episode of play than my preceding two sentences, my default assumption would be that it was somewhat unsatisfactory.

If the player's goal is to please NPC X, and the rescuing of the innocents is simply a means to pleasing NPC X (let's suppose they are X's wife and daughter), then the scene-ending compel is a complication, because while a setback to the PC's goal - the wife and daughter get eaten, which presumably won't please X - the PC can always find another way to please X. (This would be fail forward at work).

If the player's goal is to rescue the innocents; and the scene-ending compel is used; but the snake doesn't eat the mother and daughter - some other twist is introduced - then that would be another example of fail forward which would make the compel count as a complication by my lights, rather than an anti-climactic failure.​
These thoughts are influenced (probably obviously) by familiarity with default procedures and expectations for HeroQuest revised, Marvel Heroic RP and Burning Wheel. I don't know precisely how they translate to Fate, but I'd be surprised if it was wildly different. They all seem to be games which are pretty similar in their goals as far as the basic purposes and structure of play are concerned.

EDIT to respond to something from an earlier post that I had overlooked:



Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the player is out of fate points doesn't that tend to suggest that we're getting towards the climax?Why would a player being out of Fate points necessarily signal that to you?  Since there is no constraints on expenditure of Fate points that coincides with where you are in the story I think your drawing of a connection between the two is mistaken.
Click to expand...


I was looking at in the reverse way: not that "where you are in the story" constrains expenditure of fate points, but rather that expenditure of fate points tells you where you are in the story. If the fate points are flying thick and fast, and the player ends up out of them, that seems a marker of (i) a high degree of player investment in the outcome of whatever just happened, and (ii) that the PC succeeded by the skin of his/her teeth, or perhaps failed despite giving it his/her very best shot (hence no fate points left). These both seem like signs of a climax to me.


----------



## Libertad

Alignment has always been an afterthought in my games, coming up prominently only when we had a Paladin or Cleric in our party.  I made house rules removing alignment restrictions on all the other classes such as the Barbarian, so it wasn't really something which added to our games.


----------



## Bluenose

Libertad said:


> Alignment has always been an afterthought in my games, coming up prominently only when we had a Paladin or Cleric in our party.  I made house rules removing alignment restrictions on all the other classes such as the Barbarian, so it wasn't really something which added to our games.




It rather suggests that alignment isn't particularly useful to you. Religious beliefs and adherence to them matter, but you don't need alignment for that. Lawful Good should not - observably in published D&D settings does not - mean the same thing to the different deities who are shallowly described as having that alignment.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Allow me to repeat: from my point of view _there is no such character_. You haven't read the relevant books. You're not interested in talking about backstory - indeed, when I talked about backstory (as I do with my players when PCs are created and introduced into the game) you complained about "hidden" backstory, using some strange equivalence I don't understand between "overt" and "covert". You haven't said anything about why it's important to you that your hypothetical character serve the Raven Queen rather than, say, Demogorgon or Orcus.




You and I clearly differ in when we think the character comes into existence.  At the initial pitch, the character exists in the player’s mind.  The character may  not be fully formed, but it can’t  be fully formed (or at least fully formed and immune to any change) if there is to be the potential for character realization during play.  To me, then, you are judging the character’s adherence to an ethos or value system prior to allowing the character to see play, rather than during play.  I don’t find this a huge difference.  

In other words, your statement that the player’s vision of the character is the only one that matters in your games is not, in my view, accurate.  Imposing your vision on the player during the character creation process changes the timing, not the reality.

Why does it matter to you whether my character serves the Raven Queen rather than, say, Demogorgon or Orcus?  I am assuming that, unlike the RQ, Orcus and Demogorgon are aligned, with evil.  That is certainly what “Demon Prince” suggests to me.  As such, you are pre-judging my character’s morality as Evil, in contrast to your statement that the character’s morality should be judged only by the player of the character.



pemerton said:


> In other words, you're trying to score points on an internet discussion.




I can just as easily assert that your unwillingness to address the issue is your effort to avoid “points scored against you” in an internet discussion rather than truly examine the underlying issue.



pemerton said:


> That's fine, but don't think you can draw any inferences about how my game is run from your point-scoring attempts. If you want to know how my game is run, read my actual play posts (I've linked to plenty of them, and I'm sure Google will bring up more).




Due to the nature of the discussion, I’ve been forced to move back from discussing your actual play to discussing the pre-play aspects which determine which characters even get permitted to be played in your game.  Again, I suggest that a similar examination of the player vision of alignment and the GM’s would similarly result in characters played in accordance with the GM’s vision of alignment.  Players with a different vision than yours either agree to conform with your visions (“OK, he will serve a Demon Prince in accordance with your vision that this is the best fit for his views” or “OK, he will temper his views based on your vision of the Raven Queen’s morality” or “OK, I will design a different character since we have irreconcilable differences on this one’s morality in game”).  You are still assessing the consistency of the character’s code with the  being he claims to serve.



pemerton said:


> Even to the extent that this is so - and a view as to the opinions of a shared backstory element, reached by consensus either at character creation





Whose consensus?  I didn’t see the poll to assess whether my character was appropriate.  And what happened to the player’s vision of the character ruling?  Now it has to pass a vote by the group?  Does this simply move adjudication of consistency with a stated moral code (being “this alignment” or “service to that deity”) from GM to the table as a whole?  This is, to me, a much different change from “the player’s vision is the only vision that matters”. 



pemerton said:


> or in the course of play, is not a view that I, the GM, have unilaterally imposed upon you - you're not being told whether or not that entity is good or evil, and hence whether or not you (and your PC) are right or wrong to depart from its views.




So there is no preconception whether a Demon Prince (which you are suggesting is my character’s appropriate patron) is good or evil?  That seems quite unusual to me.



pemerton said:


> That suspicion is without foundation.




I find it difficult to believe a character that is unacceptable pre-play suddenly becomes acceptable when he appears after a session or two.  Let us assume I agreed to tone down my initial character pitch, then shifted back to the original pitch over the first few weeks so by 2nd level, I am firmly back to the belief that dedicated service to the Raven Queen involves sending as many souls to her as possible (and/or that animating the dead to serve her goals is perfectly acceptable).



pemerton said:


> In the games I've run without alignment mechanics, here are just some of the things that I remember when I reflect back on 25+ years of campaigns:




Most of these strike me as quite “so what?” in the scheme of alignment.  I do not believe having an alignment equates to “must seek the immediate death of any being of an opposing alignment”.  Your reference to “total betrayal” and “sacrifice to a Dark God” seems like a character whose allegiances have changed, whether or not marked by an alignment code.  Or maybe it only shows his true colours coming to the fore – loyal to no one but his own interests.  A “servant of chaos  but  not evil” battling agfa8inst a servant of Chaos and evil sounds not too different from a Paladin fighting Devils.

All of these examples seem, to me, only to suggest that you view alignment as a straightjacket, assuming your objective is to show “great gaming that could never have happened if we used alignment”.   In fact, I have had a similar experience with a hostile bear in my own game, with characters of consistent alignment having inconsistent views on the value of its life.  A common alignment does not mean moving in lockstep on every issue (ask the CG clerics of Thor and Aphrodite!).



pemerton said:


> I utterly deny (and by way of posted actual play examples, refute) the contention that you, or me, or anyone else can know how these things are going to play out in advance.




I utterly deny that alignment in any way requires, or causes, us to know how these things are going to play out.  I can make educated guesses based on character and player personality, whether or not alignment factors into the latter.  I suspect you can as well.  My confidence in those guesses varies widely depending on the nature of the situation (again, I suspect yours does as well), and like you, I have certainly been surprised in some instances.  



pemerton said:


> Because adjudicating Fate aspects or Burning Wheel beliefs or Marvel Heroic distinctions and milestones doesn't actually have that element - the _player_ is the one who takes the lead in playing his/her PC in accordance with his/her own conception, and from time to time, if the GM doesn't notice, reminds the GM to hand out the requisite tokens - they do not for me raise the same issues at all.




It seems like the GM invoking compels, which the other Fate players seem to indicate is fairly common, goes well beyond the GM handing out the requisite tokens, whether or not with a player reminder.  Even if it did not, it appears the GM’s role includes making the determination of when a Fate point is, or is not, appropriately handed out.  You are engaged in a number of debates on the proper use of Fate points on this thread now.

Sadras and Bedrockgames have done a fine job discussing the positive role alignment can play.  I have little to add to their points.  I have found the analysis of your own evaluative framework (which you seem unable to acknowledge you even have) quite fascinating, so I continue to pursue that.  I am uncertain if the silence of Sadras and Bedrockgames (and others) on that matter indicates less interest in that aspect, or that they have nothing to add to either your or my comments.



pemerton said:


> I don't have enough of a handle on standard Fate procedures, nor on what    @_*N'raac*_ intended by his example, to fully respond to this. Here are some thoughts:
> If the player's goal is to rescue the innocents; and if, as a result of the compel to flee, the innocents get eaten; then that is not a complication. It is a failure, and furthermore a failure which is resolved, at the final moment, without the player actually engaging the action resolution mechanics. If I knew nothing more of an episode of play than my preceding two sentences, my default assumption would be that it was somewhat unsatisfactory.​





So Fate can also be unsatisfactory to you.  Well and good.  Failure should, in my view, be a possibility.  As you have noted previously, clearly the character ran out of Fate points engaging in other challenges along the way.  I would suggest that a Compel, with its requirement the character either comply or spend a Fate point, is a core component of the Fate system’s action resolution mechanics, so your dissatisfaction is with those mechanics, not with their failure to be implemented.  A mechanic need not include rolling the dice.

I have previously noted that I don’t believe “fail forward” must mean that no actual failure is ever possible.  I retain that belief.  Others may well prefer a more “story teller” style to their game, where the ultimate result of the players’ actions will always be success and the game is only about how we get to that success.  My own preferences are probably somewhere between the two – I dislike “one die roll failed or one combat lost = ultimate failure”, and I like to have backup plans, but I also believe there can be failed objectives, not just setbacks, along the way, and that “failure” need not mean “campaign ends”.



pemerton said:


> I was looking at in the reverse way: not that "where you are in the story" constrains expenditure of fate points, but rather that expenditure of fate points tells you where you are in the story. If the fate points are flying thick and fast, and the player ends up out of them, that seems a marker of (i) a high degree of player investment in the outcome of whatever just happened, and (ii) that the PC succeeded by the skin of his/her teeth, or perhaps failed despite giving it his/her very best shot (hence no fate points left). These both seem like signs of a climax to me.




While the “snake eats the victims while you cower” end to a scene feels somewhat anticlimactic to me, that is a risk we take in invoking action resolution mechanics and allowing the dice to fall where they may.  The player has arrived without the resources  to succeed, and he failed.  Did the character succeed in his objective of rescuing the helpless victims?  We found out in play that he did not.  How will this failure affect the character moving forward?  We‘ll find out in play.

In a different context, perhaps the character has fallen from favour due to his actions.  Will he seek an easier, or just different, path to power?  Does this change his moral and ethical views?  Has he discovered his own views and those of his cause differed?  Will he seek atonement and redemption for his lapse in judgement, rededicating himself to the cause?  Will he seek new allegiances more consistent with what he has discovered his true moral framework to be?  We'll find out in play.  That doesn't seem like the bad gaming corner you believe alignment paints the character into.​


----------



## Bedrockgames

I must agree with N'racc that for me, i do not like it when players are able to impose upon the setting through their character concept, rather it ought to fit naturally with the established setting. One thing that frustrated me in 3E as a player was people bringing in characters using prestige characters that had zero connection to the established framework of the existing campaign setting. Everyone is obviously going to have different levels of tolerance, but for me many of these character concepts were like having a Ranma 1/2  character showing up in ravenloft. I think i really need the setting to feel external to the characts, with laws they are subject to.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> 100% this.
> 
> If you want there to be a "challenge" for players in RPing their PCs - can they remain consistent with some predefined parameters - than alignment may be helpful. (This is how the 2nd ed AD&D PHB presents things, as quoted a little bit upthread.)
> 
> But if you want the players to play their own PCs according to their own conceptions of them, and see what happens in the game as a result, then alignment is nothing but an obstacle to that.




Except, of course, the fact that these things are not mutually exclusive, and so the absolute, "nothing" does not hold.  I submit that most play is inherently a mix of "can you succeed within some predefined parameters" and "play our own PC according to your own conception of them".  To reduce to the absurd to make the logic clear - I don't care about the player concept, the character cannot fly unless there's mechanical justification for it on the sheet, per the rules of the game.

No matter their conceptions, PCs cannot, in general, take arbitrary actions without suffering negative consequences.  There's always some issues with remaining within some bounds set by the GM.  "How do I deal with this situation given the restrictions placed on me by the world?" is a common question the players ask themselves.  Alignment is merely one set of boundaries a character might be asked to operate within.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> In the games I've run without alignment mechanics, here are just some of the things that I remember when I reflect back on 25+ years of campaigns:




Great examples of play!  I can see most of those things happening in a game with alignments too (I've seen some things that would have similar descriptions to some of them occur and wish I could have seen the others).



pemerton said:


> Above are just some of the play experiences that I have had which would have been impeded by alignment - because were I using mechanical alignment then on each of those occasions the players, instead of just playing their PCs, would also have been wondering how I as GM are judging those decisions and making notes on the alignment graph, and would have been waiting to learn whether they were still good or evil or lawful or chaotic or whatever else.




I'm at a loss as to why alignment would have caused problems with (1), (5), (6), and any of (8)-(11).   It even seems supportive of why a couple of them could have occurred (of course the Duergar were dependable, they're lawful and they think that the things you're doing hurt their enemies more than they help the good and/or chaotic guys).    

In most of those cases I don't think we would have worried about alignment change on the character sheet until something forced us to (like the character's choice of class being predicated on them not doing such things or when the opponents want to use a detect alignment spell or whatnot), which leads to...



pemerton said:


> It is about the fact that it involves the GM, at all, in having to adjudicate on evaluative questions that arise as a result of the players' decisions for their PCs. Whether the GM is doing his/her job well or poorly, if that job includes making alignment adjudications then the GM is doing something that I don't want him/her (or me, when I GM) to have to do.
> 
> Because adjudicating Fate aspects or Burning Wheel beliefs or Marvel Heroic distinctions and milestones doesn't actually have that element - the _player_ is the one who takes the lead in playing his/her PC in accordance with his/her own conception, and from time to time, if the GM doesn't notice, reminds the GM to hand out the requisite tokens - they do not for me raise the same issues at all.




I can understand wanting to minimize the GM power to over-rule the player's power to form the shared game world except in the most bizarre circumstances.   I want to assume that you aren't saying you can't envisage any situations where you would countermand the player's command of backstory?  Say the Samurai had previously attacked Ogres in a similar situation (to the detriment of some negotiations other party members were doing)  because "my order's code doesn't allow me to treat with Ogres and other Oni spawn and any of us would commit ritual suicide if forced to do so".   You then used that fact in setting up something that happened to other members of the order in framing an important scene later on.  Now, several sessions later, he dices with them and says  "I was outnumbered and my order's code doesn't mean I have to be inflexible".  Is the order's code rewritten so that they don't demand he kill himself?   What if "Die before treating with Oni spawn" had been one of his aspects in Fate?  Would you be fine with him refusing a compel to attack them because the order is flexible? 



pemerton said:


> If you want there to be a "challenge" for players in RPing their PCs - can they remain consistent with some predefined parameters - than alignment may be helpful. (This is how the 2nd ed AD&D PHB presents things, as quoted a little bit upthread.)  If you want players play of their PCs to be some sort of exploration of parameters pregiven by the GM as part of authoring the campaign backstory, then again alignment may be helpful.  But if you want the players to play their own PCs according to their own conceptions of them, and see what happens in the game as a result, then alignment is nothing but an obstacle to that.




Isn't it only an obstacle to following their own conceptions if they pick a class with an alignment restriction?   If they want a barbarian who didn't chafe at rules, a monk who was a random, rule breaking trickster, or a sadist paladin... then it seems to me they either should have thought of that earlier and negotiated the class description with the GM,  or they are changing something fundamental about their own initial conception (akin to completely over-hauling an aspect in Fate).


Edit: Big nod of agreement with @_*Umbran*_ 's post just above this one.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> "How do I deal with this situation given the restrictions placed on me by the world?" is a common question the players ask themselves.  Alignment is merely one set of boundaries a character might be asked to operate within.



Imagine an activity for which an important goal - perhaps the main goal - is to evoke an evaluative and/or expressive response on the part of a participant, which that participant shares with the other participants, in turn evoking similar responses from them - and a good part of the pleasure of the activity is in enjoying the dynamic interaction of these responses. And part of this dynamic is that individual participants evaluate along different dimensions of value (aesthetic, personal morality, politics, etiquette etc), and express their own conceptions of what is salient about a given element within their activity, both in their original responses an in their interactions with other participants. And all these responses in turn generate new content which can itself be the object of further expression and evaluation.

That is an activity in which having one participant be a referee of expression and evaluation would not help. Because it would change the nature of the activity, from a concern by the participants with what to express and how to evaluate, to an additional, and potentially overriding, concern with the attitude of the referee towards candidate expressions and evaluations.

There are a number of parlour games which illustrate this point, though typically in the expressive rather than the evaluative mode, and without a great deal of feedback and iteration: various forms of dictionary games; Pictionary, as a variant that involves visual expression; charades; etc. Part of the fun of these games is watching how your friends express themselves, and what _they_ think is salient, for instance, in conveying some idea; or what ideas or images _they_ think some word or phrase evokes.

Sincere discussion about works of art, or political ideas, can have this sort of character too - I say "sincere" to contrast with discussion in which people hold back, and censor their own views, out of some felt need to conform to received opinion that they don't themselves share.

So do many other human activities. Children's games, for instance, when telling stories with their dolls or blocks or Lego. And I gather also at least some forms of improvisational theatre, although that's not an activity I'm personally familiar with.

In the context of RPGing, I've got not special desire to monopolise the phrase "play one's own PC according to one's own conceptions of it" in order to describe an approach which has the characteristics I've just described - although I do think that's what  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] had in mind in the post with which I agreed. (Hussar can of course correct me if I misunderstood him!)

But I will insist that there is a viable approach to RPGing along the lines that I've described, that the idea of _playing a PC according to one's own conception of it_ is a clear element of that approach, that notions like "sincerity" that often occur in philosophical discussions of evaluative (especially aesthetic) and expressive response are relevant to understanding such play (and are directly at issue in cases like Hussar's example of "don't touch _my_ character"), and that a referee's adjudication of such responses is at odds with the whole raison d'etre and pleasure-generating capacity of such activity.

That's not to say that you couldn't get some other pleasurable activity out of introducing a referee, and therefore changing the dynamics and rationale of responses. But you would have fundamentally changed the nature of the activity.



Umbran said:


> To reduce to the absurd to make the logic clear - I don't care about the player concept, the character cannot fly unless there's mechanical justification for it on the sheet, per the rules of the game.
> 
> No matter their conceptions, PCs cannot, in general, take arbitrary actions without suffering negative consequences.



The example of flight is clear, and I don't think it's absurd as an example. But I don't think it really addresses the issue.

The ability to fly is - for the player - an action resolution resource. It permits certain actions, for example, to be declared successful via player fiat: "I fly over the pit"; "I fly up the ciff"; etc. For some PCs, it is an external or purely procedural resource (eg the PC looted some winged sandals from an NPC). For others, it goes to the core of the PC, such that removing or blocking the ability would have to be handled with care (eg the player is playing The Angel in a Marvel Heroic RP game). But it remains an action resolution resource, and shutting it down, or making it available, doesn't impinge upon any expressive or evaluative response that the player has to events in the fiction. (If the PC loses his wings of flying, the PC might decide the PC is now crap and not want to play him/her anymore - but that is not an evaluative response to the fiction, that is an evaluative response to having "lost" the game, which is a metagame state of affairs.)

It is true that in at least some versions of D&D being LG, or CE, matters to action resolution. But in no edition is it purely an action resolution resource. It is also a label that signals an evaluative judgement about the character, and the character's behaviour within the fiction. The nature of the judgement can vary: in my personal experience it is most often a judgement either that the character is not behaving true to some expressed ideal, or that the character is not behaving in a morally proper manner (or both). But whatever its precise content, such a judgements is fundamentally different from a referee enforcing the expectation that a person without magical wings can't fly. It is not just about action resolution. It has an evaluative component.

In this way, an alignment judgement is also different from a mere in-fiction negative consequence. An in-fiction negative consequence is, for instance, that an NPC doesn't like what you did, and thinks it was wrong. That does not impinge upon the player's own evaluative and expressive responses, though it does provide more material for the player to work with.

Nor is an alignment judgement simply a negative mechanical consequence. A player in my game wields the Rod of 5 (out of a possible 7) Parts. When he or his friends fight immortals, the Rod gets angry, and if they do it often enough the Rod might even refuse to grant him some of its powers. This is not a purely theoretical threat, because from time to time the PCs find themselves opposed to the immortal servants of various gods (last session, for instance, they were fighting Torog's servants in the Soul Abattoir, and the Rod came very close to refusing to carry its wielder on the currents of air that it can summon). But this does not impinge upon the player's evaluative and expressive responses - the player can (and in fact does) form the view that the Rod is too rigid in its devotion to the notion of divine order.

But an alignment judgement isn't just saying "Now these NPCs don't like you, because they think you betrayed your ideals" or "Now this artefact is withholding power from you, because it thinks you're flouting moral precepts." An alignment judgement involves the GM saying "You _did_ betray your ideals", or "You _did_ flout moral precepts." And that is the feature of alignment that is an obstacle to my play experience, because an obstacle to the player playing his/her PC in accordance with his/her conception of it, in the sense of that phrase I have explained above.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Great examples of play!



Thanks - nice of you to say so!



Cadence said:


> I'm at a loss as to why alignment would have caused problems with (1), (5), (6), and any of (8)-(11).   It even seems supportive of why a couple of them could have occurred (of course the Duergar were dependable, they're lawful and they think that the things you're doing hurt their enemies more than they help the good and/or chaotic guys).



(1) Because if the ogres are CE, and the PC is (which is often the default, particularly for a samurai) either xG or LN, the resulting alignment conflict creates at least prima facie obstacles to peaceable interaction. Also, because a standard element in explaining Good is that "good opposes evil", sitting down and dicing with CE ogres runs the risk of being seen as at best a neutral act, and therefore a potential threat to alignment status, and hence pressure is generated on the player to declare other actions for their PC.

Now if I want to put pressure on the player deciding that the PC sits down to dice with ogres I can easily do that - "As you take your seat, you notice that the bamboo is strapped together with human sinew", or "As you walk into the ogre's sitting room you go past an open kitchen door, where you can see a pile of children's skulls in one corner". But this is pressure generated by the concrete details of the fiction, not simply via stipulation at the level of alignment descriptor. 

My own view, influenced by others' accounts of the history of the game and of some approaches to play that were probably more typical in the 70s and early 80s, is that this is part of the (original) _point_ of alignment - it generates moral pressure by stipulation without needing to introduce concrete details into the fiction, and thereby both (i) saves the effort of introducing those details, and (ii) creates pressure even on players in "pawn stance" play who will happily massacre a village of innocents if they can get a few XP for the endeavour. Change the playstyle, though, and neither of those reasons are operational any more.

(5) Two reasons, I think. First, if alignment were in play the angel would probably be LG (I haven't got the module to confirm that, but I think it's a pretty safe bet - the rules mandate that she be xG at any event) and the PC probably not (depending on GM the PC might have been LN, N or CN, I think). This sets up an alignment conflict - which the angel could easily confirm via Detect X or Know Alignment or even Zone of Truth while asking the PC to tell her something of his life story - which is likely to be an impediment to her relenting to him. Second, if the angel were Lawful, then the notion of her being talked into allowing herself to be killed in contravention of her instructions becomes all that more challenging - perhaps absurd, at least in the view of some D&Ders, I imagine.

(8) and (9) both resemble (1). At least in my experience many GMs frown upon PCs forming systematically friendly relationships with evil humanoids. It tends to be regarded as a "non-good" act. There are additional complexities around the duergar's Asmodeus worship, which - depending on a particular GM's cosmological approach - might make the duergar especially heinously evil. Also, drawing on a point I made in relation to (1), the absence of alignment as a stipulated dimension of concurrence or conflict makes the concrete details of the situation more salient in play. In the case of the duergar, for instance, the drow took something of a back seat, and was sent by the duergar to inferior accommodation, not because he was Chaotic but because they could see that he wore a demonskin cloak (he is a Demonskin Adept) and could sense his connection to the Elemental Chaos and the Abyss; while the tiefling paladin (of the Raven Queen) and the imp-allied invoker/wizard were treated as honoured guests. There was also some nice reflective roleplaying from the tiefling's player, who noted that duergar's devil-worship meant that they, like the tiefling, were also a fallen race, who simply hadn't yet arrived at that realisation. (That fall came, somewhat ironically, as a result of subsequent actions by the PCs.)

The use of alignment as a short-hand personality descriptor (eg duergar are lawful, hence reliable) is, on its own, harmless enough - though equally the books could just tell me that they are reliable - but that is not all alignment, in its traditional form does: it also tries to express other aspects of the duergar's personality (eg that they're anti-individualist - making it hard to find a label to carve out a reliable individualist), and to integrate them into a stipulated realm of moral conflict.

(10) and (11) are cases where I think alignment would hurt in a different way, by changing and perhaps cheapening the framework for response. Eg instead of taking hard steps (which they did) to redeem the paladin because it struck them as the right thing to do, the reasoning can take the form "We should do this because we're Good" or "Nah, he's Evil so we don't have to worry about killing him." In the case of the bears, taming and befriending rather than killing conferred no mechanical disadvantage (nor any advantage), but again the presence of alignment would interpose needless, and potentially distorting, mediation between the ingame fiction and the players' decisions in response. And hence also on the ability of that player to look back and say "I feel good about that." The mode of pleased self-reflection there was quite different from "I feel good about the clever tactical way we resolved that encounter" - and the mediation of alignment, and "We're good, so we better do X rather than Y" pushes decision-making about whether or not to kill bears more into the tactical realm.



Cadence said:


> In most of those cases I don't think we would have worried about alignment change on the character sheet until something forced us to (like the character's choice of class being predicated on them not doing such things or when the opponents want to use a detect alignment spell or whatnot)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Isn't it only an obstacle to following their own conceptions if they pick a class with an alignment restriction?   If they want a barbarian who didn't chafe at rules, a monk who was a random, rule breaking trickster, or a sadist paladin... then it seems to me they either should have thought of that earlier and negotiated the class description with the GM,  or they are changing something fundamental about their own initial conception



My reply to this has two stages.

First, if alignment doesn't matter - if we're not tracking alignment change, for instance, and only using it as a shorthand personality label for NPCs - then I don't really see the point of it (see my comments re duergar above) but it is harmless enough. 4e takes this approach. I think B/X can be played this way pretty easily, too, though I don't know that that would be the default.

But second, it actually turns out that it does matter: in a big way for some classes, and in modest ways for everyone - for instance, if my conception of my PC is that I'm not evil, but now when angels and noble knights cast "Detect Evil" they pick me up (or when they speak a Holy Word they blast me as well, or whatever), or if I tell them my exploits they (using the same reasoning as the GM) work out that I am Evil, and hence (by stipulation) their enemy because a wrongdoer, that matters.

To reiterate - I don't care that NPCs don't like my PC. That's the GM's prerogative as part of scene-framing, ascertaining consequences of action resolution, etc. (Of course it should be done well in accordance with the broader parameters of the game, but that's a different matter.) What I care about is that the alignment rules make it the case that _they're right not to like my PC_.

As far as the whimsical monk or sadist paladin is concerned, they are red herrings in my view. To try and make it clear why this is so: I could keep mechanical alignment, and permit sadist paladins and whimsical monks, simply by houseruling that those classes may be of any alignment. But my concern is not with the freedom I, or my players, have to play sadist paladins or whimsical monks, and so such a houserule wouldn't address my concern. What I don't like is a mechanic that requires me to monitor and adjudicate _whether or not the monk as played is too whimsical, or the paladin too sadist_. My reply to Umbran not far upthread sets out the rationale for this in more detail.



Cadence said:


> I can understand wanting to minimize the GM power to over-rule the player's power to form the shared game world except in the most bizarre circumstances.   I want to assume that you aren't saying you can't envisage any situations where you would countermand the player's command of backstory?  Say the Samurai had previously attacked Ogres in a similar situation (to the detriment of some negotiations other party members were doing)  because "my order's code doesn't allow me to treat with Ogres and other Oni spawn and any of us would commit ritual suicide if forced to do so".   You then used that fact in setting up something that happened to other members of the order in framing an important scene later on.  Now, several sessions later, he dices with them and says  "I was outnumbered and my order's code doesn't mean I have to be inflexible".  Is the order's code rewritten so that they don't demand he kill himself?



NPC reactions I regard as, by default, within the authority of the GM, though the GM is bound by the action resolution rules (and so, for instance, the player is entitled to try and persuade the order's leaders that his interpretation of the code is to be preferred - qv Sturm Brightblade in Dragonlance). I've indicated some exceptions upthread, when the NPC in question is an integral part of the player's build, but I don't see that that's relevant at present.

In my reply to Umbran I explain why I think that GM-adjudicated NPC reactions aren't the same as alignment mechanics.

But as you describe the two episodes of play, at my table at least the biggest issue would be with the other players. I would expect conversation having simultaneous ingame (PC to PC) and metagame (player to play) dimensions, in which the other players say "WTF - were you lying about your code before, or are you squibbing now?" And then that conversation, and its consequences, would play out. Maybe the samurai player is squibbing because he can't bear to lose his PC to ritual suicide and isn't willing, for whatever reason, to take on the gores. Maybe the samurai player has, in the play of his PC, come to a new realisation about the flexibility of the code (again, qv Sturm Brightblade).

I might participate in that conversation - that's part of the fun of RPGing! - and I might play out NPCs in ways that I think make sense, are fair, and are consistent with the parameters of action resolution outcomes. But I don't see how I need to countermand anything the player has said or any action declared for the PC.

Is there something I've missed in, or misunderstood about, your setup?



Cadence said:


> What if "Die before treating with Oni spawn" had been one of his aspects in Fate?  Would you be fine with him refusing a compel to attack them because the order is flexible?



Well, he can refuse the compel by paying a token! (I'm assuming here that "compel to attack" is a permissible GM move in Fate - as I've said upthread, my knowledge of Fate is pretty rough and ready.) If he pays the token, how should we think of his PC? As a coward? A betrayer of the code? Or someone who's come to a higher realisation about the true meaning of the code? That's not something I regard as a matter for GM stipulation - that's something that I see as being addressed by further play.


----------



## N'raac

What I see from your comments is “alignment as straightjacket”.



pemerton said:


> (1) Because if the ogres are CE, and the PC is (which is often the default, particularly for a samurai) either xG or LN, the resulting alignment conflict creates at least prima facie obstacles to peaceable interaction. Also, because a standard element in explaining Good is that "good opposes evil", sitting down and dicing with CE ogres runs the risk of being seen as at best a neutral act, and therefore a potential threat to alignment status, and hence pressure is generated on the player to declare other actions for their PC.




I’d expect the Samurai to be Lawful.  ARE the ogres evil?  You’ve noted you would indicate they are by their actions, with some evocative descriptions.  Is there any reason to believe these ogres are, in fact, evil?  They don’t seem to be ACTING evil.  And an arrangement under which they do not prey on the Samurai’s people seems like a Good thing to achieve.



pemerton said:


> (5) Two reasons, I think. First, if alignment were in play the angel would probably be LG (I haven't got the module to confirm that, but I think it's a pretty safe bet - the rules mandate that she be xG at any event) and the PC probably not (depending on GM the PC might have been LN, N or CN, I think). This sets up an alignment conflict - which the angel could easily confirm via Detect X or Know Alignment or even Zone of Truth while asking the PC to tell her something of his life story - which is likely to be an impediment to her relenting to him.




Is the problem that there IS alignment, or that it can be detected?  Can the Angel not use Zone of Truth to hear something of the PC’s life story and judge for itself whether this meets with its moral code, or does not?  Or is your preference a game where Angels and Demons run the spectrum between Good and Evil, so the Angel in this story is more Chaotic Neutral?



pemerton said:


> Second, if the angel were Lawful, then the notion of her being talked into allowing herself to be killed in contravention of her instructions becomes all that more challenging - perhaps absurd, at least in the view of some D&Ders, I imagine.




“Alignment as straightjacket”.  The Angel’s bias is almost certainly to follow its instructions.  Wasn’t that its bias in your game?  But it is not simply a blind Lawful pawn following orders.  It is also Good, and it seems like the PC’s were able to present a compelling argument that the greater good mandates, perhaps even required, deviating from its instructions.  I assume they didn’t just say “Hey mind if we cut you up to create a Gate?”



pemerton said:


> (8) and (9) both resemble (1). At least in my experience many GMs frown upon PCs forming systematically friendly relationships with evil humanoids. It tends to be regarded as a "non-good" act. There are additional complexities around the duergar's Asmodeus worship, which - depending on a particular GM's cosmological approach - might make the duergar especially heinously evil.




Is devil worship considered perfectly acceptable in your game, with no moral issues?  “Why, they’re just the nicest, kindest, most friendly baby-sacrificing devil worshippers I’ve ever come across”?  Do they actually DO anything evil?  



pemerton said:


> Also, drawing on a point I made in relation to (1), the absence of alignment as a stipulated dimension of concurrence or conflict makes the concrete details of the situation more salient in play. In the case of the duergar, for instance, the drow took something of a back seat, and was sent by the duergar to inferior accommodation, not because he was Chaotic but because they could see that he wore a demonskin cloak (he is a Demonskin Adept) and could sense his connection to the Elemental Chaos and the Abyss




So basically the same Law/Chaos conflict which exists under standard alignment structures.



pemerton said:


> while the tiefling paladin (of the Raven Queen) and the imp-allied invoker/wizard were treated as honoured guests. There was also some nice reflective roleplaying from the tiefling's player, who noted that duergar's devil-worship meant that they, like the tiefling, were also a fallen race, who simply hadn't yet arrived at that realisation. (That fall came, somewhat ironically, as a result of subsequent actions by the PCs.)




So we just accept devil worship is OK?  Are there actual evil acts involved in the worship of Asmodeus, or maybe he’s just misunderstood?



pemerton said:


> To reiterate - I don't care that NPCs don't like my PC. That's the GM's prerogative as part of scene-framing, ascertaining consequences of action resolution, etc. (Of course it should be done well in accordance with the broader parameters of the game, but that's a different matter.) What I care about is that the alignment rules make it the case that _they're right not to like my PC_.




Where you don’t find it appropriate that devout followers of a Good deity might oppose demon or devil worshippers?



pemerton said:


> Well, he can refuse the compel by paying a token! (I'm assuming here that "compel to attack" is a permissible GM move in Fate - as I've said upthread, my knowledge of Fate is pretty rough and ready.) If he pays the token, how should we think of his PC? As a coward? A betrayer of the code? Or someone who's come to a higher realisation about the true meaning of the code? That's not something I regard as a matter for GM stipulation - that's something that I see as being addressed by further play.




Does he seem like someone for whom death is preferable to trucking with Ogrekind?  Was his Aspect actually “Kind of doesn’t like Ogres much but it’s no big deal”?


----------



## Cadence

EDIT: Apologies for the duplication with @_*N'raac*_  on several points, especially on the Ogres and Angel. Internet-stall induced reboot delayed my post and I didn't have the energy to re-edit everything I had saved in the notepad window.

--

As an aside, just stumbled across this...



			
				Pathinder PRD said:
			
		

> Alignment is a curious creature; it summarizes the philosophy and morality of a person, and yet no two characters with the same alignment are exactly alike. Still, alignment says much about a character's soul and the way she interacts with others.




---



pemerton said:


> (1) Because if the ogres are CE, and the PC is (which is often the default, particularly for a samurai) either xG or LN, the resulting alignment conflict creates at least prima facie obstacles to peaceable interaction.




Well, typically CE...



			
				Pathfinder PRD said:
			
		

> While a monster's size and type remain constant <snip>, alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign.




and they aren't bad enough to show up for the Detect Evil spell (need to be 5HD or have evil intent... although it seems like protection from evil and protection from chaos would mess with most ogres if I read them right).     [EDIT: Gack, my objection so far sounds nit-pickier than I originally thought.]



pemerton said:


> Also, because a standard element in explaining Good is that "good opposes evil", sitting down and dicing with CE ogres runs the risk of being seen as at best a neutral act, and therefore a potential threat to alignment status, and hence pressure is generated on the player to declare other actions for their PC.




I don't think a "neutral act" is any threat to alignment status in and of itself.  Aren't most acts  neutral?  If neutral acts were anti-good, then could any good character walk down a typical metropolis street to go anywhere given the number of hungry, down-trodden, diseased, and depressed people they would encounter who could use some help?   

And I'm not sure that treating with evil is necessarily evil either.  Can the lawful good police officer get information from someone they suspect of being sketchy without hard evidence?   If the ogres aren't currently doing anything evil and you'd be stopping a bigger evil down the road, isn't dicing with them at worst pragmatically neutral?  Does a good character surrounded by evil have to take them on all at once and inevitably fail?



pemerton said:


> (5) Second, if the angel were Lawful, then the notion of her being talked into allowing herself to be killed in contravention of her instructions becomes all that more challenging - perhaps absurd, at least in the view of some D&Ders, I imagine.




I think I'd make a distinction between instructions and axiomatic beliefs.   If the angel is in service of a zealous deity of  vengeful purity then I think the players (and world?) are toast since it won't even talk to them.  On the other hand a lawful good creator god might have preserving the universe at the top of its list and so the situation on the ground could reasonably over-ride the last given instructions (can the angel do a quick commune?). 

I can certainly see the alignment having the bad effect here of having some GMs feel like they couldn't have the angel change no matter what.  So, I guess I'd count this as somewhere between a loss for the pro-alignment side and a stark reminder of the importance of having a lot of strong disclaimers in the chapter on alignment.



pemerton said:


> The use of alignment as a short-hand personality descriptor (eg duergar are lawful, hence reliable) is, on its own, harmless enough - though equally the books could just tell me that they are reliable - but that is not all alignment, in its traditional form does: it also tries to express other aspects of the duergar's personality (eg that they're anti-individualist - making it hard to find a label to carve out a reliable individualist), and to integrate them into a stipulated realm of moral conflict.





If an alignment system is used I would certainly be in favor of having, say, a two or three word descriptor given after the alignment!  

I'm trying to form a comment about what would happen if the extra descriptors after "Good" were chosen to be Utilitarianist, Deontologist, or Virtue Ethicist [especially in light of your comments on (10) and (11)] and failing.  Unsurprisingly, a few "Philosophy of..." books is poor preparation. 



pemerton said:


> (10) and (11) are cases where I think alignment would hurt in a different way, by changing and perhaps cheapening the framework for response. Eg instead of taking hard steps (which they did) to redeem the paladin because it struck them as the right thing to do, the reasoning can take the form "We should do this because we're Good" or "Nah, he's Evil so we don't have to worry about killing him."




Even if they had a simplistic view of their character's character, won't they still have to make the choice between the two of those?  Won't they have to think about the one that they think is the right thing to do based on how they imagine their character thinking?

If the players view the alignment on their character sheet as being a descriptive projection of more complicated things... and realize they can change it if it doesn't fit their character conception... then I don't see why it would stop them from doing what they considered the right thing?   Even for a paladin, wouldn't it take the DM ruling that either "killing evil things is evil" or "allowing evil things to redeem themselves" is evil to make it a non-decision?



pemerton said:


> In my reply to Umbran I explain why I think that GM-adjudicated NPC reactions aren't the same as alignment mechanics.




Do the gods count as NPCs?  (Does that maybe get to the heart of the matter depending on how the GM views the cosmology of the world?)  



pemerton said:


> But as you describe the two episodes of play, at my table at least the biggest issue would be with the other players. I would expect conversation having simultaneous ingame (PC to PC) and metagame (player to play) dimensions, in which the other players say "WTF - were you lying about your code before, or are you squibbing now?" And then that conversation, and its consequences, would play out.




I think all the groups I've played in have viewed the GM as at least the first among equals and would have expected him to take the lead.  Honestly (and I feel kind of silly not to have thought of it), having the other players be the heavies hadn't occurred to me.



pemerton said:


> Is there something I've missed in, or misunderstood about, your setup?
> 
> Well, he can refuse the compel by paying a token!




By refuse, I meant, refuse to accept it as a legitimate compel attempt.  (Player says, no my code doesn't mean that, you can't compel me like this, I'm not paying.)   

Or similarly, what if the player argues with you that your playing of the NPCs' reactions  is completely unreasonable?


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I guess I'd count this as somewhere between a loss for the pro-alignment side and a stark reminder of the importance of having a lot of strong disclaimers in the chapter on alignment.



As far as wins and losses are concerned, I think it depends on what you're hoping to do in the game.

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] can of course correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I have a pretty good handle on what he means when he talks about alignment being a tool that the GM uses to convey his/her sense of the gameworld, and then adhering to alignment in play, or alternatively departing from it and having the GM impose alignment changes, being part of experiencing the GM's world. Nothing I'm saying is intended to challenge the utility of alignment to that sort of play. Similarly with respect to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and the 2nd ed AD&D idea of playing one's alignment being part of the challenge of the game, and the GM being the adjudicator.

Now it's true that I'm saying that I personally don't especially enjoy either of those approaches to play, whether as player or as GM, but I'd hope that's not being taken as a challenge to those styles. I take it for granted that other people are allowed to like things I don't!

I also hope it's clear why I think that playing in one of those styles means that the player is doing something, in playing his/her PC, other than simply "playing it according to his/her conception". In the "explore the GM's world" style, the player has to take on board the moral framework of the GM's world in forming a conception of his/her PC - eg in this GM's world, being good means refraining from XYZ. In the "roleplaying your alignment is part of the challenge" style, a player who simply plays according to his/her conception of the PC is not taking the challenge seriously. Part of the challenge is developing that conception within the alignment framework as it will be adjudicated by the GM, and then playing accordingly.

Again, none of the above is (hostile) criticism towards those styles. It's analysis (and perhaps criticism in the sense of "literary criticism"), as part of an attempt to explain why, given that I want X out of my RPGing (a certain approach by the players to playing their PCs), I don't need or want this other thing Y to get in the way (mechanical alignment).



Cadence said:


> By refuse, I meant, refuse to accept it as a legitimate compel attempt.  (Player says, no my code doesn't mean that, you can't compel me like this, I'm not paying.)



I don't know how Fate handles this, according to its rules as written.

Burning Wheel has a rule that says (i) the player is always free to change his/her beliefs, but (ii) the GM can postpone that until the end of the current ingame situation if s/he thinks the player is just trying to squib. Part of what makes this rule viable is that Burning Wheel action resolution is adjudicated in a "fail forward" fashion, so that the player has a type of metagame guarantee that makes it easier not to squib: your PC might suffer, and your goals might become harder to achieve, but you're not going to be left unable to keep playing this PC in this game dealing with these issues. (Aside: Burning Wheel doesn't have compels. Rather, the GM is expected to frame situations such that, if the player acts contrary to his/her belief bad things will happen, and if the player acts in accordance with his/her belief great risks will have to be taken - so you could say it emphasises "compels via framing", with the GM taking the lead from the players' beliefs, rather than literal mechanical compels, and all in a rather gritty and downbeat tone. So if a player changes beliefs mid-scene, s/he is creating an excuse not to feel the "between a rock and a hard place" pressure that the GM is trying to create. Hence the right of the GM to defer the change until after the current situation is resolved.)

I don't know how Fate handles changing aspects. Assuming it allows it, it seems to me that what the player is wanting to do in the above example is to change an aspect (we can make it stark by describing the change this way: instead of, say, "Bound by the code", they want the aspect "It's really just guidelines"). The question then becomes, what are the timing rules: if the GM compels can the player change an aspect at "interrupt speed"? My gut feel is no, they shouldn't be able to because it creates too big a standing temptation to squib. Let them pay the token - in Fate that's really not a big deal (I would have thought it's about as serious as paying a healing surge in 4e, maybe less so).

The fact that it's not really a big deal is actually quite important, too: that's one of the design techniques that a game like Fate uses to facilitate play in a very practical sense. (4e is actually similar in some ways with healing surges: in a thread a year or so ago [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and I both commented how in 4e, setting stakes and levying penalties of "lose a handful of hp here" and "lose a HS there" doesn't have the same punitive feel that it would have in classic D&D, mostly because of the way hp recovery is set up, and the fact that losing a healing surge doesn't immediately reduced your action resolution capabilities in the same way that losing hp does (because in the latter case it takes you that much closer to dying before you can do anything to save yourself), and this tends to encourage an approach to improvised actions and the consequences thereof that is quite different from more traditional D&D play.)



Cadence said:


> Or similarly, what if the player argues with you that your playing of the NPCs is completely unreasonable?



Fail forward helps here - by lowering the practical stakes of failure (you're not going to "lose the game" or have to abandon your PC) without diluting the fictional stakes ("All my friends hate me now! How can I persuade them I really was doing the right thing?") it reduces some of the pressure around adjudicative disagreements.

Social mechanics help too: instead of objecting at the metagame level, the player has the resources to engage the situation via his/her PC, and change those NPCs' minds.

A further technique, that [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] alluded to upthread, is my preference for not resolving actions by reference to "hidden backstory" ie backstory that the players don't have access to, and hence can't anticipate the consequences of when they make choices for their PCs. In the sorts of situations we're looking at in this thread (fidelity, betrayal, honour etc) I have NPCs, artefacts, imp familiars, the general back and forth of table talk, all as devices to let the players know what _I_ think the stakes are before they commit. Sometimes they will suggest that the stakes should be different (eg But what about that other thing where blah blah blah?) in which case I'll correct my framing - mostly I would say they lobby for self-interest but sometimes they think I'm being too soft! Sometimes they will remind me of an action resolution outcome (say, the result of a skill challenge) that I've forgotten about and that means I'm not at total liberty to decide how my NPCs react.

So I can't recall a time when the players have complained about the playing of NPCs being unreasonable, and I think it is the techniques above that help achieve that outcome. 



Cadence said:


> Do the gods count as NPCs?



Like I posted upthread, if I have a player whose PC is a devotee of the god then I regard that god as shared property. I don't have unilateral authority.

In the case of the Raven Queen in my current 4e game, authority is actually shared 4 ways: me (as GM) and three players, each of whom is playing a PC with a divine class who is a devotee of the Raven Queen (though for one she is only one of many divine beings that he serves). Each of those PCs has quite a different perspective on, and relationship with, the Raven Queen, but to date at least that hasn't been an issue in play. [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] upthread posited the possibility of these players finding out, 5 years into the campaign, that in fact only one of them was right about their god, and that the others were wrong all along. As I said in reply, I don't feel that this is a genuine danger, because it seems to posit a type of "bolt from the blue" adjudication or scene-resolution which simply wouldn't fit with the sorts of techniques I've just discussed for helping keep everyone on the same page during action resolution and the determination of consequences.



Cadence said:


> I think all the groups I've played in have viewed the GM as at least the first among equals and would have expected him to take the lead.  Honestly (and I feel kind of silly not to have thought of it), having the other players be the heavies hadn't occurred to me.



An important part of what I was trying to get across is that their response, in quite a distinctive way when compared to the GM, can mix in-character and out-of-character (though it doesn't have to), and so the disagreement can itself be incorporated into the unfolding game rather than be a sort of meta-level disruption to the unfolding game.

I think there are practical limits on how hard you can push this in D&D (or similar games) because it is really aimed at party play, and so having the PCs separate for any extended period, particularly if they separate in anger, makes things hard for both players and GM. Also, D&D (including here 4e, as well as D&D-like games such as Rolemaster) does not have canonical methods for resolving an intra-party dispute via mechanical means short of combat. At one point in my 4e game, when disputes about where the party should go next, which were grounded in disagreements over which of two goals was a higher priority, had taken up a fair bit of one session, then been postponed only to carry over in a big way into the next session, I made the players stop arguing and roll for it (I can't remember what dice rule I used but it was inspired by something [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] once posted and involved adjustments for CHA and social skills) after agreeing to all go along with whichever side won the roll. But that's ad hocery and I wouldn't want to have to do too much of it. (The players did accept the outcome of the roll. They've since finished the winning goal and are now approaching the climax of the second goal.)

Other systems which can either better tolerate PC separation, and/or which have more robust interpersonal mechanics for resolving disputes among the PCs - and which therefore considerably reduce the practical stakes of inter-PC disagreement without diluting the fictional stakes - would certainly encourage me to push harder on these points of pressure for the players.



Cadence said:


> Well, typically CE...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> and they aren't bad enough to show up for the Detect Evil spell (need to be 5HD or have evil intent... although it seems like protection from evil and protection from chaos would mess with most ogres if I read them right).     [EDIT: Gack, that sounds nit-pickier than I originally thought.]



From my point of view not so much nit-picky - if you're playing with mechanical alignment these are the nits you have to pick, just like when I'm playing 4e I have stacks of coloured tokens 3 or more high to track all the effects that have been placed on a target during combat and there's no point pretending otherwise!- as tending to reinforce the features of the system that I don't want. It puts the focus of play on stuff that doesn't matter to me, and thereby distracts it from the stuff that does matter to me (and I think focus tends to be a zero-sum thing).



Cadence said:


> If the players view the alignment on their character sheet as being a descriptive projection of more complicated things... and realize they can change it if it doesn't fit their character conception... then I don't see why it would stop them from doing what they considered the right thing?



Maybe. I haven't done the experiment. I still think it shifts the focus of play away from where I want it - on expressive and evaluative responses - onto something that I don't really want - trying to work out, according to someone's (presumably the GM's) conception, how we should best describe someone's behaviour within the alignment rubric. _Given my goals_, I'm just not seeing what value this is adding to my game.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> In other words, your statement that the player’s vision of the character is the only one that matters in your games is not, in my view, accurate.  Imposing your vision on the player during the character creation process changes the timing, not the reality.



You're confused. I haven't imposed my vision on anyone. No one has tried to create a character for my game since 2010 unless you count the rebuild of the invoker/wizard in 2012 - and on no occasion did I "impose my vision". I talked to the player about the character and where it fitted into the existing backstory. The most challenging of these was in fact the rebuild, because (i) there was a lot more established backstory by then and (ii) it was an elaborate character with an elaborate backstory.

Just in case there is any doubt: you are not proposing a PC for my campaign. You have not asked to join my campaign, and I am not inviting you to do so. (I think you're on the wrong continent, before we get to any other relevant considerations.) All you know is that in my game, from the start, and with the non-collusive consent of all the players who read the relevant material in the 4e books, it has been taken as a given that the Raven Queen does not approve of undeath, nor of death for its own sake given that she is also a god of fate. Given that that backstory has never even remotely been in contention, no one's vision has been imposed on anyone. (Though some eyebrows were raised when it was learned that Kas, a vampire, is a vassal of the Raven Queen. The extent to which she is highly expedient is a matter of ongoing debate among the players and PCs. In our most recent session, when it was clarified that the Raven Queen regards Torog's torture of souls in his Soul Abattoir of pointless, the player of the dwarf said (I think in character) that that's the first nice thing he's heard about the Raven Queen - she is opposed to pointless torture. The bigger point is that one person's expedience is someone else's compromise in the service of principle - you only have to look at everyday political debate to see that. The game doesn't need an authoritative answer to this question in order to go on.)



N'raac said:


> Players with a different vision than yours either agree to conform with your visions (“OK, he will serve a Demon Prince in accordance with your vision that this is the best fit for his views” or “OK, he will temper his views based on your vision of the Raven Queen’s morality” or “OK, I will design a different character since we have irreconcilable differences on this one’s morality in game”).



You assert this stuff as if you know me, but you're just making it up! You have no idea what sort of PC you, or anyone else, might play in my game, because we haven't talked about what the possibilities are. All I've done is point out the received view of the Raven Queen derived by my group from the default 4e material.



N'raac said:


> You are still assessing the consistency of the character’s code with the  being he claims to serve.



I'm not sure what the "still" is doing here. Yes, I am assessing the coherence of your proposed PC with the received backstory: for instance, is it consistent with the received backstory for the Raven Queen that someone might show their devotion to her by murdering random people in her name?

I don't see what that has to do with judging your PC. You seem to think that random murder is evil. It would be evil, then, wouldn't it, whether you did it in the name of the Raven Queen or in the name of Demogorgon. If you personally judge a certain sort of behaviour (say, wanton murder) as evil; and if you want to play a PC who is devoted to such behaviour; but want to refrain from judging your PC evil - I am curious as to why? It sounds like a request for a type of exoneration - a pardon granted by the GM and/or the game system - but I don't really get it.

What I also don't understand, and what you've not explained, is how and why this wanton murder would be a mode of honouring the Raven Queen, as she is described in the default 4e campaign world.



N'raac said:


> Why does it matter to you whether my character serves the Raven Queen rather than, say, Demogorgon or Orcus?



Because I value coherence and consistency in backstory? I mean, you could _suggest _as your PC a bookish nerd who can barely see even when wearing glasses, who honours Kord by sneezing in even the gentlest breeze. I don't see how that PC fits into the gameworld, though.



N'raac said:


> I am assuming that, unlike the RQ, Orcus and Demogorgon are aligned, with evil.  That is certainly what “Demon Prince” suggests to me.  As such, you are pre-judging my character’s morality as Evil, in contrast to your statement that the character’s morality should be judged only by the player of the character.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So there is no preconception whether a Demon Prince (which you are suggesting is my character’s appropriate patron) is good or evil? That seems quite unusual to me.



You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is using an alignment mechanic!

Of course most NPCs in the gameworld are going to have a dim view of the demon princes such as Orcus and Demogorgon. But then most NPCs in the gameworld are going to have a dim view of a person - such as the PC you propose - who honours his/her patron via murder and the animation of the dead. But on its own that doesn't settle the evaluative question - that's the whole point of what I've been saying.

Orcus hates life and loves undeath; Demogorgon revels in the savage destruction of ilfe. If someone wanted to play a PC dedicated to killing others and raising them as undead, Orcus would look like a good prospect; if someone wanted to play a PC who was a wild killer, Demogorgon would look like a good prospect. _That's_ what I am prejudging - the fit between your PC's stated mode of worship, and the various entities who might enjoy such a mode of worship. Whether those inclinations make them evil isn't something I need to judge to run the game; whether your PC being devoted to them makes him/her evil likewise isn't something I need to judge to run the game. If you have a conception of your PC which explains how, in fact, in behaving in these ways s/he is doing the right thing, then maybe the same can be said for Demogorgon or Orcus.

The best story I've heard in defence of Orcus-style unlife is found in Rolemaster Companion VI (written by Lev Anderson, who I think is the same person who posts as Lev Lafeyette on RPGnet). The basic rationale is that mortality is a weakness, and hence undeath is a preferable status. Adding some 4e-isms to this account, then, you might argue that the gods are to be despised for two reasons: (i) because they created mortal life; (ii) because, themselves possessing the secret of immortality, they have not shared it with their creation. Hence the Abyss and its demonic inhabitants strive to bring down and destroy the gods. The devotee of Orcus is one of the few who has seen through the falsehoods and false hopes peddled by the gods!

I'll leave the development of a similar account of the logic of murderous Demogorgon worship as an exercise for the reader.

Now if you think that the Raven Queen, as described in the 4e PHB, would be honoured by the sacrifice to her of random murder victims and their animation as undead, explain away. But I'm not seeing it in the description of her (p 22):

She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.​
"Guarding the departed from the curse of undeath" does not generally entail that you are an _inflictor_ of undeath. Being a "marker of the end of lives" does not generally entail that you are a _bringer_ of the end of those lives.

If you want to serve a god rather than a demon, here are some other possibilities that strike me as better suited than the Raven Queen (PHB p 23):

* Gruumsh . . . exhorts his followers to slaughter and pillage.

* Vecna is . . . god of undead, necromancy, and secrets. He rules that which is not meant to be known and that which people wish to keep secret.

* Zehir is . . . god of darkness, poison, and assassins.​


N'raac said:


> I find it difficult to believe a character that is unacceptable pre-play suddenly becomes acceptable when he appears after a session or two. Let us assume I agreed to tone down my initial character pitch, then shifted back to the original pitch over the first few weeks so by 2nd level, I am firmly back to the belief that dedicated service to the Raven Queen involves sending as many souls to her as possible



What you believe is your business. But I do think there may be more to the heaven and earth of RPGing than is dreamed of in your philosophy! For example, it seems to me that you underestimate the importance of actual play and the context that it provides for (nearly? - I'm not sure that I need the qualifier) every element of the fiction.



N'raac said:


> I utterly deny that alignment in any way requires, or causes, us to know how these things are going to play out.



I haven't asserted that it would. But it would require me, as GM, to form views about the significance, for PC alignment, of the actions declared by my players for their PCs. And that is an activity which is inimical to my enjoyment of the game and to my cultivation of the approach to play that I enjoy.



N'raac said:


> Most of these strike me as quite “so what?” in the scheme of alignment.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> All of these examples seem, to me, only to suggest that you view alignment as a straightjacket, assuming your objective is to show “great gaming that could never have happened if we used alignment”.



My goal is to show what I said I was showing - episodes of play to which alignment would be an impediment. The impediment, as I have repeatedly stated, would consist in me having to judge the moral character of the choices made by my players in the course of playing their PCs.



N'raac said:


> ARE the ogres evil?  You’ve noted you would indicate they are by their actions, with some evocative descriptions.  Is there any reason to believe these ogres are, in fact, evil?  They don’t seem to be ACTING evil.



I don't know - I'm the one who doesn't use alignment, remember! I'm aware, however, of multiple editions of the Monster Manual that label ogres as evil. What is the point of that labelling if I'm meant to ignore it? Is there a passage I missed in the 3E PHB that explains how otherwise evil people who play dice suddenly cease to be evil?

Why would I want to waste my time worrying about the alignment of ogres, and tying myself up in ever-more-contorted knots to explain why it's OK for the samurai (who had to write LN or LG on his PC sheet) to treat with them, when instead I can _just run my game_ in which the samurai treats with the ogres, plays a few hands of dice, discretely ignores the skulls in the kitchen, and then we collectively find out what (if anything) the cost of this is?

What is alignment adding here?



N'raac said:


> Can the Angel not use Zone of Truth to hear something of the PC’s life story and judge for itself whether this meets with its moral code, or does not?



Of course. But the PC can plead his case, and try to make the angel change her mind from an initial judgement. As happened here. If someone casts Know Alignment and you ping as CN, I don't think there's going to be much pleading and persuading. The spell already processes all the arguments and reaches the true conclusion, doesn't it?

Or has the argument now become "You can use alignment even though the cosmos and its inherently aligned servants like angels can never definitively determine, independent of actual discourse and argument, what alignment a person is"? At that point I seem to have lost the most clearly mooted story benefit of alignment, namely, integration of morals and cosmology. What's left?



N'raac said:


> Or is your preference a game where Angels and Demons run the spectrum between Good and Evil, so the Angel in this story is more Chaotic Neutral?



You seem to have mistaken me for someone who uses alignment. This angel is who she is. The module describes her personality - I can't remember the details, but it includes the standard stuff about resolute guardian etc etc. The point of the episode of play, as I experienced it, was that a player gave an impassioned argument, in character and drawing upon much of what had hitherto unfolded in the game, that the values to which the angel herself was committed required her to change her mind and let him kill her. And using the action resolution mechanics of the system in question (Rolemaster), he persuaded her.

It is not only orthogonal to that play and it's point to spend even a moment's thought on whether the angel is really CN (or has been persuaded to change her alignment by the PC), it is actively _antithetical_, because it shifts attention and effort from what matters - this moving moment at the table that produces this amazing event in the fiction - to something that is utterly pointless and irrelevant as far as I am concerned - namely, which of some bundle of judgemental labels is now the best one to stick on this NPC.



N'raac said:


> Is devil worship considered perfectly acceptable in your game, with no moral issues?



Given that I play a game with a whole PC race dedicated to addressing this question - namely, the tieflings - and given that I have a tiefling PC in my game, the answer is that of course devil worship raises moral issues. I even indicated some in the post to which you are replying: namely, that the tiefling expressed the view that the fall of the duergar was foretold, much as it was for the duergar the moment they made a pact with such treacherous beings.



N'raac said:


> So we just accept devil worship is OK?



Who is "we"? In my game the drow generally kept a low profile until he played a key role in triggering the downfall of the duergar (and he was not too upset by that). The tiefling and the dwarf expressed pity, although for different reasons. The elf servant of the Raven Queen had no strong view. The wielder of the Sceptre of Law (= Rod of 7 Parts) admired their devotion to divine order and tried to avoid letting it slip that he is allied with Levistus, who is an enemy of Asmodeus.

You seem to be insisting that an answer be worked out in advance. I am trying to explain that I would regard that as defeating the main purpose of play.



N'raac said:


> “Why, they’re just the nicest, kindest, most friendly baby-sacrificing devil worshippers I’ve ever come across”?  Do they actually DO anything evil?



If alignment is not a straitjacket, and if it is fine for a samurai to treat with ogres for the greater good, why is this question relevant to you?

I know why it is irrelevant to me - because I don't use alignment, and so don't need to answer the question. I can just look up the description of Asmodeus on p 23 of the PHB:

He is patron of the powerful, god of tyranny and domination, and the commander of devils.​
The duergar desire power, are brutal slavers (which is how the PCs first met them, negotiating a deal to redeem some captives who had been sold into slavery by the duergar) and not democrats. (The last thing hardly distinguishes them in the world of D&D, though! Nor does the first, really.)



N'raac said:


> What I see from your comments is “alignment as straightjacket”.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where you don’t find it appropriate that devout followers of a Good deity might oppose demon or devil worshippers?



You're the one who seems concerned by what is or isn't appropriate for adherents of particular alignments.

What _I_ see is that alignment mechanics involve me having to form a number of judgements about both PCs and now (in the case of the angel) NPCs which add nothing to the expressive and evaluative responses that the participants have to the unfolding events of play, and hence add nothing to my play.



N'raac said:


> Sadras and Bedrockgames have done a fine job discussing the positive role alignment can play.  I have little to add to their points.  I have found the analysis of your own evaluative framework (which you seem unable to acknowledge you even have) quite fascinating, so I continue to pursue that.



I don't know what you mean by "my own evaluative framework". Given that I'm a published moral philosopher, I think I have a reasonable grasp of my own evaluative framework. It's just that I don't need to apply it as part of my GMing duties.

If the positive role of alignment does not extend beyond what [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] have offered, then it should be clear why I don't use it and why it would be an impediment to my play: because I am not interested (as either player or GM) in exploring the GM's conception of the morality of the gameworld; and nor am I interested in adherence to alignment being part of the roleplaying challenge.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> It seems like the GM invoking compels, which the other Fate players seem to indicate is fairly common, goes well beyond the GM handing out the requisite tokens



Sure, if the player rejects the compel the player hands the GM a token.



N'raac said:


> So Fate can also be unsatisfactory to you.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would suggest that a Compel, with its requirement the character either comply or spend a Fate point, is a core component of the Fate system’s action resolution mechanics, so your dissatisfaction is with those mechanics, not with their failure to be implemented.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> While the “snake eats the victims while you cower” end to a scene feels somewhat anticlimactic to me, that is a risk we take in invoking action resolution mechanics and allowing the dice to fall where they may.



Actually, the dice didn't fall. The GM compelled a scene resolution before the player could even engage the scene via his/her PC.

Upthread, Ratskinner had this to say about this matter:



Ratskinner said:


> The stated goal of a scene is "the players try to achieve a goal or otherwise accomplish something significant in a scenario." The advice a few pages later is to end the scene as soon as that's resolved. I definitely agree that complicating scenes (or framing them in interesting ways) is the primary purpose of the compel mechanic. There is no particular advice about using compels to resolve such a thing. As above, I'd say its bad form...that is, it creates a "non-scene" rather than scene, for the DM to use it as presented in the scenario.



That certainly makes sense to me, and fits with all my intuitions about how a game like fate should be run.

There are some reasons why I find Basic D&D unsatisfactory. The fact that a red dragon in the first room of the first dungeon will auto-kill the 1st level PCs isn't one of them, though - such an event is simply a sign of the GM ignoring the clear advice in the rulebooks. It's a mistake by a bad or a rookie GM.

There may well be reasons why I find Fate unsatisfactory, but I doubt that your scenario ist one of them. A GM compelling a scene resolution the moment the scene is framed strikes me as a mistake by a bad or a rookie GM, made in disregard of the book's advice that a scene involves "the players try[ing] to achieve a goal." In what you described the player had no opportunity to try.



N'raac said:


> I have previously noted that I don’t believe “fail forward” must mean that no actual failure is ever possible.



OK. I don't know anyone - poster or game designer - who disagrees with you. That seems irrelevant to compelling the end of a scene, though, which has no bearing on fail forward. "Fail forward" is a technique for adjudicating action declarations which result in mechanical failure. In the scene you described there has been no action declaration by the player, hence no adjudication, hence no fail forward.



N'raac said:


> Does he seem like someone for whom death is preferable to trucking with Ogrekind?  Was his Aspect actually “Kind of doesn’t like Ogres much but it’s no big deal”?



An aspect is a statement of a point on which a player wishes to be challenged. You are implying here that it is bad play for a player to buy off a compel and therefore act contrary to what an aspect might otherwise dictate. That is contrary to the whole spirit of a game like Fate, where choosing whether or not to accept the compel is the prerogative of the player.

Burning Wheel, in its design, actively _encourages_ players to seek out and/or create situations in which they cannot honour all their beliefs at once, so they can earn higher-grade fate points for roleplaying out the agony of choosing which belief to honour.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> If the positive role of alignment does not extend beyond what @_*Sadras*_ and @_*Bedrockgames*_ have offered, then it should be clear why I don't use it and why it would be an impediment to my play: because I am not interested (as either player or GM) in exploring the GM's conception of the morality of the gameworld; and nor am I interested in adherence to alignment being part of the roleplaying challenge.




As I have said, it depends how you view it. If I am not mistaken I view the term "player entitlement" as a pejorative, you do not. You view Alignment as a pejorative, I do not. I'd like to reiterate that if and when a discussion regarding a PCs actions come up, its usually myself or some other player who is trying to gain a better understanding of a character's motives, it's discussed openly at the table. I imagine similarly so if Alignment ever had to come up (which it never has), the table would discuss it. We do the same when we want to implement a house rule.

With regards using Alignment as a roleplaying challenge. If it weren't, there would be no difference in playing a Paladin or a Fighter except the class abilities which is kinda lame. This is not to say you could not play a "LG" Fighter - only in that with the Paladin its built into the class and the challenge is roleplaying in a world and with companions which are not LG. It makes for interesting conflicts and scenarios and so far despite your impressions of how I might DM alignment, I have never needed to exercise any moral/ethical authority on the actions of the PC. Although now this is going to become a moot point in our campaign since our Paladin was killed in the last session.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> You view Alignment as a pejorative, I do not.



I wouldn't say I view it as a pejorative. I just view it as a mechanic that I don't really like. 



Sadras said:


> With regards using Alignment as a roleplaying challenge. If it weren't, there would be no difference in playing a Paladin or a Fighter except the class abilities which is kinda lame.



What's the difference between playing a fighter and a wizard? Nothing but the class abilities - but that's a pretty big "nothing but".

If a paladin is meant to play differently from a fighter, I want it to have different class abilities too. And I can happily say that 4e delivers on that score.

I also think the different fictional positioning of a paladin from a fighter - only one is so obviously touched by divine grace - should make a difference to the game. It certainly does in my campaign, and I don't need alignment to express or give effect to that.


----------



## Sadras

@_*pemerton*_



> If a paladin is meant to play differently from a fighter, I want it to have different class abilities too. And I can happily say that 4e delivers on that score.




Agreed.



> I also think the different fictional positioning of a paladin from a fighter - only one is so obviously touched by divine grace - should make a difference to the game. It certainly does in my campaign, and I don't need alignment to express or give effect to that.




Well it's because 'touched by divine grace' in your campaign, is represented by a set of mechanics, special abilities which requires no 'LG' roleplay on the part of the player. The PC is 'blessed' no matter how he/she behaves, even if contrary to the divine source that provides him/her those abilities.    

In my campaign's narrative one becomes a paladin and remains one due to their lifestyle, the code they follow - evident through roleplay. So playing a Paladin has a greater roleplaying significance/responsibility in my campaign than playing a Fighter, it doesn't boil down to mechanics only and its tacitly enforced.

The difference between us, is that you would prefer your paladin to "judge" himself and imply he has some say over his deity, while in my campaign the PC is not all-knowing and behaves according to a code which is aligned with the deity he serves and provides him/her with divine power. 

Living by the code is not an easy task due to the difficult choices the paladin might face which gives rise to an actual conflict with real measurable consequences and not, IMO, a "psuedo-conflict" as in your instance where the paladin is consequence-free since he can never lose ones divine abilities no matter what action/s he/she performs.  

Apologies if it comes across very blunt and mean-spirited, I do not intend it that way, but in essence that is the way I see it. We could be having similar conversations about topics such as healing, resurrection...etc regarding pseudo-conflicts and measurable or lasting consequences.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Apologies if it comes across very blunt and mean-spirited



Not at all - and no apologies required for any of your posts in the thread, at least as far as I'm concerned.



Sadras said:


> The difference between us, is that you would prefer your paladin to "judge" himself and imply he has some say over his deity



I would say: the _player_ of the paladin.



Sadras said:


> Well it's because 'touched by divine grace' in your campaign, is represented by a set of mechanics, special abilities which requires no 'LG' roleplay on the part of the player.



I wasn't meaning just the mechanics. The NPCs in general know that the PC is a paladin who is wielding the power of his/her god (eg they see the symbol emblazoned on his shield and note that his sword glows when it strikes - dealing radiant damage). So they react to the PC not just as if s/he were a devout person, but as someone who is in communion with, and a type of exemplar of, the god.

That has significant consequences in the fiction - for instance, tieflings are already treated with some trepidation by ordinary people in default 4e, and then for one of them to dedicate himself to the Raven Queen suggests that he is even more disturbing (and disturbed) than an ordinary tiefling. In peaceful human settlements, therefore, the dwarf fighter tends to be the default party leader even though his CHA and social skills are quite weak. The paladin (who is CHA based and so has a CHA somewhere around 27 and Diplomacy and Intimidate in the neighbourhood of +30) steps in when persuasion is really required - and will more often take the lead when dealing with non-human or non-standard NPCs, especially diabolists and other cultists for whom he tends to have a particular disdain (or, more occasionally, an odd kinship, as with the kuo-toa).


----------



## Jacob Marley

pemerton said:


> Because I value coherence and consistency in backstory? I mean, you could _suggest _as your PC a bookish nerd who can barely see even when wearing glasses, who honours Kord by sneezing in even the gentlest breeze. I don't see how that PC fits into the gameworld, though.




D&D is a game that is often played by bookish nerds who pretend to be Conan in our universe; I am not sure why it is difficult to envision that character existing in a fictional universe. Maybe the player is interested in playing a pre-Super-Soldier serum Steve Rogers? Maybe the player is interested in the zero-to-hero journey?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> You're confused. I haven't imposed my vision on anyone. No one has tried to create a character for my game since 2010 unless you count the rebuild of the invoker/wizard in 2012 - and on no occasion did I "impose my vision". I talked to the player about the character and where it fitted into the existing backstory. The most challenging of these was in fact the rebuild, because (i) there was a lot more established backstory by then and (ii) it was an elaborate character with an elaborate backstory.




I’m afraid that some hypotheticals are needed to advance the discussion.  You have said that it is “player’s choice” when it comes to their PC’s beliefs, and that their veracity should be determined only  of Fate on behalf of the RQ in ending people’s lives.  That is, you have pre-decided that the character is wrong from the start in his belief that he is cutting off those threads at precisely the fated time in his service to the Raven Queen, and instead the player should accept a patron more clearly aligned with evil forces.  I would have thought that you would be open to that character being played, and we can determine in play whether he is truly the Hand of Fate, acting on behalf of the Raven Queen, rather than the murdering lunatic you have pre-judged him to be.



pemerton said:


> Just in case there is any doubt: you are not proposing a PC for my campaign. You have not asked to join my campaign, and I am not inviting you to do so. (I think you're on the wrong continent, before we get to any other relevant considerations.)




I do not believe we can discuss the issue in a vacuum, which leads to a need to assess the manner in which you would approach such a character proposal.  For all your protests, you seem to have made it very clear how such a character proposal would be addressed in your game.  The character does not match your vision of a reasonable devotee of the Raven Queen, and as such you would reject such a character.  If, in my game, I had a similar view of such a deity, I would reject the character as well.  However, this seems inconsistent of your mantra of the GM not judging the rightness or wrongness of the character’s beliefs, but rather allowing their truth to emerge through play.



pemerton said:


> You assert this stuff as if you know me, but you're just making it up! You have no idea what sort of PC you, or anyone else, might play in my game, because we haven't talked about what the possibilities are. All I've done is point out the received view of the Raven Queen derived by my group from the default 4e material.




Why would a challenge to that received view be so unacceptable to you in play?  You have stated that my character concept would be steered away from the Raven Queen, yet it seems like a divergent view of the Raven Queen would place further pressure on the beliefs of her other devotees in your game.  It’s OK for a Vampire to be accepted as her servant when you assert she detests undeath – that’s just expedient.  Why isn’t a Hand of Fate who ensures each thread is cut at its proper time beyond belief?



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what the "still" is doing here.




Take a look at the length of the thread!



pemerton said:


> Yes, I am assessing the coherence of your proposed PC with the received backstory: for instance, is it consistent with the received backstory for the Raven Queen that someone might show their devotion to her by murdering random people in her name?




As I said, he is cutting the threads at their appointed time.  As the Chosen of the Raven Queen, he can perceive which lives must be cut short in accordance with the dictates of Fate.  These are not “random people”, but those who Fate has decreed should die at this time, and in this manner.  Stand not between the Right Hand of the Raven Queen and his appointed duty!  Why is the question of whether he is a true Chosen Servant of Fate (and the RQ) or a murderous psychopath to be decided by nixing the character concept before it is even slightly developed, rather than being answered in play?  I submit it is because you do, indeed, judge the characters.  You simply do not judge them through the lens of alignment.



pemerton said:


> I don't see what that has to do with judging your PC. You seem to think that random murder is evil. It would be evil, then, wouldn't it, whether you did it in the name of the Raven Queen or in the name of Demogorgon. If you personally judge a certain sort of behaviour (say, wanton murder) as evil; and if you want to play a PC who is devoted to such behaviour; but want to refrain from judging your PC evil - I am curious as to why? It sounds like a request for a type of exoneration - a pardon granted by the GM and/or the game system - but I don't really get it.
> 
> What I also don't understand, and what you've not explained, is how and why this wanton murder would be a mode of honouring the Raven Queen, as she is described in the default 4e campaign world.




Often, Fate is seen as evil.  Why does that mother die in childbirth, or that small child perish in his first year?  My character conception is simply meting out the Fates that have been decreed, in the name of the Goddess of Fate.  And, if you do not judge characters, why does the word “evil” appear so frequently in your discussion of the character’s morality?  Why does it matter whether either you as the GM or I as the player think he is “evil”?  If he is, in fact, meting out the Fates in the name of the Raven Queen (which seems like something we should be establishing in play), then he is neither Good nor Evil, just as the Raven Queen is neither Good nor Evil.  Or he is holy and righteous and Good – just as the Raven Queen is Good.  Or he is a ruthless, evil enforcer of Fate – just as the Raven Queen herself is.  If there is no alignment, then why are we asserting such judgement is so easily undertaken?



pemerton said:


> Because I value coherence and consistency in backstory? I mean, you could _suggest _as your PC a bookish nerd who can barely see even when wearing glasses, who honours Kord by sneezing in even the gentlest breeze. I don't see how that PC fits into the gameworld, though.






Jacob Marley said:


> D&D is a game that is often played by bookish nerds who pretend to be Conan in our universe; I am not sure why it is difficult to envision that character existing in a fictional universe. Maybe the player is interested in playing a pre-Super-Soldier serum Steve Rogers? Maybe the player is interested in the zero-to-hero journey?




We seem to be getting at the crux of the issue.  The question is whether the PC  meets your vision of what fits into your gameworld.  That is, as GM, you are judging the morals and beliefs of your gameworld, contrary to your consistent and repetitive claims that you do not judge the appropriateness of the players’ play of their own PC’s.  You claim some huge difference between your approach and that of a GM using alignment, but you are passing judgment on the consistency of the concept of each PC with your own game world the same as any other GM addressing alignment.



pemerton said:


> You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is using an alignment mechanic!




You seem to assume only a GM who frames his judgment in terms of an alignment mechanic judges the appropriateness of PC morals and beliefs.



pemerton said:


> Of course most NPCs in the gameworld are going to have a dim view of the demon princes such as Orcus and Demogorgon. But then most NPCs in the gameworld are going to have a dim view of a person - such as the PC you propose - who honours his/her patron via murder and the animation of the dead. But on its own that doesn't settle the evaluative question - that's the whole point of what I've been saying.




Yet you are stating the evaluative question is settled – that the character is not a viable one in your game world as a devotee of the Raven Queen.



pemerton said:


> Whether those inclinations make them evil isn't something I need to judge to run the game; whether your PC being devoted to them makes him/her evil likewise isn't something I need to judge to run the game. If you have a conception of your PC which explains how, in fact, in behaving in these ways s/he is doing the right thing, then maybe the same can be said for Demogorgon or Orcus.




But not, it seems, of the Raven Queen.  And, once again, you ARE evaluating these actions as evil, despite your ongoing protests to the contrary.  I’m curious if anyone else is still reading our exchanges, and whether they perceive your comments as being indicative of your “not judging” the “evaluative question” in advance of any play.



pemerton said:


> Now if you think that the Raven Queen, as described in the 4e PHB, would be honoured by the sacrifice to her of random murder victims and their animation as undead, explain away. But I'm not seeing it in the description of her (p 22):
> She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.​
> "Guarding the departed from the curse of undeath" does not generally entail that you are an _inflictor_ of undeath. Being a "marker of the end of lives" does not generally entail that you are a _bringer_ of the end of those lives.




It is the mourners, not the Raven Queen, who are cited as viewing undeath as a curse.  And, again, why is my devotee ensuring that each mortal meets his death at the Fated time, in the Fated manner, not a devoted follower of the Goddess of Fate?  Sorry, but when I read the descriptions you cite from the PHB over and over again, I see her no more as a benevolent force than I did the first time.  If you choose to make her a benevolent force in your game, rather than let the question be decided in play, then that is your prerogative – but it is a judgment you have made.



pemerton said:


> If you want to serve a god rather than a demon, here are some other possibilities that strike me as better suited than the Raven Queen (PHB p 23):
> * Gruumsh . . . exhorts his followers to slaughter and pillage.
> 
> * Vecna is . . . god of undead, necromancy, and secrets. He rules that which is not meant to be known and that which people wish to keep secret.
> 
> * Zehir is . . . god of darkness, poison, and assassins.​




And, once again, we discover this by GM imposition, and not by discovery through play.  Why?  You are quite insistent that all of these forces, all of whom I agree are much more clearly and explicitly linked to evil and darkness than the Raven Queen, are more appropriate for my character than the Raven Queen.  Her description is much more neutral – neither good nor evil – as I read it.

But why?  I suggest it is because you have judged my character, judged these deities and judged the Raven Queen in advance of any play, contrary to your expressed desire to avoid any such evaluation by the GM.



pemerton said:


> What you believe is your business. But I do think there may be more to the heaven and earth of RPGing than is dreamed of in your philosophy! For example, it seems to me that you underestimate the importance of actual play and the context that it provides for (nearly? - I'm not sure that I need the qualifier) every element of the fiction.




Better keep “nearly”, since you clearly don’t believe the morality of the Raven Queen is an element of the fiction which will be discovered through play, rather than set by the GM.  That can’t be the only element which would fall into that category.



pemerton said:


> My goal is to show what I said I was showing - episodes of play to which alignment would be an impediment. The impediment, as I have repeatedly stated, would consist in me having to judge the moral character of the choices made by my players in the course of playing their PCs.
> 
> I don't know - I'm the one who doesn't use alignment, remember! I'm aware, however, of multiple editions of the Monster Manual that label ogres as evil. What is the point of that labelling if I'm meant to ignore it? Is there a passage I missed in the 3E PHB that explains how otherwise evil people who play dice suddenly cease to be evil?




Someone else cited the fact that the MM provides a general inclination.  Perhaps, in your play of these Ogres, you have made them “not evil”.  Did the Samurai have to ignore their depredations?  Was he, in fact, looking the other way from that heap of childrens’ skulls?  Or was the only evidence that the Ogres were vile and evil the tales he has heard – myths and rumours – and he was open minded enough to discover for himself that the Ogres are not the evil monsters they have been painted as?

Did the Samurai face a true moral dilemma, or would we have been adding labels, rather than setting alignments consistent with the in-game behaviour of the creatures themselves?  Truly Evil ogres would presumably have had that pile of skulls, perhaps offered their new gaming companion some of their feast, or maybe have been dicing with him long enough for him to fall asleep and become fodder for the stewpot himself.  But they don’t appear to have taken any actual Evil actions.  

NOTE:  Detection of alignment is not a hallmark of all D&D settings – Ravenloft removes it, for example – so if it is simple eae of detection that concerns you, remove those spells.  Other posters have.



pemerton said:


> Of course. But the PC can plead his case, and try to make the angel change her mind from an initial judgement. As happened here. If someone casts Know Alignment and you ping as CN, I don't think there's going to be much pleading and persuading. The spell already processes all the arguments and reaches the true conclusion, doesn't it?




It registers the character’s true alignment, assuming we accept it as such.  That knowledge may well render the Angel resistant to persuasion.  How does it make the Angel any less willing to listen to arguments that the instructions it has been given are wrong?  Just as it can detect alignment, can it not detect Truth and assess whether this servant of Chaos does, at least in this one instance, speak the truth?



pemerton said:


> You seem to have mistaken me for someone who uses alignment. This angel is who she is. The module describes her personality - I can't remember the details, but it includes the standard stuff about resolute guardian etc etc. The point of the episode of play, as I experienced it, was that a player gave an impassioned argument, in character and drawing upon much of what had hitherto unfolded in the game, that the values to which the angel herself was committed required her to change her mind and let him kill her. And using the action resolution mechanics of the system in question (Rolemaster), he persuaded her.




How is it any more difficult to interpret “Resolute Guardian” as “will not deviate from her orders” than to interpret “Lawful Good” as having the same meaning?  In my view, then impassioned argument drawing on what has unfolded already is no more, or less, likely to persuade the “Resolute Guardian Angel” than to persuade an Angel which is “Lawful Good”.  

If you would, in fact, interpret alignment as such a straightjacket on play, then I agree you are right to remove it from your games.  But not because it could add nothing, but because your interpretation of alignment clearly cannot move beyond “straightjacket”.



pemerton said:


> It is not only orthogonal to that play and it's point to spend even a moment's thought on whether the angel is really CN (or has been persuaded to change her alignment by the PC), it is actively _antithetical_, because it shifts attention and effort from what matters - this moving moment at the table that produces this amazing event in the fiction - to something that is utterly pointless and irrelevant as far as I am concerned - namely, which of some bundle of judgemental labels is now the best one to stick on this NPC.




Nor do I think anyone suggests the Angel must change its alignment to be persuaded in this instance.  Did the Angel cease to be a “resolute guardian”, or did it assess the arguments placed before it  and conclude that the Greater Good required it deviate from its instructions, in this instance, even at the sacrifice of its own life (personal sacrifice for the greater good – gee, what alignment does that sound like?)



pemerton said:


> Given that I play a game with a whole PC race dedicated to addressing this question - namely, the tieflings - and given that I have a tiefling PC in my game, the answer is that of course devil worship raises moral issues. I even indicated some in the post to which you are replying: namely, that the tiefling expressed the view that the fall of the duergar was foretold, much as it was for the duergar the moment they made a pact with such treacherous beings.




Are all the references to “duergar” correct?  Your statement doesn’t parse out.  You have, it appears, judged devils as evil, and as such their worship as evil, contrary to your claim you do not pass such judgments in your game.



pemerton said:


> You seem to be insisting that an answer be worked out in advance. I am trying to explain that I would regard that as defeating the main purpose of play.




An answer to what?  Whether devil worship is wrong, whether it is possible to redeem the devil worshippers, or whether the more moral action is to hasten their downfall or to aid in their redemption?  Did the PC’s approach the situation with an objective, unbiased eye to determine whether they too should become devil worshippers?

The very word “devil” carries connotations of evil.  Perhaps we should return to the less loaded “Baatazu”.



pemerton said:


> Sure, if the player rejects the compel the player hands the GM a token.




How was the compel determined to be valid?  If it is not a valid compel, or there is no need to make that determination, then the system is merely a bidding war, as the player can be compelled to spend Fate points to avoid actions he considers inconsistent with his aspects.



pemerton said:


> Actually, the dice didn't fall. The GM compelled a scene resolution before the player could even engage the scene via his/her PC.




The dice fell in some manner to leave the player bereft of Fate points as he entered the scene, which prevented him paying one to avoid the Compel.



pemerton said:


> There may well be reasons why I find Fate unsatisfactory, but I doubt that your scenario ist one of them. A GM compelling a scene resolution the moment the scene is framed strikes me as a mistake by a bad or a rookie GM, made in disregard of the book's advice that a scene involves "the players try[ing] to achieve a goal." In what you described the player had no opportunity to try.




He has no resources to try, as I see it.  That seems to mean he used up too much of his resources against earlier challenges to his success.  The game is a series of scenes, and those scenes impact one upon another to create a narrative.



pemerton said:


> OK. I don't know anyone - poster or game designer - who disagrees with you. That seems irrelevant to compelling the end of a scene, though, which has no bearing on fail forward. "Fail forward" is a technique for adjudicating action declarations which result in mechanical failure. In the scene you described there has been no action declaration by the player, hence no adjudication, hence no fail forward.




The player has, I assume, declared several actions to date which resulted in the utilization of all of his Fate points.  The consequence of that use of all of his Fate points is the lack of any resource to resist his fear of snakes at this critical juncture, and as such his failure to protect these innocents.



pemerton said:


> An aspect is a statement of a point on which a player wishes to be challenged. You are implying here that it is bad play for a player to buy off a compel and therefore act contrary to what an aspect might otherwise dictate. That is contrary to the whole spirit of a game like Fate, where choosing whether or not to accept the compel is the prerogative of the player.




To me, playing a character consistent to his Aspects would mandate following the Compel, except where there are competing Aspects which would mandate a departure from this specific aspect.  In my example, if he just came across an enormous snake, flight seems the appropriate response.  However, the Innocents placed two aspects in conflict.  Much like a LG Angel might find compliance with its orders to conflict with bringing the greatest good to the greatest number.



pemerton said:


> Burning Wheel, in its design, actively _encourages_ players to seek out and/or create situations in which they cannot honour all their beliefs at once, so they can earn higher-grade fate points for roleplaying out the agony of choosing which belief to honour.




If all that means is a series of angsty “Woe betide me” speeches at the table, let the wheel burn, as I have no interest in such play.


----------



## howandwhy99

What if Alignment meant: Oppressors, Freedom Fighters, and people who don't care much either way? Freedom and oppression are as illusory as good and evil, right? So a triptych mechanic rating game elements on this spectrum is as incoherent and incomprehensible as, say, using OD&D's Law and Chaos mechanic. It's not to do with one's own certainties of the world. Just as there is no such thing as free will or conflict, we needn't include this spectrum in the game.


----------



## pemerton

howandwhy99 said:


> What if Alignment meant: Oppressors, Freedom Fighters, and people who don't care much either way?



From my point of view the same issue would remain: I'm not intersted in judging whether or not the PCs my players are playing are _really_ oppressors or _really_ liberators. That just doesn't conduce to my idea of fun RPGing.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't have enough of a handle on standard Fate procedures, nor on what    @_*N'raac*_ intended by his example, to fully respond to this. Here are some thoughts:If the player's goal is to rescue the innocents; and if, as a result of the compel to flee, the innocents get eaten; then that is not a complication. It is a failure, and furthermore a failure which is resolved, at the final moment, without the player actually engaging the action resolution mechanics. If I knew nothing more of an episode of play than my preceding two sentences, my default assumption would be that it was somewhat unsatisfactory.​




I disagree here.  The compel doesn't determine whether the innocents get eaten or not, the compel is specifically  about the character having to flee from the snake.  It is not incumbent upon the GM to make sure the player succeeds in their goals, it is up to the player.  I see no reason why the player couldn't, especially now empowered with a Fate point (If he doesn't use it he is choosing not to engage the action resolution mechanics), think of a way for the innocents to survive.  In the same way that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] made the suggestions about still finding a way to attack the snake when a melee attack was disallowed, a clever player can find a way to save the innocents if he wants to.  That said I also see nothing inherently wrong with a scene that does end in failure for the player/character... especially if they choose not to use the resources at their disposal.



pemerton said:


> If the player's goal is to please NPC X, and the rescuing of the innocents is simply a means to pleasing NPC X (let's suppose they are X's wife and daughter), then the scene-ending compel is a complication, because while a setback to the PC's goal - the wife and daughter get eaten, which presumably won't please X - the PC can always find another way to please X. (This would be fail forward at work).




I'm not sure there's a real point in addressing this as it is not what was stated as the goal of the character...



pemerton said:


> If the player's goal is to rescue the innocents; and the scene-ending compel is used; but the snake doesn't eat the mother and daughter - some other twist is introduced - then that would be another example of fail forward which would make the compel count as a complication by my lights, rather than an anti-climactic failure.




Yes but you seem to be making the assumption that the GM must somehow allow the player to "fail forward" when in fact by giving the player the Fate point, the GM has given him the opportunity and means to succeed at this task.  I am personally not a big fan of fail forward in an instance like this since I am already giving the player meta-currency and narrative control by giving him the Fate point... why should I then also make his failure a non-failure if he chooses not to use his resources??  I'm sorry but, IMO,  sometimes it's ok for a player or their character to actually fail at something.​


pemerton said:


> These thoughts are influenced (probably obviously) by familiarity with default procedures and expectations for HeroQuest revised, Marvel Heroic RP and Burning Wheel. I don't know precisely how they translate to Fate, but I'd be surprised if it was wildly different. They all seem to be games which are pretty similar in their goals as far as the basic purposes and structure of play are concerned.




I think you'll find Fate a much more traditional roleplaying game than the ones you list above...  Not sure if that's enough to give it different purposes and structure of play from those games but the one's I am familiar with MHRP and HQ... seem to have a much more meta-game and  artificial setup in their play structure than Fate but that's just my opinion. 



pemerton said:


> EDIT to respond to something from an earlier post that I had overlooked:
> 
> I was looking at in the reverse way: not that "where you are in the story" constrains expenditure of fate points, but rather that expenditure of fate points tells you where you are in the story. If the fate points are flying thick and fast, and the player ends up out of them, that seems a marker of (i) a high degree of player investment in the outcome of whatever just happened, and (ii) that the PC succeeded by the skin of his/her teeth, or perhaps failed despite giving it his/her very best shot (hence no fate points left). These both seem like signs of a climax to me.




The thing is... the spending of Fate points is a tool that is totally under the control of the player... and while the DM is supposed to keep the flow of Fate points going it is still possible for a player to nova with FP's and I don't know if it's necessarily the responsibility of the GM to auto-refill whenever they do that.  In some games the FP currency is used to balance out more powerful and less powerful characters, like in the Dresden Files... but if the GM just auto-refills whenever you use them, well it becomes a pretty poor balancing mechanism.  I just think you are drawing a connection that isn't implicitly or explicitly there.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> I also hope it's clear why I think that playing in one of those styles means that the player is doing something, in playing his/her PC, other than simply "playing it according to his/her conception". In the "explore the GM's world" style, the player has to take on board the moral framework of the GM's world in forming a conception of his/her PC - eg in this GM's world, being good means refraining from XYZ. In the "roleplaying your alignment is part of the challenge" style, a player who simply plays according to his/her conception of the PC is not taking the challenge seriously. Part of the challenge is developing that conception within the alignment framework as it will be adjudicated by the GM, and then playing accordingly.




That paragraph helps a lot.   I think almost all the games I've been in as a GM or player  have had Good be a pretty big tent of divergent views.  So the players might be exploring a lot about what the gods want, but not so much what the alignment demanded.   (They would have played them as doing all of the things that would stereotypically be good without serious debate -- if they didn't want that they'd be neutral, and if they wanted to do bad things regularly they'd be evil).

There was one I played in where I think it could be viewed as a conflict over alignment. My NG Gnome illusionist from the underdark had actually started to veer towards lawful because he was convinced the LG creator god was who he should be supporting to stave off the end of the world, and he thought becoming a Paladin was the best way to serve hm. Then he found out a few more details about how the creator god had set the universe up. Failing to get answers to his theological question about (iirc) how allowing all those souls to be damned could possibly be good, he went back to working for what he thought was good in his own mind and iirc would have lost quite a bit of support from the literal side of angels if the campaign hadn't ended around then for other reasons.   Would it have been dodging a challenge for someone who could see their character going along with the LG creater god no matter what to just follow orders and not question?  

In another one the DM set it up up front that we could put things in about the backstory, including  the religions of the land. It ended up basically being Norse with all of the divergence of opinion about how they acted like is found in the variety of real world writings.  In contrast to what you discuss further down in your response, we didn't have any real control of it after those inputs though, and so my fighter-thief (on a quest to redeem his cleric of Odin father) was exploring the DM's conception of how those religions worked.  If having  the cleric of Frigg hang me on the spear didn't work the way I thought it would... well, I'd have rolled up another character and the rest of the party would have had some of their suspicions about Odin confirmed.  (I think the GM waited to see how we spun the story of the hanging and justified it to each other before deciding what Odin would have done).  At another point, we had the choice of which one person we would save, and we argued about which of several people who'd committed crimes against either the gods or against men should be that one. I think we all thought the gods we worshiped didn't particularly care one way or another about which one it was.   

Were we failing to take the challenges seriously in these cases because we were exploring what the gods wanted, or how the characters viewed themselves, and not what the world's rules of alignments were?  

Is one not taking it seriously if they have a cleric who doesn't find their main challenge in exploring either the limits of their alignment or their religion?

What was the neutral priestess of Badb's responsibility to the 5 year old she bought from slavery because she reminded her of a long ago butchered relative?  Should she turn the girl over to the priestesses of the peaceful god who would protect her but also teach her to loathe her adoptive mother? Should she pay the NPCs that the party trusted to come from base city to base city with them to watch after her?  Should she tell them what she was before they found out (since magic weilders outside the allowed faiths were definitely not generally approved of)?   

My character didn't care what the world though of who she was in terms of alignment, she was who she was. Badb's concern was for a longer term mission of war and that everyone who was asking for it got what they had coming - the goddess didn't care about how this small personal issue got resolved. So I only played the character as having the struggle against her memories, loneliness, and desire for revenge.

The game world has lots of things to explore in it, including a lot with mechanics.  I don't think its possible or necessary to explore all of them, or even all aspects of all of them. 



pemerton said:


> The fact that it's not really a big deal is actually quite important, too:




I can understand why that could be appealing and would make a big difference.



pemerton said:


> A further technique, that @N'raac alluded to upthread, is my preference for not resolving actions by reference to "hidden backstory" ie backstory that the players don't have access to, and hence can't anticipate the consequences of when they make choices for their PCs. In the sorts of situations we're looking at in this thread (fidelity, betrayal, honour etc) I have NPCs, artefacts, imp familiars, the general back and forth of table talk, all as devices to let the players know what I think the stakes are before they commit.




Couldn't that be brought to bear on issues of alignment threshold crossing?



pemerton said:


> @N'raac upthread posited the possibility of these players finding out, 5 years into the campaign, that in fact only one of them was right about their god, and that the others were wrong all along. As I said in reply, I don't feel that this is a genuine danger, because it seems to posit a type of "bolt from the blue" adjudication or scene-resolution which simply wouldn't fit with the sorts of techniques I've just discussed for helping keep everyone on the same page during action resolution and the determination of consequences.




I'm picturing possibility of the problem that happens in comic books when the author forgets something and you end up with a continuity conflict.  Of course that can happen with all kinds of in game details (wait, that inn was in that other town, not this one!).



pemerton said:


> Given my goals, I'm just not seeing what value this is adding to my game.




More generally, this feels like it ties into at least two other threads where an answer to several problems with specific RPGs has been "Fate does that".  Sometimes I like the game where I'm exploring the world and dealing with what my character has at hand (in the classic keep track of all the resources D&D type thing), and not helping to directly create the world on the fly by more than what the character is doing.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> In another one the DM set it up up front that we could put things in about the backstory, including  the religions of the land. It ended up bascially being Norse with all of the divergence of opinion about how they acted like is found in the variety of real world writings.  In contrast to what you discuss further down in your response, we didn't have any real control of it after those inputs though
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think the GM waited to see how we spun the story of the hanging and justified it to each other before deciding what Odin would have done.



I read this as implying that you actually _did_ have control after the initial backstory stuff - albeit informal control. Have I misunderstood?



Cadence said:


> I'm picturing possibility of the problem that happens in comic books when the author forgets something and you end up with a continuity conflict.  Of course that can happen with all kinds of in game details (wait, that inn was in that other town, not this one!).



Sure, weird stuff can happen. Even around religious rituals - last time it was the tail feather of a raven used to ward the dead from harm, this time it's the wing feather, because no one wrote it down and memory fades or gets distorted.

But I can't really envisage this happening for a core detail, out of the blue as it were, like "What's the basic connection between my world view and that of my patron deity?"



Cadence said:


> I think this ties into at least two other threads where an answer to several problems has been "Fate does that".  Sometimes I like the game where I'm exploring the world and dealing with what my character has at hand (in the classic keep track of all the resources D&D type thing), and not helping to directly create the world on the fly by more than what the character is doing.



I really think this is something of a red herring. I don't play with strong player authorship of the Fate variety (or even the Burning Wheel variety). The key issue with alignment mechanics, at least for me, isn't backstory/world creation. It's about the place of evaluative and expressive response in the game. You can have the most vanilla methodologies you like for backstory creation (and by all standards but the _most_ traditional my game is pretty vanilla), but still not want it to be part of the GM's job (or anyone else's, for that matter) to make those judgements that alignment mechanics require.



Cadence said:


> Then he found out a few more details about how the creator god had set the universe up. Failing to get answers to his theological question about (iirc) how allowing all those souls to be damned could possibly be good, he went back to working for what he thought was good in his own mind
> 
> <snip>
> 
> we argued about which of several people who'd committed crimes against either the gods or against men should be that one. I think we all thought the gods we worshipped didn't particularly care one way or another about which one it was.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What was the neutral priestess of Badb's responsibility to the 5 year old she bought from slavery because she reminded her of a long ago butchered relative?



Sounds like good stuff! - the first two remind me somewhat of the campaign I described upthread where the PCs tried to save the world from the consequences of the karmic pact the gods had entered into at the beginning of time.

It seems to me that alignment is not playing much of a role in either episode. For instance, your gnome seems to be entertaining the conclusion that the "LG" creator god is not really good - which strike me as contrary to the traditional canons of alignment. That's not a criticism of your play at all - quite the contrary. I'm just not seeing how these episodes are establishing the value of alignment as a tool in your play; I'm not seeing how it contributed to the episodes of play that you describe.



Cadence said:


> Were we failing to take the challenges seriously in these cases because we were exploring what the gods wanted, or how the characters viewed themselves, and not what the world's rules of alignments were?



It sounds like you were taking the challenges of the situations that confronted your PCs very seriously. What I'm missing is how alignment fitted in. For instance, in the case of your gnome PC the key question in your play of him doesn't seem to have been "How can I play this character faithfully to NG alignment" - which is what the 2nd ed PHB suggests you should be asking - but rather "What ought my attitude be towards a creator god who claims to be benevolent but who lets all these souls be condemned to perdition?" I think the second question is about a million times more interesting and challenging than the one framed by the 2nd ed PHB. As I already said, though, what I'm not seeing is how alignment as a mechanical tool helped you play.

Self-correction: I can see _one_ thing, namely, that because you gnome PC had NG rather than LG on the sheet, you couldn't become a paladin. I can see how, within the context of a game in which paladinhood had become associated with the "LG" creator god, and so the question of whether or not to become a paladin - itself a big deal - was also bound up with the question of whether or not to revere the creator god, which is another big deal, then alignment has become entwined within that complex of big deals.

In an alignment free game I think the same situation could be set up - certain classes can be associated with reverence for certain gods without mediation via alignment (which I think is often the de facto approach for druid PCs, especially 3E-style druids with their watered-down neutrality), and then the challenge for your gnome would be the question of worship. There's also the bit about "veering towards lawfulness". If that was being adjudicated by the GM then it's different from the sort of play I'm setting out as my own personal preference. If that was being adjudicated primarily by you as player - "I feel I need to reorient myself as an honourable person who observes all the right precepts" - then I think it could be done much the same in an alignment-free game. (In terms of my own play experience, it makes me think of the way the player of the drug-addicted PC played out his recovery then fall then partial subsequent redemption.)



Cadence said:


> Couldn't that be brought to bear on issues of alignment threshold crossing?



Perhaps. What I'm still not seeing is _why I would want to_.

I can 100% see why the play you describe - of which I've quoted some snippets - is worthwhile. Unless I've badly misunderstood, a lot of it reminds me of the sort of stuff I enjoy in my game, some of which I described upthread. What I'm 100% missing, though, is how alignment is making any contribution to that play. It seems completely epiphenomenal - a mere book-keeping afterthought. (With the possible exception of the gnome would-be paladin, but I've tried to explain above why I think you can get that sort of play without alignment, such that while the words used to frame the issues might be a bit different, the actual dynamic would not be. To put it even more simply, I'm 100% confident you could get that gnome-would-be-paladin-sort-of-play going in Gloranthan Runequest or HeroWars/Quest, and neither of those has D&D-style alignment.)


----------



## Umbran

Maybe I've missed something, so I beg your pardon if I have...



Imaro said:


> I disagree here.  The compel doesn't determine whether the innocents get eaten or not, the compel is specifically  about the character having to flee from the snake.  It is not incumbent upon the GM to make sure the player succeeds in their goals, it is up to the player.  I see no reason why the player couldn't, especially now empowered with a Fate point (If he doesn't use it he is choosing not to engage the action resolution mechanics), think of a way for the innocents to survive.  In the same way that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] made the suggestions about still finding a way to attack the snake when a melee attack was disallowed, a clever player can find a way to save the innocents if he wants to.  That said I also see nothing inherently wrong with a scene that does end in failure for the player/character... especially if they choose not to use the resources at their disposal.




Let's walk this back a bit - in the pages of long post, I think maybe some detail is getting lost, or bits are getting overstated, and either is important to avoid.

If the compel is to "flee", that's a problem.  That's a compel to take a specific action, which most versions of the rules advise against.  On the face of it, I'd agree that it isn't a complication - the world isn't complicated when you have no choice at all.  "You fail" is pretty darned simple, and usually not a whole lot of fun.  Compels are for making the player work a little harder, not to make them just lose.

That's why I suggested a compel to "stay out of striking range".  It restricts action, but it continues to allow the character to engage.  It means the players must take less obvious paths, or think creatively, while given them a Fate point to help them enact the creative solution.

The fail-compel could be part of a larger whole:  compel to completely cower in fear for a moment, only to see the villain make off with the innocents, turning a simple hack-and-slash combat into a chase scene, for example, might still be okay.  It still allows some chance at success.



> Yes but you seem to be making the assumption that the GM must somehow allow the player to "fail forward" when in fact by giving the player the Fate point, the GM has given him the opportunity and means to succeed at this task.




That's only true if the situation remains open to action.  If the PC has been forced to flee, and the innocents are eaten, well, then the point isn't really relevant, as it cannot be applied, and the player cannot succeed.



> I'm sorry but, IMO,  sometimes it's ok for a player or their character to actually fail at something.




Maybe I have been out of the discussion too long and have missed something relevant.  But, "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is not the character failing at something.

Simply put - the compel should not be used to create a barrier the player cannot be expected to overcome.  I repeat that compels are not tools to make the player lose.  



> The thing is... the spending of Fate points is a tool that is totally under the control of the player... and while the DM is supposed to keep the flow of Fate points going it is still possible for a player to nova with FP's and I don't know if it's necessarily the responsibility of the GM to auto-refill whenever they do that.




Honestly, if the player fails, it should probably be when they roll the dice - they failed to be clever, or failed to have enough resources available, or just got unlucky.  Or, maybe when the opponent rolls the dice - the player takes more damage then they can handle, and either dies or must concede and take a consequence. 

Using a compel to make the player just fail... if that's what we're talking about... seems like bad form, to me.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The compel doesn't determine whether the innocents get eaten or not, the compel is specifically  about the character having to flee from the snake.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I see no reason why the player couldn't, especially now empowered with a Fate point (If he doesn't use it he is choosing not to engage the action resolution mechanics), think of a way for the innocents to survive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> by giving the player the Fate point, the GM has given him the opportunity and means to succeed at this task



Well if the compel does not end the scene then all my concerns about it being anti-climactic and a scene-ender rather than a complication go away.

That is not what I took [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] to have in mind - I though he _was_ intending the compelt to flee as a scene-ender, and he seemed to go along with that in replying to my post. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], in his most recent posts, also seems to be reading it as a scene-ending compel. But what N'raac had in mind is somewhat orthogonal to the question of how Fate actually plays.

Because I don't know Fate well enough, I don't know what effect fleeing has on action resolution. In D&D or Burning Wheel or most games that use non-abstract or semi-abstract positioning, having to flee _would_ end the scene, because the PC can no longer act upon the elements that make up the scene (due to geographic separation). In MHRP this isn't necessarily the case, because distance is just another scene descriptor or complication, and PCs have plenty of capacity to act at long range (whether via super speed, super stretching, telephone link up or whatever). In HeroWars/Quest, if you had to flee you might still be able to act via some sort of relationship or magical ability or other PC build element that does not rely upon geographic proximity to make sense within the fictional positioning.

It seems to me that whether or not fleeing is scene-ending depends on whether Fate is closer to D&D or to MHRP. I'll leave that question for the Fate players to resolve, though.



Imaro said:


> I think you'll find Fate a much more traditional roleplaying game than the ones you list above
> 
> <snip>
> 
> MHRP and HQ... seem to have a much more meta-game and  artificial setup in their play structure than Fate but that's just my opinion.



I don't really follow "artificial" here - all games are artefacts and all game play is artifice - and I don't know that I see the difference in metagame either - imposing aspects on people/things looks a lot like MHRP complications to me. But each to their own. As I said above - if the compel does not end the scene, then that resolves my main concern.



Imaro said:


> The thing is... the spending of Fate points is a tool that is totally under the control of the player



But if the player spent them all, that suggests to me that the player thought the stakes were pretty high. Which is one reasonable definition of a climactic moment.


----------



## Imaro

@_*Umbran*_ and @_*pemerton*_... I think it might be helpful if we review exactly how FP's and to a lesser extent compels work...

Now it's already been established that you cannot mitigate the compel once accepted, so no matter what in that scene my character is going to flee from the snake (that said NOTHING in the compel touches on whether the snake ate the innocents or not)... however once I agree to that I receive a Fate point, which I can spend immediately as long as it doesn't mitigate the act of me fleeing from the snake... 

The first option at this point (and again this is assuming saving the innocents is my goal) is to compel my own aspect... Here is the relevant excerpt from the Fate rules...

if a player wants to compel another character, it costs a fate point to propose the complication. The GM can always compel for free, and* any player can propose a compel on his or her own character for free.*

So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...

*My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...*

Now granted it's up to the DM to decide whether this is an acceptable compel but then that's one of my points about Fate being a more traditional game it really does leave the lion's share of the arbitration in the gm's hand as opposed to the rules, dramatic needs (this is where games like HQ feel artificial to me)  or group consensus at the table deciding.  My point is that by the rules... the above is a perfectly acceptable way to save the innocents and, because you can compel your aspect for free doesn't cost the player anything.  So that's one way the innocents could be saved.

Now let's say for whatever reason the GM doesn't take the compel, here are the ways that the Fate point can still be used...

Spending Fate Points
You spend fate points in any of the following ways:
• Invoke an Aspect: Invoking an aspect costs you one fate point, unless
the invocation is free.
• Power a Stunt: Some stunts are very potent, and as such, cost a fate
point in order to activate.
• Refuse a Compel: Once a compel is proposed, you can pay a fate point
to avoid the complication associated with it.
•* Declare a Story Detail: To add something to the narrative based on
one of your aspects, spend a fate point.*

I'm looking at the last one, where I can declare a story detail based on one of my aspects... Let's take my "Defender of Innocents" aspect.  I spend a Fate point and declare that as I am fleeing from the snake it momentarily distracts the beast, because even in my fear I am a "defender of the innocent", and the distraction gives the innocents a chance to escape.

So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared.  So no I don't agree that the scene as presented was... "Rocks fall, everyone dies".  the compel had nothing to do with whether the snake ate the innocents or not and in no way do my suggestions above mitigate or nullify the actual compel... and in one instance the drama and tension is heightened even more as now the fleeing character has a gigantic snake chasing him.

EDIT: I will say that while these suggestions do in fact save the innocents... what they don't do (and I think this ties into @N'racc 's bigger point) is reinforce a paladin archetype (bold and steadfast defender of the innocent) through how the scene plays out...  But then that wasn't the goal.


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> While I'm not that familiar with Fate, I am fairly familiar with Marvel Heroic RP. In that system, the mechanical analogue of the "compel" would be the imposition of a "Trembling with fear" or "Running away" complication on the PC; but the action resolution mechanics in MHRP are such that a complication of that sort won't end the scene unless it reaches a certain degree of mechanical severity. Which seems, to me at least, an important difference from the scene-ending compel.
> 
> My feeling is that  @_*Ratskinner*_  was thinking along similar lines to me when he suggested that the consequence of the snake acting against the player would be some sort of negative aspect imposed by the snake: that adversely affects that players' prospects of action resolution within the scene, but isn't in and of itself scene-ending.




Very much my way of thinking. Compels in Fate should be discrete events with "consequences" that you feel immediately. If you compel the hero away from the snake & family, then the family is dead/eaten/whatever. 

However, I'm really writing with regrets to say that real-life concerns will likely keep me from posting much (if at all) for the near future. Fortunately, its not in a bad/terrible way, but much of my free time has been absorbed. What there is left of it, I prefer to gaming, rather than debating about gaming.  I'm sorry to leave mid-conversation.

In the meantime, may you all roll crits when you need them.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...
> 
> *My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...*




I was actually thinking on those lines myself recently, though not initially.



Imaro said:


> Now granted it's up to the DM to decide whether this is an acceptable compel but then that's one of my points about Fate being a more traditional game it really does leave the lion's share of the *arbitration in the gm's hand *as opposed to the rules, dramatic needs (this is where games like HQ feel artificial to me)  or group consensus at the table deciding.  My point is that by the rules... the above is a perfectly acceptable way to save the innocents and, because you can compel your aspect for free doesn't cost the player anything.  So that's one way the innocents could be saved.




Emphasis added.  This seems to be a lot of the objection some detractors have to the alignment rules - the GM must evaluate the actions of the characters.  However, I see very few games whee the GM does not have a significant role in evaluating success or failure of a variety of efforts of the PC's.  Who sets the DC of various tasks, decides whether that chandelier can support the swashbuckler's weight (or even if there is a chandelier) or assesses the opening attitude and views of an NPC, and how difficult they might be to change?



Imaro said:


> So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared.  So no I don't agree that the scene as presented was... "Rocks fall, everyone dies".  the compel had nothing to do with whether the snake ate the innocents or not and in no way do my suggestions above mitigate or nullify the actual compel... and in one instance the drama and tension is heightened even more as now the fleeing character has a gigantic snake chasing him.





I consider "rocks fall everybody dies" to include an element of disconnection to the ongoing narrative.  The rocks came from nowhere.  The snake and the innocents were part of the ongoing narrative.  If rocks fall and everybody dies because the PC's made a lot of noise in an avalanche-prone mountain region, that doesn't seem inappropriate from where I sit.



Imaro said:


> EDIT: I will say that while these suggestions do in fact save the innocents... what they don't do (and I think this ties into @N'racc 's bigger point) is reinforce a paladin archetype (bold and steadfast defender of the innocent) through how the scene plays out...  But then that wasn't the goal.




Bingo - the GM,  not the player, is determining which of the character's values are paramount by selecting which aspect to Compel.  If the player envisions the Paladin archetype, he envisions the character overcoming his fears, attacking the snake and deliberately placing his own well-being in jeopardy for the benefit of those in need, overcoming his own fears to do so.  The GM compels the fear of snakes, and the conception is overridden.

OR the player conceives a character whose fear of snakes is an overwhelming phobia and, despite his fervent desire to save the innocents, the very thought of a snake, much less a huge snake such as this one, overrides all conscious thought, and the player envisions his character paralyze with fear, or fleeing in terror, unable to overcome his dread of snakes.  And the GM Compels his Defender of the Innocent aspect, forcing the character to boldly confront the snake to defend its would-be lunch, again overriding the player's conception of his character.

The Compel aspect of Fate, to me, places much more control of player reactions in the hands of the GM than the alignment system does, assuming a reasonable GM managing either mechanic, or a unreasonable GM managing either.  Sure, the unreasonable GM can strip my character of his Paladinhood for fleeing the snake in accordance with his phobia - but he cannot usurp my control of that character and force him to overcome his fear of snakes - no matter how low on resources my character may be.  In Fate, he can do so - and he probably should.  The mechanics surrounding aspects sets each aspect as equally weighted.  They provide equal bonuses when invoked, and Compels can prioritize one over the other under the rules as written, rather than the player defining their hierarchy.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I can 100% see why the play you describe - of which I've quoted some snippets - is worthwhile. Unless I've badly misunderstood, a lot of it reminds me of the sort of stuff I enjoy in my game, some of which I described upthread. What I'm 100% missing, though, is how alignment is making any contribution to that play. It seems completely epiphenomenal - a mere book-keeping afterthought. (With the possible exception of the gnome would-be paladin, but I've tried to explain above why I think you can get that sort of play without alignment, such that while the words used to frame the issues might be a bit different, the actual dynamic would not be. To put it even more simply, I'm 100% confident you could get that gnome-would-be-paladin-sort-of-play going in Gloranthan Runequest or HeroWars/Quest, and neither of those has D&D-style alignment.)




As I see your posts over the past several pages, you have not asserted that "alignment is unnecessary". but that "alignment is an impediment" to the gameplay you wish to achieve.  I don't deny that great gaming can take place without alignment, and I expect a lot of situations where alignment is not part of the focus.  But I do not agree that the examples of "great gameplay" you have described are in any way impeded by alignment, nor facilitated by its absence.  The Gnome has decided that, to him, the Lawful requirement that souls which do not follow the appropriate path in life will be damned is too great a compromise to Good for him to countenance.  The deity in question, and his followers, allow Good to be tempered by Law.

To return to one of your examples, I can easily interpret a "Resolute Defender" being wholly unwilling to consider other viewpoints, resolutely committed to its orders.  I can also easily interpret LG indicating that, while loyal to those who provided her instructions, and thus inclined to obey those orders, that Lawfulness is not absolute, but is tempered by the desire to bring the greatest good to the greatest number, such that a compelling argument that its orders must be violated due to these new facts could persuade her to apply her own judgment that those instructions were ill-conceived in light of this new information, and she must, therefore, deviate from those instructions for the greater good (not resolutely comply with her orders as a "resolute defender" would, or insist upon communicating with her superiors to allow them to determine whether these arguments mandate a reconsideration of her orders).


----------



## Hussar

All right N'raac, you want an example of alignments being a direct impediment to the game?

How about our own conversation in the rather lengthy Fighter/Caster power thread where I gave the example of a PC wizard using Planar Binding to summon a Glabrezu to gain a wish.  You decided that a wish will never be granted, because no wish could ever be "evil enough" for the Glabrezu.  I mean, I gave an example of the wizard using the wish to destroy an orphanage, kill a high priest of a good temple and I believe a couple of other pretty thoroughly evil examples.

Your response was to simply brush all examples aside as not evil enough.  The wizard could never gain the wish from the Glabrezu without paying for it directly, because no wish could ever be evil enough.

This, to me, is a perfect example of how alignment plays out at more than a few tables.  The DM has a very specific outcome in mind and will simply use the vagueness of the alignment system to channel play into whatever the DM finds acceptable.  It has nothing to do with "improving the game experience" or "presenting a believable world" and everything to do with the DM forcing his vision of the game onto the players and using the mechanics to bludgeon them into following.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> once I agree to that I receive a Fate point, which I can spend immediately as long as it doesn't mitigate the act of me fleeing from the snake...
> 
> The first option at this point (and again this is assuming saving the innocents is my goal) is to compel my own aspect...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...
> 
> *My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...*
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Let's take my "Defender of Innocents" aspect.  I spend a Fate point and declare that as I am fleeing from the snake it momentarily distracts the beast, because even in my fear I am a "defender of the innocent", and the distraction gives the innocents a chance to escape.
> 
> So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared.



Imaro, as someone not that familiar with Fate these strike me as good examples of why the fleeing need not be scene-ending. I'm curious what [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] thinks of them (and wish [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] well on hiatus).


----------



## Sadras

Ratskinner said:


> In the meantime, may you all roll crits when you need them.




So you wish ill on my players' characters? How utterly evil of you. 
Have a good break!


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I was actually thinking on those lines myself recently, though not initially.



So you have changed your mind about the compelled flee being scene-ending?



N'raac said:


> the GM, not the player, is determining which of the character's values are paramount by selecting which aspect to Compel.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The Compel aspect of Fate, to me, places much more control of player reactions in the hands of the GM than the alignment system does, assuming a reasonable GM managing either mechanic, or a unreasonable GM managing either.  Sure, the unreasonable GM can strip my character of his Paladinhood for fleeing the snake in accordance with his phobia - but he cannot usurp my control of that character and force him to overcome his fear of snakes - no matter how low on resources my character may be.  In Fate, he can do so - and he probably should.  The mechanics surrounding aspects sets each aspect as equally weighted.  They provide equal bonuses when invoked, and Compels can prioritize one over the other under the rules as written, rather than the player defining their hierarchy.





N'raac said:


> How was the compel determined to be valid?  If it is not a valid compel, or there is no need to make that determination, then the system is merely a bidding war, as the player can be compelled to spend Fate points to avoid actions he considers inconsistent with his aspects.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me, playing a character consistent to his Aspects would mandate following the Compel, except where there are competing Aspects which would mandate a departure from this specific aspect.



Thus do you show that a game that (as far as I can tell) you have never played, is in fact _impossible_ to play in the way that its authors and advocates actually say that it is to be played! That in fact _alignment_ - the focus of endless arguments for 30-odd years about GM/player conflicts - is actually a better tool for a player-driven game than Fate, a game where I have never heard of alignment-style problems arising.

Now perhaps its just the case that crappy GMs only run D&D. Or perhaps there's something about alignment as a mechanic that explains the difference. I guess it's hard to tell . . .


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I’m afraid that some hypotheticals are needed to advance the discussion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not believe we can discuss the issue in a vacuum, which leads to a need to assess the manner in which you would approach such a character proposal.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why would a challenge to that received view be so unacceptable to you in play?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We seem to be getting at the crux of the issue.  The question is whether the PC  meets your vision of what fits into your gameworld.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yet you are stating the evaluative question is settled – that the character is not a viable one in your game world as a devotee of the Raven Queen.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And, once again, you ARE evaluating these actions as evil, despite your ongoing protests to the contrary.  I’m curious if anyone else is still reading our exchanges, and whether they perceive your comments as being indicative of your “not judging” the “evaluative question” in advance of any play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If all that means is a series of angsty “Woe betide me” speeches at the table, let the wheel burn, as I have no interest in such play.



You seem to be under some sort of misapprehension as to the nature of our discussion. I say this because you seem puzzled that I am not engaging in a sincere way with a discussion about how you might pitch a character for a game.

As I said upthread, I am _not _going to engage you in a sincere discussion of that. The reason I am not going to do that is the reason I stated upthread - that I am not particularly interest in having my actual game, that I - an actual person - run, with actual people who are among my best friends as the players, used by you as a whipping post in your ongoing argument that there is no RPG play that is not either the same as yours in its degree of GM authority, or a crappier or self-deluded version of it. For you, my game may be an interesting hypothetical demonstration of the inevitability of GM power. That's fine if you believe that, though I know from my own experience that it is obviously false; but I don't see how you can reasonably expect me to keep providing examples to feed your desire to tear them down. Particularly when I do not believe I have ever seen you post an actual example from your own play.

What I will say, in response to what I have extracted above, is that you are running together backstory and evaluation. The question of whether or not the Raven Queen can be honoured by animating the dead is primarily a question of backstory. It is not about evaluative or expressive response in the course of play.

I will also repeat that you have _no idea_ about how a pitch of your character would end up going in my game, because you have not pitched a character for my game nor ever participated in or observed a pitch from someone who is playing in my game. I therefore would prefer it if you stopped imputing to me opinions or behaviours that I have not asserted or demonstrated.



N'raac said:


> I see very few games whee the GM does not have a significant role in evaluating success or failure of a variety of efforts of the PC's.



"Evaluation" here is being used in the same sense as taking a count of the day's earnings might be described as evaluating those earning. When I talk about "evaluative or expressive response" I am using "evaluative" insofar as it pertains to values - aesthetic, moral and ethical considerations. The stuff that you'll find under "value theory" in any standard philosophy textbook.

Deciding that you're wrong about the colour of an NPC's boots isn't evaluating anything in the relevant sense. It's just correcting you on backstory. Deciding that you're wrong about a particular tactical manoeuvre being elegant, and therefore saying you're no longer eligible to play an Artful Dodger rogue - henceforth you'll have to convert your PC to a Brutal Scoundrel - would be evaluating your play in the sense that I (as GM) do not wish to.



N'raac said:


> Did the Samurai face a true moral dilemma



Why would I answer this question? First, it is against board rules to discuss matters of politics and religion. Second, even if it wasn't, why would I share my opinion with you? I have described the situation the samurai was in - _you work out for yourself_ whether or not you think he faced a moral dilemma.



N'raac said:


> You have, it appears, judged devils as evil, and as such their worship as evil



I think you're projecting. The only value-laden word I used was "treacherous". You seem to equate treachery with evil. I have not asserted such an equation. Nor do I intend to share my opinion on that point with you, for reasons already stated.



N'raac said:


> As I see your posts over the past several pages, you have not asserted that "alignment is unnecessary". but that "alignment is an impediment" to the gameplay you wish to achieve.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not agree that the examples of "great gameplay" you have described are in any way impeded by alignment, nor facilitated by its absence.
> 
> 
> <sip>
> 
> To return to one of your examples, I can easily interpret a "Resolute Defender" being wholly unwilling to consider other viewpoints, resolutely committed to its orders.  I can also easily interpret LG indicating that, while loyal to those who provided her instructions, and thus inclined to obey those orders, that Lawfulness is not absolute, but is tempered by the desire to bring the greatest good to the greatest number, such that a compelling argument that its orders must be violated due to these new facts could persuade her to apply her own judgment that those instructions were ill-conceived in light of this new information, and she must, therefore, deviate from those instructions for the greater good



Thankfully, you don't have to agree for it to be true. Do you want to know why it's true? Consider the following:



N'raac said:


> Perhaps, in your play of these Ogres, you have made them “not evil”.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Detection of alignment is not a hallmark of all D&D settings – Ravenloft removes it, for example – so if it is simple eae of detection that concerns you, remove those spells.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> How is it any more difficult to interpret “Resolute Guardian” as “will not deviate from her orders” than to interpret “Lawful Good” as having the same meaning?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you would, in fact, interpret alignment as such a straightjacket on play, then I agree you are right to remove it from your games.  But not because it could add nothing, but because your interpretation of alignment clearly cannot move beyond “straightjacket”.



Why would I waste my time as GM with any of the above? How does it add anything to my game? Instead of playing my angel NPC, you would have me sticking a needless label on her - Lawful Good - and then spending time on interpreting that label, and under what circumstances it changes, instead of just playing her.

Or with the ogres. Why do I care whether the ogres are "evil" or "not evil" and what my play of them means for that purpose. It's pointless labelling. It adds nothing to the game. It doesn't help the player engage the scene. It doesn't help me resolve the scene. So why would I do it?

I also notice that you are stripping all the cosmological heft out of alignment in the above. It can no longer be detected - but why not? Is it not a fundamental cosmological force? A person can be good even though all the gods of good reject them, because the gods of good are all wrong about what goodness really requires - in what sense, then, are those gods expressing or participating in the fundamental cosmological force of goodness? At that point the label has become completely arbitrary, and so pointless in that respect also.

In the last of the above-quoted sentences, you say that I am not right that alignment could add nothing to my game. What could it add? You apparently know me and my game so well - tell me what I'm missing out on?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> This, to me, is a perfect example of how alignment plays out at more than a few tables.  The DM has a very specific outcome in mind and will simply use the vagueness of the alignment system to channel play into whatever the DM finds acceptable.  It has nothing to do with "improving the game experience" or "presenting a believable world" and everything to do with the DM forcing his vision of the game onto the players and using the mechanics to bludgeon them into following.



I don't think that exhausts the issue, though.

First, let me stipulate the following meaning for the phrase "evaluatively meaningful choice." A choice is evaluatively meaningful if it is hard not because of epistemic uncertainty, but because of value conflict: for instance, it requires sacrificing prudence to honour, or sacrificing love for the greater good, etc. Choosing which dungeon corridor to proceed down may be a meaningful choice if you know one leads to the troll with 5000 gp and the other to the kobold with 50 sp - you have to weight up risks against rewards - but it is not _evaluatively_ meaningful. Whereas deciding whether or not to stake the vampire through the heart, who also happens to be your lover; or deciding whether to continue honouring your god when you find out that s/he is responsible for the seemingly needless suffering of mortals; or deciding whether to stay and defend the doorway so that your friends can escape, though it will probably cost you your life - those are evaluatively meaningful choices.

Now, with that definition ready-to-hand, I will state my contention: there seems to me to be a reasonably widespread belief that a character in an RPG cannot face an evaluatively meaningful choice unless the options are canonically labelled with the values at stake, and the character has also been canonically labelled in his/her orientation towards the various values. This is not the GM wanting to channel outcomes in particular direction; although I agree with you that may well be a consequence. It is in my view the result of a mistaken theory of the relationship between value and fictional works, including a mistaken theory of audience response to value in fictional works. (The theory is probably implicit rather than explicit, but I think it animates the idea. You can see it in [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s repeated insistence upthread on the need for definitions if value judgements are to be made.)

Anyway, as is obvious in my use of the phrase "mistaken theory", I think this belief that seem to me reasonably widespread is mistaken. In particular, I know from experience that a character in an RPG _can_ face an evaluatively meaningful choice without the options needing to be canonically labelled, and without the character being canonically labelled either.

And if someone asks "How does that work" I reply "The same as it works when you are walking quickly down the street, and someone asks you to sign a petition, and you have to decide whether being on time is more important than adding some support to an important cause, or vice versa".

And also "The same as it works when you watch a movie, and you see that the protagonist has to choose whether or not to kill the vampire and thereby stop the spread of the vampiric infection, even though to kill the vampire means killing his/her lover, and your heart starts to race and if you're sentimental your eyes start to water and you feel the tugging on your heartstrings much like the imaginary vampire-hunter does. And then once the movie is over you debate with your friends whether the vampire-hunter did the right thing, or the extent to which the choice was tragic but necessary"

The first is a case that show how, in real life, evaluatively meaningful choices can arise and be made in the absence of canonical labels. The second is a case that shows how evaluative and expressive responses to such choices in fiction can occur in the absence of canonical labels.

I'm not saying that everyone who plays RPGs should care about evaluatively meaningful choices, let alone prioritise them as a focus of play. But I care about them. They matter in my game. Alignment isn't necessary for them to be part of the game, and in my long reply to Umbran upthread I explained why the GM making alignment judgements can be an impediment to a game that focuses on them.

There is an additional feature of D&D alignment, though, beyond the insistence on the necessity of canonical labelling. There is also the apparent conviction that all value commitments and all value conflicts can be helpfully summarised in a grid defined by two 3-place axes. (A variant of this belief is that all _important_ value commitments can be summarised in that way. To explain further: if the variant is not adopted, then typically _love_ is lumped in with the good and we get puzzles over whether succubi and vampires can feel love; if the variant is adopted then love is no longer an important value - because evils and chaotics can also love - leading to the automatic conclusion that love is never worth the sacrifice of other (truly) valuable things.)

The suggestion that the sorts of value commitments and value conflicts that I want to bring into the game in my RPGing can be captured by 9-point alignment I know to be false, both at the theoretical level and from the experience of play. So even if I thought canonical labelling was necessary or helpful - which I don't - I wouldn't use D&D alignment.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> All right N'raac, you want an example of alignments being a direct impediment to the game?
> 
> How about our own conversation in the rather lengthy Fighter/Caster power thread where I gave the example of a PC wizard using Planar Binding to summon a Glabrezu to gain a wish.  You decided that a wish will never be granted, because no wish could ever be "evil enough" for the Glabrezu.  I mean, I gave an example of the wizard using the wish to destroy an orphanage, kill a high priest of a good temple and I believe a couple of other pretty thoroughly evil examples.
> 
> Your response was to simply brush all examples aside as not evil enough.  The wizard could never gain the wish from the Glabrezu without paying for it directly, because no wish could ever be evil enough.
> 
> This, to me, is a perfect example of how alignment plays out at more than a few tables.  The DM has a very specific outcome in mind and will simply use the vagueness of the alignment system to channel play into whatever the DM finds acceptable.  It has nothing to do with "improving the game experience" or "presenting a believable world" and everything to do with the DM forcing his vision of the game onto the players and using the mechanics to bludgeon them into following.




Provided your telling of the example is accurate, that is just bad GMing and would happen with or without alignment as a mechanic in the game (the gm would just point to the flavor entry of the Glabrezu and still argue no wish is evil enough for such an infernal creature). It is obvious from the example the GM doesnt want the wish to be used because he feels it is too powerful and is leaning on alignment to enforce his decision. For me, playing with a GM like that is going to be bad regardless of the presence of alignment, and regardless of the system. I really don't believe it is worth baking protection against bad GMing into the system. While it might limit some if the bad GM calls, it punishes other groups and it also can hand tie GMs who are not bad. And i think that really hurts the game for me.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Provided your telling of the example is accurate, that is just bad GMing and would happen with or without alignment as a mechanic in the game (the gm would just point to the flavor entry of the Glabrezu and still argue no wish is evil enough for such an infernal creature). It is obvious from the example the GM doesnt want the wish to be used because he feels it is too powerful and is leaning on alignment to enforce his decision. For me, playing with a GM like that is going to be bad regardless of the presence of alignment, and regardless of the system. I really don't believe it is worth baking protection against bad GMing into the system. While it might limit some if the bad GM calls, it punishes other groups and it also can hand tie GMs who are not bad. And i think that really hurts the game for me.




Hang on, didn't you participate in that thread?  I was pretty sure you were there.  Remember the example of one DM claiming that the Glabrezu had already used his wish within the allotted time period, thus couldn't grant the PC wizard a wish?

I thought you were there...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Hang on, didn't you participate in that thread?  I was pretty sure you were there.  Remember the example of one DM claiming that the Glabrezu had already used his wish within the allotted time period, thus couldn't grant the PC wizard a wish?
> 
> I thought you were there...




I do not believe i followed that chain of posts in the thread.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> Imaro, as someone not that familiar with Fate these strike me as good examples of why the fleeing need not be scene-ending. I'm curious what [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] thinks of them




What it comes down to is this:

A compel, "You flee," is pretty much a scene-ender.  The character cannot generally interact with the scene as given, and it will resolve without his or her input.  As far as the character is concerned, the scene is over, and they are moving into a different scene. 

A compel, "You flee, _AND_..." can be a more proper complication, as implies further opportunities for interaction.

(This is why I said, "on the face of it," and gave a variation of my own - where it turns into a chase). 

However...



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared.




Well, let us look at a couple of them.



> Let's take my "Defender of Innocents" aspect. I spend a Fate point and declare that as I am fleeing from the snake it momentarily distracts the beast, because even in my fear I am a "defender of the innocent", and the distraction gives the innocents a chance to escape.




The rules do allow a player to invoke their own aspects to assist others, yes.  IIRC, in essence that means that the others get a bonus, rather like the player would if they invoked for themselves.  So, the innocents can get a +2 on the "sneak away" roll.  But it is by no means a done deal.  Just as the compel shouldn't end the scene, neither should the invocation.

Also, this leans on the fact that the character has a specific aspect - it does not give us a general solution to scene-ending compels.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...
> 
> My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...




The player can suggest an alteration to the original compel.  The GM says, "You flee."  The player then asks, "Okay, but can the snake chase me?" is a perfectly valid request by the player.  But, the fact that the player *might* (if they happen to think of it) save the two of you from the mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake!  If you *need* the player to suggest a modification for it to not be scene-ending, you have messed up, IMHO.

There are good reasons why the rules strong suggest that compels not impose an action on the PC, but instead impose restrictions on PC actions.  We could continue to discuss hypothetical situations in which we can narrowly wiggle around the bad effects of such, but that'd be a series of anecdotes, rather than an actual proof that everything's going to be okay in play.  Or, we can accept that maybe the designers have a good point on this one.

I know, to some it is a funny idea that the designers might be right, but there it is.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> All right N'raac, you want an example of alignments being a direct impediment to the game?
> 
> How about our own conversation in the rather lengthy Fighter/Caster power thread where I gave the example of a PC wizard using Planar Binding to summon a Glabrezu to gain a wish.  You decided that a wish will never be granted, because no wish could ever be "evil enough" for the Glabrezu.  I mean, I gave an example of the wizard using the wish to destroy an orphanage, kill a high priest of a good temple and I believe a couple of other pretty thoroughly evil examples.
> 
> Your response was to simply brush all examples aside as not evil enough.  The wizard could never gain the wish from the Glabrezu without paying for it directly, because no wish could ever be evil enough.




I didn’t actually find that an “alignment dispute”.  At the risk of reopening the can of worms, let’s review that discussion briefly.  You started with the presumption that a character could simply and easily access as many wishes as desired by Planar Binding a Gabrezu, which would clearly grant a wish immediately to spare it the hassle of being bound for a few days or weeks.  The text of the rules was pointed out:



> Once per month, a glabrezu can fulfill a wish for a mortal humanoid. The demon can use this ability to offer a mortal whatever he or she desires—but unless the wish is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation.




The point was then made that, if it were so easy to get a wish from a Glabrezu, there was some possibility it had granted a wish within the preceding month.  You ranted and railed against the unfairness of it all, and how mean and inequitable this was to the spellcasters you were asserting were vastly and uncontrollably overpowered.

The point was then made that there were criteria the Glabrezu used to assess whether to grant the Wish, so you offered up some vague wishes you felt, on their face, clearly met the requirement to  “create pain and suffering in the world”, since you were asserting there was no need for the character to provide any service or reward in exchange for receiving the Wish.

To the specific examples, it was noted that destruction of the orphanage freed the souls of the orphans, so they could not be corrupted by the temptations of the world (perhaps if you offered to assume control over the orphanage and corrupt the orphans, that might get more traction, but that would be work for the PC) and the death of the high priest risks galvanizing, rather than corrupting, good souls.  At no point was there any background as to why these specific wishes would be desired by the PC, to back up the original premise that the spell allowed easy and unlimited access to wishes, though.



Hussar said:


> This, to me, is a perfect example of how alignment plays out at more than a few tables.  The DM has a very specific outcome in mind and will simply use the vagueness of the alignment system to channel play into whatever the DM finds acceptable.  It has nothing to do with "improving the game experience" or "presenting a believable world" and everything to do with the DM forcing his vision of the game onto the players and using the mechanics to bludgeon them into following.




To the alignment issue, your discussion of the wishes either started with the presumption the Wizard was evil or quickly moved there, and you also seemed to assert that the Glabrezu would be thrilled to grant a wish to a fellow player on Team Evil.  To me, that’s a misuse of alignment far more than any you are suggesting here.  If we remove alignment, the Glabrezu still wants souls in general, and specifically the creation of pain and suffering in the world or great sacrifice from the person to which it grants a wish.

Finally, its goal is to “tempt victims into ruin”.  It strikes me also as a greedy, conniving beast – so it would be looking at how much it can extract in exchange for its great service of granting a wish.  To the extent that its personality is a reflection of its alignment, then its choices are alignment-driven, but the removal of the alignment descriptor would not lead me to be any more likely to rule that Glabrezu are the Wish Fairy, cheerily doling out wishes to any caster capable of summoning them.



pemerton said:


> So you have changed your mind about the compelled flee being scene-ending?




I can see some potential for the scene continuing.  However, it is not about whether the scene ends or continues.  It is about whether the player’s vision of his character is compromised by the compel being forced upon him.  Just as, under your argument, the player is forced to play his character in a manner he considers inappropriate to avoid the threat of an “alignment deviation” as judged by the GM, who disagrees with what appropriate “lawful and good” behaviours would be in this situation.



pemerton said:


> Thus do you show that a game that (as far as I can tell) you have never played, is in fact _impossible_ to play in the way that its authors and advocates actually say that it is to be played! That in fact _alignment_ - the focus of endless arguments for 30-odd years about GM/player conflicts - is actually a better tool for a player-driven game than Fate, a game where I have never heard of alignment-style problems arising.




Funny…the Fate players seem to be debating quite a bit on the appropriateness of the specific aspect, whether the Compel was valid or appropriate, at what point the player becomes entitled to a Fate point, etc.  As well, Fate has the advantage of being an indie game, which tend to attract more experienced gamers.  Those gamers are aware of a much wider variety of game options, and will gravitate to those that suit their playstyle.  Those more prone to find that alignment degenerates into arguments, and who will likely see similar results arguing over Aspects, are likely to select a different game.



pemerton said:


> Now perhaps its just the case that crappy GMs only run D&D. Or perhaps there's something about alignment as a mechanic that explains the difference. I guess it's hard to tell . . .




I think D&D is much more widely played and much more likely to attract players and GM’s of widely different playstyles and interpretations of the rules, alignment being just one of them.  Ask a group of D&D players whether magic items should be freely available for purchase and see what consensus emerges.  Are hp meat or skill is another great question.  Pick a D&DNext thread and I expect you have a better than 50% chance of finding an area of disagreement between D&D players.  Pick a 13th Age, or   Fate, Burning Wheel, etc., thread, and my guess is you will find much less debate, since those players have chosen a specific niche product which, presumably, was selected over numerous other choices (that many D&D, including Pathfinder, gamers have never considered) because of its perceived compatibility with that group’s gaming style.  And I bet you find a few where one or more players doesn’t like the system because it’s not consistent with his style.



pemerton said:


> You seem to be under some sort of misapprehension as to the nature of our discussion. I say this because you seem puzzled that I am not engaging in a sincere way with a discussion about how you might pitch a character for a game.
> 
> As I said upthread, I am _not _going to engage you in a sincere discussion of that.




I don’t really see how we can examine the issues in a vacuum.  You told us “this is how my game works”.  If your response to any questions on how your game actually works is simply “well, I don’t want to discuss that”, then I quite agree that you have no intention of engaging in a sincere discussion (to use your words).



pemerton said:


> The reason I am not going to do that is the reason I stated upthread - that I am not particularly interest in having my actual game, that I - an actual person - run, with actual people who are among my best friends as the players,




I have suggested on several occasions that the reason(s) there are very few disputes at your game is that the players and GM are familiar to one another, agree on the style of game and share similar opinions.  “Best friends” to me connotes similar attitudes and preferences, as well as long-term association and familiarity, so this seems to support my interpretation in this regard.



pemerton said:


> What I will say, in response to what I have extracted above, is that you are running together backstory and evaluation. The question of whether or not the Raven Queen can be honoured by animating the dead is primarily a question of backstory. It is not about evaluative or expressive response in the course of play.




I cannot count the number of times you have railed against pre-set backstory in favour of discovery through play.  Now it’s all about the backstory.  There I can certainly see a key issue, in that you and your players will have a much greater shared backstory than the few paragraphs the game rules might include about a specific deity.  To me, that backstory is unavoidably hidden, where it may well be all open to your players.



pemerton said:


> I will also repeat that you have _no idea_ about how a pitch of your character would end up going in my game, because you have not pitched a character for my game nor ever participated in or observed a pitch from someone who is playing in my game. I therefore would prefer it if you stopped imputing to me opinions or behaviours that I have not asserted or demonstrated.




In my view, you assert or demonstrate opinions or behaviours by your response to my questions about a hypothetical character.  We all assert or demonstrate opinions merely by posting, even when we do not consciously recognize the opinions we demonstrate.



pemerton said:


> "Evaluation" here is being used in the same sense as taking a count of the day's earnings might be described as evaluating those earning. When I talk about "evaluative or expressive response" I am using "evaluative" insofar as it pertains to values - aesthetic, moral and ethical considerations. The stuff that you'll find under "value theory" in any standard philosophy textbook.




Here we come to that “real world ethics and values” discussion which, to me, carries the greatest risk of violating board rules and which I am not in any way interested in discussing, as I have stated a few times above.  I am not arguing about evaluating the PC or player’s moral choices against the writings of great (or deemed great) philosophers whose philosophies do not produce any consensus amongst themselves, nor within those who study them.  I am discussing the evaluation of the PC’s actions and outlook against the standards set by another being, not against a (nonexistent) standard of what is truly “good”, “evil”, “moral” or “ethical” from a purely philosophical basis.  My goal is to play the game, not obtain a PhD in Philosophy (or in RPGology – which I note some posters seem to believe they possess, despite the absence, to my knowledge, of any organization granting degrees in this area).



pemerton said:


> Why would I answer this question? First, it is against board rules to discuss matters of politics and religion. Second, even if it wasn't, why would I share my opinion with you? I have described the situation the samurai was in - _you work out for yourself_ whether or not you think he faced a moral dilemma.




Because it sets the context for the discussion of whether alignment actually had an impact here?  You raised the example as one where alignment would clearly and obviously have detracted from great play.  I challenged your assertion of whether this was accurate, much less clear and obvious.  You now no longer wish to discuss that example.  To me, that markedly reduces its weight as an example of clear, obvious problems with alignment in play.  To be clear, it in no way reduces the possibility (strong, in my view) that it was great play, and that it may have challenged the PC’s beliefs.  However, I see no reason that equal play could not arise in a game where alignment is utilized.



pemerton said:


> I think you're projecting. The only value-laden word I used was "treacherous". You seem to equate treachery with evil. I have not asserted such an equation. Nor do I intend to share my opinion on that point with you, for reasons already stated.




Treachery is a word which has negative connotations.  Are you prepared to state that, in the game context in which the matter arose only, you do, or do not, consider devil worship an evil act (or a non-good act, or an act which has moral connotations, positive or negative)?



pemerton said:


> Thankfully, you don't have to agree for it to be true.




Neither does your disagreement render it false.  Nothing I am aware of is capable of converting subjective opinions into objective facts.



pemerton said:


> Instead of playing my angel NPC, you would have me sticking a needless label on her - Lawful Good - and then spending time on interpreting that label, and under what circumstances it changes, instead of just playing her.




Playing her based on what?  You classify LG as a “needless label”.  But she already came with a label you cited yourself – “Resolute Defender”.  Did you not interpret the meaning of that label, and under what circumstances it would change, in order to play her?  I don’t believe she entered the game as a tabula rasa – a complete blank slate – but rather as an Angel who is a Resolute Defender, all labels which carry certain connotations which must be interpreted when she interacts with the PC’s.



pemerton said:


> Or with the ogres. Why do I care whether the ogres are "evil" or "not evil" and what my play of them means for that purpose. It's pointless labelling. It adds nothing to the game. It doesn't help the player engage the scene. It doesn't help me resolve the scene. So why would I do it?




As a player, it makes a great deal of difference to how I would engage the scene if I see evidence that the ogres regularly eat human children, torture other beings for enjoyment or otherwise engage in evil acts.  You provided two great, evocative examples of the chair made from human skin and sinew, and the stack of small children’s skulls in the kitchen.  If, instead, I see a group of sentient non-humans who are just trying to eke out a living and survive, the same as the human settlers I have come here seeking to protect and defend, this presents a very different picture for my character to engage with.  Are they “evil”?  Or are they painted as evil because they are different, and because acknowledging our similarities might require harder choices.  “Slay the evil ogres to protect the helpless children” is a lot different from “Kill off the ogres because we want their food and lands to make our lives easier”.



pemerton said:


> In the last of the above-quoted sentences, you say that I am not right that alignment could add nothing to my game. What could it add? You apparently know me and my game so well - tell me what I'm missing out on?




What I say is that, given your view that alignment is so much a straightjacket that it would prevent the play examples you provided, it would be detrimental to your game.  But that is because of the way you view alignment as a straightjacket, not because that is the only way alignment can be viewed under the rules.



pemerton said:


> First, let me stipulate the following meaning for the phrase "evaluatively meaningful choice." A choice is evaluatively meaningful if it is hard not because of epistemic uncertainty, but because of value conflict: for instance, it requires sacrificing prudence to honour, or sacrificing love for the greater good, etc.




Here I agree entirely.  It is not when our choices are between something we clearly consider Good and clearly consider Evil that these decisions are difficult,  but when there are conflicts between two or more choices we would consider Good (to choose Good and Evil).  Prudence or honour?  Law vs Chaos.  “I have sworn to defend this pass, and defend it I shall”  “You’re an idiot then – you’ll die for nothing.”  Two viewpoints on the same action, both defensible and neither unassailable.

“Violence is wrong” is pretty easy in abstract.  It’s a lot tougher when violence is a means to preventing a greater evil.  You provide a number of great examples below, so I’ll leave any I would suggest out.



pemerton said:


> Whereas deciding whether or not to stake the vampire through the heart, who also happens to be your lover;




Here again, the backstory matters.  If it is known that vampires are lost to evil, or is it possible to save her?  In the former case, she’s already dead, which makes the answer a lot easier.  In the latter, I am choosing between respect for her life, which might still be saved, and preserving the safety of the lives she might take should she escape before being cured.  Which is the greater good?  A fine question – and one that the alignment system does not resolve.  I would see the G character able to make either choice, as both are motivated by an aspect of Good.



pemerton said:


> deciding whether to continue honouring your god when you find out that s/he is responsible for the seemingly needless suffering of mortals




Here we get into “hidden backstory”.  Is that suffering in fact needless, or only “seemingly”?  Now we get into the values set in the game system – if it is a certainty within the game’s cosmology that this deity is, in fact, Good, then that suffering must only seem needless, and the virtue is faith.  If this is not a “known certainty” within the game, then the character’s choice becomes more interesting.  

However, regardless of “objective goodness”, if the character draws his abilities from faith, devotion and service to that deity, and chooses to cease honouring him/her, then it makes no sense to me that the character would retain those abilities.  The possibility of regaining or retaining those abilities, or gaining different abilities, through devotion to some other power (or through personal training and effort) seems much more reasonable in game.  This is not a judgement over the “goodness” or “rightness” or “morality” of the character’s choice – it is a consequence of the choice which arises logically based on the fiction, with the evaluation made by the deity based on its own standards.

If causing needless suffering is “good” in this setting, then the meaning of “good” does not match its meaning in ordinary usage.



pemerton said:


> deciding whether to stay and defend the doorway so that your friends can escape, though it will probably cost you your life - those are evaluatively meaningful choices.




True.  But then, am I truly “good” if I accept that I am dead either way – flight or staying will not alter my fate – and I choose to stay?  I have sacrificed nothing - there was no hope either way.  Of course, in most games, there is probably still a chance I will survive.  To me, a much more difficult moral dilemma involves the teammate.  My friend shouts “Go on – I will hold the passage and buy you time to escape”.  Do I argue with him, press him to flee while I stay, press that we can all escape and I’m not leaving without him, or accept his sacrifice and save my own skin?  This is another tough one where I can’t see any choice being “non-good” or a penalty to that Paladin (mind you, if he’s a devoted follower of a Defender deity, leaving someone else to die in his place seems pretty inappropriate from the deity’s standards, if not his own).  

But really, who’s the selfish one here?  The guy defending the doorway knows – as his teammates do  that this sacrifice will secure him a place of honour in the afterlife, while those staying behind must deal with the pains and temptations of the mortal world, and don’t get the same exalted place in the afterlife.  Why that inconsiderate so-and-so, using our continued pain in the mortal realm as his stepping stone to Valhalla!

The context sets the evaluative framework.



pemerton said:


> Now, with that definition ready-to-hand, I will state my contention: there seems to me to be a reasonably widespread belief that a character in an RPG cannot face an evaluatively meaningful choice unless the options are canonically labelled with the values at stake, and the character has also been canonically labelled in his/her orientation towards the various values.




Is it a meaningful choice whether to defend the door for one’s teammates if the character has already been established as a selfish coward who cares for no one but himself?  The characters do not, and should not, exist in a vacuum.  The rules of the game should also be known.  I recall a great article some years back (pre-TNG, actually) on a Star Trek RPG which commented that, true to the source material, the characters should be unhesitating in their willingness to sacrifice themselves for their friends.  There would never be a pause between an offer to trade other lives for the Captain’s and the Captain’s acceptance of the terms.  But there is an equal onus on the GM to honour the genre and provide the ability of that sacrificing Captain to emerge victorious and alive.

It seems like a lot greater a sacrifice when the player knows he’ll be rolling up a new character in 5 minutes than if the game table discussion reflects on “My character’s L8 special ability to escape certain death once per week, if he heroically sacrifices himself to defend his friends under hopeless odds”, or even “Yeah, but the game rules say that my heroic sacrifice gains my new character a gain of one level above the sacrificed character”.  Sure, the scene looks good and heroic, but that “get out of death free card” (or the “new pawn is tougher than the old pawn”) cheapens the sacrifice greatly, at least in my view.



pemerton said:


> Anyway, as is obvious in my use of the phrase "mistaken theory", I think this belief that seem to me reasonably widespread is mistaken. In particular, I know from experience that a character in an RPG _can_ face an evaluatively meaningful choice without the options needing to be canonically labelled, and without the character being canonically labelled either.




I agree, but only with a caveat.  For there to actually be a meaningful choice, there must be previously established personality traits to the character which cause the choice to be difficult.  That might be because the choice places two or more values in conflict, or because following the character’s personality will carry negative consequences.  “Yes, I know it’s an obvious trap.  My character can probably see that, too.  But he also sees the bait – an innocent man who may actually be in real danger if this is not a trap.  He would never walk away from that.”  It doesn’t matter whether the personality that leads to that decision is that “Sir Gallice is a noble defender of the innocent”, or “He’s LG – that’s what he would do” or “I walked away from my responsibilities once and my Uncle Ben suffered for it – I won’t ever let that happen again” (although I vastly prefer the first or last as detailing the “LG” from the middle).  Bad play?  That would be “He’s just an NPC – who cares what happens to him?”  Good play might well be “Sucks to be him – I’m not risking MY neck”, but that’s not much of a heroic game, and leads to pawn play in my experience.  “Sir Albert always carefully weighs the risks and benefits and takes whatever approach will benefit his quest for power and wealth the most.  He never lets anything distract him from his personal well-being, wealth and power.  He has no attachments or emotions.” – that character adds nothing to the game.



pemerton said:


> I'm not saying that everyone who plays RPGs should care about evaluatively meaningful choices, let alone prioritise them as a focus of play. But I care about them. They matter in my game. Alignment isn't necessary for them to be part of the game, and in my long reply to Umbran upthread I explained why the GM making alignment judgements can be an impediment to a game that focuses on them.




Emphasis added.  Here is where we seem to disconnect.  I agree that alignment isn’t necessary, and I agree that it can be an impediment.   I do not agree that alignment cannot be useful, or that it will always be an impediment to such a game.  You seem to be arguing alignment detracts from the game.  You have asserted numerous great play experiences could not happen if alignment rules were used.  I disagree with you – I have seen lots of similar great play experiences that happened with alignment rules in use.  I’ve seen lots of others that occurred without alignment rules (disadvantage rules under Hero cover many), and most could have occurred without any specific alignment/ disadvantage/ whatever rules.  But those rules can and do help guide the game.  A character could be a defender of the innocent who is afraid of snakes with no Aspects to reward or penalize those character traits as well.  But incorporation of rules which guide players, especially newer players and GM’s, towards seeing the character as more than just a bundle of mechanical stats are, in my view, valuable in establishing the role playing (these are characters, not pawns) aspect, not just the game (do what it takes to win shall be the whole of the law) aspect.  

Another assertion I have heard, though not on this thread, is “I want the character to just develop in play”.  This means the player wants to enter play with no alignment, no backstory and no personality traits whatsoever, and figure it out as he goes along.  I’m curious how many of us are OK with that playstyle entering into our current games – no one knows anything about the character as he comes onstage, and everything is developed in play.



pemerton said:


> There is an additional feature of D&D alignment, though, beyond the insistence on the necessity of canonical labelling. There is also the apparent conviction that all value commitments and all value conflicts can be helpfully summarised in a grid defined by two 3-place axes.




This is your view, and not a universal belief of the alignment system.  This is what creates an “alignment is a straightjacket” mindset and play.  Just as it is possible for some actions to have no alignment relevance at all.  Is tying my shoe Good?  Evil?  Lawful?  Chaotic?  No, it’s just tying my shoe so I don’t fall on my face.  Some result in conflict within alignment.  Does “respect for life” mean sparing this murderer to live out his days, or do I respect the lives of his victims and execute him so he can never repeat his crimes?  Either could be chosen by a Good character, including a NG character, and two characters of the same broad alignment could well come to different decisions.  One may be “right” to a Good deity of Mercy, and another right to a Good deity of Justice.  No one is arguing that nine alignments should mean only nine possible views of the world.  That’s more a boardgame mechanic to me.

There are not three points on each scale (G,N,E and L,N,C), but a wide continuum between the two extremes of Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil.  LG characters are in the upper left corner of the square, but there are a lot of different points in that corner of the square.  Paladins are in there, closer to the top (Good – as a single Evil act costs them their grace) but along the spectrum from left to right of that square (varying degrees, but all Lawful).

“Alignment requires each act be specifically categorized” is, to me, straightjacket play which demonstrates a poor or lacking understanding and/or implementation of the rules.  It is, in fact, a strawman in the alignment debate.  Show me ONE PERSON, one single post, which has suggested this is the way alignment should work in a game - not “this is why alignment should be removed”, but a supporter of the alignment system suggesting it would categorically determine whether the Vampire lover gets staked, the character continues to honour a deity who causes needless suffering, a character sacrifices himself to buy time for his friends to escape, the murderer is imprisoned rather than killed or the Angel can be persuaded to abandon its post for the Greater Good.

You are the one who is raising the assertion Alignment requires such categorization, then using that assertion to oppose the use of alignment.  No one is actually supporting such a straightjacket.  So how about addressing the real questions, rather than your strawman.  [Apologies for anyone offended by the term “strawman” – I rarely use the term, but I cannot see any other valid description for this assertion.]


----------



## N'raac

Bedrockgames said:


> I do not believe i followed that chain of posts in the thread.




No one suggested you followed the chain of posts - I'm not sure anyone who participated in the thread necessarily was able to follow the chain of any of the posts in the thread   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I suspect that is an aspect, perhaps the only aspect, of that discussion on which you and I might be in agreement!


----------



## N'raac

OOPS - duplicate


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> Well, let us look at a couple of them.The rules do allow a player to invoke their own aspects to assist others, yes. IIRC, in essence that means that the others get a bonus, rather like the player would if they invoked for themselves. So, the innocents can get a +2 on the "sneak away" roll. But it is by no means a done deal. Just as the compel shouldn't end the scene, neither should the invocation.Also, this leans on the fact that the character has a specific aspect - it does not give us a general solution to scene-ending compels.




But I'm not using it to give a +2, I very clearly stated what use (as described in Fate core which may be different from Dresden as it is a later incarnation of the Fate rules) I am initiating with my Fate point (listed below), I'm not sure why you are changing my action with the Fate point and then using that as a basis to argue against it...  Also I believe the +2 is for other characters, not NPC's...*Declare a Story Detail: To add something to the narrative based onone of your aspects, spend a fate point.* 



Umbran said:


> The player can suggest an alteration to the original compel. The GM says, "You flee." The player then asks, "Okay, but can the snake chase me?" is a perfectly valid request by the player. But, the fact that the player *might* (if they happen to think of it) save the two of you from the mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake! If you *need* the player to suggest a modification for it to not be scene-ending, you have messed up, IMHO.




Again this is wrong per the most current Fate rules... the player can create his own compel off the situation as it stands (him fleeing from the snake) as long as he does not mitigate the act of fleeing from the snake.  The great thing is that he will get another Fate point if the added complication of the snake chasing him is accepted as a valid compel. 







Umbran said:


> There are good reasons why the rules strong suggest that compels not impose an action on the PC, but instead impose restrictions on PC actions. We could continue to discuss hypothetical situations in which we can narrowly wiggle around the bad effects of such, but that'd be a series of anecdotes, rather than an actual proof that everything's going to be okay in play. Or, we can accept that maybe the designers have a good point on this one.I know, to some it is a funny idea that the designers might be right, but there it is.



Could you provide some reference for where the designers in Fate core say this?  I've seen you assert it numerous times, but in re-reading Fate core I haven't found this advice stated anywhere.  There are compels suggested where a specific action and its consequences are asserted upon a PC... Here are some examples from the core book...
*
Zird has Not the Face! when he gets challenged to a barfight,so it makes sense that he’d decide to back down from the challenge.This goes wrong when the rest of the patrons decide he’sa coward and throw him unceremoniously out into the street.

Cynere has Tempted by Shiny Things while touring an ancientmuseum, so it makes sense that she’d decide to, ahem, liberatea couple of baubles for her personal collection. This goes wrongwhen she discovers that the artifacts are cursed, and she’s nowbeholden to the Keepers of the Museum if she wants the curselifted.
*
Here is some relevant information about Scenes and their purpose/ending... My take is that, as I said before, it is up to the players to decide when a scene ends by whether they can or cannot still achieve their goals and seems to suggest that your assumption that fleeing the snake meant the goal of saving the innocents was impossible was a mistake on your part... and as a player you ended the scene at that point.  As a GM, and knowing their were ways to still save them, I wouldn't have ended the scene there unless the player chooses to.
*
...scene revolves around resolving a specific conflict or achieving a specificgoal—once the PCs have succeeded or failed at doing whatever they aretrying to do, the scene’s over. If your scene doesn’t have a clear purpose, yourun the risk of letting it drag on longer than you intended and slow the paceof your session down.Most of the time, the players are going to tell you what the purpose ofthe scene is, because they’re always going to be telling you what they wantto do next as a matter of course.*


----------



## Nagol

N'raac said:


> <snip lots>
> 
> Another assertion I have heard, though not on this thread, is “I want the character to just develop in play”.  This means the player wants to enter play with no alignment, no backstory and no personality traits whatsoever, and figure it out as he goes along.  I’m curious how many of us are OK with that playstyle entering into our current games – no one knows anything about the character as he comes onstage, and everything is developed in play.
> 
> <snip>




That's my preferred mode for D&D (as well as a bunch of other games).  The initial alignment is aspirational/guideline for initial play that has about as much thought put into it as the starting class choice.  Back story is what develops as the PC adventures and earns reputation and history.  I consider the PC's pre-adventuring time short and mostly outside the scope of my interest.

Other games rely more heavily on background like CHAMPIONS and Pendragon.  In those systems PCs work better if histories pre-exist and are integrated with the environment.


----------



## N'raac

Umbran said:


> What it comes down to is this:
> 
> A compel, "You flee," is pretty much a scene-ender. The character cannot generally interact with the scene as given, and it will resolve without his or her input. As far as the character is concerned, the scene is over, and they are moving into a different scene.




Yet it seems like it makes perfect sense given the aspect itself.  Could the player not perceive “you cannot approach within striking distance” as a scene ender (he can only stand and watch as the snake consumes the helpless innocents) rather than a complication?



Umbran said:


> The player can suggest an alteration to the original compel. The GM says, "You flee." The player then asks, "Okay, but can the snake chase me?" is a perfectly valid request by the player. But, the fact that the player *might* (if they happen to think of it) save the two of you from the mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake! If you *need* the player to suggest a modification for it to not be scene-ending, you have messed up, IMHO.




Why is it bad form to make the player think of a way he can impact the scene while fleeing, but OK to require him to think of a way to defend the victims without approaching close enough to strike the serpent?  Both force him to think of a means of affecting the scene other than his first, preferred approach (and the approach he considered appropriate to his vision of the character).  

What if he had chosen to flee, and been instead Compelled to attack the snake by his Defender of the Innocent aspect?  Is it OK to force the scene to continue, but not to force it to end (either being against the wishes of the player)?  If so, why?



Umbran said:


> There are good reasons why the rules strong suggest that compels not impose an action on the PC, but instead impose restrictions on PC actions.




That seems largely like semantics.  If I simply reset the scene, the player can be tracking down those poor innocents when the trail of a huge serpent merges with their tracks.  “Oh no!”  says the player “I must find these innocents quickly to defend them!”, using his last Fate point in order to enhance whatever roll he needs to make to catch up to them in the chase.  The GM then Compels his “Why did it have to be snakes?” and restricts his actions – clearly, he cannot try to approach closer to this huge serpent!  He has no Fate point left to resist, and he cannot spend the one he receives to mitigate his inability to get closer to the snake.

“Restrict actions rather than require actions” seems a pretty fuzzy demarcation, in other words.  Or, in the context of this thread, a rule which requires interpretation in its application.  And anything requiring interpretation  can lead to disagreement and argument.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> I read this as implying that you actually did have control after the initial backstory stuff - albeit informal control. Have I misunderstood?




The two PCs discussed why we thought it should work, and the DM might have changed what was going to happen based on that discussion.  Is that similar to another thread I saw where the GM was asking if he should change what was going on in a mystery based on what the characters' hypothesis was (since he thought it was better than what he had planned)?    Between adventures many of our DMs will also ask for extra input on what the players would like to try next, but that seems similar in concept to initial backstory.



pemerton said:


> I really think this is something of a red herring. I don't play with strong player authorship of the Fate variety (or even the Burning Wheel variety). The key issue with alignment mechanics, at least for me, isn't backstory/world creation.




I could be miss-remembering some previous posts, or might need to go revisit them to see what the different levels of player authorship are.  At times this feels like a debate between a political moderate slightly left of center and one slightly right of center where they're actually almost the same on everything policy wise but have a different language and baseline so they think they're worlds apart.



pemerton said:


> But I can't really envisage this happening for a core detail, out of the blue as it were, like "What's the basic connection between my world view and that of my patron deity?"




But if each player is developing their own relationship with the same deity then it seems like a conflict could arise.  That could be fine in a campaign with low levels of active divine revelation.  (Is having rare, at the most, divine revelation necessary to have any schisms or conflicts within a single denomination?)



pemerton said:


> It's about the place of evaluative and expressive response in the game. You can have the most vanilla methodologies you like for backstory creation (and by all standards but the most traditional my game is pretty vanilla), but still not want it to be part of the GM's job (or anyone else's, for that matter) to make those judgments that alignment mechanics require.




Certainly.



pemerton said:


> It seems to me that alignment is not playing much of a role in either episode. For instance, your gnome seems to be entertaining the conclusion that the "LG" creator god is not really good - which strike me as contrary to the traditional canons of alignment.




I just let the matter drop in that game since the "LG" god seemed to match the theology of DMs actual religion enough to make it seem like the discussion wouldn't end well...



pemerton said:


> It sounds like you were taking the challenges of the situations that confronted your PCs very seriously. What I'm missing is how alignment fitted in.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In an alignment free game I think the same situation could be set up - certain classes can be associated with reverence for certain gods without mediation via alignment (which I think is often the de facto approach for druid PCs, especially 3E-style druids with their watered-down neutrality), and then the challenge for your gnome would be the question of worship.




Echoing @_*N'raac*_ (post #447) a bit, we probably could have done many of those particular things in a game without alignment.  I feel like having alignment in the game left the option for it to have been a focus if I had wanted it to be.  By choosing a not culturally accepted deity and a tortured background I was choosing to have her deal with the complications they brought.  If I had decided to make the priestess lawfull then I would have also been deciding that part of the conflict she would face was to what extents she was allowed to hide what she was.  If I had decided to make her good then I would have had a conflict with whether selfishly(?) keeping the girl with her was better than giving her the safer option of being with the priestesses.  The other player's character in the Norse-ish game chose to be good.  I think that added a layer of extra complication for him in how he could carry out his vengeance against the clan that was involved in destroying his home town when we had them helpless but the previous influence of an evil god (that may or may not have been a mitigating factor in their guilt) was lifted. 

--

Related to a response of yours to @_*N'raac*_ ,



pemerton said:


> Why would I waste my time as GM with any of the above? How does it add anything to my game? Instead of playing my angel NPC, you would have me sticking a needless label on her - Lawful Good - and then spending time on interpreting that label, and under what circumstances it changes, instead of just playing her.




As long as neither you nor any of your players wants to explore the boundaries of alignment in a world that has it, and as long as you don't find any use in the various alignment spells or its use as a brief two word descriptor, then I don't think it adds anything for you.  

I wonder if taking a big tent approach to alignment would make the time interpreting the label a non-issue though -- kind of like leaving the views of the Raven Queen not nailed down until needed. That is, instead of having a world where there are 8 gods who are all define what that alignment means as a foundational property of the game universe, the alignments each contain a wide range of views so that arguments are only at the extremes (and maybe they overlap some). If the characters belief that all Orcs are evil and will grow up to do monstrous things to other sentient beings hasn't been contradicted by any widely accepted evidence, then murdering the young ones seems like it might pass as the best (if not good) option.  If it has been established in game that alignment is nature and not nurture then is it controversial to say it's bad to murder helpless children when you have the alternative just because you don't like their parents and they don't look like you?  Even in a world with no alignment, wouldn't the vast majority of people treat the killer like a villain?   The world with alignment gets to keep the detect spells and the overarching conflict between those splashes of light and dark (and however law and chaos are colored).  Without alignment is everything just shades of gray? (I'm not expecting a philosophical discussion of that here, but suggestions of a favorite general-audience-book on the topic would certainly be appreciated).



N'raac said:


> I think D&D is much more widely played and much more likely to attract players and GM’s of widely different playstyles and interpretations of the rules, alignment being just one of them. Ask a group of D&D players whether magic items should be freely available for purchase and see what consensus emerges. Are hp meat or skill is another great question. Pick a D&DNext thread and I expect you have a better than 50% chance of finding an area of disagreement between D&D players. Pick a 13th Age, or Fate, Burning Wheel, etc., thread, and my guess is you will find much less debate, since those players have chosen a specific niche product which, presumably, was selected over numerous other choices (that many D&D, including Pathfinder, gamers have never considered) because of its perceived compatibility with that group’s gaming style. And I bet you find a few where one or more players doesn't like the system because it’s not consistent with his style.




I don't think I would have much trouble adapting my playing style (as a PC) to the DMing styles of most of the posters in these threads... and I think that makes it hard for me to really internalize why it would be so difficult for some of y'all to play in the kind I would run by default. Maybe one of the most valuable things I'm getting from all of this (and other threads on a variety of issues) is an awareness of the kinds of questions I should run by the group of prospective players when I DM next.  Because even though a lot of the things that are brought up are my default preference, they aren't particularly strong preferences.


----------



## Hussar

There's absolutely nothing wrong with mechanics and styles that vary from table to table. 

However, let's not compare apples to oranges though.  The level of magic items in a game world isn't the same thing as alignment.  But, that's not the big issue.

Ask ten DM's about how much magic there should be in a campaign world, and you'll get ten different answers, sure.  But, ask ten DM's about alignment, and you'll get ten different answers, some of which are actually mutually exclusive.  Very few DM's would say there should be no magic items in a game world.  Less or more?  Sure, no problems.  But none at all?  That's a pretty rare sight.

But, it's very common, and seen in this thread more than once, that two DM's, looking at the same situation, will interpret the alignment rules in mutually exclusive ways, and both be right under the mechanics.

That's some pretty poorly worded mechanics right there.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> There's absolutely nothing wrong with mechanics and styles that vary from table to table.
> 
> However, let's not compare apples to oranges though.  The level of magic items in a game world isn't the same thing as alignment.  But, that's not the big issue.
> 
> Ask ten DM's about how much magic there should be in a campaign world, and you'll get ten different answers, sure.  But, ask ten DM's about alignment, and you'll get ten different answers, some of which are actually mutually exclusive.  Very few DM's would say there should be no magic items in a game world.  Less or more?  Sure, no problems.  But none at all?  That's a pretty rare sight.




"Magic can be purchased as a commodity" is mutually exclusive from "magic is rare and exists only where placed in the game".  My choice of a Fighter specialized in a very exotic weapon will play out very differently at a table where 70% of magical weapons are longswords, and you get what you find, then at a table where I can have a magical Dire Flail custom made with the precise magical properties I want to further my build.



Hussar said:


> But, it's very common, and seen in this thread more than once, that two DM's, looking at the same situation, will interpret the alignment rules in mutually exclusive ways, and both be right under the mechanics.
> 
> That's some pretty poorly worded mechanics right there.




How fortunate, then, that no one disagrees on how spells should be interpreted (whether the micro of what each spell accomplishes, like whether Mirror Images stay in the caster's square or each occupy their own space, or the macro, such as whether verbal components may be expressed in a hushed whisper rather than a strong, clear voice), how monster descriptions should be interpreted (say, for example, the ease of persuading a Glabrezu to grant a wish), how magic items work (a discussion on whether opening a bag of holding underwater means it is destroyed comes to mind) and how skills function (such as whether a target can refuse to listen long enough for an unpenalized diplomacy attempt), among many other mechanics, right?


----------



## Hussar

There is a difference though N'Raac, with your magic item example.  The rules state something to the effect of, "This is the baseline that the designers assume and all design is based on that baseline.  If you deviate from that baseline, you will have different results in your game."  3e D&D presumes fungible magic items and everything in the game is based on the idea of character wealth by level.  If you deviate from that, you will change the balance of your game.

The other stuff you list has more to do with difference in interpretation, but, very few of them are mutually exclusive.  Is a bag of holding destroyed when opened underwater is a situation that probably isn't going to come up in a game all that often.  Will the DM screw over his players by having his NPC's refuse to listen to the players in order to preserve his carefully crafted plot is more of a DM issue than a rules one.  

However, when two DM's look at a situation, come up with exact opposite interpretations, AND THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT, is a problem with the mechanics.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Why is it bad form to make the player think of a way he can impact the scene while fleeing, but OK to require him to think of a way to defend the victims without approaching close enough to strike the serpent?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> “Restrict actions rather than require actions” seems a pretty fuzzy demarcation, in other words.  Or, in the context of this thread, a rule which requires interpretation in its application.  And anything requiring interpretation  can lead to disagreement and argument.



Am I right in thinking you have little or no familiarity with Fate? Whereas [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] actually plays the game.

Some demarcations are fuzzy when stated but reasonably intuitive in play. I think the difference between a scene-ender and a scene-complicator in play is generally pretty clear.

 [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - am I right in thinking that if, as per Umbran's take, the compel is modified via player input ("As I run the snake chases me") then the player gets only the one fate point and gets to keep it, whereas on your approach of the player's "compel in reply" ("I make the snake chase me") earns the player a second fate point?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> However, when two DM's look at a situation, come up with exact opposite interpretations, AND THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT, is a problem with the mechanics.




Not necessarily, both DMs are roleplaying the deities which are in essence NPCs, and every DM plays NPCs differently for whatever reason. Your only argument is the "judgement" of the PCs actions by the DMs according to the code of their deity which may lead them to lose their abilities making the class "unplayable"
There are many factors to be considered / steps to be made for such a drastic action to occur and I believe you dismiss these too quick in your approach to chastise Alignment while aligning it with poor DMing. 

We never said the use of Alignment was an easy thing to DM. Perhaps it should be a modular advanced option. But to completely discount its value is ridiculous - it can be a tool for interesting narrative purposes, meaningful choices with heavy consequences. Think of it as a gritty ethical/morale system much like using a harsh combat system where PC can lose eyes, arms and legs permanently.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I don’t really see how we can examine the issues in a vacuum.  You told us “this is how my game works”.  If your response to any questions on how your game actually works is simply “well, I don’t want to discuss that”, then I quite agree that you have no intention of engaging in a sincere discussion (to use your words).



Try rereading this paragraph. What is "the issue"? As far as I can tell, the issue is "Is pemerton telling the truth about how his game works?"

You can believe me or not - frankly, I don't care that much, as you are someone I've never met nor am likely too - but do you seriously expect me to entertain as a topic of investigation that I'm lying, or perhaps fundamentally confused, about my own play experiences?



N'raac said:


> “Best friends” to me connotes similar attitudes and preferences



Perhaps, then, you move in narrower circles than me. In my experience people can be good friends but have different attitudes.



N'raac said:


> I cannot count the number of times you have railed against pre-set backstory in favour of discovery through play.  Now it’s all about the backstory.  There I can certainly see a key issue, in that you and your players will have a much greater shared backstory than the few paragraphs the game rules might include about a specific deity.  To me, that backstory is unavoidably hidden, where it may well be all open to your players.



There is more apparent confusion here. _We are not playing a game together._ Nor are we building a PC together.

Nor have I ever claimed to run a strictly no myth game. I've posted multiple times that my 4e game started with three instructions to the players: I want to use the core 4e cosmology as set out in the PHB, MM and DMG; I want you to give me a reason your PC is ready to fight goblins; and I want you to tell me one loyalty that your PC has. That is not a backstory-free game. It has gods, for instance, including the Raven Queen, described in the PHB as being a god to whom "Mourners call upon . . . in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath."

You seem to think that it is consistent with people praying to a god to guard their dead loved ones from being turned into undead that that god would like undead. You seem to think it consistent with a god being the sworn enemy of Orcus, demon prince of undeath, that she should like undead. As a matter of ordinary English usage, it makes no sense to pray to the source of a threat in the hope that it will guard you against that threat. You might hope to guard against a threat by asking the source not to inflict it on you, but that sentence has a different syntax from the one occurring in the PHB that I quoted upthread. It is not the mourners who guard: they ask the Raven Queen to guard their deceased loved ones. Ie she _protects_ people from the curse of undeath. Perhaps what my players and I all have in common in having come to a non-collusive agreement on what that implied for her hatred of undead is that we can all agree on the meaning of ordinary sentences of English?

If you wanted to pitch a character based on the fact that popular beliefs about the Raven Queen are wrong - that in fact she does not guard deceased mortals from the curse of undeath, but inflicts it upon them - then were you a player in my game I'd say "Let's talk about it". But as I've mentioned several times you are not a player in my game and hence I'm not really interested in talking about it with you.



N'raac said:


> I am not arguing about evaluating the PC or player’s moral choices against the writings of great (or deemed great) philosophers whose philosophies do not produce any consensus amongst themselves, nor within those who study them. I am discussing the evaluation of the PC’s actions and outlook against the standards set by another being, not against a (nonexistent) standard of what is truly “good”, “evil”, “moral” or “ethical” from a purely philosophical basis.



Bully for you. That is not what I am interested in doing in my RPGing. Or rather, I am not very interested in evaluating the PCs' actions and outlook against the opinions of being whose own actions and outlooks whose moral adequacy or inadequacy is already stipulated by the language of alignment.

In other words: when the PCs in my game returned Kas's sword to him, I was happy to draw the conclusion that Vecna was angry with them. But I am not remotely interested in asking the question whether or not what they did was good or evil, where those notions are identified by stipulation with the opinion of certain NPCs run by the GM.

Was it the right or wrong thing to return Kas's sword to him? Answering that is a matter of evaluative and expressive response. It is not part of administering the game as GM.



N'raac said:


> You raised the example as one where alignment would clearly and obviously have detracted from great play.  I challenged your assertion of whether this was accurate, much less clear and obvious.  You now no longer wish to discuss that example.



I've told you how alignment would have detracted - because it would require me to ask and answer questions that are of no relevance to me - such as the question you are now asking me to answer! (Namely, did the samurai face a moral dilemma? And did he do the right thing?)

It's not true that I don't wish to discuss the example. What I am not going to do is share my moral opinions with you. Which is what you are asking me to do, in asking whether or not the samurai faced a moral dilemma. _You work it out._



N'raac said:


> What I say is that, given your view that alignment is so much a straightjacket that it would prevent the play examples you provided, it would be detrimental to your game.  But that is because of the way you view alignment as a straightjacket, not because that is the only way alignment can be viewed under the rules.



I have never said that this is why alignment would be an obstacle. That is a view you have imputed to me. As I just repeated above, the reason I do not use mechanical alignment is because it is a needless epiphenomenal device, that requires the GM to make judgements using morally loaded language about the choices that the players make for playing their PCs.



N'raac said:


> I see no reason that equal play could not arise in a game where alignment is utilized.



You're not obliged to. I suspect that for you, it wouldn't have. You seem to have a very different approach to aesthetic and evaluative response from mine. That is fine - people are different. But it doesn't make it less true that, for me, the application and adjudication of mechanical alignment would detract from that episode of play, because for both GM and player it would change the focus of play from the PC and the situation, to a needless and (it increasingly seems to me) largely arbitrary process of tracking movements on the alignment grid. And that activity has no interest for me.



N'raac said:


> As a player, it makes a great deal of difference to how I would engage the scene if I see evidence that the ogres regularly eat human children, torture other beings for enjoyment or otherwise engage in evil acts.  You provided two great, evocative examples of the chair made from human skin and sinew, and the stack of small children’s skulls in the kitchen.  If, instead, I see a group of sentient non-humans who are just trying to eke out a living and survive, the same as the human settlers I have come here seeking to protect and defend, this presents a very different picture for my character to engage with.  Are they “evil”?  Or are they painted as evil because they are different, and because acknowledging our similarities might require harder choices.  “Slay the evil ogres to protect the helpless children” is a lot different from “Kill off the ogres because we want their food and lands to make our lives easier”.



I am at a loss here as to what work is being done by alignment mechanics.

If you think that people who eat children and use their body parts to make furniture merit opposition, perhaps death, what does it add to that judgement to mediate via the mechanical label "evil"? If you think that sentient beings who are "different" but otherwise harmless in order to steal their food and land would be wrong, then what does it add to that judgement to say "Oh, and by the way, they're not Evil"?

The language and mechanics of alignment seem utterly otiose.



N'raac said:


> Treachery is a word which has negative connotations.  Are you prepared to state that, in the game context in which the matter arose only, you do, or do not, consider devil worship an evil act?



What does this question even mean? I DON'T USE MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT. The whole point of that is that, in the game context, devil worship is not an_ X_ act, where _X_ ranges over the various traditional D&D alignments. It is not a Lawful act, nor a non-lawful act, nor a chaotic act, nor a non-chaotic act. Nor good nor evil nor non-good, nor non-evil. Nor neutral. _That is what it means to not use mechanical alignment._ It means that acts, in the game, do not have a mechanically or GM-assigned moral character.

Ask a RQ player or GM whether, in the game context, a particular act of worship is an evil or non-evil act, and they should stare at you blankly. That question is meaningless. Because they don't use mechanical alignment. _Likewise for me._

I myself have quite rich views about the significance of devil worship within the gameworld, and what sort of significance - moral and otherwise - it can carry. But as I've already indicated, I do not intend to share those views with you, even if I thought I could do so without violating board rules.



N'raac said:


> Playing her based on what?  You classify LG as a “needless label”.  But she already came with a label you cited yourself – “Resolute Defender”.   Did you not interpret the meaning of that label, and under what circumstances it would change, in order to play her?



No, I didn't interpret the circumstances under which it would change.

The phrase "resolute defender" is my present summary of a vague recollection of how the module author described her personality and divine mission. I used that summary to guide my adjudication of the action resolution in the scene (mostly, the setting of difficulty levels for the task of persuading her).  At the end of the episode, was the module author's description of her still true of her? I don't know, and to be frank I don't really care. As has been said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!

As something of an aside: if you are now suggesting that alignment descriptors are in fact mere shorthand personality shorthands, and nothing more, then you're not talking any more about mechanical alignment in the traditional D&D sense. For instance, under that approach (i) alignment becomes a straitjacket, which I though you rejected; and (ii) the notion of "lawful good" act has no meaning other than "the sort of behaviour a lawful good person would engage in". (And I think the notion of "good" act, independently of being either lawful or chaotic or neutral good, would have no meaning at all.)



N'raac said:


> It is not when our choices are between something we clearly consider Good and clearly consider Evil that these decisions are difficult,  but when there are conflicts between two or more choices we would consider Good (to choose Good and Evil).



All I will say is that I consider this quite contestable, and refer you to both Michael Walzer's work on "dirty hands" and Max Weber's essay "Politics as a Vocation".



N'raac said:


> Here we get into “hidden backstory”.



On what basis do you say that? How do you know that this element of backstory was used to determine the outcome of some episode of action resolution. For all I've said, it could have been stipulated by the GM as part of the consequences of action resolution (perhaps a failed Religion check by the player of a divine PC). 



N'raac said:


> Now we get into the values set in the game system – if it is a certainty within the game’s cosmology that this deity is, in fact, Good, then that suffering must only seem needless, and the virtue is faith.



Who is "we"? _I_ don't get into this, because _I don't use mechanical alignment_. (I also don't quite see how this fits with alignment not being a straitjacket. If a particular god is authoritatively good, and you disagree with him/her on some fundamental point, then aren't you ipso fact evil?)



N'raac said:


> if the character draws his abilities from faith, devotion and service to that deity, and chooses to cease honouring him/her, then it makes no sense to me that the character would retain those abilities.



Here is just one possible reason: the god continues to embrace the apostate out of love. I'm sure, in the right context, there could be others.



N'raac said:


> If causing needless suffering is “good” in this setting, then the meaning of “good” does not match its meaning in ordinary usage.



I barely understand this sentence. Gygax defines "good" by reference to human rights and the alleviation of suffering, the 2nd ed PHB says that "good beings are just that", and the 3E SRD defines "good" by reference to altruism and avoidance of harm. So how could needless suffering by "good"? This isn't just an issue of ordinary usage, although D&D clearly means to piggyback on ordinary usage in its alignment definitions. It's an issue of the statements in the game texts.

If we're talking about a GM's house rule: a GM can tell me, too, that the king in his game has a table that (i) exists in Euclidean space, and (ii) is exactly 21 feet around and 7 feet across; and furthermore, (iii) his sages can square the circle with nothing but compass and ruler. It doesn't mean I can makes sense of any of it.



N'raac said:


> For there to actually be a meaningful choice, there must be previously established personality traits to the character which cause the choice to be difficult.



I don't agree with this at all. You seem to be focusing on the AD&D 2nd ed approach to play: that part of the challenge of roleplaying is being true to the character's alignment (or personality more broadly). Hence if the values to which the PC is committed via that alignment or personality description comes into play, there is a difficult choice.

That is not the sort of meaning I am getting at in describing an "evaluatively meaningful choice". I am talking about the player's evaluative and expressive responses, not the PC's motivations.



N'raac said:


> You have asserted numerous great play experiences could not happen if alignment rules were used.  I disagree with you – I have seen lots of similar great play experiences that happened with alignment rules in use.



By "play experience" you seem to mean "occurrence within the fiction". That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the experiences - emotional, aesthetic - of the participants at the table. Especially me.



N'raac said:


> You have asserted numerous great play experiences could not happen if alignment rules were used.  I disagree with you – I have seen lots of similar great play experiences that happened with alignment rules in use.You seem to be arguing alignment detracts from the game.



I am asserting that it detracts from _my_ game. If others love it, more strength to their arm! May they have many more years of fun playing with alignment.

But that won't be changing how I play the game.



N'raac said:


> But those rules can and do help guide the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> incorporation of rules which guide players, especially newer players and GM’s, towards seeing the character as more than just a bundle of mechanical stats are, in my view, valuable in establishing the role playing (these are characters, not pawns) aspect, not just the game (do what it takes to win shall be the whole of the law) aspect.



I don't remotely agree. I've never encountered the issue of a new player seeing the PC as "just a bundle of mechanical stats", because I find new players are very excited about the fictional positioning of their PC, their PC's history and motivations, etc.

I also don't understand what the difference is, here, between "guide" and "straitjacket". Obviously in the literal sense there are guides that aren't straitjackets, but given that "straitjacket" here is metaphorical, what does the metaphor mean other than a GM-enforced guide. (And if the guide is not GM-enforced, in what way do you see it as guiding those wayward new players?)



N'raac said:


> it is possible for some actions to have no alignment relevance at all. Is tying my shoe Good?  Evil?  Lawful?  Chaotic?  No, it’s just tying my shoe so I don’t fall on my face.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There are not three points on each scale (G,N,E and L,N,C), but a wide continuum between the two extremes of Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil.



I don't see how this rebuts my contention that alignment takes the view that all value commitments can be summarised on the 2 axes. You haven't actually given an example of something which is (i) an important value commitment over which characters might conflict and is (ii) something that falls outside the domain of alignment. If in fact you can find such an example, then I think you've thereby shown alignment to be problematic even by your own lights, haven't you, because it now fails to provide the guidance that you say is its primary function.



N'raac said:


> Show me ONE PERSON, one single post, which has suggested this is the way alignment should work in a game - not “this is why alignment should be removed”, but a supporter of the alignment system suggesting it would categorically determine whether the Vampire lover gets staked, the character continues to honour a deity who causes needless suffering, a character sacrifices himself to buy time for his friends to escape, the murderer is imprisoned rather than killed or the Angel can be persuaded to abandon its post for the Greater Good.



If it doesn't, then what is its purpose? How is it guiding anyone? How do we know the difference between what a LG and a CE god would do? How can we ever tell that a paladin has committed an evil act, and hence should fall?

But anyway, this is orthogonal to my contention that it is a premise of the alignment system that all value commitments and all value conflicts can be measured on the 2-axis alignment graph. That is a premise that I reject.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> We never said the use of Alignment was an easy thing to DM. Perhaps it should be a modular advanced option. But to completely discount its value is ridiculous - it can be a tool for interesting narrative purposes, meaningful choices with heavy consequences.



This is an example of what I referred to in my post upthread - the idea that evaluatively meaningful choices can only arise if canonical labels are given to the options and the actors in those choice situations.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Some demarcations are fuzzy when stated but reasonably intuitive in play. I think the difference between a scene-ender and a scene-complicator in play is generally pretty clear.




Is it though?  Fate basically says the scene ends when your players are no longer interested in the scene or their goals have been achieved... my players continuously surprise me with what they come up with and thus I don't think it's easy for a GM to claim something is an automatic scene ender... leaving certain extreme examples (like "rocks fall you die") out of the conversation of course.



pemerton said:


> @_*Imaro*_ - am I right in thinking that if, as per Umbran's take, the compel is modified via player input ("As I run the snake chases me") then the player gets only the one fate point and gets to keep it, whereas on your approach of the player's "compel in reply" ("I make the snake chase me") earns the player a second fate point?




Well Umbran's example is negotiating a GM's compel, which would have to take place before it is accepted and yes, would then result in the player only getting a single Fate point... 

My example is of the player having already accepted the GM's compel then in turn choosing to compel himself with a new complication that cannot override any complications that he has already accepted...  I also think, now with the snake chasing the character we have reason to bring in other action resolution mechanics to determine whether the character is caught by the snake... which may not be so bad since he has 2 Fate points now... or perhaps the GM (or player) could offer another compel, auto-enabling the snake to catch him (for which the player would receive another Fate point and certainly be in a better situation than he was at the start of this encounter to face the snake in combat...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> However, when two DM's look at a situation, come up with exact opposite interpretations, AND THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT, is a problem with the mechanics.




I do not believe this is the case. I want this to be a possibility. The source of consistency, for me, is the GM. I am not worried if two different GMs make opposite rulings for the same situation. I am more concerned that the individual GM be consistent with his own ruling and be reasonable and fair in application of the rules. But I think it is a feature of the game that something that can happen in one person's campaign, might not occur in another. I think that points to the role of imagination and the human referee element.


----------



## Umbran

N'raac said:


> Yet it seems like it makes perfect sense given the aspect itself.  Could the player not perceive “you cannot approach within striking distance” as a scene ender (he can only stand and watch as the snake consumes the helpless innocents) rather than a complication?




No, for a simple reason - in the "you flee" scenario, the character is actually removed from the scene!  Unless the character is capable of spooky action from a distance, they have completely lost ability to interact with the scene.  I the "stand back" scenario, the only thing he cannot do is step into short range of one creature, but the rest of the scene is still open to the character.  



> Why is it bad form to make the player think of a way he can impact the scene while fleeing, but OK to require him to think of a way to defend the victims without approaching close enough to strike the serpent?  Both force him to think of a means of affecting the scene other than his first, preferred approach (and the approach he considered appropriate to his vision of the character).




The difference is the amount of narrative space the player has to work with.  There isn't a lot of wiggle room for the player told the character must flee, and it is very, very easy for them to infer there is *no* wiggle room.  The player is within rights to ask for a modification of the compel, but if they don't think of it, right then and there, the player's pretty much hosed. 



> What if he had chosen to flee, and been instead Compelled to attack the snake by his Defender of the Innocent aspect?  Is it OK to force the scene to continue, but not to force it to end (either being against the wishes of the player)?  If so, why?




Ah, but you see, in FATE, the player always has a way out - the player can always Concede in a conflict. The player doesn't win, and has to take a consequence.  But, he gets a Fate point, plus an additional Fate point for every other consequence taken in the scene.



> “Restrict actions rather than require actions” seems a pretty fuzzy demarcation, in other words.  Or, in the context of this thread, a rule which requires interpretation in its application.  And anything requiring interpretation  can lead to disagreement and argument.




Yes, but the game includes discussion, negotiation, and mutual agreements as part of it's basic operating principles.  It isn't expected to be an airtight tactical system with no ambiguity.  If that's what you're looking for, FATE would not be a good engine for you.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> If you think that people who eat children and use their body parts to make furniture merit opposition, perhaps death, what does it add to that judgement to mediate via the mechanical label "evil"? If you think that sentient beings who are "different" but otherwise harmless in order to steal their food and land would be wrong, then what does it add to that judgement to say "Oh, and by the way, they're not Evil"?




Human beings naturally stereotype and label:  http://nyuad.nyu.edu/academics/faculty/quadflieg/03.publications/2011Quadflieg_ERSP.pdf
But I like your point that category labels matter and could lead to (what I would call) bad things at a table or among friends.



pemerton said:


> [t]he reason I do not use mechanical alignment is because it is a needless epiphenomenal device, that requires the GM to make judgements using morally loaded language about the choices that the players make for playing their PCs.




Would calling the acts acceptable/unacceptable to the lords of light/dark/entropy/far realms/consistancy/stasis make it less odious at the table (although not necessarily making it more useful)?

---



pemerton said:


> [t]hen you're not talking any more about mechanical alignment in the traditional D&D sense. For instance, under that approach (i) alignment becomes a straitjacket, which I though you rejected; and (ii) the notion of "lawful good" act has no meaning other than "the sort of behaviour a lawful good person would engage in". (And I think the notion of "good" act, independently of being either lawful or chaotic or neutral good, would have no meaning at all.)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I also don't quite see how this fits with alignment not being a straitjacket. If a particular god is authoritatively good, and you disagree with him/her on some fundamental point, then aren't you ipso fact evil?




The key word here strikes me as being "authoritatively".  If there is a single really powerful deity in the mythos then it seems like they would indeed get to define a straightjacket definition that was backed up by a battery of really picky spells and outsiders.

Say there were 8 really powerful beings who all staked out a corner or middle of a side on a square in a not totally contradictory way and labeled them (going clockwise) as LG, NG, CG, CN, CE, NE, LE, LN.  Then it seems like one might have to define L, C, G, and E in terms of what the deities with those letters shared in common and the definitions would authoritatively go with those. In this case each of the eight would certainly be straight-jacket and I might wonder why they only came up with those four flavors of alignment spells and not eight of them.  

I think both of these could easily lead to the DM being forced to label the player's own morality in ways that don't make a harmonious table or friendship.

On the other hand the D&D take seems to me more like - there's this big circle divided into 8 slots around the outside with a circle in the middle (granted AD&D actually had a wheel with 18 slots and a center) where all of the gods had to sort themselves based on who they would get along with best in terms of what kinds of actions their worshipers should find acceptable or objectionable. Being rather uncreative they decided on a list of 500,000 actions that sentient creatures might do and had to rate them from 1=acceptable to 5=unacceptable. They threw all of their responses into the standard mathematical machinery to project them down onto two dimensions and went to where-ever seemed to match them best.  The sides of the paper the circle was drawn on were labeled good, chaos, evil, and law (going clockwise).  The rare questions that were almost uniformly endorsed by the deities on each side were something like "helping others if it doesn't hurt other helpful people", "thinks following the rules is generally annoying", "make others hurt for your own pleasure", and "thinks things should be governed by smart rules that everyone should follow".  A few of them had responses that seemed contradictory and didn't fit at all (frog is not a number from 1 to 5!), so the other divinities got together and kicked them out of the circle and made them live in the far realms. 

Under this final system, a person's alignment goes with wherever they seem to fit best on that survey (well our best guess of where they would go anyway, since we don't have it or the results).  A lot of actions are probably represented in several squares and probably depend on the motivation and consequences.  In practice (ok the general gist, not the exact story), this seems like it removes almost all of the cases that would lead to someone at the table being called evil.    A lot of folk find themselves non-good though, so an alternative less-loaded labeling system might still be preferred.  



pemerton said:


> an example of something which is (i) an important value commitment over which characters might conflict and is (ii) something that falls outside the domain of alignment.




Does "When do the ends justify the means?" work under this last set-up?



pemerton said:


> If in fact you can find such an example, then I think you've thereby shown alignment to be problematic even by your own lights, haven't you, because it now fails to provide the guidance that you say is its primary function.




Is pointing someone in the general direction still guidance?

---



pemerton said:


> I want to use the core 4e cosmology as set out in the PHB, MM and DMG;... It has gods, for instance, including the Raven Queen, described in the PHB as being a god to whom "Mourners call upon . . . in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath."
> <snip>
> As a matter of ordinary English usage, it makes no sense to pray to the source of a threat in the hope that it will guard you against that threat.
> <snip>
> If you wanted to pitch a character based on the fact that popular beliefs about the Raven Queen are wrong - that in fact she does not guard deceased mortals from the curse of undeath, but inflicts it upon them - then were you a player in my game I'd say "Let's talk about it".




I am totally lost now.  Given the first and second snippet... what is there to talk about with the player?



pemerton said:


> In other words: when the PCs in my game returned Kas's sword to him, I was happy to draw the conclusion that Vecna was angry with them. But I am not remotely interested in asking the question whether or not what they did was good or evil, where those notions are identified by stipulation with the opinion of certain NPCs run by the GM.




If one of the returners was a Cleric of Vecna, would having Vecna strip them of their divinely given gifts until they atoned be something that you would have considered?


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> There is a difference though N'Raac, with your magic item example. The rules state something to the effect of, "This is the baseline that the designers assume and all design is based on that baseline. If you deviate from that baseline, you will have different results in your game."




It has been note that many spells act on an alignment descriptor, as do some magic items.  These mechanics are also a baseline set by the designers.  Should you choose to toss alignment, you need to decide whether those spells remain and, if so, what they actually do.  This also extends to PC abilities (how does a Paladin Detect or Smite Evil if we make no judgment on whether any given NPC is, or is not, evil?)



Hussar said:


> The other stuff you list has more to do with difference in interpretation, but, very few of them are mutually exclusive. Is a bag of holding destroyed when opened underwater is a situation that probably isn't going to come up in a game all that often.




Each specific example of adjudication of magic items will not come up all that often.  Unless we stick to the Big Six (items that provide numerical bonuses to existing stats), there will be a need to adjudicate magic items, just as there is a need to adjudicate spells.



Hussar said:


> Will the DM screw over his players by having his NPC's refuse to listen to the players in order to preserve his carefully crafted plot is more of a DM issue than a rules one.




The requirements to use a skill is a rules interpretation issue.  Whether a GM is “adjudicating rules” or “screwing over the players” is a subjective question (any call that does  not go your way is, from your historical posts, “screwing over the player” in your eyes).  A GM using alignment as a straightjacket is just as much a GM issue as any other poor GM use of any other rule, skills, spells and wealth included.



Hussar said:


> However, when two DM's look at a situation, come up with exact opposite interpretations, AND THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT, is a problem with the mechanics.




In the examples I posed, there was no “right” or “wrong”, only interpretation, so each and every one of those reflects situations where two GM’s (or players) look at a situation and reach mutually exclusive, or even exact opposite, interpretations.



pemerton said:


> Try rereading this paragraph. What is "the issue"? As far as I can tell, the issue is "Is pemerton telling the truth about how his game works?"




To me, it is about exploring how Pemerton’s game actually works.  What you see as a “moral judgment of the PC actions” and what I perceive that term to mean seem not to coincide precisely.



pemerton said:


> Perhaps, then, you move in narrower circles than me. In my experience people can be good friends but have different attitudes.




To some extent, sure.  People rarely move in 100% lockstep.  At the same time, people with polar opposite views on numerous issues, especially issues they are passionate about, are rarely friends, much less the “best friends” you initially indicated.



pemerton said:


> There is more apparent confusion here. We are not playing a game together. Nor are we building a PC together.




We were, however, exploring how your game works, including how PC’s get built in your game, because you were using your game to set out your views on the question of alignment.  And your statement that, in your game, the approach is “building a PC together” provides further information in that regard.  As I read that, much as the PC’s deity moves from a GM resource to a shared player/GM resource, the PC is a player/GM creation, not a “player alone” creation.

When you first tell me “I do not judge the characters’ morality – that is for them alone” and then tell me “If you want to play a character who believes the Undead are OK, why would you pick a follower of the Raven Queen”, I see a significant inconsistency.  I could just as easily say “If you did not want to play an LG character, why did you choose to play a Paladin?”



pemerton said:


> It has gods, for instance, including the Raven Queen, described in the PHB as being a god to whom "Mourners call upon . . . in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath."
> 
> You seem to think that it is consistent with people praying to a god to guard their dead loved ones from being turned into undead that that god would like undead.




To whom did the mariners of ancient Greece pray to guard them from storms and other disasters at sea?  Unless I am sadly misinformed, it was the God of the Sea, who presided over those very disasters.



pemerton said:


> You seem to think it consistent with a god being the sworn enemy of Orcus, demon prince of undeath, that she should like undead.




Both Athena and Ares were gods of war.  How well did they get along?  You might also note that, over the course of our discussion, I have removed any undeath references in respect for your backstory that RQ’s enmity with Orcus extends to enmity with the undead.  If I am a follower of RQ, can my character cast Animate Dead, even if he uses those Undead to beat back Orcus?  Will RQ even grant that spell (presuming I draw my abilities from RQ’s divine grace?)  Nothing in that brief description says that the RQ passionately opposes Undeath.  It says that she is viewed as one who might guard one’s loved ones against undeath (and it is the mourners in that passage who view undeath as a curse – RQ’s viewpoint on the matter is not stated – nor is her view on much else, consistent with the mystery she seems intended to evoke).  And it is noted that the Prince of Undeath covets her throne – whether that is because she loathes the Undead, or because her position as Goddess of Death provides her with significant power over the Undead, power that Orcus covets, is not stated.



pemerton said:


> As a matter of ordinary English usage, it makes no sense to pray to the source of a threat in the hope that it will guard you against that threat.




I guess those Greek mariners had no sense, then.



pemerton said:


> t is not the mourners who guard: they ask the Raven Queen to guard their deceased loved ones. Ie she protects people from the curse of undeath.




They ask the Raven Queen to guard their loved ones against the threat of undeath.  They do not thank her for protecting the dead in general against the curse of undeath, but rather invoke her to bless these specific dead against Undeath.  Further, it is the mourners, and not the RQ, who refer to “the curse of Uneath”.  Finally, where is it written that Deities do not bestow Curses?  Not in any mythology I’m familiar with, but I lay no claim to vast expertise in that regard.



pemerton said:


> Perhaps what my players and I all have in common in having come to a non-collusive agreement on what that implied for her hatred of undead is that we can all agree on the meaning of ordinary sentences of English?




We have the read of what, half a dozen people in your group, and we have my read.  I’m curious whether anyone else out there finds your interpretation the only rational one, finds mine reasonable as well, or even leans towards mine.  However, rules discussions on this site make it pretty clear how easy it is for people to read the same words and reach differing conclusions as to their meanings.

I am, of course, disadvantaged by my lack of familiarity with 4e.  I am going entirely from the brief missive you posted which was stated to be the relevant info, but there may be other writings with which I am not familiar which better support your interpretation.



pemerton said:


> Bully for you. That is not what I am interested in doing in my RPGing. Or rather, I am not very interested in evaluating the PCs' actions and outlook against the opinions of being whose own actions and outlooks whose moral adequacy or inadequacy is already stipulated by the language of alignment.




But this is entirely the point you seem to miss – “Good” creatures can differ widely in their interpretation of “Good”.  The “moral adequacy or inadequacy” of any given action is not, in the majority of cases, dictated by that ‘G’ on the character sheet.



pemerton said:


> In other words: when the PCs in my game returned Kas's sword to him, I was happy to draw the conclusion that Vecna was angry with them. But I am not remotely interested in asking the question whether or not what they did was good or evil, where those notions are identified by stipulation with the opinion of certain NPCs run by the GM.




You seem to think that a game with alignment would either have the Gates of Heaven open to the PC’s for their noble and righteous action in returning the sword, or that they would be swallowed up by the Pits of Hell on the spot.  Whether it was right or wrong (Good or Evil) depends heavily on the context.  If I offer Kas the return of his sword in exchange for slaughtering a rival nation, that seems like an Evil act.  If I offer him the return of his sword in exchange for sparing them, that seems far less Evil.  The one specific action, taken in isolation, is not so clearly righteous nor so blatantly immoral as to be clearly and obviously classified in and of itself.  A great many choices are not moral or ethical choices mandating the huge exercise in classification which you seem to consider implicitly required if we use alignment.



pemerton said:


> I've told you how alignment would have detracted - because it would require me to ask and answer questions that are of no relevance to me - such as the question you are now asking me to answer! (Namely, did the samurai face a moral dilemma? And did he do the right thing?)
> 
> It's not true that I don't wish to discuss the example. What I am not going to do is share my moral opinions with you. Which is what you are asking me to do, in asking whether or not the samurai faced a moral dilemma. You work it out.




As noted above, such an issue cannot be worked out with no context.  You seem to feel that, somehow “throwing dice with ogres” must either be a clearly Good or blatantly Evil action, at least if we are using alignment.  With no context, it is neither, or it could be either, or it may contain elements of both.  The exact same result you seem to consider an example of the pinnacle of Role Playing could occur just as easily in a game with alignments. 



pemerton said:


> I have never said that this is why alignment would be an obstacle. That is a view you have imputed to me. As I just repeated above, the reason I do not use mechanical alignment is because it is a needless epiphenomenal device, that requires the GM to make judgements using morally loaded language about the choices that the players make for playing their PCs.




To me, this highlights not a flaw in alignment, but a flaw in your interpretation of alignment.  The GM is in no way required to judge whether the Samurai dicing with the Ogres was Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.  That one action, in and of itself, is none of these.  Only with context might (and I stress might, not is or must be) that decision have any bearing on his alignment.  If they were rolling dice to see whether kidnaped children go with the Samurai to be returned to their parents or go into the stewpot, that could certainly add some alignment connotations.  If the Samurai’s order is sworn to slay Ogres on sight, or simply sworn never to gamble, there’s a Lawfulness issue here.  But from the facts you provided, I don’t see any alignment issue (which would be a synonym, under alignment rules, for a moral dilemma).



			
				Nraac said:
			
		

> I see no reason that equal play could not arise in a game where alignment is utilized.






pemerton said:


> You're not obliged to. I suspect that for you, it wouldn't have. You seem to have a very different approach to aesthetic and evaluative response from mine. That is fine - people are different. But it doesn't make it less true that, for me, the application and adjudication of mechanical alignment would detract from that episode of play, because for both GM and player it would change the focus of play from the PC and the situation, to a needless and (it increasingly seems to me) largely arbitrary process of tracking movements on the alignment grid. And that activity has no interest for me.




This is, to me, a problem in your interpretation of alignment rules, and not in the alignment rules themselves.  And I agree that, if by adding alignment, you will feel obliged to classify every action along the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis, agonizing over each such decision, lying awake at night trying to assess whether choosing mutton over fish at the Inn should cause an alignment change, then I agree alignment would detract from your game.  But that isn’t how I see alignment used, nor do I think it is what the designers intended.  And it is certainly not what anyone I see posting here is supporting.



pemerton said:


> If you think that people who eat children and use their body parts to make furniture merit opposition, perhaps death, what does it add to that judgement to mediate via the mechanical label "evil"? If you think that sentient beings who are "different" but otherwise harmless in order to steal their food and land would be wrong, then what does it add to that judgement to say "Oh, and by the way, they're not Evil"?




I think most would suggest the former are evil, and that is why they merit opposition.  You now seem to have moved right to a polar extreme of removing “good” and “evil” from the game vocabulary entirely, which eliminates the classic fantasy trope of Good versus Evil.



pemerton said:


> The language and mechanics of alignment seem utterly otiose.




That description could be easily ascribed to the entire discussion. 



pemerton said:


> What does this question even mean? I DON'T USE MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT. The whole point of that is that, in the game context, devil worship is not an X act, where X ranges over the various traditional D&D alignments. It is not a Lawful act, nor a non-lawful act, nor a chaotic act, nor a non-chaotic act. Nor good nor evil nor non-good, nor non-evil. Nor neutral. That is what it means to not use mechanical alignment. It means that acts, in the game, do not have a mechanically or GM-assigned moral character.




Are the words good, evil, lawful and chaotic banned from your game?  You seem to shift from a hard and fast alignment terminology usage to any form of evaluation at all.  I find it difficult to believe that anyone operates in such a vacuum that they cannot see any action as “good” or “evil”.  You certainly expressed a view as to how one likely would see killing random people or tearing out a baby’s throat with one’s teeth.  Those were, it seems, so obvious that their classification would never be in doubt, yet now you tell me that, absent alignment, there can be no assessment of any action.



pemerton said:


> Ask a RQ player or GM whether, in the game context, a particular act of worship is an evil or non-evil act, and they should stare at you blankly. That question is meaningless. Because they don't use mechanical alignment. Likewise for me.




RuneQuest, not Raven Queen, I assume .  The words “good” and “evil” crop up a lot, in my experience, in games lacking mechanical alignment.  Why?  Again, because the struggle of Good versus Evil is quite common in the source material, and makes its way to fantasy games as a consequence.

I myself have quite rich views about the significance of devil worship within the gameworld, and what sort of significance - moral and otherwise - it can carry. But as I've already indicated, I do not intend to share those views with you, even if I thought I could do so without violating board rules.



pemerton said:


> No, I didn't interpret the circumstances under which it would change.




Seems to me that you had to set the DC the players had to meet in order to persuade the Angel to abandon her post and allow herself to be killed to further the PC’s agenda.  A sufficient roll on the player’s skill check, therefore, would be the circumstances under which the Angel would change its views.  If you did not set those circumstances, who did?



pemerton said:


> The phrase "resolute defender" is my present summary of a vague recollection of how the module author described her personality and divine mission. I used that summary to guide my adjudication of the action resolution in the scene (mostly, the setting of difficulty levels for the task of persuading her).




Emphasis added.  Clearly, you DID interpret the circumstances under which her views could be changed.



pemerton said:


> As something of an aside: if you are now suggesting that alignment descriptors are in fact mere shorthand personality shorthands, and nothing more, then you're not talking any more about mechanical alignment in the traditional D&D sense. For instance, under that approach (i) alignment becomes a straitjacket, which I though you rejected; and (ii) the notion of "lawful good" act has no meaning other than "the sort of behaviour a lawful good person would engage in". (And I think the notion of "good" act, independently of being either lawful or chaotic or neutral good, would have no meaning at all.)




Having a person behave in character is not, in my view, a straightjacket.  



pemerton said:


> Who is "we"? I don't get into this, because I don't use mechanical alignment.




“We” has to be the people around the gaming table.  What values are set by the game system itself?  Are certain spells, acts, states of being, etc., deemed by the game setting to be “good” or “evil”?  If they are, then it does not matter what the player, GM, PC or NPC thinks - these are defined by the game cosmology.  Real world ethics don’t enter into the picture any more than real world physics suggesting bat guano and a few words and gestures do not create a huge ball of flames.



pemerton said:


> I also don't quite see how this fits with alignment not being a straitjacket. If a particular god is authoritatively good, and you disagree with him/her on some fundamental point, then aren't you ipso fact evil?)




In the D&D cosmology, NO.  A single evil act – even one which is clearly, incontrovertibly evil, does not make a person evil.  The rules for Paladins make that CRYSTAL CLEAR – if a single evil act made one evil, we would not need to state that one such act results in loss of Paladinhood – it would already be lost due to loss of that LG alignment.

Thor (generally classified as CG) believes in solving problems by violence.  Aphrodite (also typically considered CG) does not.  Both are “authoritatively good”, yet they can disagree.  There is not one single voice of Good, and all others are Evil.  No one but you is arguing this.



pemerton said:


> Here is just one possible reason: the god continues to embrace the apostate out of love. I'm sure, in the right context, there could be others.




Embrace, sure.  Love the sinner, hate the sin, sure.  Grant him powers to be used to oppose him, and continue to do greater and greater wrong (as the grantor perceives ‘wrong’) in the world?  Not so much.



pemerton said:


> I barely understand this sentence. Gygax defines "good" by reference to human rights and the alleviation of suffering, the 2nd ed PHB says that "good beings are just that", and the 3E SRD defines "good" by reference to altruism and avoidance of harm. So how could needless suffering by "good"? This isn't just an issue of ordinary usage, although D&D clearly means to piggyback on ordinary usage in its alignment definitions. It's an issue of the statements in the game texts.




If needless suffering cannot be good (a proposition I can certainly agree with), and

Deity X is defined to be completely, uncompromisingly Good (which is not automatically the case – Good encompasses a spectrum; as well, Law and Chaos can temper it in many instances), and

Deity X permits certain suffering to continue,

Then it logically follows that this suffering cannot, in fact, be needless.  There must be a reason, albeit one I as the character do not understand.  

But in myth and FRPG’s, deities are imperfect, just as their mortal followers, so he could be Good without being completely, uncompromisingly good.  His Goodness could be tempered by Law (those who do not come to me, I cannot take action to save, for example, or crimes merit punishment) or Chaos.  And the deity could be doing what he can, but lack the power to end all suffering.



			
				n’raac said:
			
		

> For there to actually be a meaningful choice, there must be previously established personality traits to the character which cause the choice to be difficult.






pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this at all. You seem to be focusing on the AD&D 2nd ed approach to play: that part of the challenge of roleplaying is being true to the character's alignment (or personality more broadly). Hence if the values to which the PC is committed via that alignment or personality description comes into play, there is a difficult choice.




For ANY choice to be meaningful, there must actually be reasons to take one choice or the other.  I choose to tie my shoe.  Why?  It’s untied and shoes are supposed to be tied.  I don’t have a deep seated moral debate with myself, “To tie or not to tie, oh woe is me that I should be beset with such painful and difficult choices – for might I not break my shoelace in attempting to tie it, and what would then become of me?  Yet shall I not tie it, might I not trip and fall, and where might such pain and suffering end?”  



pemerton said:


> I am asserting that it detracts from my game. If others love it, more strength to their arm! May they have many more years of fun playing with alignment.




You have asserted that these great instances of play you cite could not have happened if we were using alignments.  I didn’t see it then and I don’t see it now.  But what I seem to see is that you would be trapped in an endless cycle of ascribing a moral and ethical compartment to every action within the game which would prevent you enjoying it.  To me, those issues are completely academic – there is no need to ascribe a moral context to tying my shoe, eating breakfast or a myriad of other more significant acts carried out in game – I don’t need to ponder whether each and every choice I make might cause me to be “struck down for choosing to turn the vile Left, rather than the Good and Righteous continuance along the straight path, and woe betide he who should pause at the doorway.”



pemerton said:


> I also don't understand what the difference is, here, between "guide" and "straitjacket". Obviously in the literal sense there are guides that aren't straitjackets, but given that "straitjacket" here is metaphorical, what does the metaphor mean other than a GM-enforced guide. (And if the guide is not GM-enforced, in what way do you see it as guiding those wayward new players?)




The Resolute Defender (or LG) Angel will not lightly abandon her post, will require evidence that greater good is served by doing so, and will still be difficult to persuade – guideline.  The Resolute Defender (or LG) Angel will not ever consider abandoning her post – Lawful means “will never abandon her post, however significant or trivial, for any reason or under any circumstances”, and to do so would mean immediate alignment change to Chaotic - straightjacket.



pemerton said:


> I don't see how this rebuts my contention that alignment takes the view that all value commitments can be summarised on the 2 axes. You haven't actually given an example of something which is (i) an important value commitment over which characters might conflict and is (ii) something that falls outside the domain of alignment. If in fact you can find such an example, then I think you've thereby shown alignment to be problematic even by your own lights, haven't you, because it now fails to provide the guidance that you say is its primary function.
> 
> If it doesn't, then what is its purpose? How is it guiding anyone? How do we know the difference between what a LG and a CE god would do? How can we ever tell that a paladin has committed an evil act, and hence should fall?




So if we cannot classify everything, it follows that nothing whatsoever can be classified?  That appears to be your interpretation of alignment – I rather hope it is, instead, a straw man, but I am seeing no evidence you can see any possible alignment system besides “each and every choice made by the character has only one possible right answer under each alignment”.

If you truly cannot see any possibilities between “everything fully classified” and “no guidance whatsoever”, then clearly there is no point whatsoever in continuing the discussion.  That seems quite strange to me, as I don’t think any philosophy of ethics has ever established clear right and absolute wrong for a wide array of, much less every, choices made in our lives, yet that seems to be the standard you set for a mechanic of a game.  I might also add that “using alignment” also need not mean “examining each and every aspect of the game in microscopic detail under the lens of alignment”.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how anyone can provide a better explanation.  I am not certain whether you are actually incapable of seeing beyond your interpretation, or just wholly unwilling to do so, but it ultimately makes no difference, as it makes the discussion entirely futile either way.  Perhaps someone else can provide a modified explanation, but clearly I am incapable of providing an explanation you are capable of grasping.  Cadence has made a good stab at the issues above – maybe his presentation will click better than mine.

Perhaps it’s the old adage For those who understand, no explanation is needed.  To those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.  I’m sorry you and Hussar, among others, have had such poor experiences with bad use of alignment rules that you are blinded to any possible benefit they might provide if implemented more reasonably, if not skillfully.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Not necessarily, both DMs are roleplaying the deities which are in essence NPCs, and every DM plays NPCs differently for whatever reason. Your only argument is the "judgement" of the PCs actions by the DMs according to the code of their deity which may lead them to lose their abilities making the class "unplayable"
> There are many factors to be considered / steps to be made for such a drastic action to occur and I believe you dismiss these too quick in your approach to chastise Alignment while aligning it with poor DMing.
> 
> We never said the use of Alignment was an easy thing to DM. Perhaps it should be a modular advanced option. But to completely discount its value is ridiculous - it can be a tool for interesting narrative purposes, meaningful choices with heavy consequences. Think of it as a gritty ethical/morale system much like using a harsh combat system where PC can lose eyes, arms and legs permanently.




Hang on.  Please stop with the "Oh, Hussar's just bashing poor DM's again" schtick.  I'm certainly not.

I've repeatedly pointed out how two good DM's, in this thread took completely opposite and mutually exclusive positions looking at the same situation, and they were both right by the alignment rules.

This has nothing to do with bad DMing practices.  Bad Dming just makes an already bad situation worse.  But, before we even get to the quality of the DM, we have the fact that the mechanics produces mutually exclusive results.  Again, it's not about DM's roleplaying NPC's differently.  That's fine.

But, it would be like two DM's roleplaying Darth Vader, where one proclaims him a force of good and righteousness in the universe and the other a force of darkness and evil and they are both right by the rules of the game.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I do not believe this is the case. I want this to be a possibility. The source of consistency, for me, is the GM. I am not worried if two different GMs make opposite rulings for the same situation. I am more concerned that the individual GM be consistent with his own ruling and be reasonable and fair in application of the rules. But I think it is a feature of the game that something that can happen in one person's campaign, might not occur in another. I think that points to the role of imagination and the human referee element.




What about groups with multiple DM's?  I've played in many campaigns where DM'ing is shared.  How do you maintain consistency in these cases?

Addtitionally, you've just made problems for organised play.

To me, I find it rather strange that people would applaud rules that give mutually exclusive interpretations that have wide ranging, campaign world altering consequences.  We're not talking about something that only really affects one single scene here.  Alignment interpretations will impact virtually all parts of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> What about groups with multiple DM's?  I've played in many campaigns where DM'ing is shared.  How do you maintain consistency in these cases?




Do you mean shared as in each person runs separate campaigns or shared as in each GM takes turns running the same campaign. 

If the latter I think it is somewhat rare approach. I have played in groups where there were two GMs who split duties, and those were regarded as highly unusual. Most games have a single GM and for the duration of that game at least, the consistency comes from the referee being the single source of judgment. If you desire a different approach than that, one downside is you may run into less consistency in rulings. But since 1 GM is the norm, I don't think we want to design rules because these exceptions exist. 

In terms of shifting GMs from one game to the next or one campaign to the next, that doesn't really bother me. 



> Addtitionally, you've just made problems for organised play.




I dont engage in organized play and never have. I think if you want tournament rules and organized play rules, those ought to be a separate thing from the rules used at regular gaming tables. I think it is a mistake to design with organized play in mind rather than the kind of play the vast majority of players will use the game for. 



> To me, I find it rather strange that people would applaud rules that give mutually exclusive interpretations that have wide ranging, campaign world altering consequences.  We're not talking about something that only really affects one single scene here.  Alignment interpretations will impact virtually all parts of play.




We give that power to GMs all the time. It is part of the game. I can understand not liking it. But saying one likes alignment is hardly a radical posiition and saying one considers it a feature that different GMs can interpret alignments differently is also hardly a radical statement. Is it really that strange to you that I hold this position? Because I don't find your position needs that sort of dismissive label. I can see where you are coming from and appreciate your point of view, but at the end of the day my tastes are different and I genuinely enjoy games that allow this. Things like alignment almost demand it. You are talking about vague moral concepts. People will have very different attitudes and views about what constitutes altruism or respect for life in a given situation. I like that. I think it works great and produces interesting play. There may be some variation from table to table, but I don't see that as a problem. In fact, one of the things I like about D&D is how different it is from one group to the next. It is always interesting playing with a new group or GM.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, it would be like two DM's roleplaying Darth Vader, where one proclaims him a force of good and righteousness in the universe and the other a force of darkness and evil and they are both right by the rules of the game.




Even without alignment you will have people playing Vader differently. That is going to happen. Star Wars has the force, with the light and the dark side. That is wide open and general. I've played in countless star wars campaigns and every GM down to a man has ruled differently when it comes to crossing over to the dark side, in terms of what acts fall under it. I have also played tons of Ravenloft campaigns where powers checks are a monumental part of the game, and have a huge impact on individual characters. With those the GM decides if a player has committed an evil act worthy of the attention of the dark powers. Every GM handles this differently, because they will bring their own ideas to the table. Some are going to be more forgiving under certain circumstances, others less so. Some will even view an act that might be considered heroic by another GM as crossing the line. I think this is okay. It is a feature. The GM is playing the dark powers and as long as there is consistency across the campaign, that is what matters. The point for me is to feel like I am in ravenloft and at the mercy of these mysterious forces. I can achieve that as long as one person is calling the shots on powers checks, even if they make rulings that differ from my previous GM.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Ahhhh, the old alignment discussion.

Well I wish for a return of the alignment mechanics.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> But, it would be like two DM's roleplaying Darth Vader, where one proclaims him a force of good and righteousness in the universe and the other a force of darkness and evil and they are both right by the rules of the game.




This can easily be understood as you wanting to limit DMs' backstories for their settings to the "One True Way". Do you want every DM to play Darth Vader/[Insert Deity here] the same way?


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> This can easily be understood as you wanting to limit DMs' backstories for their settings to the "One True Way". Do you want every DM to play Darth Vader/[Insert Deity here] the same way?




This is a straw man that had cropped up repeatedly in this thread. 

There is nothing wrong with variations in interpretation. That's fine. But the interpretations shouldn't be mutually exclusive. 

There are more than two interpretations possible. Just because I want coherent and consistent interpretations is not even remotely an invitation to onetruwayism. 

But a mechanic which results in opposite interpretations, both of which are supported by the mechanic, is a poorly written mechanic. 

I for one was happy to see DnD return to its roots in largely rejecting the later addition of nine point alignments.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> I for one was happy to see DnD return to its roots in largely rejecting the later addition of nine point alignments.




Those are some old roots.  http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/04/changing-meaning-of-alignment-in-od.html

A comparison of the editions side by side: http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0


----------



## Hussar

Not really. Basic/Expert DnD only used three alignments into the nineties.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Is it though?  Fate basically says the scene ends when your players are no longer interested in the scene or their goals have been achieved... my players continuously surprise me with what they come up with and thus I don't think it's easy for a GM to claim something is an automatic scene ender



I don't think we're disagreeing, are we - in play we discover that something wasn't a scene-ender after all.

Also, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] - good post, sorry no XP from me.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Would calling the acts acceptable/unacceptable to the lords of light/dark/entropy/far realms/consistancy/stasis make it less odious at the table (although not necessarily making it more useful)?



In my view, perhaps - because the player is free to repudiate the views of those beings without having to repudiate or adopt any particular moral label. Also, at least as I have seen those sorts of "lords of X" used, it remains an open question whether they are really exemplars of X (perhas the lord of entropy can be tricked, for instance, into helping the cause of order).



Cadence said:


> Under this final system, a person's alignment goes with wherever they seem to fit best on that survey (well our best guess of where they would go anyway, since we don't have it or the results).  A lot of actions are probably represented in several squares and probably depend on the motivation and consequences.  In practice (ok the general gist, not the exact story), this seems like it removes almost all of the cases that would lead to someone at the table being called evil.    A lot of folk find themselves non-good though, so an alternative less-loaded labeling system might still be preferred.



This sort of approach leaves me uncertain as to what the role of alignment is, other than perhaps to group certain like-minded teams. But in that case a paladin probably wouldn't accidentally change teams, would s/he?  



Cadence said:


> Does "When do the ends justify the means?" work under this last set-up?



I'm not sure. What value is in play that falls outside the scope of aignment classifications?



Cadence said:


> I am totally lost now.  Given the first and second snippet... what is there to talk about with the player?



I'm assuming they want to change part of the backstory. That's would we'd talk about.



Cadence said:


> If one of the returners was a Cleric of Vecna, would having Vecna strip them of their divinely given gifts until they atoned be something that you would have considered?



One of them _was_ an invoker with Vecna as one of his gods. The extent of his devotion is a bit uncertain (he also serves the Raven Queen and Ioun, both of whom are opposed to Vecna), but when I ruled that he took psychic damage from handling a mysterious but known-to-be-powerful magic sword, he didn't complain: he worked out staight away that it must be the Sword of Kas!

I didn't consider stripping him of his divine powers until atoning. When the PCs had to deal with Vecna later he was angry at all of them, including that particular PC, but there was no special stripping of power.

Part of this is being an invoker (PHB p 101):

More than most other divine characters, invokers offer prayers to and call on favors from the entire pantheon, for all the gods, whatever their alignments, fought together against the primordials.​
But also, gods work in mysterious ways. One setback isn't a total loss, and a poweful character is a valuable asset. Given that Kas has the sword, why also rob yourself of that asset?

More recently, the same PC has placed the Eye of Vecna in his imp familiar, thereby reducing the ability of the archdevil Levistus to spy on him, while increasing Vecna's ability to do the same. I tend to take the view that when you're playing the long game of a god, there are always swings and roundabouts.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Are certain spells, acts, states of being, etc., deemed by the game setting to be “good” or “evil”?  If they are, then it does not matter what the player, GM, PC or NPC thinks - these are defined by the game cosmology.  Real world ethics don’t enter into the picture



I don't see how they don't, when the words are words taken from that vocabulary and defined, in AD&D and in 3E, by reference to real world values and moral requirements.



N'raac said:


> When you first tell me “I do not judge the characters’ morality – that is for them alone” and then tell me “If you want to play a character who believes the Undead are OK, why would you pick a follower of the Raven Queen”, I see a significant inconsistency.



Where is the inconsistency? Judging that the Raven Queen hates undead and necromancers, and hence can't be honoured by raising undead, isn't a moral judgement, anymore than the judgement that you can't honour Imix by spreading the polar ice caps.

That Imix loves fire and hates cold isn't a moral judgement. It's simply a basic bit of backstory about the Prince of Evil Elemental Fire Creatures.



N'raac said:


> I could just as easily say “If you did not want to play an LG character, why did you choose to play a Paladin?”



You could. But I don't see any way of adjudicating whether or not someone is playing their PC as LG without making moral judgements - or alternatively doing it [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s way, of making the player conform to the GM's conception of LG.

In other words, for me there is no equivalence between answering the backstory question of a god's attitude to undead, or cold and adjudicating whether or not a player's play of his/her PC _really_ exemplifies honour and heroism.



N'raac said:


> The exact same result you seem to consider an example of the pinnacle of Role Playing could occur just as easily in a game with alignments.



As I noted upthread, when I talk about the play experience I am not talking about the story.

Of course the story could be the same in a game with alignments. The story could be the same if the GM simply told the players how to play their PCs, too!

I am talking about the experience of play, the context and dynamics of player choices for their PCs; and the difference made to that by the presence or absence of alignment mechanics.

By the way, if you think my game is not the pinnacle of roleplaying, why don't you post some actual play accounts of your own which show alignment contributing to an awesome time?



N'raac said:


> If the Samurai’s order is sworn to slay Ogres on sight, or simply sworn never to gamble, there’s a Lawfulness issue here.  But from the facts you provided, I don’t see any alignment issue (which would be a synonym, under alignment rules, for a moral dilemma).



Where is the dilemma? You just don't gamble, or you kill the ogres.



N'raac said:


> The GM is in no way required to judge whether the Samurai dicing with the Ogres was Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I agree that, if by adding alignment, you will feel obliged to classify every action along the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis, agonizing over each such decision, lying awake at night trying to assess whether choosing mutton over fish at the Inn should cause an alignment change, then I agree alignment would detract from your game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you would be trapped in an endless cycle of ascribing a moral and ethical compartment to every action within the game which would prevent you enjoying it.



The rules for adjudicating a paldin require me to judge, of every action taken, whether or not it is evil, or lawful.

Gary Gygax tells me to track the alignment of the PCs on the alignment graph, on the basis of the actions they perform. What else does mechanical aligment consist in?



N'raac said:


> there is no need to ascribe a moral context to tying my shoe, eating breakfast or a myriad of other more significant acts carried out in game



I take, it, then, that you regard the events and decisions I referred to upthread as in much the same ballpark as tying a shoelace or eating breakfast.

That on its own tells me that you don't understand the experience of RPGing the same way I do.



N'raac said:


> You now seem to have moved right to a polar extreme of removing “good” and “evil” from the game vocabulary entirely, which eliminates the classic fantasy trope of Good versus Evil.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Are the words good, evil, lawful and chaotic banned from your game?  You seem to shift from a hard and fast alignment terminology usage to any form of evaluation at all.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The words “good” and “evil” crop up a lot, in my experience, in games lacking mechanical alignment.



Those terms are not part of the game vocabulary, no. Nor are such terms as ". . . is a nice guy", ". . . really pissed us off", etc. They're part of the vocabulary in which judgements are expressed in the course of playing the game.



N'raac said:


> Seems to me that you had to set the DC the players had to meet in order to persuade the Angel to abandon her post and allow herself to be killed to further the PC’s agenda.  A sufficient roll on the player’s skill check, therefore, would be the circumstances under which the Angel would change its views.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Clearly, you DID interpret the circumstances under which her views could be changed.



You are running together two different things here. I had her change her mind. I didn't have to decide whether or not it remains true of her that she's a resolute defender.



N'raac said:


> If needless suffering cannot be good (a proposition I can certainly agree with), and
> 
> Deity X is defined to be completely, uncompromisingly Good (which is not automatically the case – Good encompasses a spectrum; as well, Law and Chaos can temper it in many instances), and
> 
> Deity X permits certain suffering to continue,
> 
> Then it logically follows that this suffering cannot, in fact, be needless.  There must be a reason, albeit one I as the character do not understand.



If the GM tells me that the table is 21 feet around and 7 feet across, it follows that the value of pi is 3, I guess. Maybe you can make sense of that. I can't.



N'raac said:


> Having a person behave in character is not, in my view, a straightjacket.



OK. Why not?



N'raac said:


> Perhaps it’s the old adage For those who understand, no explanation is needed.  To those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.  I’m sorry you and Hussar, among others, have had such poor experiences with bad use of alignment rules that you are blinded to any possible benefit they might provide if implemented more reasonably, if not skillfully.



You haven't actually told me of any benefit that might be provided (unlike other posters, who have). I'm still waiting to hear.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> But in that case a paladin probably wouldn't accidentally change teams, would s/he?




I think it would prevent that.



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure. What value is in play that falls outside the scope of aignment classifications?




It could force a discussion or disagreement on something deeper than the two dimensional simplification that is alignment  (deontology vs. utilitarianism?).



pemerton said:


> I'm assuming they want to change part of the backstory. That's would we'd talk about.




Oh, duh.  I immediately jumped to the scenario that some other character had already chosen to use the RQ as described and that this one wanting the change would mean their was a contradiction in back story.   Assuming they were the only PC with her intimately tied to their concept it works great.



pemerton said:


> One of them _was_ an invoker with Vecna as one of his gods.




Haven't played any multi-god divines, but that makes perfect sense.

--

Thanks for all the time you've put into your responses in this thread.  I think I've finally got a good handle on what you've been saying and it's  given me some good stuff to mull over when I run games in the future.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> You could. But I don't see any way of adjudicating whether or not someone is playing their PC as LG without making moral judgements - or alternatively doing it @_*Bedrockgames*_'s way, of making the player conform to the GM's conception of LG.




it is a judgement, and a moral one, but it doesnt have to be the GMs own personal morality. Aliyfments are somewhat vague but also specific in places, and as you pointed out, the alignment categories don't quite correspond to real world positions exactly. I look at them almost like new religions. They re a specific set of beliefs based on the cosmology that draw on moral language we are familiar with, but i am not necessarily there to impose my personal judgments on the players. By that i mean, ii am not going to impose my personal views of good and evil on the players, instead i use the text of the alignment description and my undertstanding of how they seem to be using the terms. This is a minor distinction but an important one. For example, i gm may be a pacifist and not believe in the use of violence as a punitive tool. But he may read the lawful good entry and decide lawful good demands a certain amount of punitive violence (i am not suggesting it does or doesn't, just a random example). Some GMs are better at putting their own beliefs aside than others. My main concern is consistency so if a gm brings his own views into the judgment i am fine with that (arguably in a setting like ravenloft the GM should be bringing his own judgments in when he plays the dark powers).

to take an example outside D&D, i am making a little variant system for wuxia style campaigns. I have a reputation system in place because my players wanted that in play. So i took the basic code of chivalry you find in chinese wuxia TV series and layered that into the setting. The universe doesnt respond to your reputation like it does with alignment in D&D but the inhabitants do. So i am always making judgments in the players actions and how well they cleave to the code. Now i do not personally agree with the code of chivalry, but i can take the different aspects of it to evaluate pc behavior.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I don't see how they don't, when the words are words taken from that vocabulary and defined, in AD&D and in 3E, by reference to real world values and moral requirements.




Real world ethics don’t enter the picture any more that real world physics match falling damage or real world fencing matches with the style used by D&D swordsmen.   A simplified and abstract system is used for gameplay.  Similarly, real world economics would never support a D&D economy, real world geography would poke many holes in D&D world geography, etc. etc. etc.  It is no more necessary to have post-secondary training in ethical philosophy to address alignment than it is to be a geologist or geophysicist to play a dwarf, a fencer to play a swordsman, a member of the clergy to play a cleric or a black belt to play a monk.  Leave the real world expertise at the door – the game is a simplified, and modified, abstract.



pemerton said:


> Where is the inconsistency? Judging that the Raven Queen hates undead and necromancers, and hence can't be honoured by raising undead, isn't a moral judgement, anymore than the judgement that you can't honour Imix by spreading the polar ice caps.




You are judging the player’s/character’s consistency with their code.  If the PC follower of the Raven Queen uses an Animate Dead spell to bring back corpses to battle back the cultists of Orcus, is this action one which meets with the favour of the Raven Queen, or her displeasure?



pemerton said:


> You could. But I don't see any way of adjudicating whether or not someone is playing their PC as LG without making moral judgements




 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] covers this. You, the GM, are not making, or need not make, a moral judgment on the player or character.  Rather, you are judging whether the LG power(s) from which the Paladin draws his holy powers considers his actions consistent, or inconsistent, with their own code.  This is no different from assessing the use of Animate Dead I suggest immediately above, or judging that a character who believes he does the will of the Raven Queen in ending lives on earth is delusional.



pemerton said:


> In other words, for me there is no equivalence between answering the backstory question of a god's attitude to undead, or cold and adjudicating whether or not a player's play of his/her PC _really_ exemplifies honour and heroism.




The point is to adjudicate whether that play exemplifies his deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism. Whether you consider that deity’s concept correct or incorrect is entirely irrelevant.



pemerton said:


> As I noted upthread, when I talk about the play experience I am not talking about the story.




In my view, no part of the play experience of the Samurai deciding to dice with the ogres rather than duel with them (or whatever other choice he had – you have never said) is in any way dependent on the presence or absence of alignment.  It may be dependent on you as a GM not deciding that there is only one possible way anyone of one specific alignment could possibly interact with ogres, but there the play impediment is your dogmatic and straightjacketing view of alignment, not the mechanics or alignment system itself.



pemerton said:


> By the way, if you think my game is not the pinnacle of roleplaying, why don't you post some actual play accounts of your own which show alignment contributing to an awesome time?




Do I think your game is the absolute pinnacle of role playing? No. I do not think you, and you alone, hold the key to making role playing all that it can be.  Neither do I think that I do, or anyone else posting here.

As to “Actual play accounts”, you and I place very different weightings on their relevance. I game to play the game, not write or read a report on playing the game.  “Great moments in role playing” that I recall will not translate well into a simple posting as they will lack the tension and personalities at the table, the campaign, player and character history and any number of other items that frame the context of the specific gaming moment.  

Just as “The samurai played dice with the ogres” seems, to you, a play experience that alignment would have absolutely prevented where I cannot see how alignment would impact on it in any way. I assume I am lacking the context, rather than that you are just randomly reiterating game history with no actual relevance to the impact, or potential impact, of alignment.



pemerton said:


> Where is the dilemma? You just don't gamble, or you kill the ogres.




I’m not seeing any dilemma anywhere. I would see a dilemma if the Samurai had strong reasons to engage the ogres in combat, or take some other action rather than playing dice with them, but also had strong reasons to take the approach he did, forcing him to make a difficult choice.

Instead, all I see is:

DM: There are three Ogres sitting playing dice on the verandah.

Player: Cool – my Samurai asks what game they are playing, and what wagers, if they would accept another player.

DM:  Huzzah Huzzah! It is another Gold Medal Moment in the History of Role Playing!!



pemerton said:


> The rules for adjudicating a paladin require me to judge, of every action taken, whether or not it is evil, or lawful.




I suppose that has a grain of truth, in the same manner you must judge success or failure of each action the players take.  Most require no real effort, though. I do not roll to see if they cut themselves shaving, get out of bed without stubbing their toe, get the mug from table to mouth without spilling down their jerkin, etc.  Most actions don’t have such a ring of Evil or Chaos that they merit any judgement.



pemerton said:


> Gary Gygax tells me to track the alignment of the PCs on the alignment graph, on the basis of the actions they perform.




I somehow don’t envision EGG leaping forth from the GM screen stating “That’s it – you turned left, then right, now left again in this maze.  You are Chaotic and forevermore a fighter – you blew it, FORMER paladin!”



pemerton said:


> I take, it, then, that you regard the events and decisions I referred to upthread as in much the same ballpark as tying a shoelace or eating breakfast.




Most have been provided with no context whatsoever which would make me see them being impacted, much less impeded, by alignment rules, so from a moral perspective they show up as pretty much the same ballpark as tying a shoelace or eating breakfast, yes.  They probably made for more exciting gameplay though.



pemerton said:


> That on its own tells me that you don't understand the experience of RPGing the same way I do.




Just to be clear, are you asserting our styles are different, or that your understanding is somehow superior?



pemerton said:


> Those terms are not part of the game vocabulary, no.




Yes, actually, they are. Paladins can Detect Evil, not Sense Nice Guys. Many spell functions vary depending on Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.  You seem to flip flop from using the terms as we might perceive them in English (asserting they cannot actually be defined in any real manner without inappropriately applying your moral judgment in opposition to that of the players) to using them as defined in game (where they again can be used only for inappropriate moral judgments). Then you tell us how your games make use of classic tropes like Good struggling against Evil.



pemerton said:


> You are running together two different things here. I had her change her mind. I didn't have to decide whether or not it remains true of her that she's a resolute defender.




So she had no real personality, just whatever struck your whims?  She could just as easily had a mid-afterlife crisis and taken off on a sporty red pony with a cabana boy?  Or were her actions judged in light of some existing personality drawn from the manner in which she was described in the module.



pemerton said:


> If the GM tells me that the table is 21 feet around and 7 feet across, it follows that the value of pi is 3, I guess. Maybe you can make sense of that. I can't.




I don’t make a habit of precisely measuring the dimensions or assessing the mathematical precision of those provided to me, no. Can you provide an example where the dimensions of a circle have required greater precision due to a significant in-game issue?



pemerton said:


> OK. Why not?




Is it truly your premise that characters behaving in character is a straightjacket which frustrates any form of good game play? That an RPG can only really have any interest if the characters are insane, making random decisions having no rhyme or reason?  My characters have actual personalities and behave in accordance with them.  Their views are shaped and changed by experience, but they have a starting point, and they don’t randomly shift in attitudes making their likely responses virtually always impossible to predict, nor do they coldly, rationally analyze every choice that comes before them and assess the tactically best choice, with no biases, personality traits or human foibles entering into it.  If that is your measure of good characters to create great gaming then we have very little in common to form any basis for discussion. [And by the way, that makes all the characters CN, so we still have alignment.]

You are claiming gameplay such as you have described would be impossible if the game had used alignment.  I am saying that alignment as written would not prevent or impede this great gameplay. I am not trying to sell you on what alignment would add to your game. I am trying (and failing) to understand why you think it would have detracted.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> But a mechanic which results in opposite interpretations, both of which are supported by the mechanic, is a poorly written mechanic.




In 3.x three methods were reflected within the DMG (page 212) regarding the appearance of magical items (two of which are exact opposites) and both are supported by the rules. I do not consider it a poorly written mechanic.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I immediately jumped to the scenario that some other character had already chosen to use the RQ as described and that this one wanting the change would mean their was a contradiction in back story.   Assuming they were the only PC with her intimately tied to their concept it works great.



I reckon that even if there was another player involved, in the real world some sort of compromise or higher synthesis could probably be worked out. But this is the sort of thing where, in my experience at least, there are no generic abstract answers. You work it out via actual discussion among all the participants.



Cadence said:


> Thanks for all the time you've put into your responses in this thread.



No worries at all, and likewise. I've enjoyed reading and replying to your posts.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> it is a judgement, and a moral one, but it doesnt have to be the GMs own personal morality.



I didn't meant to imply that it did.

I'm pretty sure that I understand your approach to alignment, though I don't myself use it or want to use it: the alignment descriptors + GM interpretation and world design establish a notional idea of Good, Evil etc, and the idea of playing to a certain alignment (espcially relevant to clerics and paladins) is to keep your character true to those ideas.

No one, on your approach, is supposing that those ideas are "true" accounts of good or evil. That's why I personally don't like it: I don't get to play my conception of (say) an honourable warrior or a loyal samurai; I'm exploring someone else's (primarily the GM's).


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Real world ethics don’t enter the picture any more that real world physics match falling damage



When a rulebook tells me that "good character respect human rights" (Gygax) or that "good characters are exactly that" (AD&D 2nd ed PHB) or that "good characters are altruists who avoid harming others" (slightly paraphrased 3E SRD) I assume they are using the words in the definition in their ordinary (ie real world) sense.



N'raac said:


> You are judging the player’s/character’s consistency with their code.



No I'm not. I'm judging whether or not a candidate PC's mode of worship (in this case, killing people than animating them as undead) makes sense as a way to honour their god, based on the backstory about their god.



N'raac said:


> If the PC follower of the Raven Queen uses an Animate Dead spell to bring back corpses to battle back the cultists of Orcus, is this action one which meets with the favour of the Raven Queen, or her displeasure?



I don't know. How would I answer this outside of actual play? Why would I want to?



N'raac said:


> So she had no real personality, just whatever struck your whims?



Where did this come from? What I said was that, having roleplayed the encounter, I do not need to then decide whether or not it is true of the (now dead) angel that she remains a "resolute defender". What does that tell us about whether or not she had a personality?



N'raac said:


> Is it truly your premise that characters behaving in character is a straightjacket which frustrates any form of good game play? That an RPG can only really have any interest if the characters are insane, making random decisions having no rhyme or reason?



In the real world, people live their lives without either (i) being random or insane, or (ii) having a character description that they adhere to. In fiction, authors write characters who are neither (i) random or insane, or (ii) fully described in canoncial terms from which the author does not depart. Roleplaying can be like that: writing new stuff rather than following prelaid tracks. And that's what I prefer.



N'raac said:


> The point is to adjudicate whether that play exemplifies his deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism.



Whose point? Not mine. I don't use alignment mechanics, remember.



N'raac said:


> In my view, no part of the play experience of the Samurai deciding to dice with the ogres rather than duel with them (or whatever other choice he had – you have never said) is in any way dependent on the presence or absence of alignment.



What about the bit where the decision to do so was not motivated by a concern with how the GM would classify that behaviour according to alignment descriptors? That's the part of the play experience I've emphasised that you have said nothing about.



N'raac said:


> Many spell functions vary depending on Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.



Not if you're not using alignment in your game!



N'raac said:


> Then you tell us how your games make use of classic tropes like Good struggling against Evil.



I don't think I actually made such an assertion, but in any event that trope is at least 4000 years older than the alignment mechanics, so I don't think it relies upon alignment in order to be deployed.



N'raac said:


> Most have been provided with no context whatsoever which would make me see them being impacted, much less impeded, by alignment rules, so from a moral perspective they show up as pretty much the same ballpark as tying a shoelace or eating breakfast, yes.



Just to be clear: you don't see how any of these might carry more weight, at an RPGing table, than tying a shoe lace or eating breakfast?

* a samurai PC, travelling to an ogre stronghold in the mountains, has treated with them, and played civilised games of dice, in order to ensure that they do not join forces with the enemies of his clan;

* one PC has sacrificed another to a dark god as part of a total betrayal of team A (for whom the PCs were working) in favour of team B (for whom the PCs then commenced working);

* a PC has sold out his hometown to invaders in order to raise the money to repurchase his home which he had lost because he couldn't finance his drug addiction; then, having found love, has got clean of drugs; then, having lost his love to violence, has suffered a brief relapse, before rededicating himself to higher causes and persuading his world-wide order of wizards, against the views of its highest leaders, to oppose policies of racial supremacy and enslavement;

* the PCs have rebelled against the heavens to save the mortal world from the consequences of a foolish pact the gods had entered into at the beginning of the world;

* a PC, by means of impassioned argument, has persuaded an angel who was a "living gate" to the demiplane entrapping an exiled god that the only way to save the world and redeem the heavens was to permit the PC to strike her down, so that the PCs could then journey through the gate that would open about her dead body in order to learn the exiled god's secrets;

* a drow servant of chaos has worked with fellow Corellon-worshippers to oppose Lolth, because she (like the rest of the Abyss) taints the purity of chaos - change and transformation - with lies and pointless destruction;

* a servant of the gods has implanted the Eye of Vecna in his imp familiar as part of his attempts to balance various loyalties and liabilities to Vecna, to Levistus and to the other entities with whom he has a complex web of relationships (the same PC has also been forbidden by his allies from wielding the Crystal of Ebon Flame, which houses the essence of Miska the Wolf-Spider and perhaps Tharizdun too; but he has stored it in a Leomund's Secret Chest so that he can recover it at speed if necessary);

* the PCs, in play, have found the Asmodeus-worshipping duergar of the Underdark to be some of their most dependable allies;

* a paladin of the Raven Queen has discussed theology with the Whips and Lashes in the Shrine of the Kuo-toa, and has thereby been able to save the rest of the party from being caught and sacrificed to Blibdoolpoolp;

* the PCs have redeemed a fallen paladin of Pelor from his enslavement to a devil and his subsequent leadership of that devil's cult, so that he could return home a hero;

* in one particular campaign, both times the party encountered a hostile bear, at the behest of one particular player (and his PC) the bear was able to be tamed without being seriously hurt, leading to a situation (as that player said) in which "I feel good about not having killed that bear".​
If that's really so, it's no wonder we approach RPGing so differently.


----------



## Feldspar

My first post looked at the 1st edition version of alignment and if it brought anything to the discussion (and I hope it did) its to stress that alignment referred to a player having aligned themselves with a plane or planar power. 

To recap my position, the inhabitants of, for example, a CG plane aren't CG just because of how they think and act. Threads of chaos and goodness comprise the weave of their very beings; it is their nature and instinct to think and act in a CG manner. When aligning themselves to a plane, the characters acquire not just a language but are touched by some essence of that plane. We can conceive of a NE NPC that has committed abhorrent acts and/or has a depraved, sickening worldview. But the acts/worldview would not be why a Detect Evil spell would reveal the NPC as evil; they would be revealed by Detect Evil because their alignment is NE. That may sound kind of tautological but the key in this system is to see that alignment isn't just a summarized way of describing a character, its an actual tangible thing about them. That's why they speak an alignment language and that's why a spell like Holy Word would affect them.

It would certainly fair at this point if people pushed back on this viewpoint as merely being my interpretation and not supported by 1st edition RAW. But if there's a better, more coherent, interpretation I'd like to see it. This is what I get from reading between the lines and it provides a usable framework for mechanical issue of spells interacting with alignment. 

I think the flaws in that system have already been discussed, so no need to go into them again. Okay, maybe just one more: during his early, ersatz Gray Mouser years, Gygax's hero of the balance (Gord the Rogue) appears to be unaligned. The 1st edition alignment system was ill fit for the kind of adventuring Gord was doing at that time.

I assume dissatisfaction among the player base led to the changes in 2nd Edition. But the result is a mix of looser, more relativistic, more human (as opposed to rigidly planar) alignment guidelines with the same crunchy bits (except the languages, heh) and which, as a system, is fundamentally incoherent.



Sadras said:


> That the DM is the adjudicator of Good and Evil:
> In the 2e PHB "Good" is described as
> 
> honest, charitable and forthright
> People are not perfect, so few are good all the time.
> There are always occasional failings and weaknesses.
> Goodness has no absolute values.
> Differing cultures impose their own interpretations on what good and what evil is
> I think everyone can all agree the above is a simple definition, it is not astrophysics.



Simple or simplistic? If Goodness is not absolute, if different cultures might disagree as to whether an individual was good, then how is one supposed to adjudicate the effects of spells like Unholy Word or Protection from Good? And since 2nd edition defines Evil as the antithesis of Good and subject to interpretation across cultures as well, we have the same problem with the more conventional versions of those spells. So, lets imagine a case of cultural differences where an npc which considers itself good would be considered by you to be evil - does your Holy Word blast them? 

What if you didn't know anything about the npc, didn't even know that they were there? Say you cast Holy Word at some mindflayer not knowing that within the area of effect, unseen by you, was a bound prisoner (the npc) that the mindflayer was saving for a midnight snack. I balk at the notion of a spell which, in an instant, could rifle through the npc's mind to assess both everything they have ever done as well as the tenets of their personal philosophy and then compare these to the standards of the caster to decide whether the npc is someone that the caster would not approve of and would want smote. That's asking a bit much, even for magic.

I suspect the first counter argument to the situation where two cultures each think themselves good and the other evil will be that one actually is good while the other only *thinks* it is good but is in fact evil. This approach has its problems though. What happens when members of that evil culture make use of alignment detecting/effecting spells? Would they not, upon any kind of self introspection, find their own self contradiction? Or do we have the full Gygax/Orwellian thing were they actually define "Good" as bad and "Evil" as good and run around proclaiming things like "we shall deliver this land from the tyranny of Good and bring to it the beneficence of Evil"?  Or do they somehow, by accident or whatever, just have it all backwards and whenever they cast Detect Evil they're really casting the reversed version Detect Good, but just don't realize it?

Whether an individual campaign wishes to explore the nuances and gray areas of moral relativism is a matter of personal preference. I can't, however, figure out a way to reconcile that approach with spell mechanics. Fortunately, there seems to be relatively few spells in second edition which interact with alignment. Holy Word, Detect Alignment and Protection From Evil are the ones that jump out at me.

3rd edition, however, ratcheted up the mechanics. To simply remove all relevant spells drops 4 domains and large chunk of the spell list. There are alignment specific spells at nearly every level and many occupy key niches as damage dealers or protections. This presents a big stumbling block to running a "shades of gray" kind of campaign. Some fine rules surgery is called for rather than gross amputation.

The descriptions of good and evil in 3.x don't have the kind of moral relativist language that's seen in 2nd edition. So, if you view 3.x definitions of good and evil as universal then at least the system escapes the charge of internal inconsistency that I level at 2nd ed. But it does mean that it doesn't support certain types of campaigns and that's a shame. 

Look at the Eberron campaign setting for example. 3.x alignment mechanics seem, to me, to completely cut off at the knees some what the setting was trying to deliver in terms of moral complexity. Keith Baker presented the example of a Lawful Evil inquisitor of the Silver Flame. This made, and still makes, no sense to me. The Silver Flame is dedicated to fighting Evil. A simple Detect Evil would reveal to the caster the unassailable FACT that the inquisitor is Evil. By definition the church must oppose them. That may mean rehabilitation or expulsion, as opposed to death, but certainly the church cannot allow any provably evil person to represent the church or have any authority in it. 

To allow the use evil means for the greater good is to concede that evil has use, has merit of a kind. It is a kind of endorsement of evil; it says that evil is a legitimate approach to an end and has a place at the table. But that seems completely antithetical to the mission of the Church of the Silver Flame. The key here is that its not just disapproval of the methods or thinking that the inquisitor has gone too far. Its that we have magic that can tell you flat out "HE IS EVIL". And given the duties of such inquisitors, they would surely be under regular scrutiny using the strongest magical means available. Were you an inquisitor, would you not wish to be tested yourself? To gain the peace of mind that you continue to act in righteous and correct manner?

This is why I was so happy to see 4th edition remove crunchy alignment mechanics. I'm not quite sure I get the change from a 9 to 5 alignments, but I also don't see anything preventing a DM from going back to the 9 alignment grid in 4e. If you wanted the Gygaxian style "players are pawns, agents and proxies in the never ending wars of the planes" that seems a matter style and tone. You no longer have mechanics like Holy Word and Detect Evil, but is that really a big loss? Are there folks in the pro alignment camp *because* they find those spells compelling and interesting? My impression is that most of the benefits people feel they gain from having alignment in their game still exist even if the characters don't have access to those kinds of spells and mechanics.

I've mainly been discussing spell mechanics. I feel that a dividing line can be drawn between those and the fluffier side of alignment (plus paladin/cleric alignment restriction issues which strictly speaking are mechanical) and I'll talk about them in another post. I've attempted to answer the thread's basic question, with regards to the crunchy bits, to show that they *do not* improve the gaming experience. They can limit the type and style of campaign that can be played. There's also the problem of there being many different interpretations of how alignment should work. That the description of alignment has changed from version to version I think proves that. Even within one version of the system I think there is still legitimate debate over, for example, whether ethos alone can set ones alignment or whether it is actions that truly matter. Remove those mechanics and you remove opportunities for disputes over alignment to create conflict among the participants.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> In 3.x three methods were reflected within the DMG (page 212) regarding the appearance of magical items (two of which are exact opposites) and both are supported by the rules. I do not consider it a poorly written mechanic.




But those are simply three different rules.  No one would look at any one of those rules and then rule in the opposite manner and still be right under any one of those rules.  I'm not actually sure what rules you are referencing, but I would be very surprised if you would choose to have multiple versions in play in a single campaign.

Same goes for some of the other examples brought up here.  What happens to a bag of holding when opened underwater?  I actually don't know.  I imagine that the weight of the water might actually be too much for the bag, but, I certainly haven't done the calculations.  However, I really don't see a lot of room for interpretation here.  That's just math.  Is the interior volume of a Bag of Holding large enough that filling it with water would cause it to break?


----------



## pemerton

Feldspar said:


> I'm not quite sure I get the change from a 9 to 5 alignments



Another good post.

On the 4e alignment spectrum (not grid), the idea is to frame alignment within the default cosmology.

4e's default cosmology, unlike (say) Planescape, is not relativist: it makes an assertion that chaos is a source of destruction, and the divine order is the prime source of wellbeing.

Alignments relate to this cosmological premise: LG is about overt commitment to divine order (and its earthly reflection) as a source of wellbeing, G is about an overt commitment to wellbeing, UA is where all the cynics or indifferent or careless or doubters are (among the gods this includes Corellon as a doubter and the Raven Queen as a cynic), E is where ordinary villains are, and CE is where demons and primordials are.

If you ignore alignment (as I do), it makes it easier for the players  to question the premise of the default cosmology (ie in doubting, say, Bahamut or Moradin they don't have to think of themselves as repudiating goodness). But it's still hard for them to avoid taking a stance one way or another in relation to the relationship between divine order, chaos and dissolution. Which is part of what I like about the default cosmology.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> I'm not actually sure what rules you are referencing




Rules of how magical items appear in ones campaign : distinct, mundane or a mix.



> No one would look at any one of those rules and then rule in the opposite manner and still be right under any one of those rules.




I could rule that magical items appear mundane in this human-centric campaign, and then one day the PCs come across elven magical items and they would appear distinct as a way for me, the DM, to reflect the difference in magic from race to race. As for ruling in the opposite manner - alignment is subjective from campaign to campaign as it does take on the preconceptions/backstory of the setting.
Some DMs are more strict others are more lenient - some play a dragon in combat intelligently and some play the dragon as just a large orc with a greater number of abilities. Both forms of play are accepted by the rules. I could provide the dragon treasure and you might decide the dragon doesn't have any treasure for whatever narrative purpose. Same with mechanical alignment. I do not agree with you that alignment is the only subjective mechanic, and unlike you and as I have and others have stated this is a feature of the game.



> .....but I would be very surprised if you would choose to have multiple versions in play in a single campaign.




This highlights to the consistency of the DM which was answered by @_*Bedrockgames*_ previously. Whether you have multiple DMs or not, it requires consistency similar to that of any houserule.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> No I'm not. I'm judging whether or not a candidate PC's mode of worship (in this case, killing people than animating them as undead) makes sense as a way to honour their god, based on the backstory about their god.
> 
> I don't know. How would I answer this outside of actual play? Why would I want to?




OK, first off, “I won’t answer a question about how the game would play because it must be answered in actual play” gets stale really fast.  We are discussing how alignment influences, detracts from or enhances play, so we actually do have to assume play in order to do so.

So, the player has just levelled up and is considering using the spell Animate Dead which has just become available to him,.  He envisions his character as a devout follower of the Raven Queen.  That is the character concept he wants to play.  His question is whether the animation of the dead to oppose Orcus, or otherwise serve the goals of the Raven Queen, is acceptable, a grey area or unacceptable, based on the backstory about his god.  Your answer seems to be “well, why don’t you try it out and see”.  

But that wasn’t the answer when a character who takes lives in devotion to the RQ was raised.  That was just  inconsistent with the backstory of the god.  Or, in reality your interpretation of the very limited backstory present in the rules, which differs from mine on several points.  I don’t see how those inconsistencies are any less likely, or any more palatable, then differences in interpreting alignment structures.  



pemerton said:


> In the real world, people live their lives without either (i) being random or insane, or (ii) having a character description that they adhere to.




In the real world, their character description is not written down, it is them.  Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had very different views on how to achieve the same lofty goal of racial equality.  Would you easily mistake one’s character for the other’s?



pemerton said:


> In fiction, authors write characters who are neither (i) random or insane, or (ii) fully described in canoncial terms from which the author does not depart.




Actually, many authors refer to their characters “writing themselves”, and being unable to write about some action they had previously envisioned them taking because it was simply “not in their  character” as the characters grew.  Where writing is shared (not the case with PC’s), my understanding is that “character bibles” are pretty common.  So are editors whose job includes seeing the bigger picture.



pemerton said:


> Roleplaying can be like that: writing new stuff rather than following prelaid tracks. And that's what I prefer.




Again, you have this odd binary viewpoint that either there can be no character description or the character is rigid and straightjacketed.  That makes it tough to find any common ground.  And why isn’t a RQ devotee believing he acts as the Hand of Fate in cutting some lives short, or who believes use of Undead to achieve the RQ’s goals to be acceptable, not perceived as “writing new stuff rather than following prelaid tracks”?



pemerton said:


> Whose point? Not mine. I don't use alignment mechanics, remember.




My statement asked you to adjudicate whether specific play exemplifies the deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism.  Whether or not we are using alignment, we can have a deity of honour and heroism, can we not?  Assuming that deity is, in some way, directly influential, that deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism must be determined in some way, whether alignment mechanics are in play our out of play.  A deity of Honour and Heroism modeled after the philosophy of King Arthur seems like he would have a very different vision than one modeled after the philosophy of Mahatma Ghandi, regardless of whether alignment mechanics are in play.

It seems odd that you can easily judge whether the Raven Queen approves of murder, or of use of the undead,  but you cannot make any judgment on honour or heroism.



pemerton said:


> What about the bit where the decision to do so was not motivated by a concern with how the GM would classify that behaviour according to alignment descriptors?




That may be how your games play out.  It is not how mine play out.  As I have said before, if the GM or players are going to obsess over classifying each and every choice into alignment boxes, and rigidly specify that there can be only one proper choice for each alignment, then that is poor play and poor GMing, not a poor rules set or mechanic.

I have not seen alignment used to overwhelm the play experience as you seem to assume it automatically must, so I say nothing about it.  It is not an automatic or desirable aspect of an alignment system, nor is it one I have ever experienced.  



pemerton said:


> Not if you're not using alignment in your game!




As a simplistic example, then, tell me how the Paladin’s detect evil and smite evil abilities either function or are replaced in an alignment-free version of a 3.5e game?  Does the Paladin simply say “I use my Detect Evil ability to classify that fellow as Evil, and then I Smite him”?



pemerton said:


> I don't think I actually made such an assertion, but in any event that trope is at least 4000 years older than the alignment mechanics, so I don't think it relies upon alignment in order to be deployed.




I think alignment plays to the trope.  I also maintain that, if we lack Good or Evil, a battle between them seems unlikely.  If we remove all rules for melee combat, do we still have melee combat in the game because it existed before the rules did?



pemerton said:


> Just to be clear: you don't see how any of these might carry more weight, at an RPGing table, than tying a shoe lace or eating breakfast?




I see them carrying considerable weight in game.  I see many of them carrying much less, if any, weight in addressing issues of alignment.  As well, the ones I do see impacting on alignment are ones where I would not see the character as a “force of justice and righteousness” regardless of any alignment system, and having the character continue to receive powers granted by a deity of Truth and Justice would, for me, disconnect me from the game. 

To the ones I do see an alignment issue:



pemerton said:


> * one PC has sacrificed another to a dark god as part of a total betrayal of team A (for whom the PCs were working) in favour of team B (for whom the PCs then commenced working);




Dark God and human sacrifice both strongly imply Evil to me, so definite alignment issues there.  I would have a tough time accepting that one PC being a force of good and righteousness.  I would have no difficulty envisioning him as a loyal and valued servant of the Raven Queen.  I do not see how an alignment system would prevent the gameplay.  Either the character was not Good to begin with, or he has slid into neutrality or evil.



pemerton said:


> * a PC has sold out his hometown to invaders in order to raise the money to repurchase his home which he had lost because he couldn't finance his drug addiction; then, having found love, has got clean of drugs; then, having lost his love to violence, has suffered a brief relapse, before rededicating himself to higher causes and persuading his world-wide order of wizards, against the views of its highest leaders, to oppose policies of racial supremacy and enslavement;




Sounds like a character whose life has seen a lot of change, and one whose alignment may have changed more than once.  So what?  I would also suggest addiction can override other aspects of personality, and actions taken under addiction are not necessarily reflective of any actual moral compass, but of the influence of the addiction itself.



pemerton said:


> * a drow servant of chaos has worked with fellow Corellon-worshippers to oppose Lolth, because she (like the rest of the Abyss) taints the purity of chaos - change and transformation - with lies and pointless destruction;




You keep using “Chaos”.  This seem like a conflict between Good and Evil focused through the lens of Chaos – no different between a LN character supporting an LG order of Paladins in opposing LE devils.  Again, while I see trappings of alignment, I see no indication alignment would have been detrimental to the play.



pemerton said:


> * a paladin of the Raven Queen has discussed theology with the Whips and Lashes in the Shrine of the Kuo-toa, and has thereby been able to save the rest of the party from being caught and sacrificed to Blibdoolpoolp;




To the extent I see any actual alignment issue here, it would be the existence of a Paladin of the Raven Queen, who strikes me as not at all a benevolent deity.  If a Paladin is a Paragon of Goodness, I would not envision Paladins of unaligned deities.  More on the RQ’s morality below.



pemerton said:


> * the PCs have redeemed a fallen paladin of Pelor from his enslavement to a devil and his subsequent leadership of that devil's cult, so that he could return home a hero;




Again, you seem to think a specific alignment would require or prevent this.  I don’t.  Alignment is not a straightjacket.  



pemerton said:


> Alignments relate to this cosmological premise: LG is about overt commitment to divine order (and its earthly reflection) as a source of wellbeing, G is about an overt commitment to wellbeing, UA is where all the cynics or indifferent or careless or doubters are (among the gods this includes Corellon as a doubter and the Raven Queen as a cynic), E is where ordinary villains are, and CE is where demons and primordials are.




I would describe the Raven Queen as amoral.  Fate and Death are neither good nor evil, they simply are.  So is she.  She is neither benevolent nor malevolent, just as Fate and Death are neither kind nor cruel.



pemerton said:


> If you ignore alignment (as I do), it makes it easier for the players  to question the premise of the default cosmology (ie in doubting, say, Bahamut or Moradin they don't have to think of themselves as repudiating goodness). But it's still hard for them to avoid taking a stance one way or another in relation to the relationship between divine order, chaos and dissolution. Which is part of what I like about the default cosmology.




To me, this seems far less a repudiation of alignment than simply a relabeling under a different system.  We don’t have LG.  Instead, we have “Divine Order”.  So what?  Weren’t you the one alluding to a rose by any other name?


----------



## Sadras

Feldspar said:


> Simple or simplistic?




I'm having a senior moment, what would be the difference in context for the word usage in my sentence? 



> If Goodness is not absolute, if different cultures might disagree as to whether an individual was good, then how is one supposed to adjudicate the effects of spells like Unholy Word or Protection from Good? And since 2nd edition defines Evil as the antithesis of Good and subject to interpretation across cultures as well, we have the same problem with the more conventional versions of those spells. So, lets imagine a case of cultural differences where an npc which considers itself good would be considered by you to be evil - does your Holy Word blast them
> 
> What if you didn't know anything about the npc, didn't even know that they were there? Say you cast Holy Word at some mindflayer not knowing that within the area of effect, unseen by you, was a bound prisoner (the npc) that the mindflayer was saving for a midnight snack. I balk at the notion of a spell which, in an instant, could rifle through the npc's mind to assess both everything they have ever done as well as the tenets of their personal philosophy and then compare these to the standards of the caster to decide whether the npc is someone that the caster would not approve of and would want smote. That's asking a bit much, even for magic.
> 
> I suspect the first counter argument to the situation where two cultures each think themselves good and the other evil will be that one actually is good while the other only *thinks* it is good but is in fact evil. This approach has its problems though. What happens when members of that evil culture make use of alignment detecting/effecting spells? Would they not, upon any kind of self introspection, find their own self contradiction? Or do we have the full Gygax/Orwellian thing were they actually define "Good" as bad and "Evil" as good and run around proclaiming things like "we shall deliver this land from the tyranny of Good and bring to it the beneficence of Evil"? Or do they somehow, by accident or whatever, just have it all backwards and whenever they cast Detect Evil they're really casting the reversed version Detect Good, but just don't realize it?




This is very simple or should I say simplistic? The _Detect Evil_ and the _Holy Word_ are channeled by presumably an agent of a Deity, the agent of course being a cleric, paladin..etc The concepts of evil and good are then measured up against the code/ethics of the source of the divine power. If the targets of the divine power are in antithesis to the deity, for instance the deity is "good" and the targets are "evil" according to the deity - then I would adjudicate _Detect Evil_ and _Holy Word_ would work, but that' just my opinion.
One could also base it on current intent as stipulated in 2e (page 199 PHB) "might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions"

Frankly, I see no reason to get all philosophical on the issue. At this point I would like to ask do you request this level of detail from hit points or do you only seek to analyse alignment thus? 



> I've attempted to answer the thread's basic question, with regards to the crunchy bits, to show that they *do not* improve the gaming experience. They can limit the type and style of campaign that can be played.




I have failed to see where you have proven any of the above, if anything you have proven the opposite with your above examples as now I see additional uses which you have highlighted for the alignment spell mechanics within my campaign.




> There's also the problem of there being many different interpretations of how alignment should work.




Do not see it that way, I tend to view it as a feature in the same instance how magic works differently in different settings.



> That the description of alignment has changed from version to version I think proves that.




Well, the ENTIRE game has evolved as well and will keep on changing. Assuredly Gygax was no god, was not infallible and definitely did not have all the answers. The players too have evolved. 



> Even within one version of the system I think there is still legitimate debate over, for example, whether ethos alone can set ones alignment or whether it is actions that truly matter.




Actions certainly matter for PCs since it is a *role*playing game. I'm sure there was a contingent of Drizzt fans who wanted to roleplay a good Drow, ethos alignment mattered a big zero! Ethos alignment is utilised as a backdrop for setting purposes usually: Drow = Evil, Gold Dragons = Good. Its the mythology of the game. I fail to see the confusion. Certainly I have not seen any threads in Enworld regarding the great debate of whether Trolls have been terribly stereotyped as evil in D&D or whether why Kender do not end up in the abyss once they die.



> Remove those mechanics and you remove opportunities for disputes over alignment to create conflict among the participants.




Perhaps in your previous games you suffered from alignment disputes, not mine.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> The _Detect Evil_ and the _Holy Word_ are channeled by presumably an agent of a Deity, the agent of course being a cleric, paladin..etc The concepts of evil and good are then measured up against the code/ethics of the source of the divine power. If the targets of the divine power are in antithesis to the deity, for instance the deity is "good" and the targets are "evil" according to the deity - then I would adjudicate _Detect Evil_ and _Holy Word_ would work, but that' just my opinion.
> One could also base it on current intent as stipulated in 2e (page 199 PHB) "might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions"



What does "appropriate"mean?

And does this mean that when a cleric of (say) Set casts Detect Evil, s/he detects the servants of Osiris? And is herself Lawful Good (after all, Set approves of what s/he is doing)? At this point, I've lost track of the function of the alignment system.


----------



## Hussar

And considering you haven't actually needed a diety to be a cleric since 1e, (2e allowed clerics of a philosophy as do 3e and 4e), what NPC Deity are we actually talking about?

How do you justify "I'm only playing the NPC" when there is actually no NPC in play?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> And considering you haven't actually needed a diety to be a cleric since 1e, (2e allowed clerics of a philosophy as do 3e and 4e), what NPC Deity are we actually talking about? How do you justify "I'm only playing the NPC" when there is actually no NPC in play?




Whether one follows a philosophy or deity, divine spells originate from a divine source. So whether a PC knows about the deity or pantheon of good deities he/she serves or whether he serves just an idea (philosophy) it matters not, there is always a divine source behind his/her power, i.e. someone/somethings. 3e page 179 PHB "Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from divine sources. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces."

These divine forces would have to follow some code/alignment.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> What does "appropriate"mean?




Well I didn't write it, but If I had to take a stab I would surmise it relates to the good of evil intentions and that the actions desired would have to be significant (appropriate) in nature to reflect good or evil  - as in not tying seeking to tie ones shoe laces, but wanting to slay an innocent. 



> And does this mean that when a cleric of (say) Set casts Detect Evil, s/he detects the servants of Osiris? And is herself Lawful Good (after all, Set approves of what s/he is doing)?




If you are a follower of Set you have to be evil, its one of the requirements as far as I can tell for 2e and 3e D&D books, so in order to detect signs of servants of Osiris you need to cast Detect Good, it is that simple. The nature of good and evil does not change depending on which side you are. You are what you are, no high-philosophy needed. Good is good, evil is evil. 
Even in 3e its states under Detect Good (page 219) "This spell functions like Detect Evil, except that its detects the auras of good creatures, cleric and paladins *of good deities*..." So *of good deities*, this seems pretty self explanatory to me.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Whether one follows a philosophy or deity, divine spells originate from a divine source. So whether a PC knows about the deity or pantheon of good deities he/she serves or whether he serves just an idea (philosophy) it matters not, there is always a divine source behind his/her power, i.e. someone/somethings. 3e page 179 PHB "Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from divine sources. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces."
> 
> These divine forces would have to follow some code/alignment.




But, you're missing the point.  The argument goes that the DM is not directly interpreting alignment - alignment is being interpreted for the PC through the lens of the Deity in question and that Deity is telling the player what that interpretation is.  But, if there is no actual NPC, since the PC worships a philosophy, not a Deity, then there is no one to do the telling.  The DM has to directly tell the player what the DM believes is the correct interpretation.  He can't really hide behind "I'm just playing a character here" when there is no character at all.

In other words, how exactly does a "divine force" tell me that my character is following his alignment?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> But, you're missing the point.  The argument goes that the DM is not directly interpreting alignment - alignment is being interpreted for the PC through the lens of the Deity in question and that Deity is telling the player what that interpretation is.  But, if there is no actual NPC, since the PC worships a philosophy, not a Deity, then there is no one to do the telling.  The DM has to directly tell the player what the DM believes is the correct interpretation.  He can't really hide behind "I'm just playing a character here" when there is no character at all.




You are presuming that all deities communicate in 'skype' like sessions with their priests telling them their motives, plans and goals? In the same manner that some deities do not communicate with their priests so can the 'divine force' not be required to communicate with its mortal agents. And since it is up to the individual DM to define these divine forces within the setting the DM has created it is therefore also acceptable that the DM can determine if a priests strays from behaving like an agent of that 'divine force' and this can be explained through the narrative fairly easily.  
A fallen Paladin who is not worthy to be an agent of the divine force might find himself unable to access the divine powers previously granted to him by the divine unknown.



> In other words, how exactly does a "divine force" tell me that my character is following his alignment?




If you're following your alignment everything is just fine, you're following your 'good' code you have access to your abilities....etc use DM fiat 

If you're not well then there is an endless list of possibilities the DM might throw at you... you struggle to access your divine powers: maybe it takes a round longer, maybe you lose them for a day, maybe your powers are limited, maybe you take damage accessing/chaneling divine energies, maybe you receive cryptic visions/dreams, maybe a fellow priest notices a grey aura surrounding you, maybe your celestial steed refuses you, maybe an invisible physical force blocks you from entering your church, maybe you fall ill, maybe you have nightmares, maybe you wake up to the smell of death every morning....etc


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> You are presuming that all deities communicate in 'skype' like sessions with their priests telling them their motives, plans and goals? In the same manner that some deities do not communicate with their priests so can the 'divine force' not be required to communicate with its mortal agents. And since it is up to the individual DM to define these divine forces within the setting the DM has created it is therefore also acceptable that the DM can determine if a priests strays from behaving like an agent of that 'divine force' and this can be explained through the narrative fairly easily.
> A fallen Paladin who is not worthy to be an agent of the divine force might find himself unable to access the divine powers previously granted to him by the divine unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're following your alignment everything is just fine, you're following your 'good' code you have access to your abilities....etc use DM fiat
> 
> If you're not well then there is an endless list of possibilities the DM might throw at you... you struggle to access your divine powers: maybe it takes a round longer, maybe you lose them for a day, maybe your powers are limited, maybe you take damage accessing/chaneling divine energies, maybe you receive cryptic visions/dreams, maybe a fellow priest notices a grey aura surrounding you, maybe your celestial steed refuses you, maybe an invisible physical force blocks you from entering your church, maybe you fall ill, maybe you have nightmares, maybe you wake up to the smell of death every morning....etc




So, pretty much the stick then.  If I obey the strictures handed down to me by the DM through the DM's interpretation of alignment then I get to keep playing my character.  Is that pretty much how alignment is supposed to work?

Yeah, no thanks.  I am perfectly capable of playing my character thank you very much.  I don't need the DM to police my behaviour.  And, as a DM, I have zero interest in doing that to my players.  I trust that my players are mature enough to be able to play their own characters without me standing over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil.  

I've said this many, many times, if you place your trust in your players, they will shine.  A campaign, IMNSHO, is much, much better for allowing players the freedom from the DM hammer (in any form) and making everyone at the table responsible for the game.  For me, N'raac's example paladin just would never happen at the table, because players who are responsible for the game won't make characters like that.  It just ruins their own fun.  I don't play with people who pee in their own pool.  I certainly don't need some mechanical stick to force them back into line.

In fact, IMO, if the only thing stopping the paladin player from eating babies is the alignment mechanics, then you will have far more problems than mechanics can solve.  That's just a bad player in need of some attitude adjusting.  The basic premise of alignment - a tool to maintain character behaviour - again IMO - fails because any player who is so out of touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing will disrupt the table in a thousand other ways.  Any player who is in touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing, doesn't need alignment to stay in character and portray an internally consistent PC.


----------



## N'raac

It seems just as reasonable to assert that, if players and GM's are in tune with their archetypes, significant alignment issues do not arise.  Again, however, that does not mean alignment will necessarily improve the game, only that they will not detract from it.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> So, pretty much the stick then.  If I obey the strictures handed down to me by the DM through the DM's interpretation of alignment then I get to keep playing my character.  Is that pretty much how alignment is supposed to work?
> 
> Yeah, no thanks.  I am perfectly capable of playing my character thank you very much.  I don't need the DM to police my behaviour.  And, as a DM, I have zero interest in doing that to my players.  I trust that my players are mature enough to be able to play their own characters without me standing over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil.
> 
> I've said this many, many times, if you place your trust in your players, they will shine.  A campaign, IMNSHO, is much, much better for allowing players the freedom from the DM hammer (in any form) and making everyone at the table responsible for the game.  For me, N'raac's example paladin just would never happen at the table, because players who are responsible for the game won't make characters like that.  It just ruins their own fun.  I don't play with people who pee in their own pool.  I certainly don't need some mechanical stick to force them back into line.
> 
> In fact, IMO, if the only thing stopping the paladin player from eating babies is the alignment mechanics, then you will have far more problems than mechanics can solve.  That's just a bad player in need of some attitude adjusting.  The basic premise of alignment - a tool to maintain character behaviour - again IMO - fails because any player who is so out of touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing will disrupt the table in a thousand other ways.  Any player who is in touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing, doesn't need alignment to stay in character and portray an internally consistent PC.




For the record I also do not play with players that pee in their own pool and even though we have alignment floating in the background, as I have said before I have never had to use the proverbial 'stick', police any behaviour, use the DM hammer or stand over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil and what is more the players in my group do not just mind alignment, they actually prefer it.
We pretty much use it as a descriptor.


----------



## Campbell

I think when we approach a discussion like this expecting a definitive answer that applies equally to all groups we're not going to be very productive. For my part I want the experience of playing a religious character to reflect and involve concerns of real life religious practice. For me that requires not knowing the mind of the divine agent in question. I don't want there to be be definitive answers when religious conflicts come into play. I want it to be possible for my character to be disagree with another member of the same faith - possibly violently without interference. When I'm running a game I want to focus on conflicts between individuals without having to decide who is right and who is wrong. That's part of the fun.

However what works for me might not work for everyone else. It's okay to be okay with fiction that is more focused on fantasy morality then exploring real world morality without judging. Sometimes people want more certainty about right and wrong in their games. They're welcome to it.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> The concepts of evil and good are then measured up against the code/ethics of the source of the divine power. If the targets of the divine power are in antithesis to the deity, for instance the deity is "good" and the targets are "evil" according to the deity





Sadras said:


> If I had to take a stab I would surmise it relates to the good of evil intentions and that the actions desired would have to be significant (appropriate) in nature to reflect good or evil  - as in not tying seeking to tie ones shoe laces, but wanting to slay an innocent.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you are a follower of Set you have to be evil, its one of the requirements as far as I can tell for 2e and 3e D&D books, so in order to detect signs of servants of Osiris you need to cast Detect Good, it is that simple. The nature of good and evil does not change depending on which side you are. You are what you are, no high-philosophy needed. Good is good, evil is evil.



I simply don't understand how these two posts are consistent. If "good is good" and "evil is evil", and their nature does not change depending on which side you are on, then how does it make sense to say that "the concepts of good and evil are measured up against the code/ethics of the source of the divine power"?

And what happened to the 2nd ed AD&D passage you quoted upthread, about "good" and "evil" being different for different cultures?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> IMO, if the only thing stopping the paladin player from eating babies is the alignment mechanics, then you will have far more problems than mechanics can solve.



This I definitely agree with.

As I posted way back on the first page or so of the thread, alignment was introduced, as best I can tell, to add a new dimension of risk/reward: if you were Lawful (later, Good) there were some tactics that were off limits (like poison and other assassination-style things) but you got the benefit of (i) better reactions from NPCs, and (ii) better access to healing. Whereas Chaotics had the full run of tactical options, but lacked those two benefits.

I don't really want to play that way myself, but I can certainly see what's going on with alignment in that sort of game.

I can also see what's going on when I pose myself the challenge of playing a character who is true to some pre-specified code or requirement, though again I don't personally feel the attraction. Likewise for the idea of finding out what morality the GM has come up with for his/her campaign world and cosmology.

But alignment as a way of handling "problem players" just baffles me!


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> It seems just as reasonable to assert that, if players and GM's are in tune with their archetypes, significant alignment issues do not arise.  Again, however, that does not mean alignment will necessarily improve the game, only that they will not detract from it.




But, this is just not true.  It's been shown in this thread that two people, looking at the same example, can give opposite interpretations.  Not because anyone is being nasty or a problem, but because morality and ethics is just far too complicated to be reduced down to three line descriptors.  Again, it's not anyone who is being a problem, but, the mechanics themselves are so vague that two reasonable individuals, both of whom share lots in common, can still strongly disagree on interpretations, both of which are supportable by the alignment text.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> tell me how the Paladin’s detect evil and smite evil abilities either function or are replaced in an alignment-free version of a 3.5e game?



I don't know - I don't play 3E, and one reason (though not the main one) is the extent to which it goes beyond classic D&D in embedding alignment into the system.

Perhaps it could be used as "Detect Enemy" or maybe "Detect Cultist".



N'raac said:


> “I won’t answer a question about how the game would play because it must be answered in actual play” gets stale really fast.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the player has just levelled up and is considering using the spell Animate Dead which has just become available to him,.  He envisions his character as a devout follower of the Raven Queen.  That is the character concept he wants to play.  His question is whether the animation of the dead to oppose Orcus, or otherwise serve the goals of the Raven Queen, is acceptable, a grey area or unacceptable, based on the backstory about his god.  Your answer seems to be “well, why don’t you try it out and see”.
> 
> But that wasn’t the answer when a character who takes lives in devotion to the RQ was raised.  That was just  inconsistent with the backstory of the god.



I'm sorry that you find it stale. All I can say is that it is true. There is a huge difference between a PC arriving at some destination as a result of actual play, and the PC starting at that point via pre-play stipulation. You may not agree, but that would only reinforce what seems very obvious to me, namely that we play the game for quite different reasons.



N'raac said:


> In the real world, their character description is not written down, it is them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> many authors refer to their characters “writing themselves”, and being unable to write about some action they had previously envisioned them taking because it was simply “not in their  character” as the characters grew.



But this is the exact opposite of mechanical alignment! If the character is "writing him-/herself" then the author is not answering to some challenge of keeping within certain pre-given descriptors. S/he is making choices driven by the immediacy of the situation (again, notions from aesthetic theory such as "spontaneity" and "authenticity" seem apposite here).

This relates to the pre-eminence of play, also. Actual play can take us to places with a character that matter, and have meaning, in a way that the same place as a stipulated starting point would lack. I am not much of an aesthetic theorist, but notions like "history", "accretion", "unfolding", "revelation" and so on seem to be in play in one case but not the other.



N'raac said:


> Whether or not we are using alignment, we can have a deity of honour and heroism, can we not?  Assuming that deity is, in some way, directly influential, that deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism must be determined in some way, whether alignment mechanics are in play our out of play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if we lack Good or Evil, a battle between them seems unlikely.



This is not true. I can - and have - run campaigns involving gods of time without determining what "time" means to that god. I can run a deity of honour and heroism without a criterial definition of those terms. Much as, in real life, I can judge conduct honourable or heroic without having a criterial definition of those terms. And a game can involve an epic, Mannichean conflict without a mechanical definition of good and evil.

The point can be illustrated even for a simple non-evaluative adjective: what are the criteria for something being big? I'm not sure even the Chomskyan linguists know that, and I certainly don't, but I can still talk about big things - be they big elephants or big ants or big wins - when I encounter them!



N'raac said:


> You keep using “Chaos”.  This seem like a conflict between Good and Evil focused through the lens of Chaos
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me, this seems far less a repudiation of alignment than simply a relabeling under a different system.  We don’t have LG.  Instead, we have “Divine Order”.  So what?  Weren’t you the one alluding to a rose by any other name?



Again, this seems to involve a missing of my point.

"Divine order" is not a label which, if used, implies binding commitment to a defined game element from which any deviation must then be assessed. It's not a standard against which the play of character is going to be judged. It's just a description intended to evoke a pretty-well known trope. As I've said, I don't want to judge play against pre-given standards. When my players debate, in character, what steps they should take to preserve the divine order, or to oppose (or serve) the forces of chaos, they are not doing or saying things which have to be judged against any standard as part of the process of action resolution: are they _really_ opposing (or serving) chaos. These are elements of the fictional situation that inform their play, not mechanical standards or requirements.



N'raac said:


> It seems just as reasonable to assert that, if players and GM's are in tune with their archetypes, significant alignment issues do not arise.



The whole notion of "being in tune with an archetype" is one I'm not interested in as part of the process of adjudicating play. Was Wagner in tune with Beethoven's archetype? Did he improve it? Debase it? Destroy it? These are questions that can be interesting to ask as an audience member, or as a critic. But I'm glad Wagner wasn't having to answer to anyone but himself on these points when he was actually composing his music!

I have chosen a well-known artistic example to try and make the point. Of course my game is not a work of art in any meaningful sense - it's of aesthetic interest only to those who actually participate in it. But the basic dynamic of creation is still the same. I am not interested in making my players answerable to my judgement as part of the process of playing their PCs: naturally I have opinions as an audience member, but they're not part of my role as referee.



N'raac said:


> A deity of Honour and Heroism modeled after the philosophy of King Arthur seems like he would have a very different vision than one modeled after the philosophy of Mahatma Ghandi, regardless of whether alignment mechanics are in play.
> 
> It seems odd that you can easily judge whether the Raven Queen approves of murder, or of use of the undead,  but you cannot make any judgment on honour or heroism.



It's not strange at all. For much the same sorts of reasons, physics uses a different methodology from history, which uses a different methodology from economics, which uses a different methodology from moral and political philosophy.

Put crudely, judgements of value have a different epistemic and metaphysical character from judgements of fact.

I also don't see what your Arthur/Ghandi example is meant to show. One the one hand, it's tempting to ask "Who would turn up to play a holy warrior devoted to a pacifist god?" On the other hand, it's also tempting to note that that's one possible interpretation of Arthur as an archetype! I don't see how alignment mechanics are meant to help me in any practical way to work out which of these sorts of gods I want in my game, nor help my players think about what might be involved in worshipping them.



N'raac said:


> I have not seen alignment used to overwhelm the play experience as you seem to assume it automatically must



I'm not assuming anything. I'm asserting some things based on my play experience.



N'raac said:


> Dark God and human sacrifice both strongly imply Evil to me, so definite alignment issues there.  I would have a tough time accepting that one PC being a force of good and righteousness.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not see how an alignment system would prevent the gameplay.  Either the character was not Good to begin with, or he has slid into neutrality or evil.



And right there is a perfect illustration of why that episode of play would have been very different if alignment mechanics were in use. Because they require precisely the sort of judgement to be made - which you, right here in this post, are making - which I am not interested in making as part of my refereeing of the game.

_Right here_, in your own post, we see "alignment used to overwhelm the play experience". That's what I don't like it. That's why it's an impediment to my desired play experience. Hopefully you can now see why I don't use it.



N'raac said:


> That may be how your games play out.  It is not how mine play out.  As I have said before, if the GM or players are going to obsess over classifying each and every choice into alignment boxes, and rigidly specify that there can be only one proper choice for each alignment, then that is poor play and poor GMing, not a poor rules set or mechanic.



So is this the bit where we get told that those who don't use alignment are doing it wrong?

If the GM is not going to consider whether or not the paladin's actions are evil or lawful, then what is the point of the rule saying the paladin can't do evil, non-lawful things? If the player's don't worry about whether or not the conduct of their PCs is alignment-compliant, then what role is it playing as a constraint on (or guide to) roleplaying?

Or to put it another way: of course if you don't use alignment then it won't cause you any trouble. I've already discovered that for myself. But if you're not using it, then why are you asserting that you are using it?

Or to put it yet another way: what were you doing, when judging that the PC who sacrifices a friend and companion to a dark god is evil, and hence that you "would have a tough time accepting that one PC being a force of good and righteousness", and hence that that PC "has slid into neutrality or evil"? You were "obsessing over classifying each and every choice into alignment boxes"!

Well, not "each and every choice". Not the choice about what colour hat to wear. Nor about whether to single or double-knot the shoe laces. Only the choices that actually _matter_ to the play of the game.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> But this is the exact opposite of mechanical alignment! If the character is "writing him-/herself" then the author is not answering to some challenge of keeping within certain pre-given descriptors. S/he is making choices driven by the immediacy of the situation (again, notions from aesthetic theory such as "spontaneity" and "authenticity" seem apposite here).




When the character writes himself, his "descriptors" which have been "pre-given" by the author's vision, including but not limited to the manner in which the character has already been written to date, and the experiences he has had (in backstory and in play), are driving him such that the author is no longer deciding what the character will d unilaterally - rather, the character's own character is forcing certain decisions.  Much as the conclusion that "Sir Gallice would  not take these actions because he is Lawful Good."  LG becomes a shorthand for some of those traits.  Or we might come to the realization that Sir Gallice is not actually LG, chafes under the authority of the Church and struggling with whether remaining a Paladin is really what he wants to do.



pemerton said:


> This is not true. I can - and have - run campaigns involving gods of time without determining what "time" means to that god. I can run a deity of honour and heroism without a criterial definition of those terms. Much as, in real life, I can judge conduct honourable or heroic without having a criterial definition of those terms. And a game can involve an epic, Mannichean conflict without a mechanical definition of good and evil.
> 
> The point can be illustrated even for a simple non-evaluative adjective: what are the criteria for something being big? I'm not sure even the Chomskyan linguists know that, and I certainly don't, but I can still talk about big things - be they big elephants or big ants or big wins - when I encounter them!
> 
> "Divine order" is not a label which, if used, implies binding commitment to a defined game element from which any deviation must then be assessed. It's not a standard against which the play of character is going to be judged. It's just a description intended to evoke a pretty-well known trope. As I've said, I don't want to judge play against pre-given standards. When my players debate, in character, what steps they should take to preserve the divine order, or to oppose (or serve) the forces of chaos, they are not doing or saying things which have to be judged against any standard as part of the process of action resolution: are they _really_ opposing (or serving) chaos. These are elements of the fictional situation that inform their play, not mechanical standards or requirements.




So you can manage without full, formal definitions of all of these terms to know it when you see it, but Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil cannot be similarly treated, and must rather be defined to the nth degree?  The players can argue over what best serves Divine order and the forces of chaos, and decide that, say, Divine Order is best served by making all decisions based on random chance (say rolling dice) or that chaos would be best served by homogenizing all its servants into a large army, with each member having a role to play and serving it perfectly, as dictated by his superiors?

There are some obvious aspects of the various alignments, and some which are much less clear cut, resulting in character disagreements over how best to proceed.  

It's unclear to me how you can manage "Primal Chaos" and "Divine Order", but Good, Evil, Law and Chaos throw you for such a huge loop.

And right there is a perfect illustration of why that episode of play would have been very different if alignment mechanics were in use. Because they require precisely the sort of judgement to be made - which you, right here in this post, are making - which I am not interested in making as part of my refereeing of the game.



pemerton said:


> _Right here_, in your own post, we see "alignment used to overwhelm the play experience". That's what I don't like it. That's why it's an impediment to my desired play experience. Hopefully you can now see why I don't use it.




So your game simply takes place in a moral vacuum - sacrificing a sentient being, indeed a companion (fellow PC) to a Dark God has no moral implications whatsoever?  No one at the table considers this "an evil action"?  You are fine with an Arthurian Paladin carrying out such an act and continuing to exist in a state of divine grace, freely benefiting from the powers of Good and Righteousness that he is considered to continue representing as a paragon?  

And yet, earlier in the thread, you were aghast at the suggestion that a Paladin tearing out a baby's throat with his teeth "for the greater good" could ever occur?  I'm not seeing how sacrificing a person to a Dark God is somehow less subject to moral judgment.  Is the problem only that the player doesn't want to be told that the character he is playing (playing well, and playing in a great game) is not Good and morally upright, but either Evil or at the least committing an evil act?  Why is that so fearful?



pemerton said:


> Or to put it yet another way: what were you doing, when judging that the PC who sacrifices a friend and companion to a dark god is evil, and hence that you "would have a tough time accepting that one PC being a force of good and righteousness", and hence that that PC "has slid into neutrality or evil"? You were "obsessing over classifying each and every choice into alignment boxes"!




It doesn't take much work, from my perspective, to classify that action.  Are you asserting that his action could easily be seen as one logically taken by a Paragon of Righteousness who would be rewarded by all the Holy Powers of Good for his actions?  And if so, why is tearing a baby's throat out with his teeth such a stretch?  Frankly, the assessment of whether or not sacrificing a friend and companion to a Dark God is morally righteous or not doesn't seem that hard to make.  Do you envision a lot of objective observers whose reaction is likely to be "well, maybe he had a goo reason - let's not leap to hasty conclusions - who are we to judge!"

Could it be great gaming, and fantastic role playing?  Absolutely.  Can anyone reasonably suggest it is fantastic role playing *of an Examplar of Virtue and Righteousness, holding a place of special esteem to the Deities of Honor and Heroism?*  "No" does not begin to cover it!  What player, in taking such an action, would consider the character a Paladin, a Holy Warrior proudly standing for all that is Good and Righteous?


----------



## Nagol

N'raac said:


> <snip>
> 
> Could it be great gaming, and fantastic role playing?  Absolutely.  Can anyone reasonably suggest it is fantastic role playing *of an Examplar of Virtue and Righteousness, holding a place of special esteem to the Deities of Honor and Heroism?*  "No" does not begin to cover it!  What player, in taking such an action, would consider the character a Paladin, a Holy Warrior proudly standing for all that is Good and Righteous?




I've met them.  There is one that sticks out in my memory like a proud nail.  The game was _Ars Magica_ (so no alignment) but I had grafted on a piety system from another game to allow True Faith/False Faith to be earned in game,  Most PCs bounced around in the middle band, not gaining favour with any of the powers.  Of the 20+ PCs, only one achieved _True Faith_ and another achieved _False Faith_.

The _False Faith_ player was absolutely floored when the devil showed up to collect his due and strike a bargain (he slid into a truly low piety band).  He couldn't understand why.  I walked him through his actions and their effect on his soul's accounting: betrayed those under his trust, killed friends for equipment, stole religious relics and tried to use them for blasphemous purpose, consistently animated the dead, engaged in parley with demonic forces, etc.

But he cried, "There were justifications!"  He thought all his actions were 'good' and justified by the circumstances he faced.  

Amusingly, the reason the other PC achieved _True Faith_ was in part by continually resisting the temptations he offered.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> For my part I want the experience of playing a religious character to reflect and involve concerns of real life religious practice. For me that requires not knowing the mind of the divine agent in question. I don't want there to be be definitive answers when religious conflicts come into play. *I want it to be possible for my character to be disagree with another member of the same faith - possibly violently without interference. When I'm running a game I want to focus on conflicts between individuals without having to decide who is right and who is wrong.*




These points are pretty key here I think (and I agree with them).  If a broad prescriptive ethos (in this case alignment) is to be an overarching quality control element for play (specifically with a third party performing the quality control), by reason you are crowding out the prospect of the above player-initiated conflict coming to fruition in an organic way (eg impulsively authored by the players who are each sincerely advocating for their own perception of their respective characters' viewpoints within the faith).  The 3rd party performing the quality control will already have "the right answer" to the faith-based question the players are attempting to explore, thus circumventing any legitimacy of player-initiated, intra-faith conflict...rendering it ultimately pointless.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> When the character writes himself, his "descriptors" which have been "pre-given" by the author's vision



This is tortured. There _are_ no descriptors. As you yourself go on to say, the author draws upon "the manner in which the character has already been written to date, and the experiences he has had (in backstory and in play)". _The manner in which a character has already been written_ is not a descriptor. There may not even be a word or phrase of English able to adequately capture that manner, whatever exactly it is. Similarly for _the experiences a character has had in backstory and play_. There is no descriptor there: there is a simply a known history of experiences.

As I said upthread, this is the exact opposite of alignment. It is the reliance upon spontaneous intuitions generated by familiarity with and interpretation of prior material. It has nothing in common, either cognitively or artistically, with identifying and then applying a descriptor.

That's not to say that you couldn't do that if you wanted - identify and then apply a descriptor. But then the character wouldn't be writing him-/herself. Rather, there would be very conscious authorship involving two stages: first, distilling that _manner_ and those _experiences_ into an overarching descriptor; and second, inferring from that descriptor what the character should do next.

At that point, of course, we _still_ wouldn't have alignment: because alignment, at least played as the 2nd ed AD&D PHB suggests, involves a third element too: of ensuring that whatever one has the character do at the second stage _does not itself undermine the truth of the overarching descriptor_. That means not only very conscious authorship, but authorship with a very particular goal. (And one which has no appeal for me.)



N'raac said:


> Much as the conclusion that "Sir Gallice would  not take these actions because he is Lawful Good."



But that's not the character authoring him-/herself! It's conscious authoring based on a preconception of what Sir Gallice desires and is capable (or not capable) of.



N'raac said:


> LG becomes a shorthand for some of those traits.



And this raises a _further_ issue, that goes to the heart of alignment: who gets to define the shorthand? If the _player_ - who is the typical author of the character - gets to do so, then LG should have whatever meaning the player imputes. But at that point we don't have mechanical alignment anymore. And if the _GM_ gets to decide on the shorthand, then the character is clearly not authoring him-/herself, because there is the prospect of real-time editorial correction from a 3rd party. The player becomes less like an author and my like an actor of someone else's screenplay.



N'raac said:


> So you can manage without full, formal definitions of all of these terms to know it when you see it, but Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil cannot be similarly treated



Of course they can be. I'm not the one who has insisted they be defined - you are! (Do I really have to trawl back through the thread to find the posts? In post number 530, you said that "we can have a deity of honour and heroism, can we not? Assuming that deity is, in some way, directly influential, that deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism must be determined in some way". In the post to which you have now replied, I _denied_ that this was so. That is to say, I denied that we need to "determine" a concept of honour and/or heroism to use it. Likewise in the same post I denied that we need to "determine" a concept of good or evil to base a game on the trope of good vs evil.)

My point - which you seem still to be missing, or perhaps just ignoring for some reason - is that mechanical alignment requires the use of these evaluative words and phrases as standards, imposed by the GM as part of adjudicating and refereeing the play of the game. THIS IS SOMETHING I DON'T WANT TO DO. Hence I don't use mechanical alignment. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.



N'raac said:


> The players can argue over what best serves Divine order and the forces of chaos, and decide that, say, Divine Order is best served by making all decisions based on random chance (say rolling dice) or that chaos would be best served by homogenizing all its servants into a large army, with each member having a role to play and serving it perfectly, as dictated by his superiors?



I believe that you are intending this as some sort of knock-down argument, but it is a failure at that. Because you've given no reason _why_ the players have reached such a conclusion.

I don't know if you are familiar with the plot of Wagner's Ring Cycle, but it actually has roughly the shape you here treat as a knock-down counterexample! Wotan (Odin), between the conclusion of The Valkyrie (the 2nd opera) and the opening of Siegfried (the 3rd opera), realises that the only way to restore a proper order to the world - which he, Wotan, has doomed via the pacts he has entered into which have permitted the dragon Fafnir to gain possession of the Ring, itself tainted by (i) its creator's theft of the gold from the Rhinemaidens and then by (ii) Wotan's theft of it from its creator - is to allow the emergence of a wild man unbound by any obligation or law. That is Siegfried, who - when he meets Wotan - uses the sword that he forged himself to cleave in half the spear on which Wotan has engraved all the runes that record the pacts and laws of the world.

So here we have Wotan, divine ruler of the world - and no slouch in the reasoning department - forming the view that the best way to serve divine order is to permit the emergence of a wild man who decides based on whim and passion, and that to proceed in conventional ways would only compound the problems that the theft of the Rhinemaiden's gold, and then of their ring, have created for the world.

(In framing the campaign in which the PCs turned on the heavens to save the world from the consequences of ancient pacts the gods had entered into, I was heavily influenced by Wagner. But that campaign didn't illustrate your example as nicely as the plot of The Ring itself.)

Therefore, I don't find your putative counter-example knockdown at all. If that's where my players end up, that's where they end up. Let's play the game and see what happens. _I don't need to superintend their choices about these matters, or veto them, or prove them to be mistaken_. I'm much more interested in seeing where they take us and the game.



N'raac said:


> It's unclear to me how you can manage "Primal Chaos" and "Divine Order", but Good, Evil, Law and Chaos throw you for such a huge loop.



They don't throw me for a loop. My point is that _I am not interested in the adjudicative aspect of mechanical alignment_. I could do it if I wanted to. I could also adjudicate my players' actions based on whether I like the cut of their rhetorical jibs, or any other such thing. But I don't care to.



N'raac said:


> earlier in the thread, you were aghast at the suggestion that a Paladin tearing out a baby's throat with his teeth "for the greater good" could ever occur?  I'm not seeing how sacrificing a person to a Dark God is somehow less subject to moral judgment.



If a player was setting out to play a noble knight, I'm hard pressed to see why s/he would have his/her PC ride into a village on a whim, grab a baby, and tear out its throat on a whim.   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already discussed this particular issue well.

The player in the episode of play I described didn't have his PC decide to sacrifice his friend and (soon to be former) companion on a whim, however. So I don't really see the connection. And I also don't see the relevance of moral judgement. I don't need to make a moral judgement to express the view stated in the paragraph above this one. I'm just making a prediction: I can't imagine a player of a noble knight declaring, on a whim, that his/her PC rides into the village, grabs hold of a baby and rips out its throat. In relation to the sacrifice episode, I'm not making a moral judgement either. Nor am I making a prediction. I'm describing an episode that actually occurred during play (in early 1994, if my memory serves me well).



N'raac said:


> It doesn't take much work, from my perspective, to classify that action.



Lots of things don't take much work. It doesn't mean I want to do them. If the point of play - as I posted in reply to Umbran some way upthread (post 454) - is to evoke an evaluative and/or expressive response on the part of a participant, then classifying actions in the way you advocate as part of the process of play is an impediment. It is antithetical to the point of play.

Pictionary would be a worse game if, before a player could show his/her picture, it had to be vetted by a referee. Similarly, for me RPGing is a worse activity if, when a player declares his/her PC's action, that action - as part of the process of play - is subjected to adjudication by a referee.



N'raac said:


> So your game simply takes place in a moral vacuum - sacrificing a sentient being, indeed a companion (fellow PC) to a Dark God has no moral implications whatsoever?  No one at the table considers this "an evil action"?  You are fine with an Arthurian Paladin carrying out such an act and continuing to exist in a state of divine grace, freely benefiting from the powers of Good and Righteousness that he is considered to continue representing as a paragon?



This paragraph seems to have a more than one thing going on it.

First, you seem to be (i) asserting that no reasonable person could believe that an Arthurian paladin could sacrifice a friend and companion to a dark god, yet remain a paladin, while (ii) supposing that a player might take that very view about his/her own PC. Which entails that you think players will depart from what reasonableness requires. Why would they do that? This also goes back to   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s points about trusting your players. If your players are not reasonable people, why are you playing with them? If they are reasonable people, and they sincerely believe that some course of conduct is consistent with paladinhood, why do you need to contradict that view just because you see the situation differently? This is one of the reasons that I don't use alignment mechanics. I don't feel the need to impose my evaluative conceptions on the players' play of their PCs.

Second, you seem to be supposing that _unless the GM imposes moral judgements as part of the adjudication of players' declared actions for their PCs_, then the game is taking place in a moral vacuum. That's such a strange supposition that I hesitate to impute it to you, yet I don't see any other way to make sense of what you're saying. But the notion that events don't have value unless someone sticks an authoritative label on them, which everyone else participating in the activity in question is then obliged to abide by, is so foreign to my way of thinking that I barely know where to begin.

I'll take the example of the movie Casablanca. It is no part of authoring the script to Casablanca, nor filming, producing and distributing Casablanca, nor watching Casablanca as an audience member, to impose evaluative labels in some authoritative way on the actions or characters of Rick, or Ilsa, or Victor Lazlo, or Captain Renault, or Ferrari. But to suggest that Casablanca takes place in a moral vacuum would be absurd.

Moral implications can arise, and be judged by the participants in an RPG, without the need for the GM to adjudicate by way of mechanical alignment. My personal experience is that in fact moral implications are more likely to arise in the absence of mechanical alignment, because the players do not have the GM's judgement to hide behind. They have to take responsibility for their own decisions in playing their PCs.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> There are some obvious aspects of the various alignments, and some which are much less clear cut, resulting in character disagreements over how best to proceed.



If player-driven moral reasoning _within_ alignment bands is acceptable in the absence of GM adjudication and enforcement, then I'm puzzled as to why we suddenly find ourselves in a "moral vacuum" if that permissibility is generalised to the entire field of possible action.

Not only do I fail to see the problem in eliminating alignment, as far as creating space for genuine evaluative argument is concerned, but I also see a benefit. Because it reduces the non-evaluative, nit-picky stuff about "whether this is LG or NG or LN or N" - the taxonomic debate - and turns the focus onto the actual stakes at issue - "What should we do?"


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> These points are pretty key here I think (and I agree with them).  If a broad prescriptive ethos (in this case alignment) is to be an overarching quality control element for play (specifically with a third party performing the quality control), by reason you are crowding out the prospect of the above player-initiated conflict coming to fruition in an organic way (eg impulsively authored by the players who are each sincerely advocating for their own perception of their respective characters' viewpoints within the faith).  The 3rd party performing the quality control will already have "the right answer" to the faith-based question the players are attempting to explore, thus circumventing any legitimacy of player-initiated, intra-faith conflict...rendering it ultimately pointless.




I guess my response to this general argument is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of fantasy role playing games that don't have alignment in them much less alignment with a mechanical effect.  In fact I am hard pressed to think of a game outside D&D (Besides clones) that uses alignment, in a way that directly impacts the game.  This, IMO and regardless of how minimal people try to paint alignment in earlier editions (which I generally disagree with but will leave that argument for another thread), is a true D&D-ism and I'm finding it hard to sympathize with those claiming it should be taken out of the game when there are so many other games without alignment.  This is one of those things where I feel like if you want alignment gone or morally subjective paladins... then perhaps you are looking for a different "story" than the one D&D has been designed (out of the box) to facilitate for the majority of it's run.

I have no problem with D&D campaign settings that minimize or eliminate the effects of alignment, Eberron was a great campaign setting for 3.x that I really enjoyed running games in... but I don't think no alignment should be the default since there have definitely been more editions of D&D where alignment has had mechanical effects then not and it is one of those things that creates a gaming experience unique to D&D.  All IMO of course.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> First, you seem to be (i) asserting that no reasonable person could believe that an Arthurian paladin could sacrifice a friend and companion to a dark god, yet remain a paladin, while (ii) supposing that a player might take that very view about his/her own PC. Which entails that you think players will depart from what reasonableness requires. Why would they do that? This also goes back to   @_*Hussar*_'s points about trusting your players. If your players are not reasonable people, why are you playing with them? If they are reasonable people, and they sincerely believe that some course of conduct is consistent with paladinhood, why do you need to contradict that view just because you see the situation differently? This is one of the reasons that I don't use alignment mechanics. I don't feel the need to impose my evaluative conceptions on the players' play of their PCs.




I'm not @N'racc but I'd like to comment on this part of your post and the whole "trusting your players" line of thought.  The problem with the trust your players argument is that it ignores the fact that ultimately D&D is a game, a game where a player is advocating for their particular character. It is not a game where death only happens if the player agrees, it is not a game where you are constructing a "story" and it is not a game where individual awards, treasure, etc. are meaningless.  Thus there is plenty of impetus for a player to do what is convenient/best/optimized/etc. for their character...

 I mean if I trust my players and they are all there to participate in a challenging but fun fantasy adventure... well shouldn't I *trust* them to select appropriately challenging monsters for themselves  and shouldn't I *trust* them to set appropriate DC's for themselves?  I mean if I can trust them to follow the edicts and code of a particular deity or cosmological force without advocating for themselves when it becomes easy or (in their minds) necessary for their characters survival... Why shouldn't I *trust* them to select appropriate treasure for their victories, or anything else in the game?   Yeah, as you can probably tell,  I'm not really buying the "player trust" argument.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> This is tortured. There _are_ no descriptors. As you yourself go on to say, the author draws upon "the manner in which the character has already been written to date, and the experiences he has had (in backstory and in play)". _The manner in which a character has already been written_ is not a descriptor. There may not even be a word or phrase of English able to adequately capture that manner, whatever exactly it is. Similarly for _the experiences a character has had in backstory and play_. There is no descriptor there: there is a simply a known history of experiences.




The author does not create characters from vacuum.  He has a vision of the character, with history and upcoming events which fit within his story for the character.  The gamer lacks that.  He has a vague knowledge, if any, of the broad aspects of the campaign the character is about to enter into.  Unlike the author, he has no control over the extent t which his backstory - what has gone before the story itself begins - will actually come up in the course of the story itself.  But he does not enter the story as a blank slate.  When a character "writes himself", it is precisely because his actions are dictated by personality traits that the author has baked into him - even without realizing it.  



pemerton said:


> But that's not the character authoring him-/herself! It's conscious authoring based on a preconception of what Sir Gallice desires and is capable (or not capable) of.




It is a well realized character who "authors himself", and it happens only when the author has a well-realized character whose "preconception of what [the character] is (or is not) capable of."  So well conceived that he knows without conscious consideration how that character would act, and only on reflection can he figure out why he would act that way.  Some authors do, in fact, address why this action (which was so key to the story) was really the only one the character would really take, despite the fact it was not the original author expectation of the action he would take.

Now, in a D&D game, it is possible that this epiphany comes with the realization that the character is not, in fact, of the originally state alignment - perhaps that simply means changing the notation, or perhaps it means the turn of the story becomes "what happens now that the character has realized he does not, in fact, agree with the group he has always identified with", and this has a cost.  The Vlad Taltos series, by Brust, has such a character.  He spends his life becoming a criminal and assassin for a criminal organization, before coming to realize that he's not really that person.  This costs him dearly in many respects as he ends up on his own, running from his former allies and subordinates (ie he loses a lot of character resources).  If a player looking at his character says "Well, this is what Sir Gallice would do, but doing that would mean no Paladin powers, so I'll just override his personality to keep mechanical benefits", then to me that is poor role playing.

And, as I type that, perhaps that is a significant part of where we do not see eye to eye.  You have mentioned before that the game mechanics should reinforce Sir Gallice playing to character.  He should always be advantaged by playing to his sense of Justice, Righteousness and Benevolence.  To me, good role playing is its own reward - I don't need a mechanical reward for my character to be played in character.  Remaining true to your principals can, and often should, have a cost.

That said, I also place my trust in the GM to use my character's principals - including, and perhaps especially, their drawbacks - to build an exciting and fun game.  Sometimes, that excitement and fun will come from challenges to his principals - situations where it would be so much easier for Sir Gallice to cheat a little on his principals, to rationalize away some breach of his principals, to look the other way while his teammates takes actions he would find unconscionable so that the team can "win".  But ultimately, I trust the GM to use these challenges to make the game fun and exciting, and not to screw me or my character over and make the game "no fun".

Perhaps that is part of the disconnect.  The mantra of yourself and @_*Hussar*_ seems to be "trust the players".  But trust extends both ways - why is there no expectation that trust be extended to (and earned by) the GM?



pemerton said:


> And this raises a _further_ issue, that goes to the heart of alignment: who gets to define the shorthand? If the _player_ - who is the typical author of the character - gets to do so, then LG should have whatever meaning the player imputes. But at that point we don't have mechanical alignment anymore. And if the _GM_ gets to decide on the shorthand, then the character is clearly not authoring him-/herself, because there is the prospect of real-time editorial correction from a 3rd party. The player becomes less like an author and my like an actor of someone else's screenplay.




I think the player makes the decisions for his character.  He does not decide how those decisions fit into the broader world in which he lives, so he does not judge whether those actions are Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.  He judges what his character would do.  Anakin Skywalker's player gets to define whether Anakin takes actions consistent with the Light Side of the Force, remaining pure to the teachings of the Jedi, or whether he succumbs to the temptations of the Dark Side of the Force, falls to the influence of Palpatine and becomes a Dark Lord of the Sith.  He does not get to redefine the Universe making his actions those of a Jedi, and not falling into the Dark Side.

This is also part of the disconnect, I suspect.  As a player, I am playing a character who is subject to temptation.  If I am playing Anakin Skywalker, then I am playing a character who may, or perhaps even will, succumb to those temptations.  I can disconnect my own views from his - it is Anakin's failures that cause him to fall.  As a player, I'm fine with Anakin falling - I chose to pay a character who is not "morally pure" by the terms set by the setting, or the game, or the GM, or perhaps even by my own standards.  Anakin's fall is a failure of the *character*, but a success to the *player* in role playing that character in accordance with his own personality - and, in D&D terms, his own alignment.



pemerton said:


> Of course they can be. I'm not the one who has insisted they be defined - you are! (Do I really have to trawl back through the thread to find the posts? In post number 530, you said that "we can have a deity of honour and heroism, can we not? Assuming that deity is, in some way, directly influential, that deity’s concept of honour and/or heroism must be determined in some way". In the post to which you have now replied, I _denied_ that this was so. That is to say, I denied that we need to "determine" a concept of honour and/or heroism to use it. Likewise in the same post I denied that we need to "determine" a concept of good or evil to base a game on the trope of good vs evil.)




Again, you seem to approach this in binary, requiring either no definition at all or full codification of every aspect of the definition.  I do not believe ANYONE comes into the game with no sense of what constitutes "honour", "heroism", or "good and evil".  These terms are not, and never will be, "defined entirely through play".  Nor will they ever be fully codified and defined, or definable, in every respect, in black and white terms.  



pemerton said:


> My point - which you seem still to be missing, or perhaps just ignoring for some reason - is that mechanical alignment requires the use of these evaluative words and phrases as standards, imposed by the GM as part of adjudicating and refereeing the play of the game. THIS IS SOMETHING I DON'T WANT TO DO. Hence I don't use mechanical alignment. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.




To take a step back for a moment, do you acknowledge and agree that it is possible someone might FULLY UNDERSTAND your point while still DISAGREEING with it?  I do not care whether you adopt alignment in your game.  It makes no difference to me whatsoever.  I do however, believe that you misrepresent "alignment" in general by your rigid interpretation of "mechanical alignment".3  I maintain that the "great moments in role playing" you cite as being impossible if we use alignment are perfectly possible in games where alignment is used, though perhaps not as you interpret the only way it could possibly be used, and that they would not be cast into utter ruin by the assessment of whether, say, sacrificing a friend and companion to a Dark God is a Good, or moral, action.  And I do not think a Samurai would be robbed of any playability, if not destroyed by bolts from the blue, because he negotiated with - or even **gasp** played dice with - ogres.  

By the way, I remain completely unable to see why you perceive the Samurai dicing with the ogres as such a huge deal, frankly, whether from a perspective of "Great Moments in the History of Role Playing" or "Horrific Alignment Violations".  The fact that you do indicates you are, in some way, evaluating the behaviour of the character (or the player) against some standard and concluding that, in a game where that standard has some mechanical influence, the player would be penalized in some way for this action.  Maybe someone out there who uses alignment can set me straight on the horrible error the Samurai has made.



pemerton said:


> I don't know if you are familiar with the plot of Wagner's Ring Cycle, but it actually has roughly the shape you here treat as a knock-down counterexample! Wotan (Odin), between the conclusion of The Valkyrie (the 2nd opera) and the opening of Siegfried (the 3rd opera), realises that the only way to restore a proper order to the world - which he, Wotan, has doomed via the pacts he has entered into which have permitted the dragon Fafnir to gain possession of the Ring, itself tainted by (i) its creator's theft of the gold from the Rhinemaidens and then by (ii) Wotan's theft of it from its creator - is to allow the emergence of a wild man unbound by any obligation or law. That is Siegfried, who - when he meets Wotan - uses the sword that he forged himself to cleave in half the spear on which Wotan has engraved all the runes that record the pacts and laws of the world.
> 
> So here we have Wotan, divine ruler of the world - and no slouch in the reasoning department - forming the view that the best way to serve divine order is to permit the emergence of a wild man who decides based on whim and passion, and that to proceed in conventional ways would only compound the problems that the theft of the Rhinemaiden's gold, and then of their ring, have created for the world.




Regardless, I don't see Seigfried as consciously seeking to serve the Divine Order.  I do see a lot of predestination in the whole plotline, which is not what I typically see in a good game.  Do you see Siegfried has having an alternative choice of being a lawful servant of the Gods?  Do you perhaps perceive Wotan empowering him as a True Servant of the Primal Order?



pemerton said:


> If a player was setting out to play a noble knight, I'm hard pressed to see why s/he would have his/her PC ride into a village on a whim, grab a baby, and tear out its throat on a whim.   @_*Hussar*_ has already discussed this particular issue well.
> 
> The player in the episode of play I described didn't have his PC decide to sacrifice his friend and (soon to be former) companion on a whim, however. So I don't really see the connection. And I also don't see the relevance of moral judgement. I don't need to make a moral judgement to express the view stated in the paragraph above this one. I'm just making a prediction: I can't imagine a player of a noble knight declaring, on a whim, that his/her PC rides into the village, grabs hold of a baby and rips out its throat. In relation to the sacrifice episode, I'm not making a moral judgement either. Nor am I making a prediction. I'm describing an episode that actually occurred during play (in early 1994, if my memory serves me well).




First off, in your description of the episode of play you described, there is no indication of any reason the PC decided to sacrifice his friend.  I mentioned earlier why I find play examples lose a lot in communication to non-players, who don't have the context or the backstory.  Second, the fact that he had a reason to commit a dark and evil act, and that it may have been in character for the character in question, in no way makes it moral or righteous - it more seems to me that playing the character appropriately (and I don't think anyone is asserting the character is being played inappropriately) meant playing him consistent to an alignment other than Law and Goodness, whether he started out with such an alignment or whether his moral outlook has changed in the course of the game.

Finally, *YOU ARE GROSSLY MISREPRESENTING MY EXAMPLE**.  I set the scenario for that noble knight (actually, I said "Paladin", not "Noble Knight") deciding he must tear out a newborn's throat with his teeth.  You have dismissed or ignored that scenario to recast my example as simple whim of a poor player.  The scene I had set (and I may be elaborating on it here), was that our PC's goal was to infiltrate and bring down and evil Cult.  After, presumably, much in-game work to make contacts and ingratiate himself with the cult, he is on the verge of acceptance as an acolyte.  He is now presented with the requirement to demonstrate his devotion to the Dark One by tearing out this newborn's throat with his teeth as a sacrifice.  He's in full view of the cultists, who are watching and waiting.  If he does not, another cultist will.  His decision is that infiltration of the Cult of the Dark One is important, and consistent with his Paladinly vows, and hew, the baby's dead either way and I might be at risk too if I don't do it, so...**CHOMP**

* Bolded caps to represent that I can yell as loud as, or louder than, you.  Apologies to other readers who may have been disturbed by the shouting.

Were the actions justified in the eyes of the character?  Obviously.  Were they justified in the eyes of the player?  Maybe - he could be role playing a fall from grace due to a focus on the end resulting in willingness to use vile means (the road to Hell is paved with what, again?) or he could really believe that "fighting fire with fire" - or "the end justified the means" - is an appropriate tenet of Lawful Goodness.  Regardless, that is what the character believes.  A statement that this is not what "the cosmos", "the deity", or even "the GM" or "the table" believes, and that as such proceeding jeopardizes the character's alignment, Paladinhood and/or standing within the Church of the Holy and Merciful Deity of Justice and Righteousness seems not to be out of order here.

It seems you disagree.  You seem to be of the view that this fellow, waving the corpse of the newborn in the air as its life's blood drips down his chin, should retain his Holy Aura gifted him by the Gods of Honour, Benevolence and Righteousness.  Well and good.  For me, that approach does not make for good gaming.  It may be a great game overall, and specifically in the events which lead to this turn of events.  But, at least to me, great gaming does not mean there are no  consequences for actions taken.  



pemerton said:


> First, you seem to be (i) asserting that no reasonable person could believe that an Arthurian paladin could sacrifice a friend and companion to a dark god, yet remain a paladin, while (ii) supposing that a player might take that very view about his/her own PC. Which entails that you think players will depart from what reasonableness requires. Why would they do that?




In order for "mechanical alignment" to be an impediment to that in-game event (you have claimed it not only would have impeded such play, but rendered it impossible), the player must "depart from what reasonableness requires" in this manner.  So I return the question to you - why would they do that?  I suspect that, around your table, the acknowledgement and admiration of this great role play did not include any belief that the character's actions were good and righteous, untainted by the slightest hint of evil or immorality.  

You seem to consider any acknowledgement that the character is not a bastion of morality as some criticism of the game play itself.  I am uncertain why that is the case.



pemerton said:


> Second, you seem to be supposing that _unless the GM imposes moral judgements as part of the adjudication of players' declared actions for their PCs_, then the game is taking place in a moral vacuum. That's such a strange supposition that I hesitate to impute it to you, yet I don't see any other way to make sense of what you're saying. But the notion that events don't have value unless someone sticks an authoritative label on them, which everyone else participating in the activity in question is then obliged to abide by, is so foreign to my way of thinking that I barely know where to begin.




I would say more accurately that I suppose the ability of each player to independently define "good" as "whatever I want my character to do" and "evil" as "whatever I do not want my character to do" to indicate a moral vacuum in which the game takes place.  No action can be classified as "good" or "evil", and in fact every action could be either, neither or both ant any given point in the game.  

You claim not to make any moral judgment on the action, but the simple fact you perceive the action as one which would merit such judgment indicates you have, in fact, evaluated it.



pemerton said:


> I'll take the example of the movie Casablanca. It is no part of authoring the script to Casablanca, nor filming, producing and distributing Casablanca, nor watching Casablanca as an audience member, to impose evaluative labels in some authoritative way on the actions or characters of Rick, or Ilsa, or Victor Lazlo, or Captain Renault, or Ferrari. But to suggest that Casablanca takes place in a moral vacuum would be absurd.




These examples seem to move further and further away from the setting of role playing games, but perhaps I have missed something in the movie itself.  Can you clarify for me which of Rick, or Ilsa, or Victor Lazlo, or Captain Renault, or Ferrari you perceive as a cleric or Paladin who is empowered by one or more Deities or Philosophies of Justice, Righteousness and/or Purity with divine powers and grace, such that the moral evaluation in question might carry a significant mechanical implication?



pemerton said:


> Moral implications can arise, and be judged by the participants in an RPG, without the need for the GM to adjudicate by way of mechanical alignment. My personal experience is that in fact moral implications are more likely to arise in the absence of mechanical alignment, because the players do not have the GM's judgement to hide behind. They have to take responsibility for their own decisions in playing their PCs.




How did those very reasonable and trustworthy people you game with so suddenly take to hiding behind the GM's judgment as soon as we added alignment rules to the picture?  It seems you are saying that, in fact, we need to remove the alignment system in order to force the players to take responsibility for their own decisions in playing their PC's.  Why do you play with such unreasonable players?  If they are not so unreasonable, then why do they need to be forced to take responsibility for their decisions?



Imaro said:


> I'm not @N'racc but I'd like to comment on this part of your post and the whole "trusting your players" line of thought.  The problem with the trust your players argument is that it ignores the fact that ultimately D&D is a game, a game where a player is advocating for their particular character. It is not a game where death only happens if the player agrees, it is not a game where you are constructing a "story" and it is not a game where individual awards, treasure, etc. are meaningless.  Thus there is plenty of impetus for a player to do what is convenient/best/optimized/etc. for their character...
> 
> I mean if I trust my players and they are all there to participate in a challenging but fun fantasy adventure... well shouldn't I *trust* them to select appropriately challenging monsters for themselves  and shouldn't I *trust* them to set appropriate DC's for themselves?  I mean if I can trust them to follow the edicts and code of a particular deity or cosmological force without advocating for themselves when it becomes easy or (in their minds) necessary for their characters survival... Why shouldn't I *trust* them to select appropriate treasure for their victories, or anything else in the game?   Yeah, as you can probably tell,  I'm not really buying the "player trust" argument.




Certainly, they should also be trusted to decide whether their character conception would mandate the success or failure of any endeavour.  Why can't we *trust* them to decide whether their attacks hit or miss, their saves succeed or fail, and their skill checks are successes or failures?  Why do we have mechanical health?  Why would anyone play with unreasonable players they cannot *trust* to decide, objectively and equitably, whether their character has sustained enough damage to be rendered unconscious, dying or dead?

 @_*Imaro*_, it seems we have been playing the game HORRIBLY WRONG all these years.  Worse, we have expressed such clear and systemic distrust for our players - our friends and noble companions here in the real world?  How can we ever atone?  Clearly, we must begin by destroying all our gaming books - we need no rules to game, only the trust for our players, whose reasonableness will create great gaming from nothing!

Lordy, Lordy, I'm on fire!

[And the mechanics of Enworld, which clearly does not trust its posters to be reasonable and behave appropriately, will not permit me to xp Imaro.  Hopefully some right-thinking and properly aligned reader will do so on my behalf.  I shall pray for the souls of the designers who place this unholy restriction on my judgment as a poster, for must we not love the sinner, yet hate the sin?  Can I get an Amen, Brothers?]


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The problem with the trust your players argument is that it ignores the fact that ultimately D&D is a game, a game where a player is advocating for their particular character.



I discussed this upthread. The fact that D&D is a game is relevant only if you get some advantage by (for example) being a baby-throat-tearing paladin.

In classic D&D there _was_ an advantage to being chaotic, because of the wider range of tactics permitted. Hence alignment was another part of the challenge mechanics: being lawful invaded trading of tactical options for healing/negotiation options.

But at least in my game, there is no tactical advantage in being willing to tear the throat out of babies. So there is no conflict of interest in letting the player play his/her PC as s/he judges ap


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> So, pretty much the stick then.  If I obey the strictures handed down to me by the DM through the DM's interpretation of alignment then I get to keep playing my character.  Is that pretty much how alignment is supposed to work?




Well, at our table I have to say its pretty easy for us to determine the difference between what a good and evil act is, so I do not know what all the fuss is about really. This isn't Vampire the Masquerade where one often explores the moral compass of fighting against the Beast to save ones Humanity. It's D&D for goodness sake.



> Yeah, no thanks.  I am perfectly capable of playing my character thank you very much.  I don't need the DM to police my behaviour.  And, as a DM, I have zero interest in doing that to my players.  I trust that my players are mature enough to be able to play their own characters without me standing over their shoulders telling them what I think is good or evil.




See, you tell me not to raise straw man issues about bad DMs, but here you are again painting a terrible picture of a DM using alignment, so excuse me if I don't take your objection to my supposed "strawman" argument seriously. A bad DM is a bad DM period.



> For me, N'raac's example paladin just would never happen at the table, because players who are responsible for the game won't make characters like that.  It just ruins their own fun.  I don't play with people who pee in their own pool.  I certainly don't need some mechanical stick to force them back into line.
> In fact, IMO, if the only thing stopping the paladin player from eating babies is the alignment mechanics, then you will have far more problems than mechanics can solve.  That's just a bad player in need of some attitude adjusting.  The basic premise of alignment - a tool to maintain character behaviour - again IMO - fails because any player who is so out of touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing will disrupt the table in a thousand other ways.  Any player who is in touch with the archetypes of the character he is playing, doesn't need alignment to stay in character and portray an internally consistent PC.




I suggest you read the thread in the Next Forum "PvP Class Comparison" - you will see PCs have often enough turned on each other for whatever reason. Paladins don't have to eat babies to be evil, just maim or murder a few of their companions for selfish reasons would suffice. I'm not saying they were Paladins but PvP happens, and if one is a Paladin and is able to turn on their companions and do evil one can certainly and easier turn on NPCs and do evil too. 
Eating babies is just the sauce.

What would you do as a DM then?


----------



## Sadras

Imaro said:


> In fact I am hard pressed to think of a game outside D&D (Besides clones) that uses alignment, in a way that directly impacts the game.




Vampire


----------



## Herschel

Sadras said:


> Well, at our table I have to say its pretty easy for us to determine the difference between what a good and evil act is, so I do not know what all the fuss is about really. This isn't Vampire the Masquerade where one often explores the morale compass of fighting against the Beast to save ones Humanity. It's D&D for goodness sake.




You like your games limited to being morally simplistic. That's fine. However, many of us have been exploring the grey areas for decades in D&D.


----------



## Sadras

Herschel said:


> You like your games limited to being morally simplistic. That's fine. However, many of us have been exploring the grey areas for decades in D&D.




Actually not, but I guess that my players and I have a common understanding between what constitutes a good and evil act and that happens within a long standing like-minded role-playing group.


----------



## Herschel

Sadras said:


> Actually not, but I guess that my players and I have a common understanding between what constitutes a good and evil act and that happens within a long standing like-minded role-playing group.




Like I said, you like your games a certain, morally unambiguous way, there's nothing wrong with that. For many of us though we like more nuance/depth/inner conflict. Alignment as a general guideline is great, as an actual moral compass it sucks.


----------



## Sadras

Herschel said:


> Like I said, you like your games a certain, morally unambiguous way, there's nothing wrong with that. For many of us though we like more nuance/depth/inner conflict.




LOL, do your subtle-not-so-subtle snide remarks usually offend people? Herschel I love you anyways, go on, give me a kiss 

But purely out of interest since I enjoy good source material, please elaborate on one of these more nuance/deep/inner conflicts your group has had the pleasure of experiencing that my morally unambiguous adventures can't touch sides on - give me some pointers as a fellow rpger to another.    



> Alignment as a general guideline is great, as an actual moral compass it sucks.




Upthread I have repeatedly referred to Alignment as a guideline, that much we can agree on.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I discussed this upthread. The fact that D&D is a game is relevant only if you get some advantage by (for example) being a baby-throat-tearing paladin.
> 
> In classic D&D there _was_ an advantage to being chaotic, because of the wider range of tactics permitted. Hence alignment was another part of the challenge mechanics: being lawful invaded trading of tactical options for healing/negotiation options.




Wait so there's no advantage to being a paladin of say Bahamut, that can call on aid from those who follow him... speak to the followers of said deity with some (if not necessarily absolute) authority and assumed validity, seek healing from the clerics of said deity (who should be helping him for little to no cost since he is a champion of their god) and so on...  The fact that you are a champion of a deity with followers and an organized religion is an advantage in and of itself that is only fictionally guaranteed for certain classes... because they follow the edicts of said deity. 




pemerton said:


> But at least in my game, there is no tactical advantage in being willing to tear the throat out of babies. So there is no conflict of interest in letting the player play his/her PC as s/he judges ap




So in your game a paladin or cleric can't leverage  fictional positioning to call on the resources of the religious organization that they belong to?  

Do fighter's automatically have an organization built into their fiction that they can use to their advantage if not what's the balancing factor of this?


EDIT: Perhaps I am speaking to a strategic advantage as opposed to a "tactical" advantage... but either way it is still an advantage.


----------



## Imaro

Herschel said:


> You like your games limited to being morally simplistic. That's fine. However, many of us have been exploring the grey areas for decades in D&D.




Well if you've been doing it for decades... apparently alignment didn't stop you so...


----------



## Imaro

Sadras said:


> LOL, do your subtle-not-so-subtle snide remarks usually offend people? Herschel I love you anyways, go on, give me a kiss
> 
> But purely out of interest since I enjoy good source material, please elaborate on one of these more nuance/deep/inner conflicts your group has had the pleasure of experiencing that my morally unambiguous adventures can't touch sides on - give me some pointers as a fellow rpger to another.




XP'd... This, count me as another who'd like to hear an example from [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]


----------



## Herschel

Sadras said:


> But purely out of interest since I enjoy good source material, please elaborate on one of these more nuance/deep/inner conflicts your group has had the pleasure of experiencing that my morally unambiguous adventures can't touch sides on - give me some pointers as a fellow rpger to another.




Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids. 

The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens. 

A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.   

Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."


----------



## Imaro

Herschel said:


> Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.
> 
> The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.
> 
> A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.
> 
> Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."




What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts?  Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this??  Are you saying that a party using alignment couldn't take on a situation like this?  Are you saying only by running without alignment could a situation like this be resolved??  

Seriously I am confused by this "example" it seems to just be a stated situation that could arise irregardless of alignment... and then two different perspectives on whether it would be enjoyable to play through or not.  What I'm missing is how alignment ties into the two preferences at the end of the post???


----------



## Sadras

Herschel said:


> Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.
> 
> The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.
> 
> A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.
> 
> Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."




Herschel I like the premise, but an adventure like this would still not give great pause to my gaming group regarding whether their actions during it were good or evil within the adventure. To be honest, we ran two campaigns within the Grand Duchy of Karameikos and if you are familiar with the setting, you would know there is a similar-type scenario there with Baron Ludwig von Hendriks (related to the Duke) and the halflings. I might have an adventure be published in a fan-based mag within a few short months - I will direct you to it should it happen, and then you may judge for yourself if my group and I explore these gray areas of morality.


----------



## Herschel

Sadras said:


> I might have an adventure being published in a fan-based mag within a few short months - I will direct you to it should it happen, and then you may judge for yourself if my group and I explore these gray areas of morality.




I'd be happy to. I'm also always on the lookout for new source material.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

Imaro said:


> What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts?  Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this??  Are you saying that a party using alignment couldn't take on a situation like this?  Are you saying only by running without alignment could a situation like this be resolved??
> 
> Seriously I am confused by this "example" it seems to just be a stated situation that could arise irregardless of alignment... and then two different perspectives on whether it would be enjoyable to play through or not.  What I'm missing is how alignment ties into the two preferences at the end of the post???




The situation presented is an opportunity to explore what the various alignments actually mean both in the context of the game and perhaps in the context of real life.  To some it might be pretty straightforward for whatever reason, but for others who want to delve deep into morality it certainly has potential to be more than meets the eye.

I believe the two preferences at the end are meant to represent those people who find exploring alignment and/or morality interesting ("Heck yeah...!") versus those who would rather not bother with something that loaded ("What a convoluted mess!")  The main issue is of course that it's not black and white like that and thus representing it as a binary choice without any kind of subtlety is a disservice to both the situation and to the players.


----------



## Imaro

Jackinthegreen said:


> The situation presented is an opportunity to explore what the various alignments actually mean both in the context of the game and perhaps in the context of real life.  To some it might be pretty straightforward for whatever reason, but for others who want to delve deep into morality it certainly has potential to be more than meets the eye.
> 
> I believe the two preferences at the end are meant to represent those people who find exploring alignment and/or morality interesting ("Heck yeah...!") versus those who would rather not bother with something that loaded ("What a convoluted mess!")  The main issue is of course that it's not black and white like that and thus representing it as a binary choice without any kind of subtlety is a disservice to both the situation and to the players.




I guess when someone is claiming that, because a person can in the game of D&D easily decide what is evil vs. good (notice this still leaves plenty of moral degrees between these two broad categories), they must in fact be playing a morally simplistic game... I was kind of expecting more.  I can see people who use alignment, as well as those who don't,  playing through the scenario presented without much trouble.  Not sure how it makes a case for people at a particular table who can differentiate between the broad umbrellas of good and evil in the context of D&D alignment necessarily having to play a morally simplistic game.

I guess I also don't subscribe to the notion that using alignment as it is presented in most editions of D&D precludes it's exploration by those who want to... A fighter has no restrictions on alignment that would stop him from exploring and/or forming his own ideas of what the different ideas mean.  The difference is that some classes (paladins, clerics, etc.) have accepted a pre-defined definition of what these alignments mean already, these classes are for people who want a different play experience concerning morality in the game.  Now if every class in D&D was structured like a paladin or cleric, I could get behind removing alignment but they aren't and there are options for both playstyles depending on the class on choses to play...


----------



## N'raac

Sadras said:


> See, you tell me not to raise straw man issues about bad DMs, but here you are again painting a terrible picture of a DM using alignment, so excuse me if I don't take your objection to my supposed "strawman" argument seriously. A bad DM is a bad DM period.




Quoted for truth.



Sadras said:


> I suggest you read the thread in the Next Forum "PvP Class Comparison" - you will see PCs have often enough turned on each other for whatever reason. Paladins don't have to eat babies to be evil, just maim or murder a few of their companions for selfish reasons would suffice. I'm not saying they were Paladins but PvP happens, and if one is a Paladin and is able to turn on their companions and do evil one can certainly and easier turn on NPCs and do evil too.




Ignoring PvP, are there no NPC Paladins and Clerics?  What strictures are they guided by?  Or does the GM also get to define NPC morality by whim?

BTW, one example of "great gaming that would be impossible if we used alignments" was a PC sacrificing another PC to a Dark God.  It may not have been PvP (no indication from the specific discussion, and I suspect not given @permerton's view of his players), but it's definitely PC v PC.



Herschel said:


> Like I said, you like your games a certain, morally unambiguous way, there's nothing wrong with that. For many of us though we like more nuance/depth/inner conflict. Alignment as a general guideline is great, as an actual moral compass it sucks.




OK, once more with feeling this time *NO ONE IS ADVOCATING ALIGNMENT AS A STRAIGHTJACKET*  That is the biggest and most common straw man presented in this thread in opposition to alignment.



Herschel said:


> Bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been guards and retinue killed in the raids.
> 
> The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the peasants as his concerns are more "high-level". A village is struggling with a crop failure and the bandits are giving some of the spoils to the villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.
> 
> A local sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the bandits.




As others have noted, there is no reason this would not work with alignments just as well as without.  Do we compromise Law in the name of Good or Good in the name of Law is a question any LG character needs to confront.  "Respect for life" is easy to say - which lives are most deserving of respect in this case?  Now, let's say our hypothetical team of paladins and clerics (with or without alignment) ride in, sees this and decides "Hey, you're all at fault here - so we will kill off the villagers, the bandits, the sheriff and his men and, what the heck, the caravan guards and the retinue as well.  The ruler too, given the chance.  

By the way, who decided the ruler "is not evil" in this game of no alignments?

Since all share the blame, all will share the consequences.  What could be more morally correct (or Lawful Good) than that?



Herschel said:


> Some of us look at that situation and go "Heck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!" while others look at it as "What a convoluted mess! Why bog down the game in all that? Make it goblins and the townspeople defending, I'm gaming not philosophysing."




So why does making them goblins mean that the moral issues go away?  Are goblins automatically evil without possibility of redemption?  Let's try an experiment (changes bolded):



			
				Herschel modified by N'raac said:
			
		

> _*Goblin*_ bandits have been raiding royal caravans and the _*human*_ ruler has hired the PCs to stop the culprits. There have been _*human*_ guards and retinue killed in the raids.
> 
> The ruler isn't evil, but he's indifferent to the _*halfling*_ peasants as his concerns are more "high-level".  *Besides, Goblins are evil.* A _*Halfling*[/I/] village is struggling with a crop failure and the *goblin* bandits are giving some of the spoils to the *halfling* villagers in exchange for shelter and cover as the best ambush points are near the town. The *Goblin* bandits themselves are struggling to survve as a rogue group of displaced peoples. They may not have set out to kill anyone in their raids but when fighting ensued it happens.  *Besides, they're just humans - humans are always trying to kill Goblins! *
> 
> A local *Dwarven* sheriff has already been appointed, and he'll torture the *halfling* villagers for information without mercy or glee. He may not like torturing the peasants, but it's the best resource available to him and he has a job to do which will save (*human* guards' especially) lives and commerce in the future if he can root out the *goblin* bandits.   _



_

That doesn't seem to have any different moral issues than if all involved are humans, at least to me.  Nor would mixing and matching the various races set out above.



Imaro said:



			What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts?  Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this??  Are you saying that a party using alignment couldn't take on a situation like this?  Are you saying only by running without alignment could a situation like this be resolved??  

Seriously I am confused by this "example" it seems to just be a stated situation that could arise irregardless of alignment... and then two different perspectives on whether it would be enjoyable to play through or not.  What I'm missing is how alignment ties into the two preferences at the end of the post???  

Click to expand...



Agreed._


----------



## Herschel

N'raac said:


> As others have noted, there is no reason this would not work with alignments just as well as without. Do we compromise Law in the name of Good or Good in the name of Law is a question any LG character needs to confront.




The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued.  



> So why does making them goblins mean that the moral issues go away? Are goblins automatically evil without possibility of redemption?



It doesn't have to be. If playing with stringent/simpler alignment views, goblins are evil, just like it says in the Monster Manual. Personally, I like the 'there can be a good goblin' trope as much as the next guy.


----------



## Imaro

Herschel said:


> The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued.




Here is the SRD defintion of how a LG character acts...

[h=5]Lawful Good, "Crusader"[/h]A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Now could you explain why a character who ascribes to the above (pretty broad ideals) would have to compromise any of them in order to deal with the hypothetical situation you put forth?


----------



## Herschel

The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?


----------



## Imaro

Herschel said:


> The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?




I'm sorry but how does this answer the question of what problem(s) specifically caused by alignment would arise?  A party could decide to do that, (of course it would probably depend on the makeup of the party) regardless of whether alignment was or wasn't implemented... They could just as easily not do this, or have conflict about exactly what to do... due to their personalities as opposed to alignment.  what problem specifically centered around alignment makes this scenario of gray morality impossible/hard/whatever to handle?


----------



## N'raac

Herschel said:


> The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued.




So what?  Good implies respect for life and law includes respect for order.  Does that mean a Paladin can't exist in a nation which has capital punishment?  Really, there should be no Good creatures anywhere  they respect life, so clearly they can't eat!



Imaro said:


> Here is the SRD defintion of how a LG character acts...
> 
> [h=5]Lawful Good, "Crusader"[/h]A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
> 
> Now could you explain why a character who ascribes to the above (pretty broad ideals) would have to compromise any of them in order to deal with the hypothetical situation you put forth?




Let's add



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Good Vs. Evil
> 
> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
> 
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
> 
> People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
> 
> Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
> 
> Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
> 
> Law Vs. Chaos
> 
> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
> 
> Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
> 
> "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
> 
> "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
> 
> Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
> 
> Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
> 
> Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.






Herschel said:


> The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?




That would make them killers, lacking a respect for life, so they should in turn be killed, right?  Again "alignment as straightjacket" is - well, I'd say "not being advocated by anyone", but those opposed to alignment seem pretty consistent in advocating "alignment as straightjacket" as the only possible alternative to removal of alignment. I can say it is not being advocated by anyone who is in favour of the game including alignment!

Just to clarify, I presented the exact same approach as a joke that no one with two firing synapses could possibly think of as "good".  Only those opposed to alignment seem to present it as "good".  And, of course, in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game, there would be no judgment of whether it was or was not good and moral.  So which games have simplistic definitions, again?

I would actually expect this approach more from the most stringent of LN characters - "the law is the law and can never be compromised". The sheriff is probably off the hook - his actions are likely egal.


----------



## N'raac

Herschel said:


> It doesn't have to be. If playing with stringent/simpler alignment views, goblins are evil, just like it says in the Monster Manual. Personally, I like the 'there can be a good goblin' trope as much as the next guy.




That same "logic" would mean all dwarven PC's must be LG, and all Elves CG.  Again, not the alignment rules but specific table rules.  Like pretty much every objection to alignment on this thread, the objection seems either one of "specific and extreme interpretation of alignment", "bad GM/players" or "playstyle issues", and not to the actual alignment rules.


----------



## Herschel

Actually, Dwarves would be LN. 

Some people like the strict lines that the alignment axis makes, some people use them as a foundation, some use them as a very loose guide, some prefer more nuanced methods and some only use them for non-PCs. 

This is why Alignment is fine to be listed but not have any mechanical effect.


----------



## N'raac

The SRD I'm looking at says "often Lawful Good", with Deep "usually Lawful Neutral or Neutral" and Duergar "often Lawful Evil".  Goblins are "usually Neutral Evil".

So, because people may use it differently, alignment should have no mechanical effect?  People use the magical item rules differently - should they also have no mechanical effect?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> I guess my response to this general argument is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of fantasy role playing games that don't have alignment in them much less alignment with a mechanical effect.  In fact I am hard pressed to think of a game outside D&D (Besides clones) that uses alignment, in a way that directly impacts the game.  This, IMO and regardless of how minimal people try to paint alignment in earlier editions (which I generally disagree with but will leave that argument for another thread), is a true D&D-ism and I'm finding it hard to sympathize with those claiming it should be taken out of the game when there are so many other games without alignment.  This is one of those things where I feel like if you want alignment gone or morally subjective paladins... then perhaps you are looking for a different "story" than the one D&D has been designed (out of the box) to facilitate for the majority of it's run.
> 
> I have no problem with D&D campaign settings that minimize or eliminate the effects of alignment, Eberron was a great campaign setting for 3.x that I really enjoyed running games in... but I don't think no alignment should be the default since there have definitely been more editions of D&D where alignment has had mechanical effects then not and it is one of those things that creates a gaming experience unique to D&D.  All IMO of course.




But, hang on, how is "I the player determine the code for my paladin and then play that character to that code" any more subjective (or less) than, "My DM hands me a code for my paladin and then I play that character to that code"?

In either case, it's still an entirely morally subjective paladin, it's just that instead of the player getting to determine his character, he's being told by the DM how to play his character.


----------



## Hussar

Look at @Herchel's example, I can easily see why alignment is an issue.

For you that are saying alignment is a necessary part of D&D, and the DM determines alignment, then any action the players take will be judged by the DM's interpretation of alignment.  If the DM has decided that helping one group is the "evil" choice, then a paladin, despite the player honestly believing that he is making the morally correct decision, can have all his character abilities stripped away.  The player has "chosen badly" and essentially loses his character because of it.

I'd much prefer that the player's interpretation be held as the standard.  Again, this isn't about bad DMing.  It's not.  We've seen multiple examples in this thread of differing opinions on the alignment of different acts.  And, again, we're not talking about variations on a theme here, we're talking about two people looking at the same information and making exact opposite judgements.  

No one is being bad here.

The idea that because the player is advocating for his character, he will then "cheat" by bypassing restrictions is not someone I want at my table.  If a player is choosing a character with a strong code of behaviour, then presumably he wants to play that character FOR that code of behaviour.  It's not like he's getting anything else out of the deal.  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] mentions paladins being able to call in aid from their religious affiliation.  That's very campaign dependent, number one, but, then again, it's not limited to any class either.  Nor is it actually built into the paladin or cleric class.  

Why can't my barbarian leverage his tribe for aid?  Why is my fighter completely isolated?  Can't he leverage anything in his background to gain help?  Can't my rogue character belong to a group?  My wizard is apparently entirely self taught and cannot gain aid?  Why are paladins or clerics any different?  There's nothing specific in the class that says any of the advantages that Imaro claims are inherent to the class.  Again, the divine classes don't even need to belong to an organised religion at all.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, how is "I the player determine the code for my paladin and then play that character to that code" any more subjective (or less) than, "My DM hands me a code for my paladin and then I play that character to that code"?
> 
> In either case, it's still an entirely morally subjective paladin, it's just that instead of the player getting to determine his character, he's being told by the DM how to play his character.




You're creating a strawman here since we aren't discussing *just* the creation of the code... we are discussing it's enforcement as well as its mechanical ramifications in the game and who (GM or player)should control that aspect.  You want to create your own code, judge whether you are following it correctly or not, and decide whether there are ramifications for breaking it or not... that is where we get into the realm of what I consider morally subjective paladins because now a player who is playing a paladin can justify nearly any action since it's his code and he's also in charge of deciding whether he has violated it and whether he should be punished. 

It's why a particular police officers isn't also singularly in charge of creating laws, deciding if he's committed a crime concerning said laws, and also in charge of sentencing himself if he decides he has broken the law.  the law is outside of him and he is not entrusted to create the law, decide whether he has broken it or not and/or what his punishment should be... even though he is charged with following and upholding the law.

As to the difference, I've already discussed it.  No participant in the game can be totally objective but the GM is the closest we get to that because, assuming he is a competent and good GM, he is not advocating for any one particular player over the well being of the game itself.  A single player though has a much higher impetus to advocate for himself than the other players, the game or anything else.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Look at @Herchel's example, I can easily see why alignment is an issue.
> 
> For you that are saying alignment is a necessary part of D&D, and the DM determines alignment, then any action the players take will be judged by the DM's interpretation of alignment.  If the DM has decided that helping one group is the "evil" choice, then a paladin, despite the player honestly believing that he is making the morally correct decision, can have all his character abilities stripped away.  The player has "chosen badly" and essentially loses his character because of it.
> 
> I'd much prefer that the player's interpretation be held as the standard.  *Again, this isn't about bad DMing.  It's not.*




Yes, it is about bad GMing.  IT DEFINITELY IS.  Any GM that can look at the scenario [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] presented and conclude that it is categorically "right" or "wrong" to help one of those groups is a bad GM.  The scenario is painted, quite deliberately, with a great deal of moral ambiguity.  With  no clear "right" answer, no answer can be "wrong".

Further, you continue to present the alignment system as encouraging, if not requiring, the GM to leap up and yell GOTCHA!  NO MORE PALADIN!!  No one has suggested that as appropriate play.  That is also a "Bad GMing" example.  A GM seeing a Paladin about to "knowingly commit an evil act" should be making that view clear to the player, and discussing any alternative interpretations.  



Hussar said:


> We've seen multiple examples in this thread of differing opinions on the alignment of different acts.  And, again, we're not talking about variations on a theme here, we're talking about two people looking at the same information and making exact opposite judgements.




I am old and forgetful.  Why don't you cite the actions where there has been legitimate disagreement over whether they are evil, and where it has been suggested a character's alignment would change (or Paladinhood be lost - a much lesser test as it requires only one knowing evil act) as a result of that single action.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> The idea that because the player is advocating for his character, he will then "cheat" by bypassing restrictions is not someone I want at my table.  If a player is choosing a character with a strong code of behaviour, then presumably he wants to play that character FOR that code of behaviour.  It's not like he's getting anything else out of the deal.  @_*Imaro*_ mentions paladins being able to call in aid from their religious affiliation.  That's very campaign dependent, number one, but, then again, it's not limited to any class either.  Nor is it actually built into the paladin or cleric class.




You keep presenting this side of the argument like the player has to be planning to circumvent the code from day one... but that isn't necessarily the case.  It was presented earlier that a multitude of situations could cause a player in a desperate situation or difficult circumstance to find it more convenient to skirt around or even ignore his code... And in a game where you leave it up to him to define his code, determine whether he violated his code and decide whether he will or won't be punished for it... you can't really call it "cheating" if he just chooses the easy route when it's convenient.

As to your other point I think it is built into both the paladin and cleric class... especially since they are giving up some of their freedom, both in their acceptable behavior and in who they can and can't have alliances with (and yes being the follower of a deity or cosmic force would imply that you are an ally with it and it's followers) in order to leverage those fictional accouterments.



Hussar said:


> Why can't my barbarian leverage his tribe for aid?  Why is my fighter completely isolated?  Can't he leverage anything in his background to gain help?  Can't my rogue character belong to a group?  My wizard is apparently entirely self taught and cannot gain aid?  Why are paladins or clerics any different?  There's nothing specific in the class that says any of the advantages that Imaro claims are inherent to the class.  Again, the divine classes don't even need to belong to an organised religion at all.




I'm sorry is there a point in character creation where a barbarian, by the books, has to declare a particular tribe to be a member of that puts restrictions on his behavior, forges automatic alliances and also creates automatic enemies as well?  Is this the case for any other classes??  Then yeah there is something specific to the divine classes that is absent from the others.


----------



## Hussar

I'm sorry is there a part of the book where a divine class has to be a member of anything?


----------



## Hussar

> Yes, it is about bad GMing.  IT DEFINITELY IS.  Any GM that can look at the scenario <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=78357" target="_blank">Herschel
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> presented and conclude that it is categorically "right" or "wrong" to help one of those groups is a bad GM.  The scenario is painted, quite deliberately, with a great deal of moral ambiguity.  With  no clear "right" answer, no answer can be "wrong"e




How can there be a coherent and consistent adjudication of alignment if the DM refuses to decide if something is good or evil?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Well if you've been doing it for decades... apparently alignment didn't stop you so...



Presumably you're aware that people have been playing D&D without alignment for decades. The first article I know of discussing the issue was published in Dragon 101 (from 1985), but it's not like that article sprang into existence with no connection to anyone's prior experience.



Imaro said:


> You're creating a strawman here since we aren't discussing *just* the creation of the code... we are discussing it's enforcement as well as its mechanical ramifications in the game and who (GM or player)should control that aspect.  You want to create your own code, judge whether you are following it correctly or not, and decide whether there are ramifications for breaking it or not... that is where we get into the realm of what I consider morally subjective paladins because now a player who is playing a paladin can justify nearly any action since it's his code and he's also in charge of deciding whether he has violated it and whether he should be punished.
> 
> It's why a particular police officers isn't also singularly in charge of creating laws, deciding if he's committed a crime concerning said laws, and also in charge of sentencing himself if he decides he has broken the law.



I find this odd.

No one is talking about _the paladin_ being the author of his/her own obligations. That is the precise opposite of a paladin, and very close to REH's Conan. I (and  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am talking about _the player of the paladin_ being the author of his/her PC's obligations within the fiction. The obligations, within the fiction, don't become less real just because they're authored by participant X rather than participant Y. It's not as if the moral obligations on Aragorn would have become more objective or more stringent if Tolkien had given those bits to someone else to write!

The comparison to the police officer is also a bit odd. The player of the paladin - at least in my game, which is not Gygaxian - is not in an institutional setting creating standing temptations to abuse of power by shaping norms and standards one way rather than another. The player has _no advantage to gain_ by being the author of his/her PC and of the standards to which that PC is held. Those decisions make a huge aesthetic difference; they don't make it more or less likely that the player will win the game.



Imaro said:


> Wait so there's no advantage to being a paladin of say Bahamut, that can call on aid from those who follow him
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The fact that you are a champion of a deity with followers and an organized religion is an advantage in and of itself that is only fictionally guaranteed for certain classes... because they follow the edicts of said deity.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Do fighter's automatically have an organization built into their fiction that they can use to their advantage if not what's the balancing factor of this?





Hussar said:


> Imaro[/MENTION] mentions paladins being able to call in aid from their religious affiliation.  That's very campaign dependent, number one, but, then again, it's not limited to any class either.  Nor is it actually built into the paladin or cleric class.
> 
> Why can't my barbarian leverage his tribe for aid?  Why is my fighter completely isolated?  Can't he leverage anything in his background to gain help?  Can't my rogue character belong to a group?  My wizard is apparently entirely self taught and cannot gain aid?  Why are paladins or clerics any different?  There's nothing specific in the class that says any of the advantages that Imaro claims are inherent to the class.  Again, the divine classes don't even need to belong to an organised religion at all.



Hussar gives a sufficient answer here. It has never occurred to me that organisational membership is some distinctive advantage that paladins and clerics enjoy, and other PCs lack. (Outside of certain mechanical expressions of it, like the discount clerics gain when building a stronghold in classic D&D.)

A cleric might be a wild hermit; a paladin a Joan-of-Arc-ish type whose calling is received independently of the hierarchy. A fighter might be a member of a military order like the Knights of the Watch. Many wizards in my games have been members of wizard guilds or colleges.

Anyway, I've never met one of these players whose paladin rips babies' throats but who also expects to walk into the temple of Bahamut in good standing. It's just not a thing I've ever encountered.



Imaro said:


> A fighter has no restrictions on alignment that would stop him from exploring and/or forming his own ideas of what the different ideas mean.  The difference is that some classes (paladins, clerics, etc.) have accepted a pre-defined definition of what these alignments mean already



Two things.

First, how is the player of a fighter free to form his/her own ideas about alignment? Won't a quick Detect Evil or Holy Word set him/her straight?

Second, what you say is "the difference" about some classes is precisely why alignment is an impediment to my play experience. _I don't want those classes to be different in that respect_. I want the difference between playing a paladin and playing a fighter being that one involves a divine calling and the other does not; not that one involves having to get advice from the GM on how to play your PC and the other does not.



Imaro said:


> What does alignment have to do with the preferences that you attribute at the end of your posts?  Are you saying that only those that don't use alignment would want to deal with a situation like this?





Imaro said:


> I can see people who use alignment, as well as those who don't,  playing through the scenario presented without much trouble.



The point I took away is that alignment has nothing to contribute to running that scenario.

If alignment doesn't provide any answers, then it is not doing its job of providing guidelines. Hence on that assumption it is redundant, and those who use alignment would play through the scenario no differently from those who don't use it. 

Conversely, if answers to the scenario are simply read of alignment descriptors as interpreted by the GM, then the GM has resolved the scenario before the players even engage it. Hence, on this alternative assumption, alignment makes the scenario pointless from  [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]'s point of view. But either way, alignment is making no contribution to running the scenario.



N'raac said:


> Any GM that can look at the scenario Herschel presented and conclude that it is categorically "right" or "wrong" to help one of those groups is a bad GM.  The scenario is painted, quite deliberately, with a great deal of moral ambiguity.  With  no clear "right" answer, no answer can be "wrong".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A GM seeing a Paladin about to "knowingly commit an evil act" should be making that view clear to the player, and discussing any alternative interpretations.



Here we see the two alternatives I mentioned both being asserted.

If alignment makes no difference to the players' choices for their PCs in engaging the scenario, then it is redundant.

If alignment does make a difference - if the GM has to give the player of the paladin advice on how his/her PC should or should not engage the scenario - then the scenario itself fails to serve the point that I think  [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] intended, namely, of forcing the _players_ to make certain sorts of evaluative choices.

There might still be a different point to playing the scenario: the paladin player might have a harder time of it, for instance, if certain options are off the table because the GM has advised that they would count as evil. This is how alignment makes a contribution to Gygaxian play. But I don't think that's the approach to the scenario that Herschel had in mind.

Of course  [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] is free to correct me if I've misunderstood.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> do you acknowledge and agree that it is possible someone might FULLY UNDERSTAND your point while still DISAGREEING with it?



Not really, no. I don't really accept that someone can understand my claim that alignment is an impediment to my play experience yet disagree with it. Because how would you know better than me what I enjoy in RPGing? How would you know better than me what is the nature of my experience? How would you know better than me whether or not it is a burden on my enjoyment of the game to use a mechanic that obliges me to judge whether or not my players' play of their PCs adheres to some evaluative standards that I am stipulating and applying?

You might understand my claim but be puzzled by it. But I don't see how you could have any evidential basis for denying it!



N'raac said:


> I maintain that the "great moments in role playing" you cite as being impossible if we use alignment are perfectly possible in games where alignment is used



I have never disputed that those fictional events, or similar ones, might not arise in someone else's game. In an extreme railroad, for instance, the GM might simply bring them all about via fiat and dominant narration.

But that doesn't prove that I would enjoy the railroaded game! What you sneeringly dismiss as my "great moments in roleplaying" are fond memories for me not simply because of the fiction that was created but because of the manner, the dynamics, the experience of its creation. The surprise. The shock. The tension. The horror. And all those things - the emotional response that make roleplaying a pleasure for me - would be different were mechanical alignment in play. As you yourself indicated upthread, I would have to do things like decide whether or not the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion was evil. And I've told you that having to make that judgement as part of refereeing the game undermines my pleasure in the game. So unless you think I'm lying about that, you yourself have to concede that, for me, the use of mechanical alignment would be an impediment to my play experience.



N'raac said:


> The mantra of yourself and Hussar seems to be "trust the players".  But trust extends both ways - why is there no expectation that trust be extended to (and earned by) the GM?



I am predominantly a GM. So, by his own testimony, is      [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. At least in my case, and I suspect in his also, my distaste for mechanical alignment does not spring from a lack of self-trust!

As I have mentioned several times, although you have not really acknowledged let alone engaged with it, one major pleasure for me in playing RPGs is seeing the players play their characters. This includes expressing and acting upon their evaluative conceptions of what it is fitting for their characters to do. I don't want to interfere with that. Hence I don't use mechanical alignment, which mandates that I interfere, by forming a view on whether or not the actions of the PCs are fitting from an evaluative point of view.



N'raac said:


> "Horrific Alignment Violations"



This, by the way, shows that you are missing my point. It's not about whether or not certain conduct would be an alignment violation. It's the fact that using alignment requires me to ask that question at all, to think about things in that way.



N'raac said:


> These examples seem to move further and further away from the setting of role playing games, but perhaps I have missed something in the movie itself.  Can you clarify for me which of Rick, or Ilsa, or Victor Lazlo, or Captain Renault, or Ferrari you perceive as a cleric or Paladin who is empowered by one or more Deities or Philosophies of Justice, Righteousness and/or Purity with divine powers and grace, such that the moral evaluation in question might carry a significant mechanical implication?



I don't accept the premise of the question, because when I play D&D _the moral evaluation of the conduct of a cleric or paladin PC does not carry a significant mechanical implication_. That's a huge part, though not all of, not using mechanical alignment!

So asking whether Rick's conduct is honourable or not is no different from asking whether the paladin PC's conduct is honourable or not. Everyone can have an opinion; the player - as author of the PC - gets to actually write the character, though.



N'raac said:


> I think the player makes the decisions for his character.  He does not decide how those decisions fit into the broader world in which he lives, so he does not judge whether those actions are Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> He does not get to redefine the Universe
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A statement that this is not what "the cosmos", "the deity", or even "the GM" or "the table" believes, and that as such proceeding jeopardizes the character's alignment, Paladinhood and/or standing within the Church of the Holy and Merciful Deity of Justice and Righteousness seems not to be out of order here.



When I play D&D, the evaluative properties of a PC's action are not part of the universe. They are not part of how a choice fits into the broader world in which the PC lives. "The cosmos" does not have an opinion. That's part of what it means to play a game without using mechanical alignment!

The player has his PC flatter a dragon; it turns out that the dragon is pleased. That is an example of the player's decision for his PC fitting into the broader gameworld. It is determined by way of the action resolution mechanics.

But whether it was good or bad, fitting or improper that the player flatter the dragon; that is a metagame matter. It is something on which each particpant is free to form a view, and to which each participant is free to respond. Including the GM, of course: perhaps the next time the PC meets an angel, it chides him or her for flatterig the dragon! And of course, if the player remains confident that his/her PC did the right thing, s/he can choose to have his/her PC chide the angel back. That flows from the fact that each participant is free to evaluate and respond.

So that thing that you say does not seem to be out of order _is_ out of order in my game. For the reasons I've given.



N'raac said:


> in pemerton's game, there would be no judgment of whether it was or was not good and moral.





N'raac said:


> You claim not to make any moral judgment on the action, but the simple fact you perceive the action as one which would merit such judgment indicates you have, in fact, evaluated it.



Of course I've evaluated it, in the sense of forming an opinion! But not in my role as referee. Not as part of the mechanical adjudication of the player's action. An onlooker might evaluate it to, but that wouldn't have any meaning from the point of view of the game rules.



N'raac said:


> Good implies respect for life and law includes respect for order.  Does that mean a Paladin can't exist in a nation which has capital punishment?



I think you intend the question to be rhetorical, but my response is Why not? If a player wants to play a paladin with the conviction that capital punishment must be stamped out because it's an evil, why would I want to stop that?



N'raac said:


> Were the actions justified in the eyes of the character?  Obviously.  Were they justified in the eyes of the player?  Maybe
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It seems you disagree.  You seem to be of the view that this fellow, waving the corpse of the newborn in the air as its life's blood drips down his chin, should retain his Holy Aura gifted him by the Gods of Honour, Benevolence and Righteousness.



It doesn't strike me as obvious that the character thinks what s/he did is justified. But that's probably a tangential point.

The puzzle for me is why you think my opinion as GM is more important than that of the player. You seem to suppose that the player thinks what was done might have been unjustified. If that's so, why not let the _player_ play out the consequences? And if the player really does believe it's justified, why is it so important that I override that opinion? How would that improve my game, in light of the play preferences I have expressed?



N'raac said:


> I would say more accurately that I suppose the ability of each player to independently define "good" as "whatever I want my character to do" and "evil" as "whatever I do not want my character to do" to indicate a moral vacuum in which the game takes place.



Tolkien gets to decide what counts as admirable for Aragorn, and gets to make his case. If you don't like his book - and many don't - write a critical review of it. If you don't like how I'm playing my PC, respond! I don't see what's so puzzling.

I mean, imagine you're in a book club. Reading LotR. And one person is arguing that Aragorn is a noble character, because he dedicates his life to a higher purpose, at great personal cost (eg to his romance with Arwen, to his material welfare), and sees it through. Another argues that Aragorn isn't admirable at all, except in some superficial and sentimental way, because the purpose for which he struggles is essentially reactionary. The book club doesn't need a referee to tell everyone which of these two pariticpants is right. They talk about it. They respond. Perhaps they let it go. Perhaps they decide to read some REH Conan to get another perspective on kingship within the fantasy genre. That's what playing an RPG is like, for me at least.

Is the bookclub a moral vacuum? I'm not seeing it. Likewise the RPGing.



N'raac said:


> Remaining true to your principals can, and often should, have a cost.



For a PC to remain true to his/her principals may often have a cost, yes. This is a staple of drama. But it doesn't follow that _playing a PC who remains true to his/her principles_ should be more costly (= less fun? I'm not sure what the accounting unit is for hobby gaming) to the player. It wasn't more costly for Tolkien to author the bits about Aragorn, who stayed true to his principles, than the bits about Saruman, who did not.



N'raac said:


> I do see a lot of predestination in the whole plotline, which is not what I typically see in a good game.  Do you see Siegfried has having an alternative choice of being a lawful servant of the Gods?  Do you perhaps perceive Wotan empowering him as a True Servant of the Primal Order?



I don't know what you mean by "True Servant of the Primal Order".

I also don't see why predestination can't be a very important part of an RPG plot. It seems likely, in my current 4e game, that the whole raison d'etre of the deva/invoker's long existence is to do something significant with the Rod of Seven Parts. Of course, what exactly that might be isn't clear yet because the game is still going, but that doesn't mean that whatever it ends up being wasn't, within the fiction, predestined!



N'raac said:


> The author does not create characters from vacuum.  He has a vision of the character, with history and upcoming events which fit within his story for the character.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is a well realized character who "authors himself", and it happens only when the author has a well-realized character whose "preconception of what [the character] is (or is not) capable of."



I don't see anything here about descriptors. And the bit about preconceptions seems to imply that a character who is authoring him-/herself could never do anything that the author didn't anticipate from the outset.



N'raac said:


> Imaro, it seems we have been playing the game HORRIBLY WRONG all these years.



There seems to be some confusion here. And perhaps some projection. I'm not saying, and have never asserted, that alignment is not valuable to your play experience. I have simply asserted that it is an impediment to mine. And you are the one trying to tell me that I'm wrong about that.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Presumably you're aware that people have been playing D&D without alignment for decades. The first article I know of discussing the issue was published in Dragon 101 (from 1985), but it's not like that article sprang into existence with no connection to anyone's prior experience.




So you are agreeing with me??



pemerton said:


> I find this odd.
> 
> No one is talking about _the paladin_ being the author of his/her own obligations. That is the precise opposite of a paladin, and very close to REH's Conan. I (and  @_*Hussar*_) am talking about _the player of the paladin_ being the author of his/her PC's obligations within the fiction. The obligations, within the fiction, don't become less real just because they're authored by participant X rather than participant Y. It's not as if the moral obligations on Aragorn would have become more objective or more stringent if Tolkien had given those bits to someone else to write!




I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the paladin and the player of the paladin interchangeably, since in the context of a player advocating for his particular character I don't see much practical difference... but to be precise I am speaking to the player of the paladin authoring the code, deciding whether it has been broken and deciding whether the paladin, his character, is punished because of breaking it, that should clear that up.

Now, where do I make this argument about the code being more "real"... the judgement of the code does become more objective (I never used the word "real" and I'm not even sure what it means in this context) if an outside party (presumably a good DM advocating for the fun of the entire group as opposed to a single player) judges whether it is being followed.




pemerton said:


> The comparison to the police officer is also a bit odd. The player of the paladin - at least in my game, which is not Gygaxian - is not in an institutional setting creating standing temptations to abuse of power by shaping norms and standards one way rather than another. The player has _no advantage to gain_ by being the author of his/her PC and of the standards to which that PC is held. Those decisions make a huge aesthetic difference; they don't make it more or less likely that the player will win the game.




Again, he has the power of an organization, cosmological force (and it's allies) or whatever behind him. You seem to assume everyone wants or likes playing ion your style where there is no gamism, and yet even your favorite edition 4e was used for mostly gamist play in both encounters and lair assault by the company who produced it.  What I didn't see promoted by the company was your style of play so I'm not so sure you're in any type of majority when it comes to the average D&D player or campaign.  So I'd say for most people their character surviving and gaining treasure and levels is their goal, regardless of how you see it.  ANd yes disregarding a code of chivalry or honor when inconvenient does make a player more likely to garner those things.



pemerton said:


> Hussar gives a sufficient answer here. It has never occurred to me that organisational membership is some distinctive advantage that paladins and clerics enjoy, and other PCs lack. (Outside of certain mechanical expressions of it, like the discount clerics gain when building a stronghold in classic D&D.)




I may be wrong here but I distinctly remember (in my limited play of pre-3e D&D) in modules where a discount on healing, potions, scrolls, etc. was gained by players of clerics whose beliefs coincided with a particular temple.   Perhaps someone with more experience could chime in with their own experiences, was this common in adventure modules?

As far as 3e goes, here are some excerpts that if not outright stating it, strongly imply that in certain situations the paladin and cleric classes can bring their organizational ties to bear in certain situations...

PHB pg. 29

"Clerics sometimes receive orders or at least suggestions from their ecclesiastical superiors directing them to undertake missions for the church.  They and their companions are compensated fairly for these missions, and the church may be *especially generous* with casting of spells and divine magic items as payment..."

PHB pg. 41

"All paladins regardless of background recognize in each other an eternal bond that transcends culture, race and even religion.  Any two paladins, even from opposites sides of the world, consider themselves comrades..."

DMG pg. 43

"Most clerics have an organizational structure built right into their class... Religions have hierarchies, and each cleric has his place within it..."

DMG pg. 44

"Paladins are knights , working for their church or within their knightly order..."

These two classes differ from the other class descriptions in the section of the 3e DMG because they are automatically assumed to be part of an organization while the other could be but it is not an assumption of the game, in other words ... 

can other classes join organizations?  Sure if the DM allows it, but it is not an assumed part of their background.




pemerton said:


> A cleric might be a wild hermit; a paladin a Joan-of-Arc-ish type whose calling is received independently of the hierarchy. A fighter might be a member of a military order like the Knights of the Watch. Many wizards in my games have been members of wizard guilds or colleges.




I don't disagree with this, of course my D&D game could have spaceships with advanced technology and dimensional warp drives (to use an extreme example) but I am talking about the assumptions of the base game, not what can happen in any one particular campaign.  A cleric or paladin could choose to follow no god, eschew all ties to organizations and travel the world as a true lonewolf... but the games assumptions are based on them belonging to organizations.



pemerton said:


> Anyway, I've never met one of these players whose paladin rips babies' throats but who also expects to walk into the temple of Bahamut in good standing. It's just not a thing I've ever encountered.




Shrug, I've seen some similar (though not as extreme) examples of this general behavior when playing in pick-up games or with people I don't know...  I'm curious, how long have you gamed with your particular group, and how often do you game with others outside of it? 



pemerton said:


> Two things.
> 
> First, how is the player of a fighter free to form his/her own ideas about alignment? Won't a quick Detect Evil or Holy Word set him/her straight?




No, that's all trickery and mumbo jumbo to the fighter... how does the fighter know it was really detect good or detect evil cast on him?  How does he know it wasn't a trick?  How does he know the spell granted by this particular deity isn't biased, or the magical formulae on that scroll isn't flawed?



pemerton said:


> Second, what you say is "the difference" about some classes is precisely why alignment is an impediment to my play experience. _I don't want those classes to be different in that respect_. I want the difference between playing a paladin and playing a fighter being that one involves a divine calling and the other does not; not that one involves having to get advice from the GM on how to play your PC and the other does not.




Why is having a divine calling and getting guidance from the DM on what the divine entails in his campaign world mutually exclusive for you?  let's say I created a campaign world where one of the things the PC's could discover about the world was that the gods were really ancient super-computers that occasionally malfunctioned or had glitches...  If I don't want the players to know what the divine is but it is a tangible and aware force how do I do that when the PC's are creating the divine themselves?  You know what, never mind I forgot you also don't play exploration based games with secret back story... Yeah the more I think about it the more I think that I don't necessarily want a D&D that ascribes to the narrow play style that you seem to favor. 

In fact, just as you have told us you have no interest in playing in the style we like for D&D when it comes to alignment, let me say I don't care if it's an impediment to your style, especially since in this very thread you commented on how people have been removing it and getting on with their games for decades.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything anymore, you've made it clear that your argument boils down to I don't like it and nothing you say can convince me to... so really at this point I find it an interesting enough discussion... for now... but I am really not trying to convince you to see things my way anymore...




pemerton said:


> The point I took away is that alignment has nothing to contribute to running that scenario.




We'd only discover this in actual play... right?  Putting that aside I think your interpretation is wrong.  [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] was supposed to be providing a morally complex scenario that [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] "simplistic" game morality (insinuated to be due at least  in part to alignment use) wouldn't be able to handle...  Of course he can correct me if I interpreted their back and forth wrong.



pemerton said:


> If alignment doesn't provide any answers, then it is not doing its job of providing guidelines. Hence on that assumption it is redundant, and those who use alignment would play through the scenario no differently from those who don't use it.




And this assumption is based on what exactly?  For a paladin the broad guidelines of alignment could help him deal with the situation while for a sellsword with no allegiances alignment might contribute very little to the scenario... In other words only play with and without alignment would actually show us what the differences would be.  I'm curious though, since you don't use alignment are you basing your assumptions on? 



pemerton said:


> Conversely, if answers to the scenario are simply read of alignment descriptors as interpreted by the GM, then the GM has resolved the scenario before the players even engage it. Hence, on this alternative assumption, alignment makes the scenario pointless from  @_*Herschel*_'s point of view. But either way, alignment is making no contribution to running the scenario.




Please go read what the purpose of alignment is.  Again we're back to either alignment is pointless with total freedom or a straight jacket as @_*N'raac*_ said earlier only the opponents of alignment present it in this (IMO, incorrect) way.

Of course another option is... that this scenario does not represent a scenario in which alignment plays a big part...  In the same way an encounter with opponents who are constructs minimizes a rogue's backstab... it is possible to build a scenario where alignment isn't playing a large part... though I'm not sure exactly what that proves??


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry is there a part of the book where a divine class has to be a member of anything?




 No but it is an assumption that colors the text of the 3e PHB and DMG , just like wealth by level is an assumption of the game...


EDIT: Upon further reflection...

Actually yes... Paladins are considered members of some gigantic Paladin brotherhood that transcends culture, race and even deity

Clerics are servants and followers of a deity or adherents of a cosmological force... So I guess the answer is yes, they do have to be.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> No but it is an assumption that colors the text of the 3e PHB and DMG , just like wealth by level is an assumption of the game...
> 
> 
> EDIT: Upon further reflection...
> 
> Actually yes... Paladins are considered members of some gigantic Paladin brotherhood that transcends culture, race and even deity
> 
> Clerics are servants and followers of a deity or adherents of a cosmological force... So I guess the answer is yes, they do have to be.




Imaro - reading the bits you quoted, do you not see the words "may" and "might" pretty liberally spread all over there?  "Most clerics" and that sort of thing?

Or do you believe that two paladins can never be in conflict?

There is actually no requirement for a divine character to belong to any sort of organisation.

I mean, reading the 3.5 PHB Barbarian (page 24)



> Barbarians come from uncivilised lands or from barbaric tribes on the outskirts of civilisation... Barbarians share no bond unless (emphasis mine) they come from the same land or tribe




So why can't my barbarian leverage his tribe?  He is supposed to come from one and shares a bond with any barbarian from the same land.  The bard class specifically calls out a mentor and the possibility of a "bard's college".  Why can't I leverage this?

In fact, just about every class mentions the possibility of being part of a larger organisation.  Some more strongly than others.  I had actually forgotten how strongly they tied clerics to a church in 3.5  But, other classes are certainly able to leverage their organisations.

I also note that when reading the paladin quotes, you ignored the bit in the Religion section which specifically contradicts the DMG quote saying, "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity".  Funny how you quoted the bit below that but skipped that line.  :/


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Imaro - reading the bits you quoted, do you not see the words "may" and "might" pretty liberally spread all over there?  "Most clerics" and that sort of thing?
> 
> Or do you believe that two paladins can never be in conflict?
> 
> There is actually no requirement for a divine character to belong to any sort of organisation.
> 
> I mean, reading the 3.5 PHB Barbarian (page 24)




It's not about whether in my personal capaign they can or can't be in conflict... according to the book they put it aside and work together... and this isn't stated as a maybe or might thing, it's stated as a fact for the class.  Any DM is free to run his game however he wants though.

Of course they have to quantify it with conditionals since doing otherwise would deny players the right to worship a cosmological power which doesn't have a structure hierarchy per se but does have allies in the form of creatures and beings allied with that particular force... Like say the paladin brotherhood with Lawful Good...  But the fact of the matter is that more word count is spent on the assumption that paladins and clerics belong to organizations and reap benefits from them in the book than on the assumption that paladins and clerics are lone wolves who have no backing, no allies and reap no benefits from their affiliations in the world plain and simple.





Hussar said:


> So why can't my barbarian leverage his tribe?  He is supposed to come from one and shares a bond with any barbarian from the same land.  The bard class specifically calls out a mentor and the possibility of a "bard's college".  Why can't I leverage this?




First where is this "bond" defined?  What type of bond is it?   

Second, Where does it have you pick one of these things (tribe, mentor, college etc.) when creating the character?  You *HAVE* to belong to an organized religion or a cosmological group in order to be a cleric and a paladin by default is part of a brotherhood.  This is a part of being that particular class.  You could, with DM permission belong to a specific tribe in the gameworld and be able to leverage it, but it's not assumed as part of character creation.



Hussar said:


> In fact, just about every class mentions the possibility of being part of a larger organisation.  Some more strongly than others.  I had actually forgotten how strongly they tied clerics to a church in 3.5  But, other classes are certainly able to leverage their organisations.




Not talking about possibilities here.  Being part of a group is inherent to the paladin and inherent to the cleric (as far as being integrated with their actual class abilities), it's not to any other classes.  



Hussar said:


> I also note that when reading the paladin quotes, you ignored the bit in the Religion section which specifically contradicts the DMG quote saying, "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity".  Funny how you quoted the bit below that but skipped that line.  :/




How does this in any way apply to the paladin brothehood??  Or is there some other point to this.  No he doesn't have to worship one deity, he could worship a pantheon, or follow a cosmological power but in D&D that is joining an organization or allying with a cosmological side.


EDIT: I also see a big difference between... I have a single mentor in the the entire campaign world that I might be able to leverage for help and ... Every paladin in the campaign considers me a brother and will aid and help me as I would him.


----------



## Herschel

Imaro said:


> Actually yes... Paladins are considered members of some gigantic Paladin brotherhood that transcends culture, race and even deity




Which is, quite frankly, stupid to shoehorn in to the game. Your "example" means all Paladins must be the same alignment, belong to hierarchal organizations and lack rivalries. Yeah, that's too simplistic and restrictive for many.  

The game has grown beyond that. 

1. What about the Paladin that rejects the hypocrisy of the church to act as the "Hand of his God"?

2. All gods even of similar outlook will still have rivalries, rivalries which spread to their followers. Heck, different sects of the same gods often come to odds with others. Paladins are somehow immune when they're the supposed Champions of their God? 

3. Paladins also are not required to be only LG. Somehow I doubt Paladins of Bane and Corellon are going to be all chummy. 

I could go on and on. You may like the game straightjacketed, but many, many do not.


----------



## Imaro

Herschel said:


> Which is, quite frankly, *stupid* to shoehorn in to the game. Your "example" means all Paladins must be the same alignment, belong to hierarchal organizations and lack rivalries. Yeah, that's too simplistic and restrictive for many.




Eh, when we start labeling the choices people like in a fantasy game about pretending to be elves and fighting gigantic lizards that can breathe fire... "stupid" I think we've jumped the shark at least a little.  Second your assessment is wrong... it means paladins must all be LG (which has been the standard until 4e changed it).  They do not have to belong to a hierarchal organization, and paladins don't have to lack rivalries... do actual brothers lack rivalries, yet still support and help each other when necessary?



Herschel said:


> The game has grown beyond that.




Correction, the game was never what you posted above... so it can't grow beyond it.   



Herschel said:


> 1. What about the Paladin that rejects the hypocrisy of the church to act as the "Hand of his God"?




He doesn't belong to a church, but he is still a brother to other paladins...



Herschel said:


> 2. All gods even of similar outlook will still have rivalries, rivalries which spread to their followers. Heck, different sects of the same gods often come to odds with others. Paladins are somehow immune when they're the supposed Champions of their God?




Again, unless they are robots so will paladins in any edition...



Herschel said:


> 3. Paladins also are not required to be only LG. Somehow I doubt Paladins of Bane and Corellon are going to be all chummy.




But you don't find a problem with these same paladins having access to nearly all the same powers... irregardless of their affiliation, alignment, etc.??

Yes in 4e and only in 4e are they not required to be LG... Of course older editions had variants with customized abilities like the anti-paladin, blackguard, champion, etc... but they were not actual paladins. 



Herschel said:


> I could go on and on. You may like the game straightjacketed, but many, many do not.




Ha!! I find the common powers, we all do radiant damage, across all paladins irregardless of god, alignment, etc. more of a "straight jacket" than the customized and specialized variant paladins of 3.5 but then different strokes for different folks...  but please continue to enlighten me on how the game has grown in regards to this issue...


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the paladin and the player of the paladin interchangeably, since in the context of a player advocating for his particular character I don't see much practical difference



I guess I do. A player can advocate for his/her PC and decide that s/he is fallen and in need of redemption - I know this because I've seen it in play. That is not about the character authoring his/her own standards, even if the player is authoring them.



Imaro said:


> You seem to assume everyone wants or likes playing ion your style where there is no gamism



On the contrary - you seem to be assuming that how others play their games is relevant to whether or not alignment is an impediment to my play experience. But I don't really see why it would be. That others enjoy playing with alignment, or find that their games go bananas with exploitative, baby-throat-tearing paladins when they don't use it, doesn't change the reasons I don't like alignment when I play and when I GM.



Imaro said:


> I don't disagree with this, of course my D&D game could have spaceships with advanced technology and dimensional warp drives (to use an extreme example) but I am talking about the assumptions of the base game



I don't really see starships and wizard guilds as being on a par in terms of deviation from the default assumptions of D&D. For instance, I think it's inherent in traditional D&D that the wizard has a mentor who helped the low level wizard write up a first spellbook.

But whether or not that is true seems tangential. Why are the assumptions of 3E - a version of D&D which I have barely played - relevant to whether or not alignment is an impediment to my play experience? And why are they relevant to whether or not paladins and clerics in my game enjoy an "organisational advantage" which brings with it the price of having to be played partly in accordance with the GM's dictates as to what counts as proper play?



Imaro said:


> Please go read what the purpose of alignment is.



I have. In 2nd ed AD&D its purpose is to create a "roleplaying challenge" - part of the challenge of playing your character is playing him/her within the bounds of his/her alignment.

In 1st ed AD&D there are hints of this too, though the earlier Gygaxian rationale is also present: that being Lawful and/or Good confers mechanical benefits (like better hireling loyalty) but also restrictions (like no poison, less sneaking and skulking, etc).

A variant on the 2nd ed AD&D approach also mentioned in this thread is to explore the GM's conception of the moral framework of his/her gameworld.

The 3.5 SRD tells me that "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." That implies something like the 2nd ed purpose: alignment sets parameters for your PC's behaviour, and you're then expected to play within them. An alternative reading of alignment in 3E would be that it's a tool the GM uses to work out how PCs are affected by aligned spells, though I don't think the game actually spells that out.



Imaro said:


> Again we're back to either alignment is pointless with total freedom or a straight jacket
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Of course another option is... that this scenario does not represent a scenario in which alignment plays a big part



I don't get the significance of the whole "it's not a straitjacket" thing. Either alignment provides guidance on any given occasion, or it does not. If it does, then the fact that there are other times when it doesn't strikes me as pretty irrelevant. If it doesn't, then apparently we have players making decisions without reference to it. Playing without alignment is just like that only all the time!

But anyway, while you and  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] obviously think this is a big deal, it's irrelevant to me. Whether alignment is a straitjacket or a gossamer jacket, using mechanical alignment requires me to do something I don't want to do, namely, evaluatively judge the actions my players declare for their PCs as part of adjudicating their resolution.

I also don't get the idea that  [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]'s scenario does not represent a scenario in which alignment would play a big part. I mean, it looked to me like a fairly rich and complex political/moral setup. What _would_ be an example of a scenario in which alignment plays a big part?



Imaro said:


> I've seen some similar (though not as extreme) examples of this general behavior when playing in pick-up games or with people I don't know...  I'm curious, how long have you gamed with your particular group, and how often do you game with others outside of it?



Into the 25th year for the group, though not that long for any individual member (the longest there is about 16 years).

I used to play with a fairly wide range of people back when I was a student ie 15 to 20 years ago. Now I play every two to three weeks with my group. (Plus in  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s play-by-post towards the end of last year.) I never found the throat-tearing paladin to be a big deal back in the 90s, but maybe things have changed. In the last 2nd ed AD&D campaign I played (late 90s), I was able to play a pretty devout cleric, who experienced plenty of morally dificult choices, without the GM enforcing mechanical alignment. (I think I had LN written on my sheet.) In Manbearcat's game I was able to play a paladin, and  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] an avenger, with religious and related evaluative questions being at the forefront of play, without alignment mechanics needing to be deployed. And this despite the fact that none of us had ever played together or (as far as I know) even met.


----------



## Herschel

Imaro said:


> Eh, when we start labeling the choices people like in a fantasy game about pretending to be elves and fighting gigantic lizards that can breathe fire... "stupid" I think we've jumped the shark at least a little. Second your assessment is wrong... it means paladins must all be LG (which has been the standard until 4e changed it). They do not have to belong to a hierarchal organization, and paladins don't have to lack rivalries... do actual brothers lack rivalries, yet still support and help each other when necessary?




Put away your passive-aggressive BS. I in no way said people wanting to play that way were stupid and you know it. It's really poor judgement to require everyone to play that way when many don't. 



> He doesn't belong to a church, but he is still a brother to other paladins...



So the other orders are going to give him a "free pass" just because he's a Paladin? 



> But you don't find a problem with these same paladins having access to nearly all the same powers... irregardless of their affiliation, alignment, etc.??



Why wouldn't deities give similar or related abilities to their followers in the game? It's also a matter of game balance and system mastery. If a Paldin of A is much more powerful than a Paladin of B, why play B? 



> Yes in 4e and only in 4e are they not required to be LG... Of course older editions had variants with customized abilities like the anti-paladin, blackguard, champion, etc... but they were not actual paladins.



 Yeah, they were. I still have the Dragon Magazine where they're listed as Paladins in no uncertain terms. They also have additional titles, as did characters of every level within the same class but claiming they somehow "weren't paladins" is disengenuous, at best.   


> Ha!! I find the common powers, we all do radiant damage, across all paladins irregardless of god, alignment, etc. more of a "straight jacket" than the customized and specialized variant paladins of 3.5 but then different strokes for different folks... but please continue to enlighten me on how the game has grown in regards to this issue...




Radiant was the keyword ascribed to general Holy/Divine power in 4E, but it was not the only one. There's Necrotic, Poison and other elemental also available to choose. But of course that doesn't fit your agenda to actually be accurate.


----------



## Imaro

Herschel said:


> Put away your passive-aggressive BS. I in no way said people wanting to play that way were stupid and you know it. It's really poor judgement to require everyone to play that way when many don't.




You said that particular style or way of playing being "shoehorned" (your words not mine because I don't feel it was shoehorned in) in the book was stupid... I never said anything about the people who enjoyed the game being stupid, only that you were calling their preferences (that concept of the paladin being in the game) "stupid"... which you were.  Not passive BS just calling out what you said.




Herschel said:


> So the other orders are going to give him a "free pass" just because he's a Paladin?




No, the other paladins are.  In the same way that I have close friends who follow totally different religions than I do and yet we can accomplish things together, have a good time together, work together and enjoy each others company.  It's amazing, I know... 




Herschel said:


> Why wouldn't deities give similar or related abilities to their followers in the game?




Uhm because they don't all possess influence and power over the same areas of creation...

or another reason is that the ritual that imbues paladins wouldn't be the same for every single religion in the world... I mean I guess it could be but that seems as artificial as you're claiming all paladins being part of a brotherhood is



Herschel said:


> It's also a matter of game balance and system mastery. If a Paldin of A is much more powerful than a Paladin of B, why play B?




*SHRUG* Yeah it probably did have something to do with balance... 



Herschel said:


> Yeah, they were. I still have the Dragon Magazine where they're listed as Paladins in no uncertain terms. They also have additional titles, as did characters of every level within the same class but claiming they somehow "weren't paladins" is disengenuous, at best.




No they are  in no uncertain terms listed as a variant of the paladin, so no they are not an actual paladin...



Herschel said:


> Radiant was the keyword ascribed to general Holy/Divine power in 4E, but it was not the only one. There's Necrotic, Poison and other elemental also available to choose. But of course that doesn't fit your agenda to actually be accurate.




Yes and were the keywords of these different powers used to differentiate different paladins in different orders, or following different gods, or of different alignments?  For the lion share of powers (because there are so many I couldn't possible be 100% sure), no they weren't.  So 
I'm not sure what this statement really brings to the debate??


----------



## Imaro

@_*pemerton*_ ...

You know the more I read your replies the more I realize neither one of us is going to convince the other as far as whether alignment adds to or detracts from our gameplay.  I totally believe you when you claim it is an impediment to your play, and hope that you can in turn believe me and others like @_*N'raac*_ when we say it is not an impediment to our own moral play in D&D and in fact actually enhances it in certain situations.  So with that said I think it would be kind of pointless to continue down our current path of discussion as we are both pretty much sure of our own games and how they play out.

Now, that said, I am curious about one thing and your views on it.  Earlier I said D&D is one of the few/only (if you don't count clones separately) FRPG's to use alignment in a mechanical sense, as a role playing tool, as cosmological forces and as a moral guideline for it's campaign worlds, gods and planes.  With the multitude of FRPG's out there that have no alignment in them or even alternate ways of dealing with personality and/or belief such as your often cited BW or Heroquest... why is it important that D&D become like the multitude of other games out there and remove the effect of alignment?  Especially when the point that it is trivially easy for someone to remove it themselves has come up multiple times in this thread?  Or am I misunderstanding and you are only advocating for how you want to run your own games as opposed to what the default should be?


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Into the 25th year for the group, though not that long for any individual member (the longest there is about 16 years).
> 
> I used to play with a fairly wide range of people back when I was a student ie 15 to 20 years ago. Now I play every two to three weeks with my group. (Plus in   @_*Manbearcat*_ 's play-by-post towards the end of last year.) I never found the throat-tearing paladin to be a big deal back in the 90s, but maybe things have changed. In the last 2nd ed AD&D campaign I played (late 90s), I was able to play a pretty devout cleric, who experienced plenty of morally dificult choices, without the GM enforcing mechanical alignment. (I think I had LN written on my sheet.) In Manbearcat's game I was able to play a paladin, and   @_*Campbell*_  an avenger, with religious and related evaluative questions being at the forefront of play, without alignment mechanics needing to be deployed. And this despite the fact that none of us had ever played together or (as far as I know) even met.




If we come away with anything of consequence from this thread, it is my hope that "Throat-Tearing Paladin" becomes a cultural meme!

Thurgon The Throat-Tearer has a nice ring to it!

(yes, bad guys have watches in D&D...and apparently most "tearers" are Pelor's crusaders...and they look curiously like Rambo...)


----------



## TwoSix

Manbearcat said:


> If we come away with anything of consequence from this thread, it is my hope that "Throat-Tearing Paladin" becomes a cultural meme!
> 
> Thurgon The Throat-Tearer has a nice ring to it!
> 
> (yes, bad guys have watches in D&D...and apparently most "tearers" are Pelor's crusaders...and they look curiously like Rambo...)
> 
> View attachment 60651



It's definitely an upgrade over "orc baby-killing paladin".


----------



## Manbearcat

TwoSix said:


> It's definitely an upgrade over "orc baby-killing paladin".




Those would probably be Corellon's crusaders.  I'd do another MSPaint but I'm tapped out.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> How can there be a coherent and consistent adjudication of alignment if the DM refuses to decide if something is good or evil?




Everything need  not be specifically “good” or specifically “evil” for the system to function.  Tying one’s shoes and brushing one’s teeth are neither good nor evil.  Injuring a man to prevent him beating a child includes elements of evil (intentionally inflicting harm on another person) and good (protection of the innocent).  

This can also be viewed as the GM deciding that something is neither good nor evil.  Kind of like the alignment rules themselves note for animals.

Another common misconception the anti-alignment team clings to is that alignment can either be eliminated entirely or must permeate every moment of the game.  This makes about as much sense as suggesting we must either remove combat entirely or we can never have a game session that focuses on problem solving by other means, such as social interaction.



pemerton said:


> First, how is the player of a fighter free to form his/her own ideas about alignment? Won't a quick Detect Evil or Holy Word set him/her straight?




If you read the 3e alignment descriptions, each ends with the reason that this is the best alignment – that is, the morally right choice.  Society calls this “good”, the spells even call this “good”, but my character knows with certainty that HIS WAY is truly “good” regardless of the labels others attach.  That 25+ INT and WIS deity of Law and Goodness?  He’s wrong!  My 25+ INT and WIS CE patron has the right of it!



pemerton said:


> The point I took away is that alignment has nothing to contribute to running that scenario.




And combat rules have nothing to contribute to running a scenario where the solutions are negotiation, not violence.  Should we remove the combat rules?  Or, since a battle against an undead horde cannot be won by negotiation, should we remove all of the interaction rules?



pemerton said:


> If alignment doesn't provide any answers, then it is not doing its job of providing guidelines. Hence on that assumption it is redundant, and those who use alignment would play through the scenario no differently from those who don't use it.




I agree if the scenario plays no differently, alignment is not adding anything to this specific scenario.  But it is also not detracting from it, as you claim it would from your games.



pemerton said:


> Conversely, if answers to the scenario are simply read of alignment descriptors as interpreted by the GM, then the GM has resolved the scenario before the players even engage it. Hence, on this alternative assumption, alignment makes the scenario pointless from  @_*Herschel*_'s point of view.




A simplistic and, in my view, misguided or wrong, approach to applying alignment in game in no way makes it a poor rule system.  We could also assert the players can resolve everything by just making Diplomacy rolls (one for each group) to convince them to mend their ways and be one big happy family.  Given all we do is read the diplomacy rules and roll a few d20’s with no actual lay, it seems clear the skill rules make the scenario pointless, so they have to go, right?



pemerton said:


> If alignment makes no difference to the players' choices for their PCs in engaging the scenario, then it is redundant.




I do not expect any other aspect of the game to be the focus in each and every scene throughout the course of a campaign.  Why would I expect this of alignment?  Maybe every scene in your game is resolved by rote in exactly the same way, but I don’t believe that is true of many games.



pemerton said:


> If alignment does make a difference - if the GM has to give the player of the paladin advice on how his/her PC should or should not engage the scenario - then the scenario itself fails to serve the point that I think  @_*Herschel*_ intended, namely, of forcing the _players_ to make certain sorts of evaluative choices.




To me, the answer to that guidance depends on the options being considered.  “Perhaps we should slay everyone in the nation, burn all structures, leave not one stone standing upon another and salt the earth” is probably something inappropriate to a Paladin, and the GM might want to suggest that (I would hope he does not need to).  But a number of different choices which are no more or less plainly and obviously consistent seem to exist, and there the answer would be “there’s no compelling answer in the scriptures/dogma/holy teachings/whatever”.  Again, we are back to the straw man that alignment means the GM dictates every choice to be made by the characters.



pemerton said:


> Not really, no. I don't really accept that someone can understand my claim that alignment is an impediment to my play experience yet disagree with it. Because how would you know better than me what I enjoy in RPGing? How would you know better than me what is the nature of my experience? How would you know better than me whether or not it is a burden on my enjoyment of the game to use a mechanic that obliges me to judge whether or not my players' play of their PCs adheres to some evaluative standards that I am stipulating and applying?




What I see is that alignment *as you (mis)interpret and (mis)apply it* would certainly be an impediment, but that the great scenes you highlight would be just as likely to occur, and just as great, in a game where alignment is used, rather than misused or abused.  And your claim certainly puzzles me viewed in that light.  So I continue to disagree with your contention that alignment would, without a doubt, detract from or even prevent entirely those great gaming moments.  Or that they could come about only through



pemerton said:


> an extreme railroad, for instance, the GM might simply bring them all about via fiat and dominant narration.






pemerton said:


> What you sneeringly dismiss as my "great moments in roleplaying" are fond memories for me not simply because of the fiction that was created but because of the manner, the dynamics, the experience of its creation. The surprise. The shock. The tension. The horror. And all those things - the emotional response that make roleplaying a pleasure for me - would be different were mechanical alignment in play.




First off, I do not “sneeringly dismiss” the play experiences themselves.  I DO sneeringly dismiss [pauses to sneer at computer screen and make dismissive hand gesture] the contention that they would be utterly ruined or impossible if a game included alignment.

You keep using this term “mechanical alignment”.  If that means “alignment which is used as a straightjacket, such that the GM dictates every decision made by the characters”, then I agree this would detract from the game.   But no one supporting alignment is asserting such a use of alignment, so might we agree that this would, indeed, be bad for the game and end that aspect of the discussion once and for all?



pemerton said:


> As you yourself indicated upthread, I would have to do things like decide whether or not the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion was evil.




Actually, no you would not.  You would have t assess whether the sacrifice of his friend and companion was an evil act, but a single evil act does not make a person evil.  No one is “without sin”.  Even the Paladin is cast down only if he *knowingly* commits an evil act.  



pemerton said:


> And I've told you that having to make that judgement as part of refereeing the game undermines my pleasure in the game. So unless you think I'm lying about that, you yourself have to concede that, for me, the use of mechanical alignment would be an impediment to my play experience.




OK, I’ll stop short of “you’re lying”.  I will, however, state that I believe you have an opinion of whether or not the action in question was, in fact, evil.  In other words, you made that judgment.  Apparently, sharing your opinion with your group would make the game less enjoyable for you, so I will accept that you do not want a system where your opinion would have any meaning on the game, or even mandate being expressed in the course of the game.  However, having alignment in the game would not in any way have prevented the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion, so the gaming moment would not have been prevented.   

Or are you telling me that, had you paused and said “Gosh that sounds like an evil action”, the player would have stopped, then announced his character was releasing his friend, and they would have hugged and gone home?



pemerton said:


> As I have mentioned several times, although you have not really acknowledged let alone engaged with it, one major pleasure for me in playing RPGs is seeing the players play their characters. This includes expressing and acting upon their evaluative conceptions of what it is fitting for their characters to do. I don't want to interfere with that. Hence I don't use mechanical alignment, which mandates that I interfere, by forming a view on whether or not the actions of the PCs are fitting from an evaluative point of view.




Again, the only ways I see alignment interfering with players laying their characters is when someone(s) applies alignment as a straightjacket.  For me, if my character’s personality, views and beliefs suggest  actions contrary to the usual mores of his alignment, then those are the actions he will take.  This may not be extreme enough to be more than a “bad thing done by a good person” – one deviation does not mean alignment has changed, nor does a single belief out of step with the norms of the alignment.   Perhaps that means the wrong alignment has been reflected on the sheet, and it should be changed.  Perhaps it indicates that his own beliefs have changed to the extent his alignment has changed.  So what?  I’m playing my character – if his alignment has changed, so  be it.  Why is this such a huge impediment, in your eyes, to role playing?



pemerton said:


> I don't accept the premise of the question, because when I play D&D _the moral evaluation of the conduct of a cleric or paladin PC does not carry a significant mechanical implication_. That's a huge part, though not all of, not using mechanical alignment!




So, again, is your contention that alignment itself is problematic, or only to the extent it is used to de-power characters?  If we accept [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s proposition that every character has a network he can leverage for support, then any time that network decides they are displeased by the character’s actions, the character loses leverage in the fiction – does he also get to define their responses to his actions?  When gear is destroyed, stolen, or otherwise unavailable, this also depowers characters – should that possibility also be removed?  Ultimately, however, if we can remove every mechanic that could impede the character’s power or progress, would this make a better game?



pemerton said:


> So asking whether Rick's conduct is honourable or not is no different from asking whether the paladin PC's conduct is honourable or not. Everyone can have an opinion; the player - as author of the PC - gets to actually write the character, though.




Sure.  But he does not get to unilaterally decide whether the character’s conduct was, in fact, honourable, does he?  The character certainly does not – he gets to define only what the character himself perceives as appropriate behaviour, honourable or otherwise.  The author does not – he will, of course, have an opinion, but he cannot impose it upon his audience.  It is, in fact, the audience who draws the conclusion.  And whether or not George Lucas thinks Han Solo should, or should not, have fired first, it’s the audience that ultimately assesses whether George was right *about his own character*.  George certainly gets to decide whether Han shot first – it’s his character, after all.  He does not, however, get to tell the audience (other players and the GM in a game setting) whether Han was right to do so.



pemerton said:


> The player has his PC flatter a dragon; it turns out that the dragon is pleased. That is an example of the player's decision for his PC fitting into the broader gameworld. It is determined by way of the action resolution mechanics.




Who determined how susceptible the Dragon is to flattery (did the player set the DC, or did the GM)?  Who determined whether the Dragon would listen to the attempt at flattery, or immediately attack (probably not the player…).  Who determines whether the Dragon’s pleasure translates to “The Dragon leaves and lets you take his hoard”, “I will give you a reward from my horde and safe passage out”, “You amuse me – I shall keep you as a pet”, or “Your appreciation  of my Dragonly virtue pleases me so much that I shall eat you last of all your comrades”?



pemerton said:


> But whether it was good or bad, fitting or improper that the player flatter the dragon; that is a metagame matter. It is something on which each particpant is free to form a view, and to which each participant is free to respond. Including the GM, of course: perhaps the next time the PC meets an angel, it chides him or her for flatterig the dragon! And of course, if the player remains confident that his/her PC did the right thing, s/he can choose to have his/her PC chide the angel back. That flows from the fact that each participant is free to evaluate and respond.




So that Deity of Law and Good forming and expressing an opinion is a gamewrecker, but it’s OK for the angel, a being of Light and Good, to have and express an opinion?  I’m seeing a less and less bright line to your evaluative criteria for who in the game gets to apply evaluative criteria.



pemerton said:


> Of course I've evaluated it, in the sense of forming an opinion! But not in my role as referee. Not as part of the mechanical adjudication of the player's action. An onlooker might evaluate it to, but that wouldn't have any meaning from the point of view of the game rules.




Nor is anyone suggesting, I believe, that the character may not take whatever action the player sees fit.  Only that the player does not also get free rein to determine the results of that action within the game.



pemerton said:


> I think you intend the question to be rhetorical, but my response is Why not? If a player wants to play a paladin with the conviction that capital punishment must be stamped out because it's an evil, why would I want to stop that?




Why not, indeed.  Most D&D paladins not only reside in a state where capital punishment is the norm, they commonly mete it out themselves as judge, jury and executioner.  Is the taking of life inconsistent with the ideals of Good?  Sure.  But the *ideals* and the *reality* are  not always consistent, and the character has room to maneuver within them.  Just as we might regret the need for capital punishment, yet still consider it a necessary “evil” for the greater Good.  



pemerton said:


> It doesn't strike me as obvious that the character thinks what s/he did is justified. But that's probably a tangential point.




I thought we relied on player integrity – if the player says he thinks it was justified, then it must be so.  The character took the action – that seems to make it pretty obvious the player thought it was justified, even if the player says “I as a player think it was not justified and was a moral failing on the part of the character”.



pemerton said:


> The puzzle for me is why you think my opinion as GM is more important than that of the player. You seem to suppose that the player thinks what was done might have been unjustified. If that's so, why not let the _player_ play out the consequences?




First, as I said, I am a fan of discussion around the table, so everyone’s opinion is heard.  Why?  Because everyone’s opinion is important.  Second, the loss of favour is just one more possible consequence of the actions of the character.  It is a consequence you are quite insistent should not be played out unless the player wishes to do so.  Why can’t the same player exert his will on the Duke, the Church or anything else in the game setting, as you insist he should be able to do on the deity or forces that grant him their power.  “The cosmos” has enough of an opinion to grant powers to clerics and Paladins – how can it reasonably follow it has no opinion on who should receive those powers, or whether they should continue to be granted?



pemerton said:


> Tolkien gets to decide what counts as admirable for Aragorn, and gets to make his case.




And the player gets, or should get, to make his case as well.  He does not, however, get to decide whether his case is successful.  In Tolkein’s case, the audience makes that decision.  BTW, where in LoTR does Tolkein state his opinion of whether Aragorn is admirable or reprehensible?  He writes the actions of Aragorn (player roe) and the reactions of the rest of the world (other players and GM role).  He does not, however, evaluate whether Aragorn is, in fact, admirable.  Mechanically, he only sets what the others in the story believe.  Since Aragorn does not derive any special powers from the deities of the LoTR world, or cosmic forces, etc., he stands no risk of losing those powers if these forces disapprove of his actions, and/or the use of the powers they have granted.

The bookclub example screams out for the simple rejoinder that books are books, and games are games.  You insist on bringing in comparisons that are not truly comparable.  The book club doesn’t get to decide that Aragiorn is not restored to the throne after all, even if they reach a consensus that he’s really not admirable at all.  By the way, is Aragorn a PC, or just an NPC in our game of Hobbits on the Road?



pemerton said:


> For a PC to remain true to his/her principals may often have a cost, yes. This is a staple of drama. But it doesn't follow that _playing a PC who remains true to his/her principles_ should be more costly (= less fun?




It does not strike me that having a cost of adhering to a character’s principals automatically makes the game “less fun” for the player.  A lot of the fun is in playing out the challenges.  Do your players get to individually dictate the resolution of all challenges in your game, or only the moral ones?



pemerton said:


> I also don't see why predestination can't be a very important part of an RPG plot. It seems likely, in my current 4e game, that the whole raison d'etre of the deva/invoker's long existence is to do something significant with the Rod of Seven Parts. Of course, what exactly that might be isn't clear yet because the game is still going, but that doesn't mean that whatever it ends up being wasn't, within the fiction, predestined!




Fiction is predestined in that the author knows, at least in broad strokes, precisely what will happen and how we will get there.  There is no possibility that Siegfried will not take precisely the correct actions desired by Wagner to bring the story to its desired conclusion.  Simply calling it “predestined” after the fact does not make it predestined.  Can Siegfried say “A frickin’ DRAGON?  To hell with the Rhinegold – I’m going after easier prey?”  Your players can, or I assume they can, decide to chuck the whole Rod of Seven Parts aspect of their quest.  The fact that this will make it predestined that they did so, retroactively, is not even comparable.



Imaro said:


> Shrug, I've seen some similar (though not as extreme) examples of this general behavior when playing in pick-up games or with people I don't know...  I'm curious, how long have you gamed with your particular group, and how often do you game with others outside of it?




I second this question.  Clearly, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you are aware of lots of games and gamers that play differently than you and your group.



Imaro said:


> No, that's all trickery and mumbo jumbo to the fighter... how does the fighter know it was really detect good or detect evil cast on him?  How does he know it wasn't a trick?  How does he know the spell granted by this particular deity isn't biased, or the magical formulae on that scroll isn't flawed?




Or the caster simply lied.  Charlatan!





Imaro said:


> In fact, just as you have told us you have no interest in playing in the style we like for D&D when it comes to alignment, let me say I don't care if it's an impediment to your style, especially since in this very thread you commented on how people have been removing it and getting on with their games for decades.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything anymore, you've made it clear that your argument boils down to I don't like it and nothing you say can convince me to... so really at this point I find it an interesting enough discussion... for now... but I am really not trying to convince you to see things my way anymore...




Ditto.



Imaro said:


> And this assumption is based on what exactly?  For a paladin the broad guidelines of alignment could help him deal with the situation while for a sellsword with no allegiances alignment might contribute very little to the scenario... In other words only play with and without alignment would actually show us what the differences would be.  I'm curious though, since you don't use alignment are you basing your assumptions on?




This is a good point – a group of LG characters (whether by name in a game with alignment or by personality and principal, and the latter is more important than the former, IMO) will struggle with the right thing to do.  Where the Sellsword, morally ambivalent, doesn’t give a damn.  The Ruler said Kill the bandits.  He’s handing out the gold.  He calls the shots.  Kill the bandits.  If the villagers have to be tortured to find the bandits, it’s torch to the groin time.  Screw the villagers – the ruler’s not paying us to look after them.

Which group will create a better story out of the scenario [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] has painted?



Hussar said:


> Or do you believe that two paladins can never be in conflict?




No.  Only someone who (mis)interprets alignment as a straightjacket would come to that conclusion.  And that (mis)interpretation and erroneous conclusion seems to be shared by most, if not all, those who find alignment is an impediment, based on the posts on this thread.

Seriously, have you ever worked in an organization?  People with common goals and objectives disagree ALL THE TIME.  It doesn’t mean that any co-worker who disagrees with me is Chaotic or Evil (or Lawful or Good if I’m CE.

To those who "don't apply moral judgment in their games", it seems strange to me that you then tell us that you have never seen a player suggest some extreme action (the baby-killing Paladin, say) taken because you game with reasonable players.  By extension, you seem to be saying no one reasonable could envision a Good person carrying out such an action.  Thus, you have already made a moral judgment about the action in question, have you not?  Your suggestion that you don't. and won't, game with unreasonable players further suggests that this moral judgment does, in fact, make its way to your game,  not in the form of judgment at the table, but in the form of who even receives an invitation to sit at that table.


----------



## Cadence

Digging for quotes for an unrelated thread, I stumbled upon this.  Given it's position in the text I must have read it multiple times, but I honestly have no recollection of ever seeing it before...   



			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> It is incumbent upon all DMs to be thoroughly conversant with the PLAYERS HANDBOOK, and at the same time you must also know the additional information which is given in this volume, for it rounds out and completes the whole. While players will know that they must decide upon an alignment, for example, you, the DM, will further know that each and every action they take will be mentally recorded by you; and at adventure's end you will secretly note any player character movement on the alignment graph.




[Apologies if it was already quoted up-thread.  If it was, maybe my brain is just trying to block it out.]

At first blush, it certainly seems a bit at odds with what comes two pages later...



			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> If personality traits are forced upon PCs, then participants will be doing little more than moving automatons around while you, the DM, tell them how their characters react to situations.  It is therefore absolutely necessary for you to allow each player the right to develop his or her characters as he or she chooses!


----------



## Nagol

Cadence said:


> Digging for quotes for an unrelated thread, I stumbled upon this.  Given it's position in the text I must have read it multiple times, but I honestly have no recollection of ever seeing it before...
> 
> 
> 
> [Apologies if it was already quoted up-thread.  If it was, maybe my brain is just trying to block it out.]
> 
> At first blush, it certainly seems a bit at odds with what comes two pages later...




Not really at odds.  The player is the one controlling alignment choice.  The player is the one controlling PC choice. 

The DM is acting as an independent passive observer of the PC actions and comparing with player-stated expectations.  At no point in the quote is the DM encouraged to interfere with player choice.

The player reaps the consequence of claiming one alignment whilst playing another should that be the case.


----------



## Cadence

Nagol said:


> Not really at odds.  The player is the one controlling alignment choice.  The player is the one controlling PC choice.
> 
> The DM is acting as an independent passive observer of the PC actions and comparing with player-stated expectations.  At no point in the quote is the DM encouraged to interfere with player choice.
> 
> The player reaps the consequence of claiming one alignment whilst playing another should that be the case.




The DMs, and only the DMs, interpretation of the alignment...  



			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> Such a drift should be noted by you, and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment.




... that comes with severe penalties for violating...



			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> Change of alignment will have an adverse effect on any class of character if he or she is above the 2nd level.
> 
> Immediately upon alignment change, actually occurring, the character concerned will lose one level of experience...




... that the player's don't even know could happen.



			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> It is recommended that you do not inform players of the penalty which will occur with alignment change...




So, apparently, heaven help you if the personality you are free to choose doesn't fit neatly into one of the 9 silo's as interpreted by the DM!     (I think if the notes on alignment hadn't been softened in 2e, 3/3.5, and PF I'd have to switch to @_*pemerton*_ 's side completely... hoping there was no XP penalty for the change.)


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> To those who "don't apply moral judgment in their games", it seems strange to me that you then tell us that you have never seen a player suggest some extreme action (the baby-killing Paladin, say) taken because you game with reasonable players.  By extension, you seem to be saying no one reasonable could envision a Good person carrying out such an action.  Thus, you have already made a moral judgment about the action in question, have you not?  Your suggestion that you don't. and won't, game with unreasonable players further suggests that this moral judgment does, in fact, make its way to your game,  not in the form of judgment at the table, but in the form of who even receives an invitation to sit at that table.




I'm mostly disconnected from much of this conversation but I was reading  [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]'s rumination upon the 1e DMG below when this caught my eye at the top of the screen.  So much of this conversation is so broad and winding that its hard to pin down and dissect component parts.  But on this I think I can provide clarifying, focused commentary.  I'll start from the bottom and work my way upward.

1)  In the same way that everyone makes (or at least attempts to) informed decisions on whom to allow into their intimate inner circle (based on judgements, moral and other), I'm sure most everyone does the same for their home table.  I don't think that, due to this extra-game reality, it then follows that a an examination of their position on alignment in-game bears out fallible self-examination generally or hypocrisy and/or a lack of self-awareness specifically.  Prioritizing and/or mandating values amongst chosen friends in real life seems to share little in common with what position one takes on ethos governance mechanics (and how those mechanics, or lacktherof, might expand or contract narrative dynamism and player agency) in TTRPGs.  If I'm wrong then good deal, but it seems as though your implying that one must follow the other to maintain internal consistency?

2)  I'm certain that GMs apply moral judgements in their games, with or without ethos governance mechanics.  Even if the metaphysical world doesn't respond (such as by a mandated cosmological "soul shift" so that new abjurations or evocations affect the party in the physical world), the physical world surely will.  Consider the PBP that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned above.  In that game,  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s long, lost lover turned out to be the antagonist that was destabilizing the kingdom from within.  Due to the dark, possessive force of her patron (she "turned to the dark side" at some point in the uncanvassed backstory), the Unseelie Agent delivered unto the world many terrible acts, up to and including assassinating Thurgon's former Lord Commander and recently arranging for a the assassination of the King and Queen by a Night Hag (making it look like natural deaths in their sleep).  During play,  [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and Campbell "turned her from the dark side", purifying her spirit and bringing her back into the fold of her former deity (Campbell's current deity).  However, make no mistake about it, she would be facing a death penalty by the King's hand.  If Lucann (Campbell's character) stood in the way or created conflict, he would immediately be cast an outlaw in defiance of the King's Justice.  I would have framed this situation to challenge the old bonds (between elves and men) that Lucann was looking to renew.  What would come of this conflict would be relevant to his character and how it would unfold would be decided in play.

I'm certain that none of the PCs at the proverbial table would have protested this "physical" moral judgement.  What's more, this is precisely the type of conflict that Lucann's backstory asked for.  Its precisely the kind of conflict that Thurgon, as a protector of the realm, should be entrenched in.  It would make their lives hard and it would certainly be a moral judgement with repercussions.  But they would enjoy the play and I would surmise that they would expect that "physical" moral judgement.


----------



## Nagol

Cadence said:


> The DMs, and only the DMs, interpretation of the alignment...
> 
> 
> 
> ... that comes with severe penalties for violating...
> 
> 
> 
> ... that the player's don't even know could happen.
> 
> 
> 
> So, apparently, heaven help you if the personality you are free to choose doesn't fit neatly into one of the 9 silo's as interpreted by the DM!     (I think if the notes on alignment hadn't been softened in 2e, 3/3.5, and PF I'd have to switch to @_*pemerton*_ 's side completely... hoping there was no XP penalty for the change.)




The DM is the only one to interpret alignment in much the same way as the DM is the only one to adjudicate anything in the game world. Imaro has given sound justification for such earlier in the thread.

The are penalties if your alignment change happens sometime other than the early stages of a PC's career.  A player likely has several sessions and many situations to stabilise the character's personality and hence alignment before any penalty is applied.  And the penalty -- although severe on the surface -- is no worse than being touched by a wight once (IOW other in-game effects are at least as bad and although it is a setback, it leaves the PC playable).    Additionally, there are tools available to the gaming group that can help ascertain alignment drift ahead of time (though some of that is limited by DM willingness to bring them into campaign play).

The players may not know the penalty initially, but it is certain they will remember it if it strikes someone in their group.  IOW it is part of the exploration of the game engine.

I did appreciate the softening of alignment conversion under 2e, truth be told.  I felt 1e was too draconian in its take.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> the more I read your replies the more I realize neither one of us is going to convince the other as far as whether alignment adds to or detracts from our gameplay.



You don't have to convince me of anything - you've told me you like alignment, and I believe you.

As neither you nor [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] has posted any actual play examples or explanations of how you use alignment in your games, I'm not 100% sure how exactly you use it - I'm assuming either similar to [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] or similar to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], both of whom did explain how they use alignment (respectively, to explore the GM's conception of the gameworld/cosmology, and as a roleplaying challenge adjudicated by the GM). Based on my own play experience with various players and GMs I can at least roughly envisage what your use of alignment might look like.

But upthread someone asked whether alignment had ever been an impediment to anyone's play experience, and I answered. And have since explained why, I believe in som detail. 



Imaro said:


> D&D is one of the few/only (if you don't count clones separately) FRPG's to use alignment in a mechanical sense, as a role playing tool, as cosmological forces and as a moral guideline for it's campaign worlds, gods and planes.  With the multitude of FRPG's out there that have no alignment in them or even alternate ways of dealing with personality and/or belief such as your often cited BW or Heroquest... why is it important that D&D become like the multitude of other games out there and remove the effect of alignment?



I assume that D&Dnext will ship with alignment written in as the default. I would be surprised, though, if they build in the strong mechanical effects of alignment that begin with AD&D and culminate in 3E. I would expect it to be more like B/X or 4e, in which alignment is presented as something like a personality descriptor combined with a team label, but has no mechanical effect. (Or almost none: 4e has a couple of powers, both PC and NPC/monster, that are alignment-based, but they are trivial to ignore and I imagine the majority of 4e players have never encountered them in play; Moldvay suggests that if a player is not playing his/her PC's alignment properly, the GM may suggest a change of alignment or impose a punishment or penalty, but there is no elaboration. Neither has any mechanical systems around fallen or ex-clerics/paladins.)

For instance, looking at the current playtest: clerics and paladins have alignment-typed damage (radiant or necrotic) but no strict alignment restrictions (there is a sidebar suggesting that clerics are normally within one of their god's alignment, and paladins of devotion get their powers by praying in temples of good and lawful gods). They can Smite whomever they want; there is no alignment constraint as per 3E's Smite Evil. Even monks are described only as mostly lawful. I didn't find any discussion of alignment in the How to Play or DM Guidelines documents. The only place I found it discussed was under Creating a Character.

The reasons for adopting the approach I just described I think are fairly straightforward: those who don't use alignment, or use it only as a light-touch personality shorthand, can easily cope with the above description. While those who want something mechanically heavier, along the lines of AD&D or 3E, can easily incorporate the mechanical and adjudicative techniques with which they are familiar.

And I am pretty sure that the number of people who don't use alignment, or use it only a very light touch way, is pretty big. I would suspect it's the single most-ignored mechanical element of traditional D&D.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Digging for quotes for an unrelated thread, I stumbled upon this.  Given it's position in the text I must have read it multiple times, but I honestly have no recollection of ever seeing it before...





Cadence said:


> The DMs, and only the DMs, interpretation of the alignment...
> 
> ... that comes with severe penalties for violating...
> 
> ... that the player's don't even know could happen.
> 
> So, apparently, heaven help you if the personality you are free to choose doesn't fit neatly into one of the 9 silo's as interpreted by the DM!     (I think if the notes on alignment hadn't been softened in 2e, 3/3.5, and PF I'd have to switch to pemerton's side completely... hoping there was no XP penalty for the change.)



Cadence, I don't think those passages have been quoted upthread, but they're definitely the ones I've had in mind in talking about why mechanical aligment is an impediment to my preferred style of play.

And I am not being snide (or not meaning to be) when I say that I don't fully follow the "softening" in 2nd ed AD&D (or 3E, which has some similar language about not being a straitjacket).

For instance, on p 49 the 2nd ed PHB says

It is possible for a player to change his character's alignment after the character is created, either by action or choice. Howeer, changing alignment is not without its penalties. . .

Several occasions of lax behaviour are required before the character's alignment changes officially. . .

Although the player may have a good idea of where the character's alignment lies, only the DM knows for sure. . .

Changing the way a character behaves and thinks will cost him experience points and slow his advancement. . .

Ultimately, the player is advised to pick an alignment he can play comfortably . . . and he should stay with that alignment for the course of the character's career. . . [F]inding th right course of action within the character's alignment is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying.​
I don't have, and have never read, the 2nd ed DMG so I don't know what, if anything, it says to temper the above. But just reading that I don't really see the great difference from the passages you quoted from Gygax (right down to "only the DM knows for sure"). And I don't really understand what is mean by saying "alignment is not a straitjacket" if the player is also being told (i) to stick with a single alignment for the course of a PC's career, and that (ii) only the DM knows whether or not you are following this stricture properly. In these circumstances, isn't the player reliant upon the GM's guidance to play his/her PC properly?

And for clarity: I fully appreciate the varieties of actual play are very different from the above and from one another. For instance, in  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] I get the impression that players can ask the GM what a particular alignment requires or expects, which means it's not the case in that game that "only the DM knows for sure". And of cousre many people don't use alignment at all once it's writtn down on the PC sheet. (As in the last 2nd ed game I played some 17-odd years ago.)

In the paragraphs above, I'm just trying to make sense of the text.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Another common misconception the anti-alignment team clings to is that alignment can either be eliminated entirely or must permeate every moment of the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me, the answer to that guidance depends on the options being considered.  “Perhaps we should slay everyone in the nation, burn all structures, leave not one stone standing upon another and salt the earth” is probably something inappropriate to a Paladin, and the GM might want to suggest that (I would hope he does not need to).  But a number of different choices which are no more or less plainly and obviously consistent seem to exist, and there the answer would be “there’s no compelling answer in the scriptures/dogma/holy teachings/whatever”.  Again, we are back to the straw man that alignment means the GM dictates every choice to be made by the characters.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a group of LG characters (whether by name in a game with alignment or by personality and principal, and the latter is more important than the former, IMO) will struggle with the right thing to do. Where the Sellsword, morally ambivalent, doesn’t give a damn.



You haven't really answered my question - if alignment is not relevant as a guide in the situation [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] described, when is it relevant? What role does it play?

If the answer is "Only when the player of the paladin suggests genocide as a solution to one corrupt local offical", then how often does it actually matter in play. (I'm assuming that particular suggestion doesn't come up very often.)

Also, if the players are free to make their own choices 90% of the time, _why is it so important_ that the GM judge them the other 10% of the time? And why should the players of those LG PCs be penalisd (eg by XP lost, as AD&D suggests in both editions) because they decide that on this occasion the sellsword is right?

The only answer to that I can construct from your posts is that this is important for the GM to play the gods and comparable cosmological forces. If that _is_ the answer, I would find it helpful if you would state it straight out.



N'raac said:


> If you read the 3e alignment descriptions, each ends with the reason that this is the best alignment – that is, the morally right choice.



No it doesn't. CE, LE and NE end with a description of why they're the worst. 



N'raac said:


> Society calls this “good”, the spells even call this “good”, but my character knows with certainty that HIS WAY is truly “good” regardless of the labels others attach.  That 25+ INT and WIS deity of Law and Goodness?  He’s wrong!  My 25+ INT and WIS CE patron has the right of it!



And this is the cynical relativism of Planescape, or else the Nietzschean self-creation of REH Conan, which is fine as far as it goes but in my view makes paladins and traditional clerics impossible, because the game rules tell them that their worldview is, of necessity, wrong. (Because nothing could be more antithetical to that worldview than the symmetry of good and evil that is part and parcel of this approach.)

There's a reason that REH's Conan stories have no clerics in the D&D-style, only various sorts of sorcerers.



N'raac said:


> I continue to disagree with your contention that alignment would, without a doubt, detract from or even prevent entirely those great gaming moments.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You keep using this term “mechanical alignment”.  If that means “alignment which is used as a straightjacket, such that the GM dictates every decision made by the characters”, then I agree this would detract from the game.   But no one supporting alignment is asserting such a use of alignment, so might we agree that this would, indeed, be bad for the game and end that aspect of the discussion once and for all?



By mechanical alignment I am referring to the passages [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] quoted upthread, and the ones I quoted from the 2nd ed PHB: the rules that say that the GM must judge his/her players' action declarations, and track the alignment of their PCs - with "only the DM know[ing] for sure".

It is this mandate to judge, as part of the role of the referee in adjudicating the game, that I object to. No amount of reiteration that "alignment is not a straitjacket" (whatever exactly that means - as [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] explained upthread, Gygax doen't suggest that the GM should tell the players what to do either, so nor is he advocating alignment as a straitjacket in the sense yu seem to mean) is going to change my mind on that. Player can be free or unfree - my point is that I don't want to have to judge their choices.



N'raac said:


> I will, however, state that I believe you have an opinion of whether or not the action in question was, in fact, evil.  In other words, you made that judgment.  Apparently, sharing your opinion with your group would make the game less enjoyable for you, so I will accept that you do not want a system where your opinion would have any meaning on the game



Are you aware of what you're running together here? Of course I make judgements, and I cheerfully share them with my players. _But they aren't part of the adjudication of the game_. I might comment that a player's voice is raised, or whispering, too, or that an item of clothing is very colourful, or that I like the name s/he chose for a PC. But none of that is part of refereeing the game. They're remarks from one participant/audience member to another.



N'raac said:


> However, having alignment in the game would not in any way have prevented the PC who sacrificed his friend and companion, so the gaming moment would not have been prevented.



I've posted multiple times - the fictional events are not in and of themselves the great gaming moment. What would be an impediment to my participation in that gaming moment would not be alignment preventing the PC sacrificing his friend and companion - who thinks alignment prevents players declaring actions? - but that it would require me to judge the action and potentially impose a new ingame state on the PC as part of my refereeing responsibilities. And of course the player would know I was doing this, and respon appropriately to that knowledge in his playing of his PC.

And that's what I don't want.



N'raac said:


> You would have t assess whether the sacrifice of his friend and companion was an evil act, but a single evil act does not make a person evil.



As I posted a page or two upthread, _this is the very thing_  that is an impediment to my play experience. And you yourself acknowledge that using alignment requires me to do it. So why do you keep telling me that alignment would not be an impediment to my experience. Why are you so confident that I'm wrong in saying that I don't wish to engage in that process of evaluative judgement as part of refereeing the game?



N'raac said:


> If we accept Hussar’s proposition that every character has a network he can leverage for support, then any time that network decides they are displeased by the character’s actions, the character loses leverage in the fiction – does he also get to define their responses to his actions?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So that Deity of Law and Good forming and expressing an opinion is a gamewrecker, but it’s OK for the angel, a being of Light and Good, to have and express an opinion?  I’m seeing a less and less bright line to your evaluative criteria for who in the game gets to apply evaluative criteria.



If the relationship is part of the suite of resources the player has bought with PC building currency - which is what in my view a cleric or paladin's god is - then yes, the player does get a say. (Just like, if Superman's player has spent build points on Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, the GM isn't free just to kill them off willy-nilly.)

The difference between the god and the angel is that the player is free, in character, to judge the angel wrong. This is an example of those "physical" moral consequenes that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] described about half-a-dozen posts upthread.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> I don't have, and have never read, the 2nd ed DMG so I don't know what, if anything, it says to temper the above. But just reading that I don't really see the great difference from the passages you quoted from Gygax (right down to "only the DM knows for sure").




I hadn't remembered there being an entire six page chapter (number four) on alignment!  

Even though it definitely echoes 1e in spots, it seems to have  a huge shift in that it actually has the DM talking with the players and not springing surprise penalties on them.   The last paragraph in the section on Role-playing alignment seems especially important (the bolding is mine, ellipses indicate where I cut things out - several sections of the chapter are not quoted below at all).



			
				2e DMG said:
			
		

> Alignment is a shorthand description of a complex morel code.  ... In sudden or surprising situations, it guides the DM's evaluation of NPC or creature reactions.  By implication, it predicts the types of laws and enforcement found in a given area. ...
> 
> ... It is not a hammer to pound over the head of player characters who misbehave.  It is not a code of behavior carved in stone.  It is not absolute, but can vary from place to place.






			
				2e DMG said:
			
		

> During play, pay attention to the actions of the player characters.  Occasionally compare these against the characters' alignments.  Note instances in which the character acted against the principles of his alignment.  Watch for tendencies to drift toward another, specific alignment.
> 
> If a character's class requires that he adhere to a specific alignment, feel free to caution him when a proposed action seems contrary to that alignment.  Allow the player to reconsider.
> 
> Never tell a player that his character cannot do something because of his alignment!  Player characters are controlled by the players.  The DM intervenes only in rare cases (when the character is controlled by a spell or magical item, for example).
> 
> *Finally as in all points of disagreement with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs.  Even though you go to great effort in preparing our game, the campaign world is not yours alone - it belongs to your players as well.*






			
				2e DMG said:
			
		

> ... Let players make their own decisions and their own mistakes.  The DM has enough to do without taking over the players' jobs, too.
> 
> Despite this prohibition, the DM can suggest to a player that an action involves considerable risk, especially where alignment is concerned.  If the player still decides to go ahead, the consequences are his responsibility.  Don't get upset about what happens to the character. If the paladin is no longer a paladin, well, that's just the way things are.
> 
> Such suggestions need to be brazen.  True, the DM can ask, "Are you sure that's a good idea, given your alignment?" He can also use more subtle forms of suggestion woven into the plot of the adventure.  ...  That night, he has a nightmare...






			
				2e DMG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> There are two possible effects of changing alignment, depending on the situation and circumstances of the change.  *The first results in no penalty at all.  This effect should only be used when the player and the DM mutually agree that the character's alignment should be changed to improve the play of the game.
> 
> ...   As DM, try to accommodate the desires of your players, if those desires won't hurt the game.*
> 
> In the second type of voluntary change, the case cannot be made that the alignment change would be for the good of the game.  This generally involves more established characters who have been played according to one alignment for some time. Here, the effects of alignment change are severe and noticeable.
> 
> The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-classs characters) is doubled...
> 
> [Insert 8 paragraphs on how the penalty is modified in various cases]




I think if it ever came up we would have stopped with the bolded part (my bolding again) in this last section and skipped the penalties, unless we didn't want the player in the game anymore.


----------



## UnholyD

Yes. Alignments improve gaming experiences. Otherwise everyone would just play Neutrals or Chaotic Neutrals and the only things that would ever happen is the PCs would lie, cheat, and steal everything. By playing the guy who can't/won't break the rules, you encourage good roleplaying. And even playing the evil character requires a bare minimum of forethought and good roleplaying to do right. Neutral is all like, Unless it concerns me or I get something out of it, why bother?"


----------



## Manbearcat

Manbearcat said:


> 2)  I'm certain that GMs apply moral judgements in their games, with or without ethos governance mechanics.  Even if the metaphysical world doesn't respond (such as by a mandated cosmological "soul shift" so that new abjurations or evocations affect the party in the physical world), the physical world surely will.  Consider the PBP that   @_*pemerton*_  mentioned above.  In that game,   @_*Campbell*_ 's long, lost lover turned out to be the antagonist that was destabilizing the kingdom from within.  Due to the dark, possessive force of her patron (she "turned to the dark side" at some point in the uncanvassed backstory), the Unseelie Agent delivered unto the world many terrible acts, up to and including assassinating Thurgon's former Lord Commander and recently arranging for a the assassination of the King and Queen by a Night Hag (making it look like natural deaths in their sleep).  During play,   @_*LostSoul*_  and Campbell "turned her from the dark side", purifying her spirit and bringing her back into the fold of her former deity (Campbell's current deity).  However, make no mistake about it, she would be facing a death penalty by the King's hand.  If Lucann (Campbell's character) stood in the way or created conflict, he would immediately be cast an outlaw in defiance of the King's Justice.  I would have framed this situation to challenge the old bonds (between elves and men) that Lucann was looking to renew.  What would come of this conflict would be relevant to his character and how it would unfold would be decided in play.
> 
> I'm certain that none of the PCs at the proverbial table would have protested this "physical" moral judgement.  What's more, this is precisely the type of conflict that Lucann's backstory asked for.  Its precisely the kind of conflict that Thurgon, as a protector of the realm, should be entrenched in.  It would make their lives hard and it would certainly be a moral judgement with repercussions.  But they would enjoy the play and I would surmise that they would expect that "physical" moral judgement.




I think I'm going to unpack this a bit more, provide context, and use this as a bridge to further conversation.

First, here is Thurgon's,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s character, Background, Beliefs and respective Gods (both holy men) followed by  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s character, Lucann (spoiling to truncate post size):

Thurgon

[sblock]2. Background:Thurgon is the descendant of earls (his  family's symbol is a bear rampant above a sword dividing a shield), but  Auxol, his ancestral estate (1½ days on foot, or about 25 miles,  South-east of Adir the nearest large town), fell to the darkness 66  years ago. He has not set foot there now for many years.

Although Auxol is now owned by servants of evil, Thurgon's family  continues to manage it. His father is deceased; his mother Xanthippe  (now 57 years old) still lives on the estate. So does his older brother  Rufus (36 years old). He is the 9th Count of Adir (although for the past  66 years that title has counted for little, having been usurped by  others). His 23 year old younger brother, Vuryang, also lives on the  estate, with his 18 year old bride Eisette. Thurgon has never met her,  but heard news of the wedding some months ago. Xanthippe ensures that  the estate serves as a bolthole for refugees. Rufus is sympathetic to  their plight, but sees them ultimately as someone else’s problem. His  interests are more mundane (it is fairly common knowledge that he has a 3  year old illegitimate son with a middle class townswoman).

Thurgon trained in the Iron Tower, a stronghold of those who serve the  Lord of Battle. The symbol of the Tower is crossed battle axes in front  of a shield with the sun rising above it. He left the Iron Tower,  several years ago now, when the Knight Commander of the order sent him  forth into the wilderness. At the time Thrugon did not know why, but  more recently he learned that the Iron Tower had fallen to the forces of  darkness. In a recent dream sent by the heavens he saw that the former  lord of the order is dead, and that he, Thurgon, must now serve as  Knight Commander of the Iron Tower. He hopes to recruit new members to  the order, and to rally any others that have survived.​
And some beliefs:*When the usurpers are overthrown, and the proper succession reestablished, then peace will come to the land.

*When the world is in chaos it is no wonder so many are easily misled - but I can lead them back to righteousness.

*Like all cowards, the dragon feeds on weakness. I will oppose it with strength.​
Kord
Kord is the storm god and the lord of battle. He revels in strength,  battlefield prowess, and thunder. Fighters and athletes revere him. He  is a mercurial god, unbridled and wild, who summons storms over land and  sea; those who hope for better weather appease him with prayers and  spirited toasts. He gives few commands:

* Be strong, but do not use your strength for wanton destruction.
* Be brave and scorn cowardice in any form.
* Prove your might in battle to win glory and renown[/sblock]

Lucann
[sblock]Background
Lucann is a contemplative in the midst of world at conflict. His  childhood was spent in a forest commune. Even from a tender young age he  could tell he was not like the other children. He took no joy in the  hunt. He saw no need for revelry, sparring, or dance. He preferred the  serenity of the forest and the solitary music of his flute. Perhaps that  is why the dryads who made their home in the woods took to young Lucann  and began to teach him what they knew of the forest and how it  reflected Sehanine's own beauty.

Like most good time it would not last very long. When the dryads began  to disappear from the forest Lucann took note and went off in search of  them. He did not find them, but he did find groups of humans, orcs, and  others clear cutting the forests he called home. Wherever possible he  tried to reason with those who would destroy his home, but it was often  to no avail. For several years he engaged in a personal guerilla war  against the loggers, until he found a delegation of Sehanine's clergy  willing to resist the tide. He led them back to his village and helped  to push the loggers out.

However, he no longer felt at home in his woods so he went with the  priests and answered the call of Sehanine. After living the cloistered  life for nearly decade, he began to wonder if he had done the right  thing sanctioning himself off from the wider world so he requested leave  to undertake a pilgrimage...

Beliefs


The world is vibrant and bueatiful. Seek out a place in it. Do not attempt to impose your will on it. 
Seek understanding before taking action. 
Once you have gained my ire there is no escape. I will hunt you to the ends of the earth. 

Sehanine
God of the moon and autumn, Sehanine is the patron of trickery and  illusions. She has close ties to Corellon and Melora and is a favorite  deity among elves and halflings. She is also the god of love, who sends  shadows to cloak lovers’ trysts. Scouts and thieves ask for her blessing  on their work. Her teachings are simple:

* Follow your goals and seek your own destiny.
* Keep to the shadows, avoiding the blazing light of zealous good and the utter darkness of evil.
* Seek new horizons and new experiences, and let nothing tie you down.[/sblock]

Consider the above scenario that emerged in our PBP.  Consider these character's backstories, beliefs and the dictates/portfolio of their respective Gods.

Would play have benefited if I had contracted the possible outcomes of the above conflict with a preordained "right" or "wrong" course of action for Lucann or Thurgon?  For instance, would it have made play more enjoyable for any involved party if I would have imposed the correct choice of:

- Sehanine is the goddes of love, especially secret love.  Rather than seeking understanding before action and simultaneously forsaking any prospect of renewed alliance with the humans, Lucann must impulsively place his love for the dryad above all other interests.  Before she is put to the sword, he must stealthily break her out of any imprisonment under the shadows of the moon and seek new horizons together...all despite her transgressions.  If he fails to do so he will face some loss of divine backing (eg powers).

or

- The usurper (the court mage/dryad) has been overthrown and the king's succession has been restored.  It is blind justice and the guiding light of Kord's strength, and not  wanton destruction, for the court mage to be put to death.  Any pardon or lesser  punishment is the sort of cowardice, the sort of weakness, that the dragon  and his proxies feed upon. They must be opposed with strength and the stern committment to do all that is necessary to restore righteousness and maintain the king's succession.  If he fails to assert and maintain that poisition then he will face some loss of divine backing (eg powers).


In my estimation, that level of GM imposition (by way of stick) contracts the potential future narrative and its emergent fallout.  Perhaps they have a better idea of how all of this should shake out, while maintaining fealty to their respective characters' portfolio, than I do?  Perhaps they have a better idea of (i) the priorities of their respective value systems and (ii) their own 2nd and 3rd order considerations that may pay even greater (long view) homage to the values that I think they are prioritizing lower?

Furthermore, what if one of my primary GMing principles is to "see what happens?"  If that is a considerable portion of my fun as a GM then it stands to reason that it is diluted considerably by contracting potential courses of actions, and resultant conflict outputs, with my own mandates.


----------



## Grydan

UnholyD said:


> Yes. Alignments improve gaming experiences. Otherwise everyone would just play Neutrals or Chaotic Neutrals and the only things that would ever happen is the PCs would lie, cheat, and steal everything. By playing the guy who can't/won't break the rules, you encourage good roleplaying. And even playing the evil character requires a bare minimum of forethought and good roleplaying to do right. Neutral is all like, Unless it concerns me or I get something out of it, why bother?"




I can assure you that, despite the fact that neither of the two characters I am playing currently have the word "Good" written on their character sheets, neither is a liar, a cheat, or a thief (despite the fact that one of the two actually has the word "Thief" on his character sheet).

I began playing D&D with 4E, a system in which alignment has little to no mechanical consequence. It's also a system that doesn't use a nine-point grid: it uses a five point spectrum, the middle point not being Neutral (in the sense of being committed to actively pursuing the goals of neutrality), but Unaligned (in the sense of having not made any commitment to any cosmic faction or particular ethos). To the extent that I ever bother to note my character's alignment on my sheet at all, I write Unaligned.

And yet, I'm quite sure that many players and DMs, if they watched the characters in play, would form some opinion of what alignment the characters "really" were. If they feel the need, that's fine by me. But telling me that my character is "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Neutral" neither gives me any information I find useful, not will it shape my decisions for the character going forward. 

My character in my current 4E game is, mechanically, an Essentials Rogue (Thief). By profession, he is a mercenary. He doesn't steal, is honest with everyone he meets (unless the nature of the job he has been hired to perform requires him to be otherwise), and while he's proved to be the most lethal member of the party (from the very first session of play he's been compared to the Death Star, after killing an uninjured non-minion enemy with his opening attack), he does not go out of his way to kill (and, along with the other characters, surprised the DM by taking prisoners rather than killing, whenever it was a viable option). His character sheet reads "Unaligned".

My character in my D&D Next campaign is a fighter who, along with the other members of the party has found himself thrust against his will into a leadership position in a tribal society. Bound by his own personal sense of honour, he takes on the responsibility to the best of his abilities. When the tribe came into conflict with a neighboring group, he argued against the all-out conflict that some of the party argued for, while at the same time opposing a purely diplomatic solution (both on the grounds of it being impractical and because I felt that he would believe that the other group's actions deserved a reprisal in kind). At no point would looking at my character sheet for the alignment have shaped his behavior (especially considering the fact that I left the field blank). Yet again, the character is not a liar, a cheat, or a thief. Oddly enough, a player who DID have "Chaotic Good" written on their sheet both engaged in torturing a prisoner that I had captured, and summarily executed them after we were done with them, which prompted a discussion between the DM and the player about what was appropriate for their alignment ... 

I simply don't see what benefit I gain from bothering to label my character into one of nine pigeon holes. If it's descriptive, then it's not something I care about, and people can slap whatever label they like on my character.  If it's prescriptive, then I don't want it, because I'm going to play my characters the way I want to, regardless (and no, for the most part that doesn't involve baby-killing, throat-ripping, lying, stealing, or cheating ... nor is it usually going to involve any grand commitment to a cosmic faction of any stripe).


----------



## Campbell

I don't think you can point to the resulting fiction from a game session to argue that the presence or lack thereof of alignment is meaningful or meaningless. The issue at play here is what informs a player's choices in the moment of play and how that shapes the feel of a gaming session. A session of Burning Wheel* with its impetus on making players advocate for the beliefs of their characters and of RuneQuest* could result in pretty similar fiction, but I doubt many people would contend that the experience would feel remotely the same. It seems to me that alignment must have some guiding influence on player decisions or else not be a particularly good rule. If it doesn't have an effect on the way players play the game and GMs run the game than its presence or lack would not matter in the slightest.

* Not passing judgment on either game. I really like both games for entirely different reasons.


----------



## pemerton

UnholyD said:


> Alignments improve gaming experiences. Otherwise everyone would just play Neutrals or Chaotic Neutrals and the only things that would ever happen is the PCs would lie, cheat, and steal everything.



On this issue I am in agreement with [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION]. I haven't used alignment in my fantasy RPGing for over 25 years, and I haven't at all found it to be the case the PCs lie, cheat and steal everything.

 [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION], the quotes from the DMG2 are interesting. And a little confusing - for instance, they somewhat contradict the idea that "only the DM knows for sure". If you followed primarily the stuff you bolded, I'm not sure how different you would be from the sort of alignment-free game I'm describing: for instance, the bit about the campaign world belonging to the players also strikes me as similar to my idea that the gods PCs worship aren't under the sole jurisidiction of the GM.

Perhaps if that text were rewritten for greater clarity (eg more explicit reference to the different options matching different playstyles), it could do the job of presenting different approaches to alignment in D&Dnext. It is certainly superior to the 2nd ed PHB, to the Gygaxian text, and (as best I know it) the 3E text.



Campbell said:


> I don't think you can point to the resulting fiction from a game session to argue that the presence or lack thereof of alignment is meaningful or meaningless. The issue at play here is what informs a player's choices in the moment of play and how that shapes the feel of a gaming session.



 I agree with this. The reason I gave my examples upthread is to show the sorts of events I have fond memories of - which I though obviously involved potentially contentious evaluative stakes well above the level of "will or won't I double-knot my shoelace" - which therefore might obviously be experienced differently at the table depending how evaluative issues are being handled in the game.



Campbell said:


> It seems to me that alignment must have some guiding influence on player decisions or else not be a particularly good rule. If it doesn't have an effect on the way players play the game and GMs run the game than its presence or lack would not matter in the slightest.



I definitely agree with this. That's why I'm puzzled by the frequent reiterations that "alignment is not a straitjacket". Whatever it is or isn't, if it doesn't affect player or GM behaviour than what is it for?


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - I'd point something out for your traditions argument. There are about twenty years of DnD which do not have mechanical effects of alignment. Odnd, B/E/C/M/I and 4e all have purely descriptive alignment but not mechanical. So it's not like mechanical alignment is really necessary to play DnD.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> @_*Imaro*_ - I'd point something out for your traditions argument. There are about twenty years of DnD which do not have mechanical effects of alignment. Odnd, B/E/C/M/I and 4e all have purely descriptive alignment but not mechanical. So it's not like mechanical alignment is really necessary to play DnD.




My argument isn't based on tradition... it's based on uniqueness.  Now if you have a list of other games (outside clones) that use alignment in a mechanical way, I'm all ears but as far as I know D&D is unique in this aspect.

EDIT: Also I'm not so sure BECMI is free of alignment mechanics. Just offhand I remember from the RC that a fighter's advancement options (Paladin/Avenger/Knight) are based on alignment... and a quick gogle search seems to imply that in supplement I thieves could only be neutral or chaotic. I'm not going to do extensive research into alignment as far as these editions go, but I'm not so sure they didn't use alignment as mechanic in any way whatsoever... again I think 4e is the only edition where alignment plays no part in mechanics whatsoever...


----------



## Imaro

Deleted


----------



## Hussar

But there isn't really uniqueness when a significant chunk of the game's history didn't use mechanical alignment.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But there isn't really uniqueness when a significant chunk of the game's history didn't use mechanical alignment.




Again, as highlighted by the two examples I presented... I'm not so sure your claim holds up.  Two, what does how many editions something is in have to do with determining if it is unique to a particular game or not.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> You haven't really answered my question - if alignment is not relevant as a guide in the situation @_*Herschel*_ described, when is it relevant? What role does it play?




The term "guide" and "straightjacket" are not synonyms. I would expect any player's decisions to be guided by alignment where it exists, and any other personality traits, aspects, beliefs, or whatever description the game, or the player, uses.  That does not mean there is commonly only one right answer.  Typically, when there is, other answers don't even occur ("My Paladin tears the baby from its mother's grasp and hurls it over the parapet", for example).  Much of the best role playing occurs where no clear-cut answer exists, and we are faced with which of our morals and beliefs must be compromised to serve the others.

I have not seen many cases where the GM and players have fought over alignment-appropriate behaviour.  I also haven't seen too many people try to Bluff a creature with no INT, yet the skill description still feels  the need to tell me how to adjudicate this.  



pemerton said:


> Also, if the players are free to make their own choices 90% of the time, _why is it so important_ that the GM judge them the other 10% of the time? And why should the players of those LG PCs be penalisd (eg by XP lost, as AD&D suggests in both editions) because they decide that on this occasion the sellsword is right?




Please show me in the various cited passages any statement that suggests a single action that seems (or even blatantly is) inconsistent with the stated alignment results in an immediate alignment change and loss of a level.  I see a lot that refer to a pattern of decisions which indicates the alignment being played is not the one on the sheet, and none which match the "one decision spells doom" straw man you seem to perceive.  The Paladin's "knowingly performs an evil action" rule is specific to the Paladin, and is much more harsh, but "knowingly" sets the bar a bit higher than "makes one decision a bit off the beaten path".



pemerton said:


> No it doesn't. CE, LE and NE end with a description of why they're the worst.




It does stop saying "best".  It does not say "worst", but "most dangerous".  And given evil is about hurting, oppressing and killing others, I'd say "most dangerous" is the best. But I did misrecall - only the non-evil alignments are treated equally with why they are "the best". Perhaps this reflects the effort of WoTC to steer the game away from bad press, as I believe 3e was not encouraging of evil characters in general.



pemerton said:


> There's a reason that REH's Conan stories have no clerics in the D&D-style, only various sorts of sorcerers.




The wily rogue, the stalwart warrior and the devious wizard all seem much more Fantasy tropes, pre D&D, than the Cleric. REH was pretty short of heroic spellcasters at all.



pemerton said:


> I've posted multiple times - the fictional events are not in and of themselves the great gaming moment. What would be an impediment to my participation in that gaming moment would not be alignment preventing the PC sacrificing his friend and companion - who thinks alignment prevents players declaring actions? - but that it would require me to judge the action and potentially impose a new ingame state on the PC as part of my refereeing responsibilities. And of course the player would know I was doing this, and respond appropriately to that knowledge in his playing of his PC.




I again come back to the belief that playing in character will only happen if it is rewarded. So the character loses a level? As has been noted above, that often happens if he fights Undead creatures.  He's still viable and playable.  2e moderated this to only occurring when it was not good for the game, acknowledging that, sometimes, good role playing leads to a change of alignment.  

But if I choose to play an Honourable character, whether in a game with or without alignment, with or without mechanics to enforce my Honourable play, then I made that choice because I wanted to play such a character, with the trials and tribulations it entails.  I don't have to have a suite of powers and bonuses to reward honourable play. I expect there to be both benefits and costs to my character choice - sometimes, that means not taking the easy approach, and suffering disadvantages, temporary or permanent. That's part of what I chose to play.  I have no desire to join your game where an honourable man is only honourable because the game mechanics favour his honour.



pemerton said:


> The difference between the god and the angel is that the player is free, in character, to judge the angel wrong. This is an example of those "physical" moral consequenes that @_*Manbearcat*_ described about half-a-dozen posts upthread.




In my view, angelic lore suggests the Angel acts as a true servant of the deity, and is no more likely to be "wrong" than that deity is.  YMMV



Manbearcat said:


> Would play have benefited if I had contracted the possible outcomes of the above conflict with a preordained "right" or "wrong" course of action for Lucann or Thurgon?  For instance, would it have made play more enjoyable for any involved party if I would have imposed the correct choice of:




Again, we are back to "preordination" being the only way alignment can be played.  I think both characters are faced with situations where their beliefs are tested. I would not expect the factors you cite to dictate the only possible/acceptable game result.  However, I would also find play pretty crappy if the answer is just "Well, once she was good, now she is evil.  Kill her and take her stuff."



Manbearcat said:


> In my estimation, that level of GM imposition (by way of stick) contracts the potential future narrative and its emergent fallout.




To me, that is the level of GM imposition which alignment detractors seem to assume is the only way alignment can exist in the game, and is not supported by anyone as making for a good game anywhere in the hundreds of posts on this thread.




pemerton said:


> I definitely agree with this. That's why I'm puzzled by the frequent reiterations that "alignment is not a straitjacket". Whatever it is or isn't, if it doesn't affect player or GM behaviour than what is it for?




Again, you seem incapable of contemplating that something could, in fact, affect behaviour without dictating it 100%.  In Manbearcat's examples of what could have dictated the characters' decisions, do you think it would be better play if those beliefs were simply ignored? Hey, we're back to my Devoted Servant of the Raven Queen animating an undead horde to advance her interests. No one can point to any indication that she dislikes Undead - I get to decide whether my character gives a crap about that, while also getting to decide he remains a Devoted Servant of the Raven Queen, even her Chosen One here on earth, and anyone who says different simply fails to grasp her will!


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> My argument isn't based on tradition... it's based on uniqueness.  Now if you have a list of other games (outside clones) that use alignment in a mechanical way, I'm all ears but as far as I know D&D is unique in this aspect.
> 
> EDIT: Also I'm not so sure BECMI is free of alignment mechanics. Just offhand I remember from the RC that a fighter's advancement options (Paladin/Avenger/Knight) are based on alignment... and a quick gogle search seems to imply that in supplement I thieves could only be neutral or chaotic. I'm not going to do extensive research into alignment as far as these editions go, but I'm not so sure they didn't use alignment as mechanic in any way whatsoever... again I think 4e is the only edition where alignment plays no part in mechanics whatsoever...




I'm pretty sure OD&D Paladins had to be Lawful, too.


----------



## Hussar

What Odnd paladins?

Imaro your argument is that alignment is a uniquely DnD thing and is necessary for the DnD experience right?  

Well if I can play DnD by the rules for about twenty years without mechanically significant alignment then I'd say it really isn't all that necessary for the DnD experience.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Well if I can play DnD by the rules for about twenty years without mechanically significant alignment then I'd say it really isn't all that necessary for the DnD experience.




Necessary at the table? No. An important element to include in the game that is D&D branded? Yes.


----------



## Hussar

Why when it wasn't included for almost twenty years?

Or does DnD automatically exclude anything that wasn't in hardcover first?

My point is lots and lots of people played branded DnD not a clone but DnD that did not have mechanical alignment. 

They don't count?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Why when it wasn't included for almost twenty years?
> 
> Or does DnD automatically exclude anything that wasn't in hardcover first?
> 
> My point is lots and lots of people played branded DnD not a clone but DnD that did not have mechanical alignment.
> 
> They don't count?




So you'd rather discount the people who have played D&D with alignments for over 30 years? That's your idea of inclusiveness? 

You don't want alignments? Exclude them *at your table*. D&D's a toolkit. Build the campaign you want with the tools you want.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> So you'd rather discount the people who have played D&D with alignments for over 30 years? That's your idea of inclusiveness?
> 
> You don't want alignments? Exclude them *at your table*. D&D's a toolkit. Build the campaign you want with the tools you want.




What's the difference?  You're discounting people who have played D&D without alignment.  That's your idea of inclusiveness?

You want alignments, include them at your table.  

See how that works?

The problem is, with mechanical alignment, you cannot actually exclude them.  For one, mechanical alignment is used as a balancing factor, which means removing it has balance consequences.  Number two, there are all sorts of effects that key off of alignment, making its removal even more difficult.  Note, this is mostly a 3e thing because you actually have alignment based damage effects.  Earlier D&D didn't really have much of these, so removal was fairly easy.

But, in any case, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] was arguing that alignment is a quintessential D&D element since only D&D really uses alignment.  The problem with that argument is that a lot of D&D doesn't actually use alignment.  Is someone playing OD&D not playing D&D?  Are they not getting a quintessential D&D experience?  If I'm playing Molvay Basic and Expert, I'm not really playing D&D, or I'm not getting the full D&D experience?

It's ridiculous to argue that mechanical alignment is necessary for the D&D experience when there are significant swaths of D&D that doesn't use mechanical alignment.  If I want to get the 3e experience, sure, I need to use mechanical alignment.  If I want to get the AD&D experience, yeah, I should probably use it.  If I want to play B/E D&D, guess what?  I don't need mechanical alignment.  

All versions of D&D have had alignment.  They all have.  But, it was AD&D that added in the good/evil axis and then 3e which deeply embedded alignment into the mechanics.  There is nothing wrong with playing D&D with purely descriptive alignment.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> what does how many editions something is in have to do with determining if it is unique to a particular game or not.



As far as I know 4e is the only fantasy RPG that uses the power mechanic for both martial and magical PCs; or that uses healing surges as a mechanic to integrate in-combat and trans-combat pacing.

So should D&Dnext be preserving that too?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Why when it wasn't included for almost twenty years?




This is an enormously misleading statement. You make it sound like alignment wasn't established or mechanically significant for the first twenty years of the game's history. Even if we accept your points about alignment in earlier editions and non-advanced editions, AD&D came out in 1977. So you've had the kind of alignment system we are discussion as a feature of the line from just three or so years after the game came out. Then you have 4E pairing it down, which broke with 30 years of how alignment worked in the main version of the game.

Also, having just read the white box for the first time, I think alignment was incredibly important to the concept of the game. They may not have used the system employed in AD&D, but the whole Chaos versus Law aspect of the system informs play heavily (there is a strong Three Hearts, Three Lions influence there it seems).


----------



## Hussar

Rolling this back around to the original topic again, here's another example of how alignment has had a negative impact on my experience.

Years back, I was playing a paladin (I like paladins, sue me) in a fairly generic pick up game.  Stereotypical setup, orcs are threatening the human settlers on the borders between their lands and raiding and pillaging.  Fine and dandy.  We gird our loins and head out to deal with the orcs.

We then learn that the orcs are actually the original settlers of the area and are trying to protect their lands from the encroaching humans.  There's no question that the orcs are evil.  They are.  My evil-o-meter says that they are.  But, what they are doing is not necessarily evil.  The human settlers OTOH, are not evil, but, what they are doing is pretty morally wrong - they are stealing land.

Now, in a mechanical alignment based game, the answer is simple.  Orcs are evil, therefore they can be killed with impunity.  Doesn't matter what they are doing, they're on team evil, so, slay with glee.  In fact, it even goes farther than that.  Aiding the orcs in any way is an evil act - after all you are helping evil creatures.  So, even finding a peaceable solution would not be a good act, under alignment rules.

That's why I don't really like mechanical alignment.  It leads to shallow interpretations, IMO.  There can be no ambiguity because someone (the DM) will decide if an act is evil or not.  He is actually obligated by the rules to do so.  

I'd much rather that alignment was truly descriptive and a means of giving some hooks to the character.  My character is X, so, by and large, he's going to act in a certain way.  It's a good shorthand and I find that its helpful to get people into character.  But, when you add in mechanically significant alignment, it's no longer descriptive but prescriptive.  It has to be.  If I perform an act that the DM deems to be evil, then I am punished.  That's prescriptive.  

And very much not to my tastes.


----------



## Jacob Marley

Hussar said:


> Now, in a mechanical alignment based game, the answer is simple.




No, it's not.



Hussar said:


> Orcs are evil...




In 1st Edition, "[alignment] is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered." The general behavior of an orc is Lawful Evil. 

In 3.5 orcs are "often chaotic evil." Often, as per the rules, means a plurality - 40-50%, with exceptions being common.



Hussar said:


> ...therefore they can be killed with impunity.  Doesn't matter what they are doing, they're on team evil, so, slay with glee.




Not really, see above.

In addition, both editions state in the descriptions for the various good alignments that a high value is placed on life. It seems incredibly ridiculous to state that someone who values life can wantonly kill. 



Hussar said:


> In fact, it even goes farther than that.  Aiding the orcs in any way is an evil act - after all you are helping evil creatures.  So, even finding a peaceable solution would not be a good act, under alignment rules.




I'd love to see the quote on this. 



Hussar said:


> That's why I don't really like mechanical alignment.  It leads to shallow interpretations, IMO.  There can be no ambiguity because someone (the DM) will decide if an act is evil or not.  He is actually obligated by the rules to do so.
> 
> I'd much rather that alignment was truly descriptive and a means of giving some hooks to the character.  My character is X, so, by and large, he's going to act in a certain way.  It's a good shorthand and I find that its helpful to get people into character.  But, when you add in mechanically significant alignment, it's no longer descriptive but prescriptive.  It has to be.  If I perform an act that the DM deems to be evil, then I am punished.  That's prescriptive.
> 
> And very much not to my tastes.




I can understand not liking alignment. I can respect certain reasons for disliking alignment (@pemerton's dislike of being required to adjudicate, for example). But the application you posted above appears so draconian that it is farcical to me.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> What's the difference?  You're discounting people who have played D&D without alignment.  That's your idea of inclusiveness?
> 
> You want alignments, include them at your table.
> 
> See how that works?




Yeah, *not* like that. Excluding rules is pretty easy. Including rules that don't exist, isn't so easy. Your attempt to turn it around simply doesn't work. The equivalence isn't there,


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> What Odnd paladins?




The ones introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, along with Thieves (and its own combat system, rather than the Chainmail system, and variable weapon damage).



Hussar said:


> Rolling this back around to the original topic again, here's another example of how alignment has had a negative impact on my experience.




Thank you for another fine example of poor use of the alignment rules passed off as the way alignment is expected to work in play.  The problem I see here is a clash of playstyles.  The game sounds like a hack & slash, kill the monsters and take their stuff game.  You wanted something with more role playing and ethical depth. Did the rest of the group want that, or were you the only guy out of step with the playstyle? 

The fact that a poor game included alignments does not make the alignment rules the cause of a poor game.  I would not expect a lot of moral dilemmas and complex ethical issues in a generic pickup game either.

BTW, if they were demons instead of Orcs, would it matter that they were there first?  It seems like, in this game, orcs are utterly, irredeemably hard coded to be 'evil', which makes them equivalent to demons in respect of their alignment.  In such a game, we have adopted a very simplistic morality from the outset, in which case the inclusion of the moral dilemma (encroachment on the original settlers and stealing their land) is not appropriate.

BTW II - I also find it odd the guy who played D&D for 20+ years with no alignments states that he likes playing Paladins.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> As far as I know 4e is the only fantasy RPG that uses the power mechanic for both martial and magical PCs; or that uses healing surges as a mechanic to integrate in-combat and trans-combat pacing.
> 
> So should D&Dnext be preserving that too?




I don't think roll dice and apply effect based on roll... or self-healing are unique mechanics.  In fact now that I think about it more... what is the "power mechanic"... aren't different powers resolved differently as far as mechanics go?  Are you speaking to presentation?  Because if so that's not a mechanic...


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, in any case, @_*Imaro*_ was arguing that alignment is a quintessential D&D element since only D&D really uses alignment.  The problem with that argument is that a lot of D&D doesn't actually use alignment.  Is someone playing OD&D not playing D&D?  Are they not getting a quintessential D&D experience?  If I'm playing Molvay Basic and Expert, I'm not really playing D&D, or I'm not getting the full D&D experience?



 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] please stop adding to, embellishing and/or mis-representing what I am saying.  I haven't spoken to alignment being some quintessential D&D element... I have (for the second or third time directed towards clarifying what you interpret me saying) merely said it is unique to D&D.  Nothing more and nothing less.




Hussar said:


> It's ridiculous to argue that mechanical alignment is necessary for the D&D experience when there are significant swaths of D&D that doesn't use mechanical alignment.  If I want to get the 3e experience, sure, I need to use mechanical alignment.  If I want to get the AD&D experience, yeah, I should probably use it.  If I want to play B/E D&D, guess what?  I don't need mechanical alignment.




Show me where I ever argued this???



Hussar said:


> All versions of D&D have had alignment.  They all have.  But, it was AD&D that added in the good/evil axis and then 3e which deeply embedded alignment into the mechanics.  There is nothing wrong with playing D&D with purely descriptive alignment.




Wait, earlier you claimed mechanical alignment wasn't in the first 20 years of D&D (Which I and others have disproved)... now you're nit-picking the specifics of the type of alignment and/or how much mechanical alignment was a part of any particular edition... can we stick to one point please?


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> Again, we are back to "preordination" being the only way alignment can be played.  I think both characters are faced with situations where their beliefs are tested. I would not expect the factors you cite to dictate the only possible/acceptable game result.  However, I would also find play pretty crappy if the answer is just "Well, once she was good, now she is evil.  Kill her and take her stuff."
> 
> To me, that is the level of GM imposition which alignment detractors seem to assume is the only way alignment can exist in the game, and is not supported by anyone as making for a good game anywhere in the hundreds of posts on this thread.




But that imposition is a real thing.  It is my responsibility as a GM to (i) examine the suite of potential ethos decisions to be made in a given scenario and allocate them (L, C, N, G, E), (ii) consider the context of the player's decision with respect to the "facts on the ground" and the foundational presuppositions of their alignment, (iii) compare the potential ethos decisions with those actually made by the player, (iv) determine any movement toward a shift or an outright shift, (v) then advise the player of fallout with respect to movement or outright shift.  1, 2 and 3 are my authoritarian examinations and associations while 4, 5 are my authoritarian decrees.  It is fundamental that it is an authoritarian imposition of my ideas which serve to adjudicate the alignment system's synthesis with decisions made (the fruits of play) and the fallout of the marriage of these things.

Consider pemerton's Paladin character above, Thurgon, and the plight that he was in.  If this was 3.x, consider my responsibility as GM in monitoring the Paladin code, alignment restrictions and fallout:  



> 3.x SRD
> [h=4]Ex-Paladins[/h]      A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil  act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin  spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but  not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any  farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and  advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.




Consider Law vs Chaos



> 3.x SRD
> *
> Law Vs. Chaos
> 
> *     Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority,  honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
> 
> 
> Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to  do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they  feel like it.
> 
> 
> "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and  reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness,  reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of  adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only  lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each  other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will  act as they should.
> 
> "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside,  chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority,  arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic  behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to  express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential  that its individuals have within them.




Consider Good vs Evil



> 3.x SRD
> 
> 
> *Good Vs. Evil*
> 
> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters  and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or  profit.
> 
> 
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the  dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to  help others.
> 
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil  creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms  if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for  sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.




Now this was 4e so Alignment was irrelevant but let us just consider the scenario as contrived as a 3.x game.  Thurgon worshipped an Unaligned God of Battle (Kord) who is sort of a Tempus/Zeus deal.  Nonetheless, I think its fair to say that, in the short period of play, pemerton played Thurgon (and proposed a backstory) that exuded Law: "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority,  honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."  He certainly exuded Good:  "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient  beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Now consider the scenario we have above.  On the line are the Lawful precepts of (a) adherence to/honoring tradition (b) respect for authority, (c) judging those who fall short of their duties, and the Good mandates of (d/e) respect for life + a concern for the  dignity of sentient beings.

- What if pemerton's character Thurgon personally felt  that the King ultimately fell short of his responsibilities to honor  tradition and maintain an authority worth respecting.

- What if he felt  the King's overwhelming love for his Queen rendered his respect for the lives of his subjects insufficient to the task of protecting them.  

- What if the once great King's frailty in his venerable state rendered him impotent to properly rule the kingdom and lead its defenses?  

- What if, given his advanced state, he doesn't feel the King is fit to take the measure of his subordinates and thus delegate authority to strong, competent leaders impermeable to the seductions of evil?  

- What if he doesn't feel the King's Justice should be applicable in this scenario because it comes out that the Dryad was ultimately possessed thus merely a vessel for evil (but not evil herself) but not fully exorcised of that evil...yet none of it is provable?  What if he wants to invoke a milennia old right (almost lost to the ages) for the Knight Commander of the Iron Tower to subordinate the King's Justice to take on the condemned as a vassal to bulwark the Iron Tower.

Remember, Thurgon also has the Beliefs of:



> *When the usurpers are overthrown, and the proper succession reestablished, then peace will come to the land.
> 
> *When the world is in chaos it is no wonder so many are easily misled - but I can lead them back to righteousness.





Maybe he believes that "the proper succession" is a King who can and will lead his kingdom out of this darkness.  Maybe the world is now in chaos and it is his time to lead them back to righteousness.  Maybe being a King is about "the right of action" and not "the right of blood."  Kord could certainly get behind that.

Personally, I can defend all of these things along the precepts of Lawful and the mandates of Good above.  However, I can also find holes in each of them, specifically when certain lines of evidence are currently less transparent than others.  Whats more respect for life, the dignity of sentient beings and respect for authority and tradition are very much all at tension when you consider the potential execution of the Dryad (presumably this Court Mage was appointed by the King...not sure at this point as it wasn't canvassed in play) for the destabilization of the Kingdom and the murder (direcly or by proxy) of multiple subjects and the Queen herself.  What if she was legitimately possessed?  Her Pact with the Dark Power (maybe possession?) was undone during play in the climactic scene.  The King's Justice is a deep tradition and his authority is complete on this matter.

What if  pemerton's Paladin invokes his controversial (perhaps long forgotten) right and demands the Dryad be pardoned,  that she now is a vassal of the Iron Tower and under his  jurisdiction...for the defeat of the dragon and the betterment of the  Realm.  What if the King vehemently disagrees and things get ugly.  What if Thurgon feels this is the irrational actions of a weathered old man who would put his wife before his duties as King?  What if Thurgon feels the King is no longer fit to take the battlefield at the point of the vanguard, to be a shining example and lead his people in defense of the kingdom?  What if this all leads to a complete estrangement of the Kingdom and The Iron Tower and due to this destabilzation things immediately get worse (for the people inside the Kingdom and the farmlands outside)...but ultimately may become much better with time (eg the Dryad's redemption, the Dragon's defeat, and Thurgon's corronation leading to a new age of promise and prosperity for all)?

What if my examination and association of alignment factors with decisions completely disagrees with him.   What I don't believe he is respecting life allowing all of those lost souls to go avenged and no one being held to account.  What if I believe he is grossly disrespecting authority without enough multiple lines of independent evidence to support this insubordination.  What if I feel that he is putting too many poor souls immediately at risk with his long view considerations and hard line?

What if I tell him after the game: 

"Look, here is <this, this and this>.  You've certainly not done anything overtly evil but you're disrespect for all of these lost lives by letting this murderer go free is almost unconscionable.  You're still Good, but be careful...I'm paying close attention.  And oh yeah, more importantly.  You call yourself Lawful?  I think you've probably violated every basic precept here.  I cannot let you keep your Lawful status.  This is the kind of Chatotic frontiersman spirit befitting a Ranger, not a Paladin.  You don't get to disrespect legitimate authority and insubordinate merely because you think you have the right of things.  You have grossly violated your code of conduct, you lose all paladin spells and  abilities (including the service of your mount, but not weapon,  armor, and shield proficiencies), and you may not progress any farther in  levels as a paladin.

Now lets talk potential atonement."

There is no imposition there?  Do you think the player, in this case    @_*pemerton*_, would feel that way?


----------



## N'raac

Manbearcat said:


> Consider pemerton's Paladin character above, Thurgon, and the plight that he was in.  If this was 3.x, consider my responsibility as GM in monitoring the Paladin code, alignment restrictions and fallout:
> 
> Now this was 4e so Alignment was irrelevant but let us just consider the scenario as contrived as a 3.x game.  Thurgon worshipped an Unaligned God of Battle (Kord) who is sort of a Tempus/Zeus deal.  Nonetheless, I think its fair to say that, in the short period of play, pemerton played Thurgon (and proposed a backstory) that exuded Law: "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority,  honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."  He certainly exuded Good:  "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient  beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
> 
> Now consider the scenario we have above.  On the line are the Lawful precepts of (a) adherence to/honoring tradition (b) respect for authority, (c) judging those who fall short of their duties, and the Good mandates of (d/e) respect for life + a concern for the  dignity of sentient beings.
> 
> - What if pemerton's character Thurgon personally felt  that the King ultimately fell short of his responsibilities to honor  tradition and maintain an authority worth respecting.
> 
> - What if he felt  the King's overwhelming love for his Queen rendered his respect for the lives of his subjects insufficient to the task of protecting them.
> 
> - What if the once great King's frailty in his venerable state rendered him impotent to properly rule the kingdom and lead its defenses?
> 
> - What if, given his advanced state, he doesn't feel the King is fit to take the measure of his subordinates and thus delegate authority to strong, competent leaders impermeable to the seductions of evil?
> 
> - What if he doesn't feel the King's Justice should be applicable in this scenario because it comes out that the Dryad was ultimately possessed thus merely a vessel for evil (but not evil herself) but not fully exorcised of that evil...yet none of it is provable?  What if he wants to invoke a milennia old right (almost lost to the ages) for the Knight Commander of the Iron Tower to subordinate the King's Justice to take on the condemned as a vassal to bulwark the Iron Tower.
> 
> Maybe he believes that "the proper succession" is a King who can and will lead his kingdom out of this darkness.  Maybe the world is now in chaos and it is his time to lead them back to righteousness.  Maybe being a King is about "the right of action" and not "the right of blood."  Kord could certainly get behind that.
> 
> *Personally, I can defend all of these things along the precepts of Lawful and the mandates of Good above.  However, I can also find holes in each of them*, specifically when certain lines of evidence are currently less transparent than others.  Whats more *respect for life, the dignity of sentient beings and respect for authority and tradition are very much all at tension *when you consider the potential execution of the Dryad (presumably this Court Mage was appointed by the King...not sure at this point as it wasn't canvassed in play) for the destabilization of the Kingdom and the murder (direcly or by proxy) of multiple subjects and the Queen herself.  What if she was legitimately possessed?  Her Pact with the Dark Power (maybe possession?) was undone during play in the climactic scene.  The King's Justice is a deep tradition and his authority is complete on this matter.




What I see from the above, particularly the emphasized aspects, is that your review of the issues finds that there is no "right" answer, in that the situation requires prioritization of various aspects of Law and Good.  Now, if his choice were "I backstab the King and declare myself rightful Monarch in his place", I find this problematic.  For him to assess that his duty must override his misgivings about the appropriateness of the execution of the Dryad, or that his views on the excess of such a sentence must override his duty, I would say he has made a decision consistent with his alignment.

I find alignment issues are too often presented as "no win scenarios".  No decision honours all aspects of Law and Good, so no more Paladin.  I see it as the exact opposite - the Paladin's restrictions do not apply unless there was a true, clear, better choice.  In this case, a lot of different choices present themselves as defensible under the precepts of Law and Good.  None exist that we cannot find holes in.  Then they are all acceptable.



Manbearcat said:


> What if  pemerton's Paladin invokes his controversial (perhaps long forgotten) right and demands the Dryad be pardoned,  that she now is a vassal of the Iron Tower and under his  jurisdiction...for the defeat of the dragon and the betterment of the  Realm.  What if the King vehemently disagrees and things get ugly.  What if Thurgon feels this is the irrational actions of a weathered old man who would put his wife before his duties as King?  What if Thurgon feels the King is no longer fit to take the battlefield at the point of the vanguard, to be a shining example and lead his people in defense of the kingdom?  What if this all leads to a complete estrangement of the Kingdom and The Iron Tower and due to this destabilzation things immediately get worse (for the people inside the Kingdom and the farmlands outside)...but ultimately may become much better with time (eg the Dryad's redemption, the Dragon's defeat, and Thurgon's corronation leading to a new age of promise and prosperity for all)?
> 
> What if my examination and association of alignment factors with decisions completely disagrees with him.   What I don't believe he is respecting life allowing all of those lost souls to go avenged and no one being held to account.  What if I believe he is grossly disrespecting authority without enough multiple lines of independent evidence to support this insubordination.  What if I feel that he is putting too many poor souls immediately at risk with his long view considerations and hard line?
> 
> What if I tell him after the game:
> 
> "Look, here is <this, this and this>.  You've certainly not done anything overtly evil but you're disrespect for all of these lost lives by letting this murderer go free is almost unconscionable.  You're still Good, but be careful...I'm paying close attention.  And oh yeah, more importantly.  You call yourself Lawful?  I think you've probably violated every basic precept here.  I cannot let you keep your Lawful status.  This is the kind of Chatotic frontiersman spirit befitting a Ranger, not a Paladin.  You don't get to disrespect legitimate authority and insubordinate merely because you think you have the right of things.  You have grossly violated your code of conduct, you lose all paladin spells and  abilities (including the service of your mount, but not weapon,  armor, and shield proficiencies), and you may not progress any farther in  levels as a paladin.




Then I think you have failed to discuss and consider the reasoning behind the player's decisions.  You've also ignored all of the aspects you clearly noted further above which support these decisions from the perspective of Law and Good.  To me, a disagreement like this doesn't get presented as "Your alignment has changed" after the game, but gets discussed either during the game, before decisions are made, or after the game where the actions are clearly not sufficient to result in an immediate penalty.

IOW, I think your recognition of the variable interpretations of appropriate lawful good actions in this case (likely supported by table discussion as the players work out how they wish to proceed) reflects good GMing, and your unilateral "one true wayism" example at the end reflects poor GMing.  Once again, the alignment system is not the problem - poor GMing is.

So the question really becomes "is poor GMing so rampant, and so difficult to address in the rules, that alignment needs to go to prevent these incidences of poor GMing?"  But I don't see a GM unilaterally assessing severe penalties without discussion or careful consideration being very likely to make good calls in many other areas of the game.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I also find it odd the guy who played D&D for 20+ years with no alignments states that he likes playing Paladins.



Why is that odd? When I play D&D I generally play paladins or comparable clerical types. I don't see how not using alignment is relevant to that preference. The paladin/saint achetype, as an element in literature, has a many-centuries headstart on D&D's alignment rules!



Hussar said:


> I was playing a paladin
> 
> <snip>
> 
> orcs are threatening the human settlers on the borders between their lands and raiding and pillaging
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We then learn that the orcs are actually the original settlers of the area and are trying to protect their lands from the encroaching humans.





N'raac said:


> The problem I see here is a clash of playstyles.  The game sounds like a hack & slash, kill the monsters and take their stuff game.  You wanted something with more role playing and ethical depth.



I don't see the clash of playstyles, to be honest. What I see is that Hussar's GM has set up an ingame situation in which choices have to be made and alignment gives little actual guide to those choices, but nevertheless hangs over the situation somewhat like Damocles's sword.

Are evil creatures entitled to enjoy their homelands, or are they subject to colonisation by the righteous? Why pose the question - which is hardly a novel one, or one with no historical or cultural resonances -  if the GM already knows the answer via the alignment rules? But if the players are free to work out the answer themselves, then how are alignmen rules adding anything to the game? They're spinning idly.

 [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] brings this out nicely in his post above this one: if the alignment rules are actually being used, then they regard the GM to go through the various rules steps that he describes. And if, in the scenario that Hussar outlines, the GM forms a different view about the morality of colonialism from that formed by Hussar in playing his paladin, then the sort of clash that Manbearcat describes, and that Hussar objects to, seems inevitable.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> the Paladin's restrictions do not apply unless there was a true, clear, better choice.





N'raac said:


> I think you have failed to discuss and consider the reasoning behind the player's decisions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So the question really becomes "is poor GMing so rampant, and so difficult to address in the rules, that alignment needs to go to prevent these incidences of poor GMing?"  But I don't see a GM unilaterally assessing severe penalties without discussion or careful consideration being very likely to make good calls in many other areas of the game.





N'raac said:


> if his choice were "I backstab the King and declare myself rightful Monarch in his place", I find this problematic.  For him to assess that his duty must override his misgivings about the appropriateness of the execution of the Dryad, or that his views on the excess of such a sentence must override his duty, I would say he has made a decision consistent with his alignment.



N'raac, it baffles me that you cannot see the issue here.

It has nothing to do with good or poor GMing. It is about the notion of the GM being authorised to insist that there was a "true, clear, better choice": as you yourself do in the third paragraph that I have quoted.

If one believes that the player will also see that the "true, better choice" is clearly that, then GM enforcement of it - and hence mechanical alignment - becomes redundant. But if the player doesn't regard it as clearly true and better, then the GM enforcing aignment is exactly the sort of imposition that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] describes.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> II - I also find it odd the guy who played D&D for 20+ years with no alignments states that he likes playing Paladins.




Why?

That's your presumption that the only way to portray morality in game is through the lens of alignment.  It really isn't.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] please stop adding to, embellishing and/or mis-representing what I am saying.  I haven't spoken to alignment being some quintessential D&D element... I have (for the second or third time directed towards clarifying what you interpret me saying) merely said it is unique to D&D.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I ever argued this???
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, earlier you claimed mechanical alignment wasn't in the first 20 years of D&D (Which I and others have disproved)... now you're nit-picking the specifics of the type of alignment and/or how much mechanical alignment was a part of any particular edition... can we stick to one point please?




No. I said that mechanical alignment wasn't part of DnD for about twenty years total. Not first. 

What mechanical effect is there of your alignment in
Odnd?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> No. I said that mechanical alignment wasn't part of DnD for about twenty years total. Not first.
> 
> What mechanical effect is there of your alignment in
> Odnd?




It determines what classes are playable for you and which aren't...

In other words the entire paladin class (and thus its mechanics) are based on alignment.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I would expect any player's decisions to be guided by alignment where it exists, and any other personality traits, aspects, beliefs, or whatever description the game, or the player, uses.  That does not mean there is commonly only one right answer.



My concern is not about "only one right answer". It is with the GM's power, and indeed obligation, to identify certain choices as _wrong answers_.



N'raac said:


> Much of the best role playing occurs where no clear-cut answer exists, and we are faced with which of our morals and beliefs must be compromised to serve the others.



It puzzles me that you can't see that, by abandoning mechanical alignment, you can increase this space for roleplaying. It also puzzles me that you can make this remark, yet not realise why I would regard having to judge when my players have chosen _wrong answers_ as an impediment to my play experience.



N'raac said:


> Please show me in the various cited passages any statement that suggests a single action that seems (or even blatantly is) inconsistent with the stated alignment results in an immediate alignment change and loss of a level.



I don't know see how that is relevant. Whether it takes one _wrong answer_ (as with the paladin) or ten _wrong answers_ (or how ever many the GM decides are required to bring about an alignment change), the point is that the player is playing their PC under the Damocles's Sword of the GM's opinion about what answers count as _wrong answers_.



N'raac said:


> 2e moderated this to only occurring when it was not good for the game



What if the player doesn't agree with the GM about "what is good for the game"? Why is the GM the arbiter of the players' choices?



N'raac said:


> I again come back to the belief that playing in character will only happen if it is rewarded. So the character loses a level? As has been noted above, that often happens if he fights Undead creatures.  He's still viable and playable.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have no desire to join your game where an honourable man is only honourable because the game mechanics favour his honour.



First, how does "not losing a level" equate to "being rewarded". Is every absence of a penalty now a reward?

Furthermore, if it makes no difference to the playability of the game that a level is lost, then why inflict the level loss? I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it? Why should the game become less playable for a player because a GM thinks that s/he came up with the _wrong answer_ half-a-dozen times?

If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game. In D&D, the main measure of this is the numbers on those parts of my PC sheet that engage with action resolution. Also, I want the game to have the space for the choice to play an honourable man be meaningful. I don't see how it serves my aim of playing an honourable man to have my ability to meaningfully affect the fiction reduced because the GM decides I gave the _wrong answer_ to a question about what honour requires.



N'raac said:


> In Manbearcat's examples of what could have dictated the characters' decisions, do you think it would be better play if those beliefs were simply ignored?



As the player of the PC, I get to decide what they require. If [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] thinks I've squibbed, I'm sure he's more than capable of turning on the pressure by framing new ingame situations (the "physical moral consequences" he referred to in his post). He doesn't need to tell me I'm playing my PC wrongly on the basis of some stipulative definition of his own.


----------



## pemerton

(This is partially cross-posted from the current "XP are illusory" thread.)

Here is an episode of play from my 4e session yesterday:

The PCs broke the hold that the Underdark god Torog has over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. They did this by destroying the metaphysical machinery of Torog's "Soul Abattoir".

At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game - the machinery had been destroyed, the cavern was collapsing, and the PCs were escaping as one of their number tried to hold the onrushing tide of soul energy at bay long enough for that escape to take place.

I invited the player of that PC to make an Insight check. He did, and succeeded. The PC therefore noticed that his imp familiar - which has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - was channelling power from Vecna to try to direct the newly freed flow of souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen (who is the more orthodox god of the dead).

I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen. The player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen". (If he had chosen otherwise he would have felt the wrath of at least two other party members, perhaps all of them!) That was fine, and he then made the Athletics check to try and run out of the collapsing cavern behind his friends, being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter. (Whose player had made a successful check at a high enough DC that he could confer an "aid another" bonus.) But I also told the player who had chosen the Raven Queen over Vecna, something to the effect of Vecna being angry, and hence his imp being - at least for the moment - non-functional, as Vecna lashes out through his Eye. (There may also have been some damage there - I can't remember now.)​
Here is a case of a player, playing his PC, having to choose whether to allow the flow of souls to go to the Raven Queen, or instead to Vecna as part of Vecna's desire to power himself up relative to the other gods (especially the Raven Queen). The player made that choice by reflecting on the content and implications of the various options with the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to those matters.

The choice reflects the player's conception of his PC, including his conception of his PC's relationship to various gods and to the other PCs. It also reflects the player's conception of the broader fictional situation, including what is at stake in the fiction for the other players.

I don't see how it would improve this episode of play to add: the Raven Queen is unaligned, and Vecna is evil. The player (and PC) have a lot of knowledge about both gods from backstory and events in the campaign. What does the evaluative shorthand add? How does it help the player to sum up the relevant implications to add a stipulative shorthand that largely floats free from the detailed events actually played through in the campaign?

And moreso I don't see how it would improve this episode of play for me to be tracking the possible implications, for the PC's own moral status, of choosing one way or another. Whether or not the player made the right choice is something that can come out in play.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> (This is partially cross-posted from the current "XP are illusory" thread.)
> 
> Here is an episode of play from my 4e session yesterday:The PCs broke the hold that the Underdark god Torog has over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. They did this by destroying the metaphysical machinery of Torog's "Soul Abattoir".
> 
> At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game - the machinery had been destroyed, the cavern was collapsing, and the PCs were escaping as one of their number tried to hold the onrushing tide of soul energy at bay long enough for that escape to take place.
> 
> I invited the player of that PC to make an Insight check. He did, and succeeded. The PC therefore noticed that his imp familiar - which has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - was channelling power from Vecna to try to direct the newly freed flow of souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen (who is the more orthodox god of the dead).
> 
> I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen. The player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen". (If he had chosen otherwise he would have felt the wrath of at least two other party members, perhaps all of them!) That was fine, and he then made the Athletics check to try and run out of the collapsing cavern behind his friends, being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter. (Whose player had made a successful check at a high enough DC that he could confer an "aid another" bonus.) But I also told the player who had chosen the Raven Queen over Vecna, something to the effect of Vecna being angry, and hence his imp being - at least for the moment - non-functional, as Vecna lashes out through his Eye. (There may also have been some damage there - I can't remember now.)​
> Here is a case of a player, playing his PC, having to choose whether to allow the flow of souls to go to the Raven Queen, or instead to Vecna as part of Vecna's desire to power himself up relative to the other gods (especially the Raven Queen). The player made that choice by reflecting on the content and implications of the various options with the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to those matters.
> 
> The choice reflects the player's conception of his PC, including his conception of his PC's relationship to various gods and to the other PCs. It also reflects the player's conception of the broader fictional situation, including what is at stake in the fiction for the other players.
> 
> I don't see how it would improve this episode of play to add: the Raven Queen is unaligned, and Vecna is evil. The player (and PC) have a lot of knowledge about both gods from backstory and events in the campaign. What does the evaluative shorthand add? How does it help the player to sum up the relevant implications to add a stipulative shorthand that largely floats free from the detailed events actually played through in the campaign?
> 
> And moreso I don't see how it would improve this episode of play for me to be tracking the possible implications, for the PC's own moral status, of choosing one way or another. Whether or not the player made the right choice is something that can come out in play.




I find it interesting that you took away the imp's power (and thus the players power) that it was receiving from Vecna, when the player decided to oppose Vecna... if the player had made the opposite choice would the Raven Queen have instead taken a measure or all of the power he gains through her from the PC?  If so isn't that making an evaluative call on the action of the PC?  I'm not seeing how his actions weren't judged by the deity Vecna (the GM) and then an appropriate punishment laid upon him because Vecna (the GM) had judged his actions contrary to Vecna's desires... why didn't the player decide if Vecna was mad enough to punish him?

As to what the "evaluative shorthand" of alignment could do to improve this episode (and note this is a purely subjective thing) is to communicate that these actions have a greater cosmological influence than just what is happening in the hear and now... that your actions have much more far reaching implications as even the tiniest of choices can tilt the world more or less towards one of the cosmological states that are represented by the forces of alignment...  IMO, it's more Moorcockian and even Tolkien-esque than Howardian as far as the type of setting it speaks to, stories it produces and, implications that naturally arise.  Will this improve your particularly play... I doubt it as you've made it clear there really is no answer concerning alignment that will give it a favorable view in your eyes.


----------



## Cadence

I think I'm good with the other things you say in the post, but...



pemerton said:


> What if the player doesn't agree with the GM about "what is good for the game"? Why is the GM the arbiter of the players' choices?




It's not that the GM is the final arbiter of the "players' choices", but that they're the final arbiter of the game and the outcomes of the players' choices. Why?  RAW in 1e, 2e, 3/3.5, and PF have always had it that way (although later editions have done a lot to soften the verbiage around 1e's dictatorial standing)?   Because someone needs to have the authority to break a tie and be the final enforcer of the rules, and by RAW that's the GM?

The GM (or playing group all together before things go) is welcome to delegate that authority around, just like they can house-rule anything else in RAW.   At your table, what's the tie-breaker if things are split 50-50 over something? 

EDIT: Removed tangential hypothetical situation about whether the Raven Queen created undead.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I find it interesting that you took away the imp's power (and thus the players power) that it was receiving from Vecna, when the player decided to oppose Vecna... if the player had made the opposite choice would the Raven Queen have instead taken a measure or all of the power he gains through her from the PC?



You really think shutting down one feat for an encounter or so (the full duration hasn't been specified, but the minimum of an encounter has been flagged) is the equivalent of draining a level or stripping a paladin of paladinhood? Within the 4e framework it's not as severe as many diseases (which can weaken until the next extended rest, for instance).



Imaro said:


> If so isn't that making an evaluative call on the action of the PC?



No. It's forming a view about Vecna's behaviour and attitude. The player is not obliged to form the view that his PC erred.



Imaro said:


> I'm not seeing how his actions weren't judged by the deity Vecna (the GM) and then an appropriate punishment laid upon him because Vecna (the GM) had judged his actions contrary to Vecna's desires... why didn't the player decide if Vecna was mad enough to punish him?



The player has deliberately cultivated his PC's service to about half-a-dozen gods, several of who are oppposed (Vecna/Ioun; Vecna/Raven Queen). And he deliberabely chose to implant the Eye of Vecna into his imp. He's been expecting something like this for some time, and more or less asking for it! At the moment of the crunch, he very strongly suspected that his choice would have a mechanical consequence.

He has benefits to, at a minimum in the fictional positioning in relation to the Raven Queen, which I'm sure he (and the rest of the players) will take advantage of in due course.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> My concern is not about "only one right answer". It is with the GM's power, and indeed obligation, to identify certain choices as _wrong answers_.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't know see how that is relevant. Whether it takes one _wrong answer_ (as with the paladin) or ten _wrong answers_  (or how ever many the GM decides are required to bring about an  alignment change), the point is that the player is playing their PC  under the Damocles's Sword of the GM's opinion about what answers count  as _wrong answers_.




Precisely.  It might even be more apt to describe the obligation (which requires a requisite amount of mental overhead and introspection on my own conflicts of interest in adjudication...neither of which I'm interested in partaking in) as identifying the continuum of _less right answers_ through outright _wrong answers_ (with respect to alignment shift implications) and quantifying the spectrum.  For a short period of time, before I just chucked the whole thing and we adlibbed it as a table, I actually considered developping and using a simple algorithm, then tabling the quantification of the ethos decisions along a numerical spectrum (C <=> L), so the transition from one state to the next was deterministic and reduced my own forboding sense of conflict of interest.  Then I realized just how crazy that was...for a game...that way lied madness.

I had a Paladin in my second 3e (3.5) game (circa 2004).  I very much appreciate the archetype (both aesthetically and as a means to fascillitate the sort of Arthurian Romance genre conceits that you value it for) but I have to say that dealing with At-Will Detect Evil (and all of the knock on effects required to deal with such a cumbersome, GM mental overhead producing Divination), and being obliged to consistently evaluate the continuum of _less right answers_ through outright _wrong answers _to deal with all PC shifts generally (alignment is steeped in the _supernatural _effect system of 3.x which is rife in play itself), and Paladin shifts (primarily away from Lawful) specifically, was maddening.  By that point I didn't want to GM the system anymore and was moving to other play experiences (outside of OtE, this was the beginning of my Indie excursion).  DitV showed me an absolutely wonderful way of dealing with the Paladin/Avenger archetype and handling the internal, physical, and metaphysical conflicts (and their fallout) that was both genre appropriate, engaging (and transparent) to the players, and required less mental overhead of myself.  Sorceror did the same to an extent but Dogs was the primary factor.  After that epiphany, I don't see how I can mentally go back.




pemerton said:


> If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game. In D&D, the main measure of this is the numbers on those parts of my PC sheet that engage with action resolution. Also, I want the game to have the space for the choice to play an honourable man be meaningful. I don't see how it serves my aim of playing an honourable man to have my ability to meaningfully affect the fiction reduced because the GM decides I gave the _wrong answer_ to a question about what honour requires.




Or even the _less right answers_.

As an addendum here, I don't consider it bad GMing to be attempting to quantify the spectrum of _less right answers _<=> _wrong answer _and then applying those quantifications toward an immediate or latent alignment shift.  I consider it proper GMing (in the system)...and mandatory.  An obligation.  Given how rife it is in the system, it made me nauseous when I started handwaving it and adlibbing it.  When I tried to jettison it outright, I realized just how much cutting, and 2nd order effect evaluation, it would require.



pemerton said:


> As the player of the PC, I get to decide what they require. If  @_*Manbearcat*_  thinks I've squibbed, I'm sure he's more than capable of turning on the pressure by framing new ingame situations (the "physical moral consequences" he referred to in his post). He doesn't need to tell me I'm playing my PC wrongly on the basis of some stipulative definition of his own.




Precisely.  Instead of making a metaphysical evaluation and saying "that action is much more C than L" or "the totality of this action appears to me to be a be a - 3 on the C <=> L spectrum (- 1 to - 5 being C and + 1 to + 5 being L) and that means _n _latent Chaors" (or some comparable iteration), what if I just put tangible/physical, perhaps symbolic, moral pressure on your PC to juxtapose the implications of C vs L.

For instance, let us say that it all shook out such that (a) the law says that the King's Justice be administered, (b) the tangible evidence that Thurgon is exposed to reveals that while the Dryad's anger made her susceptible to The Queen of Air and Darkness, she cannot be held fully accountable for the possession and the outright falling into darkness, (c) this execution would mean the loss of Lucann and his elven/eladrin allies in the coming battle (perhaps even a Cold War), (d) the turned dryad could be a staunch ally and great asset to the Iron Tower in defense of the Realm and (e) there is a greater power that needs to be confronted here - something far beyond the dragon...perhaps something that enslaves its will.

Thurgon invokes his right to vassalize the Dryad in order to solve many of the problems but, in turn, it creates a rift between he and the King, and perhaps a different kind of Cold War, ultimate splitting of alliances in the stead of c above, and a resultant weakening of the Realm.

What if the guilt of all of those vengeance-thirsty souls goes unrequited and it haunts Thurgon (at the PCs discretion).  Sating those restless spirits could be a quest, it could be the point of play down the road.  Perhaps this theme yields a change in Paragon Path or some nuance of PC build.  Perhaps some sort of fitting, item-budget-driven Boon makes its way into play.  What if a newly possessed Quinn ultimately turns against the party, and must be exorcised or die in the end, thus proving Thurgon's hypothesis and putting his haunted mind to rest.  

All sorts of non-punitive, physical feedback play could stem from those decisions where the GM shows the player the difficult side of their PC's decisions...engaging and challenging their Beliefs (perhaps changing them)...haunting an honorable man...and then providing him an opportunity for reprieve and closure.  Those principles and techniques can open up play to conflict and expanded narrative rather than contract them (while reducing GM mental overhead on fuzzy/convoluted/complex evalutions - including their own conflict of interest evaluation - and potential fallout when there is player:GM disagreement on ethos evaluation)



pemerton said:


> <snip example of play>
> 
> And moreso I don't see how it would improve this episode of play for me to be tracking the possible implications, for the PC's own moral status, of choosing one way or another. Whether or not the player made the right choice is something that can come out in play.




1)  Great example of play.  I really like that angle to your game and your continuing presentation of it has down well to show how 4e compels such play.

2)  As to the formally quoted bit, this is central for me.  As much as anything else I want from a system at this point it is a contraction of mental overhead of "stuff I don't want to keep track of".  At this point I have found that "stuff" can be categorized as system components that either outright inhibit/contract thematic play, are redundant/superfluous, or be opaque/convoluted enough that they require a requisite amount of mental overhead or table handling time that is not commensurate to the payout.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> It has nothing to do with good or poor GMing. It is about the notion of the GM being authorised to insist that there was a "true, clear, better choice": as you yourself do in the third paragraph that I have quoted.




In that paragraph, I suggest two mutually exclusive choices as being equally valid.  These were the two that the player was considering, and that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was suggesting had to be judged.  I do not believe we need to split this down to the fine algorithm [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] suggests.  Rather, I find it sufficient to look to these choices, assess that they fit within the bounds of reasonableness for the alignment in question, and move on.



pemerton said:


> If one believes that the player will also see that the "true, better choice" is clearly that, then GM enforcement of it - and hence mechanical alignment - becomes redundant. But if the player doesn't regard it as clearly true and better, then the GM enforcing alignment is exactly the sort of imposition that @_*Manbearcat*_ describes.




So what if we change the facts a bit – we make the Dryad a willing, even eager, servant of her evil master.  Lucann can’t see beyond his emotions, but Thurgon is more dispassionate.  We remove, in other words, the tension of Law versus Good from Thurgon’s decision.  Is it OK for him to decide that, while both honour and righteousness demand the King’s Justice be carried out, it would be inconvenient for me to have to deal with Lucann afterwards, so I’ll take the politicially expedient choice instead?  Screw honour.

BTW, I like the analysis of Thurgon undertaken by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] earlier.  To me, this is the means to express alignment.  These are the values and beliefs of the character.  To me, that makes him LG (whether clearly or on balance).  The GM can now assess whether his views are consistent (maybe the character straddles LG and LN, so we discuss that, clarify the values and beliefs of the character and agree where he fits on the continuum).  Having done so, provided the character is played consistent with those values and beliefs, his alignment should be pretty clear.  And he should have a pretty good idea that chucking honour for expediency may create an issue.



pemerton said:


> It puzzles me that you can't see that, by abandoning mechanical alignment, you can increase this space for roleplaying.




I have never seen alignment constrain role playing when applied in our games.  I am puzzled that you cannot see scope for role playing because you cannot get beyond the straightjacket view.



pemerton said:


> What if the player doesn't agree with the GM about "what is good for the game"? Why is the GM the arbiter of the players' choices?




What if the player does not agree whether a certain feat, spell, class, magic item or race is good for the game?  Is the GM obligated to permit anything and everything a player may find in a published source, or homebrew himself?  A player not invited to the game (or invited to remove himself) may disagree with whether that was good for the game too.  You seem to feel that a character who murders because he is delivering victims to their proper fate, as ordained by the Raven Queen, would not be good for the game either.

You also seem to assume the GM will unilaterally exert his own will, ignoring the others at the table.  I can’t imagine a GM call which would say “The character has changed alignment/fallen from Paladinhood” that would meet full disagreement from all the players at the table.  However, presuming same, I would expect a discussion of the issue, not “I’m the GM and what I say goes”.  Ultimately, as [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] notes, if the table is divided, someone must make a call.  Who makes that call, if not the GM?    Note that even “nothing happens now, and we will see where play leads us” is a decision.



pemerton said:


> First, how does "not losing a level" equate to "being rewarded". Is every absence of a penalty now a reward?




Why does a character with a stat of 9 have a penalty, and one with a stat of 12 have a bonus/reward?  We could just as easily establish a score of 0-1 being no bonus, 2-3 is +1, and so on.  A penalty and a bonus are two sides of the coin.



pemerton said:


> Furthermore, if it makes no difference to the playability of the game that a level is lost, then why inflict the level loss? I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it? Why should the game become less playable for a player because a GM thinks that s/he came up with the _wrong answer_ half-a-dozen times?




Isn’t loss of the goodwill of the King also a loss?  The character has less resources to draw on.  I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it?  Well, it is because the character made one or more choices which the GM thinks the King will view as the _wrong answer_.  So why does substituting “deity” or “philosophy” somehow make this so much different a judgement of the GM?



pemerton said:


> If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game. In D&D, the main measure of this is the numbers on those parts of my PC sheet that engage with action resolution. Also, I want the game to have the space for the choice to play an honourable man be meaningful. I don't see how it serves my aim of playing an honourable man to have my ability to meaningfully affect the fiction reduced because the GM decides I gave the _wrong answer_ to a question about what honour requires.




“Meaningful” is not a synonym for “desirable”.  Thurgon’s honour seems to place him in a very unenviable place in the scene set out.  “Honour” may demand actually following the orders the PC is given, even when the PC does not wish to do so.  You rant and rave against “mechanical alignment”, but you want every other aspect of the player’s personality to reflect in the numbers on the character sheet.  I find that puzzling as well.



pemerton said:


> As the player of the PC, I get to decide what they require. If @_*Manbearcat*_ thinks I've squibbed, I'm sure he's more than capable of turning on the pressure by framing new ingame situations (the "physical moral consequences" he referred to in his post). He doesn't need to tell me I'm playing my PC wrongly on the basis of some stipulative definition of his own.




If the cosmic forces are real, palpable things in game (the 3e alignment extract hits this nicely), then they are “physical moral consequences”.  And, again, how is taking away a resource whose special effect is secular rather than religious less a penalty to the character, or the player?  Either way, he has lost influence over the fiction.



pemerton said:


> (This is partially cross-posted from the current "XP are illusory" thread.)
> 
> Here is an episode of play from my 4e session yesterday:
> The PCs broke the hold that the Underdark god Torog has over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. They did this by destroying the metaphysical machinery of Torog's "Soul Abattoir".
> 
> At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game - the machinery had been destroyed, the cavern was collapsing, and the PCs were escaping as one of their number tried to hold the onrushing tide of soul energy at bay long enough for that escape to take place.
> 
> I invited the player of that PC to make an Insight check. He did, and succeeded. The PC therefore noticed that his imp familiar - which has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - was channelling power from Vecna to try to direct the newly freed flow of souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen (who is the more orthodox god of the dead).
> 
> I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen. The player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen". (If he had chosen otherwise he would have felt the wrath of at least two other party members, perhaps all of them!) That was fine, and he then made the Athletics check to try and run out of the collapsing cavern behind his friends, being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter. (Whose player had made a successful check at a high enough DC that he could confer an "aid another" bonus.) But I also told the player who had chosen the Raven Queen over Vecna, something to the effect of Vecna being angry, and hence his imp being - at least for the moment - non-functional, as Vecna lashes out through his Eye. (There may also have been some damage there - I can't remember now.)​
> Here is a case of a player, playing his PC, having to choose whether to allow the flow of souls to go to the Raven Queen, or instead to Vecna as part of Vecna's desire to power himself up relative to the other gods (especially the Raven Queen). The player made that choice by reflecting on the content and implications of the various options with the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to those matters.




Emphasis added – I’m seeing a suggestion the player was influenced  by the evaluative judgment of other players (although they apparently look the other way about existing service to Vecna).  I’m not seeing how the other PC’s knew where the flow of soul energy was going when the guy directing the activity, in closest proximity to the creature also directing it, and (I assume) the greatest knowledge of the activity in question, had to make a roll to know what was happening.  Given I don’t see how they would even know about the flow of souls.  They know about the Eye, don’t they, and have done nothing, so I’m unsure why this would clearly attract their wrath anyway.

In any case, you have now made the judgement that Vecna is not pleased.  How is that so different from the judgement that the Paladin’s source of power is not pleased?



pemerton said:


> I don't see how it would improve this episode of play to add: the Raven Queen is unaligned, and Vecna is evil. The player (and PC) have a lot of knowledge about both gods from backstory and events in the campaign.




Was that not known to all parties anyway?  Or do they wonder whether the Unaligned Raven Queen might really be Good or Evil, or whether Vecna is really a patron of Righteousness?  Not beating them over the head with information they already know does not mean that knowledge was not there.



Imaro said:


> I find it interesting that you took away the imp's power (and thus the players power) that it was receiving from Vecna, when the player decided to oppose Vecna... if the player had made the opposite choice would the Raven Queen have instead taken a measure or all of the power he gains through her from the PC?  If so isn't that making an evaluative call on the action of the PC?  I'm not seeing how his actions weren't judged by the deity Vecna (the GM) and then an appropriate punishment laid upon him because Vecna (the GM) had judged his actions contrary to Vecna's desires... why didn't the player decide if Vecna was mad enough to punish him?




All good questions which I am disappointed [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] simply sidesteps below.  Why could the player not decide that Vecna places great value on this servant, and as such will bestow even greater powers, since what he has given to date has not sufficiently tempted him to put a greater priority on service to Vecna? 



pemerton said:


> You really think shutting down one feat for an encounter or so (the full duration hasn't been specified, but the minimum of an encounter has been flagged) is the equivalent of draining a level or stripping a paladin of paladinhood? Within the 4e framework it's not as severe as many diseases (which can weaken until the next extended rest, for instance).




So we’re no longer discussing the philosophy of whether the GM’s judgments should, or should not, be permitted to alter the abilities of the PC’s.  We are now only discussing the degree to which the GM should be able to apply a penalty to the PC.

I find it interesting that you now compare the penalty you determined to the effects of a disease, but comparing the effect of a loss of level from alignment change to the same result of an attack by an undead creature was completely irrelevant upthread.

I think you are sidestepping the issue.  Here, you clearly evaluated the player’s actions through the lens of the deity, Vecna’s, perspective and applied a penalty on the character as a consequence.  This is what you have ranted and raved against for over 600 posts on this thread as completely destroying your ability to enjoy the game.

Why was it not left to the player to assess whether Vecna was angered, the actions Vecna would take due to that anger, whether the Raven Queen was pleased and blocked any rebuke by Vecna, or even provided the character with a greater reward than the penalty Vecna imposed (to say nothing of what, four other deities the character is aligned with who may have had their own views on whether the souls should have gone to Vecna or the Raven Queen)?



pemerton said:


> No. It's forming a view about Vecna's behaviour and attitude. The player is not obliged to form the view that his PC erred.




Nor is a player choosing a path different from that of his LG patron and being penalized for it obliging the player to form the view that his PC erred.  It's forming a view about the patron’s (deity or cosmological force) behaviour and attitude.  We have said as much, repeatedly, upthread.  



pemerton said:


> The player has deliberately cultivated his PC's service to about half-a-dozen gods, several of who are oppposed (Vecna/Ioun; Vecna/Raven Queen). And he deliberabely chose to implant the Eye of Vecna into his imp. He's been expecting something like this for some time, and more or less asking for it! At the moment of the crunch, he very strongly suspected that his choice would have a mechanical consequence.




A Paladin cultivates service to an LG patron.  He, too, makes choices.  If he is not aware that certain actions he has trended towards create the risk of a mechanical consequence, then either he is not very astute, or his GM is playing “gotcha”, or both.  I don’t recall it  making any difference to your evaluation of “mechanical alignment” that the player would be warned by the GM that his choice could, or even WOULD, have a mechanical consequence.  Why does it matter here?



pemerton said:


> He has benefits to, at a minimum in the fictional positioning in relation to the Raven Queen, which I'm sure he (and the rest of the players) will take advantage of in due course.




I would expect that Paladin who falls from grace also gains advantages in some form or another.  They may or may not be greater than the advantages he lost (although, if that’s his basis for choosing, I expect they are), and they are still different from those the character had before, so his concept has changed.



Manbearcat said:


> For instance, let us say that it all shook out such that (a) the law says that the King's Justice be administered, (b) the tangible evidence that Thurgon is exposed to reveals that while the Dryad's anger made her susceptible to The Queen of Air and Darkness, she cannot be held fully accountable for the possession and the outright falling into darkness, (c) this execution would mean the loss of Lucann and his elven/eladrin allies in the coming battle (perhaps even a Cold War), (d) the turned dryad could be a staunch ally and great asset to the Iron Tower in defense of the Realm and (e) there is a greater power that needs to be confronted here - something far beyond the dragon...perhaps something that enslaves its will.
> 
> Thurgon invokes his right to vassalize the Dryad in order to solve many of the problems but, in turn, it creates a rift between he and the King, and perhaps a different kind of Cold War, ultimate splitting of alliances in the stead of c above, and a resultant weakening of the Realm.
> 
> What if the guilt of all of those vengeance-thirsty souls goes unrequited and it haunts Thurgon (at the PCs discretion).




Why does the rift with the King, a different kind of Cold War, a splitting of alliances and a weakening of the Realm occur without the player’s consent, but those souls can haunt him only at the player’s discretion?  [I’m using Player as I suspect Thurgon himself does not wish to be haunted in this manner.]



Manbearcat said:


> What if a newly possessed Quinn ultimately turns against the party, and must be exorcised or die in the end, thus proving Thurgon's hypothesis and putting his haunted mind to rest.
> 
> All sorts of non-punitive, physical feedback play could stem from those decisions where the GM shows the player the difficult side of their PC's decisions




So you don’t find that example in any way punitive to Quinn, or his player?  Let’s see, first we deny him control of his character by possession, then we put him in a “they have to succeed or your character is dead” situation.  And this is a clearly superior option to Thurgon’s alignment being challenged, or being haunted?  Why is it OK to victimize Quinn, but not Thurgon?


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> Why does the rift with the King, a different kind of Cold War, a splitting of alliances and a weakening of the Realm occur without the player’s consent, but those souls can haunt him only at the player’s discretion?  [I’m using Player as I suspect Thurgon himself does not wish to be haunted in this manner.]




1)  The venue for a player being haunted (emotional fallout which may or may not be from a legitimate paranormal manifestation) is an internally located (with respect to locus of control) aspect.  I may make the offer or they may make the suggestion (either typically in the form of a Quest - Major or Minor contingent upon the stakes) but the actually formalizing of it is at their discretion.  I don't get to decide if something is actually haunting to their character, the player does.  I could certainly cue them with a paranormal event but its theirs to determine the significance and if they are hooked.

2)  The conflict fallout with the King and those related alliances is primarily an external locus of control issue.  If the player had PC build resources that insured them against this sort of fallout, then the locus would be internally located and I would steer clear of it (GMing principles) *.  As Thurgon was contrived (backstory, ethos, PC build), this was not the case.  As such, conflict fallout in this scenario is the GM's means (and their job) to evolve the narrative in a way that provides coherent, thematic adversity that is observant of the stakes and the material that the PC(s) wish to engage in (as cued by their backstories, ethoi, builds, Quests, and in-play actions).

* I should also note that a short-term (1 action <=> 1 scene), extremely anomalous perturbation of a  resource that is internally located (insured against tampering with PC  purchase), specifically when the PC has just made an informed decision which inevitably and clearly perturbs it (basically flagging that they want the situation to become manifest), is very, very different from outright, long term denial by GM imposition.  I am disinclined against this almost uniformly, but on occasion (specifically when cued by the player that the takeover is welcome or expected) it is a reasonable technique.



N'raac said:


> So you don’t find that example in any way punitive to Quinn, or his player?  Let’s see, first we deny him control of his character by possession, then we put him in a “they have to succeed or your character is dead” situation.  And this is a clearly superior option to Thurgon’s alignment being challenged, or being haunted?  Why is it OK to victimize Quinn, but not Thurgon?




My apologies here.  I was not clear.  This is thematic material that   @_*LostSoul*_  talked about wanting to explore in the PBP when he specifically took actions to that end.  I would never (not ever) perform a PC takeover by imposition such as the above.  LostSoul's Quinn was something of a listless, nihilistic drifter.  A "beguiling gun for hire."  Much of the challenge of GMing him would be (and was) presenting material that would either further his descent into disbelief, despair and the illusion of meaningful actions or inspiring him into belief and reinvestment in cause.    @_*Campbell*_ 's Lucann had a large role to play in exorcising the Dryad in the climactic finish.  However, Quinn's role was no less significant; he secretly made a (successful) deal with the patron (presumably the Queen of Air and Darkness) to be a willing host, thus freeing the Dryad from servitude.  He actually initiated the prospect of "falling into darkness" and becoming the primary antagonist down the line.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> You really think shutting down one feat for an encounter or so (the full duration hasn't been specified, but the minimum of an encounter has been flagged) is the equivalent of draining a level or stripping a paladin of paladinhood? Within the 4e framework it's not as severe as many diseases (which can weaken until the next extended rest, for instance).




N'raac summed up my thoughts on this answer pretty well in his post, it seems that the objection against the DM being able to punish a paladin for not acting a certain way through taking away his character resources has now switched gears and been changed to a concern for the level of punishment, when the argument earlier was clearly that the DM shouldn't be punishing the PC through denial of his character resources for how he behaved...

IMO, regardless of the level of punishment, your actions in the example are consistent with the general philosophy (which you claim to reject) of "punishing" a character because he chose to behave in a certain manner.



pemerton said:


> No. It's forming a view about Vecna's behaviour and attitude. The player is not obliged to form the view that his PC erred.




Well apparently if he wants access to the power of his imp and the power of the Eye of Vecna that he attained as a character resource he does.

Also I'm not seeing how this is different from any other deity (or cosmological force) judging and punishing a follower through the DM... A cleric or paladin who looses their power because the DM formed a view about their particular deity's behavior and alignment is the same thing as you just demonstrated in your post... only yours doesn't even give the PC's a broad outline to go off of like alignment does.  Your punishment of the player is based on whatever you as the DM feel the deity or cosmological force thinks and has an inkling of doing.  I'm in no way seeing the philosophy you have been espousing demonstrated in this play post... in fact I am seeing the opposite of it in actual play.



pemerton said:


> The player has deliberately cultivated his PC's service to about half-a-dozen gods, several of who are oppposed (Vecna/Ioun; Vecna/Raven Queen). And he deliberabely chose to implant the Eye of Vecna into his imp. He's been expecting something like this for some time, and more or less asking for it! At the moment of the crunch, he very strongly suspected that his choice would have a mechanical consequence.




So these are all assumptions, right?  I mean if you were certain this is what the player wanted then why not let him decide?  That would have been more in line with what you've been arguing for, if he wants to play a character who has cultivated service to numerous gods, and he deliberately implanted the Eye of Vecna in his imp... and you're sure this is what he wants and expects... why didn't you (like you've been arguing over the past couple of pages) allow any type of punishment, judgement, etc.  to be decided on by the player?



pemerton said:


> He has benefits to, at a minimum in the fictional positioning in relation to the Raven Queen, which I'm sure he (and the rest of the players) will take advantage of in due course.




Uhm, ok... This sounds suspiciously like my argument for the paladin and cleric having the fictional positioning of being backed by a religious organization/power/etc. that you then shot down as something you'd never considered... yet now fictional positioning with the Raven Queen is considered a "benefit".  How is this anymore a "benefit" then any other organization or power that any other pC has courted?  How does this so called benefit (which anyone can have) make up for the mechanical effectiveness you took away as punishment for his character not behaving a certain way?


----------



## Cadence

Trying to think of how to implement alignment (in PF in particular) in a way that might be acceptable to both pro- and anti- groups and wouldn't require massive rewriting of the rules...  here's a first pass:

Descriptive Alignment: law-neutral-chaos and good-neutral-evil serve as short hand descriptors <insert ways there used that way from previous editions for creatures, characters, and societies>.  A given player may find another short descriptor more useful in summarizing their characters moral/ethical tendencies and views for themselves, GM, and fellow players.  This aspect of alignment has no direct mechanical implications and should be kept updated to match the characters persona.  

Cosmological Alignment: Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are also names that describe  the collective  commonality of several groups of gods, outsiders, and divine concepts - other names in some campaigns might be Lords of Order, Lords of Light, Lords of Entropy, and Lords of Darkness.   The deities and outsiders with these descriptors typically have views in rough correspondence with the descriptive version of alignment above - but just because two deities share the same cosmological alignment does not mean they will necessarily usually agree on what is an appropriate except in the most blatantly obvious of situations.   Spells such as Detect Evil, Circle Against Good, etc...  are based on cosmological alignment and affect only beings that have that cosmological alignment and not simply creatures with descriptive alignments.  Beings with cosmological alignment include outsiders of the Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil types; Undead(?); and beings granted divine powers by deities or concepts strongly associated with cosmological alignments (typically those using aligned outsiders as servants or those granting the alignment domains) or collections of like-aligned deities.   These include many clerics and all paladins.  

Whether a character maintains their cosmological alignment is judged by their individual deity (or associated group of deities in the case of a concept) and how well they serve that particular purpose -  not on how they necessarily fit the descriptive alignment stereotypes.   [Note: In standard PF a cleric may have an alignment one step away from the deities alignment, but still gets that aura, and  "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."]

The alignment restrictions of the other classes are updated as: Druids are forbidden from having more than one cosmological alignment (e.g. they cannot be Lawful Good but could be one or the other).  Barbarians are forbidden from being Lawful and Monks are forbidden from being Chaotic.  Paladins are judged in the same manner as clerics.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> it seems that the objection against the DM being able to punish a paladin for not acting a certain way through taking away his character resources has now switched gears and been changed to a concern for the level of punishment, when the argument earlier was clearly that the DM shouldn't be punishing the PC through denial of his character resources for how he behaved



For some reason I am having difficulty communicating my key concern.

Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.

Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.

These are different things.

Also, an invoker in service to multiple gods, including a god of secrets and deceit like Vecna, is not in the same moral or metaphysical position as a paladin. The relationship is less like a calling and more like a bargain.

Being punished by Vecna because you broke your contract is very different to being told that your action is not in accordance with the ideals of a being who instantiates what ideal behaviour requires.

And I'd already posted upthread, both before and after [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post about "physical consequences", that it's obvious in an RPG that choices have consequences. But those are different from rewriting the player's PC.

(Perhaps you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] aren't familiar with the 4e familiar rules. A familiar can be killed, and hence take some time to reform. Stipulating that the "reforming" takes longer than typical is in much the same neighbourhood as inflicting a disease that limits surge expenditure during a short rest.)


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> For some reason I am having difficulty communicating my key concern.
> 
> Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.




No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil...



pemerton said:


> Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.




No but you still determine how this deity feels about a particular action... which is exactly what you are doing with alignment.



pemerton said:


> These are different things.




How you chose to state them would make them appear to be... but they really aren't that different.



pemerton said:


> Also, an invoker in service to multiple gods, including a god of secrets and deceit like Vecna, is not in the same moral or metaphysical position as a paladin. The relationship is less like a calling and more like a bargain.




This really has no bearing on the bigger issue... both are having their actions judged by a higher power/being



pemerton said:


> Being punished by Vecna because you broke your contract is very different to being told that your action is not in accordance with the ideals of a being who instantiates what ideal behaviour requires.




No it's really not... both are judging your actions and deciding whether they cross some threshold which would cause them to respond in a certain way... all decided by the GM of course.



pemerton said:


> And I'd already posted upthread, both before and after @_*Manbearcat*_'s post about "physical consequences", that it's obvious in an RPG that choices have consequences. But those are different from rewriting the player's PC.




Well, in 3.x there is atonement so in the case of both paladins and clerics the loss they suffer of some of their class abilities is a temporary state... if they want it to be.



pemerton said:


> (Perhaps you and @_*N'raac*_ aren't familiar with the 4e familiar rules. A familiar can be killed, and hence take some time to reform. Stipulating that the "reforming" takes longer than typical is in much the same neighbourhood as inflicting a disease that limits surge expenditure during a short rest.)





Oh, I'm familiar with the rules for familiars in 4e but they played no part in what happened.  You didn't use the action resolution mechanics to take the power of the familiar (actually kill it) and the Eye of Vecna away... you just decided it was gone as a punishment because Vecna was angered and then also decided on an arbitrary length of time to restrict the players access of the familiar and his magic item.  To take your disease example, it would be akin to you deciding without any rolls that a PC caught a disease because he made a moral decision and then modifying the disease to be even worse than a normal one... again all without using any type of resolution mechanics...  

What I'm not understanding is how this is any different than determining whether a deity, cosmic force, or whatever determines you've made it angry by not following it's concepts of good or evil???  How about this, instead of deciding whether what the PC did was "good" or "evil" how about you decide whether the being, force or whatever that is judging the character thought it was good or evil and punished him (just like in your example) appropriate to its judgement?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil...
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ve-the-gaming-experience/page66#ixzz2tdK4CHv1




Hang on, that's wrong.  Good and evil are defined by the PHB, not by individual NPC's or cosmological forces.  Good doesn't vary depending on who you ask.  There is only one definition given for good and evil.  It is not subjective according to the alignment mechanics.

IOW, if it's good to act a certain way, then every single good aligned diety will recognise it as such and reward it accordingly.

There is no "accordance with their concept of good or evil" under D&D alignment.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Hang on, that's wrong.  Good and evil are defined by the PHB, not by individual NPC's or cosmological forces.  Good doesn't vary depending on who you ask.  There is only one definition given for good and evil.  It is not subjective according to the alignment mechanics.
> 
> IOW, if it's good to act a certain way, then every single good aligned diety will recognise it as such and reward it accordingly.
> 
> There is no "accordance with their concept of good or evil" under D&D alignment.




I think RAW explicitly disagrees with you in 1e, 2e, and PF.  



			
				1e PhB said:
			
		

> Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment.  The descriptions are generalizations only.  A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil.






			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies.  Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. ... Each of these cases for alignment is, of course, stated rather simplistically and ideally, for philosophical and moral reasonings are completely subjective according to the acculturation of the individual.






			
				1e Deities & Demigods said:
			
		

> Alignment:  This shows the characteristic bent of a monster or hero to law or chaos, good or evil or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent.  It is important with regard to the general behavior of the being when encountered.  The above is also true as regards the alignment of divine beings, except that deities are not always constrained to follow their alignment to the letter.  Their motives and purposes are far above the mortal, and though a deity will generally follow his or her alignment, the being's specific actions may sometimes seem to contradict this.






			
				2e PhB said:
			
		

> Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values.  Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and evil.






			
				2e DMG said:
			
		

> It is not a code of behavior carved in stone.  It is not absolute, but can vary from place to place. ...   Finally as in all points of disagreement with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs.  Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone-it belongs to your players as well.






			
				PF Core said:
			
		

> Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. ... Each description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. ... Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Hang on, that's wrong.  Good and evil are defined by the PHB, not by individual NPC's or cosmological forces.  Good doesn't vary depending on who you ask.  There is only one definition given for good and evil.  It is not subjective according to the alignment mechanics.
> 
> IOW, if it's good to act a certain way, then every single good aligned diety will recognise it as such and reward it accordingly.
> 
> There is no "accordance with their concept of good or evil" under D&D alignment.




I am speaking to the details, gaps, gray areas, etc. that are not covered by the descriptions of alignment (It seemed self evident to me that if something was clearly and specifically stated in the rule books as a good or evil act no arbitration was necessary for said action  )... unless you believe alignment as presented is a totally comprehensive moral structure... and that deities are totally infallible and all-knowing beings (which they don't appear to be in default D&D)  different deities and cosmological forces would have to interpret the actions in these realms... probably in different ways depending on their portfolios, personalities, etc.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.
> 
> Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.




Does my rewrite in #652 above address some of that issue?  (Doing a recompilation of some PF rules, and if there's an easy way to address that concern it might be something for me to include).


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.




They call for you to judge the character's action against the fictional game universe's standards of good or evil, yes.  



> Being punished by Vecna because you broke your contract is very different to being told that your action is not in accordance with the ideals of a being who instantiates what ideal behaviour requires.




If you were playing a game set in modern times, and the character was part of the military, and thus subject to the codes of military justice, or a police officer, and thus tied to certain behaviors lest they lose their badge, or in a fantasy realm, joined a knighthood that had a strict code of honor, would you have a problem with bringing down the repercussions if they broke those rules?

So, if the characters puts themselves in the place of being beholden to a cosmological power, how is that different? The paladin, before game start, has made such an agreement - they've sworn to hold strictly to a code of behavior, and they knows darned well something bad will happen if they strays.  That's a bargain the player willingly makes going into the game.  There's no "rewriting" involved if the player is properly informed heading into the situation.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> They call for you to judge the character's action against the fictional game universe's standards of good or evil, yes.




But, who sets those standards?  It's not like the game universe sets those standards all by itself.  Those standards are set by the DM and the DM's interpretation (hopefully through the lens of the setting, but, not necessarily) of alignment.  



> If you were playing a game set in modern times, and the character was part of the military, and thus subject to the codes of military justice, or a police officer, and thus tied to certain behaviors lest they lose their badge, or in a fantasy realm, joined a knighthood that had a strict code of honor, would you have a problem with bringing down the repercussions if they broke those rules?




But, therein lies the problem.  For one, as part of a military or police force, I would have a very codified set of behaviours that most certainly does not allow two different people to look at the same action and come up with diametrically opposed interpretations of actions.  

And, at no point would my soldier or police officer, acting outside of those codes, suddenly no longer be able to access the skills he learned in order to become a police officer or soldier.  I might be demoted, I might be drummed out of the service, I might even be imprisoned or executed, but, at not point would my character sheet ever actually change.



> So, if the characters puts themselves in the place of being beholden to a cosmological power, how is that different? The paladin, before game start, has made such an agreement - they've sworn to hold strictly to a code of behavior, and they knows darned well something bad will happen if they strays.  That's a bargain the player willingly makes going into the game.  There's no "rewriting" involved if the player is properly informed heading into the situation.




But, there is rewriting going on.  The player and the DM have made this agreement in good faith.  No one is being a jerk.  But, there is an honest disagreement over interpretation.  Again, I point to several examples in this thread alone of two perfectly reasonable people looking at the same situation and giving opposite interpretations.  Why should the DM's interpretation always win?

As a DM, I do not want this responsibility.  I trust you to play your character in a manner which is consistent with the character you have presented to me, whether it's a noble paladin or a shifty eyed thief.  Doesn't matter.  I entrust you with the responsibility of playing your character to the best of your ability.  If you want to simply ignore that responsibility whenever it becomes more convenient, then why are you playing that character?

See, the argument seems to be that we need DM adjudicated alignment because players cannot be objective.  I would argue that the player knows his character better than the DM does and has no need for oversight.  Given the choice between maintaining character integrity and possibly losing the character and compromising the character and then trying to justify actions to the table, well, for me and anyone I want to play with, I'm reaching for a new character sheet.  If no one is judging your behaviour, then who are you justifying your actions to?  Yourself?  Why bother?  A player who simply chooses the easier choose to "win the game" knows that he's violating the table's trust.

If he doesn't care, then he's not really someone I want to game with.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> But, who sets those standards?  It's not like the game universe sets those standards all by itself.  Those standards are set by the DM and the DM's interpretation (hopefully through the lens of the setting, but, not necessarily) of alignment.




Alignment is part of the setting.   



> But, therein lies the problem.  For one, as part of a military or police force, I would have a very codified set of behaviours that most certainly does not allow two different people to look at the same action and come up with diametrically opposed interpretations of actions.




And no two superiors in the police force are the same, they might let you off with a warning or they might punish you for a week or they might strip you permanently. 



> And, at no point would my soldier or police officer, acting outside of those codes, suddenly no longer be able to access the skills he learned in order to become a police officer or soldier.  I might be demoted, I might be drummed out of the service, I might even be imprisoned or executed, but, at not point would my character sheet ever actually change.




No you do not lose the skills but you lose all the benefits of that organisation (Paladinhood) - you lose the licence to carry/use a firearm, make arrests, wear the uniform, drive a police car, use the police radio, the authority to commandeer vehicles...etc in the same way a paladin still has the ability to fight, use a weapon, retains all his skills and knowledge but loses all access to the divine. So your character sheet changes in a big way in both instances.  




> But, there is rewriting going on.  The player and the DM have made this agreement in good faith.  No one is being a jerk.  But, there is an honest disagreement over interpretation.  Again, I point to several examples in this thread alone of two perfectly reasonable people looking at the same situation and giving opposite interpretations.  Why should the DM's interpretation always win?




DMs are not unreasonable. They will listen to the players motivations as well as the rest of the groups at the table. You are really assuming the worst of the DM, because just like you state 



> A player who simply chooses the easier choose to "win the game" knows that he's violating the table's trust.
> If he doesn't care, then he's not really someone I want to game with.




I wouldn't want to game with DMs who are not just and reasonable. As I believe @_*Imaro*_ mentioned some pages back, trust is a two-way street.



> As a DM, I do not want this responsibility.




Fair enough. But you cannot deny you make plenty of decisions on characters through various lenses, perhaps not through the lens of alignment, but through others. Your only argument being that DMs and players can look at an action and judge it differently. DMs and players do that all the time with PCs plans. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. As I and @_*Bedrockgames*_ have said before we believe this to be a feature not a bug. 




> See, the argument seems to be that we need DM adjudicated alignment because players cannot be objective.




No they certainly cannot, certainly not on the level as most DMs. Consider why many house rules and limitations in the game are put in place, why there is this constant chatter re class balance on the forums, or muchkinism, broken combinations...etc. Unfortunately I do not have the stats, but I guarantee you a fair number of players look at ways to optimise their character builds mechanically, which is not wrong, but that reflects a predisposition to choose on mechanics rather than the concept of a character and that is normal given that D&D is still a game. 
Given that a class such as a paladin is arguably more conceptual in nature than most of the other classes (less gamist), it requires boundaries of a conceptual nature which might otherwise be broken by munchkinist/gamist tactics. Hence it is better to have an external adjudicator (i.e. not the player). 

I hope you understand what I'm attempting to say here, I currently do not have the time to elaborate further or place it more eloquently, perhaps when I get a chance later. 



> I would argue that the player knows his character better than the DM does and has no need for oversight.




Agreed, however the DM is not playing the character he is playing the Deity whom he knows best.


----------



## Hussar

I highly doubt that my actions as a police officer would result in one superior giving me a slap on the wrist while another fires me. 

Not unless someone was trying to cover something up.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I highly doubt that my actions as a police officer would result in one superior giving me a slap on the wrist while another fires me.
> 
> Not unless someone was trying to cover something up.




Are we really at this point of nit-picking???  Ok, how about suspension (you loose your authority in the same way as being fired, but can regain it just as the paladin or cleric could) vs. desk duty...


EDIT: Also even though I can't XP you nice post [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> As a DM, I do not want this responsibility.*  I trust you to play your character in a manner which is consistent with the character you have presented to me, whether it's a noble paladin or a shifty eyed thief.  Doesn't matter.  I entrust you with the responsibility of playing your character to the best of your ability.  If you want to simply ignore that responsibility whenever it becomes more convenient, then why are you playing that character?*
> 
> See, the argument seems to be that we need DM adjudicated alignment because players cannot be objective. *I would argue that the player knows his character better than the DM does and has no need for oversight.  Given the choice between maintaining character integrity and possibly losing the character and compromising the character and then trying to justify actions to the table, well, for me and anyone I want to play with, I'm reaching for a new character sheet.*  If no one is judging your behaviour, then who are you justifying your actions to?  Yourself?  Why bother?  A player who simply chooses the easier choose to "win the game" knows that he's violating the table's trust.
> 
> *If he doesn't care, then he's not really someone I want to game with.*




While I think [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] pretty much covered the bases in responding to your post, I am curious about something...

Emphasis mine... I'm a little confused, if what you state above is true then alignment should be trivially easy for you to ignore...  All you have to do is tell the paladin player to write LG on his sheet and never judge him.  Let him do whatever he wants let him always qualify as LG and leave everything in the players hands... how does alignment in any edition actively prevent a DM from doing this if they want?

On a side note, I notice though that you are still using DM judgement in deciding whether someone is playing their character well enough that they be allowed to remain at the table with you and your group...


----------



## N'raac

Wow.

 @_*Umbran*_, @_*Sadras*_, @_*Imaro*_ and @_*Cadence*_ said anything I  could have said. And, of course, I can't xp a single one of them...

The key disconnect here seems to be Good and Evil as cosmological forces.  The character (or the player) is not judged against my personal standard of Good or Evil, but against the standard set by those cosmological forces, as described in the game rules, and as interpreted, possibly even modified as house rules, by the GM.

This is no different, to me, than reading the Raven Queen's paragraph @_*pemerton*_ provided way upthread to conclude that she hates the Undead, or that she would employ agents who seek out those who, by luck or design, might otherwise avoid their fated deaths, and put them back on their fated path (ie cut their lives off as was fated).  Or deciding that Vecna chooses to remove the character's familiar for x period of time, rather than revoking all powers of the Eye and the familiar on a more permanent basis, or offering the character even greater powers to tempt him to be a more devoted servant, or deciding that the Raven Queen does not reward the player's actions in her favour by blocking Vecna's vengeance, providing compensatory gifts or even providing gifts well in excess of those removed by Vecna.

 @_*Hussar*_ - on police discipline or military justice - your view of homogenous interpretations seems misplaced.  If every superior would reach the same conclusion, why are military trials, disciplinary hearings, etc. traditionally conducted by a tribunal rather than a single arbiter? What is the benefit of having three judges if their views would always move in lockstep anyway?  Do you really believe each and every person of similar rank in a similar organization agrees 100% with the decision made in each and every case?  In non-military courts, published appellate decisions with a panel of judges often reveal very different opinions on the correct answer to the case.


----------



## Bedrockgames

N'raac said:


> Wow.
> 
> @_*Umbran*_, @_*Sadras*_, @_*Imaro*_ and @_*Cadence*_ said anything I  could have said. And, of course, I can't xp a single one of them...
> 
> The key disconnect here seems to be Good and Evil as cosmological forces.  The character (or the player) is not judged against my personal standard of Good or Evil, but against the standard set by those cosmological forces, as described in the game rules, and as interpreted, possibly even modified as house rules, by the GM.




this is the heart of it for me. D&D assumes a cosmology that isn't subjective to individual character's feelings or preferences. If each player gets to decide whether his paladin is doing the right thing, then the whole sense of a real cosmology like that starts to fall apart for me. So for the dungeons and dragons settings, i think alignment handled by the gm is very important. Now the gm uses his own subjective interpretation, but by having a single individual it simulates an objective cosmos pretty well. And that doesnt mean you entirely ignore player input or concerns. It is perfectly reasonable to talk to pkahers about their expectations and for the gm to arrive at a final decision on indiv dual judgment calls taking player feedback into account. For me the key thing though is ultimately the GM has final say.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> But, who sets those standards?  It's not like the game universe sets those standards all by itself.  Those standards are set by the DM and the DM's interpretation (hopefully through the lens of the setting, but, not necessarily) of alignment.




So?  The power of alignment is a setting element!  Why shouldn't the GM be setting it?  Just like the races available, the cultures that sit in the world - setting what the Cosmic Alignment Judge thinks helps set the tone of the game.



> But, therein lies the problem.  For one, as part of a military or police force, I would have a very codified set of behaviours that most certainly does not allow two different people to look at the same action and come up with diametrically opposed interpretations of actions.




You ever see the film, "A Few Good Men" (with the iconic line, "You can't handle the truth!").  You never seen on the news how cops have to go to court to decide if they used "excessive force"?  Even in the real world, with codified behaviors, there are different interpretations, and sometimes someone who honestly feels they were on the right side of the line ends up being judged otherwise.



> And, at no point would my soldier or police officer, acting outside of those codes, suddenly no longer be able to access the skills he learned in order to become a police officer or soldier.  I might be demoted, I might be drummed out of the service, I might even be imprisoned or executed, but, at not point would my character sheet ever actually change.




If your game has them as part of such a force, but is has no mechanical impact that changes... well, then I think you're being a little odd about it.

In my Deadlands game, anyone who wants to be part of law enforcement needs to have the "Lawman" Edge.  There's a couple Edges available for military service, and those edges give them some power they can call upon.  If they get drummed out of the service, sure as anything they're losing the Edge.  If they leave on really bad terms, that edge could even flip over to being a Hindrance.



> Why should the DM's interpretation always win?




*Always* win?  'Cause *no* GM ever enters into a conversation and is convinced by the player's point of view?  Really?

Well, see above.  The details of alignment interpretation are a setting element, and GM has final say over those.



> As a DM, I do not want this responsibility.




That's fine.  As a DM, I don't really like races with level adjustments.  We all have our likes and dislikes in games.  You rule out of your game what you don't like, I'll rule out of my game what I don't like.  I'm pretty sure you'll understand that, "I don't personally like it," is not a sound basis for arguing to eliminate a design element.  The game was not designed to have only elements you, personally, like.  Picking up a game is an exercise in compromise.  



> I entrust you with the responsibility of playing your character to the best of your ability.  If you want to simply ignore that responsibility whenever it becomes more convenient, then why are you playing that character?




And, if you're running a game where character abilities are never tied to their behavior, that's fine and dandy.  There's lots of games out there like that.  

But, do you ever have them roll dice?  See below...



> See, the argument seems to be that we need DM adjudicated alignment because players cannot be objective.  I would argue that the player knows his character better than the DM does and has no need for oversight.




There are several arguments.  And it isn't about "need".  I don't "need" elves, but I'd be kind of surprised to see they'd been eliminated from the game....

One I've stated above - the details of alignment can be viewed as a setting element, with effects upon the cultures of the world, and so on.  Sometimes, that's a nice set of knobs for the GM to be able to twist and turn.  

Another: has it crossed our mind that just like some players like testing their tactical mettle against the challenges the GM sets up, some players may also like playing through the tension generated by rules imposed from outside their own head?  Some of them like the challenge or risk of falling (and maybe getting back up again).  It isn't much of a challenge or risk if the player gets to decide on their own if they've succeeded.

As for the one rule you mention - It isn't that the player can't be objective, so much as players can sometimes be a little cheesy.  It is truly awesome that you've no players that you need to ride herd on to keep them from intentionally or unconsciously abusing the system in which they're playing.  Maybe you've had the stunning good luck to never have had to deal with such a thing.  Your players never need any oversight!  Awesome!

But, honestly, if you really needed no oversight whatsoever, you wouldn't even need rules, would you?  You wouldn't need to roll a d20 to see if they hit, 'cause they just know how often they should hit, and will choose to hit or not as is appropriate, right?  

Clearly, that's a little absurd.  So, your players do need some oversight, some guidance from rules and GM on some things, the imposition of some exterior rules to keep everyone on the same track, and to make sure there's some sense of challenge to the game.  Thus, we are only quibbling over where the line between oversight and no-oversight is drawn, and there's not going to be one clear answer for everyone.

Please leave allowances for those of us who live in a less perfect world than you.  Some of us want something in between "just let them do anything they wish" and "throw them out of your game".


----------



## Cadence

N'raac said:


> The key disconnect here seems to be Good and Evil as cosmological forces. The character (or the player) is not judged against my personal standard of Good or Evil, but against the standard set by those cosmological forces, as described in the game rules, and as interpreted, possibly even modified as house rules, by the GM.




I think part of it is how each of us has internalized alignments presentation in RAW.  In 1e (see quotes in posts #602 and 604 above), alignment is a set of 9 labels (such as lawful good) as laid out briefly in the DMG and interpreted by the DM.  There is an associated  secret hammer the DM should pull out and punish characters with by surprise if they don't follow the DM's personal interpretation of the various alignment descriptions.  It admits that interpretations are needed (see quotes in #656), but leaves the actual interpretation to only the DM.

Coming from that viewpoint, I can see @_*pemerton*_ 's concern.  It seems to at least border on requiring the DM to make moral judgements of the character's actions and to place their moral judgements over those of the players and come close to telling the player that they don't know what good means.  (Consider the case where the player is playing the character by their own moral code, and the DM is judging alignment by theirs).



pemerton said:


> As I just repeated above, the reason I do not use mechanical alignment is because it is a needless epiphenomenal device, that requires the GM to make judgements using morally loaded language about the choices that the players make for playing their PCs.






Cadence said:


> Would calling the acts acceptable/unacceptable to the lords of light/dark/entropy/far realms/consistancy/stasis make it less odious at the table (although not necessarily making it more useful)?






pemerton said:


> In my view, perhaps - because the player is free to repudiate the views of those beings without having to repudiate or adopt any particular moral label. Also, at least as I have seen those sorts of "lords of X" used, it remains an open question whether they are really exemplars of X ...




On the other hand, if one takes the 2e DMG approach (see quotes in #610) that is softened a great deal  from 1e, the player and DM at least have to discuss things and the rules give the DM an official out to just let it slide. In that case, I can then see the argument that if we're just always going to let it slide, then what's the point? It might also be worth noting that the Paladin section of the 2e PhB seems to hearken back to the 1e approach to the alignment hammer.

PF takes a big step away in terms of the cleric.  The cleric gets an alignment aura from their deity, even if their own alignment is one step away.  The cleric's actions are judge based on whether they grossly violating the code of conduct required by the god, and not the alignment.

I think if someone came from 2e DMG to PF, then it could be easy to choose to ignore the parts (8 paragraphs on punishing characters in 2e) that hearken back to 1e and take the view that the DM is just interpreting the will of the gods.   If the jump is from 1e (and maybe 2e PhB) to 4e, then I can imagine someone seeing a stark contrast between DM as secret arbiter of morality and completely not putting the DM in that position at all.

I suspect that a little better wording (a rough attempt in #652 above) could keep the alignment in while also removing the vestiges of 1e's supreme arbiter of characters' (who are possibly being played as proxies for the players) morality.

Of course that still leaves open the question of whether even cosmological alignment adds enough to the game to be hard wired into it in terms of all the class restrictions, domains, spells, magic items, etc... like in 3/3.5/PF. I lean towards keeping it as being part of the traditional feel of D&D, but I have to admit that entire machinery doesn't seem to come up very often in the games I play.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> It seemed self evident to me that if something was clearly and specifically stated in the rule books as a good or evil act no arbitration was necessary for said action



The 1st ed DMG tells us that good characters respect human (creature) rights. That entails that a rights-violating action is either neutral or (more likely) evil. This inclues, presumably, the right to life. The significance of the right to life is emphasised by the remarks, under Assassins in the PHB, that killing for profit is evil. 

Yet the most typical and mechanically fundamental unit of D&D play is combat, which by default is to the death. So straight away, the alignment rules in combination with gameplay require us to have a theory of justified, and therefore non-rights-violating, killing. Do we really need examples - dealing with orc children, or [MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]'s colonialism example, or [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s throat-torn baby - to drive home the point that there can be interpretive disagreements even over this "clearly and specifically stated" requirement? Let alone over what counts as being honest, or honourable, or altruistic, or any other descriptions used to state alignment requirements?



Umbran said:


> They call for you to judge the character's action against the fictional game universe's standards of good or evil, yes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if the characters puts themselves in the place of being beholden to a cosmological power, how is that different? The paladin, before game start, has made such an agreement



It's hard for me to address this within the confines of the board rules. As I'm replying to a moderator, I'll trust that if I step outside those boundaries you will let me know and/or edit my post appropriately.

For me, the paladin is very obviously modelled on an archetype that has roots much older than Poul Anderson and the D&D class writeup. As the very name of the class tells us, it is inspired by the example of the holy warrior. This has both historical and legendary/literary instances: Edward the Confessor, the crusading orders, Arthur and his knights, Roland et al, Aragorn etc.

These are not people who have "made an agreement" with some arbitrary power and thereby become beholden to that power. That a description of Faust, or in D&D terms a warlock or (perhaps, as in my 4e game) an acolyte of Vecna.

Rather, the paladin is called to the service of a being who exemplifies and demands virtue and right conduct. The paladin exemplifies goodness and honour. That is not to say that everyone who fails to live like a paladin is a wrongdoer - the life of the saint or the paladin is superogatory. But it is not a merely voluntary pact: it's a higher calling.

To be rejected by the being into whose service a paladin is called is not simply to have broken the terms of a contract: it is to be _condemned on moral grounds_.

That is fundamentally different from Vecna inflicting retribution by striking out at the invoker's imp familiar. That is a punishment, but it's not a condemnation. The same applies to your example of an officer of a mundane hierarchy: a rulebreaker might be expelled, but to be expelled isn't to stand condemned. For instance, a person who is expelled from the military for (say) refusing to execute prisoners or murder civilians might well conceive of him-/herself as a hero unjustly treated. But a paladin who falls from grace has no framework from which to judge him-/herself a hero. To turn the verb into an adjective: s/he has fallen.



Umbran said:


> That's a bargain the player willingly makes going into the game. There's no "rewriting" involved if the player is properly informed heading into the situation.



Even with the military example, however, I still personally would preferthat should not be a unilateral GM decision if it's inherent to the character concept - if the player believed that his/her PC was not breaking the rules, for instance because of a difference of interpretation, I would be hesitant to unilaterally impose my interpretation where that is at odds with the player's good faith interpretation of a code that is more important to them - given the PC they are playing - than to me.

I think this is an echo of  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point: if the player doesn't believe s/he is violating the code, and the GM does, due to a difference of interpretation, why should the GM's interpretation be preferred?  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has offered one answer to that question: because a key rationale for play is exploring the GM's world.  [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] has offered another answer to that question: because complying with the GM's interpretatation is part of the challenge of play. But if neither of those reasons applies to a given game - for instance, because the game doesn't emphasise exploration of a GM's world, nor does it emphasis roleplaying as a _challenge_ (instead emphasising, perhaps, the creative or expressive dimension of playing a character) - then I don't think there is any reason to prefer the GM's interpretation.



Cadence said:


> It's not that the GM is the final arbiter of the "players' choices", but that they're the final arbiter of the game and the outcomes of the players' choices.



I don't think the GM is the final arbiter of _all _the players' choices. I remember we discussed this in the long-running "fighters vs casters" thread, and I suggested that even some of Gygax's strong language to that effect was best understood as meaning that the GM is the final arbiter of the PCs' fictional positioning, but not necessarily of such things as whether or not the fighter player writing down "fighter" on his/her PC sheet means s/he has the class abilities of a fighter or the class abilities of a thief.

In the context of alignment, my conern is that if the GM is made the final arbiter of whether or not a player's choices for his/her PC are alignment-compliant, then either (i) alignment is no longer a model of what is proper, which makes the paladin archetype (in my view) impossible to play - a paladin is called to _proper_ behaviour, not to compliance with an arbitrary code - or else (ii) the player has to subordinate his/her evaluative judgement to that of the GM.

The first is what Imaro appears to suggest:



Imaro said:


> they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil



This interpretation of alignment appears to entail that the following sentence is a candidate for truth: "I violated the requirements of that LG god, but in doing so I acted in accordance with the requirements of law and good, because I upheld the demans of honour, justice, fairness and human welfare."

I think the sentence only has to be written down for its oddness to be apparent. Under this approach, why do we even use the labels "good" and "evil" if they are no longer doing the work they do in ordinary English usage?

  [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] suggests something similar to this with the idea that "good" and "evil" are relative in their meaning to the GM's conception of the gameworld's cosmology. But that creates the same sorts of problems. Now a player can of course leave their own evaluative baggage at the door - which then shifts us to a version of option (ii) above - but that is not what I am looking for when I play a paladin, or when I GM a paladin. When I play a paladin I want to find out what honour requires, not what the GM thinks honour requires: to put it another way, I want to undertake a moral and aesthetic exploration (of the demands of honour), not a psychological and biographical exploration (of my GM's beliefs about honour). And when I GM a paladin I want to find out what the player will put forward as his/her conception of honour: roughly speaking, I want to read the book the player writes, not write my own book which the player then reads back to me.



Imaro said:


> you still determine how this deity feels about a particular action... which is exactly what you are doing with alignment.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not understanding is how this is any different than determining whether a deity, cosmic force, or whatever determines you've made it angry by not following it's concepts of good or evil???



To my mind, deciding that Vecna is angry at you because you thwarted his chance at increasing his metaphysical power has basically nothing in common with deciding that a player had his/her PC act dishonourably, or wrongly in some other way. The first is a judgement about whether or not you thwarted a being's pretty simply interpreted desire. The second is a judgement about whether or not the PC, as played by the player, lived up to some standard or moral requirement.

You are suggsting that "Lawful Good" has no meaning other than "What LG gods require". Leaving aside the fact that not all LG gods want the same thing, this is a very contentious way of defining "good", both as a matter of general principle and within the context of D&D. For instance, neither Gygax nor 2nd ed AD&D nor 3E define "Lawful Good" in this way. They set out general moral requirements, and the implication is that these requirements govern LG gods rather than vice versa.

On this point,  [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]: I know that Gyagx's DMG stipulates that LG peoples might be mortal enemies, but it also stipulates that 'Good' entails respect for human rights, and that 'Lawful" entails respect for beneficent systems of social organisation. In the theory of international justice and international morality, there is a popular theory of democratic peace (having its origins in Kant's essay on "Perpetual Peace") - the theory of democratic peace is the theory that countries that honour human rights at home and respect internatinal law abroad won't go to war with one another. Now whether or not the theory of democratic peace is true is a matter of some contention, and I won't express my views here. But it's truth isn't simply a matter of stipulation.

And just to cash it out a little bit: two LG nations at war means two nations whose soldiers are killing one another. Thus prima facie violating one another's rights to life. With what justification? Self-defence? So two LG nations can't agree over which is the aggressor. But if each is continuing to prosecute the war, rather than seek a negotiated peace, in what sense are they still LG rather than (say) Neutral or even Chaotic Evil, taking the view that might makes right and is justified even in circusmstances of uncertainy over the justice of their own cause, and doubt about whether the targets of their violence are legitimate targets.

As I said, these matters can't be settled just by stipulation. I mean, Gygax or Paizo or someone else could write a rulebook containing the sentence "In this game (i) geometry is Euclidean and (ii) the king's table is exactly 21 feet around and 7 feet across." But the fact that they state it doesn't make it coherent.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> At your table, what's the tie-breaker if things are split 50-50 over something?



We don't have a general, formal rule. In that sense my game table is less like a legislature or multi-member court, and more like a typical family or outing of friends. If we can't agree we resolve via informal discussion aimed at consensus.

In practice I don't find it to be a big issue.


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> The key disconnect here seems to be Good and Evil as cosmological forces.  The character (or the player) is not judged against my personal standard of Good or Evil, but against the standard set by those cosmological forces, as described in the game rules, and as interpreted, possibly even modified as house rules, by the GM.




I see the key disconnect slightly differently.

The key disconnect I see is that:

1)  These cosmological entities do not exist but as words on a page.

2)  These alignment invocations are general rather than specific and where they are specific they may be, specifically, at tension with one another.  Where there is tension there is not just tension of the 1st order, but of the 2nd and 3rd (and perhaps beyond).

3)  Given that the cosmological entities of 1 above do not exist, then we have in their stead a very fallible (even if highly proficient) GM intervening and serving as oracle, understanding the prescriptive aspects of the divine but having to read the signs of the tea leaves/bones/chicken blood spatterings, et al.

The GMing principles of an alignment system, combined with the realities of the above, mandate a litmus test that must be performed by the GM to determine instantaneous alignment shifts or latent alignment shifts.  It is not reasonable or productive to perform this evaluation in-situ as the introspection, negotiation, and overt evaluation inevitably brings play to a sputtering halt, rendering all tension and pacing disjointed and sucking all life out of the gaming experience.  

As such, the GM must perfectly recall the PC's actions, and the context of those actions, that took place in the preceding session, have infallibly internalized the canon (Deity Domains/Portfolios and the ethos examples - eg respect for legitimate authority, respect for tradition, et al), and apply some kind of preconceived (hopefully not too fallible) litmus test, that I proposed upthread, post-hoc.  Hopefully the "party to be tried" (in my experience this is very often a Paladin being evaluated on the C <=> L axis) is present for their evaluation and is able to make transparent their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order reasoning for their "teetering on N or possibly C behavior" and defend their case.

The person may not be judged on your standard of Chaos versus Law.  But the cosmological entities do not exist.  They are words on a page.  Of which must be comprehended and applied, with all prejudices and fallibility in reasoning along for the ride, by a mediator; the GM.  So while there are words on a page as a constant, there are variables of prejudice, fallibility of reasoning, human perception that can widely diverge from reality, very imperfect information that must be in-filled (see prejudice, fallible reasoning, and human perception), much lower resolution of understanding of player reasoning (especially 2nd and 3rd order/long view intent) than we would like to admit, possible gaps in memory of events that transpired (or their context), some form of litmus test (be it algorithm or seat of your pants).

Butchering, throat-tearing Paladins are absurd anomalies (I've never heard of one let alone played with one) that are easily resolved without the above process.  "Bob, you're obviously an idiot or you don't understand the implications on the tin where it says 'Paladin.'  Play this blood-thirsty savage Barbarian or this war-torn Fighter and lets call it a day."  Being arbiter of alignment shifts (and imposing instantaneous shifts or advising of latent shifts) on the other 99.5 % of issues (especially C vs N vs L) is where this conversation has real teeth.  And those cosmological forces do not exist.  There are only words on a page.  A GM.  A moral quandary.  And imperfect reasoning, prejudice, widely diverging human perception, fallible memory, lower resolution understanding than we would like, and some form of litmus test.  And the stakes are typically not low.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I think this is an echo of  @_*Hussar*_'s point: if the player doesn't believe s/he is violating the code, and the GM does, due to a difference of interpretation, why should the GM's interpretation be preferred?  @_*Bedrockgames*_ has offered one answer to that question: because a key rationale for play is exploring the GM's world.  @_*Sadras*_ has offered another answer to that question: because complying with the GM's interpretatation is part of the challenge of play. But if neither of those reasons applies to a given game - for instance, because the game doesn't emphasise exploration of a GM's world, nor does it emphasis roleplaying as a _challenge_ (instead emphasising, perhaps, the creative or expressive dimension of playing a character) - then I don't think there is any reason to prefer the GM's interpretation.
> t.




EDIT: Never mind, misread your post.

Might as well make use of this post though. 

I would respond to the last portion of the post here with one observation. A game doesn't need to emphasize something for it to be important to some of the players at your table. I think this is actually why there was so much shock on all sides when 4E came out, and some people freaked and others were wondering why they freaked. So if you take out objective alignment in D&D because your campaign doesn't emphasize my rationale for playing, and I am a player in your group, to me that is still an important part of why I am there, and the sudden loss of alignment disrupts my sense of the game. I bumped into this constantly with wish lists and other aspects of play that started to emerge in 3E. I wasn't really sure at first what it was, I just noticed bits of things entering the game were rubbing me the wrong way for some reason, and I found it very frustrating that the assumptions of play that i went in with seemed to be losing support with each new release from WOTC (and it was some years into 3E before I really started noticing this). So I think with alignment the risk is, if you take it out, or make it more subjective, a huge swath of players like myself who play for the reason I do, will find it ugly disruptive that its no longer there. Putting a system like that back into a game is a lot harder than just not using it. Whereas before, alignment was one of those things people either used as written because they liked it,or they just ignored it in their games if they didn't. It is pretty easy to ignore alignment. I know GMs who do so, and their games run fine.


----------



## Manbearcat

I think I'll just post one more thing and (likely...I reserve the right to reconvene at a later date!) bow out.

Alignment likely works and may improve the gaming experience when:

1)  You have a GM that is unequivocally peerless in the group.  Not by his estimation.  But theirs.  

2)  The players want a metaphysical moral needle that moves mechanical units; Divinations primarily, but also Abjurations, Evocations, magic item attunement, and entry/maintenance in certain classes.

3)  Players want to play Paladins and see if they can abide by the GM litmus test/interpretation of Lawful and Good (typically the hard thing to do is to remain Lawful).

4)  The GM is ok with the mental overhead and handling time required to responsible and accurately adjudicate affairs of alignment.

If your group meets those parameters, then alignment would seem to improve the gaming experience.

My group doesn't meet any of those parameters.  I do not want that overhead nor do I want that handling time.  I am not peerless in my group.  Certainly not be my estimation and regardless of what they think, I know that they are brilliant, thoughtful people with major accomplishments (morally and in their professions/disciplines) in life, easily my equal (or better).  Further, they are interested in the physical outcomes of morality plays.  I mentioned Dogs upthread.  They want that physical fallout and they trust me (and I trust myself) to immediately and correctly frame that physical fallout in the way of knock-on conflicts.  I enjoy that myself and I'm quite good at it.  I'm not remotely as confident in adjudicating alignment.


----------



## Hussar

Y'know BRG, that's a point. And a good one really. If mechanical alignment gets yet again rammed down our throats, I'll simply ignore it again. 

But the original question was does it improve the gaming experience. Which I still believe it does not. It fosters a sense that the DM must police the players who are incapable of playing consistent characters. It's based IMO on the outdated belief that players only want to "win" and it is up to the DM to protect the game from the players.


----------



## Abraxas

Having followed along thus far I had to comment.

In reply to OP.  In my experience they can either improve the gaming experience or detract from it - much like numerous other things - depending on the players & DM.

If the players & DM trust each other, it can improve play, if they don't it may harm play. This in no way requires exceptional players or DMs - just people who aren't jerks to each other.

If the players & DM want the reasons behind/methods of a character's actions to have mechanical effects/affect mechanical resources available (similar to the artifact rules in 4E) it can improve play. This is no more difficult to adjudicate than any other number of things we ask the DM to adjudicate if we want the game world to respond to our characters actions. If you don't use alignment, but still have the reasons behind/methods of a character's actions impact mechanical effects/resources you're not doing anything different than that done in a game with alignment.

If a DM is going to use alignment to tell a player what his character can do, it really doesn't matter that alignment is in the game, take it out and that same DM will use other game elements to tell a player what his character can do.

Ultimately I prefer that it be left in, It's part of what makes D&D for me, and It's easier to remove it than add it back in.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Y'know BRG, that's a point. And a good one really. If mechanical alignment gets yet again rammed down our throats, I'll simply ignore it again.
> 
> But the original question was does it improve the gaming experience. Which I still believe it does not. It fosters a sense that the DM must police the players who are incapable of playing consistent characters. It's based IMO on the outdated belief that players only want to "win" and it is up to the DM to protect the game from the players.




Except whether it improves the game experience is a bit subjective, and a large number of posters are telling you it improves the game for them. And most of those of us who like it, don't see it as part of some kind of conflict between GMs and players, where its there to enforce playing characters consistently. For me, that isn't the purpose of alignment.


----------



## Hussar

Oh I totally agree that it's subjective. But of alignment mechanics aren't there to enforce players behaviour then what is it there for?


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> On this point,  [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]: I know that Gyagx's DMG stipulates that LG peoples might be mortal enemies, but it also stipulates that 'Good' entails respect for human rights, and that 'Lawful" entails respect for beneficent systems of social organisation.




Gygax DMG pg 23 says that "the tenets of good are... creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness" but under Lawful Good  it says that LG creatures believe "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest".

So according to this, LG types are Utilitarians but with a value set restricted to 'decent creatures' and an emphasis on the need for order. To me this doesn't bear much resemblance to Kantian 
conceptions of human rights or creature rights. The LG creature would have to sacrifice the
 one to save the many.

Under Neutral Good it says "law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, 
happiness and prosperity to all deserving creatures" - which still sounds a bit Utilitarian, but lacks a 'most benefit' calculus, so is perhaps less directly opposed to 'creature rights'.

The Chaotic Good alignment is the only one that does not refer to 'decent creatures' or 
'deserving creatures' - it says "The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness". 

Chaotic Good is the only alignment without a value-set restriction, and therefore AFAICS the only one at all compatible with modern or Kantian notions of human or creature rights. All those threads 
about the morality of killing orc babies or genociding goblins would be meaningless to a Gygaxian LG or NG if orcs and goblins are not 'decent' or 'deserving' - and Gygax certainly intended that they weren't.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Oh I totally agree that it's subjective. But of alignment mechanics aren't there to enforce players behaviour then what is it there for?




So that there are weapons (including character classes) armed for the fight between good and evil. Sure, you can use fireballs and all that, but having a spell specially target something evil is that much better for a campaign in which that particular opposition is important.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> Gygax DMG pg 23 says that "the tenets of good are... creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness" but under Lawful Good  it says that LG creatures believe "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest".
> 
> So according to this, LG types are Utilitarians but with a value set restricted to 'decent creatures' and an emphasis on the need for order. To me this doesn't bear much resemblance to Kantian conceptions of human rights or creature rights. The LG creature would have to sacrifice the one to save the many.



I agree that is a possible reading. To me, it doesn't help alignment, though, to point out that it is incoherent: that a LG PC is, qua good, committed to respect for rights while at the same time, qua LG, committed to denying rights as "nonsense on stilts".



S'mon said:


> Under Neutral Good it says "law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness and prosperity to all deserving creatures" - which still sounds a bit Utilitarian, but lacks a 'most benefit' calculus, so is perhaps less directly opposed to 'creature rights'.
> 
> The Chaotic Good alignment is the only one that does not refer to 'decent creatures' or 'deserving creatures' - it says "The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness".
> 
> Chaotic Good is the only alignment without a value-set restriction, and therefore AFAICS the only one at all compatible with modern or Kantian notions of human or creature rights.



Which creates an oddity I noted upthread: that some of the greatest proponents of the rule of law (Kant, the founders of the American Republic, etc) end up being CG. Whereas the so-called LG types end up being, at best, instrumentalists about the rule of law, but potentially far more supportive of a modern administrative state approach, with its sacrifice of a traditional rule-of-law approach in favour of benevolent flexibility.

In other words, I don't dispute your analysis but it's not saving alignment for me! (Also, in relation to my original comment: how could two Benthamite LG nations be at war? Just use Commune to get an answer to the factual question of how to settle the dispute between them so as to maximise their collective welfare. To the extent that they keep fighting, it turns out they're not really LG after all!)


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> (Also, in relation to my original comment: how could two Benthamite LG nations be at war? Just use Commune to get an answer to the factual question of how to settle the dispute between them so as to maximise their collective welfare. To the extent that they keep fighting, it turns out they're not really LG after all!)




Because war isn't about answering questions, ultimately, it's about achieving political goals. For what it's worth, I think it unlikely for two LG nations to be in a violent war against each other - trade war, however, or at other political loggerheads, sure. All you need is for them to have substantially different interests and those can be based on natural resources, other aspects of geography, differing priorities between being lawful and being good...


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> So that there are weapons (including character classes) armed for the fight between good and evil. Sure, you can use fireballs and all that, but having a spell specially target something evil is that much better for a campaign in which that particular opposition is important.




But that really only applies to 3e. Alignment based damage isn't really part of any other edition outside of very few spells like Holy Word.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> I agree that is a possible reading. To me, it doesn't help alignment, though, to point out that it is incoherent: that a LG PC is, qua good, committed to respect for rights while at the same time, qua LG, committed to denying rights as "nonsense on stilts".
> 
> Which creates an oddity I noted upthread: that some of the greatest proponents of the rule of law (Kant, the founders of the American Republic, etc) end up being CG. Whereas the so-called LG types end up being, at best, instrumentalists about the rule of law, but potentially far more supportive of a modern administrative state approach, with its sacrifice of a traditional rule-of-law approach in favour of benevolent flexibility.
> 
> In other words, I don't dispute your analysis but it's not saving alignment for me!




We are in agreement (not unusually ) - I just think it's very funny that the Natural Law-yers 
like Locke are Chaotic Good, and the Utilitarians like Bentham are Lawful Good!

In my 4e campaigns, Alignment is on PC sheets but is basically never discussed, players are freee to play their PCs as they see fit, while I play the gods as NPCs with their own views, often with rather subtler characterisations than in the source material (Bane and Shar are personal favourites...) This has enabled actual moral discussion as part of the drama of the game, and created a much more satisfying experience than GM-mandated morality.  I'd even say that players seem to play (eg) Lawful Good better if they don't feel they have the GM breathing down their neck. 

I think my view is that Alignment seems to be a useful descriptor for the GM when setting up likely conflicts in the setting and as a shorthand guide to likely NPC behaviour - Evil Hobgoblins 
vs Chaotic Evil Orcs, say - but players seem to do better without it as a controlling force over their PCs.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> In that paragraph, I suggest two mutually exclusive choices as being equally valid.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I find it sufficient to look to these choices, assess that they fit within the bounds of reasonableness for the alignment in question, and move on.



Are you willing to accept that there is at least one GM in the world - namely, me - for whom the task you have described is undesirable, and an impediment to enjoying the game? (And perhaps more than one, if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] are also in agreement.)

I don't understand how you reiterating what _you _enjoy doing with alignment is meant to make _me_ enjoy it.



N'raac said:


> I have never seen alignment constrain role playing when applied in our games.



In that case, what work is it doing? If players never make decisions based on considerations of alignment - whether they would violated alignment requirements or not - then what work is it doing in the game? The only examples you've given me of using alignment so far would be ones in which the GM overrides a players' view as to the moral permissibility of an action. That doesn't strike me as a great facilitator of players debating the moral merits and demerits of the options before their PCs, but perhaps I've missed something.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Meaningful” is not a synonym for “desirable”.
Click to expand...


As I used it, "meaningful" is a synonym for "desired", along these lines: if I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, my desires for the way the events of the game unfold should be just as likely to be realised as those of any other player.



N'raac said:


> What if the player does not agree whether a certain feat, spell, class, magic item or race is good for the game?



Good question!

In general I'm not a huge fan of unilateral GM rules changes, but there are conflict of interest issues here - the player has an interest in maximising the mechanical effectiveness of his/her PC - which are not present in the case of alignment. There is no mechanical benefit to being dishonourable, nor is there any mechanical penalty for being honourable.



N'raac said:


> Isn’t loss of the goodwill of the King also a loss?  The character has less resources to draw on.



Changes in fictional positioning, in my game at least, have a very different character from changes in mechanical effectiveness. A clever player can easily leverage new fictional positioning (eg having angered the king, you now draw support from the rebels). Whereas losing mechanical effectiveness is simply that - a loss in mechanical effectiveness.



N'raac said:


> I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it?



Because I am not playing a Gygaxian game. Mechanical effectiveness is a means to an end, of shaping the fiction. It is not an end in itself. Changing the fiction is meaningful in and of itself, for aesthetic reasons, which have nothing to do with whether a player is able to exert more or less control over the fiction.

In the context of the example of play I gave, turning on Venca matters because it is a dramatic moment in the fiction; an expression of commitment (or absence thereof); a pivotal moment in the unfolding story. It's irrelevant to its significance that it results in the PC being stronger or weaker.



N'raac said:


> I’m seeing a suggestion the player was influenced by the evaluative judgment of other players (although they apparently look the other way about existing service to Vecna).



And? Why would a player not be influenced by what other players think of him-/her (putting to one side conditions such as autism)? D&D is particularly ill-suited to Byronic individualism, because it presupposes party play. But I don't see how this bears at all on the use of mechanical alignment.



N'raac said:


> So what if we change the facts a bit
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is it OK for him to decide that, while both honour and righteousness demand the King’s Justice be carried out, it would be inconvenient for me to have to deal with Lucann afterwards, so I’ll take the politicially expedient choice instead?  Screw honour.



Who knows? You posit these scenarios as if they can be answered outside the context of play. Whereas the whole thrust of what I'm saying is that they can't be.

The issue of intraparty dynamics, in particular, is a complex issue in D&D play. Would my decisions about how to play Thurgon be influenced by the real-life consideration that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is trying to play Lucann, and I don't want to put too big an obstacle in his way? Absolutely. Do I want Manbearcat interfering in that and making me lose levels or PC abilities for trying to be a reasonable player? Absolutely not!

In this particular context, what if I decide that my Commandant who was seduced and killed by the dryad was thereby displaying his own weakness? And that what honour really requires is standing by my comrade Lucann, and what service to the Iron Tower really requires is re-establishing those ancient pacts between humans and elves, to which Lucann and the dryad have the key? There's any number of ways of going, none of which I think need to be predetermined, and in respect of which I don't need the GM to hold my hand.



N'raac said:


> “Honour” may demand actually following the orders the PC is given, even when the PC does not wish to do so.



That is uncontentious but seems irrelevant to mechanical alignment. I already posted a lengthy example of actual play upthread, in which a PC had to keep a promise given in his name (by the other PCs) even though he didn't want to. Why did the player play his PC that way, even though _he_ didn't want to have to keep the promise either? Because he is committed to playing his PC a certain way. He doesn't need me as GM interfering with, or adjudicating, that commitment.



N'raac said:


> If the cosmic forces are real, palpable things in game (the 3e alignment extract hits this nicely), then they are “physical moral consequences”.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In any case, you have now made the judgement that Vecna is not pleased.  How is that so different from the judgement that the Paladin’s source of power is not pleased?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you clearly evaluated the player’s actions through the lens of the deity, Vecna’s, perspective



No one playing my game - certainly not the player of that PC, nor the PC him-/herself - regards Vecna as a moral authority. He is an opportunistic archlich who worked his way to godhood and now seeks to accrete further power. (The dwarf PC takes much the same view of the Raven Queen - though she was a dead sorcerer when she ascended to godhood, rather than an undead one -  but that is obviously more contentious at the table.)

Judging that Vecna is not pleased therefore has no implications for the player's own evaluative situation. To put it another way: that his PC is an exemplar of necromantic secret-keeping (which is roughly what Vecna is the god of) is no part of the player's conception of his PC. The player and I have actually had interesting discussions about the PC's theory of where Vecna has gone wrong in his understanding of the significance of secrets, treating them as ends in themselves rather than as frequently important means to independently valuable ends.

The situation for a paladin is completely different, for the reasons I gave not very far upthread in a reply to Umbran. The source of a paladin's power is, almost by definition, a moral exemplar. For that source to be displeased means that the paladin has erred. The situations are fundamentally different, for me at least. (For this player and this PC, it's not clear what god might have that status. Probably Ioun, and perhaps also Pelor. Once I would have said Erathis, but I don't think so any more. The PC has changed.)



N'raac said:


> Nor is a player choosing a path different from that of his LG patron and being penalized for it obliging the player to form the view that his PC erred. We have said as much, repeatedly, upthread.



I know you have asserted that repeatedly upthread. From that repeated assertion, I learn something about your conception of a paladin, and of a paladin's relationship to a divinity. From my point of view, I find it hard to see, on that conception, how a paladin differs from a warlock, but then I've often seen posters who suggest that warlocks are really variant clerics, and so perhaps they share your view of paladinhood.

But the fact that you have a conception of paladinhood radically different from mine doesn't change my view. I think there is a fundamental difference between entering into a pact, and answering to a calling. The PC who angered Vecna was not called to Vecna's service. Vecna's values are not part of the player's conception of his PC; as I have explained above, the PC thinks Vecna is fundamentally flawed in his conception of the nature and value of secrets. The player, in choosing the Raven Queen over Vecna, did not think he was giving effect to any Vecna-ish values. Having asked the player to choose between two gods with which he is allied, and imposing a consequence as a consequence of that choice, to me at least has nothing in common with telling a player who takes him-/herself to be playing a called servant of a moral exemplar that in fact s/he is doing it wrong.

That you see no difference doesn't mean that I don't. It just tells me that you don't care about the same things in game play as I do. Which I already knew.



N'raac said:


> So we’re no longer discussing the philosophy of whether the GM’s judgments should, or should not, be permitted to alter the abilities of the PC’s.  We are now only discussing the degree to which the GM should be able to apply a penalty to the PC.



You might be. I'm not. Judging that the PC has pissed someone off is not judging that they have acted well or properly; it's simply extrapolating consequences from the fictional positioning. (For instance, we're playing a game set in 1920s Italy. I judge that you're PC has pissed of Mussolini. You might reasonably take that to be a good reason to have your PC continue to act as s/he has been.) The judgements I am talking about are evaluative judgements, that I talked about upthread in introducing the notion of "evaluatively meaningful decision".



N'raac said:


> Why could the player not decide that Vecna places great value on this servant, and as such will bestow even greater powers, since what he has given to date has not sufficiently tempted him to put a greater priority on service to Vecna?



Nothing is stopping him. He has the same PC build options, and the same item wish list options, as everyone else at the table. 



N'raac said:


> I would expect that Paladin who falls from grace also gains advantages in some form or another.



This is why I said upthread that I think 3E's Blackguard rules for fallen paladins are an improvement, although I would prefer it to be decided by the player rather than the GM whether or not the paladin has fallen.



N'raac said:


> I like the analysis of Thurgon undertaken by  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] earlier.  To me, this is the means to express alignment.  These are the values and beliefs of the character.  To me, that makes him LG (whether clearly or on balance).  The GM can now assess whether his views are consistent (maybe the character straddles LG and LN, so we discuss that, clarify the values and beliefs of the character and agree where he fits on the continuum).  Having done so, provided the character is played consistent with those values and beliefs, his alignment should be pretty clear.  And he should have a pretty good idea that chucking honour for expediency may create an issue.



Do you mean this?

*When the usurpers are overthrown, and the proper succession reestablished, then peace will come to the land.

*When the world is in chaos it is no wonder so many are easily misled - but I can lead them back to righteousness.

*Like all cowards, the dragon feeds on weakness. I will oppose it with strength.​
Those beliefs were authored by me, as part of the PC creation process. (Manbearcat asked for 3 beliefs, a la Burning Wheel. In my own 4e game I asked players for one loyalty, and one reason to be ready to fight goblins.)

Having authored my beliefs, I am not interested in the GM assessing whether they are consistent! In fact, I would expect the GM to frame situations that push them into conflict (eg by having one of the usurpers turn out to be a bulwark against the chaos of the dragon). That's the main point of writing 3 belief in the Burning Wheel style: to give the GM multiple levers to manipulate.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Alignment is part of the setting.



That's a matter of taste and mechanics. For those of us who don't run with mechanical alignment because we don't like it, it is not part of the setting. Furthermore, for many of us, the GM is not the sole arbiter of the setting.

Even according to the 2nd ed AD&D DMG, which both you and [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] have cited upthread, the GM is not the sole arbiter of the setting.



Sadras said:


> I guarantee you a fair number of players look at ways to optimise their character builds mechanically, which is not wrong, but that reflects a predisposition to choose on mechanics rather than the concept of a character and that is normal given that D&D is still a game.
> Given that a class such as a paladin is arguably more conceptual in nature than most of the other classes (less gamist), it requires boundaries of a conceptual nature which might otherwise be broken by munchkinist/gamist tactics.



I appreciate that you state your reasons for liking alignment clearly. I have restated them more than once upthread, and I hope I haven't got them too wrong - it's certainly not been my intention to misrepresent or unfairly describe you. (I believe I have mentioned you every time, so that if you feel I have got you wrong then you can correct me.)

As I have posted upthread more than once, the concern you state in this paragraph that I have quoted is not one that I share. In my game, I see no evidence that the player of a paladin gains a mechanical advantage by choosing to be dishonourable. Hence there is not the sort of conflict-of-interest that you describe. Hence I have no need to be an external arbiter of the player's choices as to how his/her PC behaves.

I get the impression from his posts that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s circumstances are much the same as mine.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> (Also, in relation to my original comment: how could two Benthamite LG nations be at war? Just use Commune to get an answer to the factual question of how to settle the dispute between them so as to maximise their collective welfare. To the extent that they keep fighting, it turns out they're not really LG after all!)




Can the Commune spell do that per RAW in any edition? I think I'd have a hard time as GM presenting true omniscience. Looking at the version in the Pathfinder Core book it just puts you in touch with your deity and you get their opinion as a yes/no answer or 5-word phrase "within the limits of the entity's knowledge". So if British Clerics in 1973 during the Icelandic Cod War Commune with Britannia over how best to ensure future cod supplies to British fish & chip shops, they won't necessarily get 
"let Iceland win" - Britannia might not know that the EEC Common Fisheries Policy would eventually result in collapse of North Sea cod stocks, leaving the well-managed Icelandic fisheries as a vital cod reserve.. And realistically, given human nature, the British Clerics  might not even ask that question. More likely they'd ask "How do we win the Cod War with Iceland?" - and get a truthful answer that 
would lead to British victory and thus no cod for my supper forty years down the line.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> if what you state above is true then alignment should be trivially easy for you to ignore...  All you have to do is tell the paladin player to write LG on his sheet and never judge him.



I'm not Hussar, but let me respond.

(1) That's what the players in my 4e game have done.

(2) That's playing without mechanical alignment. The next step, of course, is to not bother to write in those labels that do no work.



N'raac said:


> The key disconnect here seems to be Good and Evil as cosmological forces.  The character (or the player) is not judged against my personal standard of Good or Evil, but against the standard set by those cosmological forces, as described in the game rules, and as interpreted, possibly even modified as house rules, by the GM.





Bedrockgames said:


> this is the heart of it for me. D&D assumes a cosmology that isn't subjective to individual character's feelings or preferences. If each player gets to decide whether his paladin is doing the right thing, then the whole sense of a real cosmology like that starts to fall apart for me.





Umbran said:


> setting what the Cosmic Alignment Judge thinks helps set the tone of the game.



I don't know if I see a disconnect. I do see a difference of preference, and also perhaps of metaethical inclination.

For me, the notion of "good" as a "cosmological force" interpreted by the GM is like the game rules that say "In this game geometry is Euclidean but pi = 3, and also it is possible to square a circle with compass and ruler". I can read the words but they don't actually describe a scenario I can make sense of. In the case of the weird geometry, perhaps if I could understand it I might enjoy it - it might be gently Lovecraftian. But in the case of "cosmological forces", to the extent that I do understand it I don't want it. Apart from anything else, why are they being labelled "good" and "evil"? Why not just call them Team A and Team B, if they're not actually intended to instantiate the values that those words describe? If the Cosmic Alignment Judge of goodness is not actually good, then in what sense is that being a judge of goodness at all? S/he's a judge of some other value, or perhaps - depending on how s/he is being played by the GM - of no value at all.



Umbran said:


> We all have our likes and dislikes in games.  You rule out of your game what you don't like, I'll rule out of my game what I don't like.  I'm pretty sure you'll understand that, "I don't personally like it," is not a sound basis for arguing to eliminate a design element.



Who is arguing for the elimination of alignment. All I've been doing - and as I read him, at least, all [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has been doing - is explaining why alignment is an impediment to my play experience, and elaborating on that explanation in reply to some posters who have told me that I'm wrong about that.



Cadence said:


> Does my rewrite in #652 above address some of that issue?  (Doing a recompilation of some PF rules, and if there's an easy way to address that concern it might be something for me to include).



I will reply, but this thread has grown quicker than I can keep up with it! Also, I couldn't XP your post 668, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it!


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> A game doesn't need to emphasize something for it to be important to some of the players at your table.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So if you take out objective alignment in D&D because your campaign doesn't emphasize my rationale for playing, and I am a player in your group, to me that is still an important part of why I am there, and the sudden loss of alignment disrupts my sense of the game.



OK. But you're not playing in my group. So what's wrong with me not using mechanical alignment? And how does this bear on whether or not it has been, or would be, an impediment to my play experience?


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> I think my view is that Alignment seems to be a useful descriptor for the GM when setting up likely conflicts in the setting and as a shorthand guide to likely NPC behaviour - Evil Hobgoblins vs Chaotic Evil Orcs



As a shorthand personality/politics descriptor for NPCs I don't mind it all, especially in the sort of "bright palette" cosmology that default 4e inclines towards. I also agree with you that some of the gods (like Bane) lend themselves well to more subtle shading, at which point the alignment descriptor is at best a simplistic starting point.

For similar reasons I much prefer classic L/N/C alignment to AD&D-ish 9-point alignment. I think it serves that same potentially helpful descriptor role - Where do these guys fit in the cosmological struggle? - while leaving plenty of scope for GM elaboration and nuance as required.



S'mon said:


> Can the Commune spell do that per RAW in any edition?



Perhaps not. Still, I think it is somewhat telling that the only basis for war between two LG countries can be epistemic obstacles to determining whose control over what resources would better facilitate their collective welfare. That doesn't sit well with the idea that they might be "mortal enemies" for instance, as opposed to (say) trade rivals.

As well as your cod example, I think this analysis could be further developed by exploring the collapse of the Concert of Europe and the (re-)emergence of Franco-Germany rivalry in the latter part of the 19th century, and the way that rivalry unfolded and then was in some senses at least ameliorated in the 20th century. But that might violated board rules against politics. Also, I'm not sure either is an acceptable candidate as a LG nation.



billd91 said:


> Because war isn't about answering questions, ultimately, it's about achieving political goals. For what it's worth, I think it unlikely for two LG nations to be in a violent war against each other



Isn't that agreeing with me, then? If you're LG - and therefore Benthamite in the way S'mon described - you _don't have_ any political goals other than the greatest good of the greatest number. There is no glory, no honour, no "place in the sun". (Hence Weber's dismissal of utilitarianism as a morality for shopkeepers!)


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Are you willing to accept that there is at least one GM in the world - namely, me - for whom the task you have described is undesirable, and an impediment to enjoying the game? (And perhaps more than one, if  @_*Hussar*_  and  @_*Manbearcat*_  are also in agreement.)




I am in agreement and then some.  Alignment, and its knock-on effects that interact with PC build resources, have only ever served to make the game maddening for me to run.  Whats more, I 100 % feel that the very inexact process of evaluating shifts is beyond me and requires more mental devotion than I would like to give it, thus stealing some of my in-game "computing power" (and out of game time) that I would like to spend elsewhere.  Given how confident I am as a person, and how I feel about myself evaluating alignment, I suspect I would find it very difficult to be a PC under a GM in such a circumstance.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Oh I totally agree that it's subjective. But of alignment mechanics aren't there to enforce players behaviour then what is it there for?




To create the sense that your character inhabits a world with objective moral cosmological forces. Good exists and it is real. Evil exists and it is real. At times this will affect player behavior but i do not see that as the final purpose of alignment.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> For similar reasons I much prefer classic L/N/C alignment to AD&D-ish 9-point alignment. I think it serves that same potentially helpful descriptor role - Where do these guys fit in the cosmological struggle? - while leaving plenty of scope for GM elaboration and nuance as required.
> 
> Still, I think it is somewhat telling that the only basis for war between two LG countries can be epistemic obstacles to determining whose control over what resources would better facilitate their collective welfare. That doesn't sit well with the idea that they might be "mortal enemies" for instance, as opposed to (say) trade rivals.




I also find that the linear models - L-N-C, and 4e's LG-G-U-E-CE - seem to work much better than the twin-axis model of 1e-3e. I've been running Pathfinder recently and I'm a bit worried about Alignment problems, especially with a new player playing a Paladin and immediately saying she was looking for an opportunity to Fall! 

I think I have to agree that war between two perfectly knowledgeable Utilitarian-LG countries would be pretty much impossible. Either knowledge must be imperfect, or the countries are imperfectly LG,or a different interpretation of LG is used. In practice I think few GMs use Gygax's definition of 
LG; Gygax certainly didn't IMO - his LG societies tend to be quasi-medieval-Catholic, inasmuch as they're defined at all. Personally I certainly don't think of D&D Paladins as act-Utilitarians, or Bentham as LG. NG, maybe. And I guess by D&D standards the Lockean tradition is indeed more or 
less CG - but these are not decisions I particularly want to have to make in-game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> For me, the notion of "good" as a "cosmological force" interpreted by the GM is like the game rules that say "In this game geometry is Euclidean but pi = 3, and also it is possible to square a circle with compass and ruler". I can read the words but they don't actually describe a scenario I can make sense of. In the case of the weird geometry, perhaps if I could understand it I might enjoy it - it might be gently Lovecraftian. But in the case of "cosmological forces", to the extent that I do understand it I don't want it. Apart from anything else, why are they being labelled "good" and "evil"? Why not just call them Team A and Team B, if they're not actually intended to instantiate the values that those words describe? If the Cosmic Alignment Judge of goodness is not actually good, then in what sense is that being a judge of goodness at all? S/he's a judge of some other value, or perhaps - depending on how s/he is being played by the GM - of no value at all.




I definitely do not have this issue when i use alignment. For me it is like accepting the conceit that dragons fly and breath fire. 

I see some people speak of them as team A and Team b, and i do not view different alignments this way, i view them as forces that represent different moral positions and values. Those values are labeled lawful god, chaotic good, etc. 

I get that you might personally object to their charcaterization of good. On the other hand, i know lots of people who generally agree with them. I don't feel the need myself for my own views of wthics to enter into my assesment of alignment. To me, alignment is like all the other thought experiments you hre in the fantasy genre (what if there was a world where x was the case). Most of these thought experiments break down under logical scrutiny eventually. Most of my favorite fantasy books and films are riddled with these kinds of issues. But i am okay with that if the coolness and interesting factor is there for me. 

There are a couple of approaches here. One the gm simpky uses th text as a guide and interprets it (i.e. In faerun good means x, even if it isn't my own personal view), the other is to take your own understanding of the key terms into the reading. Both can work. Both will have the gm be the final arbiter.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> But that really only applies to 3e. Alignment based damage isn't really part of any other edition outside of very few spells like Holy Word.




It's not really just damage and it's not really just spells. I mentioned spells as an example, but there are others including paladins, evil clerics capable of turning paladins, intelligent swords with special purposes and powers devoted to destroying evil, holy avengers and spells like dispel evil and protection from evil. 3e has more of them, sure, but it wasn't like the others didn't turn up in D&D campaigns dating back to at least 1st edition.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Isn't that agreeing with me, then? If you're LG - and therefore Benthamite in the way S'mon described - you _don't have_ any political goals other than the greatest good of the greatest number. There is no glory, no honour, no "place in the sun". (Hence Weber's dismissal of utilitarianism as a morality for shopkeepers!)




Why would all LG nations be Benthamite only without any other prejudices or priorities? Why wouldn't they have other agendas that conflict? Why wouldn't they have rivalries that they'd exploit? Alignment isn't a straight jacket into a particular utilitarian philosophy any more than it governs all aspects of a person's behavior. They could still be democrats, oligarchs, aristocrats, monarchists, whatever, and still have to manage other interests from within their specific political prejudices.


----------



## Cadence

S'mon said:


> I also find that the linear models - L-N-C, and 4e's LG-G-U-E-CE - seem to work much better than the twin-axis model of 1e-3e. I've been running Pathfinder recently and I'm a bit worried about Alignment problems, especially with a new player playing a Paladin and immediately saying she was looking for an opportunity to Fall!




I like the PF version of keeping the Cleric's feet to the fire more than the Paladin's...  could just make it keeping to the deities code than to LG.
And if the character is looking for the full fall-experience, I say give it to her.  Have the rest of her order hunt her down with extreme prejudice if she does and isn't truly remorseful (like the Jedi hunting the Sith... except this time all the clones won't turn on them when they're unprepared).


----------



## Imaro

billd91 said:


> Why would all LG nations be Benthamite only without any other prejudices or priorities? Why wouldn't they have other agendas that conflict? Why wouldn't they have rivalries that they'd exploit? *Alignment isn't a straight jacket into a particular utilitarian philosophy any more than it governs all aspects of a person's behavior.* They could still be democrats, oligarchs, aristocrats, monarchists, whatever, and still have to manage other interests from within their specific political prejudices.





Emphasis mine... this has been repeated by numerous posters (and even cited in passages from various editions) by the side that believes alignment can enhance or improve their games... Yet for some reason those who don't like or want alignment can't accept this as truthful for us and continue to paint alignment as a straight jacket.  I don't think there's any real understanding or even conversation to be had until they are willing to listento this point and accept that we, as well as the books, are not lying or mistaken about this... and that regardless of the fact that they continue to see alignment in this manner, they are the ones mis-representing what alignment is.  I know I'm tired of repeating it.


----------



## Imaro

S'mon said:


> ...especially with a new player playing a Paladin and immediately saying she was looking for an opportunity to Fall!




Wait... so you have a player who chose the paladin with the intention of not playing the archetype in the manner it's meant to be played in?  Are you still up for playing with this person?


----------



## TwoSix

Imaro said:


> Wait... so you have a player who chose the paladin with the intention of not playing the archetype in the manner it's meant to be played in?  Are you still up for playing with this person?



I don't know, I think playing with a paladin who's up front about his desire to explore the mechanics and storyline ramifications of falling would be quite interesting.  Maybe even have a Vader-esque redemption at the end of the game.

(And if you time it so you fall at 11th level, making you a ex-paladin 1/blackguard10, well, who's counting?)


----------



## Imaro

TwoSix said:


> I don't know, I think playing with a paladin who's up front about his desire to explore the mechanics and storyline ramifications of falling would be quite interesting.  Maybe even have a Vader-esque redemption at the end of the game.
> 
> (And if you time it so you fall at 11th level, making you a ex-paladin 1/blackguard10, well, who's counting?)




Oh, I think so too... it's just that there were some who couldn't/didn't understand why anyone would pick a paladin and then not play to the paladin's archetype... and even went so far as to say it was the type of player they wouldn't want in their game.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that this player is using alignment but still actively taking their character's personalty into their own hands by deciding to fall and accept the consequences as opposed to claiming that they shouldn't be "punished" by the DM.  

IMO, that's what I find interesting in the paladin archetype... how much are you willing to sacrifice in following your own desires/beliefs/etc and, if the player decides later, how much are you willing to give/do/sacrifice in order to have that state of grace reinstated after you have lost it.


----------



## Manbearcat

TwoSix said:


> I don't know, I think playing with a paladin who's up front about his desire to explore the mechanics and storyline ramifications of falling would be quite interesting. Maybe even have a Vader-esque redemption at the end of the game.
> 
> (And if you time it so you fall at 11th level, making you a ex-paladin 1/blackguard10, well, who's counting?)






Imaro said:


> Oh, I think so too... it's just that there were some who couldn't/didn't understand why anyone would pick a paladin and then not play to the paladin's archetype... and even went so far as to say it was the type of player they wouldn't want in their game.




I just wanted to chime in here right quick and make sure that my position on this issue is clear. I won't speak for anyone else.

My current 4e game actually had a "fallen Paladin" as the primary antagonist for the Epic tier of play. I wrote up a long post expressing all of the details but I cannot seem to find it for whatever reason. The players actually played out his fall in a several session effort (I want to say 25 hours in total). There was the Paladin, his Silver Dragon Mount (companion character), and his sage/herald (Merlinish character who was also a companion character). We played the entirety of his fall (which ultimately turned out to be possession by the demon lord Juiblex). It was a great series of sessions and made for a more rich experience in opposing him, and ultimately freeing him from the posession and helping to bring about his rise from the fall.

In a well-balanced system, I have no issue with a player actually volunteering to fall (thus muting some of the primary issues I have with GM-imposed fall by way of prescriptive alignment evaluation). My main issues with the mechanically-interfacing, alignment-driven Paladin fall (rather than just the dramatic evolution of a protagonist) is:

1) Paladins, specifically in 3.x, have specific requirements to maintain their standing of Lawful and Good. If the player is unaware of the implications and nuance of Law vs Chaos (Good versus Evil is pretty easy to understand), and it is my duty to quality control this behavior, it inevitably requires a lot of mental exertion on my part to (a) educate them on L <= N => C generally (in a vaccuum) and my sense of the specificities of the behavioral regime within context, (b) evaluate their behavior for instantaneous or latent shifts with respect to that continuum, and (c) execute those shifts in game with precise communication. 

Otherwise, the informed player should understand it. Follwing that, if they understand it and sincerely want to play a Paladin (with all of the thematic material therein) then it should be unnecessary for me to perform the (unwelcome) mental overhead of quality control of their behavioral regime.

2) Balance. In the 4e game where we ran the fallen Paladin, this wasn't a concern. Relative encounter budgeting remained unchanged. However, a Paladin (already a class on the lower end of the power spectrum and coupled with a very narrow loadout of abilities, that focuses on specific conflicts, within that spectrum of power) that suddenly turns into a Fighter without bonus feats and Weapon Spec becomes a big problem for the GM in 3.x. CR is already unwieldy as class power disparity becomes a grave issue from level 7 onward. Turning an already weak class into a considerably weaker one, further perturbing encounter budgetting , for the duration of an atonement quest (that should be featuring them as the focal point) is a headache that I'm not interested in managing.

Expected or player-initiated falling with no mechanical perterbance? All for it. The general morality play or the thematics aren't the issue for me. I'm a fan of the trope of fallen heroes.


----------



## Manbearcat

Question for folks who enjoy mechanical alignment:

When a Paladin is working with imperfect information and must make a crucial decision where the stakes are high (eg the next move made truly matters), is it incumbent upon the player to (pretty much) exclusively default to the Lawful position; favoring the establishment, observing tradition, and following the protocol of a legitimate authority?  If not, then at what frequency of decision-making which disregards (therefore subverting) legitimate authority, bucks the establishment, and besmirches tradition is cause given for the GM to shift the Paladin from Lawful to Neutral (or Chaotic)?

I would assume that GMs have a well-considered M.O. for this scenario.  I'm curious just how transparent, codified, and/or uniform people are on this (very important in my estimation) issue.


----------



## billd91

Manbearcat said:


> Question for folks who enjoy mechanical alignment:
> 
> When a Paladin is working with imperfect information and must make a crucial decision where the stakes are high (eg the next move made truly matters), is it incumbent upon the player to (pretty much) exclusively default to the Lawful position; favoring the establishment, observing tradition, and following the protocol of a legitimate authority?  If not, then at what frequency of decision-making which disregards (therefore subverting) legitimate authority, bucks the establishment, and besmirches tradition is cause given for the GM to shift the Paladin from Lawful to Neutral (or Chaotic)?
> 
> I would assume that GMs have a well-considered M.O. for this scenario.  I'm curious just how transparent, codified, and/or uniform people are on this (very important in my estimation) issue.




It pretty much never really comes up. It's possible to come up with both lawful and chaotic-oriented rationales for many different things a PC might do for it to come down to a crucial decision when the stakes are high and the information imperfect. Alignment trends simply aren't that fragile. It would take a fair amount of consistent play to indicate that the PC has moved from Lawful to Neutral and then even more to shift from Neutral to Chaotic. And by then I've usually indicated that a shift is coming when the paladin's superiors (or signs from his god) have told him off for not cleaving to his vows very well and posted him on all night vigils in the sanctuary wearing a hair shirt as a measure of penance. 

That said, if the paladin willingly joined the anarchist insurgency against the legitimate authority, I'd say his paladin powers were inaccessible until he atoned for violating his code so flagrantly. But I wouldn't change his alignment yet.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I just wanted to chime in here right quick and make sure that my position on this issue is clear. I won't speak for anyone else.
> 
> My current 4e game actually had a "fallen Paladin" as the primary antagonist for the Epic tier of play. I wrote up a long post expressing all of the details but I cannot seem to find it for whatever reason. The players actually played out his fall in a several session effort (I want to say 25 hours in total). There was the Paladin, his Silver Dragon Mount (companion character), and his sage/herald (Merlinish character who was also a companion character). We played the entirety of his fall (which ultimately turned out to be possession by the demon lord Juiblex). It was a great series of sessions and made for a more rich experience in opposing him, and ultimately freeing him from the posession and helping to bring about his rise from the fall.




I'm curious... in 4e what signifies or differentiates a "fallen" paladin from one who hasn't? 



Manbearcat said:


> In a well-balanced system, I have no issue with a player actually volunteering to fall (thus muting some of the primary issues I have with GM-imposed fall by way of prescriptive alignment evaluation). My main issues with the mechanically-interfacing, alignment-driven Paladin fall (rather than just the dramatic evolution of a protagonist) is:
> 
> 1) Paladins, specifically in 3.x, have specific requirements to maintain their standing of Lawful and Good. If the player is unaware of the implications and nuance of Law vs Chaos (Good versus Evil is pretty easy to understand), and it is my duty to quality control this behavior, it inevitably requires a lot of mental exertion on my part to (a) educate them on L <= N => C generally (in a vaccuum) and my sense of the specificities of the behavioral regime within context, (b) evaluate their behavior for instantaneous or latent shifts with respect to that continuum, and (c) execute those shifts in game with precise communication.




Personally I've never really found this to require much mental exertion on my part.  A discussion of alignment is necessary but then it falls into campaign discussion... in the same way I would have to explain the broad and specificity of the views, portfolios, etc. of the deities in the game (in a vacuum).   I generally keep notes about what my players have done, their goals, etc. as part of running a campaign... It is with these notes that I can evaluate behavior for shifts in behavior.  Major shifts would make such a big impression on me during the actual game that I would be hard pressed not to notice them if I am paying even a modicum of attention to the game I am running and the players that are participating. And for me, executing those shifts is no different than executing anything else in the game. 



Manbearcat said:


> Otherwise, the informed player should understand it. Follwing that, if they understand it and sincerely want to play a Paladin (with all of the thematic material therein) then it should be unnecessary for me to perform the (unwelcome) mental overhead of quality control of their behavioral regime.




Unless they believe outside judgement by a higher power, one outside of the character, is a part of the archetype.  Then a player could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force.  The fact that you push this judgement onto them could create a dis-satisfying play experience for them.



Manbearcat said:


> 2) Balance. In the 4e game where we ran the fallen Paladin, this wasn't a concern. Relative encounter budgeting remained unchanged. However, a Paladin (already a class on the lower end of the power spectrum and coupled with a very narrow loadout of abilities, that focuses on specific conflicts, within that spectrum of power) that suddenly turns into a Fighter without bonus feats and Weapon Spec becomes a big problem for the GM in 3.x. CR is already unwieldy as class power disparity becomes a grave issue from level 7 onward. Turning an already weak class into a considerably weaker one, further perturbing encounter budgetting , for the duration of an atonement quest (that should be featuring them as the focal point) is a headache that I'm not interested in managing.




Wait are you claiming that, according to the 3.x rules for building encounters, that a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, fighter and thief is considered lower power than a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, paladin and thief?  If not you are conflating the encounter budgeting rules being off with those of the fallen paladin purposefully making you weaker.  The paladin and the fighter in 3.x are (right or wrong) considered of equal power.  As to the atonement quest being a headache... well it's no different than the individual quests in 4e is it?   



Manbearcat said:


> Expected or player-initiated falling with no mechanical perterbance? All for it. The general morality play or the thematics aren't the issue for me. I'm a fan of the trope of fallen heroes.




Again you seem to be conflating the balance issues around classes (and honestly in 3.x the fighter and paladin aren't considered that far apart in power level they are both considered tier 5 characters)... with the rules for fallen paladins... of course I thought your problem was the rewriting of a character from paladin to fighter without the players express consent, but now that I realize it's just a balance issue... well then that's different.


----------



## S'mon

Cadence said:


> I like the PF version of keeping the Cleric's feet to the fire more than the Paladin's...  could just make it keeping to the deities code than to LG.
> And if the character is looking for the full fall-experience, I say give it to her.  Have the rest of her order hunt her down with extreme prejudice if she does and isn't truly remorseful (like the Jedi hunting the Sith... except this time all the clones won't turn on them when they're unprepared).




She was chatting up a Hellknight (powerful LN/LE knightly order) and could easily end up joining them. Her deity Abadar is LN and his Clerics wouldn't really mind her becoming LN or even LE - Abadar has Paladins in Pathfinder canon, but it seems as if 'falling' would just mean loss of 
LG-derived powers. Presumably PF Paladins gain their power from Virtue Itself since they 
don't need to revere LG deities.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Why would all LG nations be Benthamite only





Imaro said:


> for some reason those who don't like or want alignment can't accept this as truthful for us and continue to paint alignment as a straight jacket.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> they are the ones mis-representing what alignment is.



I'm not misrepresenting what Gygax said LG alignment is - he is the one who defines LG as a commitment to the greatest happiness of the greatest number (ie Benthamism).

And as I have said, the straitjacket issue is a red herring. Either alignment sometimes makes a difference to player action declarations, or it does not. If it doesn't, then as far as I can tell it's contributing nothing to play. When it does make a difference, then the fact that on 99 prior occasions it made no difference doesn't strike me as relevant. It's that moment of difference that I'm focusing on.



Imaro said:


> you have a player who chose the paladin with the intention of not playing the archetype in the manner it's meant to be played in?  Are you still up for playing with this person?





Imaro said:


> there were some who couldn't/didn't understand why anyone would pick a paladin and then not play to the paladin's archetype



Who are you talking about? This does not describe me, or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], or anyone else I recall posting on this thread.

Hussar and I have both said that we can't imagine someone wanting to continue to play a paladin while not playing an honourable character: this is the player whom [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] has said explicitly, and whom [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and I think you by implication, have said needs to be disciplined by alignment. (The baby-throat-tearer was put forward as a paradigm of this type; also the paladin who backstabs the king, and various other examples that I've forgotten the details of.)

But the player [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] describes _doesn't_ want to continue playing a paladin despite not playing an honourable character; s/he wants to play out a fallen paladin. Several hundred posts upthread, and then more recently, I already made the same observation as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] makes, namely, that 3E is an improvement in the "fall" mechanics because of the blackguard rules. The change I would make would be to allow the player to decide when the fall happens - which sounds very close to what is happening with S'mon's player. I don't see how mechanical alignment helps S'mon's player at all, in fact, because it makes the timing of her PC's fall a matter for the GM rather than putting it under her control. (And [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s plan requires it to be under the player's control.)



Imaro said:


> in 4e what signifies or differentiates a "fallen" paladin from one who hasn't?



Fictional positioning? (Ie much the same thing that distinguishes a traitor from a patriot.)

If they were a STR paladin, you could also rebuild as a Blackguard; and a CHA paladin could be rebuilt as a Hexblade. There might be a rogue 4e group here or there capable of such feats of improvisation!



Imaro said:


> The paladin and the fighter in 3.x are (right or wrong) considered of equal power.



But an ex-paladin is, in effect, a fighter with no bonus feats - which are, ostensibly at least, what makes a fighter mechanically balanced.

(Technically, per the 3.5 SRD, an ex-paladin is a paladin stripped of all class abilities and spells, but retaining BAB, HD, save progression and proficiencies. So a fighter without bonus feats or weapon spec, and with a slightly different skill list.)


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> But the player [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] describes _doesn't_ want to continue playing a paladin despite not playing an honourable character; s/he wants to play out a fallen paladin. Several hundred posts upthread, and then more recently, I already made the same observation as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] makes, namely, that 3E is an improvement in the "fall" mechanics because of the blackguard rules. The change I would make would be to allow the player to decide when the fall happens - which sounds very close to what is happening with S'mon's player. I don't see how mechanical alignment helps S'mon's player at all, in fact, because it makes the timing of her PC's fall a matter for the GM rather than putting it under her control. (And [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s plan requires it to be under the player's control.)




Yeah; Alignment & 3e/PF Alignment restrictions are basically just giving me a headache. 
I think the player just wants to play a LN/LE Paladin, which would be fine in 4e but is 
verboten in 3e/PF. I have a double headache because her deity is LN and would himself be fine 
with LN Paladins, were they available! I told her she could be LG with strong LN tendencies
, but now I'm wondering if lifting the alignment restriction or changing it to Lawful and just letting her be LN might be best. I always kinda liked SHARK's Paladins (from threads about 12 years ago!) and they always seemed more LN/LE than anything.


----------



## TwoSix

S'mon said:


> Yeah; Alignment & 3e/PF Alignment restrictions are basically just giving me a headache.
> I think the player just wants to play a LN/LE Paladin, which would be fine in 4e but is
> verboten in 3e/PF. I have a double headache because her deity is LN and would himself be fine
> with LN Paladins, were they available! I told her she could be LG with strong LN tendencies
> , but now I'm wondering if lifting the alignment restriction or changing it to Lawful and just letting her be LN might be best. I always kinda liked SHARK's Paladins (from threads about 12 years ago!) and they always seemed more LN/LE than anything.



SHARK's paladins were awesome.  Of course, SHARK's whole campaign was over-the-top epic.

I don't see a big problem with LN paladins, just sub out good abilities with lawful ones and evil ones with chaotic ones.


----------



## Imaro

S'mon said:


> Yeah; Alignment & 3e/PF Alignment restrictions are basically just giving me a headache.
> *I think the player just wants to play a LN/LE Paladin,* which would be fine in 4e but is
> verboten in 3e/PF. I have a double headache because her deity is LN and would himself be fine
> with LN Paladins, were they available! I told her she could be LG with strong LN tendencies
> , but now I'm wondering if lifting the alignment restriction or changing it to Lawful and just letting her be LN might be best. I always kinda liked SHARK's Paladins (from threads about 12 years ago!) and they always seemed more LN/LE than anything.




So... she wants to play a paladin... but not abide by the restrictions of a paladin??  Why do you think the player chose a paladin over say a fighter, cleric, fighter/cleric or any other class that didn't have a requirement to be honorable and good?

EDIT: I am honestly looking for your insight here...


----------



## Manbearcat

Thanks for the reply   @_*billd91*_ .    @_*Imaro*_ , I'm going to mix up your post if you don't mind.



Imaro said:


> Personally I've never really found this to require much mental exertion on my part.  A discussion of alignment is necessary but then it falls into campaign discussion... in the same way I would have to explain the broad and specificity of the views, portfolios, etc. of the deities in the game (in a vacuum).   I generally keep notes about what my players have done, their goals, etc. as part of running a campaign... It is with these notes that I can evaluate behavior for shifts in behavior.  Major shifts would make such a big impression on me during the actual game that I would be hard pressed not to notice them if I am paying even a modicum of attention to the game I am running and the players that are participating. And for me, executing those shifts is no different than executing anything else in the game.




I don't find the analysis difficult.  That is easily enough performed.  The main problems I have are:

1)  I've never enjoyed the interaction of alignment with system components/resources (eg; I despise Detect Evil) and the extra-conflict strategizing those fundamental components require/entail.  I don't like the implications on the default setting.  As such, I don't want to spend any time on it at all; the QC or the extra-conflict strategizing to deal with the divinations et al.

2)  People who are peers can disagree vehemently over incredibly mundane things (of the 1st order).  Consequently, complex things of 2nd and 3rd order are ripe for disagreement on interpretation and understanding.  I really want no part of it in leisure pursuits (wait...I'm posting on a message board...as a leisure pursuit...disagreeing vehemently over incredibly mundane and/or complex things...hrmmm).

3)  I find that if people are aware their actions are under a microscope, they will behave differently, without full autonomy.  Further, the pressure may "lock them up".  I don't want that with people I trust to both be sincere in their play and be provocative and dynamic (coherently) when responding to adversity.

4)  A vast proportion of my GMing style is adlibbing and improvising.  This is what I enjoy the most and what I am best at.  The deeper I get into world-building and quality controlling of play, the less mental overhead I have allotted toward being on my toes and responding with coherent, dynamic, genre-relevant conflict that follows from the preceding conflicts and touches on the cornerstones of the characters' thematic material.




Imaro said:


> Unless they believe outside judgement by a higher power, one outside of the character, is a part of the archetype.  Then a player could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force.  The fact that you push this judgement onto them could create a dis-satisfying play experience for them.




No, I certainly understand that a player "could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force."  Its self-evident.  This website is chock full of them as is this thread.  That is just not my players' preferences.  For my players, a deity is equal parts "cosmological force" and equal parts "PC build tool".  We treat a player's deity and a player's ethos as an Instinct in Burning Wheel; it is an insurance policy taken out to assure them that I cannot frame conflicts against their will.  If there is any dispute in interpretation or they feel I have infringed upon this insurance, I will respectfully defer to them.  There are a million and one conflicts to frame them into that can touch upon their chosen thematics.  I'll go with something else as the last thing I want to do is tamper with their sense of protagonism/agency.  I may use the relationship to impose physical moral consequences of action or to juxtapose virtues/beliefs such that they have to prioritize, but I won't impose my idea of their divine coupling with their god/ethos anymore than I would tell a Fighter player that they're misinterpreting the footwork of their martial art and narrating something athletically incoherent.   


Combining these two:



Imaro said:


> Wait are you claiming that, according to the 3.x rules for building encounters, that a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, fighter and thief is considered lower power than a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, paladin and thief?  If not you are conflating the encounter budgeting rules being off with those of the fallen paladin purposefully making you weaker.  The paladin and the fighter in 3.x are (right or wrong) considered of equal power.  As to the atonement quest being a headache... well it's no different than the individual quests in 4e is it?






Imaro said:


> Again you seem to be conflating the balance issues around classes (and honestly in 3.x the fighter and paladin aren't considered that far apart in power level they are both considered tier 5 characters)... with the rules for fallen paladins... of course I thought your problem was the rewriting of a character from paladin to fighter without the players express consent, but now that I realize it's just a balance issue... well then that's different.




I probably didn't communicate this well.

1)  The success of the CR system in transcribing challenge from paper to play is contingent upon the (obviously erroneous) supposition that class levels are roughly 1:1 in value.  We know this to be untrue in practice.  Further still, it becomes even less true as levels accrue and certain powerful classes or combos significantly outscale others, thus further perturbing the formula.

2)  Fighters and Paladins are both tier 5 classes.  The Paladin's value is generally predicated upon a reasonable dose of GM-framed situations whereby Paladins will have opportunities to (i) Divine/Smite Evil, (ii) Cure Diseases/ailments, (iii) use its mount, (iv) face enemies that afflict disease or fear, and (v) vanquish undead, demons, devils.  If a Paladin is not invoking features i - v, their power, which their tier value is contingent upon them engaging, is significantly reduced below their already paltry standing of tier 5.

3)  Given that Fighters and Paladins are both very low tier, and a Paladin is now unable to invoke any of its tier-legitimizing features, it is clearly below tier 5.  The difference between a tier 6 class and a tier 1 class is legion.  Trying to legitimize the protagonism (it is their specific atonement quest of which they should be the focal point) of a tier 6 (or lower) class while in the presence of a tier 2 or 1 class, requires serious hoops being jumped through.  Moreover, creating challenges that are _engaging, rewarding and climactic_ for a group makeup composed of vastly disparate power sources is nearly impossible.  If play is level 11 or higher and that (formerly tier 5...now likely equivalent to < tier 6) fallen Paladin is with a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid (tier 1)...good luck.



Imaro said:


> I'm curious... in 4e what signifies or differentiates a "fallen" paladin from one who hasn't?




The evolving themes and fictional positioning (with mechanics to match up).

We played 6 sessions:  2 at level 21, 2 at level 24, 2 at level 27.  The Paladin was Cult Survivor Background.  He began play as Knight Hospitaler Character Theme which changed to Demon Spawn during a rebuild of the character.  He changed from Demonslayer Paragon Path to Demon-Bound.  He changed from Legendary Sovereign to Prince of Hell refluffed as Abyssal Lord's Avatar.  He didn't get changed to Blackguard.

In a long term game, the route would probably be something similar (perhaps with a rebuild to Blackguard) for a PC Paladin who wanted to explore the falling of their hero; intermittent, subtle rebuilds.  I wish I could find that post as I outlined it at length.  He went from an unblemished hero of a nation to eventually realizing that he couldn't win the war without stooping to the same depths of depravity of his enemies.  Eventually, his sins overcame his virtues, opening him up to possession to a powerful Abyssal Lord (Juiblex).  He was recently exorcised of this demonic possession and Juiblex was defeated.  He has now been restored to his former Legendary Sovereign status and Demogorgon and Dagon are being pursued by the PCs (the final antagonists of play).


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] : Thanks for the reply, as most of it is just a statement of your own personal preferences I don't see much point in discussing it but I will list a few points...

1.  I am glad you can understand that some people might actually enjoy playing through the experience that mechanical alignment gives.  It seems that for some reason regardless of the various reasons given some posters are focusing in on "PUNISHMENT" as the reason for wanting mechanical alignment and that isn't necessarily the case.

2.  Thanks for clearing up your point about the paladin and fighter... though again as they are already at a pretty low tier... I personally don't see the weakening of the paladin as causing that much of a necessary adjustment in encounter balance... YMMV and apparently does.

3.  I noticed that in order to mechanically back up the fictional positioning of your fallen paladin (which in my opinion implies much more than just being a traitor)... you had to house rule the character, now I find this a much more satisfying answer than "fictional positioning" (Since in essence you are just playing a paladin who can do whatever he wants and is not beholden to the archetype)... wouldn't this be just as viable in 3.x if you wanted to keep encounter balance equal?  Just house rule a rebuild of the character or give them a number of feats equal to a fighter.


----------



## Cadence

Partially echoing @_*S'mon*_ a few pages back (I realize after already typing it in)...



pemerton said:


> I'm not misrepresenting what Gygax said LG alignment is - he is the one who defines LG as a commitment to the greatest happiness of the greatest number (ie Benthamism).




Wouldn't that only be how the lawful good define the good part of lawful good? 



			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.




And the substitution of "benefit" for "happiness" and the limiting of it to "decent, thinking" creatures seems to pull it a bit away from Benthamism.  (Would the LG take "decent" to mean "not too far from LG" and "benefit" to include the rule of law?)

Similarly in the PhB, it isn't happiness they want to spread, but rather the benefits of a lawful society that values life and beauty:



			
				1e PhB said:
			
		

> While as strict in their prosecution of law and order [as the lawful evil], characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal.  Certain freedoms must, of course be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance.  The benefits of this society are to be brought to all




Do the other two good alignments come a little closer to "greatest happiness for the greatest number"? Neutral good has the "happiness and prosperity" instead of benefit, but still restricts it to "deserving creatures". And chaotic good seems to be the one that doesn't want to restrict the benefits.  It speaks about freedom as "the one means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness."

Would some of Bentham's other quotes flat out contradict the L part of LG?  
"All punishment is mischief; all punishment in itself is evil." 
"Submit not to any decree or other act of power, of the justice of which you are not yourself perfectly convinced. If a constable call upon you to serve in the militia, shoot the constable and not the enemy;"

Could a Benthamite order or deity ever punish it's paladins for following their own convictions?

--

That being said, it does seem like two LG countries chock full of priests with commune spells should have a hard time coming to blows.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> As I used it, "meaningful" is a synonym for "desired", along these lines: if I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, my desires for the way the events of the game unfold should be just as likely to be realised as those of any other player.




So there should never be a situation where realizing your desires might be facilitated  by dishonourable action?



pemerton said:


> In general I'm not a huge fan of unilateral GM rules changes, but there are conflict of interest issues here - the player has an interest in maximising the mechanical effectiveness of his/her PC - which are not present in the case of alignment. There is no mechanical benefit to being dishonourable, nor is there any mechanical penalty for being honourable.




You would like the Holy Avenger longsword.  It would give you mechanical benefits.  It is held by your superior, although if he were out of the picture, you would be the likely inheritor of the weapon in question, a relic of your order, as you would be the most likely to be chosen to succeed him.  That fellow is currently in a bit of trouble with the Order.  You have stumbled upon a clue that might lead to his exoneration.  You can ignore the clue, or follow up on it.  

Sweeping it under the carpet likely gets you a mechanical advantage in the form of the Sword and the increase in rank in your order.  Doing the honourable thing - proving his innocence - does not.  Mechanical advantage gained from dishonourable behaviour.

That's a lengthy scenario.  A much easier one is that you have emerged from a secret door in the midst of battle.  A great enemy has his back to you as he battles another opponent. Do you slip up behind him for a Flanking bonus, or call out "Face me, Blackguard" so he can position himself where he cannot be flanked?  Do you let him fight honourably in single combat, or gang up on him like craven cowards?  Lots of mechanical advantages to being dishonourable exist.  I can also see a lot of Paladins compromising their honour for the greater good - better probability of bringing the Evil to defeat with less likelihood of harm to the allies of Good. 



pemerton said:


> No one playing my game - certainly not the player of that PC, nor the PC him-/herself - regards Vecna as a moral authority. He is an opportunistic archlich who worked his way to godhood and now seeks to accrete further power. (The dwarf PC takes much the same view of the Raven Queen - though she was a dead sorcerer when she ascended to godhood, rather than an undead one -  but that is obviously more contentious at the table.)




So is this only an issue when the Power doing the judging is acknowledged as Good?  



pemerton said:


> Nothing is stopping him. He has the same PC build options, and the same item wish list options, as everyone else at the table.




He has all the same options?  Where is the Familiar his class abilities grant him?  Where are the benefits of his magical loot, the Eye of Vecna?   They were taken from him, and in a manner someone above noted was outside the action resolution mechanics.

In choosing to play a Paladin, the player has chosen a character who must either live up to the ideals of his Exemplar or fall.  That's the contract he, the player, made by choosing the class with those rules.  That really doesn't seem that difficult a concept from where I sit.

What rule says the Invoker should lose his familiar if he angers one of his patrons?  Is there one?  Again, I'm not well versed with 4e.



Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... this has been repeated by numerous posters (and even cited in passages from various editions) by the side that believes alignment can enhance or improve their games... Yet for some reason those who don't like or want alignment can't accept this as truthful for us and continue to paint alignment as a straight jacket.  I don't think there's any real understanding or even conversation to be had until they are willing to listento this point and accept that we, as well as the books, are not lying or mistaken about this... and that regardless of the fact that they continue to see alignment in this manner, they are the ones mis-representing what alignment is.  I know I'm tired of repeating it.




Agreed.


----------



## N'raac

It seems difficult to envision two exemplary LG nations coming to war.  How likely does it seem to have an exemplary LG nation?  How likely to have more than one?  In a lot of fantasy, truly Good kingdoms tend to stand, shoulder to shoulder, opposing the forces of Evil. In a lot of other fantasy, the Kingdoms aren't even close to 100% Good.


----------



## Imaro

N'raac said:


> What rule says the Invoker should lose his familiar if he angers one of his patrons?  Is there one?  Again, I'm not well versed with 4e.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.





Eh, IMO... I'm starting to notice that @_*pemerton*_ seems adverse or downright opposed to answering many of the questions presented to him about the play example he chose to post (either ignoring them or side stepping them with the few vague answers that have been provided).  I know I feel like I haven't gotten real answers to most of the questions I posed concerning the situation and I doubt you will get an answer to the ones you've asked.


----------



## Hussar

I would love to see a player who is upfront about playing a fallen paladin. What a cool idea. 

But for you folks who like alignment, what constitutes an evil act?  If the player says that he's fallen and you don't think so what happens?  It's the whole paladin conundrum but reversed.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> But for you folks who like alignment, what constitutes an evil act?  If the player says that he's fallen and you don't think so what happens?  It's the whole paladin conundrum but reversed.




I have to admit this would be a very funny scenario! Reminds me of when Balthazar could not kill himself in Charmed (don't poo-poo me too much, it was my Alyssa Milano period).


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> So... she wants to play a paladin... but not abide by the restrictions of a paladin??  Why do you think the player chose a paladin over say a fighter, cleric, fighter/cleric or any other class that didn't have a requirement to be honorable and good?



I don't know [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s player (her being in another hemisphere and all), but this doesn't strike me as very puzzling. I prefer paladins to clerics (and if I were to play a cleric would prefer a STR cleric to a WIS cleric) because I prefer the archetype of a holy warrior to the archetype of the non-warrior saint and miracle worker, which the D&D cleric at least flirts with.

And I can imagine wanting to play the archetype of an avenger (in the BECMI sense) rather than of a fighter or cleric: a dark warrior called to the service of some god like Bane or Asmodeus, a sort-of punisher for the gods, angel-of-vengeance figure.

The paladin of the Raven Queen in my 4e campaign falls somewhere between these two archetypes (or, rather, mixes elements of both).



Imaro said:


> I am glad you can understand that some people might actually enjoy playing through the experience that mechanical alignment gives.  It seems that for some reason regardless of the various reasons given some posters are focusing in on "PUNISHMENT" as the reason for wanting mechanical alignment and that isn't necessarily the case.



Which posters? I have repeatedly stated my understanding of why [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] enjoy alignment mechanics, and neither has posted to tell me I'm wrong though both are clearly following and participating in the thread. (Perhaps you have some other poster in mind - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]? It would aid communication if you made it clear who you are talking about.)

But as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] said, those reasons don't speak to me (and I believe they do not speak very strongly to my players either). And I don't understand why you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] are trying to persuade me I'm confused about my own preferences and my own play experience.



Imaro said:


> I'm starting to notice that pemerton seems adverse or downright opposed to answering many of the questions presented to him about the play example he chose to post (either ignoring them or side stepping them with the few vague answers that have been provided).  I know I feel like I haven't gotten real answers to most of the questions I posed concerning the situation and I doubt you will get an answer to the ones you've asked.



You're joking, right? I posted 5 posts yesterday evening (from 684 to 689, with one of those being S'mon) amounting to around two-and-half thousand words. I explained in (excruciating) detail the difference between evaluative and non-evaluative judgement, between various forms of penalty, between mechanical effectiveness and fictional positioning.

If you want to persuade me that I'm wrong to think alignment is an impediment to my play experience, why don't you write up some actual play reports that illustrate how great it is?

Similarly, if you think the way I run my game is no different from yours or [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s, post some play reports and then we'll see.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> That's a matter of taste and mechanics. For those of us who don't run with mechanical alignment because we don't like it, it is not part of the setting.




You might not have mechanical alignment but you certainly have good and evil deities, lawful and chaotic organisations, neutral races, evil brigands. Alignment whether mechanical or not is very much part of D&D settings. 



> Furthermore, for many of us, the GM is not the sole arbiter of the setting. Even according to the 2nd ed AD&D DMG, which both you and @_*Cadence*_ have cited upthread, the GM is not the sole arbiter of the setting.




In so much as world building the DM is the sole arbiter, the PCs are involved in their own backstory if they fit in with the DM's world. The PCs actions can change things within the setting as they are actively involved within the setting. But the game is both the DMs and the PCs. 



> I appreciate that you state your reasons for liking alignment clearly. I have restated them more than once upthread, and I hope I haven't got them too wrong - it's certainly not been my intention to misrepresent or unfairly describe you. (I believe I have mentioned you every time, so that if you feel I have got you wrong then you can correct me.)




I appreciate that, you have more or less got it right, I would only jump in if I really felt I needed to. 



> As I have posted upthread more than once, the concern you state in this paragraph that I have quoted is not one that I share. In my game, I see no evidence that the player of a paladin gains a mechanical advantage by choosing to be dishonourable. Hence there is not the sort of conflict-of-interest that you describe. Hence I have no need to be an external arbiter of the player's choices as to how his/her PC behaves.




I believe @_*N'raac*_ answered you on this point in his most recent post.

But despite mechanical advantages or not, it would also break immersion for the rest of us at our table if the character behaved in any which way he wanted without any repercussions. As I have said before, my players and I prefer a heavier consequence game - and they would definitely look to me as DM if some player was behaving against their divine code (paladin or cleric). I guess they share the view that deities are separate from their PCs and the the PCs are but mortal agents of the deities within the setting. Their (the PCs) divine gifts are just that gifts, that can be taken away if the PC behaves poorly. This is the view the players in my group share with me - and as I have said before, I have never had to exercise that, it is just part of the unspoken setting background that exists.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So there should never be a situation where realizing your desires might be facilitated by dishonourable action?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You would like the Holy Avenger longsword.  It would give you mechanical benefits.  It is held by your superior, although if he were out of the picture, you would be the likely inheritor of the weapon in question, a relic of your order, as you would be the most likely to be chosen to succeed him.  That fellow is currently in a bit of trouble with the Order.  You have stumbled upon a clue that might lead to his exoneration.  You can ignore the clue, or follow up on it.
> 
> Sweeping it under the carpet likely gets you a mechanical advantage in the form of the Sword and the increase in rank in your order.  Doing the honourable thing - proving his innocence - does not.  Mechanical advantage gained from dishonourable behaviour.



I don't see how the above really relates to what I said, which was that when I play an honourable warrior answering a divine calling I want to have as much meaningful (= desired) impact on the fiction as the other players.

The example you give, for instance, seems to equate the PCs desires with those of the player (after all it is the PC's action which is dishonourable, presumably - I assume you're not asking whether I would lie to or betray the friends with whom I play the game).

But the example also rests on certain assumptions such as that my PC won't get a holy avenger longsword except by the path you describe. That might be so in your game, but why would I play a game like that? The edition of D&D I run is 4e, where item acquisition is on a level-based rationing, and whether I do the honourable or the dishonourable thing has no bearing on how many XP I earn.



N'raac said:


> you have emerged from a secret door in the midst of battle.  A great enemy has his back to you as he battles another opponent. Do you slip up behind him for a Flanking bonus, or call out "Face me, Blackguard" so he can position himself where he cannot be flanked?



I don't know - put me in the situation and let's find out. If it's a dragon, I'd probably flank it. I don't see that dragons are entitled to a fair duel. If it was a hobgoblin war chief I might not flank.

The 4e paladin has various powers intended to support the paladin in soloing in various ways, so that not flanking is not necessarily a mechanical disadvantage.



N'raac said:


> So is this only an issue when the Power doing the judging is acknowledged as Good?



I'm not 100% sure what the "this" referes to, but the issue of the GM superintending the players' evaluative judgements becomes particularly acute when the "power" doing the judging is a moral exemplar, yes. I hoped I had made that clear some hundreds of posts ago.

I also hope I've made it clear that the player in the example I posted didn't think that his PC was doing the right thing by Vecna's lights. He knew he was opposing Vecna, and Vecna's interests, and Vecna's desires. I forced him to choose between the Raven Queen and Vecna - a choice I do not believe he was that surprised to have forced upon him - and he chose. He wasn't surprised that Vecna then punished him by shutting down his imp.

The player could, of course, have chosen Vecna. The Raven Queen would then not have had any immediate means of punishing the PC; and at least in the immediate term, the other PCs probably wouldn't have noticed. The player deliberately took the risk of suffering punishment, to which he knew he was exposed - he had deliberately implanted the Eye in the imp to bring Vecna into play as a counterbalancing force against Levistus - because in the play of his PC he had an evaluative response. There are some resemblances here to player wanting his/her paladin to fall.



N'raac said:


> He has all the same options?  Where is the Familiar his class abilities grant him?  Where are the benefits of his magical loot, the Eye of Vecna?   They were taken from him, and in a manner someone above noted was outside the action resolution mechanics.



They were not taken outside the action resolution mechanics. They were taken as part of the resolution of a skill challenge. Furthermore, it is inherent in a 4e familiar that it may be shut down. And it is inherent in a 4e artefact like the Eye of Vecna that it is somewhat overpowered but also potentially temperamental.

The key issue for me is that the player's evaluative judgement is not invalidated, nor even called into question, in the episode of play I described.



N'raac said:


> In choosing to play a Paladin, the player has chosen a character who must either live up to the ideals of his Exemplar or fall.  That's the contract he, the player, made by choosing the class with those rules.  That really doesn't seem that difficult a concept from where I sit.



What contract? With whom? Are you talking about the player or the PC? My players don't enter into any contract with me. And paladins don't enter into a contract with the divine, at least as I conceive of them. They are not Faust; they are Joan of Arc.

Of course they must live up to certain ideals or fall, but that doesn't tell us anything about who adjudicates that matter in the course of play.



Manbearcat said:


> I find that if people are aware their actions are under a microscope, they will behave differently, without full autonomy.  Further, the pressure may "lock them up".  I don't want that with people I trust to both be sincere in their play and be provocative and dynamic (coherently) when responding to adversity.



This is a good description of my own play experiences and play preferences.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> it would also break immersion for the rest of us at our table if the character behaved in any which way he wanted without any repercussions. As I have said before, my players and I prefer a heavier consequence game



The characters in my game can't act any way they want to without repercussions. It was because of that that the dwarven fighter/cleric kept the promise that was given in his name, even though he hated it and he hated the consequences.

The reason that this doesn't need GM arbitration to bring about is because the _player_ of that character wants to play a PC who is bound by obligations of honour, and hence who is not always free to act as he might desire. And the player satisfies that want by playing the PC in that way. 

The player also has no reason to play the PC another way. There is no advantage that would flow to the _player_, in playing the game, were the PC to act more expediently, even though within the fiction of the gameworld expedience might give the PC what he wants. For instance, the game wouldn't be more fun, or more engaging, were he to play his PC differently. So he doesn't.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> The example you give, for instance, seems to equate the PCs desires with those of the player (after all it is the PC's action which is dishonourable, presumably - I assume you're not asking whether I would lie to or betray the friends with whom I play the game).




Apologies for interjecting @_*N'raac*_ on an answer to you.
Pemerton, what I posted upthread in response to @_*Hussar*_ where he stated that couldn't players be objective and I responded not usually as much as what a DM would is highlighted in N'raac's example scenario. To reiterate what I answered to Hussar: Given the gamist, min/maxing tendencies, munchkinism, broken exploitative combos that exist and this prevalent with players - often you have players have their characters goals align with their own, whether purposefully or non-purposefully. Hence the reason for it being best to have an external arbiter on such things.



> I don't know - put me in the situation and let's find out. If it's a dragon, I'd probably flank it. I don't see that dragons are entitled to a fair duel. If it was a hobgoblin war chief I might not flank.




IMO, it is not honourable to approach ones enemy from behind whether it be a dragon or the hobgoblin warchief. Perhaps I am equating knights with paladins too much here - but given the D&D novels for the characters Sturm Brightblade (Dragonlance) or Fain Flinn (The Penhaligon Trilogy) and I know neither were your typical D&D paladins but both were knights of honour and fought dragons and neither would not announce himself when fighting one, as well as the examples of Paladins within the PHBs over the editions, Paladins are Knights in my campaigns - that is not to say that all Knights are Paladins in my settings.  



> The 4e paladin has various powers intended to support the paladin in soloing in various ways, so that not flanking is not necessarily a mechanical disadvantage.




Which implies that if you were playing a paladin you would not necessarily call out to your enemy, thereby informing him of your presence, but instead would base your next move on gaining mechanical advantage. That is the gamist predisposition I was referring to earlier. 
In our campaigns, playing a paladin involves sacrifice not only by the character in-game through the narrative, but also by the player, as he attempts to mitigate those gamist tendencies, we all have, in trying to roleplay someone of that assumed calibre.

Playing a paladin at our table is onerous. It gives credence (for our setting backstory) to why so few individuals ever become paladins and fewer still that remain paladins until their departure from the world. In the older editions this was further enforced with high ability score requirements.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't know @*S'mon* 's player (her being in another hemisphere and all), but this doesn't strike me as very puzzling. I prefer paladins to clerics (and if I were to play a cleric would prefer a STR cleric to a WIS cleric) because I prefer the archetype of a holy warrior to the archetype of the non-warrior saint and miracle worker, which the D&D cleric at least flirts with.




The basic cleric in every edition (with the possible exception of 4e) could never be considered a non-warrior... ever.  And some editions including 3.x/PF allow you to make an even more warrior oriented cleric, so this excuse seems to hold little water.



pemerton said:


> And I can imagine wanting to play the archetype of an avenger (in the BECMI sense) rather than of a fighter or cleric: a dark warrior called to the service of some god like Bane or Asmodeus, a sort-of punisher for the gods, angel-of-vengeance figure.




Again a fighter/cleric or even a cleric is a warrior in nearly every edition of D&D.  What exactly about the "Avenger" (putting aside the fact that the Avenger wasn't an evil paladin, it was a chaotic fighter prestige class) archetype can not be satisfied by these classes... better yet how can it (without house rules) be represented by an evil paladin in 3.x or Pathfinder since that would be a fallen paladin and thus be lacking abilities (Smite evil/Aura of Good/etc. which don't really make sense for an evil paladin any way)? 



pemerton said:


> The paladin of the Raven Queen in my 4e campaign falls somewhere between these two archetypes (or, rather, mixes elements of both).




Of course, because paladins in 4e are aberrant when compared to paladins in every other edition.  They are little more than divine mercenaries that are not beholden to anything higher than or outside of themselves.



pemerton said:


> Which posters? I have repeatedly stated my understanding of why @*Sadras* and @*Bedrockgames* enjoy alignment mechanics, and neither has posted to tell me I'm wrong though both are clearly following and participating in the thread. (Perhaps you have some other poster in mind - @*Hussar* ? It would aid communication if you made it clear who you are talking about.)




I am speaking about you... since you keep categorizing my desire to play with mechanical alignment as based on punishing unruly players when I have given other reasons I enjoy it.  Perhaps I haven’t been clear or direct enough so here are a few snippets of posts I’ve made, some are even addressed to questions you presented, as to why outside of punishment I can enjoy mechanical alignment… Hopefully these clear things up…

“As to what the "evaluative shorthand" of alignment could do to improve this episode (and note this is a purely subjective thing) is to communicate that these actions have a greater cosmological influence than just what is happening in the hear and now... that your actions have much more far reaching implications as even the tiniest of choices can tilt the world more or less towards one of the cosmological states that are represented by the forces of alignment... IMO, it's more Moorcockian and even Tolkien-esque than Howardian as far as the type of setting it speaks to, stories it produces and, implications that naturally arise. Will this improve your particularly play... I doubt it as you've made it clear there really is no answer concerning alignment that will give it a favorable view in your eyes.”

“Unless they believe outside judgement by a higher power, one outside of the character, is a part of the archetype. Then a player could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force. The fact that you push this judgement onto them could create a dis-satisfying play experience for them.”

“ …I am curious about one thing and your views on it. Earlier I said D&D is one of the few/only (if you don't count clones separately) FRPG's to use alignment in a mechanical sense, as a role playing tool, as cosmological forces and as a moral guideline for it's campaign worlds, gods and planes. With the multitude of FRPG's out there that have no alignment in them or even alternate ways of dealing with personality and/or belief such as your often cited BW or Heroquest... why is it important that D&D become like the multitude of other games out there and remove the effect of alignment? “




pemerton said:


> But as @*Manbearcat* said, those reasons don't speak to me (and I believe they do not speak very strongly to my players either). And I don't understand why you and @*N'raac* are trying to persuade me I'm confused about my own preferences and my own play experience.




I'm not concerned with whether my reasons speak to you or not, and I said a while back in this thread I am not trying to persuade you of anything (I guess you forgot/missed that) as well.  What I'm concerned with is clearing up the reason I like alignment that I feel you are mis-representing.



pemerton said:


> You're joking, right? I posted 5 posts yesterday evening (from 684 to 689, with one of those being S'mon) amounting to around two-and-half thousand words. I explained in (excruciating) detail the difference between evaluative and non-evaluative judgement, between various forms of penalty, between mechanical effectiveness and fictional positioning.




Not joking at all, here's just one small example of what I mean...



pemerton said:


> I
> They were not taken outside the action resolution mechanics. They were taken as part of the resolution of a skill challenge. Furthermore, it is inherent in a 4e familiar that it may be shut down. And it is inherent in a 4e artefact like the Eye of Vecna that it is somewhat overpowered but also potentially temperamental.




Nowhere in your example is there mention of a skill challenge with a failure condition where the player loses his familiar and magic item… and nowhere in your previous addressing of this issue was it mentioned… and yet all of a sudden it wasn't DM fiat or judgement (which has been the point since it was first brought up), instead now a SC is the real reason they were taken away…



pemerton said:


> If you want to persuade me that I'm wrong to think alignment is an impediment to my play experience, why don't you write up some actual play reports that illustrate how great it is?




Here we go again... let me repeat... I AM NOT TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU OF ANYTHING... that doesn't mean I won't question your statements or views, call out what I see as incoherent, state my own views about alignment, etc.  That's why it's a forum and not your personal blog.



pemerton said:


> Similarly, if you think the way I run my game is no different from yours or @*N'raac* 's, post some play reports and then we'll see.




No, I don't know enough about how you actually run a game to make a statement like that... but that example you posted doesn't, IMO, illustrate what you're preaching... and I as well as various other posters have presented why we view it that way.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Nowhere in your example is there mention of a skill challenge with a failure condition where the player loses his familiar and magic item





pemerton said:


> At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game



The quote from me is from the post in question. As you can see, it mentions that the events described occur in the context of a skill challenge.



Imaro said:


> you keep categorizing my desire to play with mechanical alignment as based on punishing unruly players when I have given other reasons I enjoy it.



Where have I said that?



Imaro said:


> I am not trying to persuade you of anything
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I AM NOT TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU OF ANYTHING... that doesn't mean I won't question your statements or views, call out what I see as incoherent



So you're not trying to persuade me, just point out that I'm incoherent in stating my own preferences and experiences.



Imaro said:


> The basic cleric in every edition (with the possible exception of 4e) could never be considered a non-warrior... ever.  And some editions including 3.x/PF allow you to make an even more warrior oriented cleric, so this excuse seems to hold little water.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a fighter/cleric or even a cleric is a warrior in nearly every edition of D&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> paladins in 4e are aberrant when compared to paladins in every other edition.  They are little more than divine mercenaries that are not beholden to anything higher than or outside of themselves.



It's not an excuse. It's a reason. A cleric is, traditionally, a priest. A paladin is, traditionally, an honourable warrior called to divine service.

I don't see what 3E or PF particularly has to do with my conception of the paladin - I don't play either of those games. I also don't see why 4e is aberrant, when in the view of some players - including me - it actually has the best realisation of the paladin archetype in any edition of the game, especially with the STR/CHA split: it is the only version of the game to mechanically realise the difference between Lancelot (STR) and Galahad (CHA).

As to the divine mercenary thing: the OED defines mercenary as "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army", which seems pretty accurate. (Perhaps the "foreign" aspect is optional, particular when talking about pre-modern military organisations.)

The 4e PHB pp 89-90 characterises paladins thusly:

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause . . .​
What strikes me in that is "pledg[ing]  . . . to something greater than themselves", the "exampl[e] of divine ethos in action", the "pure and simple" movitvation, the "obligations", and the "fervent crusad[ing]". None of that screams "mercenary" to me. There is no mention of a pact, no mention of a payment, no mention of a readiness to be bought away. And that text, particularly those bits I've called out, expressly contradicts your claim that the 4e paladin is not beholden to anything outside him-/herself.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> that example you posted doesn't, IMO, illustrate what you're preaching



Preaching? A poster asked whether anyone had ever found alignment to be an impediment to play. I answered that I had. And [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], and then subsequenlty you in agreement with him, posted arguing that I was wrong. I'm not preaching - I don't care what anyone else does in their game - I'm just explaining why I am not wrong in my own characterisation of my own play experience.

It doesn't bother me that you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and others enjoy using alignment in your games. As I've mentioned multiple times, I'd be interested to see some actual play reports illustrating how you use it and derive pleasure from that use.

As to the example you seem puzzled by: nothing in that example involves me as GM making an evaluative judgement about what the player did, nor subjecting the player's own evaluative judgement to any sort of scrutiny. It does not involve any challenge to the player's conception of his character. In fact it affirms the player's conception of his character: he understood his character to be opposing Vecna, and that understanding was affirmed via consequences flowing from that choice.

The only reason I can imagine that you might see that as contradicting what I have said is because you have adopted [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s imputation to me of the view that actions should never carry consequences in the fiction, rather than my repeated assertions to the contrary (including via agreement with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s notion of "phsical consequences", which would include a familiar being shut down).


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> The quote from me is from the post in question. As you can see, it mentions that the events described occur in the context of a skill challenge.




So did they loose the skill challenge or win? In other words what mechanical resolution of the SC (failure or success) allowed you to take away his character build resources? Again this was one of the main focuses of discussion when you first presented this example and you never stated it was taken as part of the SC until much later in the conversation.



pemerton said:


> Where have I said that?




Really???  I'm not about to go back through the thread to pick out specific examples, but you've constantly harped on this point concerning both [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and myself.



pemerton said:


> So you're not trying to persuade me, just point out that I'm incoherent in stating my own preferences and experiences.




I'm trying to discuss... but even when something isn't about you... it sudden;ly becomes about you, see below.




pemerton said:


> It's not an excuse. It's a reason. A cleric is, traditionally, a priest. A paladin is, traditionally, an honourable warrior called to divine service.




Wait a minute are you claiming that the cleric throughout numerous editions has not been more warrior than priest? Are you being serious right now? The original cleric was created as a warrior against the undead, not as a priest.



pemerton said:


> I don't see what 3E or PF particularly has to do with my conception of the paladin - I don't play either of those games. I also don't see why 4e is aberrant, when in the view of some players - including me - it actually has the best realisation of the paladin archetype in any edition of the game, especially with the STR/CHA split: it is the only version of the game to mechanically realise the difference between Lancelot (STR) and Galahad (CHA).




BUT ... [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is playing 3.x/PF... and that's who I was commenting on, you then chose to reply so I'm not sure why this line of conversation has suddenly (again) become something about you personally... that wasn't the original context of the discussion. The paladin in 4e being aberrant has nothing to do with your personal feelings about it, it's a statement of fact... it is the only paladin (including BECMI) that doesn't have any alignment restrictions, and thus yes by the definition of aberrant (different from the usual or natural type)... it is. Whether you like it mnore or not has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Again, it's not about you personally.



pemerton said:


> As to the divine mercenary thing: the OED defines mercenary as "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army", which seems pretty accurate. (Perhaps the "foreign" aspect is optional, particular when talking about pre-modern military organisations.)
> 
> The 4e PHB pp 89-90 characterises paladins thusly:Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.
> 
> To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
> 
> Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .
> 
> As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause . . .​
> What strikes me in that is "pledg[ing] . . . to something greater than themselves", the "exampl[e] of divine ethos in action", the "pure and simple" movitvation, the "obligations", and the "fervent crusad[ing]". None of that screams "mercenary" to me. There is no mention of a pact, no mention of a payment, no mention of a readiness to be bought away. And that text, particularly those bits I've called out, expressly contradicts your claim that the 4e paladin is not beholden to anything outside him-/herself.




What mechanical effect represents that pledge in the game? Can that same pledge be easily transferred with no penalties to something else, for whatever reason? Is it the paladins choice to decide what and who he serves whenever he feels like it? I mean 4e talks a good game but the mechanics don't back up a character who is beholden *(being under obligation for a favor or gift)* to anything for anything. In earlier editions the paladin truly was beholden to something greater than himself for the gift of his powers... in 4e he's simply not.


----------



## Herschel

Sadras said:


> Alignment is part of the setting.



 Only when it's chosen to be. The issue is mechanically ingraining alignment, not its existence. 







> Unfortunately I do not have the stats, but I guarantee you a fair number of players look at ways to optimise their character builds mechanically, which is not wrong, but that reflects a predisposition to choose on mechanics rather than the concept of a character and that is normal given that D&D is still a game.
> Given that a class such as a paladin is arguably more conceptual in nature than most of the other classes (less gamist), it requires boundaries of a conceptual nature which might otherwise be broken by munchkinist/gamist tactics. Hence it is better to have an external adjudicator (i.e. not the player).




These paragraphs are a direct contradiction, at least as far as early editions go. If you wanted to play a front-line beatstick/tank, Paladin was a superior mechanical choice. The heavy restrictions were a rather clumsy way to balance the class by making it harder to choose.


----------



## Umbran

Herschel said:


> Only when it's chosen to be. The issue is mechanically ingraining alignment, not its existence.




But that logic is entirely reversible.  Folks who don't like to play with alignment say that the problem is that it has ingrained mechanical impact.  The folks who like playing with alignment would say there's a problem with *not* having a clear and well-rooted mechanical impact.

Both sides are entirely correct.  Having the game written with things that you don't personally like is a pain.  Go figure!

This reduces the issue to a much more general and simple question:  How flexible are you in the face of things that aren't as you, personally, would have them?


----------



## TwoSix

Umbran said:


> Both sides are entirely correct.  Having the game written with things that you don't personally like is a pain.  Go figure!
> 
> This reduces the issue to a much more general and simple question:  How flexible are you in the face of things that aren't as you, personally, would have them?



I would say, broadly, that's it easier to remove and replace mechanics you don't like than to have to make them up whole cloth.  So I would leave alignment in, especially since its mechanical footprint is so small.

If something alignment specific comes up, just define it terms of allegiances or supernatural categories.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro - your last bit about being beholden is why I characterize your views of mechanical alignment as using alignment to punish errant players. 

It's true. A 4e paladin is not under any mechanical reasons for behaving like a paladin. That's because you don't actually need the stick to force players to play their characters. 

People who play paladins in 4e do so because they want to play paladins. Not because playing a paladin is any sort of advantage. Why choose the archetype and then not play it?  There's no advantage. Min max gamist play doesn't enter into it. 

It would be like playing a wizard but choosing to wear armor and use a sword. Sure you can do it but why bother?  Why not play a fighter?

IOW you don't need mechanical alignment in order to play moralistic characters.


----------



## Herschel

For example: I'm just fine with alignment being a baseline/default presentation in the game personally. However, when it becomes mechanically ingrained in binary (character-wise) fashions is where I start to draw lines. 


Paladins: LG-only = Bad

Lathander: LG Diety, Sun Domain, followers usually Good (C, N or L) or LN is cool.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Imaro - your last bit about being beholden is why I characterize your views of mechanical alignment as using alignment to punish errant players.




And that's where you are mistaken.  You are making the unfounded and incorrect leap of logic that because I like mechanics that actually reinforce the fiction of being beholden to something (and this is both as a player and DM) that I must then in turn be a "bad" DM and use those mechanics to "punish" players as opposed to using them to reinforce said fictional positioning in my game.  Or enjoy playing under mechanics that reinforce the fact that my paladin is beholden to something he doesn't fully understand, command or control.  For me playing under the mechanical alignment rules gives me the feeling of, as a holy warrior, having to surrender (or rebel if I feel strongly enough about something)  to something beyond my comprehension and understanding... This IMO feels like giving over or rebelling against faith.  I just don't get that experience with the do whatever you want, it's ok, paladin.  



Hussar said:


> It's true. A 4e paladin is not under any mechanical reasons for behaving like a paladin. That's because you don't actually need the stick to force players to play their characters.




Honestly there is very little we "need" in D&D besides some sort of conflict resolution system (and some players and DMs may not even "need" this)... which could just as easily be do rock/paper/scissors... best out of 3 wins... whenever there is disagreement.  I think when you speak to need you are assuming that everyone is looking for the same experience concerning their gaming and in assuming that you assume that it must be the same as yours. 



Hussar said:


> People who play paladins in 4e do so because they want to play paladins. Not because playing a paladin is any sort of advantage. Why choose the archetype and then not play it?  There's no advantage. Min max gamist play doesn't enter into it.




I don't think you can vouch for why everyone who has ever chosen a paladin plays one.  On the character Ops board the paladin and warlock are a pretty powerful hybrid combination and are often used in crazy builds... this has nothing to do with picking the paladin for thematic reasons, it's a purely gamist reason.  yes I know people like to pretend that 4e can't be gamed but the WotC CharOps boards are full of examples of people doing this or asking for help to do it in their games. 



Hussar said:


> It would be like playing a wizard but choosing to wear armor and use a sword. Sure you can do it but why bother?  Why not play a fighter?




And yet some people do choose to do this in versions of the game where it is allowed...



Hussar said:


> IOW you don't need mechanical alignment in order to play moralistic characters.




Who is arguing a "need"... I don't think anyone on either side is arguing it's something that's needed  except perhaps you.


----------



## Imaro

TwoSix said:


> I would say, broadly, that's it easier to remove and replace mechanics you don't like than to have to make them up whole cloth.  So I would leave alignment in, especially since its mechanical footprint is so small.
> 
> If something alignment specific comes up, just define it terms of allegiances or supernatural categories.




This pretty much sums up my feelings on it as well.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> 3. I noticed that in order to mechanically back up the fictional positioning of your fallen paladin (which in my opinion implies much more than just being a traitor)... you had to house rule the character, now I find this a much more satisfying answer than "fictional positioning" (Since in essence you are just playing a paladin who can do whatever he wants and is not beholden to the archetype)... wouldn't this be just as viable in 3.x if you wanted to keep encounter balance equal? Just house rule a rebuild of the character or give them a number of feats equal to a fighter.



The reason why we went with the (obviously extended) retraining route into a rebuild was because the character did much more than just fall.  He went from being a demon-exorcising/slaying crusader to a living avatar for a demon prince.  It required pretty severe mechanical measures.  Rebuilding characters mid-game has never been foreign to any of my games (regardless of edition).  Not even 3.x (the most malleable system for character creation) allows changes that don't perturb the encounter budgeting (eg outright adding of a template changes the CR of a character until they've earned the XP to warrant the level-adjustment).

If you don't want to rebuild as a Blackguard (or Themes, PP, ED) or retrain with smaller components, I think you can pull a more mundane version of the "fall" off in several ways:

1)  Divine sponsorship can just come from an opposing deity, more in line with the character's methods and behavior regime, with the fictional positioning representing that change.  It could be subtle (such as refluffing the manifestation of the God's voice when invoking a Divine keyword power that buffs Diplomacy) or in your face (an actual agent of the deity arrives as ambassador).  Given that Radiant isn't "Holy", it mutes the moral implications of its invocation such that evil deities, and their proxies, can, and do, invoke it the same as their good counterparts.

2)  If you want a more dramatic thematic change, you can agree upon some keyword changes in various powers (such as Radiant to Necrotic, Cold, or Psychic).

3)  You can leverage the Disease/Condition Track mechanics.  Stage 1 can be something relatively mundane such as loss of a Healing Surge and that being narrated as feeling distance from your God.  Stage 2 might be keyword changes to powers.  Stage 3 might make things permanent.  Instead of an Endurance check, you could go with a Religion check.  When permanent, it may require some form of atonement quest as a Ritual component and some form of Ritual with a Skill Challenge (such as Remove Affliction or the Exorcism - can't think of the name right now - ritual).

4)  You can leverage the open descriptor magic item rules.  You can have Alternate Advancements (such as Divine Boons) that basically work as a template which would endow the thematic and mechanical components.

As far as the question of "can't you just temporarily turn a 3.x Paladin into a Fighter or rebuild as a Blackguard?"  You certainly can ignore alignment with 3.x with respect to Paladin ethos.  This is precisely the route that we went when a player in one of my old 3.x games willfully initiated a fall as a Paladin in order to become a Blackguard.  However, in total, you've still got a considerable amount of work to do to fully detach embedded alignment from the supernatural mechanics of the system, primarily the impact of prolific Divinations on play (hello Paladin!), but also the Abjurations, Evocations, and the Conjuration rules.  

With the Paladin class, in the end, we changed At-Will Detect Evil to be a (Su) scaling bonus to Sense Motive following the progression of the Ranger's 1st Favored Enemy (supernatural insight into the nature of people/beings).  Then Smite Evil lost the "Evil" part, just becoming "Smite."  Aura of Good got changed to something that I can't remember.  Some other changes.  Basically I all but rewrote the class using bits and bobs from various Prestige Classes.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro - you are the only one talking about this in terms of being a good or bad DM. 

If you agree that there is no need for mechanical alignment then it follows that it is possible to play a paladin without mechanical alignment. 

You want alignment to be adjudicated by the DM. That's fine. To me that's just passing the buck. I'd much rather the player takes responsibility for his or her own character. 

But I do have to say that I would never base my opinions about a game on thought experiments on Wotc's Charop boards. I mean you already admit that people on the boards are not taking paladins for optimization but are playing hybrids.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro - a further thought occurs to me. Let's say you are right and the player is choosing paladin for purely gamist min/max reasons. Ok. Now obviously this player is not particularly interested in morality in play. 

So how is mechanical alignment improving his experience?  I agree that it might improve your experience as the DM in that it farces the player to play to archetype. But how is that improving his experience?

Or put it another way. Would you play your paladin differently if there were no mechanical alignment requirements?  I wouldn't. My paladins weren't paladins because they had to be because of the mechanics. My paladins were paladins because paladins are cool.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> You want alignment to be adjudicated by the DM. That's fine. To me that's just passing the buck. I'd much rather the player takes responsibility for his or her own character.




Why is having the DM do the adjudication the players passing the buck rather than having the players do it the DM passing the buck? I'd generally prefer to have the DM take responsibility for the world around the PCs.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Imaro - you are the only one talking about this in terms of being a good or bad DM.




It's hard not to when you choose to use words like punish as oppose to a more neutral term like judge or even arbitrate...  



Hussar said:


> If you agree that there is no need for mechanical alignment then it follows that it is possible to play a paladin without mechanical alignment.




It's not possible to play the type of paladin I and others in this thread prefer without mechanical alignment.  However it is possible to play the type of paladin you enjoy without it.  



Hussar said:


> You want alignment to be adjudicated by the DM. That's fine. To me that's just passing the buck. I'd much rather the player takes responsibility for his or her own character.



 [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] addressed this below, personally I don't think your "passing the buck" statement really holds any water for exactly the reason billd91 hints at in his question to you... so I'll wait for your reply to that before commenting.



Hussar said:


> But I do have to say that I would never base my opinions about a game on thought experiments on Wotc's Charop boards. I mean you already admit that people on the boards are not taking paladins for optimization but are playing hybrids.




I'm not even sure how to address this... you claim people play a paladin because they want to experience the archetype and you don't see why tey would play outside of that reason...

I give you a situation where the class is being used for optimization purposes... and your answer boils down to ignore optimization... and... it's not a full paladin.  The point I was making is that not everyone plays like you. For some the point is the mechanics, whether that is for hybriding, multi-classing or being in the class just to reach a particular paragon path or epic destiny (since people can start above level 1) that is rated highly and they could care less about thematic underpinnings as opposed to optimizing... and the fact is nothing in 4e makes it necessary for them to care about the thematic underpinnings of a paladin.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Imaro - a further thought occurs to me. Let's say you are right and the player is choosing paladin for purely gamist min/max reasons. Ok. Now obviously this player is not particularly interested in morality in play.
> 
> So how is mechanical alignment improving his experience?  I agree that it might improve your experience as the DM in that it farces the player to play to archetype. But how is that improving his experience?




Do you also agree that it might improve the experience of the table as opposed to the single player?  See as the DM I'm not there to cater to one particular player I am there to make sure that my group as a whole is having fun and mechanical alignment helps to guarantee that at least a modicum of service to the archetype will be paid.  if that is already there then mechanical alignment fades into the background and again it is a win for me and the player.  In other words if I have a player genuinely interested in playing to the archetype of a paladin then the "punish"mechanic will rarely, if ever, come up.  So how does it detract from a player who is truly interested in playing to the archetype?




Hussar said:


> Or put it another way. Would you play your paladin differently if there were no mechanical alignment requirements?  I wouldn't. My paladins weren't paladins because they had to be because of the mechanics. My paladins were paladins because paladins are cool.




I have no desire to play a paladin without mechanical alignment and I explained why earlier, that's not the experience I want (and no I have not played or wanted to play a paladin in 4e though I have played an Avenger which I found lacking as far as the experience of being a character with faith in a being I can't and don't fully comprehend because no matter what I did my divine state/grace/whatever never failed me.).


----------



## Hussar

So, in other words Imaro, one of the purposes of mechanical alignment is to enforce player behaviour. Is that a reasonable reading of your response?


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> So, in other words Imaro, one of the purposes of mechanical alignment is to enforce player behaviour. Is that a reasonable reading of your response?




Not Imaro (obviously), but for my past play, maybe something a bit more nuanced?  "If needed, to ensure that characters whose class has behavior restrictions lives up to them or faces the game world consequences."

I think that helps avoid some of the craziness of 1e hammering everyone at the whims of the DM.


----------



## Hussar

But how is stripping class benefits a game world consequence?  Kicked out of his church? Fair enough. Deemed a criminal?  Cool.  Can't detect evil anymore?  Huh?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> The 4e paladin has various powers intended to support the paladin in soloing in various ways, so that not flanking is not necessarily a mechanical disadvantage.




My preference is that a character be honourable because the character is honourable, not because he is bribed to be honourable by having mechanics that result in his best interests being inevitably served by being honourable. That's not a choice to role play - it's a choice to select whatever approach is most mechanically advantageous. 



pemerton said:


> I also hope I've made it clear that the player in the example I posted didn't think that his PC was doing the right thing by Vecna's lights. He knew he was opposing Vecna, and Vecna's interests, and Vecna's desires. I forced him to choose between the Raven Queen and Vecna - a choice I do not believe he was that surprised to have forced upon him - and he chose. He wasn't surprised that Vecna then punished him by shutting down his imp.




And it has been stated numerous times upthread that a Paladin's player should not be surprised, but should have ample warning that the actions the character is taking carry the risk of losing Paladin status, so there is no difference here between your adjudication and the adjudication of the Paladin's compliance with his alignment restrictions.



pemerton said:


> The player could, of course, have chosen Vecna. The Raven Queen would then not have had any immediate means of punishing the PC; and at least in the immediate term, the other PCs probably wouldn't have noticed. The player deliberately took the risk of suffering punishment, to which he knew he was exposed - he had deliberately implanted the Eye in the imp to bring Vecna into play as a counterbalancing force against Levistus - because in the play of his PC he had an evaluative response. There are some resemblances here to player wanting his/her paladin to fall.




And the Paladin's player could choose the path of Good and Righteousness, or the path of Expediency.  The latter takes the risk of consequences from the Divine Forces which empower him.  He deliberately chose to play a character whose abilities depend on a Cosmological Force which has an evaluative response.



pemerton said:


> They were not taken outside the action resolution mechanics. They were taken as part of the resolution of a skill challenge. Furthermore, it is inherent in a 4e familiar that it may be shut down. And it is inherent in a 4e artefact like the Eye of Vecna that it is somewhat overpowered but also potentially temperamental.




Much as the loss of a Paladin's abilities outside 4e is inherently capable of occurring based on the rules for that class.  

You have consistently opposed removal or reduction of the mechanics which enable the Paladin to impact the fiction, but you are OK with removal or reduction of the mechanics which enable the Invoker to impact the fiction.  That the removal of the Invoker's ability to impact the fiction seems irrelevant to me - you have been arguing against mechanics which allow the removal or reduction of a character's ability to meaningfully impact the fiction, but you now present for our approval a play example where you apply mechanics which remove or reduce a character's ability to meaningfully impact the fiction.



pemerton said:


> The key issue for me is that the player's evaluative judgement is not invalidated, nor even called into question, in the episode of play I described.




So it is only the player who says "My character did the right thing" who cannot have his character resources reduced poor removed?  That seems very different from your previous arguments.  Why does the fact a character doesn't care about doing the right thing make it OK to reduce that character's ability to impact the fiction?



pemerton said:


> The 4e PHB pp 89-90 characterises paladins thusly:
> Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.
> 
> To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
> 
> Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .
> 
> As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause . . .​
> What strikes me in that is "pledg[ing]  . . . to something greater than themselves", the "exampl[e] of divine ethos in action", the "pure and simple" movitvation, the "obligations", and the "fervent crusad[ing]". None of that screams "mercenary" to me. There is no mention of a pact, no mention of a payment, no mention of a readiness to be bought away. And that text, particularly those bits I've called out, expressly contradicts your claim that the 4e paladin is not beholden to anything outside him-/herself.




What strikes me is how poorly those words translate to following an unaligned deity.  

Behold, to you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy of indifference's charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion to the path of unaligned indifference is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, and fight for the values they hold dear you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of right or wrong to dissuade you from your obligations to nothing whatsoever.

Take up your indifferent sword and unaligned shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .

As fervent crusaders in the chosen lack of a cause . . .

Seriously?  A fervent crusader for the cause of unalignedness?  Nope, not seeing it!



Cadence said:


> "If needed, to ensure that characters whose class has behavior restrictions lives up to them or faces the game world consequences."




I'm reminded of the Ravenloft mechanics of fear and horror checks, which were presented as assisting in setting the tone that the PC's are not mindless automatons , beings wholly without fear or dismay.  They were presented as saving throws, with the caveat that one need only really invoke these if the players are not role playing fear and horror through their characters.

In similar fashion, if the players are role playing their professed alignments, mechanical alignment simply fades into the background, to be applied only where there is a problem that, really, should not exist.  Now, that may well mean it does not add to play where all around the table are skilled role players, but all players are not equal in that skill, and even the best of us can certainly have our off days.  For myself, if I'm unsure whether my character would truly be afraid, or horrified, I might well volunteer to let that be adjudicated by the game mechanic and roll the check.  

And I might well play my Paladin who truly, fervently believes he is doing the right thing, despite it being against everything he has been taught to believe.  And he might well face in-game consequences for those actions, as adjudicated by the person at the table who has assumed the responsibility for assessing the reaction of those Divine Forces who grant my character his powers.  And I, as a player, might very well say "I can see the Powers of Good understanding his reasons, and I can see them being unable to overlook his transgression.  You, GM, are adjudicating those Powers so it is your call."

Frankly, I don't need the GM's affirmation of my play of my character, or my assessment of whether his actions were consistent with the expectations of some higher power of Good.  I played my character's reaction to whatever has caused him to be judged, and I can play his reaction to whatever judgment occurs in game.  And if the result is the GM/players congratulating me on engaging role play while adjudicating that the actions of the character result in sanction from his deity, his church, his lord, the Powers of Good or whatever other entity is relevant in game - then it was a great game tonight, and I look forward to playing out the consequences of his actions when we play next.

I don't play to decide how the universe reacts to my character's actions.  I can GM if and when I want to decide the reactions of the bit players (like barmaids, townsfolk, kings, high priests, deities and cosmological forces).  I play to decide the actions of my character, not the reactions of the world around him.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> But how is stripping class benefits a game world consequence?  Kicked out of his church? Fair enough. Deemed a criminal?  Cool.  Can't detect evil anymore?  Huh?




In a 1e, 2e, or 3/3.5/PF game world, the Paladin and Cleric gets the divine magical power to detect evil from their god(s) or maybe some universal power they're attuned to.   Stop being liked by the god(s) or get out of tune with the power source and the powers go away.   It would seem odd to me for a god to keep forking over power to someone who pissed them off, or for someone to draw power from a universal source that they pulled away from through repeated actions that contradicted it.


Edit: I really like the bottom section of @_*N'raac*_ 's post just above this one.  It addresses the same slightly earlier post (#741)  that @_*Hussar*_ 's quote here is in response to.


----------



## Hussar

> And I might well play my Paladin who truly, fervently believes he is doing the right thing, despite it being against everything he has been taught to believe.  And he might well face in-game consequences for those actions, as adjudicated by the person at the table who has assumed the responsibility for assessing the reaction of those Divine Forces who grant my character his powers.  And I, as a player, might very well say "I can see the Powers of Good understanding his reasons, and I can see them being unable to overlook his transgression.  You, GM, are adjudicating those Powers so it is your call.




Now what if your actions are consistent with everything he has been taught to believe but the DM thinks differently. Are you still so sanguine?  You honestly believe you have done nothing wrong but "adjudicated" anyway. 

Still perfectly acceptable?

Oh and could you answer the question?  Would you play your paladin differently in a game with no mechanical alignment?


----------



## UnholyD

Apparently a lot of you people don't play with "Smite" or even "Outsiders" because, beside alignments being a guiding force on what a character will or will not do, Smite Evil does additional damage against "Evil" aligned entities. Also, if the Paladin (who we all know very well is LAWFUL GOOD) does anything that isn't true and just, he loses his powers. Alignment usage in D&D is important for hundreds of reasons, not just so the DM can say, "A Neutral Good Fighter would never steal candy from a baby."

Why am I even posting this? Obviously these words will fall on the deaf ears of people who never even bothered to read the "Alignment Rules". That's like saying, "Do Deities even matter?" Of course they friggen do moron. How else do Clerics get spells? Pixie Farts? (although there are a rare few cases that this actually happens, still not the point)


----------



## UnholyD

Hussar said:


> Now what if your actions are consistent with everything he has been taught to believe but the DM thinks differently. Are you still so sanguine?  You honestly believe you have done nothing wrong but "adjudicated" anyway.
> 
> Still perfectly acceptable?
> 
> Oh and could you answer the question?  Would you play your paladin differently in a game with no mechanical alignment?




I have a buddy who plays in a regular game where the DM has let a non-mechanical alignment system be used. Care to guess how the Paladin the party acts? He lies, cheats, and steals more than the Rogue in party does and the Rogue is a catburglar. Why you might be asking? Because he won't be punished for acting out of alignment as the non-mechanical alignment system dictates he can't.
There are asshats out there who will take advantage of every situation a DM allows them and without an alignment system (even a relatively fast and loose one), they'll play a Paladin who does bad things, a Druid who burns down forests, or a Barbarian who won't cross the street unless there is a clearly defined crosswalk.
Alignments work and are necessary to a point. Don't for a second believe otherwise.


----------



## The Human Target

Why does it matter if a Paladin lies?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> So did they loose the skill challenge or win? In other words what mechanical resolution of the SC (failure or success) allowed you to take away his character build resources? Again this was one of the main focuses of discussion when you first presented this example and you never stated it was taken as part of the SC until much later in the conversation.



They won the skill challenge.

To win a skill challenge requires making skill checks.

Making skill checks requires locating the PC within the fictional position - the situation - framed by the GM.

In this particular case, I stated that - the last bit of machinery having been destroyed - the Soul Abattoir started to collapse. One of the players - of the paladin, I think, who had (as a Questing Knight) just completed his quest of the last 10 or so levels - said "Cool!" The players as a group started to consider how they might escape etc. I asked whether they were running, whether anyone was trying to hold back the flow of soul energy, etc. The player of the invoker decided that his PC would make a Religion check to try and do this; the player of the fighter decided to have his PC stay back and try and shield him. The others ran/flew out.

I then invited the player of the invoker to make an Insight check. He succeeded. He therefore noticed that Vecna, acting through the invoker's imp and its/Vecna's Eye, was diverting the soul energy away from the Raven Queen. I asked him whether, with his Religion success, he wanted to let Vecna have the soul energy or send it to the Raven Queen. He chose the Raven Queen. The consequence was that Vecna punished him as best he could, by shutting down his imp.

I did not explicitly state the stakes in advance of the player making his choice - we don't always play so formally, when the stakes are fairly obvious as in this case. But the player was not at all surprised that Vecna should strike down the traitor imp. What else is going to happen when Vecna is using your imp as a vector for his power, and you thwart him?



Imaro said:


> Really???  I'm not about to go back through the thread to pick out specific examples, but you've constantly harped on this point concerning both N'raac and myself.





Imaro said:


> It's hard not to when you choose to use words like punish as oppose to a more neutral term like judge or even arbitrate



I have used those words - especially "judge" and "judgement". I haven't talked much about punishment. The only reason I hypothesised that [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] used alignment mechanics to deal with baby-throat-tearing paladins was he kept brining up the example, so I assumed it must have some relevance to his play experience. (It has no relevance to mine. If it has no relevance to his either, then why keep brining it up?)



Imaro said:


> Wait a minute are you claiming that the cleric throughout numerous editions has not been more warrior than priest?



Well, one of the level titles for fighters in both Moldvay Basic and AD&D is "warrior". And one of those for cleric is "priest". Maybe those words were being used in some non-standard fashion?

Anyway, I have posted numerous times that the classic D&D cleric and the AD&D paladin are basically the same archetype - a heavily armoured holy warrior called to the divine. And in 4e both the STR cleric (and the Essentials WIS cleric) and the paladin are this same archetype. All are modelled after mediaeval warrior-saints like the crusading orders, Arthur, Lancelot, Aragorn etc. Taken at that level of generality, there is nothing to choose between them. But in that case there is no more need to place an alignment restriction on the paladin than on the cleric.

But to the extent that the archetypes have different mechanical instantiations, the paladin has always been more of a warrior: better THACO (prior to 4e, at least), better hp, fewer miracles per day. So once you factor in the mechanical details, then I prefer to play a paladin. Over time, the cleric has also accreted a degree of priestliness - even AD&D clerics gain followers as if they were preachers leading a congregation - that has little appeal to me personally. Again, this is a reason for me to favour the paladin.

In other word - taken at the level of archetype, the (trad/STR) cleric and paladin are the same, and there is no greater need for one than the other to have special alignment rules. And taken at the level of mechanical implementation, the paladin is more warrior-ish than the cleric, and less of a miracle worker, which is what I prefer. And I am not interested in playing a cleric rather than a paladin - and so moving my emphasis slightly from warrior to miracle worker - just to avoid irritating alignment rules. If the cleric version of the archetype can work without alignment - which it can - then so can the paladin version.



Imaro said:


> What mechanical effect represents that pledge in the game?



Other than a whole suite of powers, none. It is part of the fiction. Hence part of the paladin's fictional positioning. In some games that matters; perhaps in others it doesn't. I don't have advice for the latter; I play a version of the former, and I haven't found the absence of mechanical alignment makes it hard for the players of the paladins in my game (one literally a paladin, the other a fighter/cleric) to play their PCs as pledged to higher powers.



Hussar said:


> A 4e paladin is not under any mechanical reasons for behaving like a paladin.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> People who play paladins in 4e do so because they want to play paladins. Not because playing a paladin is any sort of advantage. Why choose the archetype and then not play it?  There's no advantage. Min max gamist play doesn't enter into it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> IOW you don't need mechanical alignment in order to play moralistic characters.



This all fits with my experience 100%.



Imaro said:


> I don't think you can vouch for why everyone who has ever chosen a paladin plays one.



I think Hussar is probably talking about the people he actually plays with. I know that I am.



Imaro said:


> I like mechanics that actually reinforce the fiction of being beholden to something <snippage> using them to reinforce said fictional positioning in my game.





Hussar said:


> your last bit about being beholden is why I characterize your views of mechanical alignment as using alignment to punish errant players.



I agree with Hussar, to the extent that I don't see how the mechanics can reinforce the fiction of being beholden unless the player is subject to the possibility of the GM judging an action declared for his/her PC to be evil, and inflicting punishment as a consequence.



Imaro said:


> I just don't get that experience with the do whatever you want, it's ok, paladin.



Who's game do you think this describes? Mine? Hussar's? I have expressly denied that this describes my game. I think Hussar has at least by implication made the same denial.

There's some weird assumption here, that unless the players are told what they may or may not do by the GM, they will be incapable of exercising any discipline or self-control, and will just play their PCs like some wild id.



Imaro said:


> not everyone plays like you. For some the point is the mechanics, whether that is for hybriding, multi-classing or being in the class just to reach a particular paragon path or epic destiny (since people can start above level 1) that is rated highly and they could care less about thematic underpinnings as opposed to optimizing



So is part of the reason that you like alignment because it stops players from doing this?


----------



## S'mon

Hussar said:


> People who play paladins in 4e do so because they want to play paladins. Not because playing a paladin is any sort of advantage. Why choose the archetype and then not play it?  There's no advantage. Min max gamist play doesn't enter into it.
> 
> It would be like playing a wizard but choosing to wear armor and use a sword. Sure you can do it but why bother?  Why not play a fighter?
> 
> IOW you don't need mechanical alignment in order to play moralistic characters.




That's been my experience with 4e Paladins, yes - the players have always chosen to play LG Paladins, and they have played them very well, with no GM intervention or oversight needed. They 
resemble literary paladins more closely than the paladins I've seen in other editions.
One factor might be that loot is less important in 4e, especially when using Inherent 
bonuses. But I do see mercenary, loot-oriented PCs and players, eg the Slayer PC in my 
group. They just don't play Paladins.

edit: IOW, treat people as adults and they'll behave as adults. 

I also like it that a 4e player can play a lying cheating scumbag Paladin if they want, and the GM is ok with such characters in the game. They could be a Paladin of Cyric in FR, say, or maybe one of the Evil gods in core 4e (Bane, Vecna, Asmodeus are all possibilities). It wouldn't do any violence to the setting.


----------



## S'mon

N'raac said:


> What strikes me is how poorly those words translate to following an unaligned deity.
> 
> Behold, to you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy of indifference's charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion to the path of unaligned indifference is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, and fight for the values they hold dear you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of right or wrong to dissuade you from your obligations to nothing whatsoever.
> 
> Take up your indifferent sword and unaligned shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .
> 
> As fervent crusaders in the chosen lack of a cause . . .
> 
> Seriously?  A fervent crusader for the cause of unalignedness?  Nope, not seeing it!




Sounds like you don't understand the Unaligned alignment. Plenty of Unaligned deities have  strong causes that are suitable for Paladins. The Raven Queen's war on the undead is a classic 
example, others would include Erathis' battle to expand Civilisation, or Kord & Tempus' love of battle itself. To be Unaligned is not to be apathetic or indifferent. Likewise there are Good deities like FR Chauntea who will rarely produce Paladins.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> My preference is that a character be honourable because the character is honourable, not because he is bribed to be honourable by having mechanics that result in his best interests being inevitably served by being honourable.



This doesn't make much sense to me - the character doesn't have any mechanics! The character exists in a fiction in which people walk and talk and cast spells like in LotR, not a bizarre d20-verse like OotS!

If you're saying that it's bad design to have a class that gives the _player_ mechanical advantages for playing an honourable character, then why have the paladin class at all? I mean, that's part of what the original class design of the paladin was about - you'll be tougher than a normal fighter, but you have these disadvantages which - under the prevailing play assumptions of the day - will act as a balancing factor. (I even though that you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] had argued upthread that allowing the player of a paladin to keep his/her PC abilities while having his/her PC act dishonourably would unbalance the game - which seems to be an argument for bribing players to play honourably!)

But anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing that the design of the paladin class create mechanical incentives for honourable play any more than that the design of the fighter class create mechanical incentives for resolving conflict via violent means, or the design of the MU class create mechanical incentives for overcoming problems by the casting of spells (weren't these things build into the 2nd ed AD&D XP system?).

That's not to say that _any_ system that creates such incentives is desired by me. For instance, I don't want mechanical alignment. But I'm very fond of the way 4e does it.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Much as the loss of a Paladin's abilities outside 4e is inherently capable of occurring based on the rules for that class.



I'm not confused about what the published rules are. I'm saying that I don't like them, and on those occasions when I GM pre-4e D&D (quite rare since the mid-90s) I don't use this particular aspect of them.



N'raac said:


> it has been stated numerous times upthread that a Paladin's player should not be surprised, but should have ample warning that the actions the character is taking carry the risk of losing Paladin status, so there is no difference here between your adjudication and the adjudication of the Paladin's compliance with his alignment restrictions.



I've already stated, multiple times, what the difference is that matters to me: deciding that Vecna is angry is not an evaluative or expressive judgement; deciding that a player's action declaration is evil is such a judgement; and I don't want to engage in the task of judging my players play in that way as part of refereeing my game.

Upthread, I had this exchange with Imaro:



Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but you still determine how this deity feels about a particular action... which is exactly what you are doing with alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you chose to state them would make them appear to be... but they really aren't that different.
Click to expand...


I assume you agree with Imaro - that is, you don't see any meaningful difference between deciding that a god is angry because his desire for power was thwarted, and judging that a player has violated his/her PC's alignment. Perhaps that is because you agree with Imaro that judging alignment violation does not require judging whether a player's declared action is good or evil, but rather requires judging whether a deity or other power would deem it to accord with its concept of good or evil.

I don't have the same conception of alignment as Imaro and (I believe) you. Nowhere in any D&D rulebook that I've read is "good" defined as "What Asmodeus believes to be good" or "What Pelor believes to be good". Nor have I ever seen evil defined in such terms. I have seen it defined as "respect for human (creature) rights", as "just that (ie good)", as "altruism", etc. None of these are words for describing the emotions and preferences of powerful beings. They are words for describing values and valuable things.

Also as I have said upthread, when I play a paladin I don't want to play a Faustian character who has made a pact. I want to play a paladin who is called to honour and to truth. (Not to some flawed or limited being's conception of honour and truth.) And when my players play paladins, I am not playing some NPC entity with whom they have made a pact. I want to see how they, as a fellow human being doing me the great honour of roleplaying with me, play out their conception of honour and truth. I am not going to sit there and judge their judgements as part of my adjudication of the game.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> You have consistently opposed removal or reduction of the mechanics which enable the Paladin to impact the fiction, but you are OK with removal or reduction of the mechanics which enable the Invoker to impact the fiction.



Do you also think that I don't use hit points? Or wound penalties/debuffs, when they apply?

We're all adults here, as far as I know, and I assume we're all capable of reading intelligently.

My principle reason for disliking alignment is the one I have just reiterated - it requires making judgements, as part of the refereeing of the game, that I have a strong desire not to make because they significantly impede my enjoyment of the game.

That reason would operate whatever the rulebooks said were the consequences for breaching alignment requirements.

A second reason for disliking alignment is that the actual consequences the rulebooks specify are things like losing XP, losing your class abilities and becoming little better than an NPC-class warrior of equal level (as I read the rules, d10 rather than d8 HD, plus a different but not noticeably better skill list). (You compared these upthread to undead level-draining - that's another mechanic I dislike and believe have never used in more than 30 years of GMing the game. I don't think I've ever come across it as a player either.)

You are now trying to tell me that I am inconsistent because, despite my dislike of these sorts of consequences, I have shut down a player's familiar (a modest game element inherently subject to being shut down under certain conditions as part of its overall balance) and artefact (an overpowered game element inherently subject to being shut down as part of its overall balance), in circumstances in which the player decided that his PC would stick the artefact in the imp rather than himself because he knew implanting it could be bad news! That's like saying I would be inconsistent if I'd had Vecna inflict 6d10 hp of damage on the PC (33 hp being a 25th level-appropriate hit's worth of damage).

I am quite ready to believe that the difference, which is fundamental to me, between deciding that Vecna is angry and deciding that a player has declared an evil action, may be invisible to you and Imaro. It's already obvious to me that you have different aesthetic sensibilities from mine.

But I find it genuinely puzzling that anyone familiar with D&D mechanics would regard shutting down a familiar and an artefact for some (as yet) indeterminate amount of time as on a par with turning a paladin into a fighter (AD&D) or a weapon spec deprived fighter (AD&D 2nd ed) or a warrior with d10 HD (3E).



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4e PHB pp 89-90 characterises paladins thusly:
> 
> Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.
> 
> To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
> 
> Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .
> 
> As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strikes me is how poorly those words translate to following an unaligned deity.
> 
> Behold, to you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy of indifference's charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion to the path of unaligned indifference is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, and fight for the values they hold dear you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of right or wrong to dissuade you from your obligations to nothing whatsoever.
> 
> Take up your indifferent sword and unaligned shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .
> 
> As fervent crusaders in the chosen lack of a cause . . .
> 
> Seriously?  A fervent crusader for the cause of unalignedness?
Click to expand...


To me, this suggests that you are not familiar with 4e's actual characterisation of the various unaligned gods, and their injunctions to their followers. Here they are (PHB pp 21-22):

*Corellon*: Cultivate beauty in all that you do . . . [and t]hwart the followers of Lolth at every opportunity.

*Erathis*: Defend the light of civilisation against the encroaching darkness. . . Build machines, build cities, build empires.

*Ioun*: Be watchful at all times for the followers of Vecna, . . . [o]ppose their schemes, unmask their secrets, and blind them with the light of truth and reason.

*Kord*: Be stong, . . . Be brave and scorn cowardice . . . Prove your might in battle to win glory and renown.

*Melora*: Protect the wild places of the world from destruction . . . [and h]unt aberrant monsters and other abominations of nature.

*The Raven Queen*: Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate . . . [and w]atch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise.​
The only unaligned god for whom I find it at all hard to imagine a paladin based on their injunctions to worshippers is this one:

*Sehanine*: Follow your goals and seek your own destiny . . . avoiding the blazing light of zealous good and the utter darkness of evil. . . [L]et nothing tie you down.​
But pp 22, 62 and 90 of the PHB also identify Sehanine as the god of love, and I can easily imagine a paladin dedicated to love.

None of these gods is a paragon of indifference. They all stand for values of some sort or another: beauty, civilisation, truth, prowess, nature, fate and love. Within the context of a fantasy adventure game, it makes sense to me that any of these might be worth fighting for.



N'raac said:


> if the players are role playing their professed alignments, mechanical alignment simply fades into the background, to be applied only where there is a problem that, really, should not exist.  Now, that may well mean it does not add to play where all around the table are skilled role players, but all players are not equal in that skill, and even the best of us can certainly have our off days.



This is a pretty good characterisation of why I don't like mechanical alignment. It doesn't matter except when it is called upon to supplant the GM's judgement for the player's. (On the assumption that the "application" to those who "are not equal in that skill" comes from the GM.)



Imaro said:


> I notice though that you are still using DM judgement in deciding whether someone is playing their character well enough that they be allowed to remain at the table with you and your group



I noticed this when I was checking some posts upthread.

Deciding that I want to roleplay with someone is in much the same general category of decision-making as deciding whether I want to go to dinner with them, or accept their party invitation, or go to a movie with them. I will bring to bear all relevant considerations about the desirability of their company. This sort of judgement has - as far as I can see - no bearing on or relation to the judgements that are involved in adjudicating mechanical alignment.

In deciding whether or not to go to a gallery with someone I might take into account his/her taste in art. (Eg I would be hesitant to go to MoMA with someone who professes to hate all 20th century art.) Once we're there, though, I am not going to oblige him/her to filter all his/her comments on the works we're looking at through my own preferences before deeming those comments acceptable or not.


----------



## Hussar

UnholyD said:


> I have a buddy who plays in a regular game where the DM has let a non-mechanical alignment system be used. Care to guess how the Paladin the party acts? He lies, cheats, and steals more than the Rogue in party does and the Rogue is a catburglar. Why you might be asking? Because he won't be punished for acting out of alignment as the non-mechanical alignment system dictates he can't.
> There are asshats out there who will take advantage of every situation a DM allows them and without an alignment system (even a relatively fast and loose one), they'll play a Paladin who does bad things, a Druid who burns down forests, or a Barbarian who won't cross the street unless there is a clearly defined crosswalk.
> Alignments work and are necessary to a point. Don't for a second believe otherwise.




I'd lik to thank you for showing exactly what I've been saying. Alignment is the tool for enforcing player behaviour.


----------



## pemerton

UnholyD said:


> Apparently a lot of you people don't play with "Smite" or even "Outsiders" because, beside alignments being a guiding force on what a character will or will not do, Smite Evil does additional damage against "Evil" aligned entities. Also, if the Paladin (who we all know very well is LAWFUL GOOD) does anything that isn't true and just, he loses his powers. Alignment usage in D&D is important for hundreds of reasons, not just so the DM can say, "A Neutral Good Fighter would never steal candy from a baby."
> 
> Why am I even posting this? Obviously these words will fall on the deaf ears of people who never even bothered to read the "Alignment Rules".



The "alignment rules" you describe are primarily an artefact of 3E. The fact that it is a bit of a headache to strip mechanical alignment out of 3E is one of the (less important) reasons why I don't really play it.

But pointing out that, per the rulebooks from Gygax through 3E, paladins must be LG, isn't going to persuade me to enjoy or use alignment. I've read that part of the rules. I just don't care for it.



UnholyD said:


> I have a buddy who plays in a regular game where the DM has let a non-mechanical alignment system be used. Care to guess how the Paladin the party acts? He lies, cheats, and steals more than the Rogue in party does and the Rogue is a catburglar. Why you might be asking? Because he won't be punished for acting out of alignment as the non-mechanical alignment system dictates he can't.
> There are asshats out there who will take advantage of every situation a DM allows them and without an alignment system (even a relatively fast and loose one), they'll play a Paladin who does bad thing



Upthread [MENTION=22574]The Human Target[/MENTION] asks "Why does it matter if a Paladin lies?"

When I read that post I took the question as rhetorical. But now that I'm reflecting I think it might be genuine. Why _does_ it matter to the game if the paladin lies, cheats and steals?

Presumably it doesn't unbalance the game; no matter how much a paladin lies, cheats and steals I doubt s/he can have as big an impact on the gameworld as a magic-user, even an honest one.

So I assume the objection is aesthetic: the GM and the other players don't like the tone of a game in which the "paladin" is a crook.

In my experience, the easiest way to fix the tone of this sort of game is (i) don't play with asshats, and (ii) as a GM, don't adjudicate your game in such a way that the player of the paladin is better off playing a crook than an honourable warrior. If, after implementing (ii), you still need the threat of alignment violations, then see (i). [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] just upthread points out a major way in which 4e implements (ii), namely via its treasure rules. But there are lots of other little changes here and there also, and system-neutral GMing techniques that can be used too.

Of course, for some games - like Gygaxian dungeon crawling - then implementing (ii) is impractical. At that point you probably do need the threat of alignment violations. But now that's not necessary for preserving tone, it's part of the balance of paladins. A weird thing about 3E, in my view, is that it keeps a mechanic which was invented as a balancing mechanic but strips out the reason for needing that balance. (2nd ed has this feature too, but perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent.)


----------



## pemerton

In post 752 I reiterated two reasons why mechanical alignment is an impediment to my enjoyment of the game, and hence why I don't use it.

This thread is a third, although this particular reason - and all the related things, like whether a LG succubus can still damage angels or can speak a Holy Word without targeting herself - is basically confined to 3E.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Descriptive Alignment: law-neutral-chaos and good-neutral-evil serve as short hand descriptors <insert ways there used that way from previous editions for creatures, characters, and societies>.  A given player may find another short descriptor more useful in summarizing their characters moral/ethical tendencies and views for themselves, GM, and fellow players.  This aspect of alignment has no direct mechanical implications and should be kept updated to match the characters persona.



This strikes me as completely innocuous. I would expect that, in practice, it is more useful for GM shorthand than for players, and many player wouldn't bother to update.



Cadence said:


> Cosmological Alignment: Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are also names that describe  the collective  commonality of several groups of gods, outsiders, and divine concepts - other names in some campaigns might be Lords of Order, Lords of Light, Lords of Entropy, and Lords of Darkness.   The deities and outsiders with these descriptors typically have views in rough correspondence with the descriptive version of alignment above - but just because two deities share the same cosmological alignment does not mean they will necessarily usually agree on what is an appropriate except in the most blatantly obvious of situations.



This strikes me as a pretty harmless default cosmology. It has good fit both with D&D tradition and the broader fantasy canon, I think. I see 4e as being like this, and classic L-N-C alignment as easy to play in this style (and I think plenty did, back in the day).



Cadence said:


> Spells such as Detect Evil, Circle Against Good, etc...  are based on cosmological alignment and affect only beings that have that cosmological alignment and not simply creatures with descriptive alignments.  Beings with cosmological alignment include outsiders of the Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil types; Undead(?); and beings granted divine powers by deities or concepts strongly associated with cosmological alignments (typically those using aligned outsiders as servants or those granting the alignment domains) or collections of like-aligned deities.   These include many clerics and all paladins.
> 
> Whether a character maintains their cosmological alignment is judged by their individual deity (or associated group of deities in the case of a concept) and how well they serve that particular purpose -  not on how they necessarily fit the descriptive alignment stereotypes.



This is no good for me - of the three reasons I've stated in the above few posts, it hits the 3rd (having to juggle interactions between alignment and mechanics) plus the 1st, or some version thereof - either judging a cleric or paladin's deviation is expressing evaluative judgement, or else "good" and "evil" have been redefined so that (from my perspective) all clerics and paladins are really warlocks who have made pacts with other-worldly beings.

That's not a reason not to go this way with a PF revision, of course. I'm not really the target market for PF anyway, and if I were it would be no harder for me to disregard this 3rd component of your alignment mechanics than it would be for me to ignore it if I were playing 3E/PF at the moment.


----------



## Abraxas

S'mon said:


> That's been my experience with 4e Paladins, yes - the players have always chosen to play LG Paladins, and they have played them very well, with no GM intervention or oversight needed. They resemble literary paladins more closely than the paladins I've seen in other editions.
> 
> One factor might be that loot is less important in 4e, especially when using Inherent bonuses. But I do see mercenary, loot-oriented PCs and players, eg the Slayer PC in my
> group. They just don't play Paladins.



Is it the same people playing Paladins in each edition?



S'mon said:


> edit: IOW, treat people as adults and they'll behave as adults.



This I agree with - it's also why alignment isn't a "straight jacket" to playing a character. 



S'mon said:


> I also like it that a 4e player can play a lying cheating scumbag Paladin if they want, and the GM is ok with such characters in the game. They could be a Paladin of Cyric in FR, say, or maybe one of the Evil gods in core 4e (Bane, Vecna, Asmodeus are all possibilities). It wouldn't do any violence to the setting.



I wouldn't classify them as being a Paladin tho. They may be a divine champion, but I prefer my Paladins to only be the LG type. I would have much preferred 4e simply had a class called Divine Champion and you could build the LG Paladin from the options presented.

Of course I also wouldn't want to DM for, or game with, a player who wants to run a lying, cheating, scumbag character no matter what class.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> So, in other words Imaro, one of the purposes of mechanical alignment is to enforce player behaviour. Is that a reasonable reading of your response?




No it's not.  It *can be* one of the uses of mechanical alignment... however if one is gaming with adults who are honestly playing to the thematic archetype of a paladin (you know all the things we assume about paladins in 4e bu not in other editions for some reason), that usage of mechanical alignment may rarely or never come about.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But how is stripping class benefits a game world consequence?  Kicked out of his church? Fair enough. Deemed a criminal?  Cool.  Can't detect evil anymore?  Huh?




Taking powers from a thief doesn't make much sense to me, but a paladin or cleric no longer in good standing with their deity, that makes sense. It is like the scene in constantine when gabriel tries to smite but God no longer has his back. The setting isn't just the physical land the characters inhabit, it is also the the gods and other cosmic forces. If you are running ravenloft for example, setting consequences frequently involve the Dark powers. The GM is essentially playing the dark powers as a major npc.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> They won the skill challenge.
> 
> To win a skill challenge requires making skill checks.
> 
> Making skill checks requires locating the PC within the fictional position - the situation - framed by the GM.
> 
> In this particular case, I stated that - the last bit of machinery having been destroyed - the Soul Abattoir started to collapse. One of the players - of the paladin, I think, who had (as a Questing Knight) just completed his quest of the last 10 or so levels - said "Cool!" The players as a group started to consider how they might escape etc. I asked whether they were running, whether anyone was trying to hold back the flow of soul energy, etc. The player of the invoker decided that his PC would make a Religion check to try and do this; the player of the fighter decided to have his PC stay back and try and shield him. The others ran/flew out.
> 
> I then invited the player of the invoker to make an Insight check. He succeeded. He therefore noticed that Vecna, acting through the invoker's imp and its/Vecna's Eye, was diverting the soul energy away from the Raven Queen. I asked him whether, with his Religion success, he wanted to let Vecna have the soul energy or send it to the Raven Queen. He chose the Raven Queen. The consequence was that Vecna punished him as best he could, by shutting down his imp.
> 
> I did not explicitly state the stakes in advance of the player making his choice - we don't always play so formally, when the stakes are fairly obvious as in this case. But the player was not at all surprised that Vecna should strike down the traitor imp. What else is going to happen when Vecna is using your imp as a vector for his power, and you thwart him?




So you took away character build resources through DM fiat... Because you judged that the actions of the player where not in accordance with what this deity expected of him and thus you stripped him of (some of) his power... got it.  What if the player felt like Vecna should have enticed him with more power as opposed to punishing him so that he would turn more towards his service, you know carrot insteasd of stick??   Or since you tend towards an improvisational type game perhaps (seeing how Vecna is the god of secrets) the player did exactly what Vecna wanted for some esoteric reason and Vecna rewards him for it and he doesn't know exactly why... in other words if you're not down for making evaluative judgements... why or how do you justify evaluating his behavior for good or bad as Vecna in this instance?




pemerton said:


> I have used those words - especially "judge" and "judgement". I haven't talked much about punishment. The only reason I hypothesised that @_*N'raac*_ used alignment mechanics to deal with baby-throat-tearing paladins was he kept brining up the example, so I assumed it must have some relevance to his play experience. (It has no relevance to mine. If it has no relevance to his either, then why keep brining it up?)




I was addressing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s continuous use of the word "punish"... I'm not sure why you are bringing your actions into this, since it wasn't a reply to anything you said.



pemerton said:


> Well, one of the level titles for fighters in both Moldvay Basic and AD&D is "warrior". And one of those for cleric is "priest". Maybe those words were being used in some non-standard fashion?
> 
> Anyway, I have posted numerous times that the classic D&D cleric and the AD&D paladin are basically the same archetype - a heavily armoured holy warrior called to the divine. And in 4e both the STR cleric (and the Essentials WIS cleric) and the paladin are this same archetype. All are modelled after mediaeval warrior-saints like the crusading orders, Arthur, Lancelot, Aragorn etc. Taken at that level of generality, there is nothing to choose between them. But in that case there is no more need to place an alignment restriction on the paladin than on the cleric.




Again "need" isn't what's being discussed here, preference is... so I'm not sure why you are couching the discussions in terms of "need".



pemerton said:


> But to the extent that the archetypes have different mechanical instantiations, the paladin has always been more of a warrior: better THACO (prior to 4e, at least), better hp, fewer miracles per day. So once you factor in the mechanical details, then I prefer to play a paladin. Over time, the cleric has also accreted a degree of priestliness - even AD&D clerics gain followers as if they were preachers leading a congregation - that has little appeal to me personally. Again, this is a reason for me to favour the paladin.
> 
> In other word - taken at the level of archetype, the (trad/STR) cleric and paladin are the same, and there is no greater need for one than the other to have special alignment rules. And taken at the level of mechanical implementation, the paladin is more warrior-ish than the cleric, and less of a miracle worker, which is what I prefer. And I am not interested in playing a cleric rather than a paladin - and so moving my emphasis slightly from warrior to miracle worker - just to avoid irritating alignment rules. If the cleric version of the archetype can work without alignment - which it can - then so can the paladin version.




Wait, how does the cleric work without alignment rules in any edition except 4e??  Also again in 3e there were alternate paladin classes which meet all your criteria for wanting a paladin and even had abilities custom designed around the alternate alignment/codes they followed. 



pemerton said:


> Other than a whole suite of powers, none. It is part of the fiction. Hence part of the paladin's fictional positioning. In some games that matters; perhaps in others it doesn't. I don't have advice for the latter; I play a version of the former, and I haven't found the absence of mechanical alignment makes it hard for the players of the paladins in my game (one literally a paladin, the other a fighter/cleric) to play their PCs as pledged to higher powers.




Aren't these powers, for the vast majority of paladins, the exact same regardless of who or what you are pledged to?  If so how do they represent any particular pledge?



pemerton said:


> I think Hussar is probably talking about the people he actually plays with. I know that I am.




Well, unlike you, Hussar doesn't state that... he tends to make wide sweeping generalizations.




pemerton said:


> I agree with Hussar, to the extent that I don't see how the mechanics can reinforce the fiction of being beholden unless the player is subject to the possibility of the GM judging an action declared for his/her PC to be evil, and inflicting punishment as a consequence.




For some people that is the point, that the deity/force/etc. they have faith in is not infallible (as even cosmic forces can have an agenda and prejudices just look to the eternal champion books by Moorcock for examples), is not necessarily comprehensible and is outside of themselves.  I'm not being "punished"if this is the type of play I am looking for... I am being judged by the force that bestowed my powers upon me because that is the type of experience I want from the game.



pemerton said:


> Who's game do you think this describes? Mine? Hussar's? I have expressly denied that this describes my game. I think Hussar has at least by implication made the same denial.
> 
> There's some weird assumption here, that unless the players are told what they may or may not do by the GM, they will be incapable of exercising any discipline or self-control, and will just play their PCs like some wild id.




No this is how you are interpreting what we are saying... At the end of the day your players (including paladins) are doing what they want not what a higher being or cosmological force wants them to do.  You've said as much so I'm not sure why this causes contention? 



pemerton said:


> So is part of the reason that you like alignment because it stops players from doing this?




I've stated (numerous times now) why I enjoy mechanical alignment... but I also recognize it can serve a variety of purposes for different player and DM's (as opposed to thinking people only play like me and thus the game should be designed specifically for my playstyle)...

Here's a novel idea... how about you accept that I like the paladin with mechanical alignment because of the reasons I gave earlier instead of trying to push/cajole/trick/whatever me into saying I like alignment to punish people... seriously I've given you the benefit of stating that I accept your reason(s) for not liking mechanical alignment (though I may not agree with them)... how about instead of trying to put words in my mouth you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] accept what I'm saying??


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Now what if your actions are consistent with everything he has been taught to believe but the DM thinks differently. Are you still so sanguine?  You honestly believe you have done nothing wrong but "adjudicated" anyway.
> 
> Still perfectly acceptable?




Like most good questions, I’d have to say the answer is “it depends”.  

First off, is the GM acting unilaterally and arbitrarily, with a “Screw the players – my fun comes from taking their fun away!”, the behaviour pattern you commonly seem to expect of GM’s (but never of players)?  In this case, it matters little as I will not likely be playing with such a GM.  Alternatively, are we discussing the issues, after which he makes a ruling based on the input of the players, as well as the cosmology of his world?  In that case, he is doing the GM’s job – running the game.  If this is problematic for my vision of the character, then the GM and I need to discuss this.   Perhaps this character is not a good fit for this game.  If I want to play a Paladin, and the rest of the players want to play hard-bitten cutthroat mercenaries, maybe I need to get on the bus and shelve the Paladin for a more appropriate game (ie compromise for the good of the game).

Next, we come to the thematics of my own character and how they mesh with the game.  Perhaps not everything my character has been taught to believe is correct.  Perhaps that is a thematic element to my character – is he really following the principals of Good because he is called, and he truly believes, or is he doing what others have taught him is right, and only now beginning to question those teachings?  Is, perhaps, his quest for the rightness and wrongness of those teachings a major thematic element of that character?  Perhaps he has been brought up in a strict LG culture, raised to be a Paladin as his father was, and his father before him.  And perhaps a major theme is Law vs Chaos – Order vs Freedom  -and a large part of this character’s persona and personal story relates to whether he will follow the dictates of his upbringing and family loyalty, or perhaps the dictates of his heart, and come to believe freedom is the greater virtue.

Perhaps a central question is whether he will continue acting in accordance with the dictates of Law to retain his power, prestige and position, or whether he will embrace what he has come to know is truly right, and become a champion of freedom at the cost of  that power, prestige and position.  

Now, here I’m still back to making some changes to the rules, as I think it would be appropriate for such a character to lose his Paladin abilities and gain other abilities to remain balanced in game.  But I don’t think those mechanics need to precisely  match his old Paladin abilities.  Perhaps he gets to replace his former Paladin levels with a mix of Fighter and Cleric levels.  Perhaps his embracing of fundamental Chaos results in the release of a primal rage at the core of his being and his Paladin levels shift to Barbarian levels.  But as his personal morality and beliefs drift away from LG, I find it quite appropriate for his LG powers to drift away as well.  And a period of transition, where he no longer has his LG themed abilities, but has not yet grown into his new abilities, seems like a reasonable transition.

 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] will likely be entertained by my view, which is basically that this question can’t be answered outside the actual play of the character in the game.  It would vary depending on the character, the campaign and the GM.  However, I do expect that the GM whose adjudication would be problematic is one whose adjudication of other issues would also be problematic.  

It’s unfortunate that we can’t assume treating the GM like a reasonable adult will result in him acting like one, though.



Hussar said:


> Oh and could you answer the question?  Would you play your paladin differently in a game with no mechanical alignment?




I don’t believe I would.  However, the fact that the manner in which he is played lacks has vastly reduced consequences may well rob those actions of some of their relevance and importance.  And hey, why shouldn’t the character compromise his beliefs a little, and a little more, as it becomes clear that he can maintain his power, prestige and position even with the compromises.  After all, those compromises are clearly OK with the cosmological forces that grant him his powers, so his actions must therefore be acceptable.



pemerton said:


> They won the skill challenge.
> 
> In this particular case, I stated that - the last bit of machinery having been destroyed - the Soul Abattoir started to collapse. One of the players - of the paladin, I think, who had (as a Questing Knight) just completed his quest of the last 10 or so levels - said "Cool!" The players as a group started to consider how they might escape etc. I asked whether they were running, whether anyone was trying to hold back the flow of soul energy, etc. The player of the invoker decided that his PC would make a Religion check to try and do this; the player of the fighter decided to have his PC stay back and try and shield him. The others ran/flew out.




I’m confused.  It seems like they won the skill challenge, which caused the Soul Abattoir to collapse (a new complication of the now complete skill challenge), not like the loss of the familiar somehow related to successes or failures in the skill challenge.  I also think the mantra I have heard on other threads that “success is success, period” is not being honoured if success means the character loses  a mechanical resource.



pemerton said:


> I did not explicitly state the stakes in advance of the player making his choice - we don't always play so formally, when the stakes are fairly obvious as in this case. But the player was not at all surprised that Vecna should strike down the traitor imp. What else is going to happen when Vecna is using your imp as a vector for his power, and you thwart him?




Offer you more power for serving him instead?  [Direct the souls to me, and I shall reward you thusly.]  Wreak unholy vengeance.  [“You betray the Master”, says the Imp, turning the full power of the Eye of Vecna upon you, “so you must be destroyed”]  Plenty of “something elses” exist.  What is going to happen when you sacrifice the power gained from Vecna in the service of the Raven Queen?  She’s been pretty silent in all of this.  Perhaps the Imp is destroyed in a gout of Dark Energy as Vecna punishes the invoker for his disloyalty, the Eye is nowhere to be found, but at a later point in the story, a new familiar linked to the Raven Queen, with different powers at a comparably level, is bestowed upon the Invoker for his service to the Raven Queen.

IOW, there are numerous possible outcomes.  You seem very defensive that the one you chose was the only reasonable approach which could be taken.  I don’t disagree that it was a reasonable choice.  I do not, however, agree that it was the only choice, that it was (or that there even is) the definitively best choice.  I also believe it is in no way consistent with your stated views that GM judgment of player/character behaviour should not reduce the player’s ability to mechanically impact the fiction.



pemerton said:


> I have used those words - especially "judge" and "judgement". I haven't talked much about punishment. The only reason I hypothesised that @_*N'raac*_ used alignment mechanics to deal with baby-throat-tearing paladins was he kept brining up the example, so I assumed it must have some relevance to his play experience. (It has no relevance to mine. If it has no relevance to his either, then why keep brining it up?)




I believe its relevance stands in the fact that the play is dismissed as a “bad player” with the possible rationale for the action being perceived as perfectly in character (“The child will die anyway, my service to the Greater Good demands this of me; I must pursue the greatest good for the greatest number which, sadly, requires this child’s sacrifice for the Greater Good).  I’m not going to reiterate the full scenario I set out – you keep asking everyone else to go back through the thread, so you can feel free to seek it out if you wish to.

The rationale painted is one that a player, or PC, could reasonably come to.  It is one that requires a pretty extreme, violent, life-ending act.  And it is one where, even if the player and PC think the action was perfectly appropriate under the tenets of his faith, I can see the GM reasonably judging is an evil act, with the mechanical results that entails.  

I find it interesting that the responses have all been quite judgmental.  No one (besides myself) has made any attempt to suggest there might be a justification for the play in question.  So clearly you ARE judging the morality of the character.  The only question is how that judgment plays out – is it truly more extreme to rule the Paladin has committed an evil act and loses his powers than to toss the player out on his ear?  From the comments, it seems like “I would not game with such a player” is the most common response, especially from the anti-alignment posters.



pemerton said:


> Well, one of the level titles for fighters in both Moldvay Basic and AD&D is "warrior". And one of those for cleric is "priest". Maybe those words were being used in some non-standard fashion?




Does that mean that, at all other levels,  the fighter is not a Warrior and the cleric loses the status of Priest?



pemerton said:


> Other than a whole suite of powers, none. It is part of the fiction. Hence part of the paladin's fictional positioning. In some games that matters; perhaps in others it doesn't. I don't have advice for the latter; I play a version of the former, and I haven't found the absence of mechanical alignment makes it hard for the players of the paladins in my game (one literally a paladin, the other a fighter/cleric) to play their PCs as pledged to higher powers.




So can the Paladin of the Raven Queen, should he choose to do so, on the assumption his choice is a reasonable outgrowth of play, choose to align with the forces of the Undead (or of Orcus) for some reason that he considers is appropriate within his service to the Raven Queen and be guaranteed there will be no mechanical consequences to the powers granted him by the Raven Queen?  As a simplistic example, if it were the Paladin, or the Fighter/Cleric, redirecting the Soul Energy, and he decided to let it continue to flow to Vecna (perhaps believing that this would reduce the risk to his teammates’ escape, including the Raven Queen’s other servant(s)), would he be exempt from any repercussions on the abilities granted him by the Raven Queen?



pemerton said:


> If you're saying that it's bad design to have a class that gives the _player_ mechanical advantages for playing an honourable character, then why have the paladin class at all? I mean, that's part of what the original class design of the paladin was about - you'll be tougher than a normal fighter, but you have these disadvantages which - under the prevailing play assumptions of the day - will act as a balancing factor. (I even though that you and @_*Imaro*_ had argued upthread that allowing the player of a paladin to keep his/her PC abilities while having his/her PC act dishonourably would unbalance the game - which seems to be an argument for bribing players to play honourably!)




You are telling me if you want to play an honourable character, you will do so solely because you want to play an honourable character.  Then you are telling me you want mechanics that reward you for playing that honourable character.  Why is it desirable that you get a bonus for playing an honourable character but undesirable there should be any penalty for failing to maintain that honour?  Why does Honour need to always work to your advantage, and never to your detriment?  Why can you not just play that honourable character, with whatever mechanical and fictional positioning benefits or drawbacks that may have at any given point in time, because you wanted to play an honourable character?



pemerton said:


> I've already stated, multiple times, what the difference is that matters to me: deciding that Vecna is angry is not an evaluative or expressive judgement; deciding that a player's action declaration is evil is such a judgement; and I don't want to engage in the task of judging my players play in that way as part of refereeing my game.




So you can decide that Vecna is displeased, but you cannot decide a different deity, or some other cosmological force is displeased.  Vecna is a deity which is an NPC, but for some reason the Raven Queen is not, nor are any cosmological forces of Good which exist in earlier editions but, it seems, not in 4e.



pemerton said:


> I don't have the same conception of alignment as Imaro and (I believe) you. Nowhere in any D&D rulebook that I've read is "good" defined as "What Asmodeus believes to be good" or "What Pelor believes to be good". Nor have I ever seen evil defined in such terms. I have seen it defined as "respect for human (creature) rights", as "just that (ie good)", as "altruism", etc. None of these are words for describing the emotions and preferences of powerful beings. They are words for describing values and valuable things.




And we’re back to the straightjacket.  Respect for Life is good.  Sometimes, the character compromises Respect for Life (itself not a Good act) for the benefit of other tenets of Good, or perhaps other tenets of Law, or perhaps because he slipped up.  The question is not “Did the character maintain the absolute ideals of Good at all times”.  No one could.  The question is whether the compromises he made are, or are not, acceptable in the eyes of the person or force doing the judging.  Did he compromise too much?  



pemerton said:


> Also as I have said upthread, when I play a paladin I don't want to play a Faustian character who has made a pact. I want to play a paladin who is called to honour and to truth. (Not to some flawed or limited being's conception of honour and truth.)




Faustian seems a loaded term, as it implies a deal with the Devil rather than a deal with the Angels.  Ultimately, the Paladin is very much a character who serves Law and Good, and is rewarded with special abilities for doing so.  If he ceases to serve Law and Good, he loses those rewards.  If, to you, that is a Faustian Pact, then yes, Paladins are Faustian.  To me, the Paladin serves of his own will, not because he wants the powers, but if the Paladin behaves in conformance with the ideals of Law and Good because he wants the powers, not because he believes in the ideals, then he is effectively entering in a Faustian Pact.



pemerton said:


> A second reason for disliking alignment is that the actual consequences the rulebooks specify are things like losing XP, losing your class abilities and becoming little better than an NPC-class warrior of equal level (as I read the rules, d10 rather than d8 HD, plus a different but not noticeably better skill list). (You compared these upthread to undead level-draining - that's another mechanic I dislike and believe have never used in more than 30 years of GMing the game. I don't think I've ever come across it as a player either.)
> 
> You are now trying to tell me that I am inconsistent because, despite my dislike of these sorts of consequences, I have shut down a player's familiar (a modest game element inherently subject to being shut down under certain conditions as part of its overall balance) and artefact (an overpowered game element inherently subject to being shut down as part of its overall balance), in circumstances in which the player decided that his PC would stick the artefact in the imp rather than himself because he knew implanting it could be bad news! That's like saying I would be inconsistent if I'd had Vecna inflict 6d10 hp of damage on the PC (33 hp being a 25th level-appropriate hit's worth of damage).
> 
> But I find it genuinely puzzling that anyone familiar with D&D mechanics would regard shutting down a familiar and an artefact for some (as yet) indeterminate amount of time as on a par with turning a paladin into a fighter (AD&D) or a weapon spec deprived fighter (AD&D 2nd ed) or a warrior with d10 HD (3E).




Yes, I am saying I find your interpretations inconsistent.  I don’t want to hear about the difference in mechanics, that the rules say the familiar can be shut down  The rules aren’t the question.  They also say the Paladin’s powers, pre-4e, can be taken away.  

You have repeatedly stated you consider that a bad rule for your game, because you do not believe the player’s role playing choices should impact their influence over the game fiction.  That is where your objection started.  Now, it seems the issue is not whether a judgement of whether characters are acting in conformance with their stated allegiances to higher powers (be they Raven Queen, Vecna or Cosmological LG), but the severity of the sanctions which should be imposed.  

So we seem no longer to be discussing the philosophy of whether the character’s consistency with their stated allegiances should be judged by the GM - you are clearly judging the invoker’s allegiance to Vecna.  

We seem no longer to be discussing whether it is inappropriate to deny the player access to character mechanics, reducing his influence on the fiction, as a consequence of the judgment you reach – you clearly consider it fully appropriate to deny access to a character resource to the invoker.

The issue now seems only to be how severe and long-lasting the loss of mechanical resources arising from judgment of the consistency of play with the stated allegiances should appropriately be.  That is a very different question than whether such judgment should be made at all, or whether the result of such judgment should have mechanical consequences.

Here I agree – I have stated repeatedly that the change should result in no more than a temporary reduction of mechanical abilities (like loss of the familiar) and/or a transition of mechanics leaving the character with a more or less similar ability to influence the fiction.  But I don’t agree that with your perception that judging consistency with alignment is a clearly different order of judgment set apart from all other judgments.



pemerton said:


> To me, this suggests that you are not familiar with 4e's actual characterisation of the various unaligned gods, and their injunctions to their followers. Here they are (PHB pp 21-22):




Not reprinted.  And then, I would expect a Paladin of the deity in question would suffer consequences if they choose to act in a manner inconsistent with the tenets of the deity – the “injunctions to their followers”.  As an example, a Paladin of



pemerton said:


> *Corellon*: Cultivate beauty in all that you do . . . [and t]hwart the followers of Lolth at every opportunity.




Who decides the punishment for followers of Lolth should be ritual scarring to render them hideous seems to violate the cultivation of beauty, and I therefore question whether he should be perceived as a True Servant of Corellon.  All this becomes, or should become, is a focus on different tenets, not a removal of judgment or consequences – in my view.  If 4e doesn’t reflect any such consequences…well, I’m not playing 4e anyway, so no impact on me.  



Abraxas said:


> I wouldn't classify them as being a Paladin tho. They may be a divine champion, but I prefer my Paladins to only be the LG type. I would have much preferred 4e simply had a class called Divine Champion and you could build the LG Paladin from the options presented.




I think that’s a preferable approach.  But it’s not lost on me that one use of Paladin (Have Gun, Will Travel; the Marvel comics character; the security company) is paid enforcers/mercenaries.  Those don’t fit my conception of D&D Paladins either.


----------



## billd91

The Human Target said:


> Why does it matter if a Paladin lies?




There are some of us for whom the term "paladin" in D&D means something more than a bag of hit points with specific mechanical abilities. It means something far greater and farther reaching. It's not just a question of a lie or two, but being shiftier than the burglar makes the character not very paladin-esque. If my players want to talk the talk of playing a paladin, I expect them to take on the challenge of walking the walk.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I'd lik to thank you for showing exactly what I've been saying. Alignment is the tool for enforcing player behaviour.




Are you speaking to your particular group here... or is this a general statement?


----------



## S'mon

Abraxas said:


> Is it the same people playing Paladins in each edition?
> 
> This I agree with - it's also why alignment isn't a "straight jacket" to playing a character.
> 
> I wouldn't classify them as being a Paladin tho. They may be a divine champion, but I prefer my Paladins to only be the LG type. I would have much preferred 4e simply had a class called Divine Champion and you could build the LG Paladin from the options presented.
> 
> Of course I also wouldn't want to DM for, or game with, a player who wants to run a lying, cheating, scumbag character no matter what class.




It's not the same people playing paladins in each edition, no. I play with a lot of different 
people. I GM'd 1e AD&D with a Paladin PC a few years ago BTW, he was played fine too - I 
suspect it helped that I never mentioned Alignment, or codes.

Re 'what constitutes a Paladin', I guess aesthetically I'm ok with non-good Lawful Paladins
; Pathfinder's Hellknights are pretty much LE/LN Paladins. I don't really see neutral or 
especially chaotic divine champions as Paladins. That said, I can't imagine personally playing anything other than a LG Paladin, and all the Paladins in my 4e game are LG. This new Pathfinder game is the first time I've thought a Paladin PC should be LN.


----------



## S'mon

N'raac said:


> So you can decide that Vecna is displeased, but you cannot decide a different deity, or some other cosmological force is displeased.  Vecna is a deity which is an NPC, but for some reason the Raven Queen is not




I was wondering about this myself [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - do you treat the Raven Queen as a kind of 'shared resource', but Vecna as a normal NPC?
Personally, I treat all the gods in my 4e FR game pretty much as regular NPCs, which 
sometimes surprises and occasionally disconcerts players when they don't behave as 
expectd. At the end of just-concluded P2 Demon Queen's Enclave, the PCs broke Orcus' 
hold on Deadhold. As the Rotted Throne began to collapse, Shar opened a Portal and appeared, accompanied by her sister Selune, who in canon are enemies, but IMC are currently working
 together against a greater evil (Szass Tam & Orcus) - Shar is freaked out by a prophecy from Lady Saharel that Szass Tamm will destroy them both. The player of the Selune-revering 
Ranger was pretty disconcerted to see his goddess alongside Shar! 
I play Mielikki, Bane and other deities similarly, as NPCs.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I assume you agree with Imaro - that is, you don't see any meaningful difference between deciding that a god is angry because his desire for power was thwarted, and judging that a player has violated his/her PC's alignment. Perhaps that is because you agree with Imaro that judging alignment violation does not require judging whether a player's declared action is good or evil, but rather requires judging whether a deity or other power would deem it to accord with its concept of good or evil.
> 
> I don't have the same conception of alignment as Imaro and (I believe) you. Nowhere in any D&D rulebook that I've read is "good" defined as "What Asmodeus believes to be good" or "What Pelor believes to be good". Nor have I ever seen evil defined in such terms. I have seen it defined as "respect for human (creature) rights", as "just that (ie good)", as "altruism", etc. None of these are words for describing the emotions and preferences of powerful beings. They are words for describing values and valuable things.




First you are mis-representing what I said (as if I should be surprised at this point *sigh*)... I never said that LG (or any other alignment for that matter) is totally subjective,  but neither is it a straight jacket and comprehensively defined.  We do not have a listing of all things in all situations that are LG available to us... do you agree or disagree with this?

Now given that in 3.5...

"...Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types, or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other... "

and...

"Good implies (_but is not defined by, and thus leaves wiggle room for various deities, paladins and even the cosmological forces themselves to judge how fundamental these are to their concept of LG... also note the definition of "respect"below._) altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.  Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others (_this is the first real tenet of good laid out as a definite by the book)..._"

and...

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition and judge those who fall short of their duties..."

These are the tenets of law, but let's take a minute to examine them more closely...

1. Tell the truth, keep their word... are pretty straightforward, so I don't think these would be difficult to judge at all... either a character does or doesn't do these things.

2. *Respect* authority.  Let's take a look at what respect really means (since some seem to think for paladins the word respect means auto-deference)

Respect...
: a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.
: a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way
: a particular way of thinking about or looking at something 

I'm going to assume #2 is meant since #1 eliminates any of the oft claimed problems of an evil authority and the paladin respecting said authority since it doesn't apply to evil things or even neutral things, only good things or those of value.... and the third definition is so vague as to be useless for our moral code.  

However the second one basically says the paladin understands the importance of authority and that the authority should be treated in an appropriate way.  Note it doesn't tell us what that appropriate way is only that authority is a serious and/or important thing to the paladin and he should treat said authority with an *appropriate* response. 
_
So again no straight jacket on the paladins response to ignoring/rebelling against/etc. corrupt authority (thought this is one of those big argument points people often cite, perhaps because of a lack of actually reading through what the alignments mean??_), _and their is room for the appropriate response to be determined by individual deities, paladins, and the cosmological force of LG they all serve_

3. Now we come to honor tradition... again let's look at the meaning of the word honor...

Honor
 a showing of usually merited respect *:*

Well there we go... a showing of respect... and we've already done that dance so... again the paladin realizes the importance of tradition, respects it and deals with whether it is good or evil, of value or not... appropriately. 

Finally let's look at the final paragraph concerning Lawful good in the book...

"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She *combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly*. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

So we get the final piece of the puzzle... while LG implies a respect (and remember what this word actually means) for all life the tenets of LG proclaim that he must have a commitment to opposing evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.

_So again it is up to the paladin, deity, whatever to determine whether their respect for life precludes them from harming life in any way... forces them to only subdue opponents or whether their commitment to fighting evil relentlessly supersedes their respect for life and they dispatch evil beings who will not repent or change their ways.  I would assume a deity of life and growth who is LG would see the dtails of this much differently from a LG deity of combat and justice. _

This is why different deities/demons/devils/cosmic forces/etc. have their own individual ways of interpreting alignment, and yes it is right there in the book if you actually take the time to read it.


----------



## The Human Target

billd91 said:


> There are some of us for whom the term "paladin" in D&D means something more than a bag of hit points with specific mechanical abilities. It means something far greater and farther reaching. It's not just a question of a lie or two, but being shiftier than the burglar makes the character not very paladin-esque. If my players want to talk the talk of playing a paladin, I expect them to take on the challenge of walking the walk.




Sure, and that's fine. I like classes having flavor text, and even rules to make that flavor an actual mechanic.

But I don't think you need alignments to have Paladins who don't lie, cheat, steal, or murder.

You can gave that mechanically without bringing Lawful Good to the table.

I should have quoted the poster I was directly questioning.


----------



## howandwhy99

Like any game mechanics Alignment rules improve the gaming experience by increasing what a game covers. Whether players agree with those rules or not is another matter.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> So you took away character build resources through DM fiat... Because you judged that the actions of the player where not in accordance with what this deity expected of him and thus you stripped him of (some of) his power... got it.  What if the player felt like Vecna should have enticed him with more power as opposed to punishing him so that he would turn more towards his service, you know carrot insteasd of stick??



If the player felt that, he could have said so - bargaining with Vecna could have been quite amusing! But he didn't. As I posted uthread, he reflected for around 20 seconds and decided that he was going to thwart Vecna.

I also don't see why "inflict 1 hp of damage on a familiar" (which is all that is required to shut a familiar down) is being described as "strip him of some of his power". For me, at least, that's a counter-intuitive formulation. "Stripping of power" suggests a degree of permanence, apart from anything else.



Imaro said:


> in other words if you're not down for making evaluative judgements... why or how do you justify evaluating his behavior for good or bad as Vecna in this instance?



There are board rules that put limits on how much I can explain what I mean by an evaluative judgement. But deciding that an NPC is angered by something is not an evaluative judgement in the relevant sense: it is simply reasoning about the psychology of that NPC. Deciding that it was a wrong or wicked thing to anger that PC would be an evaluative judgement.



Imaro said:


> For some people that is the point, that the deity/force/etc. they have faith in is not infallible



As I have said upthread, for me that is utterly incompatible with the paladin archetype. The divine may move in mysterious ways, but it does not err.



Imaro said:


> you are mis-representing what I said



I quoted you in the post to which you're replying. When I said that alignment requires judging whether a player's action declared for his/her PC is good or evil, you denied this in post 654, saying "No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil".

I'm sure you're being honest in your account of how you adjudicate alignment - it seems quite similar to what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has described upthread. But nowhere do the alignment rules in any edition say that judging whether a paladin's action is good or evil involves judging whether or not it accords with some cosmological force's or deity's belief or conception.

You go on to argue that many different things could be consistent with being lawful good. That's undoubtedly true. As I read the alignment rules, then, that implies that a LG good will permit his/her paladin to do any of those things; not that s/he will (arbitrarily? if not, on what basis?) decide that some of them, though falling within the definition of LG, are nevertheless forbidden.



Imaro said:


> At the end of the day your players (including paladins) are doing what they want not what a higher being or cosmological force wants them to do.  You've said as much so I'm not sure why this causes contention?



In what way are your players doing what a higher being wants them to do? (Unless your games are played in a temple to the higher powers!)

It seems to me that, in your game, the players who play paladins either play their paladins as they want to, or else they play their paladin as the GM wants them to. (Are there any other options? Perhaps they take advice from other players, and hence play their paladins as those other players want them to.) In my game the players play their paladins as they want to. The only difference from your game that I can see, as far as whose desires shape the play of paladins, is that the GM's desires are less important.

But it doesn't follow from the fact that the GM's desires are less important at the table, that a higher power is less important in the fiction. Within the fiction, the paladins in my game act in accordance with the wishes of a higher power, much as they do in your game: it's just that in my game the player of the paladin plays a greater role in deciding what that higher power's requirements than is the case in your game.



Imaro said:


> I was addressing Hussar's continuous use of the word "punish"... I'm not sure why you are bringing your actions into this, since it wasn't a reply to anything you said.



Well, I did ask if you meant me and you said I'd talked about punishing numerous times upthread. Maybe you thought you were replying to Hussar?


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> do you treat the Raven Queen as a kind of 'shared resource', but Vecna as a normal NPC?



In both cases it depends a lot on context.

For instance, the paladin of the Raven Queen died in a session towards the end of last year. This meant that - prior to his resurrection - he got to have an up close and personal chat with his god. During that conversation - which he and I played out in his car as he was driving me home from the session - he sought advice on what he should do (in particular, on how hard he should push towards the Soul Abattoir - he is a Questing Knight, and destroying the Soul Abattoir was his quest). Playing the role of the Raven Queen, I told him to push hard - that he had dithered long enough, and more than indulged the distracting whims of his companions. (Who at this point were in any event ready to tackle the Soul Abattoir, having followed up the other matters they were interested in - primarily the fate of Mal Arundak.)

On other occasions, though, this player will routinely talk about "My mistress insists upon this . . . " or "My misteress has done that . . ." without inviting or expecting mediation from me.

On other occasions, he will try to invoke his mistresses power and make a Religion check to see if it works.

So a whole range of techniques are in play.

There is no paladin of Vecna in the party - as I mentioned, the invoker serves a range of gods (Erathis, Ioun, Pelor, Vecna, Bane, Levistus, the Raven Queen) not all of whom are likeminded, and the invoker himself has a theory of why Vecna is mistaken in his conception of the relationship between secrets, knowledge and progress. So the player of the invoker rarely speaks about what Vecna wants or does in the same way as the paladin player does. (Whereas he will do this for Erathis and Ioun, who are the gods with whom his character most identifies.)

If the player had come up with some conception of what might be done to reconcile Vecna and the Raven Queen which involved imputing some as-yet unrevealed motive to Vecna, that would have been interesting to explore. But he didn't. (Why not? Lack of imagination? Lack of desire - I think he sees the two gods as in conflict? The fact that we were getting to the end of our session time, and so there was a degree of social pressure to resolve things quickly? It's hard to know for sure.)

But the player had already made choices that helped shape Vecna's personality - for instance, by implanting the Eye in his imp, which helped establish Vecna as opposed to rather than allied with Bane and Levistus, and also gave Vecna a stake in the imp: the imp is a "watcher" sent to the invoker by Levistus at the behest of Bane, and the invoker did the implanting of the Eye partly in order to reduce the information feed to Levistus by setting up Vecna as a rival force.

This is the context in which I don't find it that outrageous to inflict a consequence which the player has more-or-less set up for himself.


----------



## UnholyD

Hussar said:


> I'd lik to thank you for showing exactly what I've been saying. Alignment is the tool for enforcing player behaviour.




Well, yes and no. It is a tool, but more for advisement rather than enforcement. Chaos generally doesn't adhere to Order, therefore, Chaotically aligned individuals and monsters are less likely if at all likely to follow "laws". Whether these "laws" be mystical, societal, or otherwise is open to debate but it means that given the choice between buying something or stealing something, if the potential risk is greatly overshadowed by the potential reward, Chaotic characters will steal. Should it be the vice-versa, they'll begrudgingly buy but only because it is the smarter/wiser thing to do. Which is where if you have a Chaotic Evil creature with low INT and WIS scores, they'll steal without question because they don't have the ability to think enough ahead that the act of stealing will result in greater risk than the reward is worth.
Good is generally not going to bring some form of harm or inconvenience to others unlike Evil which will do any of these and more should it benefit. Good characters might not always be charitable or even chivalrous, but they won't go out of their way to hurt others. Not to say that a low INT Paladin won't accidentally bring harm to those around him/her because of something they didn't think about.
All in all, regardless of alignment, a player should attempt to follow his/hers as closely as they can without constantly being reminded as to whether or not something will be against said alignment. And further, not all alignments are cut and dry, just because you play a Neutral character, doesn't mean you have to not care about others and only care about yourself and what you potentially get out of it. Neutrality is a balancing act, for every good deed is an equally evil one and for every law followed an equal one must be broken. Players shouldn't be punished for alignment based insurrections unless it was so far opposed to his/hers that it becomes a problem.


----------



## UnholyD

For those who apparently still don't get it, let me quote something from the Player's Handbook Edition 3.5:
"The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil-these are the three weapons of the paladin."
Compassion to pursue good? Quite honestly it sounds like Paladins want to do the right thing.
The will to uphold law? Sounds to me that Paladins want to be "boy scouts".
Power to defeat evil? Surely, it sounds like a Paladin's sole purpose is to defeat evil.
So a Paladin shouldn't, neigh, CAN'T steal as that is breaking the law.
A Paladin mustn't bring harm to the innocent as this is EVIL.
Anyone else see a pattern here? I know I do.
If you don't want to be a goody two-shoes, DON'T PLAY A PALADIN!
Anyone who thinks this way is a moron and/or never read the Player's Handbook of ANY D&D Edition. And as we all know, what happens to morons in D&D? They die horrible, gruesome deaths. Deaths that could have easily been prevented if they bothered to learn something. For every person on this thread I hear saying that Alignment doesn't matter and that there is nothing saying that a Paladin can't lie, cheat, and/or steal, I fell like hunting them down and force feeding them the section of their Player's Handbook that is specifically for the Paladin Class.


----------



## Grydan

UnholyD said:


> Well, yes and no. It is a tool, but more for advisement rather than enforcement. Chaos generally doesn't adhere to Order, therefore, Chaotically aligned individuals and monsters are less likely if at all likely to follow "laws". Whether these "laws" be mystical, societal, or otherwise is open to debate but it means that given the choice between buying something or stealing something, if the potential risk is greatly overshadowed by the potential reward, Chaotic characters will steal.




Rationally weighing cost vs. benefit doesn't strike me as terribly chaotic.

 Nor does behaviour that is predictable enough that one can say with any degree of certainty how a character will act given known conditions: chaos is unpredictability, not predictable violation of law. Someone who consistently behaves in the same manner when presented with a given scenario is acting in an orderly fashion.






> Good is generally not going to bring some form of harm or inconvenience to others unlike Evil which will do any of these and more should it benefit.Good characters might not always be charitable or even chivalrous, but they won't go out of their way to hurt others.




This seems rather incomplete, at best. The archetypal adventuring paladin is a paragon of virtue who seeks out threats to smite ... they literally go out of their way to cause harm to others that they believe deserve it. A conception of "good" that doesn't at least include the idea that some forms of intentionally causing others harm are acceptable is difficult to reconcile with the genre conceits of heroic warriors (not that all characters must be heroic warriors, but it's certainly an archetype the game has always purported to include).



> And further, not all alignments are cut and dry, just because you play a Neutral character, doesn't mean you have to not care about others and only care about yourself and what you potentially get out of it. Neutrality is a balancing act, for every good deed is an equally evil one and for every law followed an equal one must be broken.




And this is why, to the extent that alignment plays any role at all in my gaming, I think 4E's Unaligned is a much more sensible "middle" position. 

Because frankly, striving to achieve balance between good and evil, law-abidance and law-breaking in the manner you describe is an incoherent position. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" ... and it triumphs even more quickly and easily when neutral men actively engage in evil behaviour. Intentionally committing evil acts isn't neutral ... it's just evil.

"Don't commit premeditated murder" is generally speaking one of the most significant laws on the books, with the heaviest punishments. How, in your construction of Neutrality, is one expected to deal with that law? For every person you don't murder, you have to murder someone else?


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> As I have said upthread, for me that is utterly incompatible with the paladin archetype. The divine may move in mysterious ways, but it does not err.




It is your right to have/build such settings as you imply above, but those settings wherein the divine forces/deities are not infallible (cannot err) are not cannon to D&D, even within fiction, mythology & religion from whence Deities/Divine Forces were inspired from. Gods have egos (Ares) , get angry and lash out (The Deluge), fall in love with mortals (Zeus), strip powers from their servants (High Priest of Ishtar), they even punish their peers (The Avatar Trilogy) - divine forces are often wrong and arguably extremely self serving. Even in Mystara (BECMI) the immortals are mortals that have ascended - they keep the same personality flaws they had during their mortal existence when they ascend into godhood. 

Given that the rest of us seem to be representing settings (with mechanical alignment) which reflect a rather classical D&D setting, IMO, removing alignment and along with those repercussions/consequences that are associated with breaching ones contract to the divine forces, would break immersion for my group and I feel many others here.  
After reading through this entire thread i believe for me as I have come to the realisation (perhaps a little late), alignment is necessary not for "punishment/judgement", "playing as the DM wants you to play" or exploring the setting or even challenging the PCs - its primarily about *MAINTAINING* *IMMERSION *for the setting, a traditional D&D setting.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> On other occasions, though, this player will routinely talk about "My mistress insists upon this . . . " or "My misteress has done that . . ." without inviting or expecting mediation from me.




Thanks - that sounds like something I'd be ok with, with the proviso that the PC's knowledge might be imperfect. But I think my players would expect and allow me to intervene if they said 
something 'as true' that the PC should know was wrong. 
There's a PC IMC, Queen Esmerelda of Llorkh, who is widely revered as the prophesied Bane Child who will usher in the Dark Age of Bane. She doesn't even like Bane - she reveres Ilmater - but she will often make declarations of Bane wants x/y/z as part of her goal of keeping the Banites, who follow her, from attacking the 
good guys.  So far Bane seems to be ok with this; it probably helps that she does appear to be his daughter... The situation has created a lot of interesting drama, which I think is only possible because the player did not create this backstory and has no way to know what is objectively true, or what Bane's plans actually are.


----------



## S'mon

Sadras said:


> It is your right to have/build such settings as you imply above, but those settings wherein the divine forces/deities are not infallible (cannot err) are not cannon to
> D&D




I guess in D&D canon, Lawful Good Heimdall may err, but the Lawful Good Alignment is 
itself a cosmic force, and it never errs. So there is always a 'right thing' for a LG Paladin to do, an act in accordance with LG alignment. The Alignment itself seems to take the place of the monotheist conception of divinity from which the Paladin archetype was derived.


----------



## Sadras

N'raac said:


> I find it interesting that the responses have all been quite judgmental.  No one (besides myself) has made any attempt to suggest there might be a justification for the play in question.  So clearly you ARE judging the morality of the character.  The only question is how that judgment plays out – is it truly more extreme to rule the Paladin has committed an evil act and loses his powers than to toss the player out on his ear?  From the comments, it seems like “I would not game with such a player” is the most common response, especially from the anti-alignment posters.




Great point! Cant XP as usual.


----------



## Sadras

S'mon said:


> I guess in D&D canon, Lawful Good Heimdall may err, but the Lawful Good Alignment is
> itself a cosmic force, and it never errs. So there is always a 'right thing' for a LG Paladin to do, an act in accordance with LG alignment. The Alignment itself seems to take the place of the monotheist conception of divinity from which the Paladin archetype was derived.




Fair enough, but just as a DM npcs LG deities I would imagine this LG cosmic force would indeed be treated in the same way by the DM (how it acts, how it communicates if at all). And so if the agent (paladin/cleric) of the divine force on the material plane became soiled/stained - he/she would no longer be worthy to channel such divine gift, for if anyone could do it no matter what personal creed they followed, then you would be reducing the channeling of divine powers to a teachable skill like 'climb walls' with no sense of narrative interplay. That sounds terribly awful to me.

Alignment is ingrained into the DMs setting one way or another. Whether one as a DM refuses to acknowledge their responsibility and instead relies on the player to define LG through his character actions alone without repercussion should the player err purposefully or not, well that is ones choice, but since setting is primarily and traditionally dependent on the DM, which includes alignment & associated divine powers, it is does seem fitting that the DM should be the arbiter of all associated with a PCs actions, alignment, deities/cosmic forces and the granting/negating of divine powers and the relationship between them all within a traditional D&D setting.

And the argument that two DMs may rule differently on the action or even the "punishment" of the character, this point has already been answered upthread.


----------



## Manbearcat

> Originally Posted by *N'raac*
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that the responses have all been quite judgmental. No one (besides myself) has made any attempt to suggest there might be a justification for the play in question. So clearly you ARE judging the morality of the character. The only question is how that judgment plays out – is it truly more extreme to rule the Paladin has committed an evil act and loses his powers than to toss the player out on his ear? From the comments, it seems like “I would not game with such a player” is the most common response, especially from the anti-alignment posters.






Sadras said:


> Great point! Cant XP as usual.




I don't think that is a fair representation of the responses seen. My responses have been aimed at the antithesis, for instance, and I'm pretty certain that most others of my same disposition are generally in agreement. Its about:

1) Good, informed, educated, smart people can, and inevitably will, differ on trappings of moral evaluation. As such, any top-down view by a mediator attempting to wear multiple hats at once, many of those hats multiple times removed from first party insight, is rife with fallibility. Interestingly, there is another Paladin thread that just popped up on 3.x. There they are debating the nature of "willful evil" versus "duped evil" (with the intent for good ends and buy-in due to that intent) and if a Paladin should fall for the latter. Good, informed, eductated, smart people. Differing. 

2) Evaluative judgements often fail the test of time. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." An act that may seem to produce the most good in the present may be fraught with latent chaos, waiting to manifest it some time down the road, overwhelming whatever present good was achieved. The inverse is also true. Most historical villains believe that "you have to break a few eggs to make a good omelette." Erstwhile, that good omelette never becomes manifest and, often, all you end up with is a shortage of chickens for the next generation or an outright chicken genocide as they can't seem to get the omelette quite perfect enough with their first 9 million attempts. They aren't twisting their greased mustachios, manically laughing as they scheme their next villianous plot.

3) And finally, if the usage of alignment is a stick for curbing the behavior of potential insincere, Machiavellian players, then the answer is "I don't play with insincere, Machiavellian players" or "that sort of caustic behavior is best handled at the social contract level...if that social contract is not observed, then, just as you would with any other willful toxicity, I will excise it." I have no problem making judgements in my micro-ecosystem of a gaming table. It is a trivial thing and everyone does it every day (as they should). That is a far, far, far cry from adjudicating the pratfalls of macro-cosmological alignment with all of the varying players, 2nd and 3rd order interactions, and perceptions twice removed.


----------



## Abraxas

Manbearcat said:


> 1) Good, informed, educated, smart people can, and inevitably will, differ on trappings of moral evaluation. As such, any top-down view by a mediator attempting to wear multiple hats at once, many of those hats multiple times removed from first party insight, is rife with fallibility. Interestingly, there is another Paladin thread that just popped up on 3.x. There they are debating the nature of "willful evil" versus "duped evil" (with the intent for good ends and buy-in due to that intent) and if a Paladin should fall for the latter. Good, informed, eductated, smart people. Differing.



They can also differ on expectations of how the game world will react to the actions they have their character take - so aren't all decisions on such reactions rife with fallibility? 



Manbearcat said:


> 2) Evaluative judgements often fail the test of time. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." An act that may seem to produce the most good in the present may be fraught with latent chaos, waiting to manifest it some time down the road, overwhelming whatever present good was achieved. The inverse is also true. Most historical villains believe that "you have to break a few eggs to make a good omelette." Erstwhile, that good omelette never becomes manifest and, often, all you end up with is a shortage of chickens for the next generation or an outright chicken genocide as they can't seem to get the omelette quite perfect enough with their first 9 million attempts. They aren't twisting their greased mustachios, manically laughing as they scheme their next villianous plot.



What does this have to do with using alignment in the game? Unless you are suggesting that if it is used there can only ever be one right answer to a situation for a PC/NPC to take based on its alignment. In which case it's the "straight-jacket" view all over again that none of the pro-alignment crowd are advocating.



Manbearcat said:


> 3) And finally, if the usage of alignment is a stick for curbing the behavior of potential insincere, Machiavellian players, then the answer is "I don't play with insincere, Machiavellian players" or "that sort of caustic behavior is best handled at the social contract level...if that social contract is not observed, then, just as you would with any other willful toxicity, I will excise it." I have no problem making judgements in my micro-ecosystem of a gaming table. It is a trivial thing and everyone does it every day (as they should). That is a far, far, far cry from adjudicating the pratfalls of macro-cosmological alignment with all of the varying players, 2nd and 3rd order interactions, and perceptions twice removed.



Don't game with jerks is universal so it makes no difference whether or not you use alignment. There are threads on these boards with people asking what they should to curb "naughty" players. People respond with actions the NPCs should take to punish the player's character so they "get  the point".

It seems, to me at least, you are going out of your way to make alignment as difficult as possible to use. If you have a "There can be only one" mentality with how it applies to character actions - yeah, it's going to be a headache. I find it pretty easy to adjudicate because it's not some grand universal truth - it's what works for my gaming table. This will differ from table to table, just like reasonable game world reactions to player chosen character actions will. 


Also, as an aside - you are one of the few posters who's posting style is verbose (I can't think of a better word at this time, but please don't take it as an insult - you just write a lot) that I haven't put on the ignore list. If you choose to respond would you be willing to try to be more concise?


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> It is your right to have/build such settings as you imply above, but those settings wherein the divine forces/deities are not infallible (cannot err) are not cannon to D&D, even within fiction, mythology & religion from whence Deities/Divine Forces were inspired from.



I don't agree with this.

Tolkien's Iluvatar cannot err. Nor can the divinity worshipped by Arthur and his knights. The religion from which the paladin archetype follows - which is not a polytheist one - holds that the divinity is incapable of error.

As [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] points out, one way of giving effect to this in D&D is to substitute the cosmological force of LG for the divinity itself.



UnholyD said:


> If you don't want to be a goody two-shoes, DON'T PLAY A PALADIN!



This isn't bad advice, but I don't see how it has any bearing on mechanical alignment. It is possible to play a goody two shoes in a game that does not use an alignment system - I know, because I've seen it done.



Grydan said:


> The archetypal adventuring paladin is a paragon of virtue who seeks out threats to smite ... they literally go out of their way to cause harm to others that they believe deserve it. A conception of "good" that doesn't at least include the idea that some forms of intentionally causing others harm are acceptable is difficult to reconcile with the genre conceits of heroic warriors



I agree with this. Moral theories of self-defence and of just warfare, and conceptions of murder and assassination which are quite different from modern ones, and include the idea of consent to being killed in an honourable clash of arms, are pretty integral to the paladin archetype.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> After reading through this entire thread i believe for me as I have come to the realisation (perhaps a little late), alignment is necessary not for "punishment/judgement", "playing as the DM wants you to play" or exploring the setting or even challenging the PCs - its primarily about *MAINTAINING* *IMMERSION *for the setting, a traditional D&D setting.



Immersion in the setting is a pretty important part of my play. For me, at least, mechanical alignment does not facilitate that - in fact it can impede that, by creating jarring clashes of evaluative perspectives.

I'm not saying that it's role in immersion is not important to you. I am saying that it would be a mistake to infer that those who don't use alignment are not therefore interested in immersion in the setting.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> It seems like they won the skill challenge, which caused the Soul Abattoir to collapse (a new complication of the now complete skill challenge), not like the loss of the familiar somehow related to successes or failures in the skill challenge.



They shut down the final piece of machinery part way through the skill challenge, in the course of the combat that occurred between success 7 and success 8. This caused the Soul Abattoir to commence collapsing. The next five skill checks, including those involving the choice between the Raven Queen and Orcus, led to success in the challenge. One of those checks - a Religion check - began as an attempt to hold back the flow of soul energy. With a successful Insight check, it then became also about allowing Vecna to have that energy, or ensuring its flow to the Raven Queen. A choice was made, and a price paid for that choice. In mechanical terms, I put it in much the same category as spending a healing surge or an action point or a limited-use power as part of making a check in a skill challenge.



N'raac said:


> you are clearly judging the invoker’s allegiance to Vecna.



No I'm not. I don't think that allegiance has changed from its prior ambiguous status. I'm judging that the PC has pissed Vecna off. That's what the player intended to do. The player didn't think that his PC was somehow furthering Vecna's cause or values by stopping him getting the soul energy.

That's just one reason why this is fundamentally different, by my lights at least, from telling a player who believes that s/he is choosing a proper action that in fact his/her action was improper.



N'raac said:


> You seem very defensive that the one you chose was the only reasonable approach which could be taken.



I've not asserted that at all. I'm defending it as _a_ reasonable approach.

Anytime you want to post an actual play example and have it subjected to a tenth of the scrutiny my examples are being subjected to, be my guest! But in the meantime, yes, you can be confident that I will defend my GMing against criticism that I see as unwarranted.



N'raac said:


> So can the Paladin of the Raven Queen, should he choose to do so, on the assumption his choice is a reasonable outgrowth of play, choose to align with the forces of the Undead (or of Orcus) for some reason that he considers is appropriate within his service to the Raven Queen



Why not? He pledged service to the vampire Kas, for example.



N'raac said:


> You are telling me if you want to play an honourable character, you will do so solely because you want to play an honourable character.  Then you are telling me you want mechanics that reward you for playing that honourable character.



Correct. I am sure there are players out there who build rogue PCs whose only mechanical capabilities are Stealth and sneak attack, and then play them as honourable characters who never sneak anywhere and never flank an opponent nor attack a flat-footed one. But I am not such a player. If I am going to play an honourable character, I build a character who will be mechanically effective played in that way. To see what one build might look like, you can read the PC sheet for Thurgon here, at post 6.



N'raac said:


> So you can decide that Vecna is displeased, but you cannot decide a different deity, or some other cosmological force is displeased.



I'm not sure how I can explain this differently.

"Good" is not a person with desires. "Good" is a value. To say that the force of "good" is displeased by an action doesn't really make sense - but to the extent that the metaphor can be interpreted, what it means is that the action in question is contrary to the requirements of goodness - ie is evil, or at least wrong or inadequate in some fashion.

To suppose that the cosmological force of goodness might be confused about what goodness requires makes no more sense than to say that that cosmological force of gravity might be confused about what is up and what is down. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] has made this point well about half-a-dozen posts upthread from this one.



N'raac said:


> And we’re back to the straightjacket.



How is it a "straitjacket" to quote you the definitions from the rulebooks? 



N'raac said:


> Sometimes, the character compromises Respect for Life (itself not a Good act) for the benefit of other tenets of Good, or perhaps other tenets of Law, or perhaps because he slipped up.  The question is not “Did the character maintain the absolute ideals of Good at all times”.  No one could.  The question is whether the compromises he made are, or are not, acceptable in the eyes of the person or force doing the judging.  Did he compromise too much?



I see no textual support for this in any edition of D&D. The question asked is not "Is what was done acceptable to St Cuthbert?" The question asked is "Is what was done willingly evil and/or chaotic?" 

To the extent that lawful good is a value permitting a multitude of reasonable actions, then this just makes the answer to that question less likely to be yes than if lawful good were monistic. But it doesn't change the fact that the question being asked is "Was that evil?" or "Was that chaotic?"

To elaborate: my point is that the suggestion that "good" somehow means "St Cuthbert's opinion of what is good" has no support in any rulebook I've ever read. Suppose a paladin of St Cuthbert has to make a choice - say about trading off respect against altruism. A child is about to be struck by a cart, and between the paladin and the child is a muddy puddle. If the paladin runs through the puddle it will splash the ermine of the king, who just happens to be passing by. The player of the paladin declares that his PC runs anyway, thus saving the child but splashing the king in mud. St Cuthbert thinks there was a better way of doing things - perhaps the puddle could have been jumped, or the paladin could have thrown his mace to lodge in the spokes of the cart, which would have stopped it moving. Or whatever.

Does St Cuthbert punish the paladin? The impression I get from you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in your reference to various powers' and divinities' conceptions of what is good, is that this question is to be answered by asking what St Cuthbert believes lawful goodness required on that occasion. My preference is to answer by asking _what did lawful goodness require and/or permit on that occasion_. And when the player is sincere in his/her view about the permissibility of what s/he did, I am not going to second guess. And once the idea of second guessing is off the table, mechanical alignment then turns out to be redundant for my purposes.



N'raac said:


> Ultimately, the Paladin is very much a character who serves Law and Good, and is rewarded with special abilities for doing so.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it’s not lost on me that one use of Paladin (Have Gun, Will Travel; the Marvel comics character; the security company) is paid enforcers/mercenaries.  Those don’t fit my conception of D&D Paladins either.



I don't see how these sentences are consistent. If the paladin is a character who is rewarded for service to certain powers, how is that any different from being a paid enforcer? For me, the key to the paladin is that s/he is called to the defence and service of one or more values. Values, not powers and desires, are key.

This is the Euthyphro point. Corellon loves beauty because it is valuable; things don't become valuable just because Corellon deems them to be beautiful. It is the value, not Corellon's desires, that motivate paladins of Corellon, and against which their actions are to be judged. Hence their fundamental difference from warlocks, from mercenaries, and from Faust. Hence, also, the connection between players' declarations of action and players' evaluative judgements: a player playing a paladin of Corellon is sharing with the table his/her conception of beauty, and what it permits, and what it requires, and why it is worth caring about. S/he is probably not doing this with the same skill and style as Nobel-prize winning novelist or poet, but that's not the threshold for playing at my table! Frankly, it's not my place, and none of my business, to second-guess that player's theory of beauty, which has been sincerely shared with the rest of us.

This also explains why it is not my place to second-guess the player's conception of what Corellon desires. If the player has put forward his/her theory of beauty, in play, then that also establishes what it is that Corellon values - because we know Corellon values beauty - and there is no need for me as GM to override or second-guess that.

I could probably also point out that the invoker PC, in thwarting Vecna to support the Raven Queen, is not thereby setting out to, or in any way purporting, to serve the value that Vecna professes, namely, the value of secrecy. Furthermore, I know - from conversation with the player - that the PC regards Vecna as flawed in his understanding of that value, and so even if the player _were_ trying to serve the value of secrecy it would not challenge or invalidate his conception of that value to have Vecna dispute it, because the player _already regards Vecna as corrupted_ in his understanding of that value. (Arguably, this is what characterises the "evil" gods of 4e - they aim at genuine values, but their approach to those values is corrupted, and their understanding of those values distorted.)


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> I don't see how these sentences are consistent. If the paladin is a character who is rewarded for service to certain powers, how is that any different from being a paid enforcer? For me, the key to the paladin is that s/he is called to the defence and service of one or more values. Values, not powers and desires, are key.




And to us on the alignment side, the specific values a paladin defends and promotes (ones consistent with LG) make all the difference between a paladin and a paid enforcer. 



pemerton said:


> This is the Euthyphro point. Corellon loves beauty because it is valuable; things don't become valuable just because Corellon deems them to be beautiful. It is the value, not Corellon's desires, that motivate paladins of Corellon, and against which their actions are to be judged. Hence their fundamental difference from warlocks, from mercenaries, and from Faust. Hence, also, the connection between players' declarations of action and players' evaluative judgements: a player playing a paladin of Corellon is sharing with the table his/her conception of beauty, and what it permits, and what it requires, and why it is worth caring about. S/he is probably not doing this with the same skill and style as Nobel-prize winning novelist or poet, but that's not the threshold for playing at my table! Frankly, it's not my place, and none of my business, to second-guess that player's theory of beauty, which has been sincerely shared with the rest of us.
> 
> This also explains why it is not my place to second-guess the player's conception of what Corellon desires. If the player has put forward his/her theory of beauty, in play, then that also establishes what it is that Corellon values - because we know Corellon values beauty - and there is no need for me as GM to override or second-guess that.




What if the player put a decidedly Melnibonean slant on beauty such as a choir of singers all tortured and mutilated to be able to produce one note each? Would you second guess that and decide that wasn't a very Corellonesque version of beauty? That the player clearly didn't understand the setting and what sort of deity Corellon was?


----------



## Abraxas

billd91 said:


> What if the player put a decidedly Melnibonean slant on beauty such as a choir of singers all tortured and mutilated to be able to produce one note each? Would you second guess that and decide that wasn't a very Corellonesque version of beauty? That the player clearly didn't understand the setting and what sort of deity Corellon was?




From what I've read so far, the response is going to be along the lines of
1) all that would have been hashed out at character creation.
2) that they don't have such players in their games and wouldn't play with them if they discovered they had such notions of play.
3) if alignment is used it forces them to micro manage the players so that even less extreme situations would require telling the players what to do.


----------



## Manbearcat

The premise being explored is "alignment is neither superfluous nor subtractive, it is additive."  So my response is on context with that premise.

The ruleset mandates that it it is the GM's duty to adjudicate shifts along the L <=> C continuum and the G <=> E continuum.  It is especially important in the case of the Paladin.  So my response is in context with that mandate.

So given that premise and that mandate, below is my response.  You've expressed dismay at my being verbose, I hope this is sufficient.  Best I've got.



Abraxas said:


> They can also differ on expectations of how the game world will react to the actions they have their character take - so aren't all decisions on such reactions rife with fallibility?



It seems here you are making an equivalence on the subjective interpretation (and therefore an equivalence in interpretive margin of error) of the physical fallout of moral decisions in the mortal realm with the metaphysical interpretation of moral decisions by the power brokers in the cosmological realm.  Is that correct?  

I don't see how those two could be found remotely equivalent.  I mean not even int he same stratosphere of equivalency.  Figuring out cause and effect (physical falllout of moral decisions in the mortal realm) is pretty trivial and intuitive.  Players and GMs should have no trouble getting together on that (unless they inhabit utterly alien world experiences or someone is being a pedantic post-modernist).  The top-down view by historians (much closer to a GM trying to perform an examination of ethos fallout by a cosmological entity) of the moral quality of a nation's policy decisions in the recent past (take the deployment of the nuke to end the Pacific War in WWII for example) diverges wildly. 



Abraxas said:


> What does this have to do with using alignment in the game? Unless you are suggesting that if it is used there can only ever be one right answer to a situation for a PC/NPC to take based on its alignment. In which case it's the "straight-jacket" view all over again that none of the pro-alignment crowd are advocating.
> 
> Don't game with jerks is universal so it makes no difference whether or not you use alignment. There are threads on these boards with people asking what they should to curb "naughty" players. People respond with actions the NPCs should take to punish the player's character so they "get the point".
> 
> It seems, to me at least, you are going out of your way to make alignment as difficult as possible to use. If you have a "There can be only one" mentality with how it applies to character actions - yeah, it's going to be a headache. I find it pretty easy to adjudicate because it's not some grand universal truth - it's what works for my gaming table. This will differ from table to table, just like reasonable game world reactions to player chosen character actions will.




I'm accepting the premise that alignment is no straight-jacket.  I'm accepting the premise that it is not a stick used to curb cynical or insincere players.  I'm proposing (and obviously accepting...which it appears that you and everyone else are as well) that there is no "one true answer" to the myriad situations where hard/final moral judgement (by a cosmological entity) of PC action (and subsequent alignment fallout) is reasonable.  I'm suggesting that these complex moral conundrums (the ones where neither "straight jacket" nor "stick" need/should apply) are embedded with so much noise versus signal that they cannot possibly serve as a means to reasonably shift alignment.  

So then we're left only with the gross, wildly spectacular violations (the throat-tearing, baby killing paladin) as the only true signal that could reasonably shift alignment.  And if we're left only with that, and its not willful, cynical, insincere, Machievelaian behavior (which should be resolved at the social contract level), then its a level of incompetence or moral confusion that probably requires a proper psych eval rather than another roll of the d20.  If, on the other hand, it is an abberant, intentional, telegraphed effort to play out a Paladin fall, then what is the point of GM as cosmic overseer of a mechanical ethos shift?  The judge, jury and executioner (the player) has already rendered a verdict.  How is the GM's handling of alignment adjudication not superfluous there?

So, back to the premise:  "Alignment is neither superfluous nor subtractive, it is additive."  I'm not seeing the additive except for players who like the alignment-corresponding Divinations, Abjurations, Evocations and Conjuration Rules.  If that is the totality of the additive...then ok.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this.Tolkien's Iluvatar cannot err. Nor can the divinity worshipped by Arthur and his knights. The religion from which the paladin archetype follows - which is not a polytheist one - holds that the divinity is incapable of error. As @_*S'mon*_ points out, one way of giving effect to this in D&D is to substitute the cosmological force of LG for the divinity itself.




I conceded that point to @_*S'mon*_ and do not mind substituting the cosmological force of LG for the divinity itself, Tolkien's deity or whichever else, but my reply still stands



Sadras said:


> Fair enough, but just as a DM npcs LG deities I would imagine this LG cosmic force would indeed be treated in the same way by the DM (how it acts, how it communicates if at all). And so if the agent (paladin/cleric) of the divine force on the material plane became soiled/stained - he/she would no longer be worthy to channel such divine gift, for if anyone could do it no matter what personal creed they followed, then you would be reducing the channeling of divine powers to a teachable skill like 'climb walls' with no sense of narrative interplay. That sounds terribly awful to me.




The character is not infallible just because his deity/cosmological force is or might be, not that you in any way implied that - but refer to my example below.




pemerton said:


> Immersion in the setting is a pretty important part of my play. For me, at least, mechanical alignment does not facilitate that - in fact it can impede that, by creating jarring clashes of evaluative perspectives.




A paladin of Moradin (Rohgar) has had his lover kidnapped by a band of banished dwarves. The leader of the banished dwarves (Baern), is the firstborn son of the High Priest of Moradin and also an old friend of the Paladin. Baern finally had a major falling out with his father, after a series of very difficult years, whom he considers too old school, too placid in the political affairs and threats to the dwarvern nation and thereby incapable to hold the position he currently possess in his opinion. Unable to exact vengeance himself directly on his father for his banishment, he seeks to get to his father through Roghar - and manages to kidnap Roghar's wife on one of her diplomatic missions abroad. 
A message is delivered to Roghar as well as a poison potion. The message states that if he wishes to see his wife alive again, he must lace the High Priest's food with the accompanied poison and he has three days in which to do it otherwise he threatens to slay Roghar's wife. Its far too little time to plan a rescue operation. Roghar's wife is pregnant with their first kid. And here is the twist the High Priest son, Baern, is too a Paladin of Moradin, who lost his own wife due to, in his opinion, poor decision making and the foolhardy trust of others by his father. He believes his father's policies led to the death of his wife and that his friend who supported his father, will now have to account for that death in one way or another. So the threat is real, backed by belief for justice.
Further, Baern believes he will save many more dwarves if his father is ousted from his position and his archaic policies overturned. The old dwarf (High Priest) is not looking to step down anytime soon.

Roghar (a PC) assassinates the High Priest as instructed by Baern to save his wife and unborn child? What do you do as DM with regards to his powers. I believe we can all agree assassination is an evil act in terms of the paladin code. 

Baern (a PC) slays the pregnant wife of Roghar because Roghar disobeyed him and in his mind will be causing further harm by keeping the policies of the old High Priest alive? What do you do as DM with regards to is divine powers. I believe we can all agree murdering an innocent and the unborn child in cold blood is an evil act.

IMO, you could not fault either for roleplaying out of his character no matter what the decision, so they would both most definitely be allowed to sit @_*Hussar'*_s table. But at what point do you as DM start npcing Moradin and whether his divine gifts are not fit for either mortal vessel to channel or dont you at all, and rather set a new precedent that the killing of innocents and/or unborn children, use of poison, the act of assassination, murdering of dwarves/high priests even of ones own faith...etc  are all acceptable by Paladins of Moradin. Truthfully, if I was a player at that table, and the DM did nothing while all this madness took place, that would break my immersion. Earnestly, how can it not affect you?


----------



## Abraxas

Manbearcat said:


> It seems here you are making an equivalence on the subjective interpretation (and therefore an equivalence in interpretive margin of error) of the physical fallout of moral decisions in the mortal realm with the metaphysical interpretation of moral decisions by the power brokers in the cosmological realm.  Is that correct?
> 
> I don't see how those two could be found remotely equivalent.  I mean not even int he same stratosphere of equivalency.  Figuring out cause and effect (physical falllout of moral decisions in the mortal realm) is pretty trivial and intuitive.  Players and GMs should have no trouble getting together on that (unless they inhabit utterly alien world experiences or someone is being a pedantic post-modernist).  The top-down view by historians (much closer to a GM trying to perform an examination of ethos fallout by a cosmological entity) of the moral quality of a nation's policy decisions in the recent past (take the deployment of the nuke to end the Pacific War in WWII for example) diverges wildly.



This explains your preference to me much better than the rest of this entire thread. It is also where are preferences are significantly different. Given that it's a game, I don't have any problem making the equivalence suggested.

Thanks for keeping it more or less concise.


----------



## Sadras

Manbearcat said:


> I'm accepting the premise that alignment is no straight-jacket.  I'm accepting the premise that it is not a stick used to curb cynical or insincere players.  I'm proposing (and obviously accepting...which it appears that you and everyone else are as well) that there is no "one true answer" to the myriad situations where hard/final moral judgement (by a cosmological entity) of PC action (and subsequent alignment fallout) is reasonable.  I'm suggesting that these complex moral conundrums (the ones where neither "straight jacket" nor "stick" need/should apply) are embedded with so much noise versus signal that they cannot possibly serve as a means to reasonably shift alignment.




Just because there is no 'one true answer' does not mean that there is a constant absence of consequences relative to the actions taken by the character considering all the inter-narrative relationships within the setting. If the actions from characters of non cynical or sincere players had no consequences what exactly would such players be doing - just enjoy rolling dice? Perhaps and IMO, you equate an interactive world with interactive relationships among its creatures/entities/cosmological forces as a straight jacket for roleplaying. IMO, you might also equate 'negative' consequences to character actions as 'stick' by the DM. 

If a Paladin does a good deed and is rewarded by his deity (and thereby judged by the DM) why isn't that admonished? Why is the good deed not a problem for the anti-alignment crowd? Is it easier to evaluate a good or lawful deed? Or is the only safe or acceptable approach a fail-forward approach?


----------



## Sadras

Manbearcat said:


> 1) Good, informed, educated, smart people can, and inevitably will, differ on trappings of moral evaluation. As such, any top-down view by a mediator attempting to wear multiple hats at once, many of those hats multiple times removed from first party insight, is rife with fallibility. Interestingly, there is another Paladin thread that just popped up on 3.x. There they are debating the nature of "willful evil" versus "duped evil" (with the intent for good ends and buy-in due to that intent) and if a Paladin should fall for the latter. Good, informed, eductated, smart people. Differing.




So a DM can roleplay thousands of creatures, demeanor, wants, dislikes, actions, dialogue, making decisions about the success or failure of PC plans, but moral evaluation is the final straw because that is where he will be fallible? As for intelligent people differing, it happens all the time, it doesn't have to be moral evaluations, even during the party decision making process - players/characters argue/debate, but they don't do nothing because they cannot agree - they compromise, they call a vote. Good, informed, educated, smart people also reach acceptable resolutions. 



> 2) Evaluative judgements often fail the test of time.




Evaluative judgments during roleplay do not have to 'pass' the test of time, just for the historical period in which they occur.  



> 3) And finally, if the usage of alignment is a stick for curbing the behavior of potential insincere, Machiavellian players, then the answer is "I don't play with insincere, Machiavellian players" or "that sort of caustic behavior is best handled at the social contract level...if that social contract is not observed, then, just as you would with any other willful toxicity, I will excise it." I have no problem making judgements in my micro-ecosystem of a gaming table. It is a trivial thing and everyone does it every day (as they should). That is a far, far, far cry from adjudicating the pratfalls of macro-cosmological alignment with all of the varying players, 2nd and 3rd order interactions, and perceptions twice removed.




As you make social contracts that you will be playing your character with sincerity so you make social contracts of the DM being the adjudicator of all things setting relative and that would include negative and positive consequences as a result of the roleplay in the particular setting.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I also don't see why "inflict 1 hp of damage on a familiar" (which is all that is required to shut a familiar down) is being described as "strip him of some of his power". For me, at least, that's a counter-intuitive formulation. "Stripping of power" suggests a degree of permanence, apart from anything else.




He previously had the familiar available to him.  Now he does not. He has been stripped of that measure of his powers.  Previously, it seemed you were asserting that you did not wish to be placed in a position requiring you to assess whether a character did, or did not, get to retain his mechanical effectiveness.  You have asserted many times that no character’s ability to influence the shared fiction should be impaired by the GM’s judgments.

Now, it appears you are no longer asserting an absolute philosophy, but rather assessing its implementation – the extent and/or duration of the reduction in ability to influence the fiction.

To be clear, this is not a criticism of your GMing. It is a comparison of your stated philosophy and your actual actions in game, which where I (and others, it seems) perceive an inconsistency with how you are phrasing your philosophy and how it is expressed in your actual play.



pemerton said:


> As I have said upthread, for me that is utterly incompatible with the paladin archetype. The divine may move in mysterious ways, but it does not err.




Which Divine? The LG Divine empowering the Paladin, the CE Divine empowering the Anti-Paladin, the Raven Queen empowering your 4e player’s Paladin, the Divine Right of the King deeming he can never be incorrect, the Divine powers gifted to the Paladin ensuring he can never err?  The Judeo-Christian analogies do not translate well to the polytheistic D&D realm.



pemerton said:


> I quoted you in the post to which you're replying. When I said that alignment requires judging whether a player's action declared for his/her PC is good or evil, you denied this in post 654, saying "No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil".




The Paladin is judged by the standards of LG, not just G. Which Good is infallible, LG or CG?  BY definition,  neither can be, as neither is set as “the most good” by the game rules.  I would suggest NG is the purest Good as neither Law nor Chaos tempers its pursuit of Good.



pemerton said:


> In both cases it depends a lot on context.
> 
> For instance, the paladin of the Raven Queen died in a session towards the end of last year. This meant that - prior to his resurrection - he got to have an up close and personal chat with his god. During that conversation - which he and I played out in his car as he was driving me home from the session - he sought advice on what he should do (in particular, on how hard he should push towards the Soul Abattoir - he is a Questing Knight, and destroying the Soul Abattoir was his quest). Playing the role of the Raven Queen, I told him to push hard - that he had dithered long enough, and more than indulged the distracting whims of his companions. (Who at this point were in any event ready to tackle the Soul Abattoir, having followed up the other matters they were interested in - primarily the fate of Mal Arundak.)




That sounds a lot like a negative evaluation of the Paladin’s past performance  by the Raven Queen. If the Paladin’s actions were perfectly in step, I would expect something more like “now is the fated time – you have dealt with other matters first, as was fated.  Now is the time to press on” – that is, all his decisions to date have been 100% correct, because he is always fully in step with the power he serves.  In my games? Maybe the RG is  not pleased with the delays, and will make that known.  But that is evaluating the quality of the Paladin’s service to that Power.



pemerton said:


> This is the context in which I don't find it that outrageous to inflict a consequence which the player has more-or-less set up for himself.




Neither do I. I do find it to be the reduction of the character’s mechanical abilities as a consequence of the extent to which his conduct has been in accordance with serving an entity to which he is beholden.  That is what you have previously indicated you find inappropriate for your games, and why you dislike mechanical alignment.



Grydan said:


> This seems rather incomplete, at best. The archetypal adventuring paladin is a paragon of virtue who seeks out threats to smite ... they literally go out of their way to cause harm to others that they believe deserve it. A conception of "good" that doesn't at least include the idea that some forms of intentionally causing others harm are acceptable is difficult to reconcile with the genre conceits of heroic warriors (not that all characters must be heroic warriors, but it's certainly an archetype the game has always purported to include).




To me, it reflects a clash of “protection of the innocent” and “respect for life”.  



pemerton said:


> No I'm not. I don't think that allegiance has changed from its prior ambiguous status. I'm judging that the PC has pissed Vecna off. That's what the player intended to do. The player didn't think that his PC was somehow furthering Vecna's cause or values by stopping him getting the soul energy.




First you state you are not judging the character’s allegiance.  You immediately follow that with your judgment on the status of his allegiance.  Which is it?



pemerton said:


> Why not? He pledged service to the vampire Kas, for example.




So is that consistent with the Paragon of the implacable foe of the Undead, or is it a fellow who takes whatever road is most convenient?  Can he also raise an undead army, and pledge fealty to Orcus, who as Demon Lord of the Undead, presumably has some influence over an undead vampire?



pemerton said:


> Does St Cuthbert punish the paladin? The impression I get from you and @_*Imaro*_, in your reference to various powers' and divinities' conceptions of what is good, is that this question is to be answered by asking what St Cuthbert believes lawful goodness required on that occasion. My preference is to answer by asking _what did lawful goodness require and/or permit on that occasion_. And when the player is sincere in his/her view about the permissibility of what s/he did, I am not going to second guess. And once the idea of second guessing is off the table, mechanical alignment then turns out to be redundant for my purposes.




First off, I think we are also assessing “was the action taken a reasonable one” not “the best one” in the circumstances. Second, you are now caveating your “no judgment” philosophy – who is judging whether the player is sincere?  How does the model differ if you decide he is not?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Are you speaking to your particular group here... or is this a general statement?




Well considering his statement was a general one that stated alignment was always needed for enforcing player behaviour then I would think you need to take that up with him. 

My group has no need for this because my players have no problem maintaining their character's integrity and would see compromising that as no fun. 

IOW my players do not need policing. See S'mon's posts for exactly how my group works.


----------



## Hussar

Abraxas said:


> From what I've read so far, the response is going to be along the lines of
> 1) all that would have been hashed out at character creation.
> 2) that they don't have such players in their games and wouldn't play with them if they discovered they had such notions of play.
> 3) if alignment is used it forces them to micro manage the players so that even less extreme situations would require telling the players what to do.




Pretty much spot on. 

Now, how is this a mistaken view of alignment?


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - in your dwarf example (which would be a blast to see at a table btw cool idea) I have a couple of questions. Is everyone a PC or is the estranged son an NPC?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> @_*Sadras*_ - in your dwarf example (which would be a blast to see at a table btw cool idea) I have a couple of questions. Is everyone a PC or is the estranged son an NPC?




Thanks. For the example I made them both PCs. But your question does bring up an interesting point - NPC Paladins who violate their code, I imagine its ok to to judge those using alignment/paladin code, due to no-player participation.

I have sadly run only one adventure where I purposefully created an experience (it was less of an adventure and more a situation in a foreign town) to examine their roleplaying ability vs gamist tendencies. The experience/adventure had all the PCs arguing with each other and were at opposite ends - it was quite a test on their roleplaying skills and it was a wonder the party remained intact at the end of it. In fact the characters were escorted out of the foreign town (banned) and it might have seemed like they failed but in truth they did not as there was no defined ending to the adventure. It definitely strained character relationships, tested their ethical/moral standards, identified their loyalties and personal vices. 
It was made better because of the party composition which included a Paladin, and that player had the hardest time of all, worrying what his party members were up to behind his back - if any of them were involved with the crazy occurrences around town.


----------



## Sadras

Abraxas said:


> 2) that they don't have such players in their games and wouldn't play with them if they discovered they had such notions of play.






Hussar said:


> Pretty much spot on. Now, how is this a mistaken view of alignment?




In response to this, how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players? I mean I understand most of us are fortunate to have long established gaming circles, so we do not worry about using the alignment 'stick', myself included, but certainly I can see the value of alignment as a learning tool which deters inconsistent play by newbies and remember it wont be just sprung up on them in a useless terrible fashion "You did many bad acts, you are evil now" it will be a constant discussion during sessions between DM and players, players and players, examining the roleplaying of ones character. I can certainly see the value of alignment for learning purposes which also integrates with the setting.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> And to us on the alignment side, the specific values a paladin defends and promotes (ones consistent with LG) make all the difference between a paladin and a paid enforcer.



That's not really addressing the point I raised, though.

Upthread, I was told that the question for a paladin is not "Did I violate the tenets of lawful good?" but rather "Did I piss off the lawful good god St Cuthbert?" This, I was told, is why judging the actions of a paladin player does not involves judging whether those actions were good and evil - rather, I was told I only have to judge if they did or didn't enjoy St Cuthbert's approval.

But if you're now saying it is about the values, then you seem to be agreeing with me that to judge whether or not a paladin player's PC falls requires judging the moral character of the actions that player declares for his/her PC.



billd91 said:


> What if the player put a decidedly Melnibonean slant on beauty such as a choir of singers all tortured and mutilated to be able to produce one note each? Would you second guess that and decide that wasn't a very Corellonesque version of beauty? That the player clearly didn't understand the setting and what sort of deity Corellon was?



What if you turn up to play a game that you've been told is "Default 4e setting" and then the GM springs this sort of Elvish society and Corellon worship on you?

Options that occur to me range from getting irritated at the GM for tricking you, through to playing along with it to see what happens. Whatever you would do in such a situation, it can probably work, mutatis mutandis, for the player you describe. You might get irritated at the player for not falling your instructions to build a PC within the framework of the default 4e setting (assuming that you had given such an instruction, as I did). You might play along with it to see what happens. Or something else that seems approriate.

And out of curiosity, how does mechanical alignment help deal with this situation?



Sadras said:


> how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players?



I haven't seen this problem. The last new player that I introduced - admittedly some time ago now - played a samurai as his first PC. How did he "stick to" the samurai's code? By playing his samurai as he thought a samurai would act.

I don't see why a new player is likely to play his samurai as something else, unless the game very specifically rewards players for playing cheating, lying, sneaking, thieving types. But that is not a particular feature of my game - at least, not for PCs whose strengths lie in heavy arms and armour, leadership and the like, rather than in stealth, bluff and the like.



Sadras said:


> If the actions from characters of non cynical or sincere players had no consequences what exactly would such players be doing - just enjoy rolling dice?



Who is denying that declared actions have consequences? What is being discussed is whether those consequences should be determined by the GM's evaluative opinion about those choices: were they proper or improper?

That is a very specific way of determining consequences. As [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has mentioned upthread, almost no non-D&D RPG uses such a method. But I've never heard it suggestesd that those RPGs offer nthing to non-cynical or sincere players but the rolling of dice.



Sadras said:


> Roghar (a PC) assassinates the High Priest as instructed by Baern to save his wife and unborn child? What do you do as DM with regards to his powers. I believe we can all agree assassination is an evil act in terms of the paladin code.
> 
> Baern (a PC) slays the pregnant wife of Roghar because Roghar disobeyed him and in his mind will be causing further harm by keeping the policies of the old High Priest alive? What do you do as DM with regards to is divine powers. I believe we can all agree murdering an innocent and the unborn child in cold blood is an evil act.
> 
> IMO, you could not fault either for roleplaying out of his character no matter what the decision, so they would both most definitely be allowed



A couple of questions.

First, if Roghar carried out Baern's instructions why did Baern kill Roghar's wife? Or are those meant to be alternative possiblities?

Second, is this an actual play example, or is it a hypothetical? If it's actual play, how did you handle it? Or are you asking for advice on how to handle it? If it's a hypothetical, and you're asking me how I would handle it, then I don't have an answer. This is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves.



Sadras said:


> Truthfully, if I was a player at that table, and the DM did nothing while all this madness took place, that would break my immersion. Earnestly, how can it not affect you?



What are you expecting the GM to do?

I have no idea about what has happened to take this to this point. Why is one paladin acting as a kidnapper and forcing another to act as an assassin? Why is he not challenging the other to a duel, for instance? Why is he not denouncing his father in pubic, and perhaps raising an army to depose him? It sounds to me like the story you describe is at the 11th hour, and without any information on what happend in the preceding 10 hours and 59 minutes you're asking me to decide how it should resolve.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> In response to this, how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players? I mean I understand most of us are fortunate to have long established gaming circles, so we do not worry about using the alignment 'stick', myself included, but certainly I can see the value of alignment as a learning tool which deters inconsistent play by newbies and remember it wont be just sprung up on them in a useless terrible fashion "You did many bad acts, you are evil now" it will be a constant discussion during sessions between DM and players, players and players, examining the roleplaying of ones character. I can certainly see the value of alignment for learning purposes which also integrates with the setting.




I've generally found its much less of a problem than people might think. I've seen very experienced gamers who behave badly and for whom alignment rules and in game morality aren't a consideration. And I've seen brand new players who get it right off. 

I mean it's generally not too much of a stretch to point at archetypes and let it be known that it's a good idea to stay in character. 

Lead by example generally works. 

Now I have had a stable group for the last few years or so but it wasn't always like that. And like anything you have to start slow. I'm not going to get all morally heavy on a brand new group that doesn't know each other. But I wouldn't do that regardless of mechanical alignment or not.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> It is a comparison of your stated philosophy and your actual actions in game, which where I (and others, it seems) perceive an inconsistency with how you are phrasing your philosophy and how it is expressed in your actual play.



I have repeatedly stressed the difference between deciding that Vecna is pissed off, and forming an evaluative judgement of the player's declared action for his PC.

I have also stressed the location of the relevant consequence within the bog-standard framework of action resolution. In the same skill challenge, the player of the fighter spent an encounter power to aid with an earlier check. As a result, he did not have that power available in the combat that occurred between the 7th and 8th successes. The treatment of the imp is no different.



N'raac said:


> He previously had the familiar available to him.  Now he does not.



This is what happens when actions are resolved. In the same skill challenge, several players spent action points. They previously had them available, but after expenditure did not. In the same skill challenge, two or three PCs tood damage. They previously had hit points available, but had to dedcut them (and ultimately the healing surge required to replenish them).

Here are some comments in the 4e rules on how to adjudicate skill challenges, and impose consequences for choices made and actions declared:

DMG pp 74, 76
What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure.

Beyond those fundamental rewards, the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward. . .

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat — experience and perhaps treasure.

DMG2 p 86
Here are some options you might want to account for in desiging a skill challenge: . . .

* Voluntarily taking damage . . . or sacrificing a healing surge.​
In this particular case, the player voluntarily chose to take a penalty - 1 hp of damage to his PC's familiar - in return for achieving an outcome, namely, stopping Vecna getting access to the soul energy.

It has nothing in common, to my eye, with inflicting a penalty on a player because the GM forms the view that the player's choice of action did not meet an evaluative standard.

Next you'll be saying I'm inconsistent because, in combats with Orcus's demons, I have them attack the paladin of the Raven Queen first - Oh no, I'm depriving him of his hit points by judging him to be an enemy of Orcus! This is the first time I've ever encountered the suggestion that a paladin becoming a mere fighter forever more is no different from taking some hit point damage in a fight.



N'raac said:


> First you state you are not judging the character’s allegiance.  You immediately follow that with your judgment on the status of his allegiance.  Which is it?



In forming the opinion that the invoke's allegiance to Vecna is ambiguous, I am not adjudicating any action as part of my role as referee. I am simply describing the state of the game fiction, as I understand it based to a significant extent on discussions with the player of the PC in question. I don't understand how this has any bearing on whether or not mechanical alignment is an impediment to my play experience.



N'raac said:


> that is evaluating the quality of the Paladin’s service to that Power.



See, this is not an evaluative judgement in the sense that I have characterised and used that phrase. It is judging whether or not the PC's conduct satisfies the desirs of another. Whereas I am talking about judging whether or not a PC's conduct expresses or promotes a value.



N'raac said:


> That sounds a lot like a negative evaluation of the Paladin’s past performance  by the Raven Queen. If the Paladin’s actions were perfectly in step, I would expect something more like “now is the fated time – you have dealt with other matters first, as was fated.  Now is the time to press on” – that is, all his decisions to date have been 100% correct, because he is always fully in step with the power he serves.



The scene has already been played, so I'm not sure how relevant it is that other options were open, or that you might have done it differently. But if a player lets me know that his PC has doubts that he is living up to his requirements, and then tells me that he want to discuss the matter with his god, I don't feel any obligation to tell him that his doubts were misplaced.

This is a fairly banal example that shows why my experience is not in accordance with you and other posters who seem to assume that the absence of mechanical alignment means that, for the character in question, anything goes. This PC, as played by this player, had doubts about his resolution. I, playing his mistress to whom he put the matter, urged him to be more resolute.



N'raac said:


> Which Divine?



The one who inspired Aragorn, Arthur, Lancelot, Roland et al.



N'raac said:


> The Judeo-Christian analogies do not translate well to the polytheistic D&D realm.



I've never had any trouble playing and GMing paladins - who in my view are inherently located within an ethic of this sort, in particular one in which the divine speaks unerringly on questions of value - once mechanical alignment is put to one side.



N'raac said:


> So is that consistent with the Paragon of the implacable foe of the Undead, or is it a fellow who takes whatever road is most convenient?  Can he also raise an undead army, and pledge fealty to Orcus, who as Demon Lord of the Undead, presumably has some influence over an undead vampire?



Where is the actual play?

This is like [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]'s example upthread - as far as I can tell these are mere hypotheses. They are not examples from your actual play. Nor are they examples from my actual play. As best as I can tell, they are not example from any play that any poster on these boards has expeienced or heard of. So what is their relevance?

If it actually happens in my game, then I'll get back to you on how it unfolded.



N'raac said:


> you are now caveating your “no judgment” philosophy – who is judging whether the player is sincere?  How does the model differ if you decide he is not?



Here is some quotes from posts upthread (454, 545 and 549 - the latter two were replies to you, and the lattermost referred you to the earlier one):



pemerton said:


> Imagine an activity for which an important goal - perhaps the main goal - is to evoke an evaluative and/or expressive response on the part of a participant, which that participant shares with the other participants, in turn evoking similar responses from them - and a good part of the pleasure of the activity is in enjoying the dynamic interaction of these responses. And part of this dynamic is that individual participants evaluate along different dimensions of value (aesthetic, personal morality, politics, etiquette etc), and express their own conceptions of what is salient about a given element within their activity, both in their original responses an in their interactions with other participants. And all these responses in turn generate new content which can itself be the object of further expression and evaluation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Sincere discussion about works of art, or political ideas, can have this sort of character too - I say "sincere" to contrast with discussion in which people hold back, and censor their own views, out of some felt need to conform to received opinion that they don't themselves share.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> an alignment judgement is also different from a mere in-fiction negative consequence. An in-fiction negative consequence is, for instance, that an NPC doesn't like what you did, and thinks it was wrong. That does not impinge upon the player's own evaluative and expressive responses, though it does provide more material for the player to work with.
> 
> Nor is an alignment judgement simply a negative mechanical consequence.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> this does not impinge upon the player's evaluative and expressive responses
> 
> <snip>
> 
> an alignment judgement isn't just saying "Now these NPCs don't like you, because they think you betrayed your ideals" or "Now this artefact is withholding power from you, because it thinks you're flouting moral precepts." An alignment judgement involves the GM saying "You _did_ betray your ideals", or "You _did_ flout moral precepts." And that is the feature of alignment that is an obstacle to my play experience, because an obstacle to the player playing his/her PC in accordance with his/her conception of it, in the sense of that phrase I have explained above.





pemerton said:


> If the character is "writing him-/herself" then the author is not answering to some challenge of keeping within certain pre-given descriptors. S/he is making choices driven by the immediacy of the situation (again, notions from aesthetic theory such as "spontaneity" and "authenticity" seem apposite here).
> 
> This relates to the pre-eminence of play, also. Actual play can take us to places with a character that matter, and have meaning, in a way that the same place as a stipulated starting point would lack. I am not much of an aesthetic theorist, but notions like "history", "accretion", "unfolding", "revelation" and so on seem to be in play in one case but not the other.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Of course my game is not a work of art in any meaningful sense - it's of aesthetic interest only to those who actually participate in it. But the basic dynamic of creation is still the same. I am not interested in making my players answerable to my judgement as part of the process of playing their PCs: naturally I have opinions as an audience member, but they're not part of my role as referee.





pemerton said:


> If the point of play - as I posted in reply to Umbran some way upthread (post 454) - is to evoke an evaluative and/or expressive response on the part of a participant, then classifying actions in the way you advocate as part of the process of play is an impediment. It is antithetical to the point of play.



You can see from those posts that I am not "caveating" anything - and that notions in the neighbourhood of "sincerity", "spontaneity" and "authenticity" have been at the heart of my concerns from the get-go.

As to what happens if I decide a player is not sincere - as in, not interested in playing sincerely - I do the same thing that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] does. I find someone else to play with.

Fortunately, at least in my experience, few people set out to engage in a creative endeavour while having no genuine desire to create.


----------



## Hussar

I think there is a point that gets lost in all of this.  For myself, and I believe a number of others on this side of the fence, alignment in the game is fine.  It's a nice little shorthand and it helps to give players a handle on the motivations of their character.   As far as that goes, that's fine.

My personal beef is mechanical alignment.  Where "violating" alignment carries mechanical penalties.

Every version of D&D has had alignment, but the degree to which that has carried mechanical elements varies greatly.  On one end you've got 4e and Basic/Expert D&D, and really OD&D, which have alignment, but, very, very few mechanics tied to that.  Yes, there are mechanics, such as the OD&D paladin, but, not a whole lot more than that.

On the other end, you've got 3e/3.5 D&D where virtually every class has alignment restrictions (which ones don't?  Fighter, wizard, sorcerer and rogue.  That's what 4 out of 11 base classes that don't have alignment restrictions).  Where you have aligned spells all over the place and aligned effects built into magic items being very common.

Yet, funnily enough, no one ever talks about how that barbarian isn't following his alignment.  After all, the penalties are almost as strict as for a divine class.  What higher power is taking away his ability to rage?  Bards who become lawful can no longer progress as Bards.  So on and so forth.

My feeling is that these sorts of alignment restrictions are virtually always ignored.  The only time it might come up is if there is some magical effect changing alignment.  Yet, for some reason, we feel the need to enforce player behaviour for divine classes but not these other ones.

But, in any case, it's not like not having mechanical alignment means that morality no longer applies.


----------



## Cadence

Abraxas said:


> From what I've read so far, the response is going to be along the lines of
> ...
> 3) if alignment is used it forces them to micro manage the players so that even less extreme situations would require telling the players what to do.






Hussar said:


> Pretty much spot on.
> 
> Now, how is this a mistaken view of alignment?






			
				Dictionary-dot-com said:
			
		

> [Micromanagement is] manage[ment] or control with excessive attention to minor details.






			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Micromanagement generally has a negative connotation.




If you're referring to play according to 1e RAW, then it seems to be pretty close.

If you're referring to what those of us who use alignments do in practice and have been describing over the previous few 100 posts, then it seems off.   As we've said up-thread, we're just on the look out for repeated actions (you don't get punished for a single non-egregious action) of non-edge things (alignments are big tents; things that are bad enough that  they're obviously not fitting to a cursory view) and that even then we don't take control of the character or make them lose levels (like in the 1e and harsher 2e sense), they just lose access to their alignment requiring powers.  (I thought it seemed related to what @_*pemerton*_ describes as doing as far as deities keeping tabs on their clerics and other divine class followers, except he avoids having to make loaded-language moral judgments of the players). 

Calling this "micromanagement" seems like saying a real life supervisor at work micromanages your computer usage because you can be demoted and lose network access for having porn or obvious games on your office computer screen that's visible to customers and other employees walking buy.  Or that the state police micromanage your driving by giving out tickets if you're going 30 over the speed limit or are switching lanes repeatedly and tailgating.  

Micromanagement would seem more like having overkill web-blocking software or a supervisor with their desk set up to see all the employees screens, write down all the times they're off task for a few seconds, and hand them a computer use violation memo if anything was noticed.  Or like having the state police send out robo-tickets from a battalion of cameras set to notice the slightest rolling stop or anything at all over the speed limit.  These two do certainly sounds like 1e (and part of 2e) raw.  Has a single poster upthread said they played that way... even in 1e?



Hussar said:


> Yet, funnily enough, no one ever talks about how that barbarian isn't following his alignment. After all, the penalties are almost as strict as for a divine class. What higher power is taking away his ability to rage? Bards who become lawful can no longer progress as Bards. So on and so forth.




_Chaotic_ doesn't mean going against the law all the time - you can walk on the side-walk and not the grass or tell the truth when it suits you and not violate chaotic. So even in strict 1e land wouldn't it be harder to violate being _Chaotic_ than it would Lawful? 

(Edit: Thanks @_*N'raac*_ , should say "_Even_ chaotic doesn't ...  violate being _non-Lawful_ than it would Lawful?")

I've never played or DMed a Bard in 3/3.5 so didn't realize they had an alignment restriction.  It's gone in PF for the Bard but still there for Barbarians and Monks.  The Barbarian restriction seems firmly rooted in Howard's Conan - the defining trait of the barbarian is being the uncivilized other.   So they can't rage when they lose that and become "civilized". I'd be ok with nuking that one. For the Monk, requiring lawful seems to be a bad way of enforcing "being disciplined" and I'd nuke that one.

I can certainly see better ways that alignment could have been done - maybe tie it directly to the views of particular gods and only have outsiders and divine classes have "alignments" that are affected by the spells.  In PF, for example, clerics don't lose access to any spells for being just one shift over in alignment, they lose stuff for violating the will of their deity who is giving them the spells.  (How this works for clerics worshiping more nebulous concepts doesn't seem to be explained in RAW beyond "work with your GM").



Hussar said:


> Well considering his statement was a general one that stated alignment was always needed for enforcing player behaviour then I would think you need to take that up with him.




I'm trying to find the post where one of the pro-alignment people actually said "always needed for enforcing" without some qualifiers that change the spirt of the words. 



Hussar said:


> My group has no need for this because my players have no problem maintaining their character's integrity and would see compromising that as no fun.




So you're saying that having mechanical alignment wouldn't change a single thing about how your table runs.  Cool.    <- indicating that I recognize this could be putting a spin on your words to suit my own purposes


----------



## N'raac

OK, I'm going to dig through this point by point.  Some misunderstanding may arise from the summary nature of the discussion (ie there are mechanics behind the prose that have not been stated) and some from my lack of expertise with 4e in general.



pemerton said:


> I have also stressed the location of the relevant consequence within the bog-standard framework of action resolution. In the same skill challenge, the player of the *fighter spent an encounter power *to aid with an earlier check. As a result, he did not have that power available in the combat that occurred between the 7th and 8th successes. The treatment of the imp is no different.




If I understand this correctly, the fighter chose to expend an encounter power in order to enhance his success at a check.  Key here being the player made the choice to expend a resource.  My read of your summary was that the player did not choose to have the familiar impaired, nor did he trade access to the familiar for some enhancement to his ability to achieve success in the skill challenge.  Perhaps my read is in error (eg. he said "I will use my Familiar to get a bonus to the roll - I assume that will put it out of commission for a while"), but there is no indication of this in your prior posts.



pemerton said:


> This is what happens when actions are resolved. In the same skill challenge, several *players spent action points*. They previously had them available, but after expenditure did not.




Again, a resource expended by choice of the player for some perceived benefit.



pemerton said:


> In the same skill challenge, two or three PCs tood damage. They previously had hit points available, but had to dedcut them (and ultimately the healing surge required to replenish them).




I assume they took damage by virtue of the action resolution mechanics. I don't recall any indication that the familiar had a to hit or damage roll made against him, received  any from of saving throw, etc.  All I saw described was that Vecna put the familiar out of commission.



pemerton said:


> Here are some comments in the 4e rules on how to adjudicate skill challenges, and impose consequences for choices made and actions declared:
> DMG pp 74, 76
> What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?
> 
> When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure.
> 
> Beyond those fundamental rewards, the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward. . .
> 
> Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat — experience and perhaps treasure.​





So far, all about rewards.  I assume we agree denial of abilities is not a reward.  A penalty for failure is noted, but my understanding was that they succeeded.



pemerton said:


> DMG2 p 86
> Here are some options you might want to account for in desiging a skill challenge: . . .
> 
> * *Voluntarily *taking damage . . . or *sacrificing *a healing surge.





pemerton said:


> In this particular case, the player *voluntarily *chose to take a penalty - 1 hp of damage to his PC's familiar - in return for achieving an outcome, namely, stopping Vecna getting access to the soul energy.




This reinforces my suspicion that your description left out a key point.  This is the first indication I have seen that it was the player who chose to lose access to the familiar, rather than this being a consequence imposed by the GM acting as Vecna.  That seems a very crucial fact, and I am surprised it would not have been raised earlier, as every comment seems to have  noted the surprise that the GM unilaterally removed access to this resource.  Note:  I do not consider it "voluntary" unless the player initiated loss of access to the familiar's abilities. If he said "I think I will channel the energy to the RQ" and was told Vecna might punish him, that seems little different than the Paladin being told his declared action of burning down an orphanage might result in loss of his Paladin abilities (little different in spirit; very different in scope).



pemerton said:


> Next you'll be saying I'm inconsistent because, in combats with Orcus's demons, I have them attack the paladin of the Raven Queen first - Oh no, I'm depriving him of his hit points by judging him to be an enemy of Orcus! This is the first time I've ever encountered the suggestion that a paladin becoming a mere fighter forever more is no different from taking some hit point damage in a fight.




Taking damage requires the action mechanics be employed - he could have avoided damage had the roll to hit failed, and the amount of damage was not set arbitrarily.

But it does open up a question.  By declaring himself a follower or servant of the RQ, the player takes on a measure of ownership of the RQ.  By declaring himself the implacable foe of Orcus, does he take on a similar measure of ownership of Orcus?  Can he then say "No, Orcus wishes his foes to suffer by watching all their friends and comrades suffer and die horribly, while they live on - he would attack my character LAST, not first!"?



pemerton said:


> In forming the opinion that the invoke's allegiance to Vecna is ambiguous, I am not adjudicating any action as part of my role as referee. I am simply describing the state of the game fiction, as I understand it based to a significant extent on discussions with the player of the PC in question. I don't understand how this has any bearing on whether or not mechanical alignment is an impediment to my play experience.




Speaking for myself, I am addressing your broad comments earlier that the role playing choices of the character should not impair their mechanical effectiveness.  The Paladin chooses how to role play  service to his calling, and his powers remain available whatever the choice.  But the invoker chooses how to role play the balance of service to his various masters, and his familiar is rendered unavailable.  That is a mechanical impairment resulting due to his role playing.  So I perceive this as inconsistent with your stated reason for disliking mechanical alignment.  Obviously, mechanical alignment is not in play in your game, or in the 4e milieu from what I see, so the issue is not directly mechanical alignment, but the philosophy behind your distaste for mechanical alignment.



pemerton said:


> See, this is not an evaluative judgement in the sense that I have characterised and used that phrase.




Just for clarity, that would be the phrase you cannot actually characterize or explain because you would violate board rules?



pemerton said:


> It is judging whether or not the PC's conduct satisfies the desirs of another. Whereas I am talking about judging whether or not a PC's conduct expresses or promotes a value.




"Service to my masters" is not a value?  The invoker lost his familiar for not serving Vecna's will.  It seems that certain values get judged and others do not, based on whether you consider yourself an appropriate judge of consistency to those values.



pemerton said:


> The scene has already been played, so I'm not sure how relevant it is that other options were open, or that you might have done it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we should not pose hypothetical questions,  because the play is what is important.  And we cannot question scenes which have already been played, as that is not relevant.  What's left to discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if a player lets me know that his PC has doubts that he is living up to his requirements, and then tells me that he want to discuss the matter with his god, I don't feel any obligation to tell him that his doubts were misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that whether he is right or wrong was a decision for him and him alone to make, and its results to be determined in play.  In fact, you initially dismissed the possibility of seeking guidance from the deity noting that 4e lacked a commune-type spell.  Now, you describe a scene  designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics where the GM expresses the views of the Raven Queen directly and explicitly to the character, with no use (or none described) of any action resolution mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fairly banal example that shows why my experience is not in accordance with you and other posters who seem to assume that the absence of mechanical alignment means that, for the character in question, anything goes. This PC, as played by this player, had doubts about his resolution. I, playing his mistress to whom he put the matter, urged him to be more resolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But she could not have sent a more subtle sign earlier, such as a dream, denial of some power until he returns to the business at hand, etc.?  It seems you are now taking on precisely the role you indicated you refused - evaluating the consistency of the character's conduct with his stated allegiances.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one who inspired Aragorn, Arthur, Lancelot, Roland et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving Roland out (on spec, not with any evidence), which of those characters demonstrated any form of supernatural powers?  We seem to be assuming each and every character who expresses some devotion to a higher ideal to be a Paladin.  What prevents them being a Fighter with a strong moral code, and nothing more?  The Paladin gains supernatural powers - which of these characters demonstrates supernatural powers?
> 
> The fact is that little source material aligns perfectly with the game rules, much less those rules applied to a specific setting for the game.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never had any trouble playing and GMing paladins - who in my view are inherently located within an ethic of this sort, in particular one in which the divine speaks unerringly on questions of value - once mechanical alignment is put to one side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, once we assume whatever they do is consistent with their code, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code.  Sounds a bit  circular to me, but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the actual play?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At the table, not on the message board, nor in the rulebooks which we discuss on the message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like @_*Sadras*_'s example upthread - as far as I can tell these are mere hypotheses. They are not examples from your actual play. Nor are they examples from my actual play. As best as I can tell, they are not example from any play that any poster on these boards has expeienced or heard of. So what is their relevance?
> 
> If it actually happens in my game, then I'll get back to you on how it unfolded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At which time, may I assume any comments will be reviewed with something like
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scene has already been played, so I'm not sure how relevant it is that other options were open, or that you might have done it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cadence said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chaotic doesn't mean going against the law all the time - you can walk on the side-walk and not the grass or tell the truth when it suits you and not violate chaotic. So even in strict 1e land wouldn't it be harder to violate being Chaotic than it would Lawful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is any character class required to be Chaotic (Anti-Paladins, I suppose) rather than Non-Lawful?  The only sign of a "Lawful rather than Chaotic" bias I can think of off the top of my head is evaluating possible choices of actions based on what the organized hierarchy, tradition, etc. would suggest, rather than making a decision based on personal viewpoints.  But I also think that Chaos is hard to play, because the character should not be predictable, and we don't tend to that kind of approach.  When Elric drops a huge reward (whether paid or plundered) into the sand, says "Come along, Moonglum" and walks away, that scene struck me as Chaotic.  If the Barbarian looks to his tribal elders and does whatever they advice, without considering a viewpoint of his own, that seems pretty contradictory to Chaos (which may be why Barbarians aren't even all that common in Barbarian tribes).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Cadence

N'raac said:


> Is any character class required to be Chaotic (Anti-Paladins, I suppose) rather than Non-Lawful?




Ack.  It is just non-lawful. Put an edit in my post above to fix that.



N'raac said:


> But I also think that Chaos is hard to play, because the character should not be predictable, and we don't tend to that kind of approach.




Chaotic in the D&D sense doesn't seem like it should be impossible to predict, just harder to entirely narrow down with certainty.  You can't tell when the chaotic pirate crew will rebel against their captain, but its a safe bet they will do so at some point in the not to distant future.  Is any alignment that goes against one's real life persona hard to play because it's so easy to either play one's self or play a cliche?

I wonder what leads to more bad caricature's instead of characterizations -- trying to play chaotic evil or lawful good turning into lawful stupid.  (Whenever I hear evil party I automatically flash back to some WoD players describing a Sabbat game they also play in -- where all of the actions sound like those of stupid petty humans and not inhuman at all.)


----------



## Abraxas

Sadras said:


> In response to this, how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players? I mean I understand most of us are fortunate to have long established gaming circles, so we do not worry about using the alignment 'stick', myself included, but certainly I can see the value of alignment as a learning tool which deters inconsistent play by newbies and remember it wont be just sprung up on them in a useless terrible fashion "You did many bad acts, you are evil now" it will be a constant discussion during sessions between DM and players, players and players, examining the roleplaying of ones character. I can certainly see the value of alignment for learning purposes which also integrates with the setting.



Having DMed for a lot of new players - including 2 or 3 groups consisting of entirely new players - the following is my experience.

1) I talk to all the players and let them know what my expectations for the game are as a DM and ask them what they want to get out of the game. The way this is expressed depends very much on the age/maturity of the players and how serious they want the game to be.

2) Most new players don't have a tough time figuring out what is expected if you can give them a point of reference. I usually tell people that a Paladin should be like Captain America or the Lone Ranger. If I want more grim & gritty, with less direct divine intervention, I suggest Sparhawk. (If anyone doesn't think these are good examples of a Paladin - I don't care - they are examples of what I expect of a paladin)

3) In the beginning I'm more lenient - with more divine warnings, or NPC mentor guidance, etc.

4) I reward playing to the archetype in ways that makes the game fun for everyone at the table.

5) I don't allow Paladins (or Clerics) of an ideal or philosophy. They have to have a patron deity.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> For myself, and I believe a number of others on this side of the fence, alignment in the game is fine.  It's a nice little shorthand and it helps to give players a handle on the motivations of their character.   As far as that goes, that's fine.
> 
> My personal beef is mechanical alignment.  Where "violating" alignment carries mechanical penalties.
> 
> Every version of D&D has had alignment, but the degree to which that has carried mechanical elements varies greatly.  On one end you've got 4e and Basic/Expert D&D, and really OD&D, which have alignment, but, very, very few mechanics tied to that.



I find shorthand alignment more useful for NPCs/monsters than for PCs - it is way of getting a quick handle on what an author intended as the cosmological motivation of some character - but I agree with you that it is harmless and at worst not very useful.

This is what 4e and B/X are like.

For me, the biggest issue with mechanical alignment is not the mechanical penalties - though I don't like that either - but the need to judge and track.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I am addressing your broad comments earlier that the role playing choices of the character should not impair their mechanical effectiveness.  The Paladin chooses how to role play  service to his calling, and his powers remain available whatever the choice.  But the invoker chooses how to role play the balance of service to his various masters, and his familiar is rendered unavailable.



Are we still stuck on this point?

The paladin's play can lead to mechanical consequences, such as taking damage.

The invoker's play can lead to mechanical consequences, such as his familar taking damage.

I don't see how this is rocket science.



N'raac said:


> Taking damage requires the action mechanics be employed



Yes. It's called the skill challenge mechanic. The player could either have his PC let Vecna have the souls, or have his PC send them to the Raven Queen but take damage to his familiar. He took the latter option.



N'raac said:


> That is a mechanical impairment resulting due to his role playing.  So I perceive this as inconsistent with your stated reason for disliking mechanical alignment.



As far as I can tell, you are the only person posting in this thread who equates taking damage for angering an NPC with a permanent change to character class for making an immoral choice.

And that equation is what your imputation of inconsistency depends upon.

I certainly don't feel the force of the implied equation and hence don't feel the force of the impuation of inconsitency.



N'raac said:


> Just for clarity, that would be the phrase you cannot actually characterize or explain because you would violate board rules?



I actually defined "evaluatively meaningful decision" at some length upthread, I would guess around post 460 or so. I have not gone up and searched for it.

In one of the posts I quoted about half-a-dozen posts upthread, I also made the point that the metaphysics and epistemology of value and of evaluative judgement are very different from those of description and descriptive judgements. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has also made this point several times now.

Here are examples of expressive, evaluative judgement: a player forming a view about whether his/her PC, or some other NPC or occurence, is honourable, or beautiful, or just, or truthful.

Deciding that someone is angry is not an evaluative judgement. It is just description.



N'raac said:


> "Service to my masters" is not a value?



The word "service" is a subtle word. It can encompass a range of meanings, from "doing what someone wants" to "honouring someone" to "doing what is good for someone, even if they don't know it".

I don't see how it is in play in this particular case, though, because the invoker in question is not motivated by a desire to serve Vecna. As I have posted multiple times, the player did not think that by thwarting Vecna his PC was serving Vecna. He knew he was thwarting Vecna. That was his goal. There is some resemblance to the idea, discussed upthread, of a player deliberately playing his/her paladin to fall.



N'raac said:


> So, once we assume whatever they do is consistent with their code, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code.



Who is the "we" here? It's certainly not me. I don't assume that everything a paladin PC does is consistent with his/her code. I follow the lead of the player in that respect.

This goes back to the basic point that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] have made: at least some players, including those that (it seems) the three of us play with, are capable of playing PCs who honour a code without needing the GM to police that for them.

I thought you said upthread that you don't need to police your players either. Yet presumably you don't take the view that whatever they do would be compliant with their codes. So why would you suppose that others think differently?



N'raac said:


> I thought that whether he is right or wrong was a decision for him and him alone to make, and its results to be determined in play.  In fact, you initially dismissed the possibility of seeking guidance from the deity noting that 4e lacked a commune-type spell.  Now, you describe a scene designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics where the GM expresses the views of the Raven Queen directly and explicitly to the character
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But she could not have sent a more subtle sign earlier



You seem to have a great love of judging others' play while posting no examples of your own.

Anyway.

First, you are wrong about what I said upthread. I noted upthread that epic PCs come into contact with gods.

Second, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the scene is designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics. The scene comes about precisely by application of the action resolution mechanics: the PC died in combat, and hence his soul went to the Raven Queen.

Third, this is the fourth time a dead PC in my game has met with the Raven Queen and been tasked with something. The other occasions involved 2nd, 3rd and 15th level PCs. Here is a link to the last of those.

Fourth, if a player wants his PC to talk with his mistress - whom he is meeting, having died - about whether or not he should be more resolute, why would I not play through that scene? And how is this meant to resemble judging whether or not a player is playing his/her PC properly?



N'raac said:


> Leaving Roland out (on spec, not with any evidence), which of those characters demonstrated any form of supernatural powers?  We seem to be assuming each and every character who expresses some devotion to a higher ideal to be a Paladin.  What prevents them being a Fighter with a strong moral code, and nothing more?



OK, so here's a new move: all those literary and mythical figures who are the inspiration for the paladin class - the ones who can pull holy swords from stones, who heal with a touch, whose mere presence lends inspiration to the followers and companions, who are warded by the divine from evil magic - are not actually paladins.

Each to their own, I guess, but I play paladins and clerics because I am moved by those stories and the themes they embody, and want to emulate or explore them in some way.



N'raac said:


> So we should not pose hypothetical questions,  because the play is what is important.  And we cannot question scenes which have already been played, as that is not relevant.  What's left to discuss?



My objection to hypothetical questions is that - from you, from [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], from [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - they are intended as these knockdown refutations. As if the only way to stop these outrageous travesties of morals and of genre is to wield the hammer of mechanical alignment. Yet you deny you wield any such hammer.

So if you don't encounter those hypotheticals despite not wielding a hammer; and if I don't get them, which I know I don't; then why do you keep mentioning them? What do you think their purpose is?


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> we're just on the look out for repeated actions (you don't get punished for a single non-egregious action) of non-edge things (alignments are big tents; things that are bad enough that  they're obviously not fitting to a cursory view) and that even then we don't take control of the character or make them lose levels (like in the 1e and harsher 2e sense), they just lose access to their alignment requiring powers.



How often does this happen in play, in your experience?


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> I find shorthand alignment more useful for NPCs/monsters than for PCs - it is way of getting a quick handle on what an author intended as the cosmological motivation of some character - but I agree with you that it is harmless and at worst not very useful.
> 
> This is what 4e and B/X are like.
> 
> For me, the biggest issue with mechanical alignment is not the mechanical penalties - though I don't like that either - but the need to judge and track.




I'd agree with this. Personally I think one leads to the other.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> How often does this happen in play, in your experience?




I think, like many of you,  I've been blessed with an incredibly good group of RPers over the decades.   I don't remember ever needing them (or ever using any mental energy to monitor player behavior because nothing jumped up and screamed at me as wrong).      

This seems related to a broader-than-alignment-in-D&D question I've been mulling but haven't fully formed.  Something like "Who are rules written for in games?"  or "Should games include rules that could help shape the play of beginning players and give help to reign in the really bad ones... even if the long term better players will never need them?"   or  "Do we really need the rules to punish cheaters and encourage good RPing?"

Why do other types of games and sports have rules for punishing cheating if the good players we want to play with wouldn't do it?  Did Gygax need to include the things about dealing with disruptive players if we've never needed them?  Do RPGs really need a point buy system for ability scores (last 1e game and all the VtM games I've ever played the GM's trusted us to pick our scores and we didn't abuse them)?  Should an RPG be designed around roles and niche protection if an experienced group of players already knows that?  

Or more relevantly - should the game have a rule for cutting off the divinely given powers of a deity-worshiping divine-spellcaster if they really piss off their deity?    Where I'm at right now, this seems like something that belongs in the rules, and I want to say enforcing alignment itself doesn't (although having it there doesn't bother me personally).   But if one allows paladins and clerics that worship or get their powers from concepts like "goodness"... it seems to me like that should have a similar enforcement mechanism.  

I'm hoping for time to go back to your comments on my PF alignment revision and ask you a few questions for a bit more clarification, but I'm not sure I'll get that time before Tuesday to actually make sure I've got my mental ducks in a row and have checked all the other posts since then.  One of them seems like it should be related to the last sentence in the preceding paragraph.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> For me, the biggest issue with mechanical alignment is not the mechanical penalties - though I don't like that either - but the need to judge and track.




That is where I come from on this.  I don't want the mental overhead while I'm GMing.  I find it to be an unecessary distraction that pays no dividends while simultaneously not being thematically tight enough or focused enough (such as Beliefs, Distinctions, Aspects, Themes or a focused setting such as God's Watchdogs or What Will You Do For Power) to consistently assist me in hooking players and framing (relevant) scenes that drive play towards (relevant) conflict.  "Rulership is more woe than weal for the honorable, but they are the only ones who should have it...for the wicked ruler eats the flank of the fattened calf and throws the rest out while his subjects starve in misery" gives me specific, weighty material from which to animate conflicts that "puts the player in a spot" and drives play toward conflict they are interested in.  "Honor-bound, reliable, respects tradition and legitimate authority" isn't specific or weighty enough to cue me.

Beyond that, I certainly don't want the workload outside of gaming (my life is busy enough) for mediation conferences with players whose behavior I find may be aberrant with respect to their alignment (and they've either shifted or are heading that way).


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> "Who are rules written for in games?"  or "Should games include rules that could help shape the play of beginning players and give help to reign in the really bad ones... even if the long term better players will never need them?"   or  "Do we really need the rules to punish cheaters and encourage good RPing?"
> 
> Why do other types of games and sports have rules for punishing cheating if the good players we want to play with wouldn't do it?  Did Gygax need to include the things about dealing with disruptive players if we've never needed them?  Do RPGs really need a point buy system for ability scores (last 1e game and all the VtM games I've ever played the GM's trusted us to pick our scores and we didn't abuse them)?  Should an RPG be designed around roles and niche protection if an experienced group of players already knows that?



These are good questions.

I see rules for games, in general, as having several functions. I'm not sure I can itemise them all. But at least two I can think of are this:

* to create parameters for choice that will be mentally, and perhaps emotionally, stimulating/engaging;

* to manage conflicts of interest between and within participants.​
The first of these is obviously highly subject to taste. Just focusing on RPGs, engagement in a typical game of Tunnels & Trolls (wacky spell names, ultra-random PC generation, rolling buckets of dice in combat) is generated quite differently from BW, even though the latter can also involve handfuls of dice.

The second is, I think, more amenable to analysis and design, at least in terms of _identifying_ conflicts, although decisions about the best way to manage them will again be highly taste-dependent.

The most obvious conflict of interest in an RPG is that the typical player wants his/her PC to succeed in challenges, but the game is more interesting when the outcome is (i) unknown, and (ii) contains the potential of adversity. Hence the need for a GM. (Although what exactly a GM should be doing is different for different tastes/styles - contrast, say, Gygaxian "skilled play" with indie-style "scene framing" play.)

Points-buy for PCs is another example of managing conflicts of interest, though different games take different views on what is worth points (eg Burning Wheel makes disadvantages cost points, the underlying logic - as I see it - being that the increase these give to spotlight time for that PC's player is more salient than the burden it imposes on mechanical effectiveness).

Is playing a character who is not amoral or psychopathic - who follows some sort of code or adheres to moral requirements - a source of conflicts of interest? In Gygaxian play, I think the answer is "yes, it is", because skilled play depends in part upon a willingness to use any suitable tactic for victory (so-called "combat as war"), and having a code or moral commitments puts limits on this. Hence, in this sort of play I think it makes sense to have the GM police the players of such PCs to make sure that they stick to their codes. Arguably, such players also get a compensation in the form of a PC that is mechanically better (many see the paladin that way, though I personally have my doubts given the need to put a 17 in CHA and the higher XP costs). And whether or not you are a paladin, being Lawful and/or Good does give you other mechanical benefits, like access to healing magic from NPCs, better loyalty from hirelings and the like.

But I think in many, perhaps most, non-Gygaxian games there is no conflict of interest in playing a non-amoral, non-psychopathic character. (Indeed, in a lot of 2nd ed style play playing an amoral or psychopathic character is a good way to get hammered by the GM, not just through alignment rules but via 10th level town guards who lock you up in gaol etc.) Exactly how this relates to the "Hickman revolution" is probably a complex question, and I think there are non-Hickmanesque pathways (eg my own), but it is clearly connected to the idea that RPG play is in some important way linked to story and not just to self-aggrandisement. (Runequest is a pre-Hickman manifestation of this idea. Classic Traveller is interesting - should we see a world's Law Level as an alternative to alignment mechanics? But as one that can also underpin a change in the orientation of play from sheer self-aggrandisement to something involving world and story?)

At this point, it's not clear to me that alignment rules are needed to avoid _cheating_. (Though the history of the game shows they have come to be adapted for other purposes, most obviously being to serve a function for the GM in world-building and for the players in defining a personality to play to.)

Some of Gygax's broader advice about disruptive players I regard as completely misguided. Professional football needs rules for what happens (for instance) when one player punches another in the jaw, because it is a high (financial) stakes game where the standing temptation to lay out your opponents by way of physical violence is obvious. But when I was a kid playing football with my friends during school lunchtime, we didn't need a rule for that. Because no one was going to punch someone else out, and if they did the solution wasn't part of the game, but rather lay outside the game (eg calling a teacher, or perhaps punching them back).

Similarly, if you buy a Monopoly set or a chess set, it won't include in its rules what to do if someone steals money from the bank, or tips over the board in a fit of pique when they realise they are in a losing position. The rules take for granted that the participants are committed to the basic endeavour of playing rather than spoiling the game. Unlike in professional sports, the rules assume that playing the game is an end in itself, not just a means to some other (typically financial) end which then creates standing temptations to cheat.

I see RPGing the same way. The rules should be written on the assumption that the players of the game want to play the game as an end in itself. And the question with what to do with cheaters, or punchers, or board-tipper-overers is not itself part of the game rules. It's a social question that can be handled via social means.

If the game designers think there are bits of the game that are particularly _likely_ to lead even normal reasonable people to want to cheat, or punch, or tip over the board, then that is a further matter. Perhaps those parts of the game should be flagged as problematic, and alternatives given. Maybe they should be eliminated? That's not obviously the case - for instance, part of what makes the temptation to punch in Australian Rules football particularly strong is that the game permits a high degree of reasonably violent conflict, and so - unlike soccer, say - generates circumstances where physical violence is already taking place, and a punch may not be that much of an escalation. But that's not necessarily an argument to reduce the physically aggressive nature of the game, which is a good part of its attraction as a spectator sport.

Perhaps it is inherent in Gygaxian play that players will want to cheat rather than be thwarted and frustrated by the GM's clever tricks and puzzles. So perhaps part of what makes the game interesting is also what makes it prone to generate cheating. (Like looking at the back of a riddle book to get the answers to the riddles.) Maybe this is what Gygax had in mind in at least some of his advice on how to handle disruptive players. (Though I still think "ethereal mummies" are just a hopeless technique - has any one (Gygax or other) ever used them in a way that worked?)

But as RPGing becomes (on the whole) less Gygaxian, do we still need such advice? At least it might be better if it was more closely connected to those features of play that make it necessary.

There is a whole other dimension of "disruptive play" which I don't necessarily think Gygax had in mind, but came to the fore in the 2nd-ed era, which is associated with players who want to jump the GM's rails or "disrupt the plot". But I don't think mechanical alignment is a very suitable way for controlling those players. (Though my sympathy for this whole playstyle is not really strong enough to make me suited for analysing its techniques with any sophistication.)


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> OK, so here's a new move: all those literary and mythical figures who are the inspiration for the paladin class - the ones who can pull holy swords from stones, who heal with a touch, whose mere presence lends inspiration to the followers and companions, who are warded by the divine from evil magic - are not actually paladins.




It's also totally immaterial. D&D took its inspirations and defined the paladin.



pemerton said:


> Each to their own, I guess, but I play paladins and clerics because I am moved by those stories and the themes they embody, and want to emulate or explore them in some way.




Oddly enough, so do those do us who use alignment mechanics too.



pemerton said:


> My objection to hypothetical questions is that - from you, from [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], from [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - they are intended as these knockdown refutations. As if the only way to stop these outrageous travesties of morals and of genre is to wield the hammer of mechanical alignment. Yet you deny you wield any such hammer.
> 
> So if you don't encounter those hypotheticals despite not wielding a hammer; and if I don't get them, which I know I don't; then why do you keep mentioning them? What do you think their purpose is?




They kept coming up, as I saw them, because you kept dropping hints that you were judging a PC's actions based on whether or not they were crossing Vecna and imposing a consequence. And frankly the difference between doing that and judging an action based on alignment doesn't exist. It's a player crossing some line and the GM adjudicating the consequences.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> It's also totally immaterial. D&D took its inspirations and defined the paladin.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, so do those do us who use alignment mechanics too.



Who are you speaking for? [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] has just posted implying that when he wants to play a character inspired by Aragorn, or Arthur, he plays a fighter.



billd91 said:


> you were judging a PC's actions based on whether or not they were crossing Vecna and imposing a consequence. And frankly the difference between doing that and judging an action based on alignment doesn't exist. It's a player crossing some line and the GM adjudicating the consequences.



You assert this as if it were self-evident. And you don't even engage with the N-thousand words I have posted explaining my opinion on this point - including in the very post that you were replying to.

In my view, judging that a PC has upset Venca by thwarting him is not the same as judging that a PC's action is good or evil. I have explained why in some detail that I won't both to repeat, given you seem uninterested in it - except to reiterate that only one involves evaluative judgement, in the sense of judgement that pertains to matters of value or morality.

You can repeat until the cows come home that you don't care about that difference, or even that you can't see it, but that won't change my mind that the difference is real, and that therefore I find that mechanical alignment detracts from my play experience. (And just in case anyone thinks that I'm out on my own in thinking that the difference is real, I refer them to the bulk of twentieth century English-language writing on moral philosophy, plus a good chunk of the French and German writing also. For those who are interested in seeing the difference at work in a literary context, the existentialist authors are the most obvious to go to. My personal favourite is the Catholic existentialism of Graham Greene.)


----------



## pemerton

Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values.

I think we all know the real world examples, so I don't need to go there.

In default 4e, I think the good and unaligned gods fit this description: Kord exemplifies and upholds prowess, courage, and also arguably honour. Corellon upholds beauty. Erathis upholds civilisation. And so on. Whereas for the evil gods this is more doubtful: secrecy is sometimes a value, for instance - see the current debates in some countries around the release of state secrets - but Vecna is not an exemplar of the value of secrecy. He is corrupted, and treats secrecy primarily as a means to his own power.

(No doubt individual groups and players might depart from these defaults. Perhaps a group regards Vecna as genuinely exemplifying the value of secrecy. In that case, the idea that Vecna is "evil" would probably do no work for that group's interpretation and application of the 4e cosmology in their game. Nothing wrong with that.)

Anyway, to continue: sometimes, probably typically, when a player plays a paladin or cleric of a god who upholds/exemplifies a value, the player  thereby aspires in the play of his/her PC to have the Pc uphold/exemplify the value. This player's play, in virtue of this aspiration, expresses an evaluative response by the player to the situations that arise in play. *My principle objection to mechanical alignment is that it obliges the GM to form judgements about the adequacy of these expressive and evaluative responses.* And that is something I don't want to do, for much the same reasons that, in Pictionary, I wouldn't want a referee to vet the pictures players draw before they can be shown to the rest of the participants. It follows from this aversion on my part that I would not play the god as judging the character adversely, either - moving the terrain of judgement from metagame to ingame doesn't change the nature of the judgement, given that all participants understand that the god is an exemplar and upholder of the value at stake.

For instance, if I played Kord telling a PC worshipper of Kord that he was a coward, in circumstances in which the player of that PC regards his PC's conduct as brave, I am telling that player that s/he is wrong about what bravery requires: because it is an undisputed premise between us that Kord is an exemplar of bravery, and therefore knows it when he sees it, and similarly for cowardice. And this is what I don't want to do.

If a player him-/herself is expressing doubts (whether in or out of character) about whether or not his/her PC is adequately answering to the demands of the value that his/her god exemplifies, then I have no reason not to engage with that player, perhaps by playing the god in question. *This will not require adjudicating the player's expressive and evaluative responses* - in fact it takes as its starting point the _player's_ own response to his/her earlier responses. Furthermore, doing this is likely to provoke more expressive/evaluative responses from the player, which - given that this is an important element of play for me - is a good and not a bad thing.

If a player, in character, has expressed the view that a god s/he serves upholds or exemplifies a certain value in a corrupt way, then playing that god as upset with the PC does not involve telling the player that s/he has a flawed conception of the value in question. In fact, it affirms his/her conception that the god is corrupted, and hence can't recognise the truth about the value when confronted by it (by way of the PC's conduct).

For instance, if a servant of Vecna releases some information, or keeps it secret _from Vecna_, because s/he believes that that is what true attention to the value of secrecy requires, it is not questioning or adjudicating his/her expressive/evaluative judgement to have Vecna be angry. It is affirming that judgement, as well as - in this case - the underlying judgement that Vecna's understanding of the value of secrecy is corrupted.

A fortiori, the previous case generalises to those cases in which *the player of the character in question declares an action for the PC that s/he does not perceive as serving the value in question at all, or that s/he intends to thwart that being.* Indeed, this applies even when the god in question is not perceived as corrupted.

For instance, if a player of a paladin of Kord has his/her PC run away, and makes it clear that in doing so s/he is being a coward, it is not questioning his/her expressive/evaluative judgement to have Kord be angry. It is affirming that judgement!

There are further questions about how, within the framework of the game's action resolution mechanics, anger might be manifested. 4e has its own norms in this respect, set out in its combat chapters, it skill and skill challenge chapters, and p 42 of its DMG. These mechanics have shown themselves, to me at least, to be very robust over 5 years and 25 levels of play; they also have a reasonably sophisticated interaction with the PC build rules. If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about how they differ from imposing permanent XP drain or class change, I'm happy to do that.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values. ... In default 4e, I think the good and unaligned gods fit this description: Kord exemplifies and upholds prowess, courage, and also arguably honour.
> 
> For instance, if I played Kord telling a PC worshipper of Kord that he was a coward, in circumstances in which the player of that PC regards his PC's conduct as brave, I am telling that player that s/he is wrong about what bravery requires: because it is an undisputed premise between us that Kord is an exemplar of bravery, and therefore knows it when he sees it, and similarly for cowardice. And this is what I don't want to do.




Based on previous posts, I thought you would have had Kord judge the character based on what Kord considered brave.   (Similar to having some good/lawful/chaotic/evil god judge the character based on that gods particular flavor of good/lawful/chaotic/evil that probably disagrees with the flavors other gods would use so that the characters were free to disagree with that flavor.)  But I hadn't pictured you making the gods infallible exemplars of things like bravery...



pemerton said:


> For instance, if a player of a paladin of Kord has his/her PC run away, and makes it clear that in doing so s/he is being a coward, it is not questioning his/her expressive/evaluative judgement to have Kord be angry. It is affirming that judgement!




And if he/she regularly bravely runs away with coconut-clattering minstrel in tow and makes it clear they think that running away has nothing to do with bravery...  

Can any NPCs in the game even rationally question Sir Robin about it?  The NPCs obviously can't appeal to Kord to find out with a commune spell because you wouldn't have Kord condemn the paladin. Couldn't the PC even do a commune to prove to the NPCs that Kord (who defines bravery) doesn't condemn the action?   Does having exemplars who won't contradict a PC's player allow a really bad paladin player to redefine basic words?

And so if your group ever had a player join who did that, the solution is that either the reactions of the other PCs indicate that the player has lost their marbles and hopefully cajoles them into rethinking it, or the group just doesn't invite that player back?   If they weren't invited back would the group be allowed to retroactively undo the universal equating of bravery with running away?


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Based on previous posts, I thought you would have had Kord judge the character based on what Kord considered brave.



Well, there's no difference, is there, because Kord considers the brave brave, and the cowardly cowards. But what is the order of explanation? That is the Euthyphro point: that Kord admires the brave _because_ they are brave; it's not that we call them brave because Kord admires them.

This is also why I don't regard a paladin as comparable to a warlock. S/he hasn't entered into a pact, to please a god in return for power. S/he has pledged herself to upholding a value that is worth upholding, in the name of the god who exemplifies/upholds that value.



Cadence said:


> But I hadn't pictured you making the gods infallible exemplars of things like bravery



It's highly bound up with the actual course of play. That was part of the point of my parenthetical comment about Vecna - if a player wants to play Kord as more of a well-meaning oaf, and therefore his/her paladin of Kord is closer in relationship to the invoker of Vecna in my game, that's good though in my experience a little atypical. But my experience is that typically the player of a paladin wants to play his/her PC as an exemplar/upholder in service to an exemplar/upholder. That's why, for me, it makes no difference whether the alignment judgement happens at the metagame level ("Look where you've drifted on the alignment graph") or the ingame level ("Kord sends you a portentious dream") - either way it's judging the player's expression/evaluation, in play, in relation to the value in question, as inadequate. Which is the thing I don't want to do, for the reasons I've explained upthread.



Cadence said:


> And if he/she regularly bravely runs away with coconut-clattering minstrel in tow and makes it clear they think that running away has nothing to do with bravery...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And so if your group ever had a player join who did that, the solution is that either the reactions of the other PCs indicate that the player has lost their marbles and hopefully cajoles them into rethinking it, or the group just doesn't invite that player back?   If they weren't invited back would the group be allowed to retroactively undo the universal equating of bravery with running away?



This is another hypothetical.

Is there anyone who has watched the Holy Grail but doesn't understand it is a comedy? I've not met such a person - perhaps they exist, and perhaps a certain sort of RPGer is more likely to be among them? I don't know.

What do you do when you're playing a serious game, and someone brings in the PC "Fourwar": the Warforged Hybrid Warlord/Warden multi-class Warlock?

What do you do when you're playing a fairly standard game, that skirts around the edges of humanoid genocide, slavery and the like, and then you discover in the course of that that you have a player who thinks the 13th Amendment was a fraud, or who is a Holocaust denier?

Are these the sorts of issues, that of course can arise in any collective creative endeavour, that people are using mechanical alignment to resolve? If so, I'm certainly happy to learn how it works.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> This is also why I don't regard a paladin as comparable to a warlock. S/he hasn't entered into a pact, to please a god in return for power. S/he has pledged herself to upholding a value that is worth upholding, in the name of the god who exemplifies/upholds that value.




That's been my experience too.



pemerton said:


> What do you do when you're playing a fairly standard game, that skirts around the edges of humanoid genocide, slavery and the like, and then you discover in the course of that that you have a player who thinks the 13th Amendment was a fraud, or who is a Holocaust denier?
> 
> Are these the sorts of issues, that of course can arise in any collective creative endeavour, that people are using mechanical alignment to resolve? If so, I'm certainly happy to learn how it works.




Fair enough (and tying back into what the rules of a game should cover versus what the general social contract for all activities is designed to deal with).  You are correct that I certainly wouldn't need alignment rules to deal with them appropriately.

Thanks for the food for thought.


----------



## Cadence

My brain is attempting to stop me from getting work done, and now I'm wondering if there are cases where having enforceable alignment rules have benefits in organized play/tournaments even if they don't in our regular games.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I'm wondering if there are cases where having enforceable alignment rules have benefits in organized play/tournaments even if they don't in our regular games.



Perhaps. I don't know enough about contemporary organised play. In a classic tournament, alignment probably can do some useful things, but I suspect to do that it has to be used as a straitjacket. (By way of analogy, the Burning Wheel demo game "The Sword" uses PCs with pre-authored Beliefs, deliberately written so as to drive the PCs into the conflict with one another that the scenario depends upon.)



Cadence said:


> Fair enough (and tying back into what the rules of a game should cover versus what the general social contract for all activities is designed to deal with).



Saying a bit more in response to my own rhetorical questions, I could probably handle Fourwar even in a reasonably serious game; it seems about on a par with the background for the dwarf fighter/cleric in my game. The player of that PC, when asked to nominate a loyalty for his starting PC, and a reason to be ready to fight goblins, provided the following story: in the mountain dwarfholds every young dwarf serves in the military, and cannot graduate to independent adulthood until s/he has killed his/her first goblin. But for this particular dwarf, every time the goblins raided he was away from the frontline doing something else (delivering a message, peeling potatoes, or whatever - in later tabletalk this has been elaborated/distorted by other players into being on latrine duty). So as his peers, and those younger than him, passed through the ranks of the dwarven hosts, he continued to serve, more and more ignomiously. Until one day, with the aid of his mother, he deserted his post and set out on his own to find goblins to fight. (And then met up with some other like-minded ne'er-do-wells in a tavern  . . .)

That backstory played little role other than providing a basis for some gentle mockery until 11th level, when the PC in question met up with some of the dwarves from his hold who had taunted him. They were a scouting party, who had travelled a long way from the dwarfhold in pursuit of some hobgoblins, and then had been badly hurt in an ambush from those same hobgoblins, reinforced by the hobgoblin army the PCs were tracking down. An angel of Moradin came to the injured dwarves, and told them that if they headed south for a day or so into the foothills, they would come upon a ruined manor house where they would find a cleric of Moradin to aid them. A few who could still walk duly did so, and came upon the PCs, including the dwarven fighter/cleric - whom the NPCs addressed, asking where the cleric of Moradin was that the angel had prophesied. When the dwarf PC answered that he was it, they laughed and mocked and asked where the cleric really was. It wasn't until the PC knocked them all on their arses with his polearm (mechanically, a fairly simple check in a skill challenge) that they believed him that _he_ was the cleric to whom the angel had referred.

The PCs then went with the dwarves back to their injured comrades, did what healing they could, and led them to safety - although some more died tragically in another hobgoblin attack, fighting under the dwarven PCs' command, a couple survived and one of them, Gutboy Barrelhouse, remains that PC's herald. I've set this out in a bit of detail just to illustrate how something that is humorous, at least initially, can be incorporated into play even in a fairly serious game and actually contribute to, rather than detract from, the tone of play.

I could imagine Fourwar playing out in some similar way. Sir Robin I find harder, but who's to say what can and can't be done? This is why my response to these hypotheticals tends to be that they are meaningless without some actual play context that reveals (for instance) why a reasonable player has sincerely offered the view that running away exemplifies bravery rather than cowardice.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac, I found this on another thread:



N'raac said:


> So what are we really saying here?  That a good player, who builds a PC to concept, should get a result which means his character is largely ineffectual when compared to a character optimized for pure mechanical effectiveness?  To me, the system should reward concept building, not min/maxing.  If flavourful, interesting concepts are sidekicks at best, then I think the designers have failed.



Given this, I don't really understand why you find it objectionable that (for instance) a typical paladin build should be mechanically more effective when played honourably rather than dishonourably.


----------



## Manbearcat

Speaking of another thread, I mentioned this topic earlier.  In that thread folks are debating whether a Paladin should lose his powers if he believes he is supporting a noble cause but is actually being duped into perpetuating evil.  We've seen many times in this thread that people have stated that it is poor GMing to have a Paladin fall when his actions are not clearly and transparently good or evil, law or chaos.  That has been asserted pretty adamantly, as if it is self-evident and my contention that this interpretation isn't a uniform is (at least mildly) off the reservation.  Nonetheless, in that thread you have good, thoughtful people, with well-considered opinions and a vast swath of GMing experience, differing on "if he committed evil (knowingly or not), he loses his powers until he redeems himself."

It stands to reason, extended from the logic supporting that position, that an obtuse Paladin, who perpetuates evil or chaos unknowingly due to unforeseen consequence of his actions (which I've contended that people absolutely maintain this position...and they obviously do given that thread), would also have an alignment shift imposed upon him, thus losing his powers until he redeems himself.  As such, I say again, I don't think the interpretation of "morality is judged solely by intent rather than consequences" (and thus a Paladin falling due to unforeseen, unintended consequences) is as orthodox as has been implied in this thread.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values.






pemerton said:


> I think we all know the real world examples, so I don't need to go there.
> 
> In default 4e, I think the good and unaligned gods fit this description: Kord exemplifies and upholds prowess, courage, and also arguably honour. Corellon upholds beauty. Erathis upholds civilisation. And so on. Whereas for the evil gods this is more doubtful: secrecy is sometimes a value, for instance - see the current debates in some countries around the release of state secrets - but Vecna is not an exemplar of the value of secrecy. He is corrupted, and treats secrecy primarily as a means to his own power.
> 
> (No doubt individual groups and players might depart from these defaults. Perhaps a group regards Vecna as genuinely exemplifying the value of secrecy. In that case, the idea that Vecna is "evil" would probably do no work for that group's interpretation and application of the 4e cosmology in their game. Nothing wrong with that.)





Is this a 4e thing or your interpretation of the gods in D&D? And if it is a 4e thing, where exactly is this infallibility stated? I'm asking because everything, including D&D fiction (as in the novels), points towards gods in the default D&D world as fallible beings... some are even mortals who were just granted the power of a god (how can they not be fallible then??) even in their own spheres. So uness 4e does things differently which I don't think it does... your view isn't necessarily the actual "default"... just your assumption. 




pemerton said:


> Anyway, to continue: sometimes, probably typically, when a player plays a paladin or cleric of a god who upholds/exemplifies a value, the player thereby aspires in the play of his/her PC to have the Pc uphold/exemplify the value. This player's play, in virtue of this aspiration, expresses an evaluative response by the player to the situations that arise in play.






pemerton said:


> *My principle objection to mechanical alignment is that it obliges the GM to form judgements about the adequacy of these expressive and evaluative responses.* And that is something I don't want to do, for much the same reasons that, in Pictionary, I wouldn't want a referee to vet the pictures players draw before they can be shown to the rest of the participants. It follows from this aversion on my part that I would not play the god as judging the character adversely, either - moving the terrain of judgement from metagame to ingame doesn't change the nature of the judgement, given that all participants understand that the god is an exemplar and upholder of the value at stake.





Again being an exemplar or upholder of a value does not in turn lead to infallibility in said area. I can be an exemplar athlete and still not be perfect in every sport at every moment in every situation... In other words nothing in the definition of exemplar excludes fallibility. 




pemerton said:


> For instance, if I played Kord telling a PC worshipper of Kord that he was a coward, in circumstances in which the player of that PC regards his PC's conduct as brave, I am telling that player that s/he is wrong about what bravery requires: because it is an undisputed premise between us that Kord is an exemplar of bravery, and therefore knows it when he sees it, and similarly for cowardice. And this is what I don't want to do.




Again where is this assumption coming from? Since D&D canon has established that mortals can in fact, given the right circumstances, kill and even become gods, how do we assume that the gods are infallible? Kord can be mistaken about bravery (though being an exemplar would probably mean it would happen rarely) because he is a certain representation of bravery... not bravery in and of itself





pemerton said:


> If a player, in character, has expressed the view that a god s/he serves upholds or exemplifies a certain value in a corrupt way, then playing that god as upset with the PC does not involve telling the player that s/he has a flawed conception of the value in question. In fact, it affirms his/her conception that the god is corrupted, and hence can't recognise the truth about the value when confronted by it (by way of the PC's conduct).




But... you just said the gods are infallible... so why wouldn't a gods view it's followers actions as wrong if they do not align with it's own... and if it is fallible then it is in fact judging what it believes to be that ideal and how best to uphold/exemplify it.




pemerton said:


> For instance, if a servant of Vecna releases some information, or keeps it secret






pemerton said:


> _from Vecna_, because s/he believes that that is what true attention to the value of secrecy requires, it is not questioning or adjudicating his/her expressive/evaluative judgement to have Vecna be angry. It is affirming that judgement, as well as - in this case - the underlying judgement that Vecna's understanding of the value of secrecy is corrupted.





Why would Vecna be "angry" if his worshiper is exemplifying his ideal(s) and thus spreading his power in the world? Or is this a result of your belief that evil gods are corrupted and can be wrong but good gods are infallible... which still doesn't make sense in the way you described play above or from the descriptions in the 4e corebooks. 




pemerton said:


> A fortiori, the previous case generalises to those cases in which






pemerton said:


> *the player of the character in question declares an action for the PC that s/he does not perceive as serving the value in question at all, or that s/he intends to thwart that being.* Indeed, this applies even when the god in question is not perceived as corrupted.
> 
> For instance, if a player of a paladin of Kord has his/her PC run away, and makes it clear that in doing so s/he is being a coward, it is not questioning his/her expressive/evaluative judgement to have Kord be angry. It is affirming that judgement!





But if the player then argued discretion is the better part of valor... Would Kord still be "angry" and if so, why? Is it because he is corrupted and the player can in fact define bravery however she wants? Is it because this concept of bravery does not align with Kord's? Or does Kord just agree and ignore it?




pemerton said:


> There are further questions about how, within the framework of the game's action resolution mechanics, anger might be manifested. 4e has its own norms in this respect, set out in its combat chapters, it skill and skill challenge chapters, and p 42 of its DMG. These mechanics have shown themselves, to me at least, to be very robust over 5 years and 25 levels of play; they also have a reasonably sophisticated interaction with the PC build rules. If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about how they differ from imposing permanent XP drain or class change, I'm happy to do that.




Yet you used DM fiat to manifest Vecna's anger against the Invoker... not th actual resolution mechanics. Was the familiar in active or passive mode? I assumed passive since the player didn't declare it was doing anything in your example. If it was in passive mode how was it hurt for the necessary 1 hp? And are their rules for Vecna exerting control over the magic item? In fact in looking at the magic item I don't see it able to perform any type of magic (as described in your example) on Vecna's behalf.

EDITED: Because I hit the submit button early.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Is this a 4e thing or your interpretation of the gods in D&D?  And if it is a 4e thing, where exactly is this infallibility stated?  I'm asking because everything, including D&D fiction (as in the novels), points towards gods in the default D&D world as fallible beings
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again being an exemplar or upholder of a value does not in turn lead to infallibility in said area.



Imaro, no one is stopping you playing the gods in your game as you like.

I'm simply pointing out some features of the way I run my campaign. I've been accused by you and other posters of inconsistency. I'm pointing out why and how I'm not inconsistent.

It is irrelevant, to the question of whether or not I'm inconsistent, that I don't run the gods like you do. I run them as seems obvious to me (and I am 100% sure that I am not the only GM who takes the view that many gods, especially "good" gods, are not capable of error within their own domain), and fits with the way my players play divine PCs - including the difference between treating a god as an exemplar, and treating a god as flawed or corrupted, in their realisation of a particular value.



Manbearcat said:


> Speaking of another thread



Yes, I noticed that thread too. A lot of posters on that thread must be bad GMs who have mistaken alignment for a straitjacket, because they seem ready to run alignment in much the way that I myself have interpreted the rulebooks as implying!

The fact that thread exists strikes me as a good argument for not using mechanical alignment! Or, at least, for me it confirms my reasons stated upthread - because alignment and its technical minutiae have become the focus, rather than the dramatic significance of the events that are actually taking place in the game.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Imaro, no one is stopping you playing the gods in your game as you like.




You made a statement about a "default" didn't you?  It's not about how I play the gods, it's about what the default gods are or aren't in the game.



pemerton said:


> I'm simply pointing out some features of the way I run my campaign. I've been accused by you and other posters of inconsistency. I'm pointing out why and how I'm not inconsistent.




I still feel you are in more than one way.  Please read the edited thread I re-submitted it goes into this further.



pemerton said:


> It is irrelevant, to the question of whether or not I'm inconsistent, that I don't run the gods like you do. I run them as seems obvious to me (and I am 100% sure that I am not the only GM who takes the view that many gods, especially "good" gods, are not capable of error within their own domain), and fits with the way my players play divine PCs - including the difference between treating a god as an exemplar, and treating a god as flawed or corrupted, in their realisation of a particular value.




The core books say the gods are fallible and that they can even have worshipers who approach their ideals and domains in different fashions.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Yes, I noticed that thread too. A lot of posters on that thread must be bad GMs who have mistaken alignment for a straitjacket, because they seem ready to run alignment in much the way that I myself have interpreted the rulebooks as implying!
> 
> The fact that thread exists strikes me as a good argument for not using mechanical alignment! Or, at least, for me it confirms my reasons stated upthread - because alignment and its technical minutiae have become the focus, rather than the dramatic significance of the events that are actually taking place in the game.




Or maybe it's just a reading comprehension fail, it seems pretty clear cut by the rules to me (and nmost everyone else in the thread)...

[h=4]Ex-Paladins[/h]A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, *who willfully commits an evil act,* or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Are we still stuck on this point?
> 
> The paladin's play can lead to mechanical consequences, such as taking damage.
> 
> The invoker's play can lead to mechanical consequences, such as his familar taking damage.
> 
> I don't see how this is rocket science.
> 
> Yes. It's called the skill challenge mechanic. The player could either have his PC let Vecna have the souls, or have his PC send them to the Raven Queen but take damage to his familiar. He took the latter option.




To the initial question, who is "we"?  I don't think billd91, Imaro or I are stuck on this point.  It seems like some are, though.

The Paladin’s play may lead to him engaging in combat, wherein a d20 is rolled, an attack bonus added, it exceeds his AC and hp damage is rolled.  What mechanic was engaged against the Invoker?  The sense I got from your writeup is that you decided, since the choice was made to redirect the souls, Vecna punished the invoker.  Not that the player rolled, and his roll determined that his familiar took damage, but he still succeeded in redirecting the souls.  Not that he failed by 1 and invoked a power that said “add a +2 bonus to a roll at the cost of your familiar taking 1 point of damage; this can be done after the results of the roll are determined”.  That the GM said “because you redirected the souls, Vecna is angered and injures your familiar” with no use of the action resolution mechanics.



pemerton said:


> As far as I can tell, you are the only person posting in this thread who equates taking damage for angering an NPC with a permanent change to character class for making an immoral choice.




Let me help you out with that:



billd91 said:


> They kept coming up, as I saw them, because you kept dropping hints that you were judging a PC's actions based on whether or not they were crossing Vecna and imposing a consequence. And frankly the difference between doing that and judging an action based on alignment doesn't exist. It's a player crossing some line and the GM adjudicating the consequences.






Imaro said:


> Yet you used DM fiat to manifest Vecna's anger against the Invoker... not th actual resolution mechanics. Was the familiar in active or passive mode? I assumed passive since the player didn't declare it was doing anything in your example. If it was in passive mode how was it hurt for the necessary 1 hp? And are their rules for Vecna exerting control over the magic item? In fact in looking at the magic item I don't see it able to perform any type of magic (as described in your example) on Vecna's behalf.




I do not believe I am the only one who perceives an inconsistency.  That is, that you previously asserted, as a matter of principal, the player’s role playing should not lead to an impediment to the ability to impact on the shared fiction without the usual action resolution mechanics.  Yet here, you have removed one of the character’s abilities which impact the shared fiction.

No one is arguing this is equal in impact to removal of the Paladin’s powers.  It is a much more minor reduction to the player’s ability to impact the shared fiction.  But it is nevertheless such a reduction, contrary to your stated principal.



pemerton said:


> Who is the "we" here? It's certainly not me. I don't assume that everything a paladin PC does is consistent with his/her code. I follow the lead of the player in that respect.




OK, my terminology was imprecise.  I will rephrase:  So, once sole responsibility for assessing consistency with the code is assigned to the player, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code.  Just ask the player.  Whatever the character does is in perfect compliance, absent the player’s decision that it is not. 



pemerton said:


> You seem to have a great love of judging others' play while posting no examples of your own.




You seem to expect that all will agree that your play examples are above reproach, and expect them to be viewed as the lofty heights to which we should all strive.  You posted an example of play and I noted a perceived inconsistency with what you did in play and what you said in your earlier posts.  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] seem to have perceived the same inconsistency, from their posts, and I think others may have as well, but I’m not rooting back to find them.



pemerton said:


> Second, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the scene is designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics. The scene comes about precisely by application of the action resolution mechanics: the PC died in combat, and hence his soul went to the Raven Queen.




Can you cite a page reference that indicates the activities which are undertaken by a dead character?  To the extent this is how you run your game, and not how the game rules provide for action resolution on the part of dead characters, then it is outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics.  Was there a roll to determine whether the PC was, or was not, perceived by RQ as acting consistent with her wishes?  If the player is the sole arbiter of his code, how is it that you, through the RQ, assessed his compliance with it?  Or is the player the sole arbiter only if he chooses to be, and can delegate that right and responsibility to the GM, in whole or in part, at his sole discretion.



pemerton said:


> Third, this is the fourth time a dead PC in my game has met with the Raven Queen and been tasked with something. The other occasions involved 2nd, 3rd and 15th level PCs. Here is a link to the last of those.




The fact that this is a single unique occurrence or a routine feature of your game has no relevance in assessing whether it is, or is not, is outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics.



pemerton said:


> Fourth, if a player wants his PC to talk with his mistress - whom he is meeting, having died - about whether or not he should be more resolute, why would I not play through that scene? And how is this meant to resemble judging whether or not a player is playing his/her PC properly?




There is no necessary correlation between a player “playing his character properly”, “playing his character in accordance with the wishes of his deity” and “playing his character in accordance with his alignment”.  The character can be well role played, and be inconsistent with, or even in violation of , his alignment.  A well role played Paladin could fall, and a poorly role played one act in lockstep with his alignment.  Or a poorly role played Paladin could fall, and a well role played one could be an exemplar of LG ideals.  “Alignment” is not the sole aspect of role playing.  It is not even close.  This misconception also seems common to detractors of alignment.



pemerton said:


> OK, so here's a new move: all those literary and mythical figures who are the inspiration for the paladin class - the ones who can pull holy swords from stones, who heal with a touch, whose mere presence lends inspiration to the followers and companions, who are warded by the divine from evil magic - are not actually paladins.




When did Arthur or Aragorn heal with a touch, or show evidence of being warded by the divine from evil magic?  BTW, how did the Ranger of the North become one of your top choices for the inspiration for the Paladin class?  I seem to dimly recall there might be another class which he inspired, but the name escapes me.  Was it Northerner?  Was it OfThe?  It’s right on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t seem to place it…



pemerton said:


> Each to their own, I guess, but I play paladins and clerics because I am moved by those stories and the themes they embody, and want to emulate or explore them in some way.




This depends largely on which themes we wish to explore.  Can Lancelot’s player declare that adultery is a virtue, and thus it is so?



pemerton said:


> Who are you speaking for? @_*N'raac*_ has just posted implying that when he wants to play a character inspired by Aragorn, or Arthur, he plays a fighter.




Depending on which aspects of the character I am inspired by, I might select a fighter, a paladin [likely not a barbarian or a spellcaster – hey, don’t Paladins cast spells?] or some other martial class – maybe a Ranger.  Anyone know of any fictional characters that might have inspired the Ranger?  D&D was influenced a lot by Tolkein – any chance there was someone in Middle Earth that somehow was connected to a class like a Ranger?



pemerton said:


> You assert this as if it were self-evident. And you don't even engage with the N-thousand words I have posted explaining my opinion on this point - including in the very post that you were replying to.




 [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] is not the only one who believes it is pretty clear that



> you were judging a PC's actions based on whether or not they were crossing Vecna and imposing a consequence. And frankly the difference between doing that and judging an action based on alignment doesn't exist. It's a player crossing some line and the GM adjudicating the consequences.




How many times you express a contrary view is unlikely to change our interpretation – no more likely than these repetitions are to change yours.  



pemerton said:


> In my view, judging that a PC has upset Venca by thwarting him is not the same as judging that a PC's action is good or evil. I have explained why in some detail that I won't both to repeat, given you seem uninterested in it - except to reiterate that only one involves evaluative judgement, in the sense of judgement that pertains to matters of value or morality.




Well and good.  Both involve imposing consequences on the player’s ability to impact the fiction based on the moral judgements his character makes, regardless of whether the judgment in question is whether the actions were ”good or evil”, or were “pleasing to Vecna”.  I am not discussing what you are evaluating, but that the consequences of your evaluation were a denial of the player’s resources to impact the shared fiction.  That was why you indicated denying the Paladin’s powers due to failure to comply with his alignment was inappropriate.

Frankly, we have long moved past “alignments” to “mechanics that deny a character his abilities”, largely due to the insistence on focusing pretty much entirely on Paladin’s mechanics (linked to alignment), and not on alignment in general.



pemerton said:


> You can repeat until the cows come home that you don't care about that difference, or even that you can't see it, but that won't change my mind that the difference is real, and that therefore I find that mechanical alignment detracts from my play experience. (And just in case anyone thinks that I'm out on my own in thinking that the difference is real, I refer them to the bulk of twentieth century English-language writing on moral philosophy, plus a good chunk of the French and German writing also. For those who are interested in seeing the difference at work in a literary context, the existentialist authors are the most obvious to go to. My personal favourite is the Catholic existentialism of Graham Greene.)




I find that real world ethical philosophy has about as much place in a fantasy RPG as real-world legal principals applied to RPG adventuring contracts, real world appellate court procedures being applied to address disputes on GM calls or real world historical feudalism being imposed on the player characters.  Which is to say, virtually none.



pemerton said:


> Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values.
> 
> I think we all know the real world examples, so I don't need to go there.




They also have no place in the game, precisely for the reasons we don’t want to go into here.



pemerton said:


> In default 4e, I think the good and unaligned gods fit this description: Kord exemplifies and upholds prowess, courage, and also arguably honour. Corellon upholds beauty. Erathis upholds civilisation. And so on. Whereas for the evil gods this is more doubtful: secrecy is sometimes a value, for instance - see the current debates in some countries around the release of state secrets - but Vecna is not an exemplar of the value of secrecy. He is corrupted, and treats secrecy primarily as a means to his own power.




So only evil gods are not perfect exemplars?  Why?



pemerton said:


> Anyway, to continue: sometimes, probably typically, when a player plays a paladin or cleric of a god who upholds/exemplifies a value, the player  thereby aspires in the play of his/her PC to have the Pc uphold/exemplify the value. This player's play, in virtue of this aspiration, expresses an evaluative response by the player to the situations that arise in play. *My principle objection to mechanical alignment is that it obliges the GM to form judgements about the adequacy of these expressive and evaluative responses.* And that is something I don't want to do, for much the same reasons that, in Pictionary, I wouldn't want a referee to vet the pictures players draw before they can be shown to the rest of the participants.




I find that a poor comparable.  A more valid comparable would be prohibiting the player announcing an action until it has been approved by the GM – that is, the player cannot actually play the game unless his desired play is first approved by the GM.  In Pictionary, the player’s drawing is judged – if it is well done, the players guess the right answer.  If not, “THAT was supposed to be a horse” is a common result.  Pictionary lacks a third party judge, where RPG’s require a GM to evaluate success.

The GM is not, once again, evaluating the player, or character’s response.  He is assessing its result within the larger context of the game world.



pemerton said:


> It follows from this aversion on my part that I would not play the god as judging the character adversely, either - moving the terrain of judgement from metagame to ingame doesn't change the nature of the judgement, given that all participants understand that the god is an exemplar and upholder of the value at stake.




So Vecna judges, but Kord does not.



pemerton said:


> For instance, if I played Kord telling a PC worshipper of Kord that he was a coward, in circumstances in which the player of that PC regards his PC's conduct as brave, I am telling that player that s/he is wrong about what bravery requires: because it is an undisputed premise between us that Kord is an exemplar of bravery, and therefore knows it when he sees it, and similarly for cowardice. And this is what I don't want to do.




Where I could easily see Kord looking to a tactical retreat as “cowardice in the face of the enemy” and having far more respect for the berserker who throws his life away battling against impossible odds.  Kord is the god of strength and courage, not tactics and strategy.  It seems unlikely he would favour stealth, ambush, etc. – just get out there and crush your foes, or be crushed yourself.  As Kord intended!



pemerton said:


> For instance, if a player of a paladin of Kord has his/her PC run away, and makes it clear that in doing so s/he is being a coward, it is not questioning his/her expressive/evaluative judgement to have Kord be angry. It is affirming that judgement!




So what happens when the Paladin runs away and the berserker/Cleric stands and fights (somehow surviving), after which he berates the cowardice of the Paladin.  Which of them has been true to the principals of their deity?  Both insist that they are right.  Both are bound up in the tenets of Kord.  Both are PC’s.  One is adamant that fleeing was cowardice, and the other that it was not.  One of them has to be wrong.

Let’s build on it – both were killed in battle, the Berserker/Cleric battling to the bitter end and the Paladin caught fleeing from the battle and slain.  They now stand face to face with Kord, awaiting his judgment (just as your Dwarf met his God and discussed his own actions).  Neither character has any doubt they were correct – each player believes his character was played perfectly within conception and the tenets of Kord.



Cadence said:


> Based on previous posts, I thought you would have had Kord judge the character based on what Kord considered brave.   (Similar to having some good/lawful/chaotic/evil god judge the character based on that gods particular flavor of good/lawful/chaotic/evil that probably disagrees with the flavors other gods would use so that the characters were free to disagree with that flavor.)  But I hadn't pictured you making the gods infallible exemplars of things like bravery...




Agreed.



Cadence said:


> And if he/she regularly bravely runs away with coconut-clattering minstrel in tow and makes it clear they think that running away has nothing to do with bravery...
> 
> Can any NPCs in the game even rationally question Sir Robin about it?  The NPCs obviously can't appeal to Kord to find out with a commune spell because you wouldn't have Kord condemn the paladin. Couldn't the PC even do a commune to prove to the NPCs that Kord (who defines bravery) doesn't condemn the action?   Does having exemplars who won't contradict a PC's player allow a really bad paladin player to redefine basic words?




An extreme example which, as expected, is dismissed.  But I suspect the players might well be chanting that refrain to the Paladin player in my example above.  Does mocking him somehow make the character less brave?  Does the consensus of the table overrule the single player’s vision?  Would it matter if one of the two characters was an NPC  (and thus the GM decided what was in accordance with the tenets of Kord for one of them)?



pemerton said:


> N'raac, I found this on another thread:
> 
> Given this, I don't really understand why you find it objectionable that (for instance) a typical paladin build should be mechanically more effective when played honourably rather than dishonourably.




The context of that thread was much more mechanical, and addressed the question of whether the game should have “best options” – options so inherently superior to other choices that making any other choice clearly results in a sub-optimal character.

While that thread was largely about mechanics, it can be extended to character personality.  I would not expect the honourable player to be ineffectual.  I would expect there to be times when his honour is advantageous and times when it is disadvantageous, as well as times when it makes no difference.  Similarly, I would expect there to be times when the lightly armored character is at an advantage to his heavily armored comrade, times when he is at a disadvantage and times where they are more or less equal.  If choosing light armor (or heavy honor) basically spells character ineffectiveness (or even character suicide), then why include that choice in the game at all?  

More importantly, if the game is going to be played in a manner that equates honour with suicide, then the honourable Paladin should not be a character option in that game.  How many of us would look at a proposed PC whose sole goal in life is to own a tea shoppe, who refuses to engage in combat in any form, and whose character abilities are all designed around growing, blending, brewing and serving tea? It’s not a viable choice – don’t include it in the game.

The alignment rules, or the expectation that an honourable character will be held to a standard of honour, do not make Paladins, or honourable characters, non-functional in the game compared to their peers, so they are not in the same ballpark.



Manbearcat said:


> Speaking of another thread, I mentioned this topic earlier.  In that thread folks are debating whether a Paladin should lose his powers if he believes he is supporting a noble cause but is actually being duped into perpetuating evil.  We've seen many times in this thread that people have stated that it is poor GMing to have a Paladin fall when his actions are not clearly and transparently good or evil, law or chaos.  That has been asserted pretty adamantly, as if it is self-evident and my contention that this interpretation isn't a uniform is (at least mildly) off the reservation.  Nonetheless, in that thread you have good, thoughtful people, with well-considered opinions and a vast swath of GMing experience, differing on "if he committed evil (knowingly or not), he loses his powers until he redeems himself."
> 
> It stands to reason, extended from the logic supporting that position, that an obtuse Paladin, who perpetuates evil or chaos unknowingly due to unforeseen consequence of his actions (which I've contended that people absolutely maintain this position...and they obviously do given that thread), would also have an alignment shift imposed upon him, thus losing his powers until he redeems himself.  As such, I say again, I don't think the interpretation of "morality is judged solely by intent rather than consequences" (and thus a Paladin falling due to unforeseen, unintended consequences) is as orthodox as has been implied in this thread.




I find the general consensus of that thread pretty consistent.  The Paladin cannot *willingly* commit an evil act if he is duped.  The bigger discussion seems to be whether his deity (or philosophy) should be dropping hints that he is, in fact, being lead down the wrong path, perhaps having his powers abandon him as he unwittingly pursues an evil objective.



Imaro said:


> But if the player then argued discretion is the better part of valor... Would Kord still be "angry" and if so, why? Is it because he is corrupted and the player can in fact define bravery however she wants? Is it because this concept of bravery does not align with Kord's? Or does Kord just agree and ignore it?




Imaro, a great post overall to which I have little to add.

To take the above one step further, is it possible the character has grown?  Can he see beyond Kord’s singleminded dedication to “bravery” that there are times when self-preservation is not “cowardice”?  Is he, in fact, coming to believe that single-minded devotion to Kord’s ideals is not appropriate behaviour?  Is he, in fact, becoming “unaligned” with Kord?



pemerton said:


> The fact that thread exists strikes me as a good argument for not using mechanical alignment! Or, at least, for me it confirms my reasons stated upthread - because alignment and its technical minutiae have become the focus, rather than the dramatic significance of the events that are actually taking place in the game.




So the fact there may be confusion or misinterpretation in respect of a rule indicates it should be removed…  If we removed every game element that has ever had a rules thread with debate, what would be left?  We also have a thread questioning whether we should have Fighters, and many that suggest various classes are over or under powered.  If we removed all of those classes, which would remain?

It also seems to me the problem is less one of mechanical alignment (having game mechanics which are impacted by alignment) and more mechanistic alignment (an insistence on every action having a precisely measurable and determinable impact on alignment), which its detractors seem to mistakenly attribute to those in favour of alignment because, at least in some cases, that is the only manner they can perceive for implementing it.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The core books say the gods are fallible



Do you have a citation? The only relevant thing I can find is this, from the DMG p 162:

The deities of the D&D world are powerful but not omnipotent, knowledgeable but not omniscient, widely traveled but not omnipresent. They alone of all creatures in the universe consist only of astral essence. The gods are creatures of thought and ideal, not bound by the same limitations as beings of flesh.​
There is nothing there which implies that (for instance) Kord might be confused about what athleticism consists in, or that Corellon might fail to recognise beauty when encountering it.

In fact that whole passage is silent on whether or not gods can err (, although I think that error of some sort is inherent in the notion of evil.



Imaro said:


> they can even have worshipers who approach their ideals and domains in different fashions



And? Catholics, Orthodox, monks, other clergy, laity, Protestants, Jews, Muslims - all approach the worship of the same Divinity in different fashions, but that tells us nothing about the fallibility of that being.

If dwarves honour Kord by throwing hammers, and goliaths honour Kord by tossing cabers, what does that tell us about Kord's ability to judge true athleticism? Nothing. Apart from anything else, both throwing hammers and tossing cabers might be true expressions of athleticism.



Imaro said:


> Please read the edited thread I re-submitted it goes into this further.



What thread?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> you just said the gods are infallible...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Or is this a result of your belief that evil gods are corrupted and can be wrong but good gods are infallible



Did you commit a reading comprehension fail?

I said "Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values." You quoted that passage in your own reply. I also explained why I think Vecna is not such a god, and even had a paranthetical discussion of how a game might play differently if a player took a different view.

The 4e PHB, at p 23, states that "The commandments of [evil] deities exhort their followers to pursue evil ends or commit destructive deeds." That entails that those gods have a deficient grasp of value - either they don't care for any values (Gruumsh would be like that, and perhaps Tharizdun as well), or their hold on key values is corrupted (that is the view of Vecna taken by the invoker player in my game). A player who took the view that Vecna's comprehension of the value of secrecy was not corrupted would, I imagine, deny that Vecna is evil. As I said in my earlier post, that would be interesting and worth exploring in play. But my group takes the more conventional view of Vecna.

Now, I gather that Planescape's relativism cycnicism precludes judging that evil beings are in any sense wrong - "evil" in that usage sems to mean simply "disagree with those gods who live in the upper planes" - but I am using "evil" in its everyday English usage, whereby those who are evil have made some sort of error, either disregarding things that are valuable, or at least misunderstanding the demands of valuable things.



Imaro said:


> Yet you used DM fiat to manifest Vecna's anger against the Invoker... not th actual resolution mechanics.



I know some people don't regard skill challenges as an action resolution mechanic. I'm not one of those people.



Imaro said:


> are their rules for Vecna exerting control over the magic item?



Perhaps you're not familiar with the Eye of Vecna. It's an artefact that's been part of the game for over 30 years.

From page 168 of the DMG, here is how the Eye "moves on":

The _Eye of Vecna_ consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust. Even if the character is raised from the dead, he forever carries an empty eye socket as a souvenir of having once possessed the _Eye_.

The _Eye _rejoins its divine namesake. Vecna immediately gains all the knowledge of the former wielder and savors the secrets so acquired. After a time, he sends the _Eye _back into the world to glean more secrets from other unwitting or greedy arcane characters.​
Page 167 of the DMG describes the Eye's mode of communication:

The Eye of Vecna communicates silently with its possessor, delivering vivid hallucinatory visions about what it wants.​
When you stick this thing in your imp familiar, you're taking your chances!


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> you previously asserted, as a matter of principal, the player’s role playing should not lead to an impediment to the ability to impact on the shared fiction without the usual action resolution mechanics.



This is not the first time that, in imputing a view to me, you have misstated it.

I think I've made it fairly clear that I don't regard hit point loss of the sort that might occur in combat, or as a result of a skill challenge, as "an impediment to the ability to impact on the shared fiction" in the relevant sense. I am talking about things like being deprived of class features or XP on an ongoing or permanent basis. As I said, for the same reason I don't think I have ever had an AD&D undead drain a level from a PC.

I don't know quite what you mean by "the usual action resolution mechanics", but in this particular episode of play the skill challenge mechanics were being used.Those are one component of the usual action resolution mechanics. 

I also think I've made it fairly clear that I am not talking about role playing in general. I am talking about expressive and evaluative responses, and my desire not to judge these as part of my adjudication of play. As far as I can tell, you, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] do not recognise this as a distinct domain of RPG play, and perhaps more generally as a distinct domain of aesthetic activity. That doesn't particularly surprise me, given your other expressed preferences for roleplaying. Given that, it doesn't surprise me that you don't share my distaste for mechanical alignment.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Did you commit a reading comprehension fail?
> 
> I said "Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values." You quoted that passage in your own reply. I also explained why I think Vecna is not such a god, and even had a paranthetical discussion of how a game might play differently if a player took a different view.
> 
> The 4e PHB, at p 23, states that "The commandments of [evil] deities exhort their followers to pursue evil ends or commit destructive deeds." That entails that those gods have a deficient grasp of value - either they don't care for any values (Gruumsh would be like that, and perhaps Tharizdun as well), or their hold on key values is corrupted (that is the view of Vecna taken by the invoker player in my game). A player who took the view that Vecna's comprehension of the value of secrecy was not corrupted would, I imagine, deny that Vecna is evil. As I said in my earlier post, that would be interesting and worth exploring in play. But my group takes the more conventional view of Vecna.




So, wait, a 25+ INT and WIS Good or Neutral (or Unaligned) deity has unquestionable judgment, but the same scores possessed by an Evil deity leaves them inherently flawed with an erroneous understanding?  



pemerton said:


> I know some people don't regard skill challenges as an action resolution mechanic. I'm not one of those people.




I'm not seeing the *mechanic*.  Did the player fail a skill check to cause the familiar to be harmed?  Did he deliberately accept harm to the familiar in order to obtain a bonus in the skill challenge?  My read of your comments was that the skill challenge was done, the player successfully rechanneled soul energy to the Raven Queen instead of Vecna, and Vecna wreaked his vengeance through the Familiar outside the mechanical resolution of the skill challenge.



pemerton said:


> Perhaps you're not familiar with the Eye of Vecna. It's an artefact that's been part of the game for over 30 years.




Not under the description your have provided.  From Wiki:



> The abilities the Eye offered has varied with different editions of Dungeons & Dragons. In the second edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the Eye gave its "wearer" the ability to see through all illusions, lay curses on others, dominate the will of those the user made eye contact with, and three other random divination abilities. In Dungeons & Dragons third and 3.5 editions, the Eye granted the ability to see through illusions, see in any darkness, dominate the will of others, kill subjects with a gaze and disintegrate their remains, and unhallow areas. In the 4th edition, the Eye grants a number of powers based on how pleased it is with its host. It defaults to granting the host a trio of vision-based Warlock powers (Eyebite as an At Will, Mire the Mind as an Encounter and Eye of the Warlock as a Daily), as well as Darkvision and a bonus to Arcane, Insight and Perception skill checks. When satisfied with the host, it increases the skill bonus and grants the power to unleash a beam of necrotic energy from the eye, while a pleased eye grants an even greater skill bonus and the power to see into the souls of those around the host via an aura of clear sight. If displeased, however, the eye induces frightening visions and when truly angered it tries to take control of the host, as well as blasting allies on occasion.






pemerton said:


> From page 168 of the DMG, here is how the Eye "moves on":
> 
> The _Eye of Vecna_ consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust. Even if the character is raised from the dead, he forever carries an empty eye socket as a souvenir of having once possessed the _Eye_.
> 
> The _Eye _rejoins its divine namesake. Vecna immediately gains all the knowledge of the former wielder and savors the secrets so acquired. After a time, he sends the _Eye _back into the world to glean more secrets from other unwitting or greedy arcane characters.​
> Page 167 of the DMG describes the Eye's mode of communication:
> The Eye of Vecna communicates silently with its possessor, delivering vivid hallucinatory visions about what it wants.​
> When you stick this thing in your imp familiar, you're taking your chances!




So there is no mechanic around this?  The GM can simply declare the owner of the Eye dead at his sole discretion?  In that case, why is the Imp only incapacitated?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I think I've made it fairly clear that I don't regard hit point loss of the sort that might occur in combat, or as a result of a skill challenge, as "an impediment to the ability to impact on the shared fiction" in the relevant sense. I am talking about things like being deprived of class features or XP on an *ongoing or permanent basis*. As I said, for the same reason I don't think I have ever had an AD&D undead drain a level from a PC.




So, again, you are not opposed to the removal of abilities in principal, only on the degree of the impairment (its duration, anyway - I had also thought breadth of abilities removed, but that's not clear from the above).  So it's OK to deny access to one or more class features for some period of time, but not a period that makes it "ongoing", however long that may be.

Given that, I stand by my previous assessment that we are no longer addressing an absolute principal, but a question of the degree to which the player's ability to impact the fiction can be impaired.



pemerton said:


> I don't know quite what you mean by "the usual action resolution mechanics", but in this particular episode of play the skill challenge mechanics were being used.Those are one component of the usual action resolution mechanics.




See my post above for an idea of what I mean.  I mean not "By fiat, your familiar is not available", but an actual rule you can cite by which the familiar is removed as a consequence of an action taken by the player in the skill challenge.

I also find your conclusion you have been "fairly clear" stands in contrast to the number of posts indicating a lack of clarity for various readers, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion of your clarity.


----------



## Hussar

Just as a point on clarity.  I have to admit, that I don't read either Pemerton's nor N'raac's posts whenever they get more than about three quotes long.  So, guys, I have to say, I'm totally not following your discussion.  Brevity really is the soul of wit.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Do you have a citation? The only relevant thing I can find is this, from the DMG p 162:The deities of the D&D world are powerful but not omnipotent, knowledgeable but not omniscient, widely traveled but not omnipresent. They alone of all creatures in the universe consist only of astral essence. The gods are creatures of thought and ideal, not bound by the same limitations as beings of flesh.​
> There is nothing there which implies that (for instance) Kord might be confused about what athleticism consists in, or that Corellon might fail to recognise beauty when encountering it.
> 
> In fact that whole passage is silent on whether or not gods can err (, although I think that error of some sort is inherent in the notion of evil.




The minute a being is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnipresent... it is fallible.  As to a deity being infallible in his domain (and for the record Kord does not have athleticism as an actual domain)  we've already shown deities are fallible from the logic above... Please give a citation an indication or reference in the book that this generally established fallibility doesn't extend to his/her domain?  If the book establishes that these beings are fallible then it makes sense that if there was an exception it would be mentioned... where is that?  Again this is not the default it's something you've personally created that is not supported by anything in the rulebooks... you created it whole cloth and then claimed it was the "default".





pemerton said:


> What thread?




A mis-type, I meant post...


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> I also think I've made it fairly clear that I am not talking about role playing in general. I am talking about expressive and evaluative responses, and my desire not to judge these as part of my adjudication of play.




So, if the enforcement of the class penalties was up to the player (they decide if their violation deserves a warning or loss of power or whatever), and if there was some remediation available to those who lost a huge swath of power (maybe some training program to convert them into combat feats or whatnot that is about the difficulty of an atonement spell and quest?), and if the cosmology of fallen succubi were dealt with in a reasonable way,...  what were the other deal breakers on alignment?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Did you commit a reading comprehension fail?




I don't believe so...



pemerton said:


> I said "Some gods are infallible exemplars and/or upholders of certain values." You quoted that passage in your own reply. I also explained why I think Vecna is not such a god, and even had a paranthetical discussion of how a game might play differently if a player took a different view.
> 
> The 4e PHB, at p 23, states that "The commandments of [evil] deities exhort their followers to pursue evil ends or commit destructive deeds." That entails that those gods have a deficient grasp of value - either they don't care for any values (Gruumsh would be like that, and perhaps Tharizdun as well), or their hold on key values is corrupted (that is the view of Vecna taken by the invoker player in my game). A player who took the view that Vecna's comprehension of the value of secrecy was not corrupted would, I imagine, deny that Vecna is evil. As I said in my earlier post, that would be interesting and worth exploring in play. But my group takes the more conventional view of Vecna.
> 
> Now, I gather that Planescape's relativism cycnicism precludes judging that evil beings are in any sense wrong - "evil" in that usage sems to mean simply "disagree with those gods who live in the upper planes" - but I am using "evil" in its everyday English usage, whereby those who are evil have made some sort of error, either disregarding things that are valuable, or at least misunderstanding the demands of valuable things.




What everyday usage???  Here's the defintion of evil... and not once does it mention the disregard of things that are valuable or a misunderstanding of valuable things... again something you've made up wholecloth...  If anything all that passage you cited says is that they're understanding of an ideal is used towards a harmful or injurious result... looks like #2 to me. 

[h=2]e·vil[/h]  [ee-v_uh_









l]  Show IPA
*adjective
**1.*morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: _evil deeds; an evil life._

*2.*harmful; injurious: _evil laws._

*3.*characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: _to be fallen on evildays._

*4.*due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: _an evil reputation._

*5.*marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: _He is known for his evil disposition._






pemerton said:


> I know some people don't regard skill challenges as an action resolution mechanic. I'm not one of those people.




Neither am I, I've played enough 4e that I know what a SC is... how exactly did the SC allow you to  both take the players imp and his magic artifact again...  I mean you keep giving a broad answer that doesn't detail what mechanics were used to enable this action to take place...



pemerton said:


> Perhaps you're not familiar with the Eye of Vecna. It's an artefact that's been part of the game for over 30 years.




Yes, I'm familiar with it... 



pemerton said:


> From page 168 of the DMG, here is how the Eye "moves on":The _Eye of Vecna_ consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust. Even if the character is raised from the dead, he forever carries an empty eye socket as a souvenir of having once possessed the _Eye_.
> 
> The _Eye _rejoins its divine namesake. Vecna immediately gains all the knowledge of the former wielder and savors the secrets so acquired. After a time, he sends the _Eye _back into the world to glean more secrets from other unwitting or greedy arcane characters.​





Ah, here we go another surprise that wasn't mentioned in the play post... so you were tracking the concordance level of the artifact and it  reached a zero, is that what you are now claiming because you made no mention of that whatsoever? 

Though looking over the actions that cause concordance with the artifact to drop... there is no mention of how denying Vecna souls would cause it to drop, in fact that's not even mentioned as one of the artifacts goals... So you disregarded the actual rules for the artifact and just decided  that the eye blew up and killed the imp?  Were you even tracking the character's concordance level with the artifact, I mean since you are questioning my knowledge of the artifact, I'm now questioning your knowledge and use of the resolution mechanics for it in 4e?​


pemerton said:


> Page 167 of the DMG describes the Eye's mode of communication:The Eye of Vecna communicates silently with its possessor, delivering vivid hallucinatory visions about what it wants.​





So... it showed the imp hallucinatory visions??  I'm not understanding what that has to do with you taking the artifact and killing the imp arbitrarily...​


pemerton said:


> When you stick this thing in your imp familiar, you're taking your chances!




I guess that includes taking the chance that your DM decides arbitrarily that you have displeased Vecna and that as a punishment you loose your magic artifact and your imp familiar...


----------



## Cadence

As an aside...



Imaro said:


> [h=2]e·vil[/h]  [ee-v_uh_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l]  Show IPA




I completely agree that IPAs are evil and a few bottles of them would make a great graphic for that entry in the dictionary!!! Down with over-hoppiness.


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> So, if the enforcement of the class penalties was up to the player (they decide if their violation deserves a warning or loss of power or whatever), and if there was some remediation available to those who lost a huge swath of power (maybe some training program to convert them into combat feats or whatnot that is about the difficulty of an atonement spell and quest?), and if the cosmology of fallen succubi were dealt with in a reasonable way,...  what were the other deal breakers on alignment?




Do there need to be more deal breakers?  I mean, this is pretty far from what the alignment mechanics actually say.

1.  Pemerton has removed the need for the DM to track and adjudicate alignment violations for characters (probably the biggest sticking point in alignment).
2.  Remediation would then be decided by the player, possibly with input from the DM, again, empowering players over their own characters (which is probably the number two issue for me.
3.  "Fallen" then takes on a new meaning.  No longer is it, "Did the character (PC or NPC) follow the guidelines set down in the PHB as interpreted by the DM" but becomes, "Did the character radically alter his or her concept in such a way that now a new set of ideas and ideals is needed?"

That pretty much fixes alignment for me.  Alignment then becomes a nice little sign post where you can start from instead of a pretty strong mechanic which allows DM's to enforce specific behaviour from the players.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Do there need to be more deal breakers?  I mean, this is pretty far from what the alignment mechanics actually say.




There don't need to be!

I'm trying to picture what changes would need to be made in PF's handling of alignment so that it wasn't  hamstringing the fun for about 1/2 the posters in this thread.  I can picture an optional alignment system that handles those issues, is pretty straightforward, doesn't require rewriting all kinds of creatures, domains, magic items, and spells, and probably wouldn't change the actual play of the game for lots of parties.   

Just want to make sure I'm not leaving out any other big sticking points.  (For example, are there concerns that detecting alignment of non-outsiders/undead makes it too easy to ruin some types of mysteries or something like that...)


----------



## UnholyD

Grydan said:


> Rationally weighing cost vs. benefit doesn't strike me as terribly chaotic.
> 
> Nor does behaviour that is predictable enough that one can say with any degree of certainty how a character will act given known conditions: chaos is unpredictability, not predictable violation of law. Someone who consistently behaves in the same manner when presented with a given scenario is acting in an orderly fashion.
> 
> This seems rather incomplete, at best. The archetypal adventuring paladin is a paragon of virtue who seeks out threats to smite ... they literally go out of their way to cause harm to others that they believe deserve it. A conception of "good" that doesn't at least include the idea that some forms of intentionally causing others harm are acceptable is difficult to reconcile with the genre conceits of heroic warriors (not that all characters must be heroic warriors, but it's certainly an archetype the game has always purported to include).
> 
> And this is why, to the extent that alignment plays any role at all in my gaming, I think 4E's Unaligned is a much more sensible "middle" position.
> 
> Because frankly, striving to achieve balance between good and evil, law-abidance and law-breaking in the manner you describe is an incoherent position. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" ... and it triumphs even more quickly and easily when neutral men actively engage in evil behaviour. Intentionally committing evil acts isn't neutral ... it's just evil.
> 
> "Don't commit premeditated murder" is generally speaking one of the most significant laws on the books, with the heaviest punishments. How, in your construction of Neutrality, is one expected to deal with that law? For every person you don't murder, you have to murder someone else?




First: Apparently you didn't read my post that well because I even stated that these rules can be overlooked in instances of wise or intelligent creatures. Dumb demons kill without regard for survival as they generally don't care as long as they are serving a "higher purpose" usually in the form of a Greater Demon or cause. Greater Demons are usually going to use "disposable minions" to serve their needs. I'd say the point makes itself but as evidenced by prior posts, I'm having better luck convincing a wall to stand aside.

Second: Basically you just said that anytime some form of entity acts a certain way that can predictably be noted, it is no longer Chaotic. Demons can't be Chaotically Aligned because they quite predictably murder and bring darkness into the world? Are you daft or is it you don't know what you are talking about?

Third: I should have stated "innocent" in my prior post and for that I apologize. Hopefully this clears things up.

Fourth: 4th Edition oversimplified everything. So to say they did Alignment correctly when it was merely an afterthought is proof that some people don't have the ability to play games beyond WoW.

Fifth: Again, you apparently didn't read what I had written in my prior post. I said EQUALLY balanced. It doesn't mean as simply kill one then don't kill another. It means that all things even out in the end. If a Neutral person went around murdering everyone in sight, they wouldn't be Neutral or "Unaligned" as they'd be EVIL. Same thing goes if they gave every gold they ever earned to charity, they'd be GOOD. "Unaligned" is a simple way to say that they don't do enough on ANY AXIS to be regarded as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. It is the same F-ing thing.

Sixth: You, sir, should get your facts together and straightened out before attempting to debate over something you quite clearly know little to nothing about. It makes you look like a simpleton.

*Mod Note:*  As always, folks - please don't make the discussion personal.  Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster.  Resorting to personal jabs does not make you, or your points, look good.  ~Umbran


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I don't read either Pemerton's nor N'raac's posts whenever they get more than about three quotes long.



Weak, I tell you, weak!


----------



## pemerton

UnholyD said:


> 4th Edition oversimplified everything. So to say they did Alignment correctly when it was merely an afterthought is proof that some people don't have the ability to play games beyond WoW.



4th edition's alignment system is very close to the system found in original D&D and Moldvay Basic. It thus predates WoW by some decades.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The minute a being is not omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnipresent... it is fallible.



How so? A pocket calculator is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent - but it is infallible in its domain, namely, of doing 8-figure arithmetic.

When Descartes ran the cogito argument - which takes as a premise that a person is infallible in the rather narrow domain of knowing whether or not s/he is thinking - he wasn't thereby posting that people are omniscient. (As it happens I think the cogito argument, and the premise I have mentioned, are suspect; but the point still stands as an illustration that there is no general connection between fallibility in a domain and omniscience.)



Imaro said:


> Here's the defintion of evil... and not once does it mention the disregard of things that are valuable or a misunderstanding of valuable things



It's there in numbers 1 and 4:  moral wrongness resulting (in the context of a god described as "evil") from bad character.



Imaro said:


> so you were tracking the concordance level of the artifact and it  reached a zero, is that what you are now claiming because you made no mention of that whatsoever?



No, the concordance was actually around 12, from memory - there may be a drop for opposing Vecna but I haven't done my bookkeeping to factor that in. (And reading on through your post I see there is no such drop.) The point of quoting that passage was to indicate the general capabilities of the artefact.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to be hounded for being too flexible in my setting of stakes and consequences in a skill challenge by a poster who is fairly well known for posting how narrow and inflexible 4e is.



Imaro said:


> for the record Kord does not have athleticism as an actual domain



Seriously, I could post that "a" is the indefinite article in English and you'd dispute it.

From the 4e PHB, p 22:

Kord is the storm god and the lord of battle. He revels in strength, battlefield prowess, and thunder. Fighters and athletes revere him. . . He . . . commands . . . [his followers to b]e strong.​
What is your threshold of evidence for accepting that a god is the god of athleticism? For me, that threshold is more than reached by the above.

Or is your point that, in the chart on p 62 of the PHB, and in Divine Power, the domain is labelled "Strength" rather than "Athleticism"? (What does the Strength domain give its adherents who take the requisite feat? Oh look, a +2 bonus to Athletics.)


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So it's OK to deny access to one or more class features for some period of time, but not a period that makes it "ongoing", however long that may be.



Allow me to reiterate - there is no usage of the phrase "deny access to one or more class features" that encompasses dealing 1 hp of damage to a target. Which is what we are talking about in this particular case.



N'raac said:


> I mean not "By fiat, your familiar is not available", but an actual rule you can cite by which the familiar is removed as a consequence of an action taken by the player in the skill challenge.



I quoted the relevant skill challenge rules upthread. They expressly encompass the taking of damage in various ways as a possible consequence or stake in a skill challenge. In order to further satisfy your interrogatories, I post here the notes I had made for the particular skill challenge in question prior to the session:

This is a L25 comp 5 skill challenge (21/29/38, 8M+4H before 3F, 6 Adv).

In the first stage the PCs must sweep through the Soul Abattoir, freeing souls while destroying shrivers and torture machinery. Each failure costs either 6d10+8 to the failing PC, or 3d10+9 to all the PCs, depending on fictional positioning.


To charge among the shrivers and fall upon them, Athletics or Acrobatics (+2 to check if use close burst power), or Stealth if enhanced in some way, or Intimidate if prepared to take damage as per a failure (max 4 successes);

To free souls (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Religion (+2 to check if use Turn Undead-type power) (max 2 successes);

To destroy machinery (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Arcana or Dungeoneering (max 2 successes).

After 7 successes, the PCs have a final confrontation with the shrivers (see over).

If the shrivers are defeated, the Soul Abattoir will start to collapse. This is the second stage, and requires:


Escape (Group Athletics and/or Acro vs M difficulties, max 2 successes);

Holding back the energies (Arcana, max 1 success);

Prayers to the Raven Queen (Religion, max 2 successes);

Withstanding the energies and dust (Endurance, if done as solo H then can grant others +2 to escape; otherwise group; max 1 success each);

Insight can reveal the presence of Vecna (no success, no failure) via Malstaph’s imp.

If the Challenge is failed, Vecna takes control of the Soul Abattoir as the imp, under the control of the Eye, breaks free from Malstaph. (If this happens before reaching 7 successes, the shrivers converge on the PCs as they are driven back.)​
In fact it didn't end up playing quite like that. For instance, as best I recall the Insight check was counted as a success. Also, at the climax I decided it would be more dramatic if Vecna was going to get the souls unless the invoker, who was controlling the soul energies (via a Religion check - another departure from how I had anticipated it might play out), deliberately chose to divert them to the Raven Queen. That choice had a cost - namely, the suffering of 1 hp of damage by the imp familiar. (Though at the time I didn't describe it that way - what the player cares about is not that his imp has taken 1 or 10 or 100 hp of damage, but that it is shut down.)



N'raac said:


> The Paladin’s play may lead to him engaging in combat, wherein a d20 is rolled, an attack bonus added, it exceeds his AC and hp damage is rolled.  What mechanic was engaged against the Invoker?



You seem to have in mind some rather narrow version of action resolution mechanics, in which damage can only be inflicted as a result of an attack roll in combat. (Perhaps a failed save as well? I would imagine that's an element of the version of D&D you play.)

I play a version of D&D which has action resolution mechanics for non-combat as well as combat situations, and has rules for handling the dealing of damage in those situations (I refer you to the passages I have already mentioned and quoted upthread, starting with p 42 of the DMG).



N'raac said:


> The sense I got from your writeup is that you decided, since the choice was made to redirect the souls, Vecna punished the invoker.  Not that the player rolled, and his roll determined that his familiar took damage, but he still succeeded in redirecting the souls.  Not that he failed by 1 and invoked a power that said “add a +2 bonus to a roll at the cost of your familiar taking 1 point of damage; this can be done after the results of the roll are determined”.  That the GM said “because you redirected the souls, Vecna is angered and injures your familiar” with no use of the action resolution mechanics.



The sense _I_ got from my writeup is that it's about setting stakes. The invoker has deliberately positioned himself in a dangerous way in relationship to Vecna. He has implanted the Eye in his imp, in part because he wants to use Vecna's penchant for secrets to counterbalance the imp's role as a watcher for Levistus; in part because he wants the powers of the Eye, which include some nice bonuses to Arcana and Perception, among other things, but he doesn't want to have to implant the Eye in himself to get those powers.

When I, as GM, then tell the player that he has to choose between Vecna, who is using his imp as a conduit to take control of the souls, and the Raven Queen, the stakes are set - the imp is in play. And the player is not surprised that the imp is in play! He knows why - he knows that he has set this up! He chooses, knowing the stakes, and the consequences follow: Vecna shuts down the imp, technically by dealing 1 hp of damage to it.



N'raac said:


> Did the player fail a skill check to cause the familiar to be harmed?  Did he deliberately accept harm to the familiar in order to obtain a bonus in the skill challenge?



He deliberately accepted the prospect of harm to his familiar by thwarting Vecna's attempt to use it as his conduit for the soul energy.



N'raac said:


> So there is no mechanic around this?  The GM can simply declare the owner of the Eye dead at his sole discretion?




From the DMG, p 165:

When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . . .

A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment (for instance, ripping itself from the character’s eye socket during a battle).​


N'raac said:


> In that case, why is the Imp only incapacitated?



Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps its because, as a GM, I'm not a big fan of making unilateral changes to my players' PC builds.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So only evil gods are not perfect exemplars?  Why?





N'raac said:


> So, wait, a 25+ INT and WIS Good or Neutral (or Unaligned) deity has unquestionable judgment, but the same scores possessed by an Evil deity leaves them inherently flawed with an erroneous understanding?



Yes, they are not perfect exemplars of values. I hadn't realised that that was contentious! What do _you_ think "evil" means? I think it means - drawing on Imaro's posted definitions upthread - _of bad character_, or perhaps _prone to wrongdoing_. If so-called "evil" gods pursued values without error or corruption, then they wouldn't be evil, would they?

What is the source of the corruption? Let's have a look at the 4e account of "evil" first, from the PHB p 20: "It is my right to claim what others possess." That is a proclamation of selfishness. And selfish desire is one major source of distortion or corruption in the recognition of and response to value.

The 3E definition of "evil" isn't a million miles away on this point either (from the 3.5 SRD): "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. . . A neutral evil villain . . . is out for herself, pure and simple. . . A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do."

It's not a radical claim in moral psychology to suggest that these are descriptions of psychological orientations that produce distortion or corruption in the appreciation of value.



N'raac said:


> RPG’s require a GM to evaluate success.



But I know from experience that they do not require a judge to determine evaluative adequacy or success at pursuing values.



N'raac said:


> So, once sole responsibility for assessing consistency with the code is assigned to the player, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code.  Just ask the player.  Whatever the character does is in perfect compliance, absent the player’s decision that it is not.



"Decision" is probably not the right verb there - for instance, it is possible for a person to arrive at a judgement without choosing to do so. I would therefore rephrase "Whatever the character does is in perfect compliance, absent the player's judgement that it is not." I could also rephrase it "Whatever the character does is in violation, absent the player's judgement that it is not." 



N'raac said:


> So Vecna judges, but Kord does not.



I don't know why you say that. I've already given an example upthread in which a player might regard Vecna as exemplifying the truth about secrecy (and, as I said, presumably therefore doesn't regard Vecna as evil). In those cases, I would not - as GM - second-guess the player's conception of what true secrecy requires.

It is also possible to imagine a PC who serves Kord much as the invoker in my game serves Vecna: the PC regards prowess as a value, but thinks that Kord has a deficient conception of that value (eg perhaps Kord fails to see how prowess is valuable primarily as a means to other ends, rather than an end in itself). In such a case the player would, presumably, not regard his/her PC's choices as necessarily giving voice to Kord's distorted conception of prowess. In which case difference could open up between the PC and Kord.

Of course, that still wouldn't be analogous to what actually happened with Vecna in my game, because the invoker in my game did not purport to be serving the value of secrecy by thwarting Vecna.



N'raac said:


> You seem to expect that all will agree that your play examples are above reproach



No. I just expect people to post with a modest degree of respect, and as part of that to make a good faith effort to understand my approach and reasoning as a GM.

For instance, instead of saying "Ha ha, you were inconsistent!" you might ask "What difference do you see between deciding that Vecna is angry and deciding that a PC has acted immorally". And then I would explain - that in the first case _the player himself chose to have his PC thwart, and thereby anger, Vecna_ whereas the second case involves telling the player that his/her evaluative judgement of his/her PC's conduct is mistaken.



N'raac said:


> you were judging a PC's actions based on whether or not they were crossing Vecna and imposing a consequence. And frankly the difference between doing that and judging an action based on alignment doesn't exist. It's a player crossing some line and the GM adjudicating the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times you express a contrary view is unlikely to change our interpretation – no more likely than these repetitions are to change yours.
Click to expand...


I'm not inviting you to change your interpretation. I'm just inviting you to notice that someone might draw a distinction that you don't, and care about it.

The distinction is between *embracing and reinforcing a player's conception of his PC as thwarting Vecna* and *thwarting and undermining a player's conception of his/her PC as loyal to and upholding the values of his/her deity*. I get it that you,  [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] don't care about this distinction in your GMing or your play. But it is pretty crucial to mine.



N'raac said:


> Both involve imposing consequences on the player’s ability to impact the fiction based on the moral judgements his character makes
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That was why you indicated denying the Paladin’s powers due to failure to comply with his alignment was inappropriate.



That's not what I have said. It's barely close to what I've said. I have said that I do not want to have to adjudicate the adequacy of the players' evaluative responses expressed via the play of his/her PC. Having Vecna punish the PC for getting in his way is not doing this. It is _affirming the player's conception of his PC_. Not thwarting or contradicting it. And it says nothing about whether or not the player made the right choice: that is up for them to decide, taking into account - among other relevant bits of information - that it is a choice that angers Vecna.

Whereas telling a player that his PC has violated his/her PC's code because failing to be true to his/her commitments and his/her deity is (i) denying the player's conception of his/her PC, and (ii) telling her that his/her conceptions of what the relevant values require is mistaken. And these are the things that I do not want to do.



N'raac said:


> The GM is not, once again, evaluating the player, or character’s response.  He is assessing its result within the larger context of the game world.



I know that this is what  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] does with alignment, and I gather what you do. I have explained why it is not desirable to me: it requires either or both of (i) subordinating the player's evaluative judgement to that of the GM, or (ii) of pretending that some values defined and interpreted loosely by the GM, that may or may not be real values that really are valuable, really do have value, and making those imagined values as interpreted or defined by the GM the focus of play. These features of the activity make it unappealing to me: I personally don't see the point of exploring the implications, as determined by the GM, of the GM's conception of some imagined value.

My interest in creative endeavours, however trite or banal - and including RPGs in that category - is in encountering ideas about real value (moral, aesthetic, whatever - there are many domains of value, both in general and engaged via RPG play). For instance, what makes the movie Hero very moving to me is not that it _starts_ from an _assumption_ that peace by way of unification is more important than loyalty; nor that it starts from an assumption that one can persuade another by being willing to die for a cause; but that it _makes a powerful case_ for both those contentions. The work is _committed_, and (because of the skill of the artists involved) communicates the commitment with power.

Not all works of art are as didactic as Hero. But worthwhile ones, or those which aspire to be worthwhile, engage with reality and the reality of value.



N'raac said:


> I find that real world ethical philosophy has about as much place in a fantasy RPG as real-world legal principals applied to RPG adventuring contracts



I quite agree - both are important, though not for exactly the same reasons.

Real-world legal principles (of the relevant culture and historical period) are important to me for the verisimilitude of the setting, to the extent that they come into play. For instance, if a setting is roughly feudal Europe, than I expect the legal norms to roughly reflect those of feudal Europe.

Real values also contribute to verisimilitude. I expect the protagonists and antagonists in a fantasy world to be motivated by the same sorts of motivations, and have the same sorts of relationships to value, as one finds in the real world.

But real value matters in another way, too: it underpins the worth of the creative endeavour. The value of a player's portrayal of an honourable warrior, for instance, is in exploring what _honour_ requires, not some stipulated and gerrymandered alternative to that notion that has no actual significance to anyone in the real world. Or when a player has his PC sacrifice a friend and a companion to a dark god, I am not interested in thinking about the significance of that within some stipulated framework in which friendship and death don't matter; I am not interested in having a GM define a set of notions that have no meaning outside the fantasy of the gameworld and then telling me all about the character using that fantasy language. Friendship and death, in fact, _do matter_, and that truth of value is what makes the episode a significant moment in play, and a significant choice for the character and his player. It tells us something real about the character - for example, about his ruthlessness - and also reminds us of something real beyond the character and the game itself.

As I've already mentioned, my game is not an example of great art. Most of the events that occur are not of much interest to anyone but the participants. But that doesn't mean they don't connect to reality. It's like when I get out my my guitar to play for myself or my family - no one else is going to want to listen to me play and sing, but that doesn't mean that I'm not aspiring to real value in my performance.



N'raac said:


> Can Lancelot’s player declare that adultery is a virtue, and thus it is so?



Huh? Lancelot knew that adultery was a vice. That's the point of the story: it wouldn't be at all tragic if he and Guinevere were just confused as to what morality required.

What would be interesting, if one were roleplaying out this sort of episode, is to frame it in terms of fidelity: which is more important, fidelity to husband? fidelity to lord and king? or fidelity to one's true beloved? That could be interesting to play out. (I have GMed an episode of play that touched on elements of this question, but not quite as immediately as the Lancelot story does. I have, too, played a paladin - well, technically a fighter-cleric - who fell in love with another PC, and had to decide whether love or chastity was the higher virtue.)


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> When did Arthur or Aragorn heal with a touch, or show evidence of being warded by the divine from evil magic?



Aragorn - "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer". Arthur I don't know off the top of my head - but other examples of the trope include King Edward the Confessor, who was reputed to heal with a touch. 

As for being warded from evil magic by the divine? The whole of Arthur's reign, and the blissful period of Camelot - until it was riven by sin, of course. Aragorn's survival throughout his adventures, up to his realisation of his destiny to become king.



N'raac said:


> BTW, how did the Ranger of the North become one of your top choices for the inspiration for the Paladin class?  I seem to dimly recall there might be another class which he inspired, but the name escapes me.  Was it Northerner?  Was it OfThe?  It’s right on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t seem to place it…
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Anyone know of any fictional characters that might have inspired the Ranger? D&D was influenced a lot by Tolkein – any chance there was someone in Middle Earth that somehow was connected to a class like a Ranger?



OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is modelled on the classic trope of divinely bestowed kingship?


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Cadence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if he/she regularly bravely runs away with coconut-clattering minstrel in tow and makes it clear they think that running away has nothing to do with bravery...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An extreme example which, as expected, is dismissed.
Click to expand...


This is some new use of "dismissal", is it - according to which around 700 words of reply, including an extended actual play example to provide at least one illustration of how such a scenario might actually unfold in play, is dismissing someone's question?

Was there anything that was unclear to you about those posts in reply?



N'raac said:


> So what happens when the Paladin runs away and the berserker/Cleric stands and fights (somehow surviving), after which he berates the cowardice of the Paladin.  Which of them has been true to the principals of their deity?  Both insist that they are right.  Both are bound up in the tenets of Kord.  Both are PC’s.  One is adamant that fleeing was cowardice, and the other that it was not.  One of them has to be wrong.



Guess what - this is what actual play is for. Why would it be the GM's job to step in and sort it out for them?

These things actually happen in my game. Two (or more) PCs differ over what the Raven Queen requires. Two (or more) PCs differ over what decency requires. Two PCs, both committed to relieving the compassion of all sentient beings, disagree over what course of action will best achieve that, in part because they disagree over what counts as suffering and as relieving suffering (one is more worldly, the other more esoteric).



N'raac said:


> Let’s build on it – both were killed in battle, the Berserker/Cleric battling to the bitter end and the Paladin caught fleeing from the battle and slain.  They now stand face to face with Kord, awaiting his judgment (just as your Dwarf met his God and discussed his own actions).  Neither character has any doubt they were correct – each player believes his character was played perfectly within conception and the tenets of Kord.



And?

For a start, I wouldn't frame such a scene if I didn't know how to handle it. If I did, who know - perhaps Kord has them duke it out to see who is more worthy. Perhaps Kord reveals that the cowardice of one served some higher purpose, or taught him a lesson, or even - if Kord is feeling light-hearted - illustrated the virtues of being able to run quickly!

These constant hypotheticals in fact remind me of a further reason why I don't like alignment - it tries to answer all these question in advance, whereas my preference is that they be addressed and answered in play. 



N'raac said:


> Can you cite a page reference that indicates the activities which are undertaken by a dead character?  To the extent this is how you run your game, and not how the game rules provide for action resolution on the part of dead characters, then it is outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics.  Was there a roll to determine whether the PC was, or was not, perceived by RQ as acting consistent with her wishes?  If the player is the sole arbiter of his code, how is it that you, through the RQ, assessed his compliance with it?  Or is the player the sole arbiter only if he chooses to be, and can delegate that right and responsibility to the GM, in whole or in part, at his sole discretion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The fact that this is a single unique occurrence or a routine feature of your game has no relevance in assessing whether it is, or is not, is outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics.



I'm not sure I understand. I'm now a bad GM, or an inconsistent GM, or something, because I have framed scenes in which dead PCs meet their makers, and I didn't have the express permission of the rulebooks to do so? (Which may not even be true - looking at p 161 of the DMG I see that "When mortal creatures die, their spirits travel first to the Shadowfell before moving on to their final fate", while p 160 tells me that "the Raven Queen’s palace of Letherna stands in the Shadowfell".)

If you're saying that, when a player whose PC is dead wants to play out a conversation with his immortal mistress - in circumstances where that mistress is also the god of the dead, and the PC is one of her marshals (a Marshal of Letherna) - it's bad GMing to frame and resolve that scene, then our conceptions of what makes for good RPGing are even more different than I thought.

_The player, playing his PC, expressed doubts about his resolution and sought advice_. I, playing the Raven Queen, offered some advice. _How is that thwarting or denying the player's conception of his/her PC_. It is affirming it, and building on it.

And why would I roll dice to decide what the Raven Queen thinks? The player wants a scene in which he expresses his doubts, explores them and (hopefully) has them resolved. That seems to me to call for a sensitivity in GMing which is pretty much the opposite of rolling dice.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I'm trying to picture what changes would need to be made in PF's handling of alignment so that it wasn't  hamstringing the fun for about 1/2 the posters in this thread.  I can picture an optional alignment system that handles those issues, is pretty straightforward, doesn't require rewriting all kinds of creatures, domains, magic items, and spells, and probably wouldn't change the actual play of the game for lots of parties.



I'm not 100% sure what the context is. If I was running PF, I would probably ignore alignment. And if a demon or anti-cleric used a Blasphemy against the PCs, I imagine it would target all of them.



Cadence said:


> So, if the enforcement of the class penalties was up to the player (they decide if their violation deserves a warning or loss of power or whatever), and if there was some remediation available to those who lost a huge swath of power (maybe some training program to convert them into combat feats or whatnot that is about the difficulty of an atonement spell and quest?), and if the cosmology of fallen succubi were dealt with in a reasonable way,...  what were the other deal breakers on alignment?





Cadence said:


> Just want to make sure I'm not leaving out any other big sticking points.  (For example, are there concerns that detecting alignment of non-outsiders/undead makes it too easy to ruin some types of mysteries or something like that...)



Am I still envisaging that every NPC has an alignment tag, and the paladin (or cleric, or whomever) can walk around casting Detect X and work out who has what tag?

That's a deal breaker for me, and not so much because it wrecks mysteries - that's a broader issue with mind-reading magic - but because it forecloses the very sorts of issues that I am wanting to put into play. 

I've now reread your earlier post 652 and my reply 756. If you're confining "Detect X" to "Detect outsider or divine caster who serves Lord of ABC" that's less of an issue for me. I'm personally not sure that I want to play that game - it has the potential to be a little black hat/white hat for my taste, unless the various Lords are handled very deftly both in establishing the setting and in adjudicating it. The reason I say this is that, by framing your lords in that way, you are making it very easy for everyone's thinking to just slip back into stereotypes - whereas a framing that treats alignment as purely a metagame shorthand (ie part 1 of your 3 proposals in 652) doesn't constantly reinforce those stereotypes in the same sort of way.

And to give an example of what I have in mind as needing "deft GMing" - how do we handle a servant of the Lords of Chaos turning out to be a good guy? (Yet still not registering to Detect Good, but only to Detect Chaos?) That's not just a hypothetical for me, either - this issue is in the process of arising in my 4e game, as the drow chaos sorcerer/Demonskin Adept/Emergent Primordial continues to profess his loyalty to Corellon as well as to Chan, Elemental Queen of good air elementals, and his opposition to Lolth. Having ingame events continually produce these divinely ordained labels has the potential - not the certainty, of course - of making these tricky situations even trickier but for no real payoff that I can see, _other than_ not having to rewrite whole swathes of the system.

A question, too: if only a limited range of beings have cosmological alignment, how does your proposed reform handle Holy Word and its siblings/cousins? From  the purely mechanical point of view, those spells seem to rely on everyone having a relevant label.

EDIT:  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], maybe you should just skip this whole page!


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> A couple of questions. First, if Roghar carried out Baern's instructions why did Baern kill Roghar's wife? Or are those meant to be alternative possiblities?




Alternate possibilities.



> Second, is this an actual play example, or is it a hypothetical?



Hypothetical.



> If it's a hypothetical, and you're asking me how I would handle it, then I don't have an answer. This is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves. What are you expecting the GM to do?




I was assessing your involvement as a DM, with regards to the flagrant breaking of the paladin code by characters, although justified through great roleplay. 

If I were DM I would personally take a more active involvement - perhaps beginning with messages through dreams before any murder had taken place when the feelings of betrayal first started brewing, perhaps a temporary loss of powers, perhaps the celestial horse unwilling to seat the kidnapping paladin - at least not with ease...etc before having to take a heavier handed route - where the accessing of divine powers opened wounds on the "fallen" paladin and then finally when the murderous act was done, the paladin would suffer a loss of powers - a complete disconnect from his deity...but all this would be roleplayed out. This all at the top of my head. Preferably I would like to think it over and have the "fall" done more tastefully/be more dramatic, especially the moment the heavy act was done, something worthy for the great roleplay by the players.

I would furthermore award experience points for the roleplaying.    



> I have no idea about what has happened to take this to this point. Why is one paladin acting as a kidnapper and forcing another to act as an assassin? Why is he not challenging the other to a duel, for instance? Why is he not denouncing his father in pubic, and perhaps raising an army to depose him? It sounds to me like the story you describe is at the 11th hour, and without any information on what happend in the preceding 10 hours and 59 minutes you're asking me to decide how it should resolve.




You might sincerely be confused, I cannot honestly deny you this, but you are the only poster which is demanding more details for what I believe was a decently drawn hypothetical. Perhaps he already denounced his father in public, perhaps he already tried to raise opposition - hence the reason for his banishment from the kingdom. How does any of that change your answer of 



> I don't have an answer. This is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves. What are you expecting the GM to do?




I do not believe more details would change it (your answer), then why do you even bother making these kind of statements about the 11th hour...and so on?


----------



## Sadras

The below to me is the greatest proof that the anti-alignment posters decide what to qualitatively evaluate, which reflects a degree of inconsistency and a preference to a certain level of consequence-free settings. 



Sadras said:


> If a Paladin does a good deed and is rewarded by his deity (and thereby judged by the DM) why isn't that admonished? Why is the good deed not a problem for the anti-alignment crowd? Is it easier to evaluate a good or lawful deed? Or is the only safe or acceptable approach a fail-forward approach?




Which is absolutely fine, to each their own, IMO it just means they prefer a less grittier and traditional version of your D&D settings and we all do in some way - I mean we still use hit points.


----------



## Grydan

UnholyD said:


> First: Apparently you didn't read my post that well because I even stated that these rules can be overlooked in instances of wise or intelligent creatures. Dumb demons kill without regard for survival as they generally don't care as long as they are serving a "higher purpose" usually in the form of a Greater Demon or cause. Greater Demons are usually going to use "disposable minions" to serve their needs. I'd say the point makes itself but as evidenced by prior posts, I'm having better luck convincing a wall to stand aside.




Purpose and hierarchy are, again, concepts at odds with _chaos_. Chaos is purposeless and unstructured. Purpose and structure are the hallmarks of _order_. 

Also, intelligence and wisdom seem to be carrying the workload of telling us how creatures behave here to a much greater extent than alignment (or at least, the Law/Chaos axis). That stupid characters do stupid things is entirely consistent. That chaotic characters behave predictably is not. 



> Second: Basically you just said that anytime some form of entity acts a certain way that can predictably be noted, it is no longer Chaotic. Demons can't be Chaotically Aligned because they quite predictably murder and bring darkness into the world? Are you daft or is it you don't know what you are talking about?




As I believe I've indicated before, *I do not use mechanical alignment*. Whether something can or cannot be 'Chaotically Aligned' is irrelevant to me.

I am definitely not saying that no creature can follow the set of behaviours that you have described: it's a perfectly reasonable set of behaviours to use (well, in the sense of having a game character behave that way: I certainly wouldn't endorse them as a set of behaviours for use in real life).

What I'm saying is that to call that set of behaviours 'Chaotic' is unhelpful to anyone not steeped in D&D lore (and in agreement with your interpretation thereof), because it's at odds with what chaotic means in natural language.

Any common-use definition of chaos, as well as more formal definitions used for scientific applications (chaos theory) include the idea of _unpredictability_. Behaviour that follows a predictable pattern isn't chaotic. It might be 'Chaotic' with a capital C in game jargon, but that just means it's poorly labelled. I mean, the game might also say that items dropped fall Diagonally Up towards the Wall, by which it actually means what in natural language we'd call 'down towards the floor', but however well experienced players understand what's meant by the game terms, it's still obscure to an outsider.

If I needed a blanket term to describe "characters who, when given the choice, would rather break the law than obey it, given that they believe they can avoid being punished", I'd perhaps label it 'unlawful' ... but I don't think I particularly need such a blanket term.

Take an open road, free of traffic, free of speed traps, with a posted maximum speed limit. Take four drivers.

The first observes the posted limit and sets their speed a little under it (to allow themselves room for error), and then maintains that speed.
The second observes the posted limit, notes that there's nobody there enforcing it, checks the time, and then accelerates to a speed in excess of the legal limit, but within their ability to maintain control and avoid obstacles.
The third observes the posted limit, scoffs, and immediately floors it, trying to find the upper limits of their car's performance and their ability to maintain control.
The fourth observes the posted limit, and then proceeds to accelerate above the limit, then go below the limit, then suddenly brake as if to avoid an obstacle that isn't there, then signals a left turn but backs up in a straight line, then drives in circles for a while before accelerating to precisely the legal limit ... perpendicular to the road. 

One of these drivers is driving in a manner that might be described (by someone uninitiated in the vagaries of the 9-point Alignment grid) as chaotic. Hint: it's not the one who is making the considered and rational cost/benefit analysis that lets him get to his destination faster without penalty. Nor is it the one with the need for speed, despite their blatant disregard for lawfulness (or their own safety). 

I should note that in addition to finding 'Chaotic' as *you* define it rather _un_chaotic, I feel similarly about Poul Anderson's use of the terms Order and Chaos in _Three Hearts and Three Lions_ (which is mentioned in Appendix N and is a very clear influence on the D&D conception of the Paladin and the troll). The forces of Order seem utterly disorganized, while the forces of Chaos have a rather strict hierarchy where there's no doubt about who is in charge, and the real world faction that gets labelled chaotic is a frequent exemplar of _Lawful Evil_ when people attempt to apply the nine-point grid to the real world. 

And I don't need an alignment label to tell me that demons like to kill, destroy, and bring about darkness. The fact that they're _demons_ pretty much covers that sufficiently, and if not (given that D&D considers devils and demons as separate types of creature that can meaningfully be lumped together into those two categories, rather than synonyms as the terms often are in other material), the phrase "demons like to kill, destroy, and bring about darkness" is far more useful and informative in terms of how I should run them as a DM and how I should expect them to act if I encounter them while playing.



> Third: I should have stated "innocent" in my prior post and for that I apologize. Hopefully this clears things up.




That would improve things, certainly, though I suppose where you put it would be rather significant.



> Fourth: 4th Edition oversimplified everything. So to say they did Alignment correctly when it was merely an afterthought is proof that some people don't have the ability to play games beyond WoW.




It oversimplified _everything_? One of the complaints frequently voiced by those who dislike the system is that the fighter isn't simple, as it traditionally was. I'm not interested in engaging in an edition war, because it's no skin off my nose which editions you like or dislike, but hyperbole is rarely helpful. 

I also didn't say it "did alignment correctly", I said that Unaligned is more coherent than True Neutral, and gave reasons why I believe that to be so (admittedly more on the side of 'True Neutral is incoherent' than on the side of 'Unaligned is coherent', but I didn't feel much needed to be said about the coherency of Unaligned).

I've never played WoW. I'm unsure of its relevance to the topic at hand.

I also think that the people I've been playing RPGs with over the past few years would be quite astonished to find that I am, apparently, unable to play RPGs. I'll have to make sure to inform them at the next session.



> Fifth: Again, you apparently didn't read what I had written in my prior post. I said EQUALLY balanced. It doesn't mean as simply kill one then don't kill another. It means that all things even out in the end. If a Neutral person went around murdering everyone in sight, they wouldn't be Neutral or "Unaligned" as they'd be EVIL. Same thing goes if they gave every gold they ever earned to charity, they'd be GOOD. "Unaligned" is a simple way to say that they don't do enough on ANY AXIS to be regarded as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. It is the same F-ing thing.




Apparently you didn't read my post either, so perhaps  we're even in that respect. For clearly the hypothetical Neutral  murderer I posited doesn't murder _everyone_ in sight. Just _half_ of everyone. They have to not-murder someone for every one they murder, after all. You know, for balance.

Kidding aside, you're the one who said that they have to break an equal law for every law they follow. What law is the neutral person breaking to make up for following the 'don't murder people' one? How about to make up for not committing treason? I mean, *I* find it terribly easy _not_ to commit treason (the combination of lack of motive and lack of opportunity makes it quite effortless to obey the law), but it's also considered one of the gravest offences I could possibly commit, so obeying the law must require some pretty big law being broken to keep me in balance if I want to stay Neutral, right? Or is it based on the difficulty of following the law, rather than the severity of the punishment? And is it civil laws, or also religious strictures? Because that's a minefield. What about unwritten societal taboos? 

Clearly, I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by the phrase "for every law followed, an equal one must be broken", because I'm having a great deal of trouble figuring out how anyone can stay Neutral _at all_ under that stricture. For every law followed (in this case, I follow the law against committing murder), an equal one (please define a law that is equal to the law against committing murder) must be broken (in order to intentionally break it, I first must know what it is ... and here's where I pass my save to resist going off on a tangent about ignorance of the law). What heinous things are all of the True Neutral people who _aren't_ serial killers doing to make up for their obedience to the law? Or is it that there simply are no True Neutral people, and the 9-square grid has a hole in the middle, like some kind of square donut? Or is True Neutrality an inherently temporary state that one travels through when shifting from Evil to Good or Law to Chaos, where only if caught in the exact moment of transition can a character aptly be described as Truly Neutral?

And what's this about evening out in the end? Is someone who's blatantly 'Chaotic Evil' for the first half of their life, and then gets redeemed and lives out the rest of their life as a sainted paragon of virtue, the noblest of Lawful Good Paladins, somehow actually True Neutral (which would mean they can't actually be a paladin, under systems where only LG Paladins are permissible)? Surely things have to remain even (or nearly so) all along, or else the character isn't being Neutral at all. 

 Perhaps you can provide examples. Feel free to use other laws aside from those against murder and treason (though I'd love to see what one does to balance out obeying those). Care to give me an example of a character obeying a law, and then breaking another to balance it out and not slide away from True Neutrality and towards Lawful Neutral?

And no, Neutral as you've described it here (a balancing act between good and evil, chaos and law) is not the same thing as Unaligned. An Unaligned character doesn't worry about whether they've committed enough evil acts to balance out their good ones, or broken enough laws to make up for the ones they followed. They're not committed to an ideal of Neutrality. In fact, it's entirely possible for someone who has never performed an evil act in their life, and never broken a law, to be Unaligned. Alignment in 4E is about _commitment_.
If you choose an alignment, you're indicating your character's dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil. In a cosmic sense, it's the team you believe in and fight for most strongly. 
​ 
Note the 'if'. Unaligned represents _not_ choosing, not being dedicated to one of those sets of moral principles. Not "being dedicated to not being dedicated". 

If picking an alignment is like supporting your favourite team in [insert pro sport here], Unaligned isn't supporting Team X, and it's not hoping that everyone else's favourites play equally well, it's _not caring about the sport at all_. (Horrible metaphor if you try and extend it any further ... just try and figure out salary caps, trading deadlines, and team relocations ...).

One can be a good person, who is kind to others, obeys the law, gives to charity, and is a general pleasure to be around, without being a Good person, dedicated to the values of good.
One can be a quite wicked person, who mistreats others, breaks the law, steals from the needy, and is generally a pain in the ... neck, without being an Evil person, dedicated to the values of Evil.

Both of those people could be Unaligned, on the 4E scheme. Or, without changing their behaviour in any way beyond making a commitment to continue it, could easily relabel themselves Good and Evil respectively.

But in one sense, I do agree with you that the 4E take is too simplistic. But that's not because I think the 9-point grid is an improvement over it, but because real-world people and systems of morality and ethics map incredibly poorly onto either scheme. It's not a black and white world, or a five shades of grey or nine points of grey world, or a _Fifty Shades of Grey_ world, it's a swirl of colours that blend into each other and form intricate patterns and gradients. People are complex, and pigeon-holes obscure real and meaningful differences, lumping together people who may in fact have radically opposing viewpoints while separating those who differ only on minor details.

Sometimes I want a black and white world, with good guys and bad guys. I don't need mechanical alignment for that, I just tell the players (or make it clear through how characters act) "These guys are EVIL, and killing them is not only permissible but morally required". And sometimes I want a more realistic world, where players have to decide for themselves what their character's beliefs tell them about what is permissible, what is forbidden, and what is required. I don't think I've ever found myself wanting a world where there are N categories (where N is greater than 2 and less than 'as many categories as there are things to put in them') to slot people into and magic and cosmological structures that _care_ about those categories. 



> Sixth: You, sir, should get your facts together and straightened out before attempting to debate over something you quite clearly know little to nothing about. It makes you look like a simpleton.




It's always a pleasure to have a nice, polite, rational conversation with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, isn't it?


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> You might sincerely be confused, I cannot honestly deny you this, but you are the only poster which is demanding more details for what I believe was a decently drawn hypothetical. Perhaps he already denounced his father in public, perhaps he already tried to raise opposition - hence the reason for his banishment from the kingdom.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not believe more details would change it (your answer), then why do you even bother making these kind of statements about the 11th hour...and so on?



If I had more information, I might be able to say more about what, as a GM, I might do - for instance, what scenes would I frame, what antagonists would I put into play. More information would also help me understand what the players think they are doing. Does each player think his/her PC is being a genuine paladin, or not? To me that is very important for how I would deal with the situation as a GM.

Without that information, I can't say much more than I already did, namely that this is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves. If I did know more, I could say more about what steps I might actually take to help frame and resolve that actual play.

I am sorry you feel that I haven't treated your hypothetical with the respect that it deserves. If it is any consolation, I have been posting for the past several pages about an actual play example in which I do have all the information ready to hand.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION], I'm sorry I can't XP your terrific post.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> The below to me is the greatest proof that the anti-alignment posters decide what to qualitatively evaluate, which reflects a degree of inconsistency and a preference to a certain level of consequence-free settings.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> IMO it just means they prefer a less grittier and traditional version of your D&D settings and we all do in some way - I mean we still use hit points.



I don't understand "the below" - you quote yourself saying "If a Paladin does a good deed and is rewarded by his deity (and thereby judged by the DM) why isn't that admonished? Why is the good deed not a problem for the anti-alignment crowd?" but you don't quote anyone from the "anti-alignment crowd".

What sorts of "rewarding by deity" do you have in mind? The divine PCs in my game go up levels, and receive upgraded treasure, like all the rest. That's not me judging whether they did a good or bad thing, though - it's just applying the advancement mechanics.

As for not wanting consequence free settings, what is your evidence for that?

I'll refer you to these posts in the first instance. Are these examples of what you mean by "consequence free"?


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> What sorts of "rewarding by deity" do you have in mind?




Have the characters in your rpg groups ever received a gift, a pat on the back, something from a deity for good service? I'm assuming yes at some point in one campaign. And even if characters in your campaigns over the years have never received any reward/s from their deities are you opposed, on equal scale as you are on evaluating negatively, to PCs being rewarded by their deities (an in essence evaluated as 'done good' by their DMs) on good deeds?

I hope the above make sense.
My objection is that it seems acceptable to evaluate characters' actions as good and reward characters for those actions, but DMs should not dare judge any actions as bad. This does seem a little one sided.

Will revert later in terms of what I meant re consequence free


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> How so? A pocket calculator is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent - but it is infallible in its domain, namely, of doing 8-figure arithmetic.
> 
> When Descartes ran the cogito argument - which takes as a premise that a person is infallible in the rather narrow domain of knowing whether or not s/he is thinking - he wasn't thereby posting that people are omniscient. (As it happens I think the cogito argument, and the premise I have mentioned, are suspect; but the point still stands as an illustration that there is no general connection between fallibility in a domain and omniscience.)




You've totally avoided and danced around the question so... Again, since we established fallibility on the part of the gods in a general sense, show me in the books where this infallibility within a specific range is asserted.  This should be a pretty easy request ti fullfill unless like I said before it's not the default and it is instead your own assumptions about how the deities work with nothing else to back it up.



pemerton said:


> It's there in numbers 1 and 4:  moral wrongness resulting (in the context of a god described as "evil") from bad character.




I'm sorry this doesn't make sense.  Are you saying moral wrongness from bad character equates to a disregard of valuable things, or a misunderstanding of valuable things (which was how you defined evil's common usage earlier) because I see no mention whatsoever of valuable things or of ones relationship to them.  



pemerton said:


> No, the concordance was actually around 12, from memory - there may be a drop for opposing Vecna but I haven't done my bookkeeping to factor that in. (And reading on through your post I see there is no such drop.) The point of quoting that passage was to indicate the general capabilities of the artefact.
> 
> To be honest, I'm a little surprised to be hounded for being too flexible in my setting of stakes and consequences in a skill challenge by a poster who is fairly well known for posting how narrow and inflexible 4e is.




The discussion isn't about whether 4e is flexible or not and totally disregarding rules and making up whatever you want to happen because you feel like it doesn't speak to any inherent flexibility on the part of 4e so pleas let's not deflect this part of the conversation with irrelevant commentary.  As I said earlier you did not in fact use mechanical resolution to determine what happened to the familiar or the Eye of Vecna.  You made an evaluative (* To examine and judge carefully; appraise.)* judgement on the characters behavior and how Vecna regarded it and then stripped him of character build resources because of it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> When Descartes ran the cogito argument - which takes as a premise that a person is infallible in the rather narrow domain of knowing whether or not s/he is thinking - he wasn't thereby posting that people are omniscient. (As it happens I think the cogito argument, and the premise I have mentioned, are suspect; but the point still stands as an illustration that there is no general connection between fallibility in a domain and omniscience.)




I don't think we ought to drag Descartes into a debate about alignment, these philosophical references just don't feel that helpful to me. But would you, Descartes or anyone else honestly describe human beings as infallible? Infallibility in this case requires that Descartes strip away all the things we have fallibility with, in order to get to the most basic block of certainty, thought and existence. He then works backward from there, to establish what he can be certain of. But there is this mass of stuff weighed with doubt beyond those basic principles he establishes. I think if you are positing a huge pantheon of gods, who are often in conflict and opposition, describing them as infallible feels a bite strange. I guess you can reduce the scope, to say well Kashvel is the god of diamonds, so his knowledge of all things related to diamonds is perfect. But surely the areas beyond this, where these infallible gods are in conflict point to a huge amount of fallibility. It sounds to me like you are arguing for limited fallibility over a narrow domain, which is fine, but I don't think that is how other people meant the term at all.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras - on your point about reward or punishment.  Why do you equate that to alignment?  A deity can and should reward or punish based on the goals of that deity. Alignment need not apply. 

If my paladin of Heironeius brings order to a lawless land he might be rewarded by Heironeius. Sure. But not because he was lawful or good but because he is furthering H's goals. 

Why would you reward a PC just for being good?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Sadras - on your point about reward or punishment.  Why do you equate that to alignment?  A deity can and should reward or punish based on the goals of that deity. Alignment need not apply.
> 
> If my paladin of Heironeius brings order to a lawless land he might be rewarded by Heironeius. Sure. But not because he was lawful or good but because he is furthering H's goals.
> 
> Why would you reward a PC just for being good?




True alignment need not apply, but in your example the paladin was following H's goals. 

Who decided he was furthering H's goals? The DM.
Who evaluated said actions? The DM.
Who decided to reward the character for said actions? The DM.

Now take the example but instead say the paladin did not further H's goals but for whatever reason his actions caused further chaos: 

Why can the DM now not evaluate the character's actions?
Why can the DM (through H) not punish the character?


----------



## Hussar

He certainly can. Presupposing that it's clear that the paladin is actually acting against the interests of H. 

But again we're back to a pretty corner case. If you've chosen to play a paladin of Heironeus, then it would be pretty clear what your goals should be. 

At this point the player is likely acting so out of character that it's probably better resolved away from the table and out of character. 

Trying to use the NPC's to correct the player is an exercise in futility IMO.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> But would you, Descartes or anyone else honestly describe human beings as infallible?



Well, Descartes asserted this about a particular domain, yes. It's a crucial first step in his argument for the existence of the external world. And many great thinkers have accepted his starting point, if not the rest of the argument. (As I already indicated, I regard the first step as suspect, but that's probably a minority view in the philosophy of perception.)

There are particular domains in which some people are, for practical purposes, infallible. A trivial one would be knowing the 2 times table. I know many people who are, for practical purposes, infallible in that respect. Another trivial one, but apposite for most people, is knowing what name they go by. And knowing whether they write with their left or right hand would be yet another.

Whether a particular taste or texture makes them gag as they swallow it would probably be another, at least for a good number of people.

Beyond some fairly raw and immediate sensations, and some very trivial bits of knowledge, I agree that it is hard to attribute infallibility, even for practical purposes, to most people in respect of most things. But gods are (I would have thought) different sorts of beings - beings of ideals and thoughts, for a start, at least in 4e.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Have the characters in your rpg groups ever received a gift, a pat on the back, something from a deity for good service? I'm assuming yes at some point in one campaign.



I am with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on this - on the very odd occasion when a god has thanked the PCs (and I can only think of two or three) this has not involved evaluative judgement on my part. Even when the god has praised the PCs for their virtue, it's been an open question from the players' point of view whether the praise is deserved. (Eg most of my players would be worried if their PCs received such praise from Vecna.)

If you're asking whether a paladin has ever received praise from the god s/he serves outside the framework of PC advancement, then as best I can recall the answer is No.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> He certainly can. Presupposing that it's clear that the paladin is actually acting against the interests of H.




If you do this and allow this as DM, then you are in one way or another judging (evaluating) the characters actions in accordance with the deity they serve. YOU not the PLAYER - which is essentially what @_*N'raac*_ and @_*Imaro*_ are arguing. Which means you are essentially in agreement. 

Between us we can certainly disagree on the type of punishment how it is all executed..etc. Some DMs are a little more heavy handed than others, it also depends on the setting. 



> But again we're back to a pretty corner case. If you've chosen to play a paladin of Heironeus, then it would be pretty clear what your goals should be.




Agreed.



> At this point the player is likely acting so out of character that it's probably better resolved away from the table and out of character. Trying to use the NPC's to correct the player is an exercise in futility IMO.




No, I'm not meaning a bad out of character roleplayer. What if genuinely the character messed up, perhaps his interference made more of a mess of things which led maybe to riots, looting perhaps even death. Perhaps his emotions got out of hand and he struck a pompous politician or a self-righteous clergyman in his way. H could certainly punish him for failing. I'm assuming characters can fail objectives in your campaign - I mean if it was predestined success there would be no real point in playing.  

So again that would call on the DM to determine if his deities in that setting judge on intent (within the paladins heart) or whether they judge on results of actions. Either way you as DM will be evaluating and from your first two sentence I do not think our outlook is all that different.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> since we established fallibility on the part of the gods in a general sense, show me in the books where this infallibility within a specific range is asserted.



I haven't established that at all. Lack of omniscience doesn't imply fallibility. For instance ignorance, admitted honestly, is not error. Do you think Ioun goes around pretending to know things she doesn't?

As for infallibility, what do you think is involved in being a god of beauty, a being of "ideals and thought"? I don't see how such a being is going to be mistaken about the nature of beauty.

But even if you run your campaign differently, with gods of beauty confused about what counts as an example of beauty, I don't see how your approach is relevant to how I should GM my game.



Imaro said:


> Are you saying moral wrongness from bad character equates to a disregard of valuable things, or a misunderstanding of valuable things (which was how you defined evil's common usage earlier) because I see no mention whatsoever of valuable things or of ones relationship to them.



Yes. To act wrongly, or immorally, is to fail to act in the right sort of way ie to fail to orient one's acts towards valuable ends.

In more simple terms, to act immorally is to destroy things that shouldn't be destroyed (ie to destroy valuable things - life is the most obvious one); to fail to nurture what ought to be nurtured; to disrespect that which deserves respect; to put things that should count for less ahead of things that should count for more.

And what it generally means to describe someone as an evil person is to attribute such immoral conduct to the person's bad character.

Why do people act wrongly? What makes their character "bad"? Obviously a question with many answers! But the idea that their appreciation of value is in some way distorted or corrupted - for instance by excessive selfishness - is not a novel answer. It's a pretty standard one.



Imaro said:


> You made an evaluative (* To examine and judge carefully; appraise.)* judgement on the characters behavior and how Vecna regarded it and then stripped him of character build resources because of it.



Using _your_ stipulative definition to label _my_ activity is not going to persuade me that it is an instance of what _I_ don't like doing.

I've made it clear what I mean by "evaluative judgement". Judging that thwarting Vecna will piss Vecna off is not an instance of what I mean. Judging that the player acted rightly or wrongly would be an instance of what I mean; but I didn't judge any such thing.



Imaro said:


> you did not in fact use mechanical resolution to determine what happened to the familiar or the Eye of Vecna.



Yes I did. They were consequences flowing from the resolution of a skill challenge. I posted the relevant rules text and page references upthread.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Well, Descartes asserted this about a particular domain, yes. It's a crucial first step in his argument for the existence of the external world. And many great thinkers have accepted his starting point, if not the rest of the argument. (As I already indicated, I regard the first step as suspect, but that's probably a minority view in the philosophy of perception.)




again, i think these philosophical discussions add very little to debates and understanding about D&D, but again you are kind of stretching the use of the word here in my opinion. Descartes would not have described humans as infallible, just as posters rejected blanket descriptions of the gods as infallible. Now you can narrow things down to a point of certainty as descartes did (and i am really not interested in discussing the merits or details of his argument here----i think these kinds of side discussions do very little other than show some posters have read Descartes). But descartes argument is built on the assumption that humans are fallible, it is an argument based on extreme doubt because our  senses can mislead us and our understanding can be flawed. So leaping from that point to assert descarte is making an infallibility claim of about humans, feels odd to me, even if you confine it to a narrow space. 

So yes, you could describe a person or god as infallible over a narrow subject, fair enou, but that is different from saying someone or something is infallible in a general sense. 



> Beyond some fairly raw and immediate sensations, and some very trivial bits of knowledge, I agree that it is hard to attribute infallibility, even for practical purposes, to most people in respect of most things. But gods are (I would have thought) different sorts of beings - beings of ideals and thoughts, for a start, at least in 4e.




I would not use the word infallible to describe such entities.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I haven't established that at all. Lack of omniscience doesn't imply fallibility. For instance ignorance, admitted honestly, is not error. Do you think Ioun goes around pretending to know things she doesn't?




I believe Ioun's concept of knowledge is based around her particular, characterization, commandments to her worshipers and philosophy...  as an example, one of Ioun's commandments is...

Accumulate, preserve, and distribute knowledge in all forms.  Pursue education, build libraries and seek out lost and ancient lore...

Yet Ioun has no concept of knowledge that should be kept secret (this is the purview of Vecna but is still a part of the idea of knowledge)... if I discover a weapon of mass destruction, according to Ioun's teachings I should reveal it to all no matter what the cost??  Unregulated access to all knowledge can be just as destructive as the secrets Vecna keeps when it falls into the wrong hands and thus result in the destruction of something valuable... does this mean Ioun is corrupted, fallible in the area of knowledge that is centered around secrets, or something else?  IMO he is fallible since again, his area of the domain of knowledge is inherently flawed since he has no power or complete understanding of "secret" knowledge.



pemerton said:


> As for infallibility, what do you think is involved in being a god of beauty, a being of "ideals and thought"? I don't see how such a being is going to be mistaken about the nature of beauty.




No one said "mistaken" but this particular god of beauty will have her own idiosyncrasies, personality, experiences, viewpoints, etc. that color her perception of beauty...  as far as the gods being ideals and thoughts... 4e canon is very sketchy in this department.  I mean the Raven Queen started out as a mortal who was the consort of the previous god of death Nerull, who she betrayed and "claimed his portfolio by absorbing the powers of every tormented soul in his dominion..." .  She's not a being of ideals and thought, she's a mortal usurper who gained her power by killing the god of death (Ironic since he should have had a complete and infallible understanding of death)  and absorbing dead souls under his dominion...



pemerton said:


> But even if you run your campaign differently, with gods of beauty confused about what counts as an example of beauty, I don't see how your approach is relevant to how I should GM my game.




Again it's not about them being "confused" (if you don't understand my assertion just ask for clarification, or are you purposefully painting it incorrectly?)... rather than repeat again I'll direct you to what I've posted above...  Second, as I said earlier it's not about how you in particular run your games, but when you start proclaiming what the default is... well you should be able to back up the assertion you make.

I'm also curious... if who a god is, it's personality, idiosyncrasies, etc. have no bearing on his perception of his domain... how do gods become evil. Death isn't in and of itself evil... and if becoming the god of death gives one an infallible understanding of it, how is it possible to become corrupted and thus an evil god of death if you are just a being of infallible ideal and/or thought??  what is the catalyst that causes Nerull to be an evil god of death and the Raven Queen (who took her power from him) to be an unaligned god of death?   



pemerton said:


> Yes. To act wrongly, or immorally, is to fail to act in the right sort of way ie to fail to orient one's acts towards valuable ends.




But that is an evaluative judgement...  when you say "valuable"who decides what is or isn't valuable?  You are defining right and wrong...



pemerton said:


> In more simple terms, to act immorally is to destroy things that shouldn't be destroyed (ie to destroy valuable things - life is the most obvious one); to fail to nurture what ought to be nurtured; to disrespect that which deserves respect; to put things that should count for less ahead of things that should count for more.
> 
> And what it generally means to describe someone as an evil person is to attribute such immoral conduct to the person's bad character.
> 
> Why do people act wrongly? What makes their character "bad"? Obviously a question with many answers! But the idea that their appreciation of value is in some way distorted or corrupted - for instance by excessive selfishness - is not a novel answer. It's a pretty standard one.




So are characters judged in this way?  Can a player who destroys things that shouldn't be destroyed, fails to nurture what ought to be nurtured and disrespects that which deserves respect still claim to be good in your campaign... or even unaligned?  Can a cleric or paladin who does this claiming it is there deity or power that is the corrupted one and not them?  You're defining what is and isn't "evil" in your campaign right here, so does it apply to characters as well?



pemerton said:


> Using _your_ stipulative definition to label _my_ activity is not going to persuade me that it is an instance of what _I_ don't like doing.
> 
> I've made it clear what I mean by "evaluative judgement". Judging that thwarting Vecna will piss Vecna off is not an instance of what I mean. Judging that the player acted rightly or wrongly would be an instance of what I mean; but I didn't judge any such thing.




You judged he acted wrongly in the eyes of Vecna.  In the eyes of Vecna the right choice would have been to funnel souls to him.



pemerton said:


> Yes I did. They were consequences flowing from the resolution of a skill challenge. I posted the relevant rules text and page references upthread.




No you didn't you admitted that you totally disregarded the rules for the artifact and for the familiar.  You used DM fiat and assumed that the player was ok or wanted this to happen without getting explicit permission to take away some of his build resources... and no amount of sidestepping is going to change the fact that you didn't actually use any rules to determine this.


----------



## N'raac

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] – I’m writing ot and I find its length daunting, so to some extent I feel your pain…



pemerton said:


> Allow me to reiterate - there is no usage of the phrase "deny access to one or more class features" that encompasses dealing 1 hp of damage to a target. Which is what we are talking about in this particular case.




Without digging through many pages of back posts, my recollection is that you expressed a dislike for a system where the character’s ability to impact the fiction could be reduced as a consequence of an assessment of his play being inconsistent with his alignment (two key examples being loss of a level for alignment change and loss of Paladin abilities).  Am I incorrect that you felt that reducing influence on the shared fiction was problematic?

If so, then the issue is moot.  If not, then I fail to see how arbitrarily denying the player access to his familiar (whether by saying “it took a hp of damage” or some other mechanism not arising directly from action resolution mechanics) is philosophically different, rather than a question of degree of powers lost in magnitude and/or duration.  This was not limited to alignment – when it was noted a character could lose a level from the Undead, you were equally opposed to that.  Given “he could lose a level from being hit by a Wight” was not sufficient to suggest losing a level from alignment change was reasonable, I fail to see how “1 hp damage would eliminate the familiar” equates to “it is OK for me to arbitrarily remove the familiar without an action resolution which would do 1 hp to the familiar”.



pemerton said:


> I quoted the relevant skill challenge rules upthread. They expressly encompass the taking of damage in various ways as a possible consequence or stake in a skill challenge. In order to further satisfy your interrogatories, I post here the notes I had made for the particular skill challenge in question prior to the session:




First off, I sure wish someone versed in 4e would also look this over – it would not be hard for me to be way off base.


This is a L25 comp 5 skill challenge (21/29/38, 8M+4H before 3F, 6 Adv).

In the first stage the PCs must sweep through the Soul Abattoir, freeing souls while destroying shrivers and torture machinery. Each failure costs either 6d10+8 to the failing PC, or 3d10+9 to all the PCs, depending on fictional positioning.


To charge among the shrivers and fall upon them, Athletics or Acrobatics (+2 to check if use close burst power), or Stealth if enhanced in some way, or Intimidate if prepared to take damage as per a failure (max 4 successes);
To free souls (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Religion (+2 to check if use Turn Undead-type power) (max 2 successes);
To destroy machinery (requires first that someone deal with the shrivers), Arcana or Dungeoneering (max 2 successes).

After 7 successes, the PCs have a final confrontation with the shrivers (see over).[/quote]

OK, first question:  any failure inflicts damage.  Did any failure in this part of the SC inflict damage on “all the PC’s”?  If so, or if it had, would this also incapacitate the familiar, given it had only one hp, or was it generally exempt from the above consequences, not itself being a PC?



pemerton said:


> If the shrivers are defeated, the Soul Abattoir will start to collapse. This is the second stage, and requires:
> 
> 
> Escape (Group Athletics and/or Acro vs M difficulties, max 2 successes
> Holding back the energies (Arcana, max 1 success);
> Prayers to the Raven Queen (Religion, max 2 successes);
> Withstanding the energies and dust (Endurance, if done as solo H then can grant others +2 to escape; otherwise group; max 1 success each);
> Insight can reveal the presence of Vecna (no success, no failure) via Malstaph’s imp.
> 
> If the Challenge is failed, Vecna takes control of the Soul Abattoir as the imp, under the control of the Eye, breaks free from Malstaph. (If this happens before reaching 7 successes, the shrivers converge on the PCs as they are driven back.)




I don’t get how the PC’s wee to get 8 medium + 4 hard successes overall.  I count three options in the first list (with combined internal maxima of 8) and 4 in the second (combined internal maxima of 7, I think, assuming two possibilities for the last one).  I assume that means they need 7 successes in the first list (so all internal max’s hit but one), then 5 from the second list (so they have a bit more choice there).



pemerton said:


> In fact it didn't end up playing quite like that. For instance, as best I recall the Insight check was counted as a success.




So you set the rules, but then you don’t follow your own rules.



pemerton said:


> Also, at the climax I decided it would be more dramatic if Vecna was going to get the souls unless the invoker, who was controlling the soul energies (via a Religion check - another departure from how I had anticipated it might play out), deliberately chose to divert them to the Raven Queen.




So, again, just changing the rules on the fly.



pemerton said:


> That choice had a cost - namely, the suffering of 1 hp of damage by the imp familiar. (Though at the time I didn't describe it that way - what the player cares about is not that his imp has taken 1 or 10 or 100 hp of damage, but that it is shut down.)




So, to summarize, it was not the game mechanics or action resolution system that shut the familiar down.  It was not even your previously defined consequences for failed rolls or potential to access bonuses for one or more rolls.  It was  not a consequence of a failed roll.  It was an off the cuff decision that, if the player decided to make a certain decision in-game, he would lose access to a class feature. 



pemerton said:


> You seem to have in mind some rather narrow version of action resolution mechanics, in which damage can only be inflicted as a result of an attack roll in combat. (Perhaps a failed save as well? I would imagine that's an element of the version of D&D you play.)




I am seeing, from the above, the familiar taking damage by GM fiat, not by the action resolution mechanics.  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seems to see the same thing.  If a player tells me “I fight on the defensive this round”, taking an AC bonus, for which reason his attacker misses instead of hitting, I would not then decide “Well, as you were fighting on the defensive, your familiar scurried into the path of the blow and was hit instead of you.”  And if he made his Religion roll to address the second stage (which I don’t think he did in a prayer to the Raven Queen – could he not pray to one of his other deity contacts?), that seems like a success in the skill challenge, not a failure to preserve his familiar, which is not mentioned at all in the stakes, other than “sensing Vecna’s presence” (which seems to have no mechanical impact on the skill challenge) or, if the challenge fails, losing the familiar to Vecna.

I am not arguing that the player was not warned his familiar was in danger.  I am not arguing that the play was, or was not, good.  I am asserting that you placed the player’s access to a class feature at stake based on the behavioural choice his character made.  To compare two possible in-game occurences:



Invoker says “I will channel the souls to the Raven Queen.  I know this choice puts ongoing access to my familiar at risk.”  The familiar is, in fact, removed from his control for some period, without him having any ability to prevent this result – it occurs if he makes the behavioural choice in question.
 


Fighter says “I will strike down the man in my path.  I know this choice reflects a lack of respect for life, and could jeopardize my Good alignment, potentially costing me a level.”  The level is, in fact, lost, without him having any ability to prevent this result – it occurs if he makes the behavioural choice in question.
 
You seem to perceive a fundamental difference between the game philosophy of the two.  I perceive only a question of degree, in the significance of the loss and its duration.  That is, I think, a key area where we differ.




pemerton said:


> Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps its because, as a GM, I'm not a big fan of making unilateral changes to my players' PC builds.




Then why is it incapacitated at all?  Is a temporary loss acceptable, but a longer term or permanent loss unacceptable?  Where is the line drawn?  Atonement can recover those Paladin powers, and experience regains a lost level, so neither of these is strictly “permanent”.  Most versions xp rules had lower level characters gain more xp from the same encounter, and higher levels cost more xp, so the character should eventually catch up to the other PC’s in level.



pemerton said:


> Yes, they are not perfect exemplars of values. I hadn't realised that that was contentious! What do _you_ think "evil" means? I think it means - drawing on Imaro's posted definitions upthread - _of bad character_, or perhaps _prone to wrongdoing_. If so-called "evil" gods pursued values without error or corruption, then they wouldn't be evil, would they?




So Orcus is not a perfect exemplar of the Undead, nor Demogorgon an exemplar of mindless destruction?  Often, alignment debates have included the phrase “’Good’ does not mean ‘Stupid’”.  Here, it seems Evil and Stupid become synonymous.



pemerton said:


> I don't know why you say that. I've already given an example upthread in which a player might regard Vecna as exemplifying the truth about secrecy (and, as I said, presumably therefore doesn't regard Vecna as evil). In those cases, I would not - as GM - second-guess the player's conception of what true secrecy requires.



Why can’t a given value itself be evil?  Gods of war, destruction, tyranny, pain, suffering and murder come to mind.  Do those deities become evil because they don’t fully understand pain, suffering or murder?  Would a purer understanding result in a LG (or at least Unaligned) God of Torture and Murder?

You pay a lot of service to “PC Conception” in the lengthy passages I have not quoted.  What if his conception is “great warrior”?  Does he get to override to hit and damage rolls?  Perhaps his conception is “as a shadow in the night” – do his Stealth checks succeed automatically?  Why is only consistency with their deity or philosophy placed entirely under the player’s control?  I’ve certainly played in games where my conceptual vision of the character failed to manifest due to the dice not co-operating, or due to errors in my own realization of the vision, through design or play.  Why is my “moral vision” the only aspect of concept mandating exclusive player control?



pemerton said:


> Aragorn - "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer". Arthur I don't know off the top of my head - but other examples of the trope include King Edward the Confessor, who was reputed to heal with a touch.
> 
> As for being warded from evil magic by the divine? The whole of Arthur's reign, and the blissful period of Camelot - until it was riven by sin, of course. Aragorn's survival throughout his adventures, up to his realisation of his destiny to become king.




So the PC is only protected by magic in retrospect when he survives to achieve his goals?  Ultimately, Camelot fell, and it was not Arthur’s sin which caused it to fall.  As for the “healer”, reviewing that passage, he used herbalism, satisfying a prophecy that he was the Rightful King.  At no other point in the entire trilogy does he demonstrate any healing skills, and even these may or may not be magical, rather than herbalism.



pemerton said:


> OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is modelled on the classic trope of divinely bestowed kingship?





OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is the inspiration for the Ranger class, and that instead he inspired the Paladin class?



pemerton said:


> 'm not sure I understand. I'm now a bad GM, or an inconsistent GM, or something, because I have framed scenes in which dead PCs meet their makers, and I didn't have the express permission of the rulebooks to do so? (Which may not even be true - looking at p 161 of the DMG I see that "When mortal creatures die, their spirits travel first to the Shadowfell before moving on to their final fate", while p 160 tells me that "the Raven Queen’s palace of Letherna stands in the Shadowfell".)
> 
> If you're saying that, when a player whose PC is dead wants to play out a conversation with his immortal mistress - in circumstances where that mistress is also the god of the dead, and the PC is one of her marshals (a Marshal of Letherna) - it's bad GMing to frame and resolve that scene, then our conceptions of what makes for good RPGing are even more different than I thought.
> 
> _The player, playing his PC, expressed doubts about his resolution and sought advice_. I, playing the Raven Queen, offered some advice. _How is that thwarting or denying the player's conception of his/her PC_. It is affirming it, and building on it.




I am not judging whether it was good gaming or bad in theory, nor whether it was well or poorly implemented in practice, nor whether you are a good or bad GM.

I am saying two things:



your claim that this scene was framed under the action resolution rules of the game is categorically erroneous.
 


this scene evaluates the PC’s actions in the eyes of his deity, as played by you, contrary to your previously stated unwillingness to engage in precisely such an evaluation.
 


Imaro said:


> The discussion isn't about whether 4e is flexible or not and totally disregarding rules and making up whatever you want to happen because you feel like it doesn't speak to any inherent flexibility on the part of 4e so pleas let's not deflect this part of the conversation with irrelevant commentary. As I said earlier you did not in fact use mechanical resolution to determine what happened to the familiar or the Eye of Vecna. You made an evaluative (* To examine and judge carefully; appraise.)* judgement on the characters behavior and how Vecna regarded it and then stripped him of character build resources because of it.



  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you go on to dismiss the plain English meaning as inconsistent with your use of the term.  How does that align with your previous, extended, insistence that Good and Evil in the game rules must be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary English usage?

OK, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I wrote it and I don’t know that it’s worth reading, so I’ll give you that one!  Are you familiar with 4e mechanics?  Can you offer a comment on the Skill Challenge from that perspective?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> i think these philosophical discussions add very little to debates and understanding about D&D



That's your prerogative.

When posters are debating how combat mechanics should work, I find it interesting to hear from those who actually have some experience of hand-to-hand fighting.

When I am being told that my conception of the game's theology and cosmology is mistaken, or that I am inconsistent in my conception of what counts as second-guessing my players' evaluative and expressive responses, I will draw upon my own knowledge of the relevant fields in explaining why I play the game as I do.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> No. I just expect people to post with a modest degree of respect, and as part of that to make a good faith effort to understand my approach and reasoning as a GM.




I think you (pemerton) get more of that over at _therpgsite_. 

I was just mulling over something that happened in my Southlands 4e campaign a few years ago, where a player of Varek the Altanian realised that his own self-conception as a virtuous hero was flawed. The campaign had evolved into a fairly dark, serious examination of the dynamics of inter-ethnic
 conflict. He decided to kill the captured enemy Nerathi noblewomen for reasons that seemed good 
to him at the time - they deserved to die because they were guilty of the crime of 
Necromancy, and you kill Necromancers, right? He had seen one reanimate the body of one 
of her own fallen soldiers, and her explanation that the dead man was a volunteer hadn't impressed Varek. 
After the bloody deed was done, the player had a realisation: 
"There are no good guys here..." - He had seen himself as the heroic good guy, but he 
realised his behaviour wasn't morally justifiable. It was a very dramatic moment, and it couldn't have happened if I as GM had declared* "OK, you are Evil alignment now" the moment he killed 
the captives.

*This tends to work out a lot like George Lucas to Anakin Skywalker's player in Revenge of 
the Sith.
GM:
"You killed Mace Windu?! You're Evil now!" 
Anakin's player:
"What?! ..... (pause) ....Might as well go massacre some baby Jedi then."


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> When I am being told that my conception of the game's theology and cosmology is mistaken, or that I am inconsistent in my conception of what counts as second-guessing my players' evaluative and expressive responses, I will draw upon my own knowledge of the relevant fields in explaining why I play the game as I do.




My feeling is it isn't very helpful to discussions about RPGs to draw on these kinds of things. Especially stuff like Descarte's Meditations on First Philosophy or obscure terms from philosophy of ethics, were most people are not going to be deeply familiar with the arguments and language. It just makes it more difficult for people without this expertise to participate in the discussion.


----------



## S'mon

N'raac said:


> OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is the inspiration for the Ranger class, and that instead he inspired the Paladin class?




Aragorn was inspired by Arthur and by other 'True Kings' with Paladinesque powers, such as 
Lay On Hands. Aragorn inspired Gygax's Ranger class in (eg) 1e AD&D. Later iterations of the Ranger moved further away from Aragorn, to the extent that in 4e D&D the Paladin is much closer to Aragorn than the 4e Ranger is. The 4e Ranger class looks a lot like film-LotR Legolas.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> But that is an evaluative judgement...  when you say "valuable"who decides what is or isn't valuable?  You are defining right and wrong...



Noting that "evil" implies some sort of failure to comprehend or adequately respond to the valuable isn't defining right or wrong - it's picking out a purely formal feature of the use of the word.

But judging that some person is evil, yes, that does involve taking a stand on right or wrong. If someone was never going to take such a stand, they would have no use for words like "good" or "evil".

Hence, to describe Vecna as an evil god is to take a stand on what is right and wrong: it is to characterise Vecna's self-aggrandising obsession with secrecy as wrong. Hence my remark upthread that a player whose PC took the view that Vecna was not corrupted or disordered in his/her conception of secrecy would presumably also not characterise Vecna as evil, at least when adopting the perspective of that PC.

Likewise, a player and/or PC might reach the conclusion that Ioun is evil, or at least dangerously naive, for the sorts of reasons you give in your post.



Imaro said:


> Can a player who destroys things that shouldn't be destroyed, fails to nurture what ought to be nurtured and disrespects that which deserves respect still claim to be good in your campaign... or even unaligned?



The character can claim whatever s/he wants. Others might contest that claim. In this respect I imagine the gameworld looking much like the real world, in which some people claim to be good, others denounce them as evil, and so on.



Imaro said:


> Can a cleric or paladin who does this claiming it is there deity or power that is the corrupted one and not them?  You're defining what is and isn't "evil" in your campaign right here, so does it apply to characters as well?



I don't follow this. The connection between "evil" and "disregard of the valuable" is a formal or conceptual connection. If a cleric of Vecna denies that s/he and his/her god are evil, s/he is not disputing that formal connection. Rather, s/he is denying that s/he and Vecna disregard the valuable.

It's not part of my job as GM to decide whether or not that denial is true. That's the main point of abandoning mechanical alignment - to exclude these evaluative judgements from the domain of referee adjudication, and instead to permit each participant in the game to play the game and make the evaluative judgements s/he thinks are warranted by the material before him/her.

When alignment is abandoned, the questions "Is Vecna _really_ evil" or "Is Ioun _really_ naive" are not questions to whch the game materials or the GM gives an answer. Answering those questions is not part of the mechanical play of the game, anymore than it is part of the mechanical play of the game to decide whether the player of the fighter made the right decision in choosing to flank from this square rather than this other square.



Imaro said:


> You judged he acted wrongly in the eyes of Vecna.  In the eyes of Vecna the right choice would have been to funnel souls to him.



This is a misdescription. I judged that he _angered_ Vecna. I didn't even turn my mind to what Vecna would regard as right or wrong. In fact I'm not 100% sure that Vecna _has_ a robust working conception of right and wrong. Be that as it may, none of the material on Vecna that I have read suggests that Vecna regards his self-aggrandisement as a moral entitlement, to which others are duty-bound to contribute. He simply takes the power that he can get.



Imaro said:


> you admitted that you totally disregarded the rules for the artifact and for the familiar.



The rules for a familiar state that it has 1 hp.

The rules for artefacts moving on, and for the Eye of Vecna moving on, I already quoted upthread (from the DMG pp 165, 168):

When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . .

A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment . . .

The Eye of Vecna consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust.​
How is it disregarding the rules for this artefact to have Vecna inflict 1 hp of damage on the familiar in whom it is implanted? Are you saying that it is permissible to have the imp crumble to dust, but not to have the imp take 1 hp of damage?


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - nice actual play example that (for me, at least) serves as a good illustration of what I mean by allowing the player to have his/her own evaluative and expressive response.

I also share your dim view of the Star Wars prequels.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> If you do this and allow this as DM, then you are in one way or another judging (evaluating) the characters actions in accordance with the deity they serve. YOU not the PLAYER - which is essentially what @_*N'raac*_ and @_*Imaro*_ are arguing. Which means you are essentially in agreement.
> 
> Between us we can certainly disagree on the type of punishment how it is all executed..etc. Some DMs are a little more heavy handed than others, it also depends on the setting.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not meaning a bad out of character roleplayer. What if genuinely the character messed up, perhaps his interference made more of a mess of things which led maybe to riots, looting perhaps even death. Perhaps his emotions got out of hand and he struck a pompous politician or a self-righteous clergyman in his way. H could certainly punish him for failing. I'm assuming characters can fail objectives in your campaign - I mean if it was predestined success there would be no real point in playing.
> 
> So again that would call on the DM to determine if his deities in that setting judge on intent (within the paladins heart) or whether they judge on results of actions. Either way you as DM will be evaluating and from your first two sentence I do not think our outlook is all that different.




Well yes of course the DM runs NPC's. I don't think anyone denies that. And, presuming that deities take an active role in the game, such as Scarred Lands forex, then sure there might be direct interaction between PCs and deities. 

But, the difference for me would be context. In a Mechanical Alignment game, the DM must judge PC actions based on the alignment elements set out in the phb, not based on the
NPC in question. Alignment definitions don't change based on who you are talking to. 

For me, judgement would be based on the portfolio of the deity that the player chose. The player in choosing a deity has basically said that they will abide by the tenets of that deity. And these tenets are usually pretty clear cut. At least far more clear than alignment.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - nice actual play example that (for me, at least) serves as a good illustration of what I mean by allowing the player to have his/her own evaluative and expressive response.




That whole campaign arc was inspired by the Gray Company entry in "Threats to the Nentir 
Vale", Nerathi who want to restore the fallen Empire of Nerath and are willing to reanimate 
their own dead to do so - men who had already volunteered to be reanimated. It raised the whole "what are you willing to do in a good cause?" issue and "what do you do when two good causes collide?" - since the PCs were mostly Altanian barbarians whose existence as free people stood in the way 
of Nerath Restored. Some player groups would have been able to engage in political conciliation and established peace. With this group it spiralled down into something resembling the Bosnian
civil war, they successfully managed to wipe out all the moderate Nerathi and most of the 
living Nerathi (and one of the main moderates they killed was an undead warrior, the reanimated ancestor of Halvath Comarin the Nerathi commander), with victory going to a couple surviving Necromancers and their undead hordes. I definitely think that mechanical 
Alignment would have hurt or stopped this campaign, eg it was important that there were 
both 'good' and 'bad' Nerathi on the same side, fighting for the same cause.


----------



## Manbearcat

Sadras said:


> The below to me is the greatest proof that the anti-alignment posters decide what to qualitatively evaluate, which reflects a degree of inconsistency and a preference to a certain level of consequence-free settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sadras*
> 
> 
> If a Paladin does a good deed and is rewarded by  his deity (and thereby judged by the DM) why isn't that admonished? Why  is the good deed not a problem for the anti-alignment crowd? Is it  easier to evaluate a good or lawful deed? Or is the only safe or  acceptable approach a fail-forward approach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is absolutely fine, to each their own, IMO it just means they prefer a less grittier and traditional version of your D&D settings and we all do in some way - I mean we still use hit points.
Click to expand...



I'm going to attempt to answer this but I doubt it will be to your satisfaction.  There are several different issues at work here for me and I absolutely do not believe there is any "degree of inconsistency" (as you suggest above) just as I absolutely disagree with the equivalence that  [MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION] suggested above (between evaluation of physical consequences to action, and attendant fallout, and metaphsysical evaluation of ethos, and attendant fallout).

1)  When a player has picked "Paladin" as their class of choice, they have insurance that their default state is "Grace."  It is therefore assumed that this is its steady state; "Grace", "worthy of divine boon", or "champion of ethos". 

2)  As such, to move the Paladin to a transient state (momentarily away from its steady state of "Grace" or "Fallen" status), requires the introduction of an exogenous variable (external to the system) or the perturbation of an endogenous component (within the organism) that is typically considered to be unchanging with time.  

3)  Evaluating the effect required to move the system from "Grace" to "Fallen" involves some kind of sensitivity test; how resilient is the Paladin's state of "Grace" to an introduction of this exogenous variable or endogenous shake-up.  To accurately perform that sensitivity test, you must understand (i) the precise nature of the state of "Grace" and (ii) the precise nature of the effect being applied to it.  

Now I am no cosmological entity.  I'm not equipped with heightened metaphysical perception nor intelligence agents.  I'm not equipped with whatever measure of precognition they possess (mystical divinations or whatever the possess to say "weal" or "woe" during divine consultation) to adjudicate the long view at a level far removed from my mere mortal means of extrapolation.  I think I can sink my teeth into (i) above _reasonably ok_.  If my players tell me precisely what they think it is (such as through a few precise statements of ethos or belief), then I can make our mutual understanding considerably more robust than it would be otherwise.  As such, aligning my perspective with how they expect me to frame adversity such that we test those micro-beliefs/ideals through focused conflict, is much easier.  It is (ii) where most of the problems come in.  (ii) will be, in part derivative of (i), but certainly not wholly.  Whats more, whatever answer that comes (nature of variable and amplitude required to perturb the system) will not remotely be precise due to all of the various fallibility (of perception, extrapolation, precognition, and understanding) that I've outlined several times upthread. 

At this point, I feel I should bridge to another concept of which I personally hold true to.  Morality is a bank account of which we made deposits and withdrawals throughout our lifetime.  Some of these deposits or withdrawals may be small, while others may be significant enough to create a surplus or a debt that is renders the morale bank account robust to future deposit or withdrawal.

So, with that out of the way, yes, I feel perfectly comfortable in adjudicating when someone makes a deposit into their morale bank account.  I understand concepts of good will, commitment to duty that bears no immediate fruit personally, pursuing the just path despite the lack of tangible returns (in fact, most times the just path is tangibly punitive to the party that pursues it), being kind without cause, being steadfast in your ability to be relied upon and in taking accountability for your own failures.  These things are easy to wrap my head around.  I feel qualified in my personal life to say "yes, Bob has just deposited into his moral bank account...any good faith observer should see him as better than was before the transaction...I certainly deem him so." However, withdrawals are abundantly more difficult to quantify and qualify.  I don't know all of the various moving parts that may be equal parts a hard decision between two bad choices, political expedience, egoism, reckless endangerment, or being thrust into an unwinnable situation but taking responsibility for it while others shirked.  And I certainly don't know whether good intentions will lead to the road to hell (as no historical villain considers his intentions "evil" when he is committing to an agenda that historians will deem wicked).

So, in total.  If Thurgon is a Paladin of the God of Battle and Bravery and he leads from the front in a great battle, tests his mettle against the overwhelming force of the enemy's vanguard, and leads the good guys to victory in protecting a peaceful settlement/kingdom locked in the cross-hairs of the horde...yes, you bet I'll feel much more comfortable deeming his moral bank account as in the black and deserving of a boon than I would in deeming his moral bank account in the red while in the midst of all manner of unquantifiable murk, mire and moral circumstance (with some vague, handwavey sensitivity test) and deserving of divine retribution (temporarily casting out from Grace).  Specifically when I'm calibrating against the moving, oft at odds, targets of D&D Law vs Neutrality vs Chaos and Good vs Evil.  Give me an extremely straight-forward belief that requires virtually no interpretation (especially one of which myself and the player have agreed upon) and I would be much less reluctant.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> @_*Grydan*_ , I'm sorry I can't XP your terrific post.




Covered and yes, terrific post.


----------



## Cadence

Grydan said:


> Any common-use definition of chaos, as well as more formal definitions used for scientific applications (chaos theory) include the idea of _unpredictability_. Behaviour that follows a predictable pattern isn't chaotic.




Isn't mathematical chaos entirely predictable if you know the exact equation and exact starting values, since it's entirely deterministic?  (But, of course, if you don't know either of those it's indistinguishable from true randomness to you).



Grydan said:


> It might be 'Chaotic' with a capital C in game jargon, but that just means it's poorly labelled ...  If I needed a blanket term to describe "characters who, when given the choice, would rather break the law than obey it, given that they believe they can avoid being punished", I'd perhaps label it 'unlawful' ... but I don't think I particularly need such a blanket term.




Even ignoring the dictionary and math, chaos does seem to have a lot of in game interpretations: rebelliousness and actively resenting authority, freedom and simply ignoring authority, random behavior, and the anti-laws-of-this-universe insanity called the far realms.   In terms of cosmology they certainly don't seem to mesh together as one thing that should be called Chaos (is there anything that could serve as an exemplar of all four?).   Law seems to have the same problem with things like desire for social law and order, determinism, and stasis.    



			
				Pathfinder PRD said:
			
		

> alignment is a curious creature


----------



## Sadras

S'mon said:


> "There are no good guys here..." - He had seen himself as the heroic good guy, but he
> realised his behaviour wasn't morally justifiable. It was a very dramatic moment, and it couldn't have happened if I as GM had declared* "OK, you are Evil alignment now" the moment he killed
> the captives.
> 
> *This tends to work out a lot like George Lucas to Anakin Skywalker's player in Revenge of
> the Sith.
> GM:
> "You killed Mace Windu?! You're Evil now!"
> Anakin's player:
> "What?! ..... (pause) ....Might as well go massacre some baby Jedi then."




Typical. So the conception is DMs using alignment behave like prats and a -for-tat would be DMs not using alignments play in a consequence-free environment. I guess we are both happy now.


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> Isn't mathematical chaos entirely predictable if you know the exact equation and exact starting values, since it's entirely deterministic?  (But, of course, if you don't know either of those it's indistinguishable from true randomness to you).




Actually no. In a chaotic system you have emergent properties that cannot be predicted.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Typical. So the conception is DMs using alignment behave like prats and a -for-tat would be DMs not using alignments play in a consequence-free environment. I guess we are both happy now.




Hang on a tick. 

Throughout this thread the alignment side has repeatedly stated the need for the DM to adjudicate player alignment. This has been consistent throughout the thread. This is considered one of the biggest reasons why we need mechanical alignment. 

Yet every example of a DM actually adjudicating alignment is brushed aside with the idea that we are insisting on bad DM's. 

Give me an example of a DM adjudicating player behaviour where both the player and DM are acting in good faith - so no baby murdering paladins - that you would consider a legitimate adjudication.


----------



## S'mon

Sadras said:


> Typical. So the conception is DMs using alignment behave like prats and a -for-tat would be DMs not using alignments play in a consequence-free environment. I guess we are both happy now.




My George Lucas/ep III analogy reflects my actual game experience. Back ca 2001 running 3.0 I had 
two Monk players with Lawful Neutral on their character sheets. Their behaviour was sometimes Evil. Eventually I told them that their Alignment had shifted to LE. This then caused them to go Full Evil, much more Evil than before, much more Evil than if I had not told them about the shift.

As for consequences - in my Southlands game there were massive in-world consequences for Varek's behaviour, the conflict kept escalating, leading to his eventual death at the hands of a thousand-strong Necromancer-controlled ghoul horde as he held a bridge over the river long enough for his allies to evacuate the doomed town behind him. The drama of his heroic but doomed last stand, indeed of the whole arc, would have been destroyed if I had told the player "You're Evil now" the moment 
he killed the captured noblewomen. "You're Evil now" is a GM hammer declaration which 
IME is inimical to any possibility of genuine drama or pathos.

Edit: If I GM d6 Star Wars I will of course track Dark Side points and tell a player if they've gone over to the Dark Side. But it can lead to silly results. Eg in one of the last d6 SW games I ran, a captured Jedi PC used the Dark Side to break out of jail and Samson-smash the Imperial starbase where he was held, wreaking a lot of havoc before his inevitable death. The local Imperial fleet was badly weakened, causing it to be defeated in a later battle with the Rebel Alliance. The PC behaved as a classic altruistic Hero, giving his life for the greater good, but the rules said he died a bad guy because he, being unarmed, had used the Dark Side to fight the Imperials. If he had cut them up with a lightsaber he'd have been fine.


----------



## pemerton

*On value*


N'raac said:


> So Orcus is not a perfect exemplar of the Undead, nor Demogorgon an exemplar of mindless destruction?



I took it as obvious that undeath and mindless destruction are not values. I have to confess it never occurred to me that someone would think otherwise.



N'raac said:


> Why can’t a given value itself be evil?



For the same reason that a given square can't be triangular?

Values are valuable. Worth nurturing and pursuing. It's pretty much inherent in the notion of evil that it is to be avoided, and that nurturing it is the wrong thing to do. Good: the most general term of commendation in English; Evil: the most general term of condemnation.


*On mechanical consequences*


N'raac said:


> Given “he could lose a level from being hit by a Wight” was not sufficient to suggest losing a level from alignment change was reasonable



As I've already posted, multiple times (at least twice) in reply to you, I don't regard level-draining undead as a good mechanic either. Hence I don't use them. Their presence in the game certainly doesn't make me more relaxed about XP loss from changing alignment.



N'raac said:


> I fail to see how arbitrarily denying the player access to his familiar (whether by saying “it took a hp of damage” or some other mechanism not arising directly from action resolution mechanics) is philosophically different
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I fail to see how “1 hp damage would eliminate the familiar” equates to “it is OK for me to arbitrarily remove the familiar without an action resolution which would do 1 hp to the familiar”.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I sure wish someone versed in 4e would also look this over – it would not be hard for me to be way off base.



You are way off base, and apparently have no understanding of the action resolution mechanics of D&D 4e. I didn't "arbitrarily remove the familiar without an action resolution."

For the third time, I will post the relevant action resolution mechanics from the DMG's description of the Eye of Vecna (pp 165, 168):

When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . .

A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment . . .

The Eye of Vecna consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust.​
And for the second time I will post the relevant action resolution mechanics from the rules for skill challenges:

DMG pp 74, 76
What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure.

Beyond those fundamental rewards, the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward. . .

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do.

DMG2 p 86
Here are some options you might want to account for in desiging a skill challenge: . . .

* Voluntarily taking damage . . . or sacrificing a healing surge.​
The notion that a consequence of a skill challenge cannot include a familiar taking damage is something that you and  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] have dreamed up. It has no foundation in any 4e rules text - as anyone can see from the passages I've just posted.

And I will post more relevant text, I believe for the first time, from the DMG p 42:

Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them. . .

*Setting Improvised Damage*: Sometimes you need to set damage for something not covered in the rules - a character stumbles into the campfire or falls into a vat of acid, for example.​
The player in my game had his PC take an unusual action - namely, while holding back the flow of soul energy, diverting it from Vecna to the Raven Queen as he and his friends had intended. I had to adjudicate it. As part of that, I had to set damage - namely, the damage that an angered Vecna would inflict - which the rules didn't cover. I did so.

In other words, the action resolution mechanics were engaged.



N'raac said:


> Did any failure in this part of the SC inflict damage on “all the PC’s”?  If so, or if it had, would this also incapacitate the familiar, given it had only one hp, or was it generally exempt from the above consequences, not itself being a PC?



I don't recall. But the familiar was in passive mode, so no, it would not have taken any such damage.



N'raac said:


> I don’t get how the PC’s wee to get 8 medium + 4 hard successes overall.  I count three options in the first list
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So you set the rules, but then you don’t follow your own rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, again, just changing the rules on the fly.



I don't think you understand how a skill challenge works. Here is the summary version:

* The GM describes the situation;

* the players describe their PC's actions (the sequence is negotiated informally, or can be determined via initiative roll if negotiations break down);

* those actions are matched to skill checks via GM-player negotiation; checks are then made and success or failure noted;

* if the check succeeded, the situation changes to include (among other things) the outcome the PC was aiming for;

* if the check fails, the situation also changes but will not include that particular outcome;

* any mechanical consequences (expended action points or powers, damage taken etc) are noted;

* the next action is declared and resolved; etc.​
My notes are advice to me, not rules for adjudication. They record my thoughts on how I would adjudicate likely actions the players might declare for their PCs. If the players declare different actions, they can be resolved differently. If I think of something better when the situation is actually being played out, of course I'll do that!

To say that I broke my own rules would be like saying that a GM who didn't follow the "Tactics" guidelines in a monster entry had broken the rules. Sounds pretty video-gamey to me!



N'raac said:


> So, to summarize, it was not the game mechanics or action resolution system that shut the familiar down.  It was not even your previously defined consequences for failed rolls or potential to access bonuses for one or more rolls.  It was not a consequence of a failed roll.  It was an off the cuff decision that, if the player decided to make a certain decision in-game, he would lose access to a class feature.



You are correct that it was an off-the-cuff decision. Many GMs make off-the-cuff decisions. The 4e DMG has a whole page - page 42 - devoted to adjudicating off-the-cuff decisions by both players and GMs.

Some people prefer their RPG experience to be prescripted, and playing is just reading from the script. I am not such a person.

But you are not correct that it was not the game mechanics or action resolution system that shut the familiar down. I have quoted the relevant mechanics above. (In some cases for the second or third time).



N'raac said:


> If a player tells me “I fight on the defensive this round”, taking an AC bonus, for which reason his attacker misses instead of hitting, I would not then decide “Well, as you were fighting on the defensive, your familiar scurried into the path of the blow and was hit instead of you.”



Which is relevant how? 

How does that have any bearing on the adjudication of the consequences for deciding to divert a flow of souls from Vecna to the Raven Queen, when said flow of souls is being effectuated via your familiar in which is implanted the Eye of Vecna?



N'raac said:


> And if he made his Religion roll to address the second stage (which I don’t think he did in a prayer to the Raven Queen – could he not pray to one of his other deity contacts?), that seems like a success in the skill challenge, not a failure to preserve his familiar, which is not mentioned at all in the stakes, other than “sensing Vecna’s presence” (which seems to have no mechanical impact on the skill challenge) or, if the challenge fails, losing the familiar to Vecna.



I have already discussed this at length.

The player put the Eye of Vecna into his familiar. Deliberately. To bring Vecna into play as a balancing influence against Levistus, to whom the familiar reports. Then about half-a-dozen sessions later I put Vecna into play very prominently and deliberately, by (i) inviting the player to make an Insight check, and then (ii) when he succeeded, telling him that he could sense Vecna operating through his familiar to suck up the flow of souls. And then asking him what he wants to do about it! And whether he wants to redirect the souls back to the Raven Queen (their "natural" destination, but for Vecna's interference).

Now, for some reason you don't believe me about this, although the only evidence you are citing to the contrary is _another post by me_! Can't you see how absurd this is? - that you're citing my own GMs notes that I provided you with as evidence that I don't know what was going on in my own game!

Furthermore, you - an avowed non-4e player - are telling me that I misapplied the mechanics for a skill challenge because, in the course of play, I departed from my preparatory notes! As if they were some sort of script that I would just hand out to all my players to save us the trouble of actually playing the game.

To be honest, I've really lost track of what you're trying to prove here.



N'raac said:


> I am not arguing that the player was not warned his familiar was in danger.  I am not arguing that the play was, or was not, good.  I am asserting that you placed the player’s access to a class feature at stake based on the behavioural choice his character made.



_How did the player lose access to a class feature_? Do you even know what the class features are for an invoker in 4e? Do you even know how it is that the player comes to have a familiar, or what the mechanics are that govern familiars? Do you know how long the familiar will take to recover? Do you know the rules for curses and diseases in 4e? Do you know the mechanics for encounter balancing in 4e? Do you know what effect it has on the mechanical effectiveness of a 4e PC to have an encounter power placed onto the daily recovery cycle by some adverse effect?

My best guess is that you know basically none of these things. On what basis, then, are you lecturing me about my conformity or non-conformity to 4e's action resolution mechanics?

But putting the issue of class features to one side, how do you propose to put _anything_ at stake in an RPG, except via the behavioural choices - otherwise known as *actions* - performed by a PC?

I don't know of any other way. Which then allows for two possibilities: either, when I said upthread that I am not interesting in judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses as part of refereeing the game, I meant (i) that I don't want any stakes or consequences in my game, or (ii) by "judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses" I meant something different from "figuring out the ingame consequences of their actions".

And guess what - with number (ii) we have a winner! I've lost count of how many times I've posted this, but to recap: I am not interested, as part of my refereeing of the game, in judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses. That is, I am not interested in judging, as part of my refereeing of the game, whether the actions they declare for their PCs are good or evil; honourable or dishonourable; rational or irrational; brave or cowardly; etc etc. And in circumstances where their views about such matters are intimately bound up with their relationships to exemplary gods - eg in circumstances of paladinhood - that means that I am not going to have those gods express a contrary view either.

This has no bearing on whether I am going to judge that a player who sets out to have his PC thwart Vecna angers Vecna. That's not about judging an evaluative or expressive response. That's about playing Vecna in accordance with the stakes that have been set up by the player, escalated by me, and then pushed to crunch time by the player's choice to have his PC thwart Vecna.

To reiterate: judging that Vecna is angry has no implications for whether the player's action declaration for his PC was or was not the right thing. And part of the reason for this, as I have explained at some length, is that not only was the player not setting out to realise, via his PC's action, some value to which Vecna is committed, but he was in fact _setting out to thwart Vecna_.



N'raac said:


> Then why is it incapacitated at all?  Is a temporary loss acceptable, but a longer term or permanent loss unacceptable?  Where is the line drawn?



I believe that I have already indicated that I do not regard hit point damage as the same thing as losing a class feature. It is not a rewriting of the player's character. It is an ordinary part of the game's action resolution mechanics. In 4e, other aspects of those mechanics include things like healing surges, power recharges, action points and the like.

Where is the line drawn? How many angels can stand on a head of a pin? I haven't worked out, in advance, and for all time, the scope of mechanical consequences in 4e. Nor have the designers, except in the prosaic sense that they've stopped designing for it: for instance, MV2 gave us the curse rules which are a riff on the disease rules. H2 gave us the first occurrence in print of monsters whose attack could deprive a character of access to an encounter power, as well as the first occurrence in print of using loss of access to an encounter power until an extended rest is taken as a possible consequence in a skill challenge; up to that point I'd only seen creatures that drained healing surges. I don't think I've yet seen an attack that can drain action points, but such a thing is in principle quite viable. (There are plenty of abilities and items that can confer them.)

What I do know, though, is that imposing consequences that play with rechargeable abilities, and with their recharge times, is core to the game. And has basically nothing in common with permanently changing a character's class and/or level.


*On adjudication of evaluative judgement*


N'raac said:


> you go on to dismiss the plain English meaning as inconsistent with your use of the term.  How does that align with your previous, extended, insistence that Good and Evil in the game rules must be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary English usage?



I don't _insist_ that "good" and "evil" be used in their ordinary English sense: I just point out that this is what D&D does. (As the 2nd ed PHB says, "good characters are just that.)

I have explained what I mean by evaluative judgement. If you want a dictionary reference, I point you to this, from the Collins English Dictionary: _expressing an attitude or value judgment_.



N'raac said:


> this scene evaluates the PC’s actions in the eyes of his deity, as played by you, contrary to your previously stated unwillingness to engage in precisely such an evaluation.



You keep imputing to me views that I haven't expressed.

I have said that I am not interested in judging the correctness of a player's evaluative and expressive responses, as part of my refereeing of the game. And in the scene at issue, _I did not do that_. The player wanted to play out a scene in which he discusses, with his god, doubts about his resolution. In playing out that scene, I am not adjudicating the correctness of the player's response. I am affirming his response and playing along with it. It is in the same general category, although not identical, to the player who wants his/her paladin to fall.



N'raac said:


> this your claim that this scene was framed under the action resolution rules of the game is categorically erroneous



This is becoming comical. Can you please quote the passage from the 4e rulebooks that states that a GM is not permitted to frame a scene in which a dead PC talks to the Raven Queen?

Nope? No such passage? Thought as much. Besides the passages from the DMG I already quoted, there is also this, from MoP p 53:

Foremost of the Shadowfell’s inhabitants are the dead. Each day brings droves of displaced souls from the natural world. They congregate here, searching for answers, meaning, or just a safe place to bide their time.​
And also this, from Open Grave p 22:

All souls come to the Shadowfell, and sooner or later they pass through the Raven Queen’s Citadel in Letherna, except for those souled undead that evade the fate she decrees.​
OK, so now that we've established that there is no such rule, and that the game expressly contemplates the spirits of the dead meeing with the Raven Queen, can you just let this one go?



N'raac said:


> To compare two possible in-game occurences:
> 
> 
> Invoker says “I will channel the souls to the Raven Queen.  I know this choice puts ongoing access to my familiar at risk.”  The familiar is, in fact, removed from his control for some period, without him having any ability to prevent this result – it occurs if he makes the behavioural choice in question.
> 
> 
> Fighter says “I will strike down the man in my path.  I know this choice reflects a lack of respect for life, and could jeopardize my Good alignment, potentially costing me a level.”  The level is, in fact, lost, without him having any ability to prevent this result – it occurs if he makes the behavioural choice in question.
> 
> You seem to perceive a fundamental difference between the game philosophy of the two.



Yes and no. First, are the statements uttered by the character or the player? I am assuming that they are being uttered by the player.  (For instance, I assume that the Fighter in the second example is not being deliberately played by his player as confused about the nature of the choice - which could be the case if the player knows that the action would be justified self-defence, but for some reason the fighter does not).

That assumption made, only the second involves evaluative judgement. But it strike me as comparable to the player who plays his/her paladin to fall - the player affirms that his/her PC is not living up to the requirements of his/her code. Hence - putting to one side my extreme dislike of level loss and its ilk as mechanical consequences - the GM in imposing the consequence is simply affirming the player's choice. That is, the GM does not have to adjudicate the player's judgement (if we put to one side  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s question upthread, about the GM who doesn't let the paladin fall because s/he deems the action not sufficiently evil).



N'raac said:


> You pay a lot of service to “PC Conception” in the lengthy passages I have not quoted.  What if his conception is “great warrior”?  Does he get to override to hit and damage rolls?  Perhaps his conception is “as a shadow in the night” – do his Stealth checks succeed automatically?  Why is only consistency with their deity or philosophy placed entirely under the player’s control?  I’ve certainly played in games where my conceptual vision of the character failed to manifest due to the dice not co-operating, or due to errors in my own realization of the vision, through design or play.  Why is my “moral vision” the only aspect of concept mandating exclusive player control?



First, do you realise that "lip service" is an insult? It implies a lack of sincerity. Are you really intending to imply that I am insincere in taking seriously a player's conception of his/her PC?

Second, am I now obliged to justify all my preferences to you? I mean, what if I answered "That's just how I like it - I care about evaluation more than description"? Would that be unacceptable for some reason?

But in fact, the player can fail at Stealth checks yet not have his/her conception of his/her PC as "a shadow in the night" negated, and the warrior be defeated yet the player's conception of his/her PC as a great warrior not be negated - that is part of the point of fortune-in-the-middle mechanics, which particularly abound in the version of D&D that I play.

The invoker player's conception of his PC is as a might wizard and sage. And his familiar was shut down by Vecna. Does that show that he is somehow a failure as a mage? Not at all - Vecna, the greatest necromancer the world has ever known, struck out at him through his familiar, and all that Vecna could accomplish was to shut it down. He could not even reduce the imp to dust! The invoker's magical power is greater than even he had realised!

That is the beauty of fortune-in-the-middle!


----------



## pemerton

Even by the standards of this thread, this seemed a little tangential:



N'raac said:


> OK, so just to be clear you're now actually denying that Tolkien's Aragorn is the inspiration for the Ranger class, and that instead he inspired the Paladin class?



What makes you think I'm denying that? The ranger not only echoes Tolkien in the class name and some of the level titles (eg Strider, Ranger) but rangers are (like Aragorn) expert trackers who, when they become lords, can wield Palantiri.

But how does that have any bearing on my contention upthread, which you appeared to deny, that Tolkien's depiction of Aragorn is based on the trope of divinely ordained kingship, which includes the notion that "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer" - and also the idea that the king will be a greater leader (17+ CHA)?

To the best of my knowledge, when the paladin class was authored the author had in mind Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. But it's not as if Poul Anderson conjured the tropes of that story (or Morgan le Fay, who appears in it) from whole cloth!



N'raac said:


> So the PC is only protected by magic in retrospect when he survives to achieve his goals?  Ultimately, Camelot fell, and it was not Arthur’s sin which caused it to fall.  As for the “healer”, reviewing that passage, he used herbalism, satisfying a prophecy that he was the Rightful King.  At no other point in the entire trilogy does he demonstrate any healing skills, and even these may or may not be magical, rather than herbalism.



As I said to Imaro, I could post that "a" is the indefinite article in English and you would dispute it.

You're now arguing (i) that Camelot enjoyed no divine protection during Arthur's period (and I don't see how the fact that the sin was not Arthur's - which is itself up for grabs - is relevant), and (ii) that Aragorn was not steered to his kingship by divine providence and had no particular capacity to heal.

Is this _really_ your considered view, or are you just trying to score points?


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> If I GM d6 Star Wars I will of course track Dark Side points and tell a player if they've gone over to the Dark Side. But it can lead to silly results.



I don't know much about d6 SW, but from what you say it sounds like the rules might be a bit wonky.


----------



## Hussar

Pemeton - don't the 4e familiar rules let you bring back a dead familiar in one day?  Iirc that's the rule. Perhaps N'raac is confusing earlier edition familiar rules which are significantly more punishing.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> The rules for a familiar state that it has 1 hp.
> 
> The rules for artefacts moving on, and for the Eye of Vecna moving on, I already quoted upthread (from the DMG pp 165, 168):When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . .
> 
> A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment . . .
> 
> The Eye of Vecna consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust.​
> How is it disregarding the rules for this artefact to have Vecna inflict 1 hp of damage on the familiar in whom it is implanted? Are you saying that it is permissible to have the imp crumble to dust, but not to have the imp take 1 hp of damage?





Ignoring for a minute the fact that the rules for implanting the Eye of Vecna into a familiar are made up whole cloth by you any way since the rules for the artifact don't address this...  Now I asked if the familiar was in passive mode further back in the thread but never received an answer but you finally did say...



pemerton said:


> I don't recall. But the familiar *was in passive mode*, so no, it would not have taken any such damage.




Well if it was in passive mode and familiars don't take damage while in passive mode... I'm curious how did the Eye of Vecna damage it since in passive mode *it can't be damaged by any effect*?  Was the player informed that the Eye of Vecna could damage his familiar while it was in passive mode beforehand?  Or is there something else about the scenario that will be revealed now that wasn't mentioned beforehand?

Honestly I'm not seeing why it's so hard for you to admit that you weren't following the rules or using the resolution mechanics as outlined by the books when you punished the character?   



Hussar said:


> Pemeton - don't the 4e familiar rules let you bring back a dead familiar in one day?  Iirc that's the rule. Perhaps N'raac is confusing earlier edition familiar rules which are significantly more punishing.




Well @_*Hussar*_ , earlier in the thread @_*pemerton*_ also said the familiar was gone for an indeterminate amount of time... again ignoring resolution mechanics for a DM fiat call.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Throughout this thread the alignment side has repeatedly stated the need for the DM to adjudicate player alignment. This has been consistent throughout the thread. This is considered one of the biggest reasons why we need mechanical alignment.
> 
> Yet every example of a DM actually adjudicating alignment is brushed aside with the idea that we are insisting on bad DM's.




Its not that I had a problem with the adjudication of alignment, instead I have a problem of how it was presented by S'mon: Rather flippantly, no scene framing as if it were a loss of hit points rather than something which could involve some heavy roleplay, a skill challenge of sorts and the like.

As I have said before, I have never had to adjudicate a scenario such as this - even a purposefully fallen paladin/cleric. Recently I DMed my first ever resurrection of a PC and it was pretty intense - I researched heavily, I drew up the ritual which fell back heavily on the setting thematically on how it had to be done, who would have to do it and the necessary material components for such an event to occur. I framed the scene and prepped dialogue to some degree. I have it on m/word if you want to see what I'm referring to.
It was quite a significant event in our campaign - the players definitely understood the gravity of the moment. Maybe that is just me. 

I just can't for the life of me imagine a DM of my age - turning to the player and just saying "okay for your action, change your alignment to evil." as if that was the extent of it. I mean that is just badwrongunfun! There would have been some serious table discussion beforehand - nevermind the in-game moments I would have preferred to have included.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Actually no. In a chaotic system you have emergent properties that cannot be predicted.




Sorry, was trying to get at it not being random.   If someone had observed the same system with the same starting value before and knew where you were at in the process then they would know what was coming next.  Like if you were making a "random number table" using some fixed pseudo-random number generator and fixed seed, and I had already used themand gone farther out than you're at now -- then as long as I know how many numbers you've drawn I know exactly what your next one is.  If I didn't know one of those three things then I couldn't tell it apart from randomness and wouldn't know what was coming next.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> But, the difference for me would be context. In a Mechanical Alignment game, the DM must judge PC actions based on the alignment elements set out in the phb, not based on the
> NPC in question. Alignment definitions don't change based on who you are talking to.
> 
> For me, judgement would be based on the portfolio of the deity that the player chose. The player in choosing a deity has basically said that they will abide by the tenets of that deity. And these tenets are usually pretty clear cut. At least far more clear than alignment.




Okay, for clarity purposes if the deity oversees Strength, Sun and Beauty domains/spheres - you find it is easier to evaluate a character's alignment with those tenets rather than with Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Pemeton - don't the 4e familiar rules let you bring back a dead familiar in one day?  Iirc that's the rule. Perhaps N'raac is confusing earlier edition familiar rules which are significantly more punishing.



Generally a familiar comes back after any rest. In this particular case, a short rest may not be enough.

And to satisfy  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], who are the self-appointed 4e police, I quote from p 57 of module H2 (authors Richard Baker and Mike Mearls):

This skill challenge involves the adventurers and a spectral manifestation of Vecna. . .

Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power and one daily power for the rest of the adventure. . .

Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power for the rest of the adventure. . .

Each PC loses one healing surge for the rest of the adventure.​
I'm not sure why a precdent would be needed, but here we have one for consequences of a skill challenge involving Vecna in which those consequences include changing the normal recharge rate for a resource or ability.

It's weird being told I'm wrong in my 4e framing and adjduciation by one poster who, by his own admission, doesn't know the 4e mecahnics, and by another poster who is one of the most prominent ENworld critics of that edition.



Imaro said:


> Ignoring for a minute the fact that the rules for implanting the Eye of Vecna into a familiar are made up whole cloth by you any way since the rules for the artifact don't address this



So now my player is a bad player too, for having his PC implant the Eye into his imp rather than himself? We 4e players like to think outside the box like that - none of this videogamey drop-down menu approach to play for us!

In fact, not only did my player have the idea, but he made up the rules too, including that he lost an eye corresponding to that of his familiar.



Imaro said:


> Now I asked if the familiar was in passive mode further back in the thread but never received an answer but you finally did say...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Well if it was in passive mode and familiars don't take damage while in passive mode... I'm curious how did the Eye of Vecna damage it since in passive mode *it can't be damaged by any effect*?



I was answering N'raac's question about taking damage. At the moment when the familiar was doing Vecna's bidding and diverting the souls to him, I think it was rather active. Certainly active enough to suffer consequences from Vecna via the Eye!


----------



## S'mon

Sadras said:


> I just can't for the life of me imagine a DM of my age - turning to the player and just saying "okay for your action, change your alignment to evil." as if that was the extent of it. I mean that is just badwrongunfun!




It might be badwrongfun, but that's what Alignment tracking means - the GM decides what Alignment the PCs are, based on their actions. He evaluates them.


----------



## Bluenose

Sadras said:


> Okay, for clarity purposes if the deity oversees Strength, Sun and Beauty domains/spheres - you find it is easier to evaluate a character's alignment with those tenets rather than with Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic?




I certainly would find the former easier to work with than the latter. It suggests something about the culture of the people who worship a god like that, which is not the case with Chaotic Good, say. While I won't evaluate their alignment as such (I found it rather a useless concept) I can judge how well they adhere to those principles.


----------



## Sadras

S'mon said:


> It might be badwrongfun, but that's what Alignment tracking means - the GM decides what Alignment the PCs are, based on their actions. He evaluates them.




Tracking and implementation are different.


----------



## Sadras

Bluenose said:


> While I won't evaluate their alignment as such (I found it rather a useless concept) I can judge how well they adhere to those principles.




Those principles being good, evil, lawful or chaotic (or in whatever manner you define them)?


----------



## Bluenose

Sadras said:


> Those principles being good, evil, lawful or chaotic (or in whatever manner you define them)?




No, Strength, Sun, and Beauty. You give me those as the principles of the deity, and I've already got ideas for how that god will view a variety of things - probably different ones to someone else who sees those, but still - whereas if you give my Chaotic Good I don't have anything more than a starting point - is that Chaotic in terms of individual freedom in an ordered society, anarchy, and what does this particular society consider good?


----------



## N'raac

S'mon said:


> My George Lucas/ep III analogy reflects my actual game experience. Back ca 2001 running 3.0 I had two Monk players with Lawful Neutral on their character sheets. Their behaviour was sometimes Evil. Eventually I told them that their Alignment had shifted to LE. This then caused them to go Full Evil, much more Evil than before, much more Evil than if I had not told them about the shift.




So, was there any prior discussion with the players that the activities they were undertaking seemed much more frequently Evil than Good, and perhaps their alignments were shifting, or at risk of shifting?  Or did you just spring it on them one day, without their having had any warning?  The former seems reasonable.  The latter seems like the kind of “gotcha” play that the anti-alignment faction considers intrinsic to any use of alignment, and the pro-alignment faction attributes to inappropriate use of alignment by the GM.

Oh, and the fact the players choose to respond by foregoing actual role playing of their characters in favour of “oh yeah?  Well see how you like THIS, then” indicates, to me, a player maturity issue more than a rules system flaw.

I’d like to present the above more tactfully – we all have moments as we learn the game, and no one is immune to mistakes  but at the end of the day, I find a lot of alignment criticisms to be blaming the alignment system rather than the use of that system by players and GMs.



S'mon said:


> Edit: If I GM d6 Star Wars I will of course track Dark Side points and tell a player if they've gone over to the Dark Side. But it can lead to silly results. Eg in one of the last d6 SW games I ran, a captured Jedi PC used the Dark Side to break out of jail and Samson-smash the Imperial starbase where he was held, wreaking a lot of havoc before his inevitable death. The local Imperial fleet was badly weakened, causing it to be defeated in a later battle with the Rebel Alliance. The PC behaved as a classic altruistic Hero, giving his life for the greater good, but the rules said he died a bad guy because he, being unarmed, had used the Dark Side to fight the Imperials. If he had cut them up with a lightsaber he'd have been fine.




To me, this suggests that the mechanistic application of the rules, as prescribed in the SW system, has poor results.  The D&D system places more judgment in the hands of the GM (and through him, one would hope, the group) and is criticized because different GM’s might make different judgments.  To me, this is no different from criticizing a game for being “videogamey” because only prescribed actions may be taken, then complaining about a more open game because the GM can make a call the player doesn’t agree with, and there should be rules for every action which could be taken.  

You can’t possibly document everything that may crop up, so either we codify the rules, or we leave room for judgment in game.



pemerton said:


> *On value*
> I took it as obvious that undeath and mindless destruction are not values. I have to confess it never occurred to me that someone would think otherwise.




It is what the entity in question values.  Some people value freedom of information, and think it’s OK for the papparazzi to peak into people’s windows, put microphones or cameras in their homes and hotel rooms and root through their garbage.  Others place a sufficient value on privacy as to consider that wrong.

Some people value respect for life to the point they feel taking a life as a criminal punishment is wrong.  Others value respect for life to the point where they feel a person who grossly violates that right held by others sacrifices his own such right, and the only just penalty is taking the perpetrator’s life.

Money is valuable, but it is antithetical to the values of someone who has taken a vow of poverty.

Now, Undeath and Destruction are pretty easy, but let’s look at something a little tougher.  Is athleticism valuable, or is knowledge?  Apply one or the other choice of which is the greater value to a high school.  Do we value peace, or military strength? 



pemerton said:


> Values are valuable.




Black is black, too.  But what is valuable?  Money?  Hard work?  Leisure time?  Family time?  I doubt anyone would argue any of these are valueless.  But the relative value people place on them varies widely.  An evil person also has things they value, and they may cross over a lot with what good people value.  Say, Peace and Security.  I think that’s a value most people have.  How do we get there?  By compromise, negotiation and good relations with our neighbours?  Or by nuking our neighbours until they glow so they can’t threaten our peace and security?



pemerton said:


> *On mechanical consequences*
> As I've already posted, multiple times (at least twice) in reply to you, I don't regard level-draining undead as a good mechanic either. Hence I don't use them. Their presence in the game certainly doesn't make me more relaxed about XP loss from changing alignment.




Yet you continue to defend your actions in a game based on the fact the rules permit them, rather than on an underlying philosophy of what the rules/mechanics should, and should not, permit. 



pemerton said:


> You are way off base, and apparently have no understanding of the action resolution mechanics of D&D 4e. I didn't "arbitrarily remove the familiar without an action resolution."
> 
> For the third time, I will post the relevant action resolution mechanics from the DMG's description of the Eye of Vecna (pp 165, 168):
> When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . .
> 
> A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment . . .
> 
> The Eye of Vecna consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust.



  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has already noted the rules say nothing about implanting the Eye in a familiar to get the advantages and reduce the drawbacks.  Who is “the owner”?  The familiar or the invoker?  Whose “inopportune moment” are we discussing?  What is an opportune moment to be consumed, body and mind?  And, finally, you are citing a rule that says the familiar (or the invoker – who is the “owner”) should die instantly and his body crumble to dust.  Clearly, you have already decided that the mechanic is, to some degree, bad, but you are OK with a “less bad” application.

To summarize, your claim that you are using the mechanics as written is not, in my view, accurate.  Further, your claim has not been that people were using the alignment mechanics wrong, but that using them right can only have detrimental results, so I am unsure how your now feel justified defending your own decisions based on the mechanics.
  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has already pointed out your inconsistent use of the mechanics, which left the familiar safeguarded against any damage when he was in passive mode, then suddenly left it taking damage despite the player not having changed his resource into active mode.  You, the GM, removed the resource contrary to the manner in which the action resolution mechanics would so permit.

You did so exercising judgment that this was consistent with the story, brought on by the choices of the player/character and would make for a better game, which is quite consistent with



pemerton said:


> And I will post more relevant text, I believe for the first time, from the DMG p 42:
> Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
> Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them. . .




Nevertheless, you departed from the action resolution mechanics (despite your vehement protests to the contrary), which I will detail for the second time, as this seems to be your wish:




pemerton said:


> And for the second time I will post the relevant action resolution mechanics from the rules for skill challenges:
> DMG pp 74, 76
> What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?
> 
> When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure.
> 
> Beyond those fundamental rewards, the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward. . .
> 
> Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do.




So what was his reward for succeeding in the skill challenge?  He gets to have the familiar back at some undefined future time, which you have indicated will likely not follow the regular rules for recovery of this resource, nor will it follow the rule for the Eye of Vecna which ostensibly caused the loss of the resource?  And you present this as evidence that you are following the action resolution mechanics?  



pemerton said:


> DMG2 p 86
> Here are some options you might want to account for in desiging a skill challenge: . . .
> 
> * *Voluntarily* taking damage . . . or *sacrificing* a healing surge.
> 
> The notion that a consequence of a skill challenge cannot include a familiar taking damage is something that you and @*Imaro* have dreamed up. It has no foundation in any 4e rules text - as anyone can see from the passages I've just posted.




Emphasis added.  The player “knew he might be placing the familiar at risk” is as close as we have gotten to any voluntary sacrifice on his part.  Had he said “I want to rechannel the energy – can I sacrifice the Eye of Vecna permanently, and lose access to the familiar temporarily to make that a possibility and/or get a bonus to the roll?” or had you asked the player “Do you want to rechannel the souls to the Raven Queen?  This will likely result in loss of the Eye, and perhaps even the Familiar, for some period of time, or even permanently?”, that would seem to fit the phrasing of the mechanic.  Now, I find the actual play, including the uncertainty, more engaging.  But that does  not change the fact it departed from the mechanic, nor does it change the fact that the player’s/character’s value choice – which deity is it more right and proper to support – resulted in your decision to deny the player access to a resource, reducing his ability to influence the fiction.

That’s consistent with my view that the character’s choices can and should have such an impact.  It’s consistent with the alignment rules imposing consequences on the value choices made by characters.  It is not consistent with your prior expression of distaste for mechanics that change a player’s ability to influence the fiction based on the moral choices made by his character.



pemerton said:


> You are correct that it was an off-the-cuff decision. Many GMs make off-the-cuff decisions. The 4e DMG has a whole page - page 42 - devoted to adjudicating off-the-cuff decisions by both players and GMs.




I suggest that denial of a Paladin’s powers for an action he has just taken, or concluding alignment has changed due to an accumulation of PC actions, is also an off-the-cuff GM decision.  Such decisions are a necessary part of the game, for many of the reasons you have stated.

It does not change the fact that your off the cuff decision was to depart from the “passive familiars are immune to damage” rules, nor that it imposed a consequence of the character’s moral choice which reduced his ability to impact the fiction for a period of time.  I am not arguing you somehow “broke the rules”.  I am stating that I find the actions taken in this matter to be the removal of a character resource as a consequence of a character’s moral decision.  As such, I conclude that your objection to similar mechanics for Paladins, or for the alignment system, are not a hard and fast philosophy, but a question of degree, in that you are OK with a sufficiently limited reduction in PC resources for an appropriate duration (both of the latter set by you).

Yet you cannot envision anyone using the alignment rules exercising judgment to set the consequences to an appropriate severity and duration.  That one aspect of the rules seems to be the only one where you cannot envision this.  And that blind spot is what puzzles me.



pemerton said:


> Furthermore, you - an avowed non-4e player - are telling me that I misapplied the mechanics for a skill challenge because, in the course of play, I departed from my preparatory notes!




You yourself have cited the rules that said the familiar was exempt from damage as it was in passive mode, yet have defended loss of the familiar on the basis it took damage, notwithstanding such exemption.  I’m no 4e expert, but having read the statements of the one I am familiar with – yourself – I still see an inconsistency.  I would be interested in the comments of a more impartial 4e expert.



pemerton said:


> _How did the player lose access to a class feature_? Do you even know what the class features are for an invoker in 4e?




Is his familiar not a class feature?  If not, what is it?  It is, most certainly, something he can use to influence the fiction – he did so by implanting the Eye in it, so even if that was the sole impact it had, it was a resource to influence the fiction.  Are you saying it was not?



pemerton said:


> Do you even know how it is that the player comes to have a familiar, or what the mechanics are that govern familiars?




The answers, whether consistent with my assumptions or not, would not change the fact it was a resource of the player to influence the fiction, which you removed on an off the cuff call.



pemerton said:


> Do you know how long the familiar will take to recover?




The duration of the loss is a matter of degree, not an indicator of a philosophy that the player/character’s moral choices should not reduce their ability to influence the fiction, so this is not relevant either.  In any case, you have stated that no one knows, because you do not intend to follow the usual rules in this regard, which also seems unsupportive of your claim that you are adhering to the mechanics.



pemerton said:


> Do you know the rules for curses and diseases in 4e?




Was there a curse or disease involved?  If so, you have not mentioned it.  If not, then it is irrelevant.



pemerton said:


> Do you know the mechanics for encounter balancing in 4e? Do you know what effect it has on the mechanical effectiveness of a 4e PC to have an encounter power placed onto the daily recovery cycle by some adverse effect?




Again, this is a question of the severity of the reduction in the player’s ability to influence the fiction, and not an indicator of a philosophy that the player/character’s moral choices should not reduce their ability to influence the fiction, so this is not relevant either.

You have yet to answer the simple question of whether we are discussing “philosophy” or “degree”.  Since you’ve lost track of what we are debating here, THAT IS A BIG PART OF IT if not the entirety.



pemerton said:


> My best guess is that you know basically none of these things. On what basis, then, are you lecturing me about my conformity or non-conformity to 4e's action resolution mechanics?




See above.



pemerton said:


> But putting the issue of class features to one side, how do you propose to put _anything_ at stake in an RPG, except via the behavioural choices - otherwise known as *actions* - performed by a PC?




A fine question – yet your distaste for alignment rules was stated to be predicated that the character’s moral decisions should not mechanically impact him.  So I am not the one who is asserting there should be nothing at stake for such choices.



pemerton said:


> I don't know of any other way. Which then allows for two possibilities: either, when I said upthread that I am not interesting in judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses as part of refereeing the game, I meant (i) that I don't want any stakes or consequences in my game, or (ii) by "judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses" I meant something different from "figuring out the ingame consequences of their actions".




An alignment change or loss of Paladin abilities is an “ingame consequence of their actions”.  I am refusing, consciously, to use the term “evaluative and expressive responses", as it has remained completely undefined, you have expressly stated that the ordinary English meaning is not the meaning you ascribe to it, and you have told us you cannot actually define it without violating the Board rules.  With that in mind, I can only conclude it is “those actions or decisions which Pemerton does not wish to adjudicate in a manner which would have an impact on the player’s influence over the in-game fiction”.


I’ve parsed out your quote below for ease of reference.  I have not changed or rearranged the words, other than that bullet pointing:



pemerton said:


> This has no bearing on whether I am going to judge that a player who sets out to have his PC thwart Vecna angers Vecna. That's not about judging an evaluative or expressive response. That's about
> 
> 
> 
> playing Vecna
> in accordance with the stakes that have been set up by the player
> escalated by me
> and then pushed to crunch time by the player's choice to have his PC thwart Vecna.





 
Which, to me, is pretty similar to:



playing the entity which the Paladin is supposed to be an exemplar of
in accordance with the stakes that have been set up by the player, which include his Paladin abilities, by the rules written for the class (pre-4e)
escalated by me, by placing moral choices in his path
and then pushed to crunch time by the player's choice
 
So I still see this as quite comparable.  You clearly don’t, because it falls into the “pemerton does not like this” no man’s land referred to as “evaluative and expressive responses".




pemerton said:


> Where is the line drawn? How many angels can stand on a head of a pin?




That a line needs to be drawn indicates we are addressing a matter of degree, not an absolute philosophy.



pemerton said:


> I haven't worked out, in advance, and for all time, the scope of mechanical consequences in 4e. Nor have the designers, except in the prosaic sense that they've stopped designing for it:




Kind of like every action’s alignment status has not been worked out, in advance, and for all time?



pemerton said:


> I have explained what I mean by evaluative judgement. If you want a dictionary reference, I point you to this, from the Collins English Dictionary: _expressing an attitude or value judgment_.
> 
> You keep imputing to me views that I haven't expressed.




The invoker expressed a value judgment – whether the souls should flow to Vecna, or to the Raven Queen.  He then acted on it.  I am unaware of any assertion that the player’s value judgment, without being acted on, would have an alignment implication.



pemerton said:


> This is becoming comical. Can you please quote the passage from the 4e rulebooks that states that a GM is not permitted to frame a scene in which a dead PC talks to the Raven Queen?




Cite the line that says the GM cannot penalize a character who becomes, or ceases to be, unaligned.  If you want to claim you are applying the action resolution mechanics and rules of the game, then the mechanic or rule needs to be printed, not be cited as being absent.




pemerton said:


> But in fact, the player can fail at Stealth checks yet not have his/her conception of his/her PC as "a shadow in the night" negated, and the warrior be defeated yet the player's conception of his/her PC as a great warrior not be negated - that is part of the point of fortune-in-the-middle mechanics, which particularly abound in the version of D&D that I play.




Are you familiar with the term “Worfed”?  A character whose stealth routinely fails does not play out as a “shadow in the night”, nor does one who is often beaten down in combat feel like a great warrior.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Even by the standards of this thread, this seemed a little tangential:




High praise indeed!



pemerton said:


> What makes you think I'm denying that? The ranger not only echoes Tolkien in the class name and some of the level titles (eg Strider, Ranger) but rangers are (like Aragorn) expert trackers who, when they become lords, can wield Palantiri.
> 
> But how does that have any bearing on my contention upthread, which you appeared to deny, that Tolkien's depiction of Aragorn is based on the trope of divinely ordained kingship, which includes the notion that "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer" - and also the idea that the king will be a greater leader (17+ CHA)?




This actually alludes to an issue I was considering.  The trope that many of the alleged “Paladin examples” conjure is the Divine Right of Kings, but nothing in Paladinhood indicates that this is part of the concept.  Arthur and Aragorn both reflect this trope. I don’t believe any class does.  Aragorn demonstrated healing abilities – once – in accordance with a prophecy that linked such skills to right of rulership in a manner unique to that story.  Arthur drew the Sword from the Stone not due to righteousness or justice, but because he was the Rightful King of England.

This is a completely different trope from anything applied to the Paladin, who has no link to Nobility or Rulership, other than the evolved “noble” term which no longer refers to a birthright of rulership.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> Ignoring for a minute the fact that the rules for implanting the Eye of Vecna into a familiar are made up whole cloth by you any way since the rules for the artifact don't address this... Now I asked if the familiar was in passive mode further back in the thread but never received an answer but you finally did say...
> 
> Well if it was in passive mode and familiars don't take damage while in passive mode... I'm curious how did the Eye of Vecna damage it since in passive mode *it can't be damaged by any effect*? Was the player informed that the Eye of Vecna could damage his familiar while it was in passive mode beforehand? Or is there something else about the scenario that will be revealed now that wasn't mentioned beforehand?
> 
> Honestly I'm not seeing why it's so hard for you to admit that you weren't following the rules or using the resolution mechanics as outlined by the books when you punished the character?




In fairness, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is following “the rules” in that the GM must adjudicate issues that may not fit squarely into the rules, and should sometimes modify the rules in the interests of the fun and the game.

But he seems quite defensive when anyone suggests his claims to be following the mechanics precisely are challenged.  I’m not sure why, when the thread’s impetus is whether a mechanic from the edition(s) where they are mechanics is questioned, and he suggests it should be discarded, it upsets him that we suggest he is not blindly following other mechanics.  Yet, for some reason, it appears to.



pemerton said:


> Generally a familiar comes back after any rest. In this particular case, a short rest may not be enough.




So, again, we depart from the rules as written in the interests of the game.



pemerton said:


> And to satisfy @*N'raac* and @*Imaro* , who are the self-appointed 4e police, I quote from p 57 of module H2 (authors Richard Baker and Mike Mearls):
> This skill challenge involves the adventurers and a spectral manifestation of Vecna. . .
> 
> Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power and one daily power for the rest of the adventure. . .
> 
> Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power for the rest of the adventure. . .
> 
> Each PC loses one healing surge for the rest of the adventure.
> 
> I'm not sure why a precdent would be needed, but here we have one for consequences of a skill challenge involving Vecna in which those consequences include changing the normal recharge rate for a resource or ability.




Without going looking, I suspect there are modules that classify certain actions as Evil Acts.  Why does the module writer overriding the mechanics indicate that it is good GMing to override the mechanics, but a module writer setting out the application of the alignment rules does not get afforded equal deference?  Again, I am uncertain why you are so hung up on the suggestion you are not following the mechanics.  Do you perceive “not following the mechanics” to be a negative?  I don’t.



pemerton said:


> I was answering N'raac's question about taking damage. At the moment when the familiar was doing Vecna's bidding and diverting the souls to him, I think it was rather active. Certainly active enough to suffer consequences from Vecna via the Eye!




Yet it was in no way active previously?  Who, by the rules, would decide whether a familiar is active or not?  It seems like that would be the player, but as you note, my 4e knowledge is limited.

Of course, it also seems odd to have the suggestion alignment is a poor mechanic argued solely from the viewpoint of an edition where it is not a mechanic.  It also seems odd that someone who discarded alignment long ago, as I understand your comments, feels qualified to tell the rest of us how alignment mechanics work.  It’s a funny thread…


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Generally a familiar comes back after any rest. In this particular case, a short rest may not be enough.




So it's not a mistake on N'raac 's part...  you're just not following the rules for familiars... got it.



pemerton said:


> And to satisfy  @_*N'raac*_ and  @_*Imaro*_, who are the self-appointed 4e police




No one forced you to post up a play example... but once you decided to you should expect it to be examined and discussed (and not respond with childish name calling)...

FYI, that's not being the "4e police" that's the point of a forum discussion...



pemerton said:


> I quote from p 57 of module H2 (authors Richard Baker and Mike Mearls):This skill challenge involves the adventurers and a spectral manifestation of Vecna. . .
> 
> Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power and one daily power for the rest of the adventure. . .
> 
> Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power for the rest of the adventure. . .
> 
> Each PC loses one healing surge for the rest of the adventure.​
> I'm not sure why a precdent would be needed, but here we have one for consequences of a skill challenge involving Vecna in which those consequences include changing the normal recharge rate for a resource or ability.




So did your skill challenge have as one of it's "rewards" (and remember you wrote it out earlier) that the DM could activate a player's familiar (without his consent),  strip him of it (through said activation, DM fiat of the artifact rules and without the players consent) and change the recharge rate of said resource as a "reward" or "goal" of a "successful" skill challenge???

Or maybe instead of just admitting you DM'd fiat'd that interaction BIG TIME based on the decision the character made... you are now trying (IMO, unsuccessfully)to retroactively mechanically justify the actions you took against said player for his decision not to support Vecna...



pemerton said:


> It's weird being told I'm wrong in my 4e framing and adjduciation by one poster who, by his own admission, doesn't know the 4e mecahnics, and by another poster who is one of the most prominent ENworld critics of that edition.




What does whether I criticize the edition or not have to do with anything?  I've played 4th edition, ran 4th edition (and probably will again at some point in the future) and nothing I am saying about your supposed use of the resolution mechanics has been wrong.  So why exactly do you find it weird?

This would be like me saying I find it weird that the two other proponents of 4e I recognize in this thread @_*Hussar*_ and @_*S'mon*_ haven't told you how you're wrong about your 4e framing and adjudication...  In other words what does one have to do with the other if the points are valid?



pemerton said:


> So now my player is a bad player too, for having his PC implant the Eye into his imp rather than himself? We 4e players like to think outside the box like that - none of this videogamey drop-down menu approach to play for us!




I didn't make an evaluative judgement, I stated a fact, that fact being there are no rules to cover the implanting of the Eye of Vecna into a familiar as opposed to a character... is this statement incorrect?  I didn't comment on whether it was good or bad (if they worked for you who am I to judge), I'm just asking for honesty in our discussion.



pemerton said:


> In fact, not only did my player have the idea, but he made up the rules too, including that he lost an eye corresponding to that of his familiar.




So the rules were made up whole cloth... thanks.



pemerton said:


> I was answering N'raac's question about taking damage. At the moment when the familiar was doing Vecna's bidding and diverting the souls to him, I think it was rather active. Certainly active enough to suffer consequences from Vecna via the Eye!




Wait so the player activated his familiar?  Or did you take control of his resource, activate it so it could take damage and then arbitrarily take it away because he chose not to funnel souls to Vecna...  If so, wow... you not only arbitrarily stripped him of the resource, you also took over control of the resource in order to strip it away without his consent...


----------



## Cadence

Another interruption of things I stumbled across while checking the books to reply to another thread...

I remember from one of these threads recently that OD&D only had L/N/G and I knew first hand it was true for B/X.  But I had forgotten that Moldvay explicitly ended the descriptions with:



			
				Page B11 said:
			
		

> Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "good".
> Chaotic behavior is usuall the same as behavior that could be called "evil".




Did OD&D leave those out?  What about the other versions of Basic?


----------



## Sadras

S'mon said:


> Back ca 2001 running 3.0 I had two Monk players with Lawful Neutral on their character sheets. Their behaviour was sometimes Evil. Eventually I told them that their Alignment had shifted to LE. This then caused them to go Full Evil, much more Evil than before, much more Evil than if I had not told them about the shift.



 @_*N'raac*_ basically covered it all. You do realise the younger we were the sillier we played, generally speaking. I can remember some very daft scenarios that were created by both me as player and DM. I certainly do not blame the game for my immaturity or insincerity in my roleplaying. I can certainly understand @_*Hussar*_ when he says he wont sit down with players like that - but alignment is not to blame. 




> The drama of his heroic but doomed last stand, indeed of the whole arc, would have been destroyed if I had told the player "You're Evil now" the moment he killed the captured noblewomen. "You're Evil now" is a GM hammer declaration which
> IME is inimical to any possibility of genuine drama or pathos.




Yeah, well if you're gonna DM it like that for sure you are going to rob your game of genuine drama & pathos and as I have mentioned upthread, tracking alignment and implementation are completely different issues. 

As for d6 Star Wars, sadly I am not familiar with it enough to provide valuable feedback but as @_*N'raac*_ said, D&D seems, when comparing it to your Star Wars example, to provide more discretion on the part of the DM.


----------



## Sadras

Bluenose said:


> No, Strength, Sun, and Beauty. You give me those as the principles of the deity, and I've already got ideas for how that god will view a variety of things - probably different ones to someone else who sees those




So people (DMs & players) might view these differently so there is room for ambiguity.



> whereas if you give my Chaotic Good I don't have anything more than a starting point - is that Chaotic in terms of individual freedom in an ordered society, anarchy, and what does this particular society consider good?




As there is room for ambiguity in alignment, I do not see the difference then when it comes to evaluating PC actions.

The D&D guides reflected deities both with alignment and domains. What you decided to make of the culture/traditions of the people following those deities could either be drawn from DM fiat or from relevant source material of the particular setting.


----------



## Sadras

Manbearcat said:


> Now I am no cosmological entity.  I'm not equipped with heightened metaphysical perception nor intelligence agents.  I'm not equipped with whatever measure of precognition they possess (mystical divinations or whatever the possess to say "weal" or "woe" during divine consultation) to adjudicate the long view at a level far removed from my mere mortal means of extrapolation.




Forgive me, If I have misunderstood you at any point given the high-vocabulary you prefer to use, but here goes:

Your above statement appears, IMO, to be a rediculous argument. If you cannot roleplay a cosmological entity due to your own personal limitations, and use that as your basis - how do you possibly NPC any character within your campaigns which you do not have the required necessary expertise? For instance:

Creatures (opponents) with 18 or more intelligence (no slight intended - funny enough there was a recent thread on this)
Victims of a violent crime who might have emotional scarring, specifically when you might have not had experience with: rape, molestation, mutation...etc
Immortal beings, or near immortal beings...
Monsters
Wizards - you certainly do not possess the skill set..etc

Can you see where I'm going with this?




> As such, aligning my perspective with how they expect me to frame adversity such that we test those micro-beliefs/ideals through focused conflict, is much easier.




Can you give me an example of where you and your players have an aligned perspective where you framed an expected adversity? 



> I feel perfectly comfortable in adjudicating when someone makes a deposit into their morale bank account.  I understand concepts of good will, commitment to duty that bears no immediate fruit personally, pursuing the just path despite the lack of tangible returns (in fact, most times the just path is tangibly punitive to the party that pursues it), being kind without cause, being steadfast in your ability to be relied upon and in taking accountability for your own failures.  These things are easy to wrap my head around.  I feel qualified in my personal life to say "yes, Bob has just deposited into his moral bank account...any good faith observer should see him as better than was before the transaction...I certainly deem him so." However, withdrawals are abundantly more difficult to quantify and qualify.




Why, did you quantify good wills that you need to quantify withdrawals? How much of a deposit is a 'being kind without cause'?
As for qualifying, IMO, its not rocket science. What is trickier is the implementation of the judgement, coming up with something creative, determining the scene to be framed and what kind of punishment suits the 'crime'.


----------



## S'mon

N'raac said:


> So, was there any prior discussion with the players that the activities they were undertaking seemed much more frequently Evil than Good, and perhaps their alignments were shifting, or at risk of shifting?  Or did you just spring it on them one day, without their having had any warning?  The former seems reasonable.  The latter seems like the kind of “gotcha” play that the anti-alignment faction considers intrinsic to any use of alignment, and the pro-alignment faction attributes to inappropriate use of alignment by the GM.
> 
> Oh, and the fact the players choose to respond by foregoing actual role playing of their characters in favour of “oh yeah?  Well see how you like THIS, then” indicates, to me, a player maturity issue more than a rules system flaw.or.




They definitely weren't very mature - early '20s Australians with an 'ocker' mentality. Why didn't I warn them? Because I didn't want to cramp their play. They were having a good time, I was enjoying GMIng for their basically 'Emirikol the Chaotic' Monks. I only told them they were Evil in response to something they said that indicated they thought they were still LN despite (eg) releasing Spectres into a 
city where they felt they'd been overcharged on spellcasting services. They continued to have a good time afterwards, just they were more consistently evil than before.

Hm, talking about this makes me want to run an Evil campaign again... I think it takes the right sort of players to make it fun, though.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> So why exactly do you find it weird?



What I find weird is that, if Mearls and Baker write a skill challenge in which a consequence is a change in recovery time, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; and if WotC publishes disease and curse rules which have, as one component, that recovery time for healing surges or powers is delayed, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; but that if I implement such a consequence then I'm disregarding the action resolution mechanics!

What mechanics am I disregarding? Skill challenges, and choices within them, have consequences, including mechanical consequences. One well-known species of mechanical consequence in 4e is delaying or otherwise toying with the recovery time for resources and abilities. I have implemented such a consequence. That's exactly how 4e is intended to play. It's not disregarding the mechanics: it's applying them.



Imaro said:


> So did your skill challenge have as one of it's "rewards" (and remember you wrote it out earlier) that the DM could activate a player's familiar (without his consent),  strip him of it (through said activation, DM fiat of the artifact rules and without the players consent) and change the recharge rate of said resource as a "reward" or "goal" of a "successful" skill challenge???
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Wait so the player activated his familiar?  Or did you take control of his resource, activate it so it could take damage and then arbitrarily take it away because he chose not to funnel souls to Vecna...  If so, wow... you not only arbitrarily stripped him of the resource, you also took over control of the resource in order to strip it away without his consent...



First, how would you possibly know what my player did or did not consent to? Every post you are making about makes me think that you have no idea about the dynamic of my game.

Second, it's well established in the game that the familiar in question has something of a life of its own. It is a watcher for Levistus. It also recently turned itself invisible and filched a ring for its master (ie the invoker PC). That's part of what the player is looking for in his familiar, and is part of the context within which he implanted the Eye of Vecna into it.

Third, I don't think you have a very good handle on how to run a skill challenge. Suppose the challenge had unfolded like this, instead: I invite the player to make a Perception check, and when he does I tell him that he notices a fire has started, and some MacGuffin is sitting in the middle of the fire. He then makes an Athletics check to have his PC rush in and grab the MacGuffin from the fire before it is burned to a crisp. If I said that the PC suffers level-appropriate fire damage, would you call that "GM fiat" not grounded in the action resolution rules?

Or here is another example, this one not hypothetical but from actual play, when the PCs reforged the dwarven thrower Whelm into the mordenkraad Overwhelm:



pemerton said:


> I adjudicated it as a complexity 1 (4 before 3) skill challenge. The fighter-cleric had succeeded at Dungeoneering (the closest in 4e to an engineering skill) and Diplomacy (to keep his dwarven artificers at the forge as the temperature and magical energies rise to unprecedented heights). The wizard had succeeded at Arcana (to keep the magical forces in check). But the fighter-cleric failed his Religion check - he was praying to Moradin to help with the process, but it wasn't enough. So he shoved his hands into the forge and held down the hammer with brute strength! (Successful Endurance against a Hard DC.) His hands were burned and scarred, but the dwarven smiths were finally able to grab the hammer head with their tongs, and then beat and pull it into its new shape.
> 
> The wizard then healed the dwarf PC with a Remove Affliction (using Fundamental Ice as the material component), and over the course of a few weeks the burns healed. (Had the Endurance check failed, things would have played out much the same, but I'd decided that the character would feel the pang of the burns again whenever he picked up Overwhelm.)
> 
> In running this particular challenge, I was the one who called for the Dungeoneering and Diplomacy checks. It was the players who initiated the other checks. In particular, the player of the dwarf PC realised that while his character is not an artificer, he is the toughtest dwarf around. This is what led him to say "I want to stick my hands into the forge and grab Whelm. Can I make an Endurance check for that?" An unexpected manoeuvre!




Are you really saying that it is not permissible, within the rules, to adjudicate that a character who shoves his hands into the forge in order to succeed in a reforging operation needs healing?

Or yet another example from actual play: the PCs negotiated with some duergar slave traders, and with a successful resolution of the skill challenge reached an agreement to redeem the slaves for an agreed sum at an agreed future date. When the PCs then turned up at the appointed date and time, and paid over the money, the slaves were released. Had they not paid the money, the duergar would not have released the slaves for free.

Are you really saying that it is not a permissible consequence of a successful skill challenge that a PC owe an NPC money?

I could multply the examples: a player fails a Diplomacy check, and as a result the key NPC in a fit of anger throws the widget over the cliff to fall into the water below; it is not poised on one final roll required which if it fails will make 3 fails, if it succeeds will make the required number of successes; the player of the thief declares that his/her PC jumps over the cliff after the widget, to catch it before it falls!

It seems to me that the success of the Acrobatics check tells us whether or not the PC caught the widget in mid-air, but s/he is taking damage from the fall either way!

As the rulebooks, say, skill challenges have consequences, both story consequences and concomitant mechanical consequences.


----------



## Hussar

No see Pemerton, you're missing the point. When criticizing, you must absolutely adhere to the absolute letter of the rules. But when something you like is criticized, any problems are automatically the fault of the critic.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> What I find weird is that, if Mearls and Baker write a skill challenge in which a consequence is a change in recovery time, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; and if WotC publishes disease and curse rules which have, as one component, that recovery time for healing surges or powers is delayed, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; but that if I implement such a consequence then I'm disregarding the action resolution mechanics!




Have they published a skill challenge where a DM is told to disregard the fact that something like...oh...say a familiar in passive mode... is immune to all damage and then damage/destroy it any way?



pemerton said:


> What mechanics am I disregarding? Skill challenges, and choices within them, have consequences, including mechanical consequences. One well-known species of mechanical consequence in 4e is delaying or otherwise toying with the recovery time for resources and abilities. I have implemented such a consequence. That's exactly how 4e is intended to play. It's not disregarding the mechanics: it's applying them.




Damaging something under a players control that shouldn't be damaged isn't toying with recovery time, it's disregarding mechanics and player authority over their build resources.



pemerton said:


> First, how would you possibly know what my player did or did not consent to? Every post you are making about makes me think that you have no idea about the dynamic of my game.




Did he consent to it... or are you sidestepping...once again.  Honestly I'm not really concerned with the dynamic of your specific game, it doesn't impact me and we're not trying to convince each other of anything... so what does this have to do with the point?



pemerton said:


> Second, it's well established in the game that the familiar in question has something of a life of its own. It is a watcher for Levistus. It also recently turned itself invisible and filched a ring for its master (ie the invoker PC). That's part of what the player is looking for in his familiar, and is part of the context within which he implanted the Eye of Vecna into it.




Wait so you went from giving it "something of a life of it's own to making a decision for the familiar (a player resource) to put itself at risk, opposing it's master, that caused it to be destroyed (ironically enough by you again).  Is there a term for railroading a character build resource??



pemerton said:


> Third, I don't think you have a very good handle on how to run a skill challenge. Suppose the challenge had unfolded like this, instead: I invite the player to make a Perception check, and when he does I tell him that he notices a fire has started, and some MacGuffin is sitting in the middle of the fire. He then makes an Athletics check to have his PC rush in and grab the MacGuffin from the fire before it is burned to a crisp. If I said that the PC suffers level-appropriate fire damage, would you call that "GM fiat" not grounded in the action resolution rules?




Yes, and I think you are sidestepping the questions and giving non-answers...

If the GM made the decision that the player would go for the MacGuffin (DM decides imp will funnel souls to Vecna) then decided the character also decided to take off his gloves of fire immunity (DM deciding the player's familiar went active) and then decides the PC will suffer level-appropriate fire damage (familiar now vulnerable to damage crumbles to dust from the 1 point of damage from the Eye of Vecna)... YES, that was GM fiat... and again borderline railroading of a character build resource.




pemerton said:


> Are you really saying that it is not permissible, within the rules, to adjudicate that a character who shoves his hands into the forge in order to succeed in a reforging operation needs healing?




The player didn't do anything... you controlled his build resource throughout the encounter.



pemerton said:


> Or yet another example from actual play: the PCs negotiated with some duergar slave traders, and with a successful resolution of the skill challenge reached an agreement to redeem the slaves for an agreed sum at an agreed future date. When the PCs then turned up at the appointed date and time, and paid over the money, the slaves were released. Had they not paid the money, the duergar would not have released the slaves for free.
> 
> Are you really saying that it is not a permissible consequence of a successful skill challenge that a PC owe an NPC money?




How is this in any way similar to what you did with the familiar of the PC?  Focus man, it's not about whether a PC can owe an NPC money... what point are you even trying to make, because you don't seem to be addressing the one I made.  



pemerton said:


> I could multply the examples:




You could but they aren't proving anything so unless you have something similar to the one you actually posted in the beginning of all this... please don't.




pemerton said:


> As the rulebooks, say, skill challenges have consequences, both story consequences and concomitant mechanical consequences.




No one is arguing against this... but you controlling a player build resource and causing it to be destroyed and determining it's actions and when or if he'll get it back is a far cry from the player suffering consequences from his own decisions.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> No see Pemerton, you're missing the point. When criticizing, you must absolutely adhere to the absolute letter of the rules. But when something you like is criticized, any problems are automatically the fault of the critic.




Deleted


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Tracking and implementation are different.




What's the point of tracking of you aren't going to implement?

And again Sadras, there is absolutely no problem with differences in opinion regarding interpretations. Two people looking at something might very well disagree whether it is truly beautiful. 

But it's far more unlikely that one will say it's truly beautiful while the other says it has no redeeming qualities and is wholly ugly. 

That's where the problem lies in alignment. That two people can have completely opposite interpretations and both be able to 100% justify those interpretations using the alignment definitions.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> No see Pemerton, you're missing the point. When criticizing, you must absolutely adhere to the absolute letter of the rules. But when something you like is criticized, any problems are automatically the fault of the critic.



I wondered if anyone else had noticed that some of the people criticising my adjudication of the skill challenge in my game are the same ones who have argued that it is basically just following the RAW to have all the summoned glabrezu already tapped-out of wishes!


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Did he consent to it



You've caught me out - I actually tie up my players in my secret basement between sessions!

Alternatively: I actually linked you to a post in which I explained how the player spoke to me on the telephone and explained his plan to implant the Eye of Vecna in his imp.



Imaro said:


> How is this in any way similar to what you did with the familiar of the PC?



Because it is an example of one consequence of a successful skill challenge being resource depletion.



Imaro said:


> you controlling a player build resource and causing it to be destroyed and determining it's actions and when or if he'll get it back is a far cry from the player suffering consequences from his own decisions.



First, the resource is not destroyed. Dealing 1 hp of damage to a familiar is not "destroying a player build resource". Inflicting a curse, or a disease, or a similar effect which affects recharge times is not "destroying a build resource". It is a standard element of the suite of mechanical consequences available in 4e.

Second, the player made at least three salient decisions. First, he decided to have his PC implant the Eye of Vecna in his imp. Second, knowing that Vecna was, via his PC's imp, sucking up the soul power, the player decided to have his PC thwart Vecna. Third, having suffered Vecna's wrath, he made no attempt to bargain, or return the soul energy, or anything of that sort. Instead, he let the dwarf fighter lead him out of the collapsing cavern.



Imaro said:


> Is there a term for railroading a character build resource??



The term I use for taking steps with a player's familiar that he has deliberately loaded with the Eye of Vecna for this very purpose is "Establishing a complication".

When the player makes a choice that sacrifices one possibility (saving himself and his imp from Vecna's wrath) in favour of a preferred possibility (sending the souls to the Raven Queen) I call that roleplaying.


----------



## Hussar

If I might step into the mess that Pemerton's example has brought about.

I think, Imaro and N'raac, that you might be focusing too much on the details and missing the point.  The thing you are ignoring is that at no point has Permerton actually corrected his player.  At no point has he told his player that the player is wrong or mistaken in any way.

When you use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:

Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM disagrees with the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM informs the player of the disagreement and the player is now beholden to accept the new interpretation ---> The player must now go back to the concept of his character and re-evaluate the character based on this new interpretation, changing his character to conform to the DM's interpretation.

In other words, the player must change his character's behaviour to conform to the DM's interpretation which is 100% external to the player's conception of his character.  If he fails to change his behaviour, then the DM is obligated to invoke various consequences, up to and including permanently stripping character abilities.

However, when you don't use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:

Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the conception that the player has of his character ---> The DM causes in game reactions to the player's reactions which may be positive or negative as the case may be, based n the DM's interpretation of NPC's in the game.

That's the fundamental difference here.


----------



## pemerton

*Scene framing*


N'raac said:


> If you want to claim you are applying the action resolution mechanics and rules of the game, then the mechanic or rule needs to be printed, not be cited as being absent.



I'm sorry? In that case, every 3E GM who ever told their players, "OK - you wake up and the sun is a fiery red in the East" is breaking the rules, because nowhere in the 3E rulebooks is the GM given express permission to frame that scene.

In case you missed them, allow me to requote the passages from the DMG (pp 160-161), MotP (p 53) and Open Grave (p 22):

[T]he Raven Queen’s palace of Letherna stands in the Shadowfell . . .

When mortal creatures die, their spirits travel first to the Shadowfell before moving on to their final fate. . .

Foremost of the Shadowfell’s inhabitants are the dead. Each day brings droves of displaced souls from the natural world. . .

All souls come to the Shadowfell, and sooner or later they pass through the Raven Queen’s Citadel in Letherna . . .​
Here's some additional relevant text from the PHB (pp 8, 311):

The DM . . . presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome. . .

To perform the Raise Dead ritual, you must have a part of the corpse of a creature that died no more than 30 days ago. . . The subject’s soul must be free and willing to return to life. Some magical effects trap the soul and thus prevent Raise Dead from working, and the gods can intervene to prevent a soul from journeying back to the realm of the living.​
Can you tell me what text there even hints at the impermissibility of the GM framing a scene in which a dead PC interacts with the Raven Queen? Particularly if the player of the dead PC requests such a scene?


*Mechanics*


N'raac said:


> Yet you continue to defend your actions in a game based on the fact the rules permit them, rather than on an underlying philosophy of what the rules/mechanics should, and should not, permit.



This is primarily because you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] have been arguing that I ignored the rules.

But you can probably also infer that I don't mind the rules, given that I'm using them.



			
				N'raac;6268312[/quote said:
			
		

> Is his familiar not a class feature?  If not, what is it?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Was there a curse or disease involved? If so, you have not mentioned it. If not, then it is irrelevant.



In mechanical terms it is a bonus of buffs and encounter powers acquired via a feat. It is a strong feat, which has as a tradeoff that the familiar is vulnerable to damage, which results in the benefits being lost until a rest takes place. So shutting down a familiar is the same as draining any sort of encounter power. Making its recovery more difficult is the same as changing the timing on any other resource recovery - which is a standard part of the 4e resolution and recovery system (besides curses and diseases, I posted the example of the skill challenge involving losing encounter powers for the duration of an adventure).

So, contrary to your claim that curses and diseases are irrelevant, they are highly relevant. A key responsibility of a 4e GM is to manage pacing, and variations in pacing, and bonuses and penalties to recovery of resources relative to the normal recovery periods; the rules for curses and diseases provide a model for the way 4e handles can use those particular mechanical techniques to handle various sorts of fictional circumstances (for instance, many diseases delay the recovery of healing surges; a curse might delay the recovery of certain powers; etc).



N'raac said:


> you are citing a rule that says the familiar (or the invoker – who is the “owner”) should die instantly and his body crumble to dust.  Clearly, you have already decided that the mechanic is, to some degree, bad, but you are OK with a “less bad” application.



The rule doesn't say that the owner "should" die instantly and crumble to dust. To quote for a 4th time (from pp 165 and 168 of the DMG): "A malevolent artifact such as the _Eye of Vecna_ has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment (for instance, ripping itself from the character’s eye socket during a battle). . . The _Eye of Vecna _consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust." So at least two options are provided. With an implication (via the use of "for instance") that the GM might interpolate other options as seem appropriate.

I guess that's just the sort of wacky, improvisational RPGing that 4e is aimed at!



N'raac said:


> You, the GM, removed the resource contrary to the manner in which the action resolution mechanics would so permit.



Can you point to the relevant bit of the action resolution mechanics?

Arcane Power, p 138, says this: "Your DM might maintain some light touch of control over how your familiar acts, or might allow you to completely control it."

In the case of my player, the parameters of "light touch of control" had already been fairly well established: for instance, as I believe I mentioned, in an earlier session the familiar had, without the PC's knowledge (or the player's until after the event) turned invisible and filched a ring from an NPC to give to the PC. And the player deliberately chose to implant the Eye of Vecna in his familiar, which obviously has implications for our shared understanding of the relevant "light touch of control".

I know you are determined - for reasons I don't understand - to show that I broke the 4e rules, but I think your unfamiliarity with those rules is showing.



N'raac said:


> The player “knew he might be placing the familiar at risk” is as close as we have gotten to any voluntary sacrifice on his part. Had he said “I want to rechannel the energy – can I sacrifice the Eye of Vecna permanently, and lose access to the familiar temporarily to make that a possibility and/or get a bonus to the roll?” or had you asked the player “Do you want to rechannel the souls to the Raven Queen? This will likely result in loss of the Eye, and perhaps even the Familiar, for some period of time, or even permanently?”, that would seem to fit the phrasing of the mechanic. Now, I find the actual play, including the uncertainty, more engaging. But that does not change the fact it departed from the mechanic



First, the quoted rules text says "Here are some options . . . " There is no implication that the list is exclusive. In fact, the whole tenor of the relevant chapter in DMG 2 is that it is not (and obviously it is not). I simply quote that to point out to you the sorts of interaction between mechanical resource deployment and consequences that the designers have in mind.

The player had a choice: allow Vecna to have the souls, or thwart Vecna and risk his familiar. He made a choice, knowing the stakes; stakes, I might mention again, that he established. That is precisely what the game is about!

The player could have asked for a roll to stop Vecna shutting down his imp. But he didn't - perhaps because he recognised that failure on that check might lead to him failing to thwart Vecna. The player could have tried to bargain with Vecna to get his imp back. But he didn't - or, at least, hasn't yet - presumably because he was satisfied with his choice to favour the Raven Queen.

Would I handle the action resolution the same way if I was GMing for someone I didn't know? Probably not. Would I handle it the same way for the player of the fighter or sorcerer in my game? Probably not - they don't have quite the same penchant for conspiring with the GM on day one to set up problems for their PC on day two. But I am very confident in saying that I know my player better than you do, and better than [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] does. I have been RPGing with him for about 20 years.

Knowing how to handle framing of stakes and imposition of consequences is a pretty core GM skill, I think. I exercised it. And I didn't break any rules to do so. I used the resource my favoured system provides me. That it provides those resources is part of what makes it my favoured system.



N'raac said:


> what was his reward for succeeding in the skill challenge?



He and his friends shut down the soul abattoir, stopped Vecna getting the resulting flow of souls, and escaped from the cavern alive. As well as these story rewards, they earned the relevant amount of XP. (Off the top of my head, 7000 each.) Two of the PCs - the cleric and paladin of the Raven Queen - also had their weapons and holy symbols enhanced from +5 to +6 due to their mistresses gratitude.


*Values*


N'raac said:


> It is what the entity in question values.



 "Value", used as a noun in the context of discussion about morality, doesn't mean "thing that someone values". It means "thing that someone should value" - ie something that is valuable.

The Random House Dictionary that I was sent to by dictionary.reference.com put it in the following terms:

11. _Ethics_.  any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself.[/quote]



N'raac said:


> Some people value freedom of information, and think it’s OK for the papparazzi to peak into people’s windows, put microphones or cameras in their homes and hotel rooms and root through their garbage.  Others place a sufficient value on privacy as to consider that wrong.



Sure. But the point of describing people who value wanton murder as _evil_ is to say that they are valuing things that they should not; that the things they value are not valuable, and are in fact wicked.



N'raac said:


> Is athleticism valuable, or is knowledge?



As I said quite a way upthread, the principal values upheld by the non-evil 4e gods - freedom, prowess, beauty, love, nature, fate, knowledge, honour, civilisation, loyalty, mercy, justice - seem like credible values within the context of a high fantasy game. Values that someone might, within that context, think are worth fighting to defend. Also values about which a degree of pluralism seems plausible.

A very interesting discussion of Undeath as a genuine value is found in Rolemaster Companion VI, authored (I believe) by Lev Lafeyette who posts on rpg.net. If a player wanted to play a character dedicated to the value of undeath that would make for an interesting game that departed from typical high fantasy tropes. Presumably such a player's PC would not regard Vecna as evil, and perhaps wouldn't see Orcus that way either. (A game with such a PC in it would likely create pressure to differentiate Vecna and Orcus in ways that don't come up in more typical play.)


*Alignment*


N'raac said:


> your claim has not been that people were using the alignment mechanics wrong, but that using them right can only have detrimental results



When I have ever claimed that?

All I have said is that using mechanical alignment is detrimental to my play experience. I'm sure it's not detrimental to yours, because you want a different sort of play experience from what I want.



N'raac said:


> it imposed a consequence of the character’s moral choice
> 
> <snip>
> 
> your distaste for alignment rules was stated to be predicated that the character’s moral decisions should not mechanically impact him



I don't understand why you keep saying this. It has little or no connection to anything that I have said, and I have repeatedly said as much. Given the game I run, nearly everything that happens to the PCs is a _consequence of a character's moral choice_, in the sense of being "a consequence of a choice they made for moral reasons."

What I have repeatedly said is that I do not like, as part of my role as GM, having to judge the adequacy of the evaluative judgements that my players make. In this case, that would mean that I don't what to have to decide whether or not the player did the right thing in having his PC choose the Raven Queen over Vecna. And guess what  - I didn't do that!



			
				N'raac;6268312[/quote said:
			
		

> The invoker expressed a value judgment – whether the souls should flow to Vecna, or to the Raven Queen. He then acted on it.



_BUT I DIDN'T JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT HIS DECISION WAS CORRECT._ Whereas alignment rules would require me to do that - to judge whether he did a good or evil thing.



			
				N'raac;6268312[/quote said:
			
		

> I conclude that your objection to similar mechanics for Paladins, or for the alignment system, are not a hard and fast philosophy



Then you are wrong. Adjudicating a paladin does not require asking whether or not the paladin angered a god that s/he set out to anger. It requires judging whether or not a player mad a choice for his/her PC that is evil, typically in circumstances where the player regards him-/herself as having upheld the values to which his/her PC is dedicated. That has nothing in common with the episode of play I described. And I don't understand your repeated failure to even address this distinction that I have repeatedly drawn, and the significance of which I have repeatedly emphasised.



N'raac said:


> Which, to me, is pretty similar to:
> 
> 
> he entity which the Paladin is supposed to be an exemplar of
> in accordance with the stakes that have been set up by the player, which include his Paladin abilities, by the rules written for the class (pre-4e)
> escalated by me, by placing moral choices in his path
> and then pushed to crunch time by the player's choice



As I have said multiple times upthread, if you want to play paladins like that go to town. That is not how I conceive of the paladin. That is not how my players play paladins. What you describe is what I have called "paladin as warlock". I am interested in "paladin as exemplar of value". To put it in Euthyphro terms, the approach that you describe gets the direction of fit wrong - it posits that the paladin cares for things because the being they serve does. Whereas when I play or GM a paladin, I see theme as serving an entity because it is an exemplar of a value worth being committed to.​


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> If.
> 
> When you use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:
> 
> Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM disagrees with the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM informs the player of the disagreement and the player is now beholden to accept the new interpretation ---> The player must now go back to the concept of his character and re-evaluate the character based on this new interpretation, changing his character to conform to the DM's interpretation.
> 
> re.




There is one thing at least where I agree with you here. Imposing penalties on a character just because the player breaks alignment, and not for some visivle in game reason, is something I dislike (and I think the rules in 2E---dont recall if 3E advises this---give bad advise in that respect). What I like is using alignment for things like paladins, where the violation of alignment matters because their powers come from a relationship or connection with these cosmic forces or the gods. I also like it for things such as orotection from good/evil, magic weapons that interact with alignment, etc. So i differ from you in that i feel the GM handling alignment and treating it as an objective thing outside the characters is perfectly fine, but i agree that it is a bit stupid to dock the thief XP or take away his thief skills because he is being too Lawful. I also tend to focus on egregious alignment violation.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> So it's not a mistake on N'raac 's part... you're just not following the rules for familiars... got it.




Now, what I see here is that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] reads the rules for familiars and skill challenges, and concludes they were not followed.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] reads the same rules, and concludes that they were followed.  Apparently, two different users of the rules come to entirely opposite conclusions on how they apply.  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], how does this compare to your assertion that alignment is a bad system because two different GM’s can come to inconsistent, even opposing, conclusions and both be correct?




Imaro said:


> Wait so the player activated his familiar? Or did you take control of his resource, activate it so it could take damage and then arbitrarily take it away because he chose not to funnel souls to Vecna... If so, wow... you not only arbitrarily stripped him of the resource, you also took over control of the resource in order to strip it away without his consent...




I can’t speak for [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] on this, but for myself:

 - I agree with the statement above;

 - I believe [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s GMing of this was consistent with the in game fiction and made for gaming at least as good, and more probably significantly better, than mechanically applying the rules;

 - my contention that removal of a character resource, whether temporary or permanent, without the player’s consent or direction, due to the character’s moral choices is inconsistent has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the rules were, or were not, followed – the prior edition rules that would remove a Paladins powers and/or reduce a character’s level due to alignment issues were also “the rules”, and were cited as bad rules (for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], at least) because they reduced the character’s ability to influence the in-game fiction inappropriately.  He sees a significant difference between unilateral removal of the familiar because the player made a choice that a higher power relevant to the character disagreed with and removal of abilities for alignment issues.  I don’t.  That’s the disagreement.



Cadence said:


> I remember from one of these threads recently that OD&D only had L/N/G and I knew first hand it was true for B/X. But I had forgotten that Moldvay explicitly ended the descriptions with:
> 
> Did OD&D leave those out? What about the other versions of Basic?




I don’t believe OD&D linked Law to Good or Chaos to Evil explicitly.  An old White Dwarf article suggested CG and LE, pointing to the Chaotic Doctor and the Lawful Daleks as not well handled by the three choice continuum.

The first Basic I read (the “blue book” with the Dragon) had the 5 alignment chart (LG, CG, LE, CE, N).  Later editions, I think, went back to L, N, C.



pemerton said:


> What I find weird is that, if Mearls and Baker write a skill challenge in which a consequence is a change in recovery time, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; and if WotC publishes disease and curse rules which have, as one component, that recovery time for healing surges or powers is delayed, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; but that if I implement such a consequence then I'm disregarding the action resolution mechanics!




What I find weird is any effort to defend whether this was consistent with the rules or not.  You have told us the alignment rules are not good rules because they reduce a player’s ability to impact the fiction by removal of character resources.  You then present a play example where you remove a character’s resources, reducing his ability to impact the fiction.  Even if I assume that this was 100% consistent – exactly how the 4e rules were presented – even if it were an example of proper play from the rule book itself – that would still leave it a rule under which a player’s ability to impact the fiction is reduced by (temporary) removal of a character resource, due to the decisions made by the character/player in question.



pemerton said:


> Suppose the challenge had unfolded like this, instead: I invite the player to make a Perception check, and when he does I tell him that he notices a fire has started, and some MacGuffin is sitting in the middle of the fire. He then makes an Athletics check to have his PC rush in and grab the MacGuffin from the fire before it is burned to a crisp. If I said that the PC suffers level-appropriate fire damage, would you call that "GM fiat" not grounded in the action resolution rules?




Is this a hypothetical example, like the ones you dismiss when we present them?  What check did the player make using his familiar to expose it to loss?  I would call it GM fiat if the you said “As you prepare to rush in, your familiar darts in, clutches the MacGuffin in its claws and swoops out to your side, laying it at your feet as it collapses from the pain of its burns.”  I don’t believe the player in your game used the character resource of his familiar to redirect the flow of souls (so it was not a resource used in the skill challenge), nor did he attempt to harm the familiar to do so (so its incapacitation was not a success of his roll).



pemerton said:


> Or here is another example, this one not hypothetical but from actual play, when the PCs reforged the dwarven thrower Whelm into the mordenkraad Overwhelm:




So you think another one will have more pleasant results?

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything.  Was that the Dwarven Paladin?  Do Paladins have mounts in 4e?  Had you said “Your mount is injured and is unavailable for a period of time”, or “The magic flows from the weapon at your belt into Whelm, so your weapon is non-magical for a week”, that would be more comparable, in my view, to KOing the familiar.  Both would incapacitate a resource the character had not invoked in the successful skill roll from which its loss was ruled to result.  Had Vecna removed some power that he, in the fiction, grants to the Invoker, that would seem far more logical.



pemerton said:


> Are you really saying that it is not a permissible consequence of a successful skill challenge that a PC owe an NPC money?




The PC offered money.  The Invoker did not, as I understand it, even activate his familiar, much less offer it as part of the stakes.  You did.



pemerton said:


> It seems to me that the success of the Acrobatics check tells us whether or not the PC caught the widget in mid-air, but s/he is taking damage from the fall either way!




Sure.  But his horse, follower, or what have you, which was no part of the check, didn’t jump in after him, and he didn’t break some unused magic item on landing.



Hussar said:


> And again Sadras, there is absolutely no problem with differences in opinion regarding interpretations. Two people looking at something might very well disagree whether it is truly beautiful.
> 
> But it's far more unlikely that one will say it's truly beautiful while the other says it has no redeeming qualities and is wholly ugly.




Compare the aesthetics of two cultures (21st century North America and 15th century Europe, say) on viewing a chubby young lady, 25 lb overweight, and a waif-thin supermodel.  Their standards seem pretty different to me.



Hussar said:


> That's where the problem lies in alignment. That two people can have completely opposite interpretations and both be able to 100% justify those interpretations using the alignment definitions.





Kind of like Imaro and Permerton reach completely opposite interpretations of the familiar and skill challenge rules, huh?  I find Imaro’s are justified, and I also see Pemerton’s point, so they’re both justified using the rules.  I don’t know about 100%, but I suspect I would not perceive the two alignment judgments as each being 100% either.



Hussar said:


> When you use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:
> 
> Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM disagrees with the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM informs the player of the disagreement and the player is now beholden to accept the new interpretation ---> The player must now go back to the concept of his character and re-evaluate the character based on this new interpretation, changing his character to conform to the DM's interpretation.
> 
> In other words, the player must change his character's behaviour to conform to the DM's interpretation which is 100% external to the player's conception of his character. If he fails to change his behaviour, then the DM is obligated to invoke various consequences, up to and including permanently stripping character abilities.
> 
> However, when you don't use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:
> 
> Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the conception that the player has of his character ---> The DM causes in game reactions to the player's reactions which may be positive or negative as the case may be, based n the DM's interpretation of NPC's in the game.
> 
> That's the fundamental difference here.




I’ve inserted the example scenario below in *bold*.

Event occurs *the Imp is transferring souls to Vecna* ---> Player reacts to the event based on the player's interpretation of alignment *I will redirect them to RQ*--- > The DM disagrees with the player's interpretation of alignment *You’re evil and sworn to Vecna *---> The DM informs the player of the disagreement and the player is now beholden to accept the new interpretation ---> The player must now go back to the concept of his character and re-evaluate the character based on this new interpretation, changing his character to conform to the DM's interpretation.  *OBJECTION: The player is not required to change his character’s decision, only to abide by its consequences.*

In other words, the player must change his character's behaviour to conform to the DM's interpretation which is 100% external to the player's conception of his character. *The player must let the souls flow to Vecna *If he fails to change his behaviour, then the DM is obligated to invoke various consequences, up to and including permanently stripping character abilities.  *The Powers of Evil demolish your familiar in their disappointment over your lackluster service *(or the powers of Evil no longer serve you, so your Imp familiar leaves).

However, when you don't use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:

Event occurs *the Imp is transferring souls to Vecna* ---> Player reacts to the event based on the conception that the player has of his character *I will redirect them to RQ* ---> The DM causes in game reactions to the player's reactions which may be positive or negative as the case may be, based n the DM's interpretation of NPC's in the game.* Vecna demolishes your familiar in their disappointment over your lackluster service*


Or, if we accept that the player knew full well the familiar was at risk, the player can either change his behaviour or suffer consequences, up to and including the indefinite removal of a character ability (now established to be a feat normally subject to temporary removal, which pemerton has decided will not recover in its usual timeframe).



pemerton said:


> I'm sorry? In that case, every 3E GM who ever told their players, "OK - you wake up and the sun is a fiery red in the East" is breaking the rules, because nowhere in the 3E rulebooks is the GM given express permission to frame that scene.




I think a sunrise and talking with your deity while dead are quite different in scope.  I am also saying there are no rules for communing with the character’s deity while the character is dead, so any such interaction is not a “by the rules” scene, but a “GM Fiat” scene.  There is nothing wrong with the latter, but neither are there rules for it in the game, so it cannot be conducted or adjudicated “in strict accordance with the rules”  no rules govern its conduct or adjudication.




pemerton said:


> Can you tell me what text there even hints at the impermissibility of the GM framing a scene in which a dead PC interacts with the Raven Queen? Particularly if the player of the dead PC requests such a scene?




Can you show me any rule that governs how such an interaction is requested by the character, how it should be determined whether his request is granted or how the scene should be adjudicated?  There are no such rules, I believe, and with no such rules, the entire scene is complete GM fiat.  That’s not a bad thing, but it’s not an “in the rules” thing either.



pemerton said:


> So, contrary to your claim that curses and diseases are irrelevant, they are highly relevant. A key responsibility of a 4e GM is to manage pacing, and variations in pacing, and bonuses and penalties to recovery of resources relative to the normal recovery periods; the rules for curses and diseases provide a model for the way 4e handles can use those particular mechanical techniques to handle various sorts of fictional circumstances (for instance, many diseases delay the recovery of healing surges; a curse might delay the recovery of certain powers; etc).




They are mechanical rules for the removal of a character’s abilities, thus reducing the player’s ability to impact the fiction.  So are mechanical alignment rules and undead level draining rules, both of which you have stated you consider bad rules, at least for your game.



pemerton said:


> The rule doesn't say that the owner "should" die instantly and crumble to dust.




Apparently, they say the owner *does* die instantly and crumble to dust – emphasis added:



pemerton said:


> To quote for a 4th time (from pp 165 and 168 of the DMG): "A malevolent artifact such as the _Eye of Vecna_ has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment (for instance, ripping itself from the character’s eye socket during a battle). . . The _Eye of Vecna _consumes its owner, body and mind. *The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust.*" So at least two options are provided. With an implication (via the use of "for instance") that the GM might interpolate other options as seem appropriate.




I’ll accept you quoted that four times.  Consider reading it this time.



pemerton said:


> Arcane Power, p 138, says this: "Your DM might maintain some light touch of control over how your familiar acts, or might allow you to completely control it."
> 
> In the case of my player, the parameters of "light touch of control" had already been fairly well established: for instance, as I believe I mentioned, in an earlier session the familiar had, without the PC's knowledge (or the player's until after the event) turned invisible and filched a ring from an NPC to give to the PC. And the player deliberately chose to implant the Eye of Vecna in his familiar, which obviously has implications for our shared understanding of the relevant "light touch of control".




So a “light touch of control” consists of the Familiar taking independent action, activating itself without the player’s consent, or even knowledge (he must make an Insight check to perceive it’s doing something), opposing the will of its master (he had to force it to redirect the soul energies) and then being removed from play.  I’d hate to see a “heavy-handed approach”, but I guess two people can read the rule “light touch of control”, reach very different interpretation and (hey, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) both be 100% right under the rules.



pemerton said:


> He and his friends shut down the soul abattoir, stopped Vecna getting the resulting flow of souls, and escaped from the cavern alive. As well as these story rewards, they earned the relevant amount of XP. (Off the top of my head, 7000 each.) Two of the PCs - the cleric and paladin of the Raven Queen - also had their weapons and holy symbols enhanced from +5 to +6 due to their mistresses gratitude.




So she rewarded those already sworn to serve her for their involvement, but not the Invoker who chose her over his other obligations, suffered the loss of his familiar for it, and redirected the soul energies to her, and away from Vecna.  Why does he get no reward (other than the xp everyone gets) for his service and success in the challenge?



pemerton said:


> What I have repeatedly said is that I do not like, as part of my role as GM, having to judge the adequacy of the evaluative judgements that my players make. In this case, that would mean that I don't what to have to decide whether or not the player did the right thing in having his PC choose the Raven Queen over Vecna. And guess what - I didn't do that!
> 
> The invoker expressed a value judgment – whether the souls should flow to Vecna, or to the Raven Queen. He then acted on it.



_BUT I DIDN'T JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT HIS DECISION WAS CORRECT._ Whereas alignment rules would require me to do that - to judge whether he did a good or evil thing.[/quote]

You did judge that an Evil deity disapproved.  Do Evil deities tend to approve of Good acts, or Evil ones?



			
				N’raac said:
			
		

> I conclude that your objection to similar mechanics for Paladins, or for the alignment system, are not a hard and fast philosophy






pemerton said:


> Then you are wrong.




My conclusion is an opinion, not a fact.  I see it could be interpreted as an assertion of fact, so I apologize for that lack of clarity and state for the record it was an opinion.  I have set out the support for my opinion, and it remains my opinion.  Your objection to removal of character resources due to moral choices of the character (or player) is not absolute, in my opinion, but a matter of degree, as evidenced by your removal of the Invoker’s familiar as a consequence of that characters moral choice in directing soul energies.

It is no more “wrong” than your opinion that alignment, reasonably and properly applied, would be detrimental to your games.

BTW, the difference I see between Warlock and Paladin is that the warlock approaches the Power with an offer of service in exchange for a reward of power.  The Paladin is rewarded with power as a consequence of his service.  The Paladin chose service without demanding the reward first.  A cleric could go either way.  There is a significant similarity in that all are rewarded by higher powers for their services.  Similarly, both a soldier serving his country and a mercenary working for the highest bidder are paid for their services.  They are very different in other respects.



Bedrockgames said:


> There is one thing at least where I agree with you here. Imposing penalties on a character just because the player breaks alignment, and not for some visible in game reason, is something I dislike (and I think the rules in 2E---dont recall if 3E advises this---give bad advise in that respect). What I like is using alignment for things like paladins, where the violation of alignment matters because their powers come from a relationship or connection with these cosmic forces or the gods. I also like it for things such as orotection from good/evil, magic weapons that interact with alignment, etc. So i differ from you in that i feel the GM handling alignment and treating it as an objective thing outside the characters is perfectly fine, but i agree that it is a bit stupid to dock the thief XP or take away his thief skills because he is being too Lawful. I also tend to focus on egregious alignment violation.




I think 2e suggested a natural alignment change might appropriately carry no XP penalty.  I forget which direction 3e went in that regard.  1e had the harshest phrasing, I believe.  I think most who favour the alignment rules do focus on egregious behaviour (one outrageous action or a consistent trend of clear, but less outrageous, behaviour) and the Powers granted for service to a specific being or philosophy.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> You've caught me out - I actually tie up my players in my secret basement between sessions!




Sidestepping and misdirection... when did I ever say this??



pemerton said:


> Alternatively: I actually linked you to a post in which I explained how the player spoke to me on the telephone and explained his plan to implant the Eye of Vecna in his imp.




It's funny how I ask what should be a simple yes or no question... but can't get a yes or no reply.  Let me try this again... Did you get the player of the invoker's consent to activate his familiar, and have it redirect souls towards Vecna?



pemerton said:


> Because it is an example of one consequence of a successful skill challenge being resource depletion.




In this example was the resource manipulated and controlled by the DM so that it was put into a position where it could be depleted (as in your play post)?  Again, it's a yes or no question...



pemerton said:


> First, the resource is not destroyed. Dealing 1 hp of damage to a familiar is not "destroying a player build resource". Inflicting a curse, or a disease, or a similar effect which affects recharge times is not "destroying a build resource". It is a standard element of the suite of mechanical consequences available in 4e.




It's destroyed until you allow the player (since you also disregarded the official rules for familiars) to get it back... at this point and time we have no clue as to how long or short that will be.  Do the rules for healing diseases or removing curses boil down to... catch or be subjected to one whenever the DM feels like it and heal or have it removed whenever the DM feels like it?  If not then they are not the same as what you chose to do. 



pemerton said:


> Second, the player made at least three salient decisions. First, he decided to have his PC implant the Eye of Vecna in his imp. Second, knowing that Vecna was, via his PC's imp, sucking up the soul power, the player decided to have his PC thwart Vecna. Third, having suffered Vecna's wrath, he made no attempt to bargain, or return the soul energy, or anything of that sort. Instead, he let the dwarf fighter lead him out of the collapsing cavern.




Really these are salient decisions?? It would seem that you made much more salient decisions for the character than he did.  Who decided that his familiar would send soul energy to Vecna (Still not sure how/why it would do this, maybe secret back story around the familiar or artifact, but whatever)?  Who decided the familiar would also go into an active state so it could be damaged (again not sure why it would do this for any other reason than that the DM decided it...)?  These seem like much more salient decision points than the ones you listed above.  



pemerton said:


> The term I use for taking steps with a player's familiar that he has deliberately loaded with the Eye of Vecna for this very purpose is "Establishing a complication".




So then why not leave the decision up to the player?  If you were so sure this is what he wanted why not let him make the choices surrounding his familiar (which he's supposed to do anyway) during play in the same way you would want a paladin to role play out and decide the consequences (if any) of his own fall as it relates to his character build resources?  If the player wanted this to happen why did he need you to manipulate and control his resources without his consent?



pemerton said:


> When the player makes a choice that sacrifices one possibility (saving himself and his imp from Vecna's wrath) in favour of a preferred possibility (sending the souls to the Raven Queen) I call that roleplaying.




I have no problem with what the player did... mis-direction and sidestepping...  I just find your actions inconsistent with the rules and much of your stated philosophy about control of player build resources, evaluative decisions and so on.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> And again Sadras, there is absolutely no problem with differences in opinion regarding interpretations. Two people looking at something might very well disagree whether it is truly beautiful.
> 
> But it's far more unlikely that one will say it's truly beautiful while the other says it has no redeeming qualities and is wholly ugly.




Yeah I don't see this at all.  I don't think there is some universal standard of beauty, and individual standards are shaped by culture, experiences, personality, etc.  If you are judging what is "beautiful" you are IMO, making an evaluative decision.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> It's funny how I ask what should be a simple yes or no question... but can't get a yes or no reply.  Let me try this again... Did you get the player of the invoker's consent to activate his familiar, and have it redirect souls towards Vecna?




May I add a rider:  "Consent" means explicitly asking the player to activate the familiar, not implied consent such as:

 - not arguing his familiar was not activated;
 - arguing or negotiating over the loss of his familiar (in game or out of game);
 - sitting at the game table to begin with;

It means he explicitly said "I expect my familiar to be removed from my control for an unknown and indefinite period of time" or "I agree with you removing my familiar from my control for an unknown and indefinite period of time".  If some other phrasing was used, spell it out and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and I will see if we agree that's consent...we may need to appoint a third person to chair the committee...



Imaro said:


> In this example was the resource manipulated and controlled by the DM so that it was put into a position where it could be depleted (as in your play post)?  Again, it's a yes or no question...




Alternatively, "did the player activate the familiar at any time in the scene?"  if he did not, the answer to the above question is "YES, the resource was manipulated and controlled by the DM so that it was put into a position where it could be depleted "

I shudder to think of the response we would have received to "Is 'a' the indefinite article in the English language?"

brrrrr


----------



## UnholyD

Grydan said:


> 'Valid points that are well structured.'




First and foremost I must apologize for my prior aggressions and lack of calm and collected actions. I've been having a rough week of it and the frustrations I've been feeling have leaked quite heavily into my manner associated with this thread. I've also played D&D 3.5 for a little too long some might say so my views on mechanical alignment are quite biased to say the least. I wasn't intending to insult anyone personally but rather to vent my frustrations. I've gone to far with that however and attempting to make amends, whether they be accepted or not.

tl;dr: I'm sorry for being an asshat.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the debate:

I agree, intelligence and wisdom are more important behaviors wise than alignment could ever hope to achieve. This is mainly due to alignments' innate nature of being a little open to interpretation. That's why it's good to talk it over with your players or DM and figure out what everyone can agree upon alignment should mean to everyone involved. If you know how it can be cut and dry, you know how to approach it.

And as we all know in everyday life, we all use blanket terms for everything we express. The terms Jock, Nerd, Gamer, Explosion, and Critic come to mind (for simplicity and speed, I'm not going to go over how these are blankets as most are common enough to be self-explanatory). Admittedly, Chaotic is a rather poor term for what it signifies, but as much as Good is the opposite to Evil, writers probably needed a term other than Unlawful to put on the other end of the Lawful/Chaotic Axis.

The drivers analogy is a good one I do admit.

The term innocent, of course, being directed toward individuals who might otherwise incur the wrath of a Paladin looking to Smite Evil in all it's forms. If a Paladin believes someone to be innocent, he has no justification to end them or label them evil.

Admittedly I used the term everything as a blanket to express what a different term would have expressed better. I should have said most things. Fighters being an apt defense for your position.

World of Warcraft (or WoW as it is commonly known) is an MMO wherein people "roleplay" characters looking to save the world from great evil. However, a large number of individuals take to infighting or killing those of "opposing" factions for sport rather than any other reason. The Alliance is the supposed good guys who, as far as backstory goes, act more like genocidal maniacs bent on removing "inferior" races because said races are a scourge to be wiped off of the face of the world. The Horde as it is commonly known, is comprised of these so called "inferior" races who look more to eek out their peaceful existences away from Alliance strongholds for fear of death. Admittedly, there are both good and bad apples in both groups, however, neither is a good signifier for who the Good Guys or the Bad Guys are. Taking this all into consideration, I'm using it as an expression to say that 4th plays with alignment not mattering. Again, apologies if I insulted you personally.

An awful lot of people not reading posts thoroughly on this thread. Strange. True Neutral is still more abstract than even I expressed and I find it difficult to properly state without a great deal of confusion how it actually works. Neutrality is in fact the single most difficult alignment to play as any action can be considered to follow some form of outward alignment. Case in point, the 9 point alignment grid does look like a doughnut more than a box when you look at all parties involved. Even when you look at the "Unaligned" alignment, you still to some degree decide to not pick a side which is, in fact, a side in and of itself. If anything, it's up to the DM how "Black and White" he wants his world to be.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Yeah I don't see this at all.  I don't think there is some universal standard of beauty, and individual standards are shaped by culture, experiences, personality, etc.  If you are judging what is "beautiful" you are IMO, making an evaluative decision.




Think of how ridiculous this sounds:

Player:  I think X is beautiful. 

DM: no you are wrong. It is not only not beautiful but is wholly ugly. And you must now incorporate my definition if beauty into your character. 

While I can certainly see preferring one thing to another, it would be pretty rare to see someone looking at a waterfall and saying, "that's an ugly waterfall. "


----------



## Hussar

Speaking of ridiculous N'raac and imaro. You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar. 

Just how limited are the deities in your campaign?  I always thought gods were the ultimate DMPC. They are gods. They can do pretty much anything. 

I did not realize that a familiar was more powerful than a god. Good to know.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Speaking of ridiculous N'raac and imaro. You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar. I did not realize that a familiar was more powerful than a god.




They (@Imaro & @_*N'raac*_) are not disagreeing with the idea that a God could kill someone's familiar. They are insisting that @_*pemerton*_ made a personal judgement call as a DM npcing the deity which created a situation where the player's ability to impact the fiction is reduced by (temporary) removal of a character resource.
They are equating said DM judgement with the alignment judgement calls Pemerton has repeatedly advocated against for his own campaign due to his personal preference and/or alignment bias.
He has expressed he does not view his familiar-killing call as a DM evaluation - Imaro & N'raac disagree. He has replied it was part of a skill mechanic and has cited various references where something of the kind is allowed, but there is nothing specific in the books regarding the killing of the familiar.

I'm of the view, that if character is never wrong with regards to the deities wishes, you create a consequence free setting with regards to your own deity. You essentially have sole mandate over morality, at least when it comes to your deity.
If you cannot be judged on whether you did something right or wrong  by an independent party (friend/spouse/traffic officer/police/judge) there are no real consequences.

Why is it ok for the King of the land to judge a characters actions whether they were good or not, but no so for the deity? If your Knight character was standing trial for something he had done, but had done it for the benefit of the country - but the King ruled that he had acted immorally, treasonous...blah blah. Stripped him of his knighthood and sent him to jail for a period of time (essentially the character loses the ability to impact the fiction completely) - why is this more acceptable than a deity chastising his servant for poor decision-making?


----------



## Hussar

> I'm of the view, that if character is never wrong with regards to the deities wishes, you create a consequence free setting with regards to your own deity. You essentially have sole mandate over morality, at least when it comes to your deity.




But who said that?  Afaik no one is claiming that.  If you directly act against anyone's interests there will be consequences. 

But, in our games, your actions will not be tracked or judged based on alignment. So if your paladin eats babies you can be sure that you will be punished by your deity because you are acting contrary to that deity's interests. 

What won't happen is the DM rewrites your character sheet because he thinks you are "evil". 

But I would say that if I had anyone as dogmatic about the rules that he or she would actually tell me that a god can't do something because it's not specifically allowed by the mechanics I'd be gobsmacked. 

Talk about a dysfunctional table.  Yikes.


----------



## Grydan

Sadras said:


> They (@Imaro & @_*N'raac*_) are not disagreeing with the idea that a God could kill someone's familiar. They are insisting that @_*pemerton*_ made a personal judgement call as a DM npcing the deity which created a situation where the player's ability to impact the fiction is reduced by (temporary) removal of a character resource.
> They are equating said DM judgement with the alignment judgement calls Pemerton has repeatedly advocated against for his own campaign due to his personal preference and/or alignment bias.
> He has expressed he does not view his familiar-killing call as a DM evaluation - Imaro & N'raac disagree. He has replied it was part of a skill mechanic and has cited various references where something of the kind is allowed, but there is nothing specific in the books regarding the killing of the familiar.
> 
> I'm of the view, that if character is never wrong with regards to the deities wishes, you create a consequence free setting with regards to your own deity. You essentially have sole mandate over morality, at least when it comes to your deity.
> If you cannot be judged on whether you did something right or wrong  by an independent party (friend/spouse/traffic officer/police/judge) there are no real consequences.
> 
> Why is it ok for the King of the land to judge a characters actions whether they were good or not, but no so for the deity? If your Knight character was standing trial for something he had done, but had done it for the benefit of the country - but the King ruled that he had acted immorally, treasonous...blah blah. Stripped him of his knighthood and sent him to jail for a period of time (essentially the character loses the ability to impact the fiction completely) - why is this more acceptable than a deity chastising his servant for poor decision-making?




Because nobody save particularly delusional kings thinks kings have any special insight into whether a given action or philosophy is right or wrong, Good or Evil ... while it's generally accepted that the Lawful Good god of lawful goodness is fairly unlikely to make a significant error in regards to what satisfies the conditions of Lawful Goodness. 

If the DM says that the king disagrees with you about what constitutes Lawful Goodness, there's no sense in which he's implying the king is _correct_. The king is human (or an elf or a dwarf or what have you), and can be in error. 

For the god to be in error, when they are a paragon of that ideal, inhumanly wise and intelligent, and in some settings oversee the realm where dead souls who exemplify that alignment spend their afterlife (and thus has seen countless examples of what that alignment requires), well, that seems pretty unlikely. So when the DM has them tell you you are wrong, it's not saying that a character disagrees with you, it's saying _you are *wrong*_. And in order to do that, they have to actually decide whether or not you are (something [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has repeatedly pointed out he does not want to do, and which I have no interest in doing either).

That, or it tells us that being the Lawful Good god of lawful goodness, with unparalleled perspective on the subject gives you no more insight into the concepts than anyone else.


----------



## Sadras

Grydan said:


> For the god to be in error




Which is often the case in most D&D settings. It's fine if you have your own setting but that is not the standard, but even if its not the case refer below.



> when they are a paragon of that ideal,




Are you referring to beings paragon of the ideal/s of Good/Evil or of Knowledge/Beauty/Strength?



> inhumanly wise and intelligent




In some cases dragons are inhumanely wise and intelligent as are other creatures. I do not consider them to be infallible.



> and in some settings oversee the realm where dead souls who exemplify that alignment spend their afterlife (and thus has seen countless examples of what that alignment requires), well, that seems pretty unlikely.




Yes and thus the cannon of the religion within the setting might mention and reflect on the wisdom or wants of the deity but the character might mistakenly do otherwise. i.e. murder is murder.
When coming face to face with a known fellon, instead of requesting the submission of the known fellon, the paladin ensures the person's death, not giving any quarter for the fellon to submit and stand trial. Therefore he was not acting out on duty but on emotion. Vengeance. This is but one example of many.



> So when the DM has them tell you you are wrong, it's not saying that a character disagrees with you, it's saying _you are *wrong*_.




That is your interpretation of it. I personally might agree with the actions of the PCs, but at that moment in time, I represent the deity and act in accordance to how I view the deities wishes - conceptually with the setting. I consider this roleplaying (npcing). My instance could give rise to roleplaying conflicts should the PC disagree. Internal and external as the PC struggles to come to terms with the decision of his deity and begins assessing his beliefs whether they are aligned with his deities (internally) - he might also debate such issues with his peers, argue, voice concerns (external). It might also lead the PC to greater understanding of his deity, or the error in his ways. IMO, I feel my method provides a richer format for exploration than the 'PC is always right' which latter could be argued is a 'straight-jacket' of sorts.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> What won't happen is the DM rewrites your character sheet because he thinks you are "evil".




In most instances, there would be a gradual change from a state of "grace" to not. As ones world view changes. As it is seen easier to just get the job done without all the 'niceties' or 'admin'. When results from lying, manipulating, cheating - acting dishonourably start paying off, when good tasks stop seeming herculean once the shackles of order have been loosened and less than good actions become a habit, that is when a DM might through the game provide a hint to the PC that he is falling. It is not immediate, there is no character sheet grabbing by the DM. 

For immediate 'non-paladin' like actions that are significant, the paladin will have usually acted out of emotion. I imagine the player in most instances is roleplaying his character with that emotional flaw blinding his judgement and reason. The player knows he is acting out of the archetype and would be prepared somewhat for what would come  next. In the rare instance that a player is completely unawares that he is acting out of his archetype, well you certainly cannot blame the DM or alignment. We are not talking about an insignificant action on the good or evil scale. And IMO, the DM will usually warn/remind the player beforehand of the severity of the action he is about to take and if need be both parties will explain their position for better understanding. 

I would say there is a much greater probability of you character getting killed (DM destroying your character sheet)
 than having problems with alignment (DM rewriting your character sheet against your wishes).


----------



## Hussar

You honestly think it's rare?  Really?  

Take a fairly known example. In the first Nolan Ryan Batman movie, at the end of the movie the Batman has Raz alGul trapped in the runaway train. Batman says that he won't kill him but he won't save him either and jumps away leaving Raz alGul to die. 

Now is that an evil act or not?  You can make a very good case either way. But with alignment there can be no ambiguity and no grey. Either it is evil and the DM strips the paladin or it's not and thus no moral shades of grey. 

In my game, there is no answer. Just varying interpretations. And I don't have to pretend that I actually do know the answer. For me, that's much more interesting.


----------



## pemerton

There are two aspects to this. One is interesting. The other is insulting. (There's also some stuff that is just laughable.)



Imaro said:


> It's funny how I ask what should be a simple yes or no question... but can't get a yes or no reply.  Let me try this again... Did you get the player of the invoker's consent to activate his familiar, and have it redirect souls towards Vecna?





N'raac said:


> May I add a rider:  "Consent" means explicitly asking the player to activate the familiar, not implied consent such as:
> 
> - not arguing his familiar was not activated;
> - arguing or negotiating over the loss of his familiar (in game or out of game);
> - sitting at the game table to begin with;
> 
> It means he explicitly said "I expect my familiar to be removed from my control for an unknown and indefinite period of time" or "I agree with you removing my familiar from my control for an unknown and indefinite period of time".  If some other phrasing was used, spell it out and Imaro and I will see if we agree that's consent
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The Invoker did not, as I understand it, even activate his familiar, much less offer it as part of the stakes.



This is the insulting bit, and outrageously arrogant also on N'raac's part.

You are both supposing that you can know_ better than me _whether or not a man you've never met, in a city that I imagine neither of you has ever been to, who has been a close friend of mine for 20-odd year, consented to his character suffering a certain consequence in an RPG.

The most ridiculous thing is that _the only evidence you have that this event even occurred_ is my own testimony typed onto this message board, yet you won't accept my testimony that the player consented to what happened. In fact, not only did he consent, he SET IT UP. By implanting the Eye of Vecna into his familiar. I can't even imagine a more reckless and aggressive way of staking your familiar's welfare on your PC's relationship with Vecna.



N'raac said:


> N'raac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I conclude that your objection to similar mechanics for Paladins, or for the alignment system, are not a hard and fast philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My conclusion is an opinion, not a fact.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is no more “wrong” than your opinion that alignment, reasonably and properly applied, would be detrimental to your games.
Click to expand...


Except that in my case I'm talking about my experiences - which you can have no knowledge of other than my testimony, given we've never met or interacted in any other way - and in the other case you're calling me a hypocrite or a liar or something in that general neighbourhood.



N'raac said:


> my contention that removal of a character resource, whether temporary or permanent, without the player’s consent or direction, due to the character’s moral choices is inconsistent



Does this contention even make sense? Do you ask your players for permission every time you roll a damage die?

You are imputing to me views that I have never expressed, and that strike me as not even coherent in respect of a mainstream RPG.

Furthermore, there was no removal _due to a moral choice_. So can you please stop saying that.



N'raac said:


> You have told us the alignment rules are not good rules because they reduce a player’s ability to impact the fiction by removal of character resources.



No I haven't. Can you please stop imputing to me things that I have not said. I have asked you multiple times to not do that.



N'raac said:


> You did judge that an Evil deity disapproved.



I don't get this at all. I don't use mechanical alignment in my game. I judged that _Vecna_ disapproved. Vecna does not have a mechanically mandated moral status. That's the point of not using mechanical alignment!



N'raac said:


> He sees a significant difference between unilateral removal of the familiar because the player made a choice that a higher power relevant to the character disagreed with and removal of abilities for alignment issues. I don’t. That’s the disagreement.



No it's not. I don't disagree with you about your judgements, nor deny that they are what they are. But you are not willing to accept that a difference you don't care about matters to me.


Now, to take a quick tour via some stuff that strikes me as simply ludicrous:


N'raac said:


> Apparently, they say the owner does die instantly and crumble to dust
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Consider reading it this time.



I did read it. All of it. Including the bit that says the Eye of Venca might fall out of the PC's eye socket during a crucial battle. Do you think that's irrelevant? Meaningless?



N'raac said:


> Why does he get no reward (other than the xp everyone gets) for his service and success in the challenge?



Because the Raven Queen rewards her champions rather than her backsliding sometime-devotee? Who flirts with Vecna and has come very close more than once to animating undead? Have we now moved to the point where I have to justify my whole campaign to you?

Here's a thought - why don't you tell us _one thing_ that has happened recently in your game. Give us one example of alignment improving your play experience.



N'raac said:


> I think a sunrise and talking with your deity while dead are quite different in scope. I am also saying there are no rules for communing with the character’s deity while the character is dead, so any such interaction is not a “by the rules” scene, but a “GM Fiat” scene.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Can you show me any rule that governs how such an interaction is requested by the character, how it should be determined whether his request is granted or how the scene should be adjudicated? There are no such rules, I believe, and with no such rules, the entire scene is complete GM fiat.



This is also ridiculous. There's no rule in any version of D&D, other than perhaps Moldvay Basic, for framing the first scene. So that's all GM fiat now! And even 1st ed AD&D - the most simulationist version of D&D with respect to the tracking of ingame time - doesn't use strictly continuous play. All RPGing involves someone making choices about scene-framing, and in all mainstream RPGs it is the GM who does that. (Arguably, you could say that GM authority over scene framing is a key marker of an RPG being mainstream.)

I also have no idea why you think a sunrise and a meeting with the divinity are any different from a mechanical point of view. In fact, the meeting with the Raven Queen is quite well-defined in 4e - as per the passages I have quoted. It's certainly much better than any astronomical features of the gameworld like the movement of the sun.

Finally, I also quoted the rule from the PHB which states that it is the GM's job to present the various challenges that the players must overcome. And frankly, only a terrible GM would think that it's somehow contrary to the rules or at odds with the spirit of the game to frame a scene that a player wants for his/her PC. And this is where we get to the interesting bit - because I find some of what you and Imaro are saying is a good way to play frankly bizarre. I hate to think what boring games you must run, if you really adhere to your own strictures.



N'raac said:


> What check did the player make using his familiar to expose it to loss?



He doesn't have to make a check. That's the point of framing the PCs into adversity, as per the instructions to the GM in the PHB that I already referred to.

He didn't make a check - he turned up to play the game! I don't know how it works in whatever game you might play, but in 4e a consequence of playing the game is that PCs will be put under pressure in the fiction, and at least some of that pressure corresponds to mechanical pressure on player resources. Playing 4e is all about modulating that pressure, keeping it up without actually ending the game via TPK or some similar accidental error. That's why it's so important to 4e that it have robust tools for determining encounter difficulty. Given that, last I knew,  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] was trying to run 13th Age but having some questions about the best way to do it, I'm surprised he's not more interested in these issues. Because 13th Age certainly puts the onus on the GM to modulate pressure and recovery via its "daily recovery" rules.



Imaro said:


> Who decided that his familiar would send soul energy to Vecna (Still not sure how/why it would do this, maybe secret back story around the familiar or artifact, but whatever)?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Who decided the familiar would also go into an active state so it could be damaged



Me! That's my job as GM - it's called introducing complications and presenting challenges for the players. But I have no idea what you mean by "secret backstory" here. It wasn't a _secret_ that the imp had the Eye in it - the player chose to have his PC put it there! It wasn't a _secret_ that Vecna craves the energy of souls and the Shadowfell - he's the god of necromancy who is a major recurring figure in the campaign!



Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term I use for taking steps with a player's familiar that he has deliberately loaded with the Eye of Vecna for this very purpose is "Establishing a complication".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then why not leave the decision up to the player?
Click to expand...


Because that's not the player's job. For good reasons - players have an obvious conflict of interest if they have to both advocate for their PCs and frame complications that get in the way of their PCs.



Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the player made at least three salient decisions. First, he decided to have his PC implant the Eye of Vecna in his imp. Second, knowing that Vecna was, via his PC's imp, sucking up the soul power, the player decided to have his PC thwart Vecna. Third, having suffered Vecna's wrath, he made no attempt to bargain, or return the soul energy, or anything of that sort. Instead, he let the dwarf fighter lead him out of the collapsing cavern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really these are salient decisions??
Click to expand...


Yes. Deciding to play off Vecna against Levistus by sticking the Eye in your Imp, then choosing to thwart Vecna when he takes advantage of that situation, then not pushing back when he inflicts retribution, are hugely salient.

Frankly, you and N'raac seem to be arguing for a boring game - where players make bold moves, and the GM just ignores them and putzes around with - well. what? - I'm not sure. Sunrises, maybe, rather than meetings with their immortal overlords! You seem to be suggesting that, as a GM, it's bad practice to follow your players lead and frame the conflicts around the signals sent by the player. Maybe I should have just ignored all the imp and Vecna stuff, and just run some pre-packaged railroad involving some irrelevant fetch quest chasingsome who-could-care-less MacGuffin?

It would be like having a character in 13th Age choose as their One Unique Thing "I am the last of the dwarven guardians", and then never framing them into a scene where they have to choose between saving the dwarfholmes or realising something else they value.

In one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, Luke Crane explains the role of player-purchased relationships: they're always the focus. So if a vampire is in town, and one of the PCs has a relationship with an NPC in that town, then of course it is that NPC that the vampire is stalking, or wooing! Who pays for a relationship just so it can be ignored? Who sticks the Eye of Vecna into their imp just so that nothing will happen?

As I said, your prescriptions strike me as prescriptions for boring, colour-by-numbers RPGing.



Imaro said:


> It's destroyed until you allow the player (since you also disregarded the official rules for familiars) to get it back... at this point and time we have no clue as to how long or short that will be.  Do the rules for healing diseases or removing curses boil down to... catch or be subjected to one whenever the DM feels like it and heal or have it removed whenever the DM feels like it?  If not then they are not the same as what you chose to do.



You say these things so confidently, almost like you were in the room playing the game rather than thousands of kilometres away! You don't know how the familiar is going to come back. You don't even seem to have thought about the ways the familiar might be recovered.

Just off the top of my head I can think of the following possibilities: supplication to Vecna; or a skill challenge to defeat Vecna's current hold on the imp; or a Remove Affliction ritual; or perhaps, given that the PC is very close to gaining a level, he tears the Eye from the imp and implants it in his own empty socket, vowing to use the Eye to take control of Vecna and all his works! (And then at 26th level retrains the familiar feat.)

Luckily I play with players who will think of these sorts of thing, or other things I haven't, and won't just sit around passively waiting for me to dole out prepackaged bits of plot like feeding the pigeons in the park.


----------



## pemerton

Grydan said:


> For the god to be in error, when they are a paragon of that ideal, inhumanly wise and intelligent, and in some settings oversee the realm where dead souls who exemplify that alignment spend their afterlife (and thus has seen countless examples of what that alignment requires), well, that seems pretty unlikely. So when the DM has them tell you you are wrong, it's not saying that a character disagrees with you, it's saying _you are *wrong*_. And in order to do that, they have to actually decide whether or not you are (something [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has repeatedly pointed out he does not want to do, and which I have no interest in doing either).



Thank you.



Hussar said:


> The thing you are ignoring is that at no point has Permerton actually corrected his player.  At no point has he told his player that the player is wrong or mistaken in any way.



And thank you!



Hussar said:


> Think of how ridiculous this sounds:
> 
> Player:  I think X is beautiful.
> 
> DM: no you are wrong. It is not only not beautiful but is wholly ugly. And you must now incorporate my definition if beauty into your character.



And thanks also for the example. That's exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.

And to me, there is all the difference between saying "You're wrong, it's ugly" and "The troll who lives beneath the waterfall is sickened by your admiration for it, and throws a rock at you". The first shuts down the player's evaluative and expressive responses. The second leaves it completely open to the player to interpret what is going on and come up with more responses.

The dynamic between player response, GM pressure/complication, forcing player to come up with a new response, rinse, repeat - for me that's what RPGing is!



Sadras said:


> I'm of the view, that if character is never wrong with regards to the deities wishes, you create a consequence free setting with regards to your own deity. You essentially have sole mandate over morality, at least when it comes to your deity.
> If you cannot be judged on whether you did something right or wrong  by an independent party (friend/spouse/traffic officer/police/judge) there are no real consequences.



So who judges the GM? And if the GM is competent to make his/her own evaluative judgements, why not the players?

Let me put it another way: please tell me, in concrete terms, what bad thing you think is going to happen from letting my paladin players decide what exemplars of their gods' values look like? How is that going to hurt the game?

It certainly isn't going to mean there are no consequences: here are two links that show otherwise. Not to mention the invoker in my game who, because he chose to support one of his gods (the Raven Queen) suffered a punishment from the other (Vecna). That did not require me, the GM, to decide Vecna's wishes in some secret fashion - the player knew that his PC was thwarting Vecna!


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar.



I find that a bit weird as well. But not as weird as being told I'm breaking the rules in framing a meeting between a dead PC and the Raven Queen, _despite the rulebook expressly saying that all dead souls travel through the palace of the Raven Queen_ on their way to whatever fate awaits them.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Speaking of ridiculous N'raac and imaro. You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar.




No one is arguing this, please go back and read what we have posted in this thread, if you still need clarification on our position I'm sure one of us can provide it for you.



Hussar said:


> Just how limited are the deities in your campaign?  I always thought gods were the ultimate DMPC. They are gods. They can do pretty much anything.




Well in my campaign deities can strip both paladins and clerics of the powers they granted them... so I would say pretty powerful.  However, in 4e, a deity can't even take away the power the rituals of his own church imbued a mortal with, so why would they be able to arbitrarily affect someone's familiar?   If they have no control over their own worshipers and rites... You tell me how powerful they really are? 



Hussar said:


> I did not realize that a familiar was more powerful than a god. Good to know.




Again, no one is arguing this and repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

In a battle against a 10th level demon the god will surely win and the familiar will loose (see he's more powerful)... However as I stated the gods power apparently isn't omnipotent when it comes to the rites and rituals their own church uses... so why should we assume a god can step outside the rules when it comes to a familiar??


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Think of how ridiculous this sounds:
> 
> Player:  I think X is beautiful.
> 
> DM: no you are wrong. It is not only not beautiful but is wholly ugly. And you must now incorporate my definition if beauty into your character.
> 
> While I can certainly see preferring one thing to another, it would be pretty rare to see someone looking at a waterfall and saying, "that's an ugly waterfall. "




Let's...

Player (A Shadar Kai): I'm going to worship the god of beauty and praise her by piercing, tattooing and ritually scaring/cutting my body in numerous places...

DM: Hmm, that seems more like mutilation of your body as opposed to making it more beautiful...

Two opposing viewpoints, whose concept of beauty is correct?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> You are both supposing that you can know_ better than me _whether or not a man you've never met, in a city that I imagine neither of you has ever been to, who has been a close friend of mine for 20-odd year, consented to his character suffering a certain consequence in an RPG.
> 
> The most ridiculous thing is that _the only evidence you have that this event even occurred_ is my own testimony typed onto this message board, yet you won't accept my testimony that the player consented to what happened. In fact, not only did he consent, he SET IT UP. By implanting the Eye of Vecna into his familiar. I can't even imagine a more reckless and aggressive way of staking your familiar's welfare on your PC's relationship with Vecna.




So no implicit consent, got it.




pemerton said:


> Me! That's my job as GM - it's called introducing complications and presenting challenges for the players. But I have no idea what you mean by "secret backstory" here. It wasn't a _secret_ that the imp had the Eye in it - the player chose to have his PC put it there! It wasn't a _secret_ that Vecna craves the energy of souls and the Shadowfell - he's the god of necromancy who is a major recurring figure in the campaign!




But in "introducing complications" you arbitrarily took control of a character build resource... made it act against the player and then made it vulnerable to attack.  That's not complicating, it's controlling and not a light control as you claimed above it's pretty blatant and pretty heavy control of a character build resource that you acted on in response to a decision the player made.



pemerton said:


> Because that's not the player's job. For good reasons - players have an obvious conflict of interest if they have to both advocate for their PCs and frame complications that get in the way of their PCs.




Oh, I agree...  I even stated this earlier but what I don't understand is if you agree with this why for you it doesn't apply to complications arising due to morality?  It's a complication... it can get in their way... and there is a conflict of interest so why is this the players job but other complications with conflicts of interest aren't?? 



pemerton said:


> Yes. Deciding to play off Vecna against Levistus by sticking the Eye in your Imp, then choosing to thwart Vecna when he takes advantage of that situation, then not pushing back when he inflicts retribution, are hugely salient.




Where in the description of the Eye of Vecna does it allow the DM to activate a familiar (in order to kill it) or the power to channel souls to Vecna?   So unless you made the player aware of these house rules to the artifact... his decision to put it in his familiar wasn't salient to what you decided happened later. 




pemerton said:


> Frankly, you and N'raac seem to be arguing for a boring game - where players make bold moves, and the GM just ignores them and putzes around with - well. what? - I'm not sure. Sunrises, maybe, rather than meetings with their immortal overlords! You seem to be suggesting that, as a GM, it's bad practice to follow your players lead and frame the conflicts around the signals sent by the player. Maybe I should have just ignored all the imp and Vecna stuff, and just run some pre-packaged railroad involving some irrelevant fetch quest chasingsome who-could-care-less MacGuffin?
> 
> It would be like having a character in 13th Age choose as their One Unique Thing "I am the last of the dwarven guardians", and then never framing them into a scene where they have to choose between saving the dwarfholmes or realising something else they value.




If you did it while arbitrarily controlling, making vulnerable and removing for an indeterminate time one of the dwarven guardians character build resources it would... but that is not what you are describing above.



pemerton said:


> In one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, Luke Crane explains the role of player-purchased relationships: they're always the focus. So if a vampire is in town, and one of the PCs has a relationship with an NPC in that town, then of course it is that NPC that the vampire is stalking, or wooing! Who pays for a relationship just so it can be ignored? Who sticks the Eye of Vecna into their imp just so that nothing will happen?




Who said nothng should happen.  Personally if I didn't want to invalidate character choice and character build resources I would have had the character decide whether his imp does or doesn't try to give souls to Vecna (offering him something in return for choosing too, I mean since you're using DM fiat any way)... I also would have been clear with the player that in order to do this his imp would have to be active (see how it's still his choice).  If at that point the player chooses to have his imp do it I would then frame the scene where his character discovers the imp doing this... and we would play out from there to see what happens.

However,as you can tell from my position on mechanical alignment and the paladin being punished... I'm not claiming I have a problem with decisions affecting the character's ability to impact fiction... you were.



pemerton said:


> As I said, your prescriptions strike me as prescriptions for boring, colour-by-numbers RPGing.




Or perhaps you're just not seeing how they could be used properly and well...



pemerton said:


> You say these things so confidently, almost like you were in the room playing the game rather than thousands of kilometres away! You don't know how the familiar is going to come back. You don't even seem to have thought about the ways the familiar might be recovered.




I'm going by exactly what you have told me... so unless you are lying I should be confident in what I am saying since it is based on your account.



pemerton said:


> Just off the top of my head I can think of the following possibilities: supplication to Vecna; or a skill challenge to defeat Vecna's current hold on the imp; or a Remove Affliction ritual; or perhaps, given that the PC is very close to gaining a level, he tears the Eye from the imp and implants it in his own empty socket, vowing to use the Eye to take control of Vecna and all his works! (And then at 26th level retrains the familiar feat.)




This is like expecting the victim to have dealt with the crime better... it has nothing to do with the actions you took in order to achieve the results you wanted... so bringing up what the player should or could have done after you DM fiat'd the situation into the result you wanted is pointless. 



pemerton said:


> Luckily I play with players who will think of these sorts of thing, or other things I haven't, and won't just sit around passively waiting for me to dole out prepackaged bits of plot like feeding the pigeons in the park.




Not sure how this even relates to the discussion... or are we at the point now where you're taking passive aggressive pot shots at other posters?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Take a fairly known example. In the first Nolan Ryan Batman movie, at the end of the movie the Batman has Raz alGul trapped in the runaway train. Batman says that he won't kill him but he won't save him either and jumps away leaving Raz alGul to die.
> 
> Now is that an evil act or not?  You can make a very good case either way. But *with alignment there can be no ambiguity and no grey.* Either it is evil and the DM strips the paladin or it's not and thus no moral shades of grey.




Evil in 3.5...

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Batman is clearly not acting evil.  He is not killing anyone and is clearly acting in a neutral manner (moral shades of gray are still possible)... not making a sacrifice to protect or help Ra's Al'Ghul.  It takes a willing act of evil for a paladin to fall and thus he would not fall in that situation.  That took every bit of 10 secs on my part to decide after reading the entry...



Hussar said:


> In my game, there is no answer. Just varying interpretations. And I don't have to pretend that I actually do know the answer. For me, that's much more interesting.




First why are you making the decision as opposed to using the books to decide what the deity or cosmological force decides?  Second.. you can't judge what is evil but you can decide with certainty what is and isn't "beautiful"... I find that confusing to say the least.  I also find it confusing that it's not also interesting for you to leave the interpretation of things like beauty and strength up to interpretation but instead only god and evil or law and chaos...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> You honestly think it's rare?  Really?
> 
> Take a fairly known example. In the first Nolan Ryan Batman movie, at the end of the movie the Batman has Raz alGul trapped in the runaway train. Batman says that he won't kill him but he won't save him either and jumps away leaving Raz alGul to die.
> 
> Now is that an evil act or not?  You can make a very good case either way. But with alignment there can be no ambiguity and no grey. Either it is evil and the DM strips the paladin or it's not and thus no moral shades of grey.
> 
> In my game, there is no answer. Just varying interpretations. And I don't have to pretend that I actually do know the answer. For me, that's much more interesting.




It is entirely up to the GM, but i think you can have grey within alignment. An act may simply not rise to the level of being firmly good, evil, lawful or neutral, because of all the factors involved or overlap. In this case, its a judgment call the gm makes. However, i never use alignment to surprise players. If the paladin is going to do what batman does here and i think it is a violation of his alignment, i would simply indicate to the player that he knows his god might disaprove or something. 

Alignment isnt about knowing the real world answers to moral questions. If the GM labels the batman scenario an act of evil, i dont see that as a critique of my own ideas regarding the hyopthetical, i see it as the GM trying to apply his understanding of the alignments to the setting. Nothing more. I don't game to validate my moral opinions. If the setting says something is evil, but i think its good, i just see that as a setting feature.


----------



## N'raac

@_*Imaro*_ has provided a great response I agree with, so I will try to reduce the point by point issue.



Hussar said:


> Speaking of ridiculous N'raac and imaro. You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar.
> 
> 
> Just how limited are the deities in your campaign? I always thought gods were the ultimate DMPC. They are gods. They can do pretty much anything.



  @_*Imaro*_ has already noted that a deity lacking the power to take away powers that he granted in the first place seems pretty low powered too.

How can that GOD determine whether the Familiar’s moral choices, which are made by the player exactly as those of the PC are, justifies causing any harm to that familiar? 

In any case, the question is not “can a God do this” but “did the 4e mechanics support this”.



pemerton said:


> This is the insulting bit, and outrageously arrogant also on N'raac's part.




Considering the source, I shall take the classification of “outrageous arrogance”  as a compliment.  Thank you!



pemerton said:


> Furthermore, there was no removal _due to a moral choice_. So can you please stop saying that.




??



pemerton said:


> Given the game I run, nearly everything that happens to the PCs is a _consequence of a character's moral choice_




The PC made a moral choice to redirect the flow of souls from Vecna to the Raven Queen.  As a consequence, his familiar and the Eye itself were removed.  At least that’s what I see.



pemerton said:


> No I haven't. Can you please stop imputing to me things that I have not said. I have asked you multiple times to not do that.




Are you now saying the removal of a Paladin’s or Cleric’s abilities (or another character’s level loss) – his influence over the fiction – is not a reason you consider mechanical alignment problematic?  That is where my statement that “You have told us the alignment rules are not good rules because they reduce a player’s ability to impact the fiction by removal of character resources” comes from.



pemerton said:


> I did read it. All of it. Including the bit that says the Eye of Venca might fall out of the PC's eye socket during a crucial battle. Do you think that's irrelevant? Meaningless?




The manner in which the Eye moves on – its consequences to the wielder – seemed quite specific in the rules about the Eye specifically.  The general rule that an artifact could move on at any point seems not to be modified by, nor to modify, the manner in which this specific artifact moves on.



pemerton said:


> There's no rule in any version of D&D, other than perhaps Moldvay Basic, for framing the first scene. So that's all GM fiat now!




Yes, it IS all GM fiat.  It is neither “in accordance with the rules” nor a “violation of the rules” – there are no rules to accord with or to violate.  There are no mechanics to apply.



pemerton said:


> Because that's not the player's job. For good reasons - players have an obvious conflict of interest if they have to both advocate for their PCs and frame complications that get in the way of their PCs.




And yet we have been repeatedly told that the player’s conflict of interest does not, in any way, motivate them to play outside their character’s stated loyalties, moral code or alignment.  Thank you for acknowledging that such a conflict of interest does, in fact, exist.



pemerton said:


> Frankly, you and N'raac seem to be arguing for a boring game - where players make bold moves, and the GM just ignores them and putzes around with - well. what? - I'm not sure. Sunrises, maybe, rather than meetings with their immortal overlords! You seem to be suggesting that, as a GM, it's bad practice to follow your players lead and frame the conflicts around the signals sent by the player. Maybe I should have just ignored all the imp and Vecna stuff, and just run some pre-packaged railroad involving some irrelevant fetch quest chasingsome who-could-care-less MacGuffin?




Once again, NO ONE is saying your game was bad.  We are saying it seems inconsistent with your prior statements of why mechanical alignment would have been detrimental to it.  I would suggest your game was GOOD precisely because pressure was placed on the players, and their characters, over their moral choices.  But that is similar to the pressure that well-run alignment rules also place on players and their characters.

Or do you think the writers of 13th Age and Burning Wheel somehow made a quantum leap forward, realizing that RPG’s should be interesting, where before the designers were aiming for a mixture of frustration and boredom?



Imaro said:


> Evil in 3.5...
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
> 
> Batman is clearly not acting evil. He is not killing anyone and is clearly acting in a neutral manner (moral shades of gray are still possible)... not making a sacrifice to protect or help Ra's Al'Ghul. It takes a willing act of evil for a paladin to fall and thus he would not fall in that situation. That took every bit of 10 secs on my part to decide after reading the entry...




Agreed.  The Paladin’s “grey area” (if we consider Bats a Paladin) is that he will not always take the Pure Good approach.  In some cases, Law (his actions merit the penalty of death) may conflict with Good (respect for all life, his included), providing more or less tension.  Frankly, the D&D model pretty much guarantees that respect for life can be overridden – mortal combat is a common element in the game.

A single non-good action is not “an alignment change”.  A single Evil action does not change alignment from Good.  If it did, the Paladin’s single evil act would not have to be singled out as causing loss of powers.



Imaro said:


> First why are you making the decision as opposed to using the books to decide what the deity or cosmological force decides? Second.. you can't judge what is evil but you can decide with certainty what is and isn't "beautiful"... I find that confusing to say the least. I also find it confusing that it's not also interesting for you to leave the interpretation of things like beauty and strength up to interpretation but instead only god and evil or law and chaos...




I am equally confused.  I am also envisioning the God of RPG’s – the True Exemplar of All That Is Great in Gaming - assessing which version of D&D is to be preferred.  Is it possible that even the Exemplar of a specific concept might see merit in a variety of different expressions and interpretations of that concept?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> No one is arguing this, please go back and read what we have posted in this thread, if you still need clarification on our position I'm sure one of us can provide it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Well in my campaign deities can strip both paladins and clerics of the powers they granted them... so I would say pretty powerful.  However, in 4e, a deity can't even take away the power the rituals of his own church imbued a mortal with, so why would they be able to arbitrarily affect someone's familiar?   If they have no control over their own worshipers and rites... You tell me how powerful they really are?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one is arguing this and repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
> 
> In a battle against a 10th level demon the god will surely win and the familiar will loose (see he's more powerful)... However as I stated the gods power apparently isn't omnipotent when it comes to the rites and rituals their own church uses... so why should we assume a god can step outside the rules when it comes to a familiar??




Wait.. what?  Who has claimed that a deity cannot remove the powers of a church?  That's a new one.

All that has been claimed is that the DM will not use mechanical alignment as a reason for removing the powers of a church.  If the deity in question wants to strip powers away, I'm unaware of any reason why he cannot do that.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Let's...
> 
> Player (A Shadar Kai): I'm going to worship the god of beauty and praise her by piercing, tattooing and ritually scaring/cutting my body in numerous places...
> 
> DM: Hmm, that seems more like mutilation of your body as opposed to making it more beautiful...
> 
> Two opposing viewpoints, whose concept of beauty is correct?




Wouldn't that be done during character generation?  Presuming the DM allowed the character in the first place, what reason would the DM have for changing interpretations at a later point?


----------



## Hussar

On the Batman example - see, this is precisely what I'm talking about.  Both N'raac and Imaro have decided that this is not an evil act and thus a paladin Batman would never be punished for doing that.

I would hope that it's fairly obvious that it is possible to view this as an evil act.

So, you're the player and you leave the guy to die, based on your interpretation of evil.  I'm the DM and I'm using mechanical alignment.  You leave Raz alGul behind and now you're a fighter.  This was a deliberate evil act, so, it's not like you can fix it with an Atonement spell.  

And [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], you'd both be perfectly sanguine and pat me on the back for being a good DM?  After all, I'm doing EXACTLY what you say I should be doing - defining good and evil in my game world.

Considering the lengths you're going to try to rules lawyer Permerton here, constantly badgering him about a play example, I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely.  It's far more likely that we're going to have a flaming row at the table because my interpretations don't match yours.

See, in the beauty example, I would have no problem with the player of the Shadar-Kai claiming to worship a god of beauty by ritualistic scarification.  That's cool.  Because, after all, without mechanical alignment, he can actually be wrong.  There's nothing saying that he's right.  With mechanical alignment, he has to be right or wrong because if he's right, he gets spells, if he's wrong he doesn't.  But, lacking mechanical alignment, I'm now free to come up with any number of reasons why he is wrong but still gets spells.

I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games.  Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e.  I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations.  They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be.  Artifacts are what you add to the game when you want to chuck rules out the window.  Add to that the fact that you are arguing that a GOD cannot kill someone's familiar at will baffles me.  it's a GOD.  It gets to do anything it wants to do.  Gods don't follow any rules in the books.

Heck, did 4e gods even get stats?  I don't think they did.  They're gods.  Once the DM has dropped a god into play, all bets are off.  You get to do anything you want.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Wouldn't that be done during character generation?  Presuming the DM allowed the character in the first place, what reason would the DM have for changing interpretations at a later point?




While I am not as convinced as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that everything is determined in play, could this character not have started off as lacking any real religious beliefs, and develop through the course of the game, having unplanned occurrences that lead to the character becoming more religious, then announcing their intent to express their newfound devotion in exactly the manner set out above (maybe even in conjunction with levelling up and taking a level in a more religious class)?  

Not every development in the life of the character can, or should, be determined at character generation, and not every possible direction can be discussed with the GM up front.  Characters can an should grow during play, not have their life cycle mapped out from L1 to 30 at initial character generation.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Wait.. what?  Who has claimed that a deity cannot remove the powers of a church?  That's a new one.
> 
> All that has been claimed is that the DM will not use mechanical alignment as a reason for removing the powers of a church.  If the deity in question wants to strip powers away, I'm unaware of any reason why he cannot do that.




Sheesh... I'm the critic but apparently have read the books more closely than some of its biggest fans...

pg. 90 PHB 4e

"...Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins.  most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony, but each faith has its own methods.  This ceremony of investiture gives the paladin the ability to wield divine powers.  *Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore.* How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful."  

Yeah so no... a deity in default 4e can't strip a paladin of his powers period (and their is a similar section for clerics).  The above doesn't mention good or evil it states the paladin can act however he wants and the deity can't do jack as far as his powers go.

So tell me again how powerful and infallible 4e deities are again...  They can't even check their own flock.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Wouldn't that be done during character generation?  Presuming the DM allowed the character in the first place, what reason would the DM have for changing interpretations at a later point?




  Why?  Why would this necessarily be done during character creation,  one of the fun things about playing a divine character is expanding the rituals, taboos and commandments he takes upon himself in recognition of his faith during actual play. 

 Outside of that you still aren't addressing the fact that these are opposite views on what beauty is and create the same situation you claim alignment does... an evaluative judgement on the part of the DM.  As for having discussion upfront... this is exactly what many pro-alignment posters have said should take place, so if it you believe pre-game discussion can alleviate the tension in this situation why does it being good or evil instead of beauty change anything?


----------



## D'karr

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games.  Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e.  I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations.  They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be.




I'm totally with you on this one.  Following this same strict adherence to nitnoid methodology when adjudicating alignment is why many consider the alignment mechanics a straitjacket.  Another strong reason why I'm not interested in mechanical alignment for my games.

If we took the play examples that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has provided and looked at them from the perspective of a DM created world, and the notion that the world creator is "god", which is a pretty classic way of viewing the role of the DM.  He is the ultimate authority to decide what is happening with everything.  There would be absolutely no "leg to stand on" to argue about his use of the gods, artifacts, etc.  From his play example, at character creation he communicated to his players his expectations about the campaign world,  the gods therein, and some expectations of what they would be facing.  The players have obviously accepted his portrayal of this setting, as they are not complaining about any of it.  And they have been playing in it for a long while since they are already at epic level.  I take their experience as way more important than that of the nay-sayers.

It seems ludicrous, in almost a "rules-lawyery" way, to argue that he is "doing it wrong", or that his stated play experiences could not have happened, or that he is "breaking the rules".  It is purely comical the mental contortions you have to do to even justify the argument.  Whether he is using the default setting, or a home-brew setting is irrelevant.  He is the DM.  It seems to me that he knows his game and his players best.  Judging from his stated play examples I can find nothing in them that falls even remotely outside the realm of normal for what a DM does during a game.  His game sounds pretty fun.  And guess what, he is not using alignment as a mechanic.  He has stated so and provided many examples of play, in which it is clear that he is not, I can't fathom what others are arguing with him about.

To his play experience of running his game mechanical alignment is an impediment.  He has repeatedly stated so, and has provided some pretty concrete examples of actual gameplay situations, not edge case hypothetical scenarios, in which mechanical alignment in his game would have been an impediment.  Isn't that what the question posed originally was?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Sheesh... I'm the critic but apparently have read the books more closely than some of its biggest fans...
> 
> pg. 90 PHB 4e
> 
> "...Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins.  most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony, but each faith has its own methods.  This ceremony of investiture gives the paladin the ability to wield divine powers.  *Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore.* How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful."
> 
> Yeah so no... a deity in default 4e can't strip a paladin of his powers period (and their is a similar section for clerics).  The above doesn't mention good or evil it states the paladin can act however he wants and the deity can't do jack as far as his powers go.
> 
> So tell me again how powerful and infallible 4e deities are again...  They can't even check their own flock.




Funny how you provide the quote but fail to read it. "Punished by other members of the faithful". Yup his class powers can't be stripped. But it would be a pretty sad DM who couldn't punish a wayward character. 

Iow you don't need mechanical alignment. 

In the shader Kai example, he would need some in game connection to our church of beauty. If the DM didn't feel comfortable with this version of beauty, the player can't join the church and can't take the multiclass feats to become a true cleric. 

Not the way I would do it but I'll leave that to DM's who are more concerned with world building than me.


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> Sheesh... I'm the critic but apparently have read the books more closely than some of its biggest fans...




LOL. Maybe you should have read what you quoted a bit further.

How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is *up to him*...​
Isn't that exactly what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been saying all along?  He let's the *player* of the paladin define how the character will wield those powers in a just, honorable and compassionate way.  

He has already stated that behaving in a way that is contrary to this doesn't have a mechanical or story benefit in his game.  He doesn't have to use a mechanical hammer to force the player to comply.  In his game a player of a paladin plays one because he wants a character that behaves in a just, honorable and compassionate way.  If the player wanted to explore a "fallen paladin", I'm pretty sure that pemerton would frame scenes that provide those opportunities.  Then they would both figure out how to make it happen in story and mechanically if necessary.

...*paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful*.​
And this right here provides even more opportunity for roleplaying rather than less.  Roleplaying that involves the DM and players and happens at the game table.  Not pre-scripted consequences which is what mechanical alignment would provide for this.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> And @_*Imaro*_ and @_*N'raac*_, you'd both be perfectly sanguine and pat me on the back for being a good DM?  After all, I'm doing EXACTLY what you say I should be doing - defining good and evil in my game world.




No [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... you're playing "GOTCHA" with alignment, which is expressly what we said not to do.  Did you tell the player that this act would be considered evil and cause him to fall?



Hussar said:


> Considering the lengths you're going to try to rules lawyer Permerton here, constantly badgering him about a play example, I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely.  It's far more likely that we're going to have a flaming row at the table because my interpretations don't match yours.




Well you know what they say about assuming...

You communicate with me about what that action would be considered morally and the  ramifications of my choice and then leave it up to me to decide... I guarantee we won't.  You play alignment gotcha (which I view as very similar to what pemerton did with the familiar) and yes we'll have a problem.



Hussar said:


> See, in the beauty example, I would have no problem with the player of the Shadar-Kai claiming to worship a god of beauty by ritualistic scarification.  That's cool.  Because, after all, without mechanical alignment, he can actually be wrong.  There's nothing saying that he's right.  With mechanical alignment, he has to be right or wrong because if he's right, he gets spells, if he's wrong he doesn't.  But, lacking mechanical alignment, I'm now free to come up with any number of reasons why he is wrong but still gets spells.




That's cool. your preferences are yours and more power to you, but if I am playing to explore what beauty means in this particular DM's setting... Anything and everything you want it to be, because you can't be "wrong"...is a very boring, uninteresting and unsatisfying answer Imo.  In the same way that if I wanted to explore a dungeon the GM created but every time I entered a room and asked what do I find... the DM tells me... "well whatever you want to be in there is in there so make it up"... 



Hussar said:


> I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games.  Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e.  I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations.  They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be.  Artifacts are what you add to the game when you want to chuck rules out the window.  Add to that the fact that you are arguing that a GOD cannot kill someone's familiar at will baffles me.  it's a GOD.  It gets to do anything it wants to do.  Gods don't follow any rules in the books.



 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] let me be blunt I don't game with you and don't really even know you so I could honestly care less whether you think from a couple of posts on a forum that I'm not creative.  I do think you're overstepping your bounds a little here since in turn you don't know me and haven't played in a single game I've run and honestly have nothing to go on as far as judging my creativity... It's like me assuming you are ignorant of many of the 4e rules from the few posts you've made in this thread recenty that were incorrect... but instead of making a claim about you I am addressing the argument and not the person. 

Oh, and OAN:  Only gods do have rules in the book (I cited one example in a post before this one) ... you just haven't read them.



Hussar said:


> Heck, did 4e gods even get stats?  I don't think they did.  They're gods.  Once the DM has dropped a god into play, all bets are off.  You get to do anything you want.




Is Lolth a god... she's in MM3.  I think you're vastly overestimating the power of gods in 4e at least as far as the books present them.  Of course you are free to house rule them into any power level you want.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Funny how you provide the quote but fail to read it. "Punished by other members of the faithful". Yup his class powers can't be stripped. But it would be a pretty sad DM who couldn't punish a wayward character.
> 
> Iow you don't need mechanical alignment.




Keep shifting those goalposts... You said a deity could do anything... the passage goes against that...  It wasn't quoted in reference to mechanical alignment and needing it.

OAN: Did followers of Vecna punish the player in @_*pemerton*_'s example or did Vecna do it directly    



Hussar said:


> In the shader Kai example, he would need some in game connection to our church of beauty. If the DM didn't feel comfortable with this version of beauty, the player can't join the church and can't take the multiclass feat to become a cleric.




He could already be a cleric and decide this... and he still keeps his powers regardless of whether the deity believes what he is doing is beautiful or not.  Again the point you made was that somehow subjectivity was mitigated when it wasn't good and evil... and this isn't true.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> So no implicit consent, got it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm going by exactly what you have told me... so unless you are lying I should be confident in what I am saying since it is based on your account.



Except apparently you're ignoring the bit where I said "not only did he consent, he set it up."

Given this, the rest isn't worth responding to.


----------



## Imaro

D'karr said:


> LOL. Maybe you should have read what you quoted a bit further.
> How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is *up to him*...​
> Isn't that exactly what @_*pemerton*_ has been saying all along?  He let's the *player* of the paladin define how the character will wield those powers in a just, honorable and compassionate way.
> 
> He has already stated that behaving in a way that is contrary to this doesn't have a mechanical or story benefit in his game.  He doesn't have to use a mechanical hammer to force the player to comply.  In his game a player of a paladin plays one because he wants a character that behaves in a just, honorable and compassionate way.  If the player wanted to explore a "fallen paladin", I'm pretty sure that pemerton would frame scenes that provide those opportunities.  Then they would both figure out how to make it happen in story and mechanically if necessary.
> ...*paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful*.​
> And this right here provides even more opportunity for roleplaying rather than less.  Roleplaying that involves the DM and players and happens at the game table.  Not pre-scripted consequences which is what mechanical alignment would provide for this.





I was going to comment on this but I'm not even sure what it is exactly you are trying to say besides 4e supports non mechanical alignmnet (which has never been argued against in this thread by anyone) and that you like non mechanical alignment better than mechanical alignment... Uhm, ok... I guess


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Except apparently you're ignoring the bit where I said "not only did he consent, he set it up."
> 
> Given this, the rest isn't worth responding to.




Putting the familiar in the imp was not giving you implicit consent to control it, activate it and destroy it for an in-definite amount of time (the same way putting the Eye of Vecna in a character's eye doesn't allow you to control his actions.).  Did he say it was ok for the familiar to redirect the energy, did he say it was ok for the DM to activate his familiar so it could take damage?  Or did you decide this yourself.

EDIT:  It's a yes or no answer...


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> The PC made a moral choice to redirect the flow of souls from Vecna to the Raven Queen.  As a consequence, his familiar and the Eye itself were removed.  At least that’s what I see.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Are you now saying the removal of a Paladin’s or Cleric’s abilities (or another character’s level loss) – his influence over the fiction – is not a reason you consider mechanical alignment problematic?



Let me have one last go.

Practically every decision made by a player in my game is a "moral choice" in the sense of your first quoted sentence: that is, a choice driven by the player's evaluative response to the situation in which his/her PC find him-/herself.

I have never said that such choice don't have consequences. Consequences to such choices is the whole point of play - otherwise nothing would happen. Way upthread [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] called these "physical consequences", and he and I agreed on their importance to play. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has been making the same point in some recent posts.

What I have said is that I am not going is to judge the correctness of my players' evaluative responses. I am not going to judge, as part of my adjudicaiton of the game, whether their concepts of honour, or good and evil, or beatuy, or prowess, or any other value that they bring into play by their play of the game, is sound or unsound. I am not going to judge whether or not the actions they declare for their PCs realise those values.

And judging that the PC's angers Vecna is not a counter-example to that preferene. It does not involve judging whether or not the player made the right choice.

On the _mechanical nature_ of consequences - I have repeatedly said that I think it is a weakness in alignment mechanics that they invite the GM to rebuild the player's character in a mechanically less effective version. The only people who think that shutting down an encounter powers, or inflicting damage, counts as a rebuild along these lines are you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. It had never even occurred to me until the two of you started posting that anyone would equate changing a PC's class from paladin to NPC warrior with d10 HD is no different from inflicting 1 hp of damage.



N'raac said:


> The manner in which the Eye moves on – its consequences to the wielder – seemed quite specific in the rules about the Eye specifically.  The general rule that an artifact could move on at any point seems not to be modified by, nor to modify, the manner in which this specific artifact moves on.



Except that it also presents a specific, yet different, option for that very same artefact!



N'raac said:


> And yet we have been repeatedly told that the player’s conflict of interest does not, in any way, motivate them to play outside their character’s stated loyalties, moral code or alignment.



No. You've been told by me, in my game, that there is no conflict of interset here. The player has nothing to gain by departing from the values professed for his/her PC.



N'raac said:


> NO ONE is saying your game was bad.  We are saying it seems inconsistent with your prior statements of why mechanical alignment would have been detrimental to it.



Actually, it would wreck it. Because instead of the player deciding whether ot not to thwart Vecna, he could simply have asked me what is good and what evil, and then I would have been obliged to answer him, presumably. And so instead of actual playing tthe game we would have colour-by-numbers according to the GM's script.



N'raac said:


> I would suggest your game was GOOD precisely because pressure was placed on the players, and their characters, over their moral choices.  But that is similar to the pressure that well-run alignment rules also place on players and their characters.



Please give an example of this.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Putting the familiar in the imp was not giving you implicit consent to control it, activate it and destroy it for an in-definite amount of time



You can't possibly know that. You weren't there. You didn't have the conversations. You're asserting that you know better what happened than I do!

As I said before, not only did the player consent, the player set it up!


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> On the Batman example - see, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Both N'raac and Imaro have decided that this is not an evil act and thus a paladin Batman would never be punished for doing that.
> 
> I would hope that it's fairly obvious that it is possible to view this as an evil act.
> 
> So, you're the player and you leave the guy to die, based on your interpretation of evil. I'm the DM and I'm using mechanical alignment. You leave Raz alGul behind and now you're a fighter. This was a deliberate evil act, so, it's not like you can fix it with an Atonement spell.




Again, as @_*Imaro*_ noted, if the player was told, before taking that action, that in your game world, this was an evil act, and would result in loss of his Paladinhood, the player would have the choice of:

(a)    deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;
(b)    discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;
(c)    deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;
(d)    not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.

Frankly, I think your concerns are a lot more related to lack of trust in the GM (any GM), an issue seen in many prior threads, than about alignment specifically.



Hussar said:


> See, in the beauty example, I would have no problem with the player of the Shadar-Kai claiming to worship a god of beauty by ritualistic scarification. That's cool. Because, after all, without mechanical alignment, he can actually be wrong. There's nothing saying that he's right. With mechanical alignment, he has to be right or wrong because if he's right, he gets spells, if he's wrong he doesn't. But, lacking mechanical alignment, I'm now free to come up with any number of reasons why he is wrong but still gets spells.




How does this link to mechanical alignment?  It links to whether the deity continues to grant miracles to a person who is not following his creed.  The deity is incapable of refusing to grant miraculous power to anyone who knows the rituals.  That sounds a lot more like Arcane Power than Divine Grace to me.



Hussar said:


> I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games. Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e. I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations. They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be. Artifacts are what you add to the game when you want to chuck rules out the window. Add to that the fact that you are arguing that a GOD cannot kill someone's familiar at will baffles me. it's a GOD. It gets to do anything it wants to do. Gods don't follow any rules in the books.




I seem to recall a fellow named Hussar who told us on another thread that it is critically important we play by the rules so we all have a common frame of reference.  

In any case, none of this discussion has anything to do with whether the GM should bind his games to a strictly “by RAW” structure.  I’ve stated I believe it would have been a great game.  But I don’t believe it was consistent with @_*pemerton*_’s stated philosophy about player build elements.  And I do not believe his claims it was strictly by the rules were accurate either.



Hussar said:


> Funny how you provide the quote but fail to read it. "Punished by other members of the faithful". Yup his class powers can't be stripped. But it would be a pretty sad DM who couldn't punish a wayward character.




So he did read it correctly – the deity lacks the ability to withdraw his own blessings. 



pemerton said:


> Let me have one last go.




Please do!



pemerton said:


> On the mechanical nature of consequences - I have repeatedly said that I think it is a weakness in alignment mechanics that they invite the GM to rebuild the player's character in a mechanically less effective version. The only people who think that shutting down an encounter powers, or inflicting damage, counts as a rebuild along these lines are you and @_*Imaro*_ .




 @_*Imaro*_ – are we the only ones who posted on this?  I thought there were a few others.  I’m not sure how many besides @_*pemerton*_ have posted their support that shutting down powers or inflicting damage outside the mechanical rules is different in philosophy, not merely in degree, from removing one or more class features indefinitely or permanently.

If we add up the clear supporters of your view, and those who have clearly expressed disagreement, I wonder what the percentages would be.  I think our sample shows a pretty significant contingent for both viewpoints (and is a very small sample in total).



pemerton said:


> It had never even occurred to me until the two of you started posting that anyone would equate changing a PC's class from paladin to NPC warrior with d10 HD is no different from inflicting 1 hp of damage.




I keep saying “difference of degree, rather than philosophy”, yet you keep hearing “is no different”.  I think the presence of the word “difference” in my statement indicates that it is different, just not different in the manner you assert.



pemerton said:


> Actually, it would wreck it. Because instead of the player deciding whether ot not to thwart Vecna, he could simply have asked me what is good and what evil, and then I would have been obliged to answer him, presumably. And so instead of actual playing tthe game we would have colour-by-numbers according to the GM's script.




Why would he need to make the Good choice?  Does anyone reading this thread think that directing souls to Vecna, the Evil (I assume he is evil in 4e – am I wrong in this?) Deity, rather than the actual deity of the dead, might not be an evil act (or might actually be a Good one, as apparently we need to pick one as Good)?   It seems like this character’s raison d’etre is bargaining for power from a variety of powerful beings, and maintaining an alignment would be a source of theme and conflict for the character.

BTW, @_*Hussar*_, according to Wiki, Vecna has stats published in Open Grave.  Is that in error, or do 4e deities have stats?  Another for @_*Imaro*_’s list of your rules cites, I suppose.


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> I was going to comment on this but I'm not even sure what it is exactly you are trying to say besides 4e supports non mechanical alignmnet (which has never been argued against in this thread by anyone) and that you like non mechanical alignment better than mechanical alignment... Uhm, ok... I guess




4e was not even mentioned one time in what I said.  You used a quote that explains rather clearly what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been saying, and in the same breath you argued that gods in 4e don't even have the capability to strip paladins of their class features.

This is the same "attitude" I encountered from some players in 3.x.  If it's not clearly written in the rules then it can't happen.  That is an exaggerated and absurd interpretation of the game world.  It is great hyperbole and could denote the lack of a valid argument.

The passage from the PHB that you quoted is what I'll call "world thematics", what some people call flavor, or fluff.  It serves to stimulate the imagination and give the DM and players a starting point from which to launch their character ideas and game world.  It is in no way exclusive.  It is one of an infinite number of ways that DMs can run the "world thematics" of their game.  It is not the same as "game mechanics" which are a bit more concrete.  Channel divinity is a mechanical class feature. It is a bit more concrete/defined than saying "paladins that stray are punished by the faithful".  Because it is more defined/concrete it has certain limitations.  One is concrete/limited mechanically, the other is mutable/open according to what the DM & players want from their game.  If I say, "all paladins of Syllian wash the feet of the masses on Tuesdays".  It is "world thematics".  I might be making up my own rites for the faith.  For game purposes this is completely mutable/open and the DM and player are encouraged to work this stuff out as they want.  If I say, "Channel Divinity let's me fly up to 60 feet once per round", I'm a little bit more constrained.  The Channel Divinity class feature clearly does not provide that mechanical benefit.

Using that passage of "world thematics" to argue that a "god" in 4e cannot even "punish" a paladin that strays is hyperbole and what I'd call "ridiculous rules-lawyering".

In this thread what I have seen is a DM providing pretty clear examples of story and mechanics used within the course of a game.  The mechanics sometimes have consequences, like damage.  Then I'm seeing some vociferously attack him with the "rules".  "The artifact rules don't say that, you can't do that".  If that particular argument wasn't so petty, and ridiculous it might have been amusing.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Why would he need to make the Good choice?



Because (putting to one side dirty hands situations, which this isn't) no rational person chooses evil? Which you seem to recognise when you say "maintaining an alignment would be a source of theme and conflict for the character." If it makes no difference whether good or evil is chosen, where would the theme and conflict come from?

Or to put it another way - what is the point of having the GM tell the player the evaluative significance of his/her choices? I give that sort of advice to my children - but it seems a bit condescending to do it to my peers!


----------



## pemerton

D'karr said:


> In this thread what I have seen is a DM providing pretty clear examples of story and mechanics used within the course of a game.  The mechanics sometimes have consequences, like damage.  Then I'm seeing some vociferously attack him with the "rules".  "The artifact rules don't say that, you can't do that".  If that particular argument wasn't so petty, and ridiculous it might have been amusing.



Thanks.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> Again, as @_*Imaro*_ noted, if the player was told, before taking that action, that in your game world, this was an evil act, and would result in loss of his Paladinhood, the player would have the choice of:
> 
> (a)    deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;
> (b)    discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;
> (c)    deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;
> (d)    not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.




I see. So as long as the DM tells you first that you are wrong, that's ok because now you have the choice of being wrong or right, according to the DM. 

And this is acceptable to you?  Really?  Wow. You are a lot more tolerant of interference by the DM in your character than I am. 

Then again, you've both nicely illustrated why you can't have any shades of grey. After all, according to you now the DM is supposed to up front tell you that you are wrong. 

Bleah. No thanks. From either side of the screen. That just seems so shallow to me.


----------



## Hussar

Something else to note. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]. You claim that a DM is obligated to inform a player of the moral status of his actions before he acts. 

This appears in no version of DnD and is purely your own house rule. Which is fine but considering your vociferous criticisms of Pemerton for what you feel is not following mechanics I have to wonder why you think that alignment mechanics cannot stand on their own without your house rules. 

House rules that you feel so strongly about that you call DM's who don't use them poor DM's that you would not want to play with.


----------



## D'karr

N'raac said:


> shutting down powers or inflicting damage outside the mechanical rules is different in philosophy, not merely in degree, from removing one or more class features indefinitely or permanently.




This is the type of "rules lawyering" that I would normally expect from someone that is not familiar with the basic structures of the game.  I could see a new DM, unfamiliar with "guidelines not rules",  might make a ruling like that.  A player that feels slighted or is afraid of the consequences might argue a "rule" like that.  Since the player seems satisfied with how the outcome of the encounter went, I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has anything to worry about.  If this is really about the game mechanics of the situation I can't find anything in the examples given to lend any weight to the argument.

I don't see what class feature has been removed indefinitely or permanently.  Familiars that are damaged _usually_ "go offline".  Under normal circumstances they come "back online" after a rest.  Taking damage during a skill challenge is a pretty normal thing.  Not being able to regain healing surges is a pretty normal thing mechanically.  Changing the pacing of the game by many varied methods is a pretty normal thing to do for experienced DMs.  So mechanically I don't see anything weird in all of this.     

A player raising the stakes by implanting the Eye of Vecna on their character's familiar, which was granted by Levistus to "balance the equation" - awesome roleplay.  Taking out their own eye, in a weird sort of ocular solidarity - beautiful.  Knowingly setting the stakes even higher by "thwarting" Vecna - even more awesome.  Vecna angered by the character's action and taking action through his own Eye - priceless.   No rules lawyering required.  As a matter of fact rules lawyering about artifacts is the lamest thing I've ever heard.  Artifacts basically "break all the rules".  Entirely controlled by the DM.  The DM gives them and the DM can take them away at any time.  If angering Vecna in this manner was not prompt enough for the Eye to "move on"  I don't know what would be.

Losing a familiar for a few minutes, hours, days was the outcome of the "risk taken" based on the player *knowingly deciding to set himself up* against Vecna's goals (the stake).  The outcome could have been favorable or negative that is what playing a stake does, and it emerges from play.  The other outcome is that Vecna did not get what he wanted.  I might call that a positive in many circumstances.  A paladin that commits an "evil act", as interpreted solely by the DM, is not setting any stakes.  He is being told by the DM, "you character cannot do that, and if he does he is no longer a paladin".  There is no carrot, only stick.  The outcome can never be positive.  The player doesn't get to "play" his character.  The DM gets to ride shotgun with the foot on the brake.  Because it is prescripted it hardly, if ever, emerges from play.

In ratio/degree losing a familiar (minor feature) for a very finite time, or even forever, does not begin to compare to losing your paladinhood (main feature).  But at the core level, which is really the point, what pemerton has said is that in one instance (his game) the player gets to see the outcome of what the player is interested in seeing (stake => reward/loss).  And more importantly to do this the DM doesn't have to make evaluative judgements of whether the beliefs of that character are right or wrong, good or evil, black or white.  In a mechanical alignment game the player gets to see the outcome of what the DM decides him to see (stake => loss).  And the part he is not interested in, the DM must make an evaluative judgement of whether the characters value system is right or wrong, good or evil, black or white.  And then punish him if that evaluation comes up on the wrong side.  That is at least one of the reasons why mechanical alignment is an impediment to the game for those of us that don't use mechanical alignment.


----------



## Manbearcat

Going to hone in on these two for the sake of brevity and because I think something constructive might (and by might I mean 1.27 % chance) come of it.



Sadras said:


> Can you give me an example of where you and your  players have an aligned perspective where you framed an expected  adversity?




Sure.

One of the PCs in my present game (coming to a close) is a Druid with multiple animal companions (a packmaster archetype).  She was "abandoned" as a child by her mother (there is much to this but not relevant here) and was raised by a pack of wolves (the savage wild), was eventually cast out as an outsider and found herself (still a child) brought in and raised by a human settlement (civilization).  She found community in both but her need to find security, acceptance and to eschew her fear of abandonment was found with the human settlement and not with the pack the originally raised her as a pup.  However, as time went along, the settlement continued to encroach on the deepness of the wild.  Unable to live in harmony and unable to return the savagery that fell upon it, the entire settlement was wiped out.  Her longing of security and stability again torn from her, her fear of abandonment again renewed.

Given her paradoxical background, she found herself venerating the ideals of both Erathis (God of Civilization) 

* Work with others to achieve your goals. Community and order are always  stronger than the disjointed efforts of lone individuals.
* Tame the wilderness to make it fit for habitation and defend the light of civilization against the encroaching darkness.

and Melora (God of Wilderness)  

* Protect the wild places of the world from destruction and overuse. Oppose the rampant spread of cities and empires.
* Do not fear or condemn the savagery of nature. Live in harmony with the wild.

simultaneously.  Always would these be at tension with one another.  Her Quests (that she would either compose outright or we would do so together) and the conflicts I would frame her into would always work to address the juxtaposition of these premises and see how her character would evolve as a result of her decisions and the physical consequences of her moral choices and the fallout of these conflicts.  Basically we would ultimately find out, through play, which ideals would win out.  This is what the player wanted.

We are almost at the end of the game (28th level).  Ultimately (to our surprise), the ideals of Erathis won out and this Druid prioritizes civilization over the savagery of nature.

One specific conflict that was central to this evolution was one where the Druid used a "Bloom" (_Grass grows, trees bear fruit, and the land’s bounty is available to all._) Ritual as the clincher in a Skill Challenge to convince a (very important) young girl (who had run away from home due to possession by a malignant primal spirit) to trust them and have her admit the PCs into her good graces.  What they really wanted to do was to parlay with this malignant primal spirit within her (it would manifest and use her physical form to murder locals).  The Druid wanted to convince the creature to leave the girl and inhabit her instead (as she figured she could control this savage spirit and, what's more, this creature knew things the PCs were hoping to know).  The PCs initiated a conflict with the stakes being the successful "exorcism" or the little girl's life.  If they failed it would be a fight to the death and the child's physical form would be destroyed in the battle.  They failed the Skill Challenge.  The little girl perished, the savage, primal spirit discorporated and fled into the untamed wild, never again to haunt the local settlements.

She had seen, for the nth time, how the allure of nature's beauty would seduce you and then betray you.  She had seen, for the nth time, how innocence is stolen by merciless, indifferent savagery.  The wild needed to be tamed as it could not be trusted if left to its devices.  Savagery deserved condemnation.

The character changed pretty abruptly after that.  



Sadras said:


> Your above statement appears, IMO, to be a ridiculous argument. If you cannot roleplay a cosmological entity due to your own personal limitations, and use that as your basis - how do you possibly NPC any character within your campaigns which you do not have the required necessary expertise?




Needless to say, I don't agree.  

My problem isn't about the difficulty of the analysis.  I can perform as thorough and decisive a philosophical analysis as anyone I've ever played with.  But I don't want the game to come to that.  I don't want to pit my take on cosmology versus their take on cosmology.  And I want my players to have free will to decide how their vested interests in ethos decisions (that portend fallout in the physical world...and then maybe something cosmological, as conflict waiting to be shaped and resolved, down the line) wax, wane and evolve.  The extent of my disagreement stems from the authority requiring me to compel player decision by way of the driver of "internal ethos needle" based on my perceptions of cosmological inclination. I don't want to compel (a hard compel or through soft operative conditioning - "incline your analysis/perceptions of this moral issue towards my own and behave in this fashion or you will be punished - your choice") a player with cosmology.  

Again, there is no equivalence in a GM inhabiting creatures of the mortal realm and extrapolating physical fallout from decisions made or not made.  Its trivial.  Being brilliant is so far removed from nigh-omnipotence and nigh-omniscience that the two can't even be compared.  However, one can tangle with the perspective of a God, or an Arch-Demon, or an Ancient Dragon.  The heart of the issue for me is extrapolating physical fallout, and mechanically resolving a conflict evolved from that physical fallout, is a world away from (no equivalence) extrapolating cosmoligical inclination toward PC behavior (within context, with the inevitable margin of error), gaining consensus or at least understanding with the affected PC, and then enacting punitive measures which subordinate player decisions (and probably start the process of operative conditioning where they look to me for their thumbs up/thumbs down cue rather than acting of their own volition and conception of their PC) to my own interpretation of that cosmological inclination.

Make no mistake.  I can play deities all the way down to beggars.  To the hilt.  I have very strong, stern, unrelenting, well-concieved opinions on all things philosophy.  I just don't want that to drive play.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Because (putting to one side dirty hands situations, which this isn't) no rational person chooses evil? Which you seem to recognise when you say "maintaining an alignment would be a source of theme and conflict for the character." If it makes no difference whether good or evil is chosen, where would the theme and conflict come from?




Why is it irrational to choose evil? I think elementary game theory dispenses with that assumption pretty quickly.



pemerton said:


> Or to put it another way - what is the point of having the GM tell the player the evaluative significance of his/her choices? I give that sort of advice to my children - but it seems a bit condescending to do it to my peers!




Clarity. Same reason you'd tell the player about the consequences of other decisions they're making like trying to jump a 30 foot gap without a running start when the GM knows that's certain failure. To avoid misunderstandings.


----------



## D'karr

N'raac said:


> Again, as @_*Imaro*_ noted, if the player was told, before taking that action, that in your game world, this was an evil act, and would result in loss of his Paladinhood, the player would have the choice of:
> 
> (a)    deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;
> (b)    discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;
> (c)    deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;
> (d)    not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.
> 
> Frankly, I think your concerns are a lot more related to lack of trust in the GM (any GM), an issue seen in many prior threads, than about alignment specifically.




I'm the player.  I have come up with my character concept, which I'm keen on playing.  I'm a paladin of justice, I punish wrong doers.  I have dedicated my life to honing my senses to the pursuit of justice.  I will call my character Murcielago.

*DM*:  Ok, you have finally tracked Ra's al ghul and his cronies.  They are on that Lightning Rail headed to Breland.  They are carrying the doomsday device (DD) that destroyed Cyre creating the Mournland during The Last War.
*Murcielago*:  I jump on the last cart and give chase.

Combat ensues

*DM*:  You have defeated all the cronies all that is left is the DD and Ras.  During the fight with Ras he got pinned under the DD and you see that the DD is getting ready to activate its clockwork mechanism spinning frantically, what do you do?
*Murcielago*:  OOC: "Shoot the hostage... Excellent!!!!"  IC: I hit the DD with my sword trying to jam the sword far enough to deactivate it.  ( I roll a 20)
*DM*:  Nat 20, your sword cleaves into the DD stopping its clockwork mechanism.  You are sure that it won't cause the original level of planned destruction they intended, but you can see a surge of energy building and it will probably destroy this cart only.  What do you do?
*Murcielago*:  OOC: Stop with the Keanu voice please, you are breaking my immersion.  IC:  In my best raspy voice - "Ras I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."  I jump out of the cart and let the DD blow up.
*DM*:  Wait!!!!  That is an evil act.  If you do that you will lose your paladinhood and forever be known as "Murci the impotent".
*Player*:  What?  That's stupid.  This guy is clearly evil, and deserves justice, preferably by my sword, or by getting blown up by his own weapon.  What do you mean leaving him here is evil?  If I had killed him like the other mooks we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Are you f'n serious?

Presented Option(s):
_(a)    deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;_
*Player*:  OK, dammit! I will save Ras and jump.  OOC: Are you playing my character, or am I?​_(b)    discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;_
*Player & DM*: 45 minute argum.. discussion, or 700 page thread ensues depending on whether this is a TT Game, or a PbP Game.​_(c)    deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;_
*Murci the impotent*:"Screw you Ras!!!!!", OOC: and you too DM - That is the stupidest ruling ever!  IC: I'm jumping.​_(d)    not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place._
*DM*: well you should not have suggested Batman (I mean Murcielago) was a Paladin in the first place.  Have fun playing your pimped out warrior.
*Player*: Yeah like I said before, screw you!  Why don't I just play one of your NPC's?  You can create it, and you can tell me what to do, and what not to do.  Oh, yeah I forgot there is already a PC class for that.  Next week get ready for Murci2 Dark Bat Rising.  I'm making a Fighter/Wizard!  You can't screw me with those stupid alignment rules with MY wizard, right?
*DM*: We call those elves, and they were awesome!!!!​

Now that is a very tongue in cheek depiction, but it captures nicely why mechanical alignment, as you have just described it, is an impediment to my game.

Thanks for the very poignant example.


----------



## Manbearcat

As an aside, this sidetrack about   @_*pemerton*_ 's Skill Challenge and the familiar taking damage while in passive mode (if that is what happen) is really odd.  I wish I could figure out what the premise being addressed was.  I'm sure its either "haha fiat" leaking in from the fighter vs spellcaster thread or its positing that there is a mechanical equivalence of "familiar out until next short rest (which is basically immediately post Skill Challenge)" and "Paladin has lost all of his divine powers (the stuff that renders him an actual Paladin) until an atonement quest is fulfilled."  That (and/or) perhaps something about there being an equivalence in the GM analysis of the fiction and generating an outcome/complication of immediate physical feedback from Vecna (through his material artifact of which his will is given manifest) for denying his machinations and immediate cosmological feedback (through metaphysical subordination of all power) from a patron Deity who feels his metaphysical value system has been maligned by his champion.  I just don't see the equivalence (if that is what we're going for here) and/or I'm not seeing the thrust of all this.  It is just coming off as a puzzling, full-frontal-assault.

Further, with respect to the passive/active state of Familiars, my sense has always been that "passive" and "active" are merely keywords for rules adjudication in combat.  It allows for players to move the Familiars (PC build components) from background color ("look at my cool floating sword!") to an actual moving part in the theater of tactical combat ("my floating sword hammers against their defenses, allowing me to move to a more advantageous position after my attack - Shift 1") while putting it at risk.  Rules for combat and noncombat are very segmented in 4e.  One is tight and crunchy and requires fidelity to keywords and all interactions thereof.  The other is abstract in the extreme and left to the GM to adjudicate fallout.

And again, I'm not sure if this is the same for everyone (I suspect it is for most all groups unless they are trying some oddly paced 4e), but my 4e is tightly scene-based so short rests couldn't be more hand-waved.  Conflict over?  Short Rest.  You have your encounters back, you spend your surges, and boom, your familiar is back.  Couldn't be more trivial.  On obscenely rare occasions (such as extremely perilous journeys where I'm using the disease/condition track to pressure the PCs with rest denial), I'll deny Short Rests.  But they are so far in the minority as to not be worth mention.  I can't imagine that is anything nearing unorthodox play.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> Why is it irrational to choose evil? I think elementary game theory dispenses with that assumption pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> Clarity. Same reason you'd tell the player about the consequences of other decisions they're making like trying to jump a 30 foot gap without a running start when the GM knows that's certain failure. To avoid misunderstandings.




There is a difference though. If you are trying to jump, it's a pretty clear cut ruling. You need to beat X DC and that is not possible in current circumstances. 

In alignment I'm telling the player that he is playing his character wrong and I know better.


----------



## Hussar

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was an example about a heavily wounded paladin faced with a townie about to be splatted by a giant. In that example there was an interpretation that the paladin had to save the townie. 

Yet, that example is pretty much identical to the Batman example. After all, it's not the paladin killing the townie. 

Even within this thread people cannot be consistent in interpretations. How can you expect consistency in a game?


----------



## D'karr

Hussar said:


> Way back at the beginning of this thread there was an example about a heavily wounded paladin faced with a townie about to be splatted by a giant. In that example there was an interpretation that the paladin had to save the townie.
> 
> Yet, that example is pretty much identical to the Batman example. After all, it's not the paladin killing the townie.
> 
> Even within this thread people cannot be consistent in interpretations. How can you expect consistency in a game?




Yep, because it is interpreted there are going to be an infinite number of variations.  As a player, I don't want to deal with that scenario.  As a DM, I don't want to *have to* deal with that scenario.  That is why I don't use mechanical alignment.  The facetious example I used above could have just as easily been reversed with a player that wanted to save Ras and the DM insisting that saving Ra's al ghul was an evil act.  You could also have a DM that rules that leaving the Doomsday Device might be evil, and another that thinks that the "correct solution" is to fully deactivate the device.

I don't want to play "guess what the DM wants" for a game.  I don't want my players to have to guess either, and I don't want to have to spend brain cells on determining either way.  Play is much more fun then the players can PLAY THEIR characters instead of having me be their conscience.


----------



## Sadras

This thread is crazy.



Hussar said:


> You honestly think it's rare?  Really?




I do. Look as you have stated in the past you have a long established group, mature players. I do too. Alignment generally doesn't come up. 



> Take a fairly known example. In the first Nolan Ryan Batman movie, at the end of the movie the Batman has Raz alGul trapped in the runaway train. Batman says that he won't kill him but he won't save him either and jumps away leaving Raz alGul to die.




Great example! 



> Now is that an evil act or not?  You can make a very good case either way. But with alignment there can be no ambiguity and no grey. Either it is evil and the DM strips the paladin or it's not and thus no moral shades of grey.




I can only tell you how I would rule it within my current campaign as setting which includes particular deities which do play a role. 
For myself I would not view this action as evil. Given the series of events that led up to this - Batman continually asks Raz to consider his actions, to change his view and Raz on every single occasion rejects Batman's pleas. 
That final act of leaving him, is almost the paladin's way of "if you are innocent or if there is some hope for you yet, may the gods spare you, if not you will die here"



> In my game, there is no answer. Just varying interpretations. And I don't have to pretend that I actually do know the answer. For me, that's much more interesting.




I cannot deny you have successful enjoyable games, but I do too with alignment. And the players in my group, two of whom I have discussed this thread with, actually prefer an alignment inclusion game rather than without one.



> I would hope that it's fairly obvious that it is possible to view this as an evil act.




Absolutely. I have never challenged you on the possibility that two DMs might rule differently. In fact, @_*Bedrockgames*_ and myself declared this to be a feature not a bug. 
I might even add, that if the deity served by the paladin was one whose specific domains were compassion or forgiveness, I might have ruled differently, then again dependent by the setting. 



> So, you're the player and you leave the guy to die, based on your interpretation of evil.  I'm the DM and I'm using mechanical alignment.  You leave Raz alGul behind and now you're a fighter.  This was a deliberate evil act, so, it's not like you can fix it with an Atonement spell.




As a DM you have every right to rule this as an evil act as long as, and this was mentioned by @_*Bedrockgames*_ a while back, you are consistent with these rulings for similar type adjudications. It is far more important for you to be consistent in your DMing of Deities' laws of alignment. Cannot stress how important this is, otherwise do not use alignment if you cannot be consistent.

With regards to punishment. I have mentioned, I'm sure I also saw a response by @_*N'raac*_ on this, that we might take a different view than those presented within the rulebooks depending of course on the circumstances. The only point we were arguing on was using "mechanical alignment" and adjudicating on PCs actions thereon does not deter from the roleplaying experience. @_*pemerton*_ and yourself were equating it to wearing a straight-jacket.

What I mean is, I might allow for an _Atonement_ spell on this example if I rule as you would. I know this is going against the rules as written, but that does not mean I do not use alignment or that I do not make adjudications on PC actions through the lens of alignment based on the deity the PC serves.



> And @_*Imaro*_ and @_*N'raac*_, you'd both be perfectly sanguine and pat me on the back for being a good DM?  After all, I'm doing EXACTLY what you say I should be doing - defining good and evil in my game world.




As long as you are consistent and it wasn't a "gotcha" moment. Refer below.



> Considering the lengths you're going to try to rules lawyer Permerton here, constantly badgering him about a play example, I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely.  It's far more likely that we're going to have a flaming row at the table because my interpretations don't match yours.




Discussion might ensue. I do not believe a row. But refer below.



> I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games.  Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e.  I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations.  They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be.  Artifacts are what you add to the game when you want to chuck rules out the window.  Add to that the fact that you are arguing that a GOD cannot kill someone's familiar at will baffles me.  it's a GOD.  It gets to do anything it wants to do.  Gods don't follow any rules in the books.




You are missing their point. They are reflecting that Pemerton whether he follows the rules or not, and in IMO for this case not *(WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FINE, BECAUSE MOST OF US DO IT)*, he was using DM fiat to judge the PC's actions. And they are equating that to DM fiat while using alignment. To spell it out for you and some others (specifically @_*D'karr*_) on this thread because straw man arguments keep on getting raised, they are calling him a hypocrite.



> You get to do anything you want.




This is what we are arguing for which you are equating to straight-jackets, muzzles and the like.  



Hussar said:


> I see. So as long as the DM tells you first that you are wrong, that's ok because now you have the choice of being wrong or right, according to the DM.  And this is acceptable to you?  Really?  Wow. You are a lot more tolerant of interference by the DM in your character than I am. Then again, you've both nicely illustrated why you can't have any shades of grey. After all, according to you now the DM is supposed to up front tell you that you are wrong. Bleah. No thanks. From either side of the screen. That just seems so shallow to me.




All the abovementioned 'refer below' - begin here:

Yes, it doesn't have to come off as flat as that. For instance a character is about to do an action, because the player misheard the DM or another player or was unaware of something. The DM internally believes the player would not have his character do an action if he was aware of all the facts so he takes it upon himself to inform the player before the action is resolved. Discussion now ensues between player/s and DM.

Same thing here. The DM informs the player that perhaps during his scripture readings, or his time at the temple/monastery he learned the tenets on his faith and one of the examples was such an example (do you leave the bad guy to die), maybe it was a question asked by a student there, perhaps as the paladin is about to leave he gets a mental pang, does he ignore it? It can be roleplayed, it can be given as backstory or knowledge or it can be as flat as you have described it above. 



Hussar said:


> Something else to note. @_*Imaro*_ and @_*N'raac*_. You claim that a DM is obligated to inform a player of the moral status of his actions before he acts.  This appears in no version of DnD and is purely your own house rule.




Actually it is within the rules. I did quote it a while back, so yeah its not like we remember everything. *2e DMG page 28*

Unconscious change
If the DM suspects that the player believes his character is acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change *SHOULD NOT* surprise the player - not completely anyway.

So no 'gotcha' moments.



> Which is fine but considering your vociferous criticisms of Pemerton for what you feel is not following mechanics I have to wonder why you think that alignment mechanics cannot stand on their own without your house rules.




Proven above that they do.



> House rules that you feel so strongly about that you call DM's who don't use them poor DM's that you would not want to play with.




Gotcha! 
I hope you see from the batman example, alignment is not as stringent as you imagine it to be - it depends on a lot of things, but like everything else in the game - there is a good way and a bad way of utilising it, and admittedly when our group was much younger we were probably terrible at it.


----------



## Sadras

D'karr said:


> I don't want to play "guess what the DM wants" for a game.  I don't want my players to have to guess either,




From this statement, I imagine you must play with new players or DMs every week? Given that kind of inconsistency it could be a problem I admit.



> and I don't want to have to spend brain cells on determining either way.




Using your best computed estimate how many brain cells do you believe such actions require. More or less than deciding if a PC plan will work or not, or determining the DC of a task or skill challenge, or the reply of an NPC?



> Play is much more fun then the players can PLAY THEIR characters instead of having me be their conscience.




So when determining actions, players in your group do not consider their characters' conscience at all?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Way back at the beginning of this thread there was an example about a heavily wounded paladin faced with a townie about to be splatted by a giant. In that example there was an interpretation that the paladin had to save the townie.
> 
> Yet, that example is pretty much identical to the Batman example. After all, it's not the paladin killing the townie.
> 
> Even within this thread people cannot be consistent in interpretations. How can you expect consistency in a game?




I have not read that post, but from your 2-3 line description of said example, I do not consider the batman/raz example equal with the townie one. So I definitely disagree with your assessment there.


----------



## Sadras

@_*D'karr*_ when you decide to enter a debate 90+ pages, standard forum etiquette would require you to  please make the effort and actually read why @_*Imaro*_ and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] are arguing over @_*pemerton*_'s use of DM fiat instead of jumping to conclusions and raising strawman arguments all over the place. Honestly it isn't fair on anyone what you have done.



D'karr said:


> If we took the play examples that  @_*pemerton*_ has provided and looked at them from the perspective of a DM created world, and the notion that the world creator is "god", which is a pretty classic way of viewing the role of the DM.  He is the ultimate authority to decide what is happening with everything.




Yes, which would include alignment. I'm in agreement with you here.



> There would be absolutely no "leg to stand on" to argue about his use of the gods, artifacts, etc.  From his play example, at character creation he communicated to his players his expectations about the campaign world,  the gods therein, and some expectations of what they would be facing.  The players have obviously accepted his portrayal of this setting, as they are not complaining about any of it.  And they have been playing in it for a long while since they are already at epic level.  I take their experience as way more important than that of the nay-sayers.
> It seems ludicrous, in almost a "rules-lawyery" way, to argue that he is "doing it wrong", or that his stated play experiences could not have happened, or that he is "breaking the rules". It is purely comical the mental contortions you have to do to even justify the argument. Whether he is using the default setting, or a home-brew setting is irrelevant. He is the DM. It seems to me that he knows his game and his players best. Judging from his stated play examples I can find nothing in them that falls even remotely outside the realm of normal for what a DM does during a game. His game sounds pretty fun. And guess what, he is not using alignment as a mechanic. He has stated so and provided many examples of play, in which it is clear that he is not, I can't fathom what others are arguing with him about.
> 
> To his play experience of running his game mechanical alignment is an impediment. He has repeatedly stated so, and has provided some pretty concrete examples of actual gameplay situations, not edge case hypothetical scenarios, in which mechanical alignment in his game would have been an impediment. Isn't that what the question posed originally was?




The above paragraph is exactly what I am talking about. You are utterly missing Imaro's and N'raac's point with his, IMO, a mess of a post.


----------



## Sadras

D'karr said:


> Now that is a very tongue in cheek depiction, but it captures nicely why mechanical alignment, as you have just described it, is an impediment to my game.
> 
> Thanks for the very poignant example.



 [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] you are actually doing more harm than good for the anti-alignment side especially with the above example despite your 'tongue and cheek' admission. 

Thank you for illustrating so fervently what the alignment crowd has been stating all along at least for at least the last 30-40 pages if you have made the effort to read them, that the non-alignment side is confusing bad Dming with the use of 'mechanical alignment'.


----------



## Sadras

billd91 said:


> Clarity. Same reason you'd tell the player about the consequences of other decisions they're making like trying to jump a 30 foot gap without a running start when the GM knows that's certain failure. To avoid misunderstandings.




I stated the same to Hussar, but your reply is so much more eloquent. Sadly can't XP you.


----------



## Sadras

D'karr said:


> In ratio/degree losing a familiar (minor feature) for a very finite time, or even forever, does not begin to compare to losing your paladinhood (main feature).




So is your problem the punishment? Because one can still utilise mechanical alignment, one only needs to alter the punishment or stick as you prefer calling it. I mean you can still play 1e and 2e utilising wights, wraiths and spectres, but change their "output" from level drain to something else: more damage, (temporary) ability drain, age...etc
I consider the punishment side of your argument countered with regards to "why I don't like mechanical alignment for my campaign"



> But at the core level, which is really the point, what pemerton has said is that in one instance (his game) the player gets to see the outcome of what the player is interested in seeing (stake => reward/loss).  And more importantly to do this the DM doesn't have to make evaluative judgements of whether the beliefs of that character are right or wrong, good or evil, black or white.  In a mechanical alignment game the player gets to see the outcome of what the DM decides him to see (stake => loss).  And the part he is not interested in, the DM must make an evaluative judgement of whether the characters value system is right or wrong, good or evil, black or white.  And then punish him if that evaluation comes up on the wrong side.




Incorrect. In mechanical alignment, the player can still get to see the outcome, despite the evaluative judgments (if any) by the DM. Since 'punishment argument' above has been mooted, our example is now one and the same with @_*pemerton*_s with no real change since pemerton used DM fiat to roleplay his deity's actions, and the alignment crowd uses DM fiat to roleplay deity actions when dissatisfied with their servants.  

Your only argument left remaining is that the DM must make evaluative judgments on PC actions through the lens of alignment. 
 @_*Hussar*_'s argument is that there is no consistency in this. He would prefer it laid down in black & white or removed entirely.
 @_*Bedrockgames*_ and myself replied that we view this as a positive not a negative but that consistency by the DMing in his ruling of alignment is extremely important. Consider also that within ones gaming group there is some degree of familiarity between the participants and usually aligned thoughts and ideas between the players and the DMs exist, I cannot see this as becoming an issue.

I have addressed the non-Gotcha moment (per the rules) and I have also mentioned that for characters in the campaign to be their sole arbiters on their morality removes a certain immersion from play at least for me and my group. You need to have an external party for your actions to have any significant consequences. 

@_*Hussar*_ agreed that consequences exist and mentioned that he was only comfortable on ruling on a deity's aspects/domains such as beauty, love, strength and the like.
It has been shown by @_*Imaro*_ and @_*N'raac*_ that DMs can have differing views on those as well. 

 @_*Manbearcat*_ tried a difference angle stating that he could not roleplay super-intelligent cosmic beings due to his limitations and experiences.
This was countered that he should not be playing dragons, rape victims, creatures of 18+ intelligence/wisdom since his own limitations would impinge on him.
He also stated that evaluative judgments should stand the test of time. The answer to this being that the judgments need only be answerable to the laws of the deity and a specific point in time. 

That is where we are +/-
I still have a post or two of Manbearcat's to read.


----------



## D'karr

Sadras said:


> @_*D'karr*_ when you decide to enter a debate 90+ pages, standard forum etiquette would require you to  please make the effort and actually read why @_*Imaro*_ and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] are arguing over @_*pemerton*_'s use of DM fiat instead of jumping to conclusions and raising strawman arguments all over the place. Honestly it isn't fair on anyone what you have done.




Entering a debate after 90+ pages, doesn't mean that I have not read what each side has said.  I have read almost every post and I'm well aware of the argument(s).  It simply means that I have more important things to do with my time than spend the equivalent of writing "War and Peace" on, yet another, alignment thread.  I might spend the time reading it, but it doesn't encourage me to write and respond to every post.  You mentioned just a few posts above that what they are doing is deliberately calling [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] a hypocrite.  You then proceed to tell me that what I'm doing is not fair to anyone.  Can anyone even write those two things within the span of a few posts with a straight face.

If there have ever been strawmans raised on this thread it is exactly by those that are calling others hypocrites, without ever specifically saying that of course - Board rules and such, you know.  "Baby throat ripping paladins" are a strawman.  As far as I know pemerton is the only one that has provided actual game play examples from his table.  But then we must proceed to "destroy" his examples by appealing to the "the rules"?  When the other posters are asked to give actual game play examples instead of hypothetical exaggerations we get ....  "crickets chirping".    That's right nothing but more attacks.  They have offered not one actual game play counter example of how the aligment mechanics in their games have improved it.  We get a lot of lofty platitudes but not even one example, that is not a hypothetical about "throat ripping paladins". 

Rules for artifacts are very specifically targeted for "DM discretionary use".  Then the argument hides behind the "Eye of Vecna" as that is not what the "RAW" for the "Eye" says it can do - another "gotcha" technique.  If there ever was a strawman it is that.  An artifact can do whatever a DM *needs* it to do, that is what they are specifically there for. 

What I have seen is petty "rules lawyering" to try to say, "gotcha you hypocrite" to pemerton.  That is what is actually not fair.   The theoretical examples, and the "options" presented by the dissenters show exactly why mechanical alignment is an impediment to our games.  It might not be an impediment to theirs, but it is to us.  

Pemerton has been very consistent and clear in what he has expressed.  The thread title asks, "do alignments improve the gaming experience?"  Pemerton, and others have said that "No, alignments are an impediment to *THEIR* gaming experience."  Then you have a few posters try to dogpile on him with rules arguments of what a DM CAN and CAN'T do.



> The above paragraph is exactly what I am talking about. You are utterly missing Imaro's and N'raac's point with his, IMO, a mess of a post.




No, I don't think I'm missing the point.  You made the point very clear in this post.



			
				Sadras said:
			
		

> To spell it out for you and some others (specifically @D'karr) on this thread because straw man arguments keep on getting raised, they are calling him a hypocrite.




Yes, it is clear what they are trying to do, and those of us that can see pemerton's point don't appreciate it.  To spell it out clearly, those of us that don't use mechanical alignment see these set of options:



> (a) deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;
> (b) discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;
> (c) deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;
> (d) not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.




As an impediment to our games.  

I made a rather tongue-in-cheek post about those options.  The bottom line is that as a player those options are not acceptable to me.  I'm the player, then let me play MY character as I have envisioned him.  As a DM those options are not acceptable to me either.  The player has made a decision - I want him to explore his definition of what justice entails, not my prescripted definition or give him the "godhammer".  The fact that different DMs can interpret the exact same action, in that "Batman example", in multiple ways is another reason why as "mechanical rules" alignment is an impediment to my game.  And if there ever was a reason why alignment is an impediment to my game it is threads like this one, and the countless others that crop up regularly in these boards and others.  Rules that are so poorly designed, or so broadly defined as to be meaningless are an impediment to my games.  The fact that 90+ pages, and more to come I imagine, are being used to argue for, and counter-argue against a particular set of rules should be an indication that the rules are not useful.


----------



## billd91

D'karr said:


> Yes, it is clear what they are trying to do, and those of us that can see pemerton's point don't appreciate it.  To spell it out clearly, those of us that don't use mechanical alignment see these set of options:
> 
> 
> 
> As an impediment to our games.
> 
> I made a rather tongue-in-cheek post about those options.  The bottom line is that as a player those options are not acceptable to me.  I'm the player, then let me play MY character as I have envisioned him.  As a DM those options are not acceptable to me either.  The player has made a decision - I want him to explore his definition of what justice entails, not my prescripted definition or give him the "godhammer".  The fact that different DMs can interpret the exact same action, in that "Batman example", in multiple ways is another reason why as "mechanical rules" alignment is an impediment to my game.  And if there ever was a reason why alignment is an impediment to my game it is threads like this one, and the countless others that crop up regularly in these boards and others.  Rules that are so poorly designed, or so broadly defined as to be meaningless are an impediment to my games.  The fact that 90+ pages, and more to come I imagine, are being used to argue for, and counter-argue against a particular set of rules should be an indication that the rules are not useful.




So, if you don't use alignment, what if the player does something else controversial? Suppose something really illegal in the setting locale or insulting to some power? Do you tell them they're likely going to encounter  difficulties then? And what if they disagree? That's not any different, ultimately, other than in the specifics. PC acts, GM imposes consequences.


----------



## Manbearcat

Sadras said:


> @_*Manbearcat*_ tried a difference angle stating that he could not roleplay super-intelligent cosmic beings due to his limitations and experiences.
> 
> This was countered that he should not be playing dragons, rape victims, creatures of 18+ intelligence/wisdom since his own limitations would impinge on him.




For the record, this was not what I said at all (and hopefully this was clarified and crystalized in my most recent post).  I can roleplay them to the hilt.  I can call upon all manner of genre material, introspection, extrapolation, philosophy, and understanding of the human condition to inform my roleplaying of NPCs and framing of conflicts.  That is not difficult to do and it is not problematic for play.

(Using my most recent example) What is problematic for play is when I conceptualize an outcome for the product of play that is discordant with respect to the player's conception of play and their conception of their PC.  What is problematic for me is telling the Druid player, who is thrust into an ongoing conflict that puts at tension Civilization vs The Savage Wild, that their conception of this struggle and their conception of their PC (their internal ethos struggle) is inappropriate with respect to my take on the overarching cosmology + how the conflicts have unfolded.  What is problematic for me is (i) performing this mental overhead (at all...as I don't think its constructive, productive and I don't think it yields good play at my table), thus taking away from overhead that might be better spent elsewhere, (ii) table handling time to resolve a potential conflict between my conception and my player's conception of events/cosmology/the output of their internal struggle, (iii) asserting that I have a better conception of their PC and the cosmological output of their struggle and imposing my conception as the ultimate product of play.

Roleplaying dragons/brilliant wizards/sex-trade victims/peasant thieves and framing conflicts around related thematic material is trivial for me.  I say, without hesitation, that I can perform those tasks as 
well as any GM can.  My confidence in doing so is entirely unrelated to how I feel the imposition of my conception (and the handling time and overhead that the process entails) may negatively affect play (certainly for me...and presumably for players who dispute my conception).



Sadras said:


> He also stated that evaluative judgments should stand the test of time. The answer to this being that the judgments need only be answerable to the laws of the deity and a specific point in time.




This is also incorrect and doesn't remotely capture the nuance of the point and how it relates to the conversation at hand.  But I'm not inclined to spill any more words here.  

I'm pretty sure this thread has outlasted its useful life (which I don't believe it had any in the first place!).


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> There is a difference though. If you are trying to jump, it's a pretty clear cut ruling. You need to beat X DC and that is not possible in current circumstances.
> 
> In alignment I'm telling the player that he is playing his character wrong and I know better.




There are *lots* of places in the rules where the GM and player may disagree and where there may be ambiguity in the situation. The principle of seeking clarity remains the same.


----------



## D'karr

Sadras said:


> [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] you are actually doing more harm than good for the anti-alignment side especially with the above example despite your 'tongue and cheek' admission.
> 
> Thank you for illustrating so fervently what the alignment crowd has been stating all along at least for at least the last 30-40 pages if you have made the effort to read them, that *the non-alignment side is confusing bad Dming with the use of 'mechanical alignment'*.




Wait a minute...  Those "mechanical" options were proposed by n'raac who, if we are picking teams, is on the "pro-alignment" camp.  Are you saying he is a bad DM?  I don't particularly have an opinion either way as I have not seen one example of his game, to date.  But I'm in no way "confusing bad DMing with the the use of 'mechanical alignment'".

With mechanical alignment those are exactly the options the player would have, if the DM deemed a particular act "evil".  That second part of the sentence is exactly what pemerton has been aguing against.  He, and others, don't want to have to make that particular "evaluative judgement" at the table.  Those particular options are exactly the kind of thing that creates an impediment at *my* table.  Those options are not acceptable and one of the reasons I don't use mechanical alignment, and have not used it since the late 80's.

If those are the options I have, whether a good DM or a bad DM puts them in front of me, they are unacceptable to me.  This is one of the reasons those that don't use mechanical alignment find mechanical alignment "distasteful". And one of the reasons many equate it to a straitjacket.

*Options*


> (a) deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;




So the players must not take an action that they were ready to take before I, as the "god figure", told them, "ah, ah, ah...  That's evil".  The character has no free-will and must be circumscribed to my will as a DM.



> (b) discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;




This is a red herring in that the outcome of the discussion will still boil down to (a) that's evil, (b) that's not evil - because I said so.  If this thread, and countless others, is an example of how that discussion ends it is not a good example of concise/precise rules.  Alignment is arguably one, if not the most, contentious set of "rules" in the game.  I find no desire to spend time arguing morality questions at the table, so I don't use mechanical alignment.  In this case the "rules" are still an impediment.  The "fact" that I can argue against them is not even relevant.  BTW, this use of a "discussion" is even not part of some versions of the game.  In 1e, for example, the DM tracked alignment secretly for each player.  So there was not even the possibility of a discussion.



> (c) deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;




This is a corollary to option (a).  The character still doesn't have free will.  If he wants to play "my game" then he must comply, or get the "godhammer".  Unless the player wants to deliberately explore the option of a "fallen paladin".  He would be mechanically inferior, which is not a problem for some players.  But I'm still not seeing how mechanical alignment is not an impediment to the kind of game I want to play, or more importantly DM.  This one sounds so much like, "it puts the lotion on its body, or else it gets the hose again" that in my mind the idea of an "option" is almost laughable.



> (d) not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.




I was hoping n'raac was being facetious when he put this one in that list of options.  This is the only one that I would put in the category of bad DMing.  Still not a bonus to my desires for a game.


----------



## Sadras

D'karr said:


> Entering a debate after 90+ pages, doesn't mean that I have not read what each side has said.  I have read almost every post and I'm well aware of the argument(s).  It simply means that I have more important things to do with my time than spend the equivalent of writing "War and Peace" on, yet another, alignment thread.  I might spend the time reading it, but it doesn't encourage me to write and respond to every post.




I didn't intend for you to reply to every post. I merely intended that its bad form to misrepresent the debate (if I referred to it as argument, that was wrong) they are having which you did. They do not have a problem with Pemerton going outside the rules, it was his game afterall. That was not the issue. Your initial post makes it seem like it was. That is misrepresentation. 



> You mentioned just a few posts above that what they are doing is deliberately calling @_*pemerton*_ a hypocrite.You then proceed to tell me that what I'm doing is not fair to anyone.  Can anyone even write those two things within the span of a few posts with a straight face.




C'mon, they do not have a personal issue with him or his roleplaying capabilities, it is part of the discussion between them. In plain English: They are merely pointing out that what he says he doesn't like, he actually does do.  



> As far as I know pemerton is the only one that has provided actual game play examples from his table.  But then we must proceed to "destroy" his examples by appealing to the "the rules"?




They are also not trying to destroy his example, they are merely pointing out what we consider to be evaluative judgments on his part, he doesn't want to agree to it for reasons as stated in his posts. Whether we agree to those reasons or not is how the discussion has continued. 



> When the other posters are asked to give actual game play examples instead of hypothetical exaggerations we get ....  "crickets chirping".




Actually @_*Imaro, @N'raac *_ and I did answer the hypothetical put forward from @_*Hussar*_. It was a good one for this discussion. 



> They have offered not one actual game play counter example of how the aligment mechanics in their games have improved it.




Now this reflects you haven't read the post where @_*N'raac*_ (who can correct me on this) mentions that alignment doesn't detract from roleplay. That is his stance, whereas the non-alignment side said it does impede their play. So the onus is on the non-alignment crowd to prove otherwise, hence Pemerton's example. 



> What I have seen is petty "rules lawyering" to try to say, "gotcha you hypocrite" to pemerton.  That is what is actually not fair.   The theoretical examples, and the "options" presented by the dissenters show exactly why mechanical alignment is an impediment to our games.  It might not be an impediment to theirs, but it is to us.




The thread's current debate has been how has it been an impediment to you? [insert your example here] 
Can you see, the burden of proof lies with you.



> Pemerton has been very consistent and clear in what he has expressed.  The thread title asks, "do alignments improve the gaming experience?"  Pemerton, and others have said that "No, alignments are an impediment to *THEIR* gaming experience."  Then you have a few posters try to dogpile on him with rules arguments of what a DM CAN and CAN'T do.




This is more misrepresentation by you. As for dog-piling him. Do not worry @Pemetron can take care of himself, he is pretty resilient.



> No, I don't think I'm missing the point.  You made the point very clear in this post.




I respectfully disagree.



> I'm the player, then let me play MY character as I have envisioned him.




As a DM I say go ahead, but your character's vision should not infringe on the vision of the Deity you choose to serve within the setting.



> The player has made a decision - I want him to explore his definition of what justice entails, not my prescripted definition or give him the "godhammer".




Then by what prescription? The definition of justice will be your character's own, why do you need to explore it?  Don't you already know it?



> The fact that different DMs can interpret the exact same action, in that "Batman example", in multiple ways is another reason why as "mechanical rules" alignment is an impediment to my game.




Why will you be having multiple DMs at your table adjudicating you character's actions?



> Rules that are so poorly designed, or so broadly defined as to be meaningless are an impediment to my games.




Rules such as any that require for the DM to use his own judgment or 'brain cells'? Deciding whether the PCs plan will work? The response of an NPC? DM fiat is necessary to run an adventure, create a setting, decide on magic levels - the books provide guidelines. There are no hard and fast rules. So broad rules are quite common in D&D, that doesn't make the whole game bad? This is not a boardgame.



> The fact that 90+ pages, and more to come I imagine, are being used to argue for, and counter-argue against a particular set of rules should be an indication that the rules are not useful.




Alignment is less argued about than the Fighter/Wizard balance. Using your indicators of what is useful and not useful I dare say you appear to be proposing that both those classes be scrapped.


----------



## Sadras

1) You were not very clear. As this




Manbearcat said:


> Now I am no cosmological entity. I'm not equipped with heightened metaphysical perception nor intelligence agents. I'm not equipped with whatever measure of precognition they possess (mystical divinations or whatever the possess to say "weal" or "woe" during divine consultation) to adjudicate the long view at a level far removed from my mere mortal means of extrapolation.





is not the same as this.




> I don't want to pit my take on cosmology versus their take on cosmology. I don't want to compel (a hard compel or through soft operative conditioning - "incline your analysis/perceptions of this moral issue towards my own and behave in this fashion or you will be punished - your choice") a player with cosmology. Make no mistake. I can play deities all the way down to beggars. To the hilt. I have very strong, stern, unrelenting, well-concieved opinions on all things philosophy. I just don't want that to drive play.




2)



> This is also incorrect and doesn't remotely capture the nuance of the point and how it relates to the conversation at hand. But I'm not inclined to spill any more words here.




Perhaps, but you had not replied to my response, so one can but only assume. 

Thanks for the druid example. How do you think alignment would have affected your DMing of it?


----------



## D'karr

billd91 said:


> So, if you don't use alignment, what if the player does something else controversial? Suppose something really illegal in the setting locale or insulting to some power? Do you tell them they're likely going to encounter  difficulties then? And what if they disagree? That's not any different, ultimately, other than in the specifics. PC acts, GM imposes consequences.




Let's put is this way.  I have never in 30+ years of games, and with at least 9 paladin characters in my games, had one of them not play the paladin as an honorable, just and compassionate warrior dedicated to their cause in some way.  What I have never had to do is spend "mental overhead" calculating/tracking every one of their moves, and evaluating it against some esoterical cosmic force.  To "force" them to comply to "my" vision of right or wrong, good or evil, black or white.  They do a pretty good job of evaluating that themselves during play and with no coaxing from me.  "Throat ripping, baby eating paladins" are mostly strawmen used to attempt to justify the need for some rather poorly designed "rules".

Have they insulted some "power"?  Well the current dragonborn paladin is being hunted, along with the rest of the group, for defying the fomorian king.  Some slavelords would also like to get payback on them for thwarting their plans.  Those are all consequences for their actions within the game world.  What they are not are "evaluative judgements", made *solely by me*, to determine whether the paladin destroying a support column that brought down a cave on top of some villains, as well as quite a bit of slaves was an "evil" act worthy of "punishment" by the "god figure".  The player made a decision for his character and acted on it.  The player also brought to the forefront the "guilt his paladin feels" at the loss of innocent life.  He made it a point to recover as many bodies from the wreckage as he could - to give them a proper burial and "allow their safe and peaceful passage to the shadowlands".  His words not mine.  He even tried to make restitution to some of the families of the victims he encountered.  That action would have been impeded in my campaign by the use of 'mechanical alignment'.

With mechanical alignment as stipulated in n'raac's options, if I had deemed the act knowingly evil, then either the player would have needed to (a) change course and not done the act, (b) discussed it with me to reach a satisfactory resolution to me, (c) done the evil act and not be a paladin any longer, or (d) not played "my concept" of a paladin at all.

This is clearly why 'mechanical alignment' is not palatable to me, and others.

For my campaign, dragonborn, along with minotaurs and tieflings are accepted into society "around the edges".  But they are mostly distrusted as they were the main "villains" in the past.  Does that make them automatically "evil"?  Some might argue that it does.  I don't care, as I don't use mechanical alignment.  The player made a conscious decision to play a "distrusted race", and to play an "exemplar" of justice specifically to play against type and explore those complications.  How do I know?  Because the player has said so on multiple occasions.  So does this character have an incentive to go and do something illegal, or controversial?  No.  I have an obligation to keep the "fire under him" and put those "temptations" in his path.  To allow the possibility of what the player wanted to explore.  The player has on more than one occasion put the character into situations where the PC could have done something that would have been expedient.  He didn't do so "because it was not honorable".  Did he have a "godhammer" poised over his head signalling don't do that, that way leads evil?  No, because I don't use mechanical alignment.  The character made the "honorable" decision because the player wants to explore those things from the perspective of an honorable character.  No alignment involvement required.  The player has said he wants to explore "the plight of the dragonborn".  Interestingly enough when he is presented with situations that "explore" that aspect, he acts in the way he has said he wanted to act - against the "villainous" dragonborn stereotype.  Those situations were more interesting because there was not a prescripted solution handed by me, as DM, from "up above".  They were specifically more interesting because the conflict was entirely internal to the PC, as played out by the player - with no "godhammer" involvement from the DM.

These types of threads, not your post in particular billd91, seem to always revolve around "what ifs", and strawman examples.  And they presume at some level that 'mechanical alignment' is needed, or else players will "misbehave".  Since that has not been my experience even when not using 'mechanical alignment', I can't agree.


----------



## Manbearcat

Sadras said:


> 1) You were not very clear. As this
> 
> <snip>
> 
> is not the same as this.
> 
> <snip>




What I wanted the takeaway from the first to be was to capture the extreme margin of error inherent to such an undertaking (versus, say, framing a more mundane conflict around a perilous mountain climb and its potential physical fallout).  Just as when you put a variable of unknown quantity and lack of calibrated, predicted effect into a model, the results will diverge dramatically from model run to model run due to the proliferation of that chaos (even with other phenomenon heavily constrained).  In this case, due to that margin of error, peoples' takes (in this case the GM and PCs, or table to table) are likely to diverge wildly and perhaps not even remain consistent from conflict to conflict.  We've seen that in this thread, we've seen that in the other concurrent Paladin thread, and we see it in every other one.

So again, while I can be as confident as the day is long (and assertive in the same proportion), it doesn't matter when my peers possess the same confidence, the same acumen (and the same assertiveness) and dispute my hypothesis.  Its the deeply unconstrained variable, and our mutual inability to constrain it, affecting the greater system (even if all else is tightly constrained) that is the problem.



Sadras said:


> Thanks for the druid example. How do you think alignment would have affected your DMing of it?




You're welcome.  

That is easy.  If alignment would have forced me (with nebulous, hand-wavey values statements - that are often internally in conflict) to take account of the conflict fallout and enforce my position on the value questions of Civilized Overseer vs Untamed Natural Order, it would have made for an objectively worse game for all parties.  And a more predictable one.  The standard bearer is that the Druid should be a champion of the Untamed Natural Order.  If my takeaway from each conflict was that she was a poor steward and thus the primal spirits should turn on her (and then I made that happen), she wouldn't have been happy (to be sure), and the game would have just produced the same, nuance-neutral, druid tropes of beating back civilization with a stick (pun intended).

As it played out, we actually had a lot of interesting questions answered, in play, about just how malignant an alleged neutral entity (and its industry) can be when it goes unchecked.  The philosophy she began with was very much akin to "any oversight or stewardship by civilzation is likely deleterious to nature's expansion and destructive to the natural order" and evolved to something more akin to what (since Batman is envogue) Raz'al'gul said to Bruce Wayne; "the purging wildfire is inevitable and natural but mostly serves to destroy more than it creates...but the controlled burn, managed by responsible stewards, assures that the natural order doesn't consume itself nor the people who border/inhabit it."  If I felt that nuance was rubbish and a Druid can only take extreme views that encapsulate "only the strong survive" and "the purging wildfire restores natural order", ideas that only value untamed nature, the game would have been worse for it (and our time).  And the problem is, is that view is completely legitimate (and held by all manner of people...and plenty of natural scientists).


----------



## Nagol

Manbearcat said:


> <snip>
> 
> That is easy.  If alignment would have forced me (with nebulous, hand-wavey values statements - that are often internally in conflict) to take account of the conflict fallout and enforce my position on the value questions of Civilized Overseer vs Untamed Natural Order, it would have made for an objectively worse game for all parties.  And a more predictable one.  The standard bearer is that the Druid should be a champion of the Untamed Natural Order.  If my takeaway from each conflict was that she was a poor steward and thus the primal spirits should turn on her (and then I made that happen), she wouldn't have been happy (to be sure), and the game would have just produced the same, nuance-neutral, druid tropes of beating back civilization with a stick (pun intended).
> 
> As it played out, we actually had a lot of interesting questions answered, in play, about just how malignant an alleged neutral entity (and its industry) can be when it goes unchecked.  The philosophy she began with was very much akin to "any oversight or stewardship by civilzation is likely deleterious to nature's expansion and destructive to the natural order" and evolved to something more akin to what (since Batman is envogue) Raz'al'gul said to Bruce Wayne; "the purging wildfire is inevitable and natural but mostly serves to destroy more than it creates...but the controlled burn, managed by responsible stewards, assures that the natural order doesn't consume itself nor the people who border/inhabit it."  If I felt that nuance was rubbish and a Druid can only take extreme views that encapsulate "only the strong survive" and "the purging wildfire restores natural order", ideas that only value untamed nature, the game would have been worse for it (and our time).  And the problem is, is that view is completely legitimate (and held by all manner of people...and plenty of natural scientists).




I disagree mechanical alignment must need constrain in the way you envision.  One area of my D&D campaign has two sets of druids effectively at war over whether to rehabilitate The Sea of Dust (I use the maps from Greyhawk).  

The "green" druids believe it is an abomination caused by the folly of Man and should be nurtured back to fertile land.  Rehabilitation is necessary to atone for the desecration.
The "gray" druids see it as a unique and fragile eco-system with as much right to exist and evolve as any other.  The original folly would only be compounded by attempting to deliberately alter it.  Further, wholesale rehabilitation would erase the testament and warning the Sea provides all those who behold it.

Both groups are composed of druids with all (legal)  druidical alignments.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Because (putting to one side dirty hands situations, which this isn't) no rational person chooses evil? Which you seem to recognise when you say "maintaining an alignment would be a source of theme and conflict for the character." If it makes no difference whether good or evil is chosen, where would the theme and conflict come from?




So all villains in your game are either irrational or misunderstood?  Which one do Demon Lords and Acrh Devils fall into?  You have previously noted, I believe, that the Duergar pay homage to Devils, and that they are Evil.  Does that mean the object of their worship is irrational? Does that not also judge their worship as irrational?



Hussar said:


> Then again, you've both nicely illustrated why you can't have any shades of grey. After all, according to you now the DM is supposed to up front tell you that you are wrong.




The GM bears a responsibility to see those shades of grey. Once we accept there are, in fact, shades of grey, then we recognize that many acts are neither Good nor Evil.    From the SRD:


> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.



So, is leaving Ra’s al Ghul to die (yes, btw, that is the correct spelling…) a Good act? I would say that it is not, in and of itself, a Good act. It reflects none of the above implications.


> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



Well, is it an Evil act, then? I would say no. There was no infliction of harm.  In defending innocent people earlier in the film, Bats did far more hurting of others than he did here, and I can’t imagine classifying defending the innocent as an evil act. So why would I judge this an evil act?
What is left is neutral. And, where there are indeed shades of grey, that is the ruling I would expect from a reasonable GM following the alignment rules.
So what does that say about Batman?


> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.



Seems like Bats falls squarely into that Good description. One single act does not determine alignment.  Mind you, Ra’s was not motivated by fun or profit in his actions, was he?  Perhaps he should not be judged Evil, but his willingness to sacrifice innocent life to achieve his ends clearly prevents Good.  Seems like Neutral – like that Druid who believes that Nature should overcome Civilization.


D'karr said:


> This is the type of "rules lawyering" that I would normally expect from someone that is not familiar with the basic structures of the game. I could see a new DM, unfamiliar with "guidelines not rules", might make a ruling like that. A player that feels slighted or is afraid of the consequences might argue a "rule" like that. Since the player seems satisfied with how the outcome of the encounter went, I don't think @_*pemerton*_ has anything to worry about. If this is really about the game mechanics of the situation I can't find anything in the examples given to lend any weight to the argument.



Yet alignment cannot, it seems, be viewed as a guideline.  The GM must, so some on this thread suggest, classify each act as Good or Evil, and can never permit a Paladin who commits an evil act to regain his status, for this would violate the rules. Why are those rules so hard and fast if we are to apply alignment, but in all other cases they are merely guidelines?
In any case, I will reiterate, no one is saying that @_*pemerton*_’s GMing was bad.  We (those arguing against his interpretation) are stating we find it inconsistent with his prior statements regarding sanctity of player control over PC resources, and that it was not an application of mechanics but a GM fiat. Not an invalid, inappropriate, badwrongfun or bad GMing fiat, but a fiat nonetheless, despite his insistence it falls squarely within the mechanical rules.


D'karr said:


> I don't see what class feature has been removed indefinitely or permanently. Familiars that are damaged usually "go offline". Under normal circumstances they come "back online" after a rest.



The manner in which the familiar was damaged remains, in my view, outside the rules which @_*pemerton*_ has cited to defend the action. The player did not volunteer to sacrifice the familiar in the course of the skill challenge.  Neither did he activate it, making it susceptible to damage in the course of the skill challenge. It acted entirely on its own initiative.  Are there, in fact, rules for the PC’s familiar to act entirely on its own initiative, even to oppose the will of the PC (who, I believe, was required to oppose the familiar’s efforts to direct souls to Vecna?
Did prior play, including the artifact, support this happening? Absolutely.  It still happened by GM fiat, and removed a resource of the character.  @_*pemerton*_ noted some time back that he doesn’t believe he will apply the usual rule that a damaged familiar recovers after a short rest. I believe he has indicated he has not decided how long it will take to recover. That seems to fall squarely within the term “indefinite”.
In any case, @permerton has indicated he dislikes mechanical alignment because it results in player resources being stripped away as a consequence of GM fiat/judgment.  As such, I would expect him to dislike any rule which permits similar results, not to apply them to achieve such results, much less depart from the mechanical rules to fiat such a result.


D'karr said:


> In ratio/degree losing a familiar (minor feature) for a very finite time, or even forever, does not begin to compare to losing your paladinhood (main feature).



Agreed 100%.  I have stated numerous times that the issue I have is that the play example indicates, to me, that the issue is not one of absolutes – that it is a poor rule which allows a player resource to be stripped away based on moral decisions, by GM fiat – but one of degree – including the extent of abilities removed and the duration of their unavailability.  Thank you for stating my case in that regard so eloquently.



D'karr said:


> I'm the player. I have come up with my character concept, which I'm keen on playing. I'm a paladin of justice, I punish wrong doers. I have dedicated my life to honing my senses to the pursuit of justice. I will call my character Murcielago.



Step Zero.  The onus was on the GM, at the outset, to make it clear that, in his game, Mercy is always considered to rank in priority to Justice in the eyes of the powers of Good.  If this is the case, a Paladin of Justice would always be at risk of falling as he metes out Justice, so a Paladin of Justice would not fit in the GM’s setting.  Just as @_*pemerton*_ indicated my hypothetical character who honours the Raven Queen by seeing that people meet their fated end at the appointed time (despite him appearing to be a random homocidal maniac to the real world) would be a poor fit for his game.  It’s no different than telling the proposed Priestess of Beauty that self-mutilation does not fit the deity’s concept of “beauty”.
If the GM does not consider Mercy to always override Justice, then I find it difficult to see how the character’s action would be an Evil Act.  And if it is not an Evil Act, the entire issue goes away. 

Finally, you are playing your character.  You are not, however, playing his deity, nor the Cosmic Wheel which Judges Good or Evil.  You have the choice of taking whatever actions you wish. You do not have the choice of classifying them as “good” or “evil”.
The very fact that we assert it would be inappropriate for the character to lose his Paladinhood over the act in question indicates that we do not consider the act itself to be Evil.


Manbearcat said:


> a mechanical equivalence of "familiar out until next short rest (which is basically immediately post Skill Challenge)" and "Paladin has lost all of his divine powers (the stuff that renders him an actual Paladin) until an atonement quest is fulfilled."




Both remove a character build resource for some period of time, reducing the player’s ability to impact the fiction.  Both occur outside the regular action resolution mechanics (although @_*pemerton*_ continues to assert otherwise).  And I note that he has specifically said the familiar will not be back after the next short rest. This, to me, was a major complaint made against the alignment rules.

That one is much more severe than the other indicates that the question is not whether such rules are all bad, but that whether they are bad depends on the degree of impact on the player’s ability to impact the fiction, and not whether that impact is reduced at all.



Manbearcat said:


> Further, with respect to the passive/active state of Familiars, my sense has always been that "passive" and "active" are merely keywords for rules adjudication in combat. It allows for players to move the Familiars (PC build components) from background color ("look at my cool floating sword!") to an actual moving part in the theater of tactical combat ("my floating sword hammers against their defenses, allowing me to move to a more advantageous position after my attack - Shift 1") while putting it at risk.




At no point in the example provided did the player invoke the familiar in any way as a part within the theater of tactical combat. Nevertheless, it was held to be at risk, and was in fact removed from play for an indefinite period, by the GM alone.  And, again, @_*pemerton*_ has been quite clear that the usual rule that the familiar is OK after a short rest will not be the case in this instance.  Not that there is no time for a short rest, but that a short rest will not recover the familiar.

Thank you, by the way, for an excellent summary of how the discussion has fragmented, and an opportunity to clarify. 



Sadras said:


> For myself I would not view this action as evil. Given the series of events that led up to this - Batman continually asks Raz to consider his actions, to change his view and Raz on every single occasion rejects Batman's pleas.




This, I think, is what makes the example problematic. The real question is not “does this make alignment rules bad” so much as “is this a reasonable application of the alignment rules”.  @_*Hussar*_, are you suggesting YOU would rule the act was evil?  If so, can you set out your reasoning in light of the descriptions of “Evil” provided by whichever rule set you consider it to come from?

In a D&D milieu, the Paladin will be expected to fight and kill foes regularly. Within that milieu, I find it very difficult to consider a refusal to take action to save an endangered foe to be an evil act. If, on the other hand, his creed was honour, and honour said that a foe should be slain only in combat, and a defeated foe was entitled to protection, that would seem a much greater dilemma.  Yet you have indicated you have no difficulty evaluating a concept such as honour.



Sadras said:


> Actually it is within the rules. I did quote it a while back, so yeah its not like we remember everything. 2e DMG page 28
> 
> Unconscious change
> If the DM suspects that the player believes his character is acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change SHOULD NOT surprise the player - not completely anyway.




So, basically, another “the alignment rules are bad” argument turns out to actually be “the alignment rules were not actually followed”.



D'karr said:


> This is a red herring in that the outcome of the discussion will still boil down to (a) that's evil, (b) that's not evil - because I said so. If this thread, and countless others, is an example of how that discussion ends it is not a good example of concise/precise rules. Alignment is arguably one, if not the most, contentious set of "rules" in the game. I find no desire to spend time arguing morality questions at the table, so I don't use mechanical alignment. In this case the "rules" are still an impediment. The "fact" that I can argue against them is not even relevant. BTW, this use of a "discussion" is even not part of some versions of the game. In 1e, for example, the DM tracked alignment secretly for each player. So there was not even the possibility of a discussion.




I think you dismiss reasonable discussion entirely too readily. A reasonable case by the player as to why he does not view the proposed action as “Evil” ought not to be lightly dismissed.  The player’s viewpoint is also relevant. 

And if the disagreement remains, how is that markedly different from us having different views as to how a given spell, feat, class feature or skill should apply in the game.  Ultimately, a ruling will be made, and it will bind my character, as well as the rest of the game world.

The character has free will.  He does not get to dictate whether his actions are good or evil, he only has the free will to choose between them.  That seems very consistent, in my view, to the real world vision of free will held by many religions.



D'karr said:


> I was hoping n'raac was being facetious when he put this one in that list of options. This is the only one that I would put in the category of bad DMing. Still not a bonus to my desires for a game.




Yes and no.  Would you allow my Paladin of the God of Fate and Death, who expresses his devotion by cutting the Thread of Life of those he encounters at the appropriate and fated time?  Is he Good? Does he get to cut down, say, the barmaid because “My Lady, the Raven Queen, spake unto me in a vision, and bade me ensure that yonder lady’s time ended as was Fated.  All Praise the Raven Queen – let us pray.” and I get to dictate that he’s right?  Or is the player’s vision for their character not 100% sacred?

Leavings aside the 4e trappings for a moment, if the God of Death is neutral or evil in a game where Paladins must be Good, can a player still dictate that he will play a Paladin of the God of Death (say, Hades, or Hela), or does the setting preclude such a character?  May I play a Warforged in a game where the race does not exist?  

I think there are constraints on what characters are allowed.



D'karr said:


> Let's put is this way. I have never in 30+ years of games, and with at least 9 paladin characters in my games, had one of them not play the paladin as an honorable, just and compassionate warrior dedicated to their cause in some way.




Given you have never had a Paladin commit an evil act, nor have you had one stray from his chosen alignment, why do you find a penalty for one which does to be so appalling?  It seems like it’s just a hypothetical in your games anyway.


----------



## N'raac

Manbearcat said:


> What I wanted the takeaway from the first to be was to capture the extreme margin of error inherent to such an undertaking (versus, say, framing a more mundane conflict around a perilous mountain climb and its potential physical fallout).




 Do you not have to exercise judgment in setting the DCs required to succeed in the climb? GM’s do seem to differ markedly as to the DC of various tasks, often with the view that it should be “a challenge” to the skilled character conflicting with the view that the character is so skilled as to be difficult or impossible to challenge in his field of expertise.

 To the druid example, this seems less a matter of alignment and more one of allegiances or faith. I doubt the Nature Deity found favour in her actions, and a Druid worshipping the God of Civilization seems a bit off to me, but I don’t see an alignment issue in that regard.

It seems an excellent example of deities of identical alignment having completely different viewpoints, showing that alignment is not a straightjacket.


----------



## pemerton

D'karr said:


> This is the type of "rules lawyering" that I would normally expect from someone that is not familiar with the basic structures of the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't see what class feature has been removed indefinitely or permanently.  Familiars that are damaged _usually_ "go offline".  Under normal circumstances they come "back online" after a rest.  Taking damage during a skill challenge is a pretty normal thing.  Not being able to regain healing surges is a pretty normal thing mechanically.  Changing the pacing of the game by many varied methods is a pretty normal thing to do for experienced DMs.  So mechanically I don't see anything weird in all of this.
> 
> A player raising the stakes by implanting the Eye of Vecna on their character's familiar, which was granted by Levistus to "balance the equation" - awesome roleplay.  Taking out their own eye, in a weird sort of ocular solidarity - beautiful.  Knowingly setting the stakes even higher by "thwarting" Vecna - even more awesome.  Vecna angered by the character's action and taking action through his own Eye - priceless.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Losing a familiar for a few minutes, hours, days was the outcome of the "risk taken" based on the player *knowingly deciding to set himself up* against Vecna's goals (the stake).  The outcome could have been favorable or negative that is what playing a stake does, and it emerges from play.  The other outcome is that Vecna did not get what he wanted.  I might call that a positive in many circumstances.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In ratio/degree losing a familiar (minor feature) for a very finite time, or even forever, does not begin to compare to losing your paladinhood (main feature).  But at the core level, which is really the point, what pemerton has said is that in one instance (his game) the player gets to see the outcome of what the player is interested in seeing (stake => reward/loss).  And more importantly to do this the DM doesn't have to make evaluative judgements of whether the beliefs of that character are right or wrong, good or evil, black or white.



It's reassuring to know that I'm not some crazy guy whose view of his experiences is completely delusional!

The above is 100% what I've been trying to convey for the past many posts.



D'karr said:


> As far as I know pemerton is the only one that has provided actual game play examples from his table.



 [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] also gave some actual play examples. I think he is the only one who has done that on the "pro-alignment" side.



D'karr said:


> With mechanical alignment as stipulated in n'raac's options, if I had deemed the act knowingly evil, then either the player would have needed to (a) change course and not done the act, (b) discussed it with me to reach a satisfactory resolution to me, (c) done the evil act and not be a paladin any longer, or (d) not played "my concept" of a paladin at all.
> 
> This is clearly why 'mechanical alignment' is not palatable to me, and others.



Agreed.



Sadras said:


> N'raac <snip> mentions that alignment doesn't detract from roleplay. That is his stance, whereas the non-alignment side said it does impede their play. So the onus is on the non-alignment crowd to prove otherwise



This is nonsense. I am not trying to prove that mechanical alignment hurts your game. I am explaining how it hurts mine. Hence, [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s view that it is not a problem for him is of no relevance, because N'raac is not me. Furthermore, it's obvious from this and other threads that the sort of game N'raac runs and enjoys bears little resemblance to the sort of game I run and enjoy. So why would what he enjoys be of any relevance to what I enjoy?



Sadras said:


> for characters in the campaign to be their sole arbiters on their morality removes a certain immersion from play at least for me and my group.



No one has argued for this. No one has said that the character is the sole arbiter. They have said that the _player_ gets to judge what it means to live up to the PC's professed values.



Sadras said:


> As a DM I say go ahead, but your character's vision should not infringe on the vision of the Deity you choose to serve within the setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The definition of justice will be your character's own, why do you need to explore it?  Don't you already know it?



And here is where we can see, crystal clear, your statement of an approach to RPGing that is very different from mine, and I think [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION]'s (to whom you were replying).

If a player chooses to serve a god who is the exemplar of a value, then in my game there is no "vision of that deity" separate from the player's conception of the value in question. And what is the player's conception? That will be explored in play. Part of good GMing, for me at least (and I believe als D'karr) is framing situations that put the player's conception to the test.

As to the "don't you already know it?" - not at all!

Here is an illustration, from p 15 of the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner (authored by Luke Crane):

Let's say you have a Belief that states "I will liberate Dro from his burden". You're going to steal Dro's stuff because yo think he's a *******, and you need to eat and pay rent. So you . . . get close to him. Later, you meet him and realise he's got troubles, too. You sympathize. You . . . tease his problems out of him. . . [Y[ou discover that he's a terrible person. One of his burdens is, in fact, that he was the one who had your family killed. . . o you play yor Belief to its final iteration: You will remove his ultimate burden - his cold, dead soul.​

My view is that, if the players already know at the start of play what their PCs' belies require, and how they will utimately answer the demands to which they are called, then what is the point of play?



Sadras said:


> The DM informs the player that perhaps during his scripture readings, or his time at the temple/monastery he learned the tenets on his faith and one of the examples was such an example (do you leave the bad guy to die), maybe it was a question asked by a student there, perhaps as the paladin is about to leave he gets a mental pang, does he ignore it? It can be roleplayed, it can be given as backstory or knowledge or it can be as flat as you have described it above.



This is basically the opposite of how I want to play the game. If the GM is informing the player what is required to live up to his/her desired archetype, what is the player doing? It seems like the player is basically dancing to the GM's script - or else has to abandon his/her desired archetype. For me, that makes for a bad game, and the fact that you and N'raac enjoy it doesn't change that fact about me.



Sadras said:


> Pemerton whether he follows the rules or not <snip> was using DM fiat to judge the PC's actions.



I did not judge the PC's actions. I did not judge the PC to have done the right thing or the wrong thing. What I _did_ do is force the player to choose between the Raven Queen and Vecna. That is an example of "putting the player's conception of values, and of his/her PC, to the test."



Sadras said:


> pemerton used DM fiat to roleplay his deity's actions, and the alignment crowd uses DM fiat to roleplay deity actions when dissatisfied with their servants.



I didn't just _decide_ that Vecna was dissatisfied with his "servant". The player _deliberately set out_ to thwart Vecna, and I adjudicated the consequence of Vecna's wrath.

That bears no resemblance to a player declaring an action believing it to be compliant with his/her PC's code and obligations, and the GM advising him/her otherwise. Which is what you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] are saying makes for good play.



Sadras said:


> they are merely pointing out what we consider to be evaluative judgments on his part



Where is the evaluative judgement? Where have I told the player that he did or did not make the right choice?

I've told him he angered Vecna. But that has no bearing on whether or not he did the right thing, because _he never believed that he was serving Vecna or Vecna's values in making the choice that he did_.



billd91 said:


> Why is it irrational to choose evil? I think elementary game theory dispenses with that assumption pretty quickly.



No.

Game theory is, in one sense, amoral. Or, alternatively, one could say that it posits that the only good for an agent is satisfaction of that agent's preferences. The way that you use game theoretic analysis to model moral choice is to posit that an agent's preferences including upholding moral requirements. Once you include morality in the game theoretic model in that way, an agent who knows that an action is evil will not prefer it and hence won't choose it.

But I also don't think game theory is a very useful model for understanding the paladin class. Game theoretic analysis might make more sense for understanding modernist fantasy, like REH's Conan, but as I've already posted upthread, it is not a coincidence that REH has no paladins and no clerics, only sorcerers, warlocks and the like.



billd91 said:


> So, if you don't use alignment, what if the player does something else controversial? Suppose something really illegal in the setting locale or insulting to some power? Do you tell them they're likely going to encounter  difficulties then? And what if they disagree? That's not any different, ultimately, other than in the specifics. PC acts, GM imposes consequences.



If a PC does a thing that various NPCs disagree with, then consequences might ensue. The difference from mechanical aligment is that _this doesn't invovle the GM telling the player that s/he was wrong in the value s/he imputed to his/her choice._

A corollary of this is that, if the player of a paladin or cleric makes a choice that s/he believes serves the value to which the divinity is devoted, I as GM will not second guess that.

And to relate that to the Vecna example: on that occassion the player did not believe that his PC was serving Vecna and the value of secrecy. He had decided to have his PC thwart Vecna!



billd91 said:


> Clarity. Same reason you'd tell the player about the consequences of other decisions they're making like trying to jump a 30 foot gap without a running start when the GM knows that's certain failure. To avoid misunderstandings.



But this begs the question. The only reason I would have to tell a player I disapprove of one of their choices was if I was going to punish them for it. Once I take away the punishment, there is no need to inform them.

I think it is a premise of a table-top RPG that physical actions will have physical consequences - which is your jump example. But it is not inherent to table-top RPGing that the moral character of actions have GM-mandated consequences, and as I have said at some length I am not interested in that. One reason, though not the main reason, is that it seems somewhat condescending to purport to give my peers authoritative advice on the moral character of their choices.

In other words, this:



Hussar said:


> In alignment I'm telling the player that he is playing his character wrong and I know better.



I agree. To be fair, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has outlined an alternative approach, where I am not telling the player that s/he is wrong but rather advising her on what good and evil mean within this particular fiction. I don't think that is condescending, it's just pushing the game in a direction I'm personally not interested in: of exploring the GM's ideas about possible relationships between various values, rather than actually exploring those values.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So all villains in your game are either irrational or misunderstood?



My game doesn't have "villains". It has characters, including deities, whom the playes choose to have their PCs oppose. Are some of those character's irrational? Probably - I think that is true for Torog. Lolth, also, is probably to some extent a victim of weakness of will, who has then indulged in further self-justifying rationalisations.

But as a general rule these beings  do not believe that they are choosing the wrong thing. They believe they are choosing the right thing. That is, they are not knowingly choosing to do evil.



N'raac said:


> You have previously noted, I believe, that the Duergar pay homage to Devils, and that they are Evil.



No. I have not noted that devils are evil. In case you've forgotten - I don't use mechanical alignment in my game. The duergar worship deviles, but this is (obviously) because they regard Asmodeus as _worthy_ of veneration, because he helped their ancestors in a time of need.



N'raac said:


> if the God of Death is neutral or evil in a game where Paladins must be Good, can a player still dictate that he will play a Paladin of the God of Death (say, Hades, or Hela), or does the setting preclude such a character?



This question makes no sense for a table that doesn't use mechanical alignment.



N'raac said:


> The GM bears a responsibility to see those shades of grey. Once we accept there are, in fact, shades of grey, then we recognize that many acts are neither Good nor Evil.



The point of not using mecanical alignment is to extend the approach to play that you adopt within those "shades of grey" _to the whole game_. I have already made this point upthread, but I do not remember you commenting on it.



N'raac said:


> The character has free will.  He does not get to dictate whether his actions are good or evil, he only has the free will to choose between them.  That seems very consistent, in my view, to the real world vision of free will held by many religions.



Who is disupting this? The question is one of whether the player, or the GM, gets to decide what counts as honouring the PC's aspirations.

*********************



N'raac said:


> So, basically, another “the alignment rules are bad” argument turns out to actually be “the alignment rules were not actually followed”.



Actually, the 2nd ed alignment rules are contradictory. (Which [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] noted upthread, I think).

The PHB says "Only the GM knows for sure." The DMG says "If the DM suspects that the player believes his character is acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change SHOULD NOT surprise the player". How can these both be true? The closest to a resolution is in the coy phrase at the end of the DMG instructionL: " - not completely, anyway." What exactly does that mean? It certainly seems to leave open that the actual moment of enforced alignment change, and hence (for a paladin) class loss, might well come as a surprise to the player.



N'raac said:


> Yet alignment cannot, it seems, be viewed as a guideline.  The GM must, so some on this thread suggest, classify each act as Good or Evil . . .



Actually, the key point that I and others have made is that the GM must _ask_ of each act whether it is good, or evil, or neither. The fact that "neither" is a possible, perhaps typical, answer doesn't change the fact that the question must be asked and answered.



N'raac said:


> . . . and can never permit a Paladin who commits an evil act to retain his status, for this would violate the rules. Why are those rules so hard and fast if we are to apply alignment, but in all other cases they are merely guidelines?



If the paladin doesn't lose his/her status for committing an evil act, then in what way is the game even using mechanical alignment? At this point, what role is alignment actually playing in the game?

*********************



N'raac said:


> permerton has indicated he dislikes mechanical alignment because it results in player resources being stripped away as a consequence of GM fiat/judgment.



Can you please stop attributing o me views that I have not expressed! How many times do I have to ask?



N'raac said:


> we find it inconsistent with his prior statements regarding sanctity of player control over PC resources
> 
> <snip>
> 
> removed a resource of the character
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Both remove a character build resource for some period of time



Did you infer from those statements that I never have the PCs suffer damage? Or have their pockets picked?

The player has not had his/her feat taken away - which would be the relevant build resource. S/he has lost the use of an encounter power, which is a normal mechanical state of affairs in 4e.

You keep saying that it is "a matter of degree". If you think having a PC take damage from being hit is much the same as permanently rewriting the PC's class, or removing a feat from a PC, and differs only in degree, then I think you have a very different conception from me and most other D&D playes as to what it at stake in each of those cases.



N'raac said:


> The manner in which the familiar was damaged remains, in my view, outside the rules which pemerton has cited to defend the action. The player did not volunteer to sacrifice the familiar in the course of the skill challenge.  Neither did he activate it, making it susceptible to damage in the course of the skill challenge. It acted entirely on its own initiative.  Are there, in fact, rules for the PC’s familiar to act entirely on its own initiative, even to oppose the will of the PC (who, I believe, was required to oppose the familiar’s efforts to direct souls to Vecna?



I have mentioined the relevant rules: they refer to the GM exercising a "light touch". The passage quoted makes clear that this is a matter for negotiation between GM and player. I told you what was the case between me and my player, including that in an earlier recent session the familiar had activiated itself, turned invisible and stolen a ring for the PC from an NPC.

Why do you think you have better knowledge than me of what the two of us understand to be the scope of "light touch" here?

I also pointed out that the taking of damage, and the manipulation of recovery rates, is a standard part of the 4e mechanical appratus which a skill challenge can bring into play (you, quite wrongly and with no textual authority, are insisting that all such consequences must be chosen by the players). I even posted an example of a skill challenge which illustrated this (including illustrating that such consequences need not be chosen).

I also pointed to the Eye of Vecna mechanics, which canvass such things as ripping itself from the eyesocket at an inopportune time, or totally destroying its host.

These are the relevant mechanics. Which one(s) do you think I'm disregarding or not applying?



N'raac said:


> the usual rule that the familiar is OK after a short rest will not be the case in this instance.



The usual rule does not apply here. Much like in the skill challenge from a published module that I posted upthread, in which the usual rule for recovering an encounter power does not apply. Which is much like a disease, which can change the rate at which healing surges are recovered. Which is much like a wight, which can cause a healing surge to be lost even though the player has not chosen to expend it.

These sorts of drainings of recoverable resources and/or manipulations of recovery times are part and parcel of 4e play. In saying that they are "house rules" or "GM fiat" or outside the mechanics, you are simply displaying your unfamiliariaty with the basic features of 4e.


----------



## Hussar

Going back to the example of the god of beauty and the shader-kai character, in my game it would work like this;

Player:  I want to play a shader-kai cleric of the god of beauty.  I express that beauty by ritual scarification and piercing.

Me (DM):  Hrm, that's a bit out there.  But, I can see how someone can view this as an expression of beauty.  Ok, show me what you got and lets run with it.

Which, to me, is far, far more interesting than;

Me (DM):  Sorry, the PHB defines Beauty (the stand in for Good) as X.  That's different from what you want.  Try again and make your character conform to my definition of beauty please.

Yeah, no thanks.

And, to be honest, this is generally the problem I've run into with mechanical alignment on both sides of the screen. 

Say you want to play a paladin.  Well, if you stick to "What would Superman do?" then you're not likely going to have any problems at anyone's table.  Pretty much everyone is going to agree with that version of a paladin.  But, I remember reading an interesting Dragon Magazine article years ago titled, "Good doesn't mean boring".  In the article they talked about playing different paladins and different archetypes.  Instead of "What would Superman do?" maybe you use "What would Batman do?" as your guide.  Now you have a paladin that is this terrifying figure that has pretty much nothing to do with the standard "Knight in shining armour" archetype but is a paladin nonetheless.

Someone mentioned Sparhawk from David Edding's novels as an archetype for a paladin and I 100% agree.  But, in the very first scene we meet Sparhawk, he's looking for a stiff piece of wire he can use as a garrotte so he can quietly murder an enemy of the church without alerting anyone.  Hardly something that's going to pass by mechanical alignment.

To me, and just so no one accuses me of speaking too broadly, I am only talking about myself, no one else and not meaning a judgement on anyone else's games (I hope that's clearly stated enough), mechanical alignment forces cookie cutter characters and shallow play where player creativity is squashed under the heel of DM's wanting to preserve their particular views of how the game should be.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Given you have never had a Paladin commit an evil act, nor have you had one stray from his chosen alignment



 [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] doesn't use mechanical alignment, so I doubt that either of those things is true of his (?) game.



N'raac said:


> This, I think, is what makes the example problematic. The real question is not “does this make alignment rules bad” so much as “is this a reasonable application of the alignment rules”.





N'raac said:


> To the druid example, this seems less a matter of alignment and more one of allegiances or faith.



What interesting questions of value _are_ matters of alignment?

Also, what is the difference between alignment and "allegiance or faith", if the content of alignment judgements is exhausted by the opinions of deities adhering to those alignments?



N'raac said:


> Do you not have to exercise judgment in setting the DCs required to succeed in the climb?



You don't have to judge whether or not your players are doing the right thing, no.


----------



## Cadence

Finally had the time to flash back to #847...



			
				me back in #652 (with shortening and edits) said:
			
		

> (1) Players (and creatures and maybe societies) have "descriptive alignment" that's just a short hand summary of how they would generally act.  No mechanical enforcement and should be updated whenever it changes.  As @Pemerton noted, the creature/society part for the GM might be the most useful.
> (2) Gods, outsiders, and divine concepts have a "cosmological alignment" that might be called Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil (or Order, Light, Entropy, and Darkness).  These are pretty big tent and the gods in one of them don't all agree on anything except the extreme cases. They generally match up with the descriptive alignments. Characters getting powers from aligned gods (Paladins, Clerics, what not) have a "cosmological alignment" if their patron has one.  The various alignment spells are based on cosmological alignment.
> (3) Characters keep their cosmic alignment if their deity thinks they should. If they piss of their deity then they lose those powers until they atone.  As the "anti-side" has noted, for any of the players any of us seem to have wanted to play with long-term, it sounds like the players are fully capable of deciding when that should happen (unless they want to turn that decision making over to the GM) .   The alignment restrictions for the other classes are changed to involve cosmic alignments, with Druids being forbidden to have more than one, Barbarians forbidden from being Lawful, and Monks forbidden from being Chaotic




And so...



pemerton said:


> I've now reread your earlier post 652 and my reply 756. If you're confining "Detect X" to "Detect outsider or divine caster who serves Lord of ABC" that's less of an issue for me. I'm personally not sure that I want to play that game - it has the potential to be a little black hat/white hat for my taste, unless the various Lords are handled very deftly both in establishing the setting and in adjudicating it. The reason I say this is that, by framing your lords in that way, you are making it very easy for everyone's thinking to just slip back into stereotypes - whereas a framing that treats alignment as purely a metagame shorthand (ie part 1 of your 3 proposals in 652) doesn't constantly reinforce those stereotypes in the same sort of way.




Getting closer then - I'll take that.  Good point about the stereotypes though.

Since I'm working on some PF things, I'm going to stick to the goal of trying address your concerns in the way that does the least violence to RAW PF.  Hopefully if anything comes of it, it might have insights for other systems. 

In PF every cleric has to choose whether they channel positive energy and spontaneously cast cure spells, or channel negative energy and spontaneously cast harm spells.  By RAW, if at least one of you or your deity is good you get the positive/heal and if at least one of you or your deity is evil you get the negative/harm.  If neither of those is true, you get to pick one or the other.  The aura you get corresponds to your deity.

If I combine PF RAW with the idea of characters getting cosmological alignment from their deity, then it turns into having your deity being on zero, one, or two teams. The divine caster gets the corresponding team aura(s). It follows that you would need to have the correct cosmological alignment to take a Cleric alignment domain, you could cast aligned spells that weren't opposite your cosmological alignment, and would pick the channel type and heal/harm based on that cosmological alignment. 

[Ugly aside: In PF this would conflict with RAW for a paladin that got their powers directly from some gods, since by some Paizo product a LN god can have paladins.  By the above that should give the Paladin an L aura, but not a G one. A worshiper of an LG one should get the L and G, but should only have G by RAW.  I guess the way around that would be to say that paladins get their powers from "goodness" in general, but may choose to serve within the earthly hierarchy of some god :::shrugs:::  ].

So, having a cosmological alignment means you've signed up for that team.  If the only clerics out there were all either on "Team Good" or "Team Evil", then it sure does seem like it would become a stark good vs. stark evil conflict unless the GM went out of their way to play up how the various gods on each side often disagreed.   Is it made any better by there being other gods in the middle whose worshipers can channel positive (negative) energy and who can cast good (evil, lawful, or chaotic) spells even though they aren't on that team?  I'm thinking that to most civilians, the outward signs of good/evil would be things like "can they use heal spells whenever they want" or "do they control undead" and not what aura they're running around with. 

But what if a deity of greed and comfort despised pain and the undead, it seems like their clerics should only get to choose the channel positive energy/heal... Should that put that deity on "Team Good", even though they certainly aren't good in any usual sense?  That is, what if the good-evil part of a deities cosmological alignment was determined by what kind of energy they let/required their followers to use? 

If that's the case, maybe the cosmological alignments, associated domains, and spell types should be Positive, Negative, Order, and Entropy instead of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.  Does that step it far enough away from white-hat/black-hat?   (Are there better names than Positive and Negative?). 



pemerton said:


> [H]ow do we handle a servant of the Lords of Chaos turning out to be a good guy? (Yet still not registering to Detect Good, but only to Detect Chaos?) That's not just a hypothetical for me, either - this issue is in the process of arising in my 4e game, as the drow chaos sorcerer/Demonskin Adept/Emergent Primordial continues to profess his loyalty to Corellon as well as to Chan, Elemental Queen of good air elementals, and his opposition to Lolth.




Does the drow get any divine casting powers from Corellon?  If he does, then I guess by the above he'd have to publicly declare for team positive, instead of just being allied with them. 

I'm wondering about the previous example you mentioned of the evil outsider turning good, or vice-versa.  Was that in 4E?  Do the various planes have environment rules? If so, what planes can a good succubus live on?   That makes me want to start a thread asking what the gods and outsiders do all day... but I need to mull it over more.  I also want to know what outsiders serve the neutral deities.



pemerton said:


> A question, too: if only a limited range of beings have cosmological alignment, how does your proposed reform handle Holy Word and its siblings/cousins? From the purely mechanical point of view, those spells seem to rely on everyone having a relevant label.




The three options that jump to mind for Holy Word would be: affect everyone who wasn't cosmologically good (everyone not on our team), affect everyone who's aligned but not good (everyone on a team, but not on ours), or have it only affect those who are cosmologically evil (only target those on the opposite team).   I'm not sure which of those makes the most sense.  Since I've been thinking of P6 in particular, I didn't have some of the higher level spells up in the front of my brain.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Player:  I want to play a shader-kai cleric of the god of beauty.  I express that beauty by ritual scarification and piercing.
> 
> Me (DM):  Hrm, that's a bit out there.  But, I can see how someone can view this as an expression of beauty.  Ok, show me what you got and lets run with it.




That seems like a good way to do it.

What would you do if it had already been established in game (maybe by a past event, or by the background or actions of another player) that this particular god of beauty was emphatically opposed to things like scarification, piercing, and tattoos that physically altered the body?   

In that case would you be fine with saying no, because it isn't based on your definition, but rather by the definition established through the course of play?


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> That seems like a good way to do it.
> 
> What would you do if it had already been established in game (maybe by a past event, or by the background or actions of another player) that this particular god of beauty was emphatically opposed to things like scarification, piercing, and tattoos that physically altered the body?
> 
> In that case would you be fine with saying no, because it isn't based on your definition, but rather by the definition established through the course of play?




Oh yes. I would agree here. Afaic, the only "canon" a setting has is what's established in play. And as such, I would expect a player who had chosen a particular interpretation would consistently choose that interpretation. Not doing so would be out of character for the PC.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> What would you do if it had already been established in game (maybe by a past event, or by the background or actions of another player) that this particular god of beauty was emphatically opposed to things like scarification, piercing, and tattoos that physically altered the body?
> 
> In that case would you be fine with saying no





Hussar said:


> Oh yes. I would agree here. Afaic, the only "canon" a setting has is what's established in play.



This reminds me of [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s question upthread, about wanting to introduce an undead-animating servant of the Raven Queen.

In that earlier conversation, I had some difficulty explaining to N'raac the difference between backstory - which can be settled in various ways, eg via play or via agreement among the group about some canon text - and values.

If it turns out that a particular god of beauty isn't the god of scarification, then the player who wants to bring in the scarifying beauty-worshipper is going to have to find another way. One way is to successfully pitch a new take on the established background element - I think this is more easily done in play rather than in advance of play, because actually making something make sense in play has both a viscerality and a "heft" at the table: it shows the viability of the idea isn't just speculative but can actually be made to work in the game.

Another is to make a new god the focus. Which might then give rise to some interesting conflicts - who is the "real" god of beauty? From the point of view of each player, as I have said upthread I am not going to second-guess the accuracy of his/her portrayal and expression of his/her god's values. But that doesn't mean that a different character and that character's own god have to accept it.

For me, at least, that's part of what flows from dropping mechanical alignment. There is no need for an authoritative resolution of these value debates to make the game work. Rather, the existence of ongoing debates because there is no authoritative resolution is a sign of the game working.

In my current game, the dwarf fighter/cleric (and that PC's player) bickers continually with the palading of the Raven Queen (and _that_ PC's player), about what justice and honour require, and about whether the Raven Queen comports herself in accordance with those values. When the PCs arrived at the Soul Abattoir, and I was filling in the players on some backstory that their PCs knew, one of the things I mentioned was that, unlike her predecessor Nerull, the Raven Queen regarded Torog's torture of souls as unnecessary. The player of the dwarf, I think in character (at our table it is sometimes hard to be sure - play is pretty fluid in that respect), commented that this was the nicest thing he'd ever heard about the Raven Queen, that she opposes the unnecessary torture of souls!

Of the two PCs, which is right in their conception of what is valuable, and worthy of respect? Is the Raven Queen evil, as the dwarf believes? Is the dwarf (and Moradin, his god) foolishly naive, as the paladin of the Raven Queen believes? It's not part of my job, as GM, to make an adjudication. The players are free to, and expected to, play their PCs in accordance with their conceptions of them, and to see where this takes the game.

I would expect two conflicting servants of gods of beauty to play out the same way. I even think it could be done with two conflicting servants of the same god of beauty - at least in my experience it's surprisingly easy for the GM to mangage the backstory and the scene-framing such that, even if the players push for it, the god never gets backed into a corner which requires declaring one rather than the other to be the truer servant of the relevant value. (Because what's really going on here is that a player, instead of tackling the conflict in the context of the game, is trying to get an easy win by getting the GM's endorsement: so it has the illusion of being in game, and I think would be classified by [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] as ingame, but in my view is really an attempt to escalate to the metagame. And I don't want to go there - let the players either live with their disagreements, or sort them out via play.)


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> The manner in which the familiar was damaged remains, in my view, outside the rules which @_*pemerton*_ has cited to defend the action. The player did not volunteer to sacrifice the familiar in the course of the skill challenge.  Neither did he activate it, making it susceptible to damage in the course of the skill challenge. It acted entirely on its own initiative.  Are there, in fact, rules for the PC’s familiar to act entirely on its own initiative, even to oppose the will of the PC (who, I believe, was required to oppose the familiar’s efforts to direct souls to Vecna?
> 
> Did prior play, including the artifact, support this happening?  Absolutely.  It still happened by GM fiat, and removed a resource of the  character.  @_*pemerton*_  noted some time back that he doesn’t believe he will apply the usual  rule that a damaged familiar recovers after a short rest. I believe he  has indicated he has not decided how long it will take to recover. That  seems to fall squarely within the term “indefinite”.




Let me clarify what I was saying prior as I'm not sure it was clear.  

As with a lot of things 4e, rules keywords (such as "passive" and "active") describe how mechanical elements interact with other mechanical elements.  Beyond those mechanical interactions, the exceptions are there (hence "exception-based design") for GMs to adjudicate.  "Passive" and "active" have a fictional fluff associated with them (eg passive - "shares your space, perched on your shoulder or tucked inside your clothing") and mechanics (eg passive "can't be targeted or damaged by any *effect*").  Both of these keywords are also "Rules Combat" elements.  Their use outside are exceptions.  The Targeting issues falls under the "Legitimate Threats and Line of Effect" rules (which both adjudicate whether attack powers can be aimed at something to deliver an *effect*, and knock-on effects that come with it as a result of the interaction).  Effect in "Rules Combat" states:



> Multiple Sources D&D 4e
> 
> Effect
> The result of a game element’s use. The damage and conditions caused by  an attack power are the power’s effects, for instance. Some powers have  “Effect” entries, which contain some but not necessarily all of the  powers’ effects. In an attack power, the effects of such an entry are  not contingent on a hit or a miss.




The issue here is that, outside of combat, these kinds of keywords aren't defining mechanical interaction.  You aren't working about how AoE's interact with each various party, rules for cover, whether a familiar can trigger a cleave upon death (eg "bag of rats"), and all other manner of things.  It is a freeform system for noncombat resolution whereby the keywords move from strict mechanical guides for interaction of rules elements, to narrative fluff guides for interacting with the fiction.  What I'm saying is that, in an apocalyptic Skill Challenge, a player wouldn't say "my familiar is in passive mode" so that he could save the familiar from an extraterrestrial space rock (such as the KT Boundary Event), or a nuke, or a supervolcano (or any other doomsday event).  There aren't "legitimate targets", "effects", or "damage" (in the combat sense), as they are meant for "Rules Combat", in Skill Challenges.  These are closed scenes that are siloed away for noncombat conflict resolution.  Rules elements that aren't contrived exclusively for combat adjudication (such as Healing Surges, general damage, Dailies, etc) for ease-of-use when dealing with interactions between rules components in combat still apply.

Vecna neither "targeted" a "legitimate target" nor deployed an "effect" in the "Rules Combat" sense those terms are built around.  Vecna's feedback was entirely an exception outside of "Rules Combat" as a complication in a Skill Challenge.  And when using the fluff as a guide for "in-fiction" interactions (as you do in a Skill Challenge), neither "perched on your shoulder" nor "tucked in your pocket" has any physical relevance to impede direct feedback from the implanted artifact (Eye of Vecna) to the host (the familiar).

As such, I don't see how "passive" (as outlined above mechanically and narratively - curled up on your masters shoulder or in their pocket, et al), would have any bearing on whether Vecna can channel feedback (psychic or other) through his eye (that you willingly implanted) because of your meddling with his agenda in the physical world.  This just appears to me to be a sensible physical complication as a result of a failure in a Skill Challenge.  

And again, its almost completely a story-driven complication as the mechanical loss has all but no bearing on play.  The Familiar returns on next Short Rest....which is almost universally immediately after the Skill Challenge.  If there is some urge to qualify this as "GM fiat" (which I don't agree with as my reasoning above), then it is one of the most benign incarnations of GM fiat in this galaxy (or any other known galaxy).



N'raac said:


> Do you not have to exercise judgment in setting the DCs required to succeed in the climb? GM’s do seem to differ markedly as to the DC of various tasks, often with the view that it should be “a challenge” to the skilled character conflicting with the view that the character is so skilled as to be difficult or impossible to challenge in his field of expertise.




On this part, there are three issues as I see them:

1)  If you're playing a world exploration game with objective DCs, the various DC components for establishing any Climb check are provided.  Yes, here the GM has to establish which components apply based on the fictional elements of the obstacle being climbed.  This is trivially easy.  Is it trivially easy to me because I've been an outdoorsman and have climbed aplenty?  I'm not sure that is the case.  Maybe its made certain things easy (such as conceiving a proper, acceptable exploration challenge), but I'm not sure its moved the needle much.

2)  In a closed scene (Skill Challenge), DCs are subjective based on the level of the characters and the standard DCs required to succeed are provided (eg 5 moderate and 1 hard in a Complexity 2).  I'll have to (i) create a genre/level appropriate challenge (and complications) for the PCs and (ii) discern where to apply the Hard DC(s).  This, again, is pretty trivial in practice.  A thousand and one times easier than trying to record actions (and their context and my perception of each element of their cosmological orientation - 1st, 2nd, 3rd order), adjudicate cosmological fallout, and then calibrate the fallout with a (likely disputing) PC.

3)  I need to understand the PCs build choice decisions (the inherent expertise of their archetype) to ensure that I only frame scene openers that respect this (such as opening the scene in the middle of adeptly climbing the face) and never contradict this (such as opening the scene with buffoonery or shenanigans whereby they are mecking a mess of the attempted climb and are in need of rescue or recovery).  This is a player agency issue.  They've spent PC build currency for the archetype.  If I'm going to frame a scene opener around their archetype (thus fast forwarding their interaction and getting right into the conflict), it must respect that.



N'raac said:


> To the druid example, this seems less a matter of alignment and more one of allegiances or faith. I doubt the Nature Deity found favour in her actions, and a Druid worshipping the God of Civilization seems a bit off to me, but I don’t see an alignment issue in that regard.
> 
> It seems an excellent example of deities of identical alignment having completely different viewpoints, showing that alignment is not a straightjacket.




Some more clarification here.  When I was transcribing that anecdote of my table for the purposes of this thread, I wasn't applying strict alignment of D&D to the anecdote.  I was relaying it on the terms of the rules framework of "alignment as prescriptive guide for GM adjudication of character action and resultant metaphysical fallout".  In this case, the anecdote wasn't about neutrality or good or evil.  Further, it wasn't about Erathis or Melora extending or retracting a divine boon to a PC.  Druid's in 4e work off the Primal power source, not the Divine power source.  They are not "nature clerics".  They directly "draw on the spirits of nature that pervade the world."  

As such, if an analogue to pre-4e alignment existed, it would require me to discern the character's actions with respect to these spirits of nature that pervade the world...and if they would continue extending their power, retract their power, or grow angry and attack the druid until she attones/relents from her position of Civilization (as steward or mediator over the destructive inclination of nature) over Raw, Savage Nature.  If I (GM) thought her (player) position and subsequent (character) actions were "rubbish" (as I outlined a possible, certainly not anomalous) take above, then it would be either retraction of power (primal spirits revoking her connection to the natural world) or fierce backlash until she relents and chooses Raw, Savage Nature over Civilization (as steward or mediator).  I think that would have been terrible for play.

Hopefully that is more clear.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> No one has argued for this. No one has said that the character is the sole arbiter. They have said that the _player_ gets to judge what it means to live up to the PC's professed values.




I can’t speak for other posters.  For me,  the issue is not whether the character is the sole arbiter, but whether the player is the sole arbiter.  The two often get used interchangeably.  Returning to my “murder for the Raven Queen” example, I had suggested a character who truly believes he serves the Raven Queen by ensuring Fated deaths take place.  He kills the serving girl because she was Fated to perish in childbirth three months ago, yet somehow cheated fate, and it is his Holy Mission, as dictated by the Raven Queen, to set this right, ending her life as was Fated.

Two possibilities exist:


(a)   The character is delusional, hears voices and murders believing he does so by divine grace;

(b)  The character is correct – after all, the Raven Queen is deity of both Fate and Death, so I don’t find this out of step with the limited sketch of the Raven Queen you cited as the relevant passages from the rules.  

I, as the player, should be allowed to select which is true – I get to decide whether I am playing a Chosen Servant of the Raven Queen (one whose actions are bound to cause a measure of controversy, because he sure looks like he could be a delusional murderer, especially to those not fully comprehending the Mysteries of the Raven Queen, which sadly includes even some who claim to be her devoted followers).  Yet the concept was dismissed immediately when I first raised it as an “inappropriate view” of the Raven Queen.



pemerton said:


> If a player chooses to serve a god who is the exemplar of a value, then in my game there is no "vision of that deity" separate from the player's conception of the value in question. And what is the player's conception? That will be explored in play. Part of good GMing, for me at least (and I believe als D'karr) is framing situations that put the player's conception to the test.




Contrast this to my example above.  Now, this becomes more problematic in your game, which already has a character professing to be a devoted servant of the Raven Queen.  Can we co-exist despite our differences?  Must one or the other be proven wrong?  It seems this would be something, under your approach, which would come out in play, and not by dismissing one interpretation as “he should worship Demogorgon instead” at the outset.



pemerton said:


> I did not judge the PC's actions. I did not judge the PC to have done the right thing or the wrong thing. What I _did_ do is force the player to choose between the Raven Queen and Vecna. That is an example of "putting the player's conception of values, and of his/her PC, to the test."




You certainly judged whether Vecna believed the PC did the right thing.  Why can’t the Raven Queen judge whether her Paladin does the right thing, or Moradin judge whether his cleric did the right thing?  The Raven Queen judged that two of the PC’s did the right thing, and rewarded them.  By extension, she did not reward the Invoker – does that indicate she judged he did not do the right thing often enough to merit a reward?  Seems he is the only one who sacrificed anything in his service, at least this time out.

 Note that “whether he did good” seems irrelevant here.  The RQ is unaligned, I believe, so her judgement has nothing to do with Good or Evil.  Your most recent comments leave me unclear whether you have retained or dismissed the 4e alignment system, which leaves me uncertain whether Good and Evil ever enter into the picture in this regard.



pemerton said:


> I didn't just _decide_ that Vecna was dissatisfied with his "servant". The player _deliberately set out_ to thwart Vecna, and I adjudicated the consequence of Vecna's wrath.




The player also deliberately acted in the RQ’s interests.  Why was her reaction  not adjudicated as having any consequences?



pemerton said:


> Game theory is, in one sense, amoral. Or, alternatively, one could say that it posits that the only good for an agent is satisfaction of that agent's preferences. The way that you use game theoretic analysis to model moral choice is to posit that an agent's preferences including upholding moral requirements. Once you include morality in the game theoretic model in that way, an agent who knows that an action is evil will not prefer it and hence won't choose it.




Why does introducing moral choice into the matter necessarily require that the agent’s preferences include upholding moral requirements?  Having alignment in the game does not require every player to select a Good character, much less a Paladin.  The agent himself may well be amoral (game theory seems to posit this).  If eliminating choices which are Evil, and requiring choices which are Good, places our agent at a disadvantage, this would indicate that it’s not so easy being Good.  You have indicated there are no such advantages/drawbacks in your game.



pemerton said:


> My game doesn't have "villains". It has characters, including deities, whom the playes choose to have their PCs oppose. Are some of those character's irrational? Probably - I think that is true for Torog. Lolth, also, is probably to some extent a victim of weakness of will, who has then indulged in further self-justifying rationalisations.




Fair enough.  However, in my view, removal of villains comes with the removal of “the struggle of Good versus Evil”.  I don’t think Sauron was “a character the Fellowship of the Ring chose to oppose”.  I think he was a Villain with, as shown, a capital V).



pemerton said:


> The point of not using mecanical alignment is to extend the approach to play that you adopt within those "shades of grey" _to the whole game_. I have already made this point upthread, but I do not remember you commenting on it.




If everything is shades of grey, how was my example of a Paladin placed in a nasty situation, who ripped the throat out of a newborn, so clearly an inappropriate character, one which I think every anti-alignment poster has indicated would never happen in their game, or any game with reasonable players?  Clearly, there is a point at which we leave “grey” behind.

To remind, the Paladin in question (who keeps getting presented as a blood soaked, murderous psychopath) was opposing a particularly vile cult, and had decided its infiltration would enable him to find its leadership and destroy it from within.  To that end, he had spent considerable time ingratiating himself to the Cult, and now was faced with the opportunity to advance within its ranks, facilitating his noble and righteous goal of destroying its leadership.  He is then presented with the requirement he demonstrate his devotion by sacrificing a newborn to the Cult’s Dark Master  by tearing its throat out  with his teeth.

So, he concludes, if he refuses, the child dies anyway, and for nothing.  If he does, then all his work to infiltrate the cult is in vain, he will fail in his task of destroying the cult, and many more will share this poor child’s fate.  So he proceeds, promising in his heart that this atrocity shall be avenged, and the child's sacrifice remembered.

And the player looks across the table at the GM, declaring the above, and taking his action, which the player sincerely believes to be necessary to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number.  The needs of the cult’s many future victims regretfully outweigh the need to avoid this immediate atrocity.

If the player is the sole arbiter of his code, I think he must be taken to be roleplaying his Paladin’s devotion to Valour, Honour and Righteousness appropriately.  This is the only way that the _player_ gets to judge what it means to live up to the PC's professed values.



pemerton said:


> Actually, the 2nd ed alignment rules are contradictory. (Which @_*Cadence*_ noted upthread, I think).
> 
> The PHB says "Only the GM knows for sure." The DMG says "If the DM suspects that the player believes his character is acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change SHOULD NOT surprise the player". How can these both be true? The closest to a resolution is in the coy phrase at the end of the DMG instructionL: " - not completely, anyway." What exactly does that mean? It certainly seems to leave open that the actual moment of enforced alignment change, and hence (for a paladin) class loss, might well come as a surprise to the player.




So the player is intended to know that the GM is the final arbiter.  “Only the GM knows for sure”.  And the DMG provides guidance for the GM stating he should warn the player, and the player should not be surprised.   He should at least know he is on the edge – at risk of a change of alignment – even if he does not know this one specific action may tip the balance between LG and LN, say.  To me, this means the player should know if a proposed action is, in fact, evil, as such action would risk, but not necessarily be sufficient to cause, an alignment change from G to N.

Note that the Paladin loses status not only for a change of alignment (where he should be aware that his behaviour has been steadily inconsistent with either Law or Good), but also for a single evil act, knowingly undertaken (which does not mean an alignment change in and of itself).  So the Paladin might not know whether he’s so close to the edge already that this one act might shift him from LG to LN, but would certainly know it is an evil act which would shift him closer to that line, even if not over the line changing his alignment.

1e D&D provided a lot of items in the DMG which were intended as “the rules the players should not know”.  2e reduced that a lot – I think even the to hit and saving throw tables were in the DMG, not the PHB, in 1e.  However, so long as mechanics are included in the DMG, then it is a source of rules intended to fall outside the knowledge of the players.  Given that, I would suggest any inconsistency between the two books would always, and clearly, resolve in favour of the DMG.  Further, I believe it is fairly standard to resolve any differences in favour of the most recent publication, and the PHB was published prior to the DMG (in 3e and up, I believe they were published at the same time, but 1e and 2e released the PHB first, with the DMG following).



pemerton said:


> If the paladin doesn't lose his/her status for committing an evil act, then in what way is the game even using mechanical alignment? At this point, what role is alignment actually playing in the game?




BAD typo on my part – “retain” was intended to be “regain”, which is a marked change in the meaning of the statement.  The rules say a single evil act causes permanent loss of status.  The departure would be permitting later atonement.

However, if I accept your premise that the Paladin not losing status for a single evil act invalidates alignment entirely, that would mean alignment is irrelevant to everything but Paladinhood, which I do not consider to be the case.



pemerton said:


> Did you infer from those statements that I never have the PCs suffer damage? Or have their pockets picked?




I infer from your statements that damage will occur only from the action resolution mechanics within the game, not simply be imposed arbitrarily (eg.” Vecna is angered – you take damage”), and that the pickpocket is subject to all of the same rules applicable to any pickpocket, including the chance to be noticed in the act.  I also infer you would not consider it equitable to have an “unwinnable challenge” (eg. the pickpocket is so good he cannot fail, and the PC could never notice him), but I infer this from your reaction to the Chamberlain against whom the PC’s could not possibly succeed in persuading t grant them an audience with the King.



pemerton said:


> The player has not had his/her feat taken away - which would be the relevant build resource. S/he has lost the use of an encounter power, which is a normal mechanical state of affairs in 4e.




As is its recover after a short rest, where you have imposed an indefinite period of loss (one which you last noted you had not even decided the duration of).



pemerton said:


> You keep saying that it is "a matter of degree". If you think having a PC take damage from being hit is much the same as permanently rewriting the PC's class, or removing a feat from a PC, and differs only in degree, then I think you have a very different conception from me and most other D&D playes as to what it at stake in each of those cases.




He did not take damage.  His familiar was removed from him.  The dame familiar which, presumably, was with him when other events of the skill challenge caused damage to be taken.  Your notes indicated that could sometimes be “everyone takes damage”.  Did no such event occur, or was the familiar somehow completely sheltered from that damage (still able to act later, in accordance with your wishes), only to become vulnerable to damage later (again, in accordance with your wishes)?  Did the player, at any time in the entire scene, get to use his familiar, or was his build resource used exclusively by the GM, prior to being removed from the character for an undetermined period of time.

I stand by my “GM Fiat” assessment, with my statement that “GM Fiat” is not necessarily bad for the game and with my view that we are now discussing only the severity of reductions to a player’s ability to influence the fiction, and the situations where you consider GM fiat to impose such a reduction to be appropriate.



pemerton said:


> I have mentioined the relevant rules: they refer to the GM exercising a "light touch".




Your “light touch” seems quite heavy from where I sit.  At no time in the scene, unless there is an aspect not yet shared, did the player do anything with his familiar.  You ran the familiar through every action it took in the scene, then removed it entirely.  Really, it was removed as the player’s resource during (or even before) the scene, as you made it an adversary, rather than a character resource.  That does not  strike me as a “light touch”.



pemerton said:


> The passage quoted makes clear that this is a matter for negotiation between GM and player.




So what negotiation occurred?  You have been asked, repeatedly, whether the player explicitly relinquished full or partial control of his character resource, and the fact you have never provided a straight answer to this question has been highlighted several times. 



pemerton said:


> I told you what was the case between me and my player, including that in an earlier recent session the familiar had activiated itself, turned invisible and stolen a ring for the PC from an NPC.




So the fact that the player did not complain the first time you co-opted his resource means it’s yours now to do with as you please?  This seems to indicate player acceptance in your game of you playing outside the rules, which is fine.  No one is saying playing outside the rules is bad, or wrong,  or Evil, or non-Good, or Chaotic, or non-Lawful.  We are saying, however, that your insistence you were playing by the book is not accurate.



pemerton said:


> Why do you think you have better knowledge than me of what the two of us understand to be the scope of "light touch" here?




The English language covers it for me.  I do not believe that you have violated the trust of the players.  But I believe that trust extends to you going beyond the rules, and taking far more than a “light touch” on the familiar by unilaterally determining its actions, whether beneficial to, detrimental to or even in outright opposition to its master, the player character.



pemerton said:


> (you, quite wrongly and with no textual authority, are insisting that all such consequences must be chosen by the players).




The rules text you cited referred to the characters taking damage not voluntary) or voluntarily giving up/sacrificing a resource (such as an encounter power or a healing surge).  That is my textual authority.  I am not going to pore over the 4e rulebooks for the sole purpose of this thread.  I am taking you at your word that you have accurately reprinted the relevant rules on which your activity was based, and those rules do not support your assertion that you played in strict accordance with them.

Frankly, I’m not sure why you see any need to justify that your play was in strict accordance with the rules, in the first place.  The discussion of alignment crosses multiple editions most of all of which contan alignment rules you have dispensed with), you regularly cite other games’ rules (Burning Wheel being a common one), and we or at least I) have acknowledged that good gaming and following the RAW are not synonymous.  Given all of that, I am uncertain why you place such importance on us agreeing that the skill challenge in question was designed and adjudicated in precise conformance with the rules.



pemerton said:


> The usual rule does not apply here. Much like in the skill challenge from a published module that I posted upthread, in which the usual rule for recovering an encounter power does not apply. Which is much like a disease, which can change the rate at which healing surges are recovered. Which is much like a wight, which can cause a healing surge to be lost even though the player has not chosen to expend it.




Cite me the rule that describes the activation of a PC’s ability in opposition to the character itself resulting in loss of that ability for an indefinite period.  Remember also that your  arguments against alignment are, or seem to be, arguments that these rules, which allow a PC’s resources to be stripped away, are arguments that those rules are detrimental to the game.  Given that, I hardly see citing rules that allow this being a defense against the perception your interpretations are inconsistent.  They seem to indicate only that you are OK with some rules that remove character resources, or extend the period of their removal , but not with others.  Hence, not an absolute distate for such rules, but opposition to a subset of them that are invoked for specific reasons, and/or whose severity falls within whatever tolerance level you have established.

In other words, *a matter of degree*.  



Hussar said:


> Say you want to play a paladin.  Well, if you stick to "What would Superman do?" then you're not likely going to have any problems at anyone's table.  Pretty much everyone is going to agree with that version of a paladin.  But, I remember reading an interesting Dragon Magazine article years ago titled, "Good doesn't mean boring".  In the article they talked about playing different paladins and different archetypes.  Instead of "What would Superman do?" maybe you use "What would Batman do?" as your guide.  Now you have a paladin that is this terrifying figure that has pretty much nothing to do with the standard "Knight in shining armour" archetype but is a paladin nonetheless.
> 
> Someone mentioned Sparhawk from David Edding's novels as an archetype for a paladin and I 100% agree.  But, in the very first scene we meet Sparhawk, he's looking for a stiff piece of wire he can use as a garrotte so he can quietly murder an enemy of the church without alerting anyone.  Hardly something that's going to pass by mechanical alignment




Why must any of the three be a Paladin?  Can I select any character I wish from the annals of literature to be a Paladin, and you must accept this?  How about Frodo?  Harry Potter?  Plastic Man?  The Hulk?

For that matter, which Batman are we talking about?  The one who walks away and leaves Ra’s Al Ghul to die, the one who has taken tremendous risks to his own life and limb to prevent the death of the Joker, or the Adam West version who never really had to make any life or death choice?
If Sparhawk’s assassination of an enemy of the church is an evil act, then he is not a Paladin.  If he is a Paladin, then his assassination of an enemy of the Church must not be an evil act.  His teammate’s casual decapitation of a guard delaying their meeting with a superior seems to indicate either the characters in question are not unswervingly Good, or that “respect for life” is pretty compromised in this particular game and setting.



Hussar said:


> To me, and just so no one accuses me of speaking too broadly, I am only talking about myself, no one else and not meaning a judgement on anyone else's games (I hope that's clearly stated enough), mechanical alignment forces cookie cutter characters and shallow play where player creativity is squashed under the heel of DM's wanting to preserve their particular views of how the game should be.




And to me, if the result is “cookie cutter characters and shallow play where player creativity is squashed under the heel of DM's”, then this represents poor play and poor GMing, not a flaw of the alignment rules themselves.  A GM who will “squash creative play under his heel” is hardly likely to (mis)use only the alignment rules to do so.

Of course, some players would chafe at @_*pemerton*_’s requirement that their character come with a reason to fight Goblins, resent his rejection of a “murder in the name of the Goddess of Fate and Death” concept, or be infuriated that they cannot play their Lycanthoropic Vampiric Half Demon character with a selection of class dips from multiple third party splatbooks, magazine articles and online blogs in a Classic Greco-Roman Fantasy game.



pemerton said:


> This reminds me of @_*N'raac*_'s question upthread, about wanting to introduce an undead-animating servant of the Raven Queen.
> 
> In that earlier conversation, I had some difficulty explaining to N'raac the difference between backstory - which can be settled in various ways, eg via play or via agreement among the group about some canon text - and values.
> 
> If it turns out that a particular god of beauty isn't the god of scarification, then the player who wants to bring in the scarifying beauty-worshipper is going to have to find another way.




Not to @_*Hussar*_ – we need to let the player bring in his take on it.



pemerton said:


> Another is to make a new god the focus. Which might then give rise to some interesting conflicts - who is the "real" god of beauty? From the point of view of each player, as I have said upthread I am not going to second-guess the accuracy of his/her portrayal and expression of his/her god's values. But that doesn't mean that a different character and that character's own god have to accept it.




So “who is the real god of beauty” is compelling, where “does the god of beauty favour or disfavour scarification” is not?  Seems like we’re back to something different GM’s might perceive very differently (not an issue to you, I think, but a major concern @_*Hussar*_ has expressed regarding alignments).



pemerton said:


> I would expect two conflicting servants of gods of beauty to play out the same way. I even think it could be done with two conflicting servants of the same god of beauty - at least in my experience it's surprisingly easy for the GM to mangage the backstory and the scene-framing such that, even if the players push for it, the god never gets backed into a corner which requires declaring one rather than the other to be the truer servant of the relevant value. (Because what's really going on here is that a player, instead of tackling the conflict in the context of the game, is trying to get an easy win by getting the GM's endorsement




So here, it would be wrong to grant a player request for a scene where they interact directly with their deity?  Because if such a scene is framed, with the question asked, the deity either has to reject scarification as beauty, or accept the possibility it is beauty, so we cannot frame the scene without answering the question.

It seems like scenes that resolve burning questions are not to be framed, even if the players might wish the framing of such a scene.


----------



## N'raac

Manbearcat said:


> As with a lot of things 4e, rules keywords (such as "passive" and "active") describe how mechanical elements interact with other mechanical elements.  Beyond those mechanical interactions, the exceptions are there (hence "exception-based design") for GMs to adjudicate.  "Passive" and "active" have a fictional fluff associated with them (eg passive - "shares your space, perched on your shoulder or tucked inside your clothing") and mechanics (eg passive "can't be targeted or damaged by any *effect*").  Both of these keywords are also "Rules Combat" elements.  Their use outside are exceptions.  The Targeting issues falls under the "Legitimate Threats and Line of Effect" rules (which both adjudicate whether attack powers can be aimed at something to deliver an *effect*, and knock-on effects that come with it as a result of the interaction).  Effect in "Rules Combat" states:
> 
> The issue here is that, outside of combat, these kinds of keywords aren't defining mechanical interaction.  You aren't working about how AoE's interact with each various party, rules for cover, whether a familiar can trigger a cleave upon death (eg "bag of rats"), and all other manner of things.  It is a freeform system for noncombat resolution whereby the keywords move from strict mechanical guides for interaction of rules elements, to narrative fluff guides for interacting with the fiction.  What I'm saying is that, in an apocalyptic Skill Challenge, a player wouldn't say "my familiar is in passive mode" so that he could save the familiar from an extraterrestrial space rock (such as the KT Boundary Event), or a nuke, or a supervolcano (or any other doomsday event).  There aren't "legitimate targets", "effects", or "damage" (in the combat sense), as they are meant for "Rules Combat", in Skill Challenges.  These are closed scenes that are siloed away for noncombat conflict resolution.  Rules elements that aren't contrived exclusively for combat adjudication (such as Healing Surges, general damage, Dailies, etc) for ease-of-use when dealing with interactions between rules components in combat still apply.
> 
> Vecna neither "targeted" a "legitimate target" nor deployed an "effect" in the "Rules Combat" sense those terms are built around.  Vecna's feedback was entirely an exception outside of "Rules Combat" as a complication in a Skill Challenge.  And when using the fluff as a guide for "in-fiction" interactions (as you do in a Skill Challenge), neither "perched on your shoulder" nor "tucked in your pocket" has any physical relevance to impede direct feedback from the implanted artifact (Eye of Vecna) to the host (the familiar).




So, was the familiar in the area to be subjected to damage that affected everyone in the course of the skill challenge (assuming such damage occurred, as it was noted as possible, but never stated whether it happened)?  If so, it should not have been able to activate itself to redirect soul energy.  Or was it outside the area, in which case it should not have taken this damage, but should also not be in the area to manipulate the souls to Vecna?  Or is it Schrodinger's familiar, in the area only to the extent its presence facilitates the GM's desires and otherwise away from the area, much like the PC who is always very close to the chest when it contains treasure he wishes to take, but far away when a trap is triggered?

I agree that this was an exception outside of "Rules Combat", but it has been justified as the familiar taking at least 1 hp damage, rather than being expressed as an exception outside the normal scope of the rules.

Would a typical skill challenge result be "You succeed, with the consequence that one of your encounter powers, which you did not use in the course of the skill challenge, is unavailable and will recover at some undefined future time that I have not yet decided on"?  Would a GM's "light touch" on a PC's familiar typically include the familiar taking actions unrelated to any objective of the PC, or even actively opposing the wishes of the PC to which it belongs?  Because both of those combined make up the scenario we're addressing, which I am told by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was 100% consistent with the action resolution mechanics of 4e, while other posters are indicating it was not.  Given the rules citations, including your explanations above, I lean to the "GM Fiat" interpretation, not the "100% by the rules action resolution" explanation.



Manbearcat said:


> As such, I don't see how "passive" (as outlined above mechanically and narratively - curled up on your masters shoulder or in their pocket, et al), would have any bearing on whether Vecna can channel feedback (psychic or other) through his eye (that you willingly implanted) because of your meddling with his agenda in the physical world.  This just appears to me to be a sensible physical complication *as a result of a failure *in a Skill Challenge.




I thought I asked the question, and was answered that this was not a consequence of a failure, but a complication resulting from success.



Manbearcat said:


> And again, its almost completely a story-driven complication as the mechanical loss has all but no bearing on play.  The Familiar *returns on next Short Rest*....which is almost universally immediately after the Skill Challenge.  If there is some urge to qualify this as "GM fiat" (which I don't agree with as my reasoning above), then it is one of the most benign incarnations of GM fiat in this galaxy (or any other known galaxy).




 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has explicitly stated it will NOT return on the next Short Rest, and in fact that he had not decided how long it would be until the familiar is again available to the character.

Given the two items above, your very cogent rules explanation, which I appreciate in light of my own lack of familiarity with the 4e rules, seems to support the view that the gameplay in question departed considerably from the action resolution mechanics.



Manbearcat said:


> On this part, there are three issues as I see them:
> 
> 1)  If you're playing a world exploration game with objective DCs, the various DC components for establishing any Climb check are provided.  Yes, here the GM has to establish which components apply based on the fictional elements of the obstacle being climbed.  This is trivially easy.  Is it trivially easy to me because I've been an outdoorsman and have climbed aplenty?  I'm not sure that is the case.  Maybe its made certain things easy (such as conceiving a proper, acceptable exploration challenge), but I'm not sure its moved the needle much.
> 
> 2)  In a closed scene (Skill Challenge), DCs are subjective based on the level of the characters and the standard DCs required to succeed are provided (eg 5 moderate and 1 hard in a Complexity 2).  I'll have to (i) create a genre/level appropriate challenge (and complications) for the PCs and (ii) discern where to apply the Hard DC(s).  This, again, is pretty trivial in practice.  A thousand and one times easier than trying to record actions (and their context and my perception of each element of their cosmological orientation - 1st, 2nd, 3rd order), adjudicate cosmological fallout, and then calibrate the fallout with a (likely disputing) PC.
> 
> 3)  I need to understand the PCs build choice decisions (the inherent expertise of their archetype) to ensure that I only frame scene openers that respect this (such as opening the scene in the middle of adeptly climbing the face) and never contradict this (such as opening the scene with buffoonery or shenanigans whereby they are mecking a mess of the attempted climb and are in need of rescue or recovery).  This is a player agency issue.  They've spent PC build currency for the archetype.  If I'm going to frame a scene opener around their archetype (thus fast forwarding their interaction and getting right into the conflict), it must respect that.




2 and 3 seem to work together (although 3 could also link to 1).  1 and 2 seem to run in opposition to one another.  I would suggest, however, that if we are operating under #1, then the player and GM should have a good idea how challenging a climb would be to the character(s) in question.  If Charlie has a +15 Climb roll, it's a pretty extraordinary climb that would give him pause.  If we are operating under #2, and Charlie has a huge climbing bonus, I would suggest that the question becomes "is this an appropriate challenge?"  If Charlie is a great climber, whose skill would place him at the pinnacle of expertise in the world, then a skill challenge asking him to make 5 Moderate and 1 Hard check in order to scale the wall to a small keep, or to climb a tree, seems wrong, and this is not an appropriate challenge to the character, so simply announce that he can now see he forest around the party from his vantage at the top of the tree, or that he has reached the to of the Keep wall and here is what he sees.  [Practically, those are likely my answers in a world exploration if the DC is trivially easy - why doesn't he have to roll to leap through the window, traverse the narrow ledge, leap to a nearby tree and descent its massive trunk?  Because he's effin' Tarzan, that's why!]

If my player envisions his character as Tarzan, and he has invested all of one skill rank in Climbing, Balance and Jumping, it is incumbent on me to have a quick discussion on the inconsistency of his build choices and his vision.  It may also require a discussion of the realistic expectation at his level - Tarzan cannot be constructed as a first level character.



Manbearcat said:


> As such, if an analogue to pre-4e alignment existed, it would require me to discern the character's actions with respect to these spirits of nature that pervade the world...and if they would continue extending their power, retract their power, or grow angry and attack the druid until she attones/relents from her position of Civilization (as steward or mediator over the destructive inclination of nature) over Raw, Savage Nature.  If I (GM) thought her (player) position and subsequent (character) actions were "rubbish" (as I outlined a possible, certainly not anomalous) take above, then it would be either retraction of power (primal spirits revoking her connection to the natural world) or fierce backlash until she relents and chooses Raw, Savage Nature over Civilization (as steward or mediator).  I think that would have been terrible for play.




It seems to me that this simply means the character's ability to tap into the primal power of nature is not contingent on acting in accordance with those primal impulses.  That is, Raw, Savage Nature cannot prevent this character from tapping into its power and using it against Nature itself, because the character knows how to tap that energy.  I could certainly abide by that approach in a game, or by an approach that personifies that Raw, Savage Nature more clearly, and rules that one must be in tune with, not in opposition to, Raw, Savage Nature in order to use its power.  

However, viewed as Divine power, it seems off that, say, a Deity of Honour and Justice is just a power source, and anyone who knows the right hand gestures and ancient phrases can access that power to be used in any way they see fit.

It seems to turn all power sources into a "sameness" that anyone knowing the techniques can tap into that power source, with no oversight on their use of the power.  I believe I've seen a few criticisms of 4e that suggest every character feels the same, no matter the source of their powers.  This would go a long way in explaining that viewpoint to me.


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]  thanks you've summed up most of my thoughts to the last couple of posts by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ... I'd XP you if I could.




Hussar said:


> Oh yes. I would agree here. Afaic, the only "canon" a setting has is what's established in play. And as such, I would expect a player who had chosen a particular interpretation would consistently choose that interpretation. Not doing so would be out of character for the PC.




Wait so the PC's interpretation couldn't validly change over time through play?  Now that seems like a straight jacket.


----------



## Imaro

D'karr said:


> 4e was not even mentioned one time in what I said.  You used a quote that explains rather clearly what @_*pemerton*_ has been saying, and in the same breath you argued that gods in 4e don't even have the capability to strip paladins of their class features.




Yes and they don't per default 4e...



D'karr said:


> This is the same "attitude" I encountered from some players in 3.x.  If it's not clearly written in the rules then it can't happen.  That is an exaggerated and absurd interpretation of the game world.  It is great hyperbole and could denote the lack of a valid argument.




Uhm... no... I'm not inferring something from what *isn't* there, and there is no hyperbole.  I'm talking about what *is* stated in the PHB... that deities cannot strip a paladin or cleric of their divine powers.



D'karr said:


> The passage from the PHB that you quoted is what I'll call "world thematics", what some people call flavor, or fluff.  It serves to stimulate the imagination and give the DM and players a starting point from which to launch their character ideas and game world.  It is in no way exclusive.  It is one of an infinite number of ways that DMs can run the "world thematics" of their game.  It is not the same as "game mechanics" which are a bit more concrete.  Channel divinity is a mechanical class feature. It is a bit more concrete/defined than saying "paladins that stray are punished by the faithful".  Because it is more defined/concrete it has certain limitations.  One is concrete/limited mechanically, the other is mutable/open according to what the DM & players want from their game.  If I say, "all paladins of Syllian wash the feet of the masses on Tuesdays".  It is "world thematics".  I might be making up my own rites for the faith.  For game purposes this is completely mutable/open and the DM and player are encouraged to work this stuff out as they want.  If I say, "Channel Divinity let's me fly up to 60 feet once per round", I'm a little bit more constrained.  The Channel Divinity class feature clearly does not provide that mechanical benefit.




Everything is mutable... if you are arguing house rules/changes/etc. are possible in 4e... I'd say ok, no one is arguing, or has argued that they aren't.  But if we are talking about the default deities as defined in 4e... we are talking about how they are defined in the books.  You might have a case if the books were unclear or didn't specifically call out that they can in fact not take this power from their followers, but the book goes out of its way to make a point of this in the class descriptions.



D'karr said:


> Using that passage of "world thematics" to argue that a "god" in 4e cannot even "punish" a paladin that strays is hyperbole and what I'd call "ridiculous rules-lawyering".




I didn't say the deity couldn't punish a paladin that strays (please don't put words in my mouth and if you are unclear about exactly what I am saying all you have to do is ask.)... I said a 4e deity does not have the power to remove his powers... this is true... unless of course you are speaking of changing or house ruling default 4e.



D'karr said:


> In this thread what I have seen is a DM providing pretty clear examples of story and mechanics used within the course of a game.  The mechanics sometimes have consequences, like damage.  Then I'm seeing some vociferously attack him with the "rules".  "The artifact rules don't say that, you can't do that".  If that particular argument wasn't so petty, and ridiculous it might have been amusing.




You've totally missed the point of the discussion then... perhaps go re-read the thread for a more clear understanding of what is being discussed.


----------



## Cadence

N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that a particular god of beauty isn't the god of scarification, then the player who wants to bring in the scarifying beauty-worshipper is going to have to find another way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to @_*Hussar*_ – we need to let the player bring in his take on it.
Click to expand...



I think @_*pemerton*_ 's quote was following posts #991 and #992. In #991, I asked @_*Hussar*_ what happens if previous in-game play defined that particular god of beauty as emphatically disliking scarification. In #992 @_*Hussar*_ seems to say that a character doesn't get to rewrite previous play (things that have been introduced into canon) - so it could very well be a no, the player does not get to bring in their take on it.

I'm guessing that if the background material for the campaign said the god of beauty didn't like it, but that dislike hadn't been brought up in actual play yet and wasn't something the game hinged on*, then they would both change that part of the campaign background to fit the player's conception. They wouldn't just use their personal value judgement (in this case, say they thought body modification was innately grotesque) and GM's prerogative to just over-rule the player's idea**. 

I tend to go overboard developing pantheons and some in-game cultural norms, so I would probably be a harder sell. But if it was something I didn't think was essential and they really seemed to love the concept, then I would probably rewrite some of my notes to accommodate their idea. As a player, I've certainly asked DMs for minor campaign background tweaks when I thought it helped my character concept a lot. I think they've usually been fine with it -- and if not then I just rework my character idea.

* For hinged on, I'm thinking something like: the players were told the defining conflict is that one of the northern country's main gods is a god of beauty who hates body modification and the southern country's barbarians are into ritual scarring.

** In this case I think its clear that there are sizable groups of people in real life who don't find a clash between body modification and beauty. In that case the player isn't completely out in left field in wanting to incorporate this. The impression I got earlier was that at some point the player's request could be so ludicrous (the god of mercy thinks <insert horrible crime against children> is good) that the rest of the playing group would simply not want that player to come back any more because they aren't the kind of human being they want to associate with. I think some previous posts have noted that's a real-life social interaction sort of thing and not an RPG rule or GMing thing.




Imaro said:


> Wait so the PC's interpretation couldn't validly change over time through play? Now that seems like a straight jacket.




I think the idea was that some player had entered the deities view into the game as a matter of fact, not just entered the character's opinion of the deities views. For example, the difference between saying "I react badly to the Barbarian's scarred face because one of my deities fundamental commandments is to avoid body modification and that is part of my paladin's code" or "one time my barbarian just escaped execution once because the beauty lovers have body modification as a capital offense" versus "I react badly to the Barbarian's scarred face because my interpretation of the churches teaching is that body modification is to be avoided." 

Is a player setting down something definitive about their character's religion any more of an external straight jacket than their having established the height, parentage, city of origin, or criminal record for their character in game?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Just wanted the 1000th post!

(Can't believe this thread has gone on for 100 pages. Some folks like alignment, some don't. If you don't understand why by now, you're not gonna!)


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So, was the familiar in the area to be subjected to damage that affected everyone in the course of the skill challenge (assuming such damage occurred, as it was noted as possible, but never stated whether it happened)?  If so, it should not have been able to activate itself to redirect soul energy.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I agree that this was an exception outside of "Rules Combat", but it has been justified as the familiar taking at least 1 hp damage, rather than being expressed as an exception outside the normal scope of the rules.



The reason I have expressed it as "the familiar taking at least 1 hp of damage" was because you and Imaro were arguing that it was not possible under the rules.

At the table I didn't express it that way because there was no need to. It was enough to tell the player that his familar was out-of-action.



N'raac said:


> this was not a consequence of a failure, but a complication resulting from success.



The player made a check to hold back the welling soul energy while his friends escaped from the collapsing Soul Abattoir. The player, at my invitation, then made a further check whereby he noticed what his familiar was doing - sending the souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen.

I then asked him if wanted to redirect them to the Raven Queen, and he said yes. I then indicated, as a consequence, the collapse of his familiar.

The collapse of the familiar was not a complication on a success. It was a "yes, but . . ." scenario: the player did not have to make a check to redirect the souls to the Raven Queen, but choosing to do so had a consequence (ie angering Vecna).



N'raac said:


> Would a typical skill challenge result be "You succeed, with the consequence that one of your encounter powers, which you did not use in the course of the skill challenge, is unavailable and will recover at some undefined future time that I have not yet decided on"?



Potentially, yes.

You are obsessing over the illegitimacy of a mechanical outcome for a rules mechanic you are, by your own admission, unfamiliar with for a game that you are, by your own admission, largely ignorant of.

One way in which your unfamiliarity manifests is this: you have ignored my earlier remarks that the player could have pushed for another check. But didn't. Why not? Perhaps because he didn't want to jeopardise his success in having the Raven Queen get the souls (another check might fail). Perhaps because he wanted to get the benefit of the dwarven fighter covering his escape. (Without that benefit, he would have failed his own check and hence his PC, already with less than full hp and only one healing surge left, would have taken more damage.)



N'raac said:


> Would a GM's "light touch" on a PC's familiar typically include the familiar taking actions unrelated to any objective of the PC, or even actively opposing the wishes of the PC to which it belongs?



How is that even relevant? How is what another GM, with another player, relevant to the understanding reached between me an my player?

I have already stated, upthread, that I have other players in my group with whom I would handle things differently, because they have different preferences.

Related to the issue of "light touch" is further dimension to this episode that you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] have ignored, but that is a significant factor in the play at my table, and that feeds into my adjudication. That is the dimension of spotlight time. One consequence of choosing to implant the Eye of Vecna into one's familiar is increased spotlight time at the table. One consequence of having that familiar than try and secretly do Vecna's bidding is spotlight time. One consequence of having Vecna inflict punihsment by shutting down the familiar is spotlight time: time at the table will be spent trying to reactivate the familiar, and/or worry about what to do about Vecna, etc. At least as my RPG play goes, spotlight time is not a punishment.

In short, the player went looking for spotlight time, and he got it. And will almost certainly get more of it.



N'raac said:


> pemerton has explicitly stated it will NOT return on the next Short Rest, and in fact that he had not decided how long it would be until the familiar is again available to the character.



I have also quoted you the text of a WotC 4e module that has, as a consequence of a skill challenge, encounter powers being unavailable until the end of the adventure. Are you saying that WotC broke its own rules?

I am one of many GMs who puts constraint on extended rests while adventuring (eg no extended rest without success in a skill challenge; or, in the Underdark, no extended rest just be camping out in a cavern). You are the first poster I've seen argue that this is somehow breaking the rules.

I have mentioned disease multiple times, which can result in healing surges not being recovered at the usual rate.

As I have mentioned multiple times already, these sorts of manipulations of recovery rates of resources are core to the 4e consequence mechanics.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> So “who is the real god of beauty” is compelling, where “does the god of beauty favour or disfavour scarification” is not?  Seems like we’re back to something different GM’s might perceive very differently



And? How is this different from anything I've been saying for 1000-odd posts?

"Who is the real god of beauty?" is a question of value ie both _purport_ to exemplify beauty, but at least one may have misunderstood what beauty requires.

"Does the god of beauty favour or disfavour scarification" is about exploring the backtory - in this case, probably GM-authored backstory. I know [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] likes that sort of thing. I hope I've made it clear that I don't. That's one reason why I don't use mechanical alignment in the way that Bedrockgames does.

The fact that other people find exploration compelling doesn't mean that I have to. And I don't. Hence mechanical alignment is an impediment to my play experience. (For this as well as other reasons.)



N'raac said:


> So here, it would be wrong to grant a player request for a scene where they interact directly with their deity?



What did I say? I said "I even think it could be done with two conflicting servants of the same god of beauty - at least in my experience it's surprisingly easy for the GM to mangage the backstory and the scene-framing such that, even if the players push for it, the god never gets backed into a corner which requires declaring one rather than the other to be the truer servant of the relevant value."

You push so quickly towards absolutes - "It would be wrong", or "It would be against the rules" - as if there is no room for subtlety, or for deft judgement having regard to all the considerations actually relevant to what is happening at the table. As if there are algorithms for sound GMing.

To repeat what _I_ said: in circumstances where two players, via their PCs, are competing over the meaning of a particular value, and as part of that over the truth about a common deity, I would be reluctant as GM to be drawn into adjudication of that disupte. That is an attempt by a player to get an easy out, via metagaming, rather than to actually have to push for a resolution in play. That can mean not framing scenes, yes: if the PC turns up at his/her god's house, the god can be out for the morning. Or not receiving visitors. Or any other of a dozen pretty well-known GM devices.

I now look forward to learning why I did the wrong thing in framing a scene in which the dead paladin of the Raven Queen got to discuss with his mistress his own doubts about the adequacy of his resolution! Because if such a scene is framed, with the question asked, the deity either has to reject scarification as beauty, or accept the possibility it is beauty, so we cannot frame the scene without answering the question.



N'raac said:


> It seems like scenes that resolve burning questions are not to be framed, even if the players might wish the framing of such a scene.



Well, if the player say "We can't bear to play out the campaign, just tell us what happens at the end of it", I suppose we could cut to that. It would "resolve" a burning question, for one meaning of "resolve". Seems to somewhat negate the point of play, though.

If both players of the beauty-worshippers can't handle, anymore, the conflict between them, yet neither is able to yield to the other for some reason, would I as GM put them out of their misery by having the god turn up and set them straight? Very hard to answer in the abstract, but my first inclination is that it sounds a bit weak.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> The reason I have expressed it as "the familiar taking at least 1 hp of damage" was because you and Imaro were arguing that it was not possible under the rules.
> 
> At the table I didn't express it that way because there was no need to. It was enough to tell the player that his familar was out-of-action.




So, basically, it could happen under the action resolution mechanics, so it is OK for the GM to impose it outside the action resolution mechanics.  



pemerton said:


> The player made a check to hold back the welling soul energy while his friends escaped from the collapsing Soul Abattoir. The player, at my invitation, then made a further check whereby he noticed what his familiar was doing - sending the souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen.
> 
> I then asked him if wanted to redirect them to the Raven Queen, and he said yes. I then indicated, as a consequence, the collapse of his familiar.




So how, in the fiction, did the player redirect the souls?  I could see something as simple as "stop that", but it does not explain why the familiar self-activated and started the action in the first place.  He took action which he knew, or should have known, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities and, based on your comments about spotlight time, will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all.  Sounds like:

The Invoker took action which he knew, or should have known, Vecna, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities, being his familiar and the abilities of the Eye, and will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all. 

or

The Paladin (or Cleric) took action which he knew, or should have known, his patron, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities, being Paladin or Clerical) abilities, and will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all. 

Well, I can't imagine how I ever thought the two were even remotely similar now that it's spelled out so very clearly.



pemerton said:


> You are obsessing over the illegitimacy of a mechanical outcome for a rules mechanic you are, by your own admission, unfamiliar with for a game that you are, by your own admission, largely ignorant of.




Worse, I an obsessing over it despite the fact that whether it was in accordance with the rules or not is tangential, at best, to the discussion.  Which begs the question of why you are obsessed with persuading those reading the thread that your actions were perfectly in accordance with the rules.  I would  not be arguing the point at all, except that a lot of others professing knowledge of the rules, and even my read of your quotes from those rules, contradict your claims.

It seems different people interpret these rules differently.  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], does that make them bad rules?  It seems the skill challenge rules are pretty central to 4e, so that's a problem if they are bad rules, isn't it?



pemerton said:


> How is that even relevant? How is what another GM, with another player, relevant to the understanding reached between me an my player?




Your challenge to relevancy might ring truer if it were not in reply to my response to a different poster's comments on the rules.  Your statement that the rules would work differently for a different player seems inconsistent with your claims you are precisely following the written rules, by the way.



pemerton said:


> Related to the issue of "light touch" is further dimension to this episode that you and @_*Imaro*_ have ignored, but that is a significant factor in the play at my table, and that feeds into my adjudication. That is the dimension of spotlight time. One consequence of choosing to implant the Eye of Vecna into one's familiar is increased spotlight time at the table. One consequence of having that familiar than try and secretly do Vecna's bidding is spotlight time. One consequence of having Vecna inflict punihsment by shutting down the familiar is spotlight time: time at the table will be spent trying to reactivate the familiar, and/or worry about what to do about Vecna, etc. At least as my RPG play goes, spotlight time is not a punishment.




The fact that the player may get spotlight time which he desires, and may be perfectly happy with you running his character resource, does not in any way change the fact that you ARE running his character resource, and have now denied him access to it, nor does it change whether the method utilized is, or is not, in accordance with the rules.  Specifically, in no way does it indicate co-opting his familiar is indicative of a "light touch".



pemerton said:


> I have also quoted you the text of a WotC 4e module that has, as a consequence of a skill challenge, encounter powers being unavailable until the end of the adventure. Are you saying that WotC broke its own rules?




Sure.  It would not be the first time.  And, as I have said several times already, breaking the rules is not automatically bad gaming.  I'm curious, however, whether WoTC's module imposed this lengthy loss of a power because the GM activated it outside the player's control, and the player succeeded on a check.  I suspect there are at least as many differences between their approach as there are between the Invoker and Alignment-based losses of abilities.



pemerton said:


> I am one of many GMs who puts constraint on extended rests while adventuring (eg no extended rest without success in a skill challenge; or, in the Underdark, no extended rest just be camping out in a cavern). You are the first poster I've seen argue that this is somehow breaking the rules.




This is the first reference to a rest other than a "short rest" that I have seen, yet I am somehow arguing about it.  I suppose you must have activated my Argue a Rule thread power.  Will you be imposing an extended recharge requirement on that as well?



pemerton said:


> I have mentioned disease multiple times, which can result in healing surges not being recovered at the usual rate.




Basically, another rule you accept which removes character abilities.  Am I wrong in believing the player receives a roll to avoid or mitigate the effects of the disease, and that its duration is governed by rules other than "the GM will decide when, how and if it recovers"?



pemerton said:


> As I have mentioned multiple times already, these sorts of manipulations of recovery rates of resources are core to the 4e consequence mechanics.




And loss of powers over alignment issues are core to most editions' rules related to Paladins.  Does that mean they are good rules?  Does it mean removing a power of the Paladin because he takes a Chaotic action is within the rules, since he would have lost all of them for taking an Evil action?  You dismissed the "undead level loss" analogy pretty quickly, yet we should accept 4e Undead mechanics as proof positive your removal of the familiar is in accordance with the rules?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]  thanks you've summed up most of my thoughts to the last couple of posts by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ... I'd XP you if I could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so the PC's interpretation couldn't validly change over time through play?  Now that seems like a straight jacket.




If the PC's interpretation validly changed through play, that would be consistent, no?  

But a very nice mischaracterization attempt. Good try.


----------



## Hussar

> It seems different people interpret these rules differently.  <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, does that make them bad rules?  It seems the skill challenge rules are pretty central to 4e, so that's a problem if they are bad rules, isn't it?




Wow. You just really don't get it. I have repeatedly stated that I have zero problems with differing interpretations. None whatsoever. 

My beef is when you get opposite and mutually eclusive interpretations that are both equally supported by the vague and poorly written mechanics. 

What I see here is someone using the skill challenge mechanics with a pretty thorough understanding of how they work and two people with a very tenuous grasp based on very little actual play experience making nit pickey rules lawyerly criticisms that have already been answered multiple times by multiple people.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But a very nice mischaracterization attempt. Good try.




Wasn't trying to do this at all, I apologize if it came off that way.




Hussar said:


> If the PC's interpretation validly changed through play, that would be consistent, no?




I'm curious... how do you determine if they change their interpretation "validly"?


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> Yes and they don't per default 4e...




So what?  How is this important, or even relevant?  In a game without mechanical alignment it is unnecessary.



> Uhm... no... I'm not inferring something from what *isn't* there, and there is no hyperbole.  I'm talking about what *is* stated in the PHB... that deities cannot strip a paladin or cleric of their divine powers.




Even if I was to take the strictest reading of what you quoted, which I don't.  It is still "world thematics", there are no mechanical ramifications because the game does not provide for stripping *any* character of their class features. Do barbarians that are no longer chaotic become non-barbarians?  Do druids that are no longer neutral become non-druids?  Do monks that are non-lawful become non-monks?  In all instances the answer is no.  The game does not bother itself with tracking alignment.  And if the god wanted to punish a character it can.  If that is wanted it is up to the DM and player to decide how they want to do it.  "House rule" it if they want.  Removing his mechanical class features is not a thing the game bothers with, and for good reason.

In a game without mechanical alignment this is a non-issue.  Therefore, since pemerton is not using mechanical alignment in his game this is a non-issue.



> Everything is mutable... if you are arguing house rules/changes/etc. are possible in 4e... I'd say ok, no one is arguing, or has argued that they aren't.  But if we are talking about the default deities as defined in 4e... we are talking about how they are defined in the books.  You might have a case if the books were unclear or didn't specifically call out that they can in fact not take this power from their followers, but the book goes out of its way to make a point of this in the class descriptions.




Once again, so what?  How is this even important or relevant?

This is the "rules lawyering" I've been speaking of.  This "rules absolutism" with regards to "world thematics" would be comical, if it wasn't so tiresome.   What default deities?  The deities are all "world thematics".  You will notice in the PHB that the deities appear on the chapter for "Character Creation" specifically under the section called out "Roleplaying".  Languages and Alignment appear in the same section.  Are the languages exclusive, meaning no other language can exist but the ones outlined there?  Are the directions of the "gods" exclusive, meaning no other 'strictures' can be added to what they direct their followers to do?

A DM can use the gods right out of the book as described, change their names and still use them out of the book as described, not use them at all, or change everything about them.  There are certain things that clearly fall under the umbrella of the DM to do with as he pleases.  The two that have been argued about, deities and artifacts, are the most classic examples of "always under DM jurisdiction".  If a player of mine brought up such a ridiculous claim as "it says in the book Pelor can't do X", or the even more egregious "it doesn't say in the book that Pelor can X", I'd actually laugh.  

This same "rules absolutism" regarding "world thematics" is what you are displaying when you read the entry for the paladin.  In the paladin class writeup, almost the entirety of the section labeled Paladins and Deities is "world thematics".  What "mechanical" things exist in that section?  If you mention "the paladin must choose the same alignment as his deity" as one, that might be the ONLY thing that *might resemble* a mechanical thing.  But since alignment in 4e is really not mechanical that option is mostly questionable as regards mechanics.  In that section it also says, "Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are *almost always* villains, not player characters".  Does that mean that a player cannot choose Evil or Chaotic Evil for his paladin?  No.  It is "world thematics".  The DM and Player decide that.  The base recommendation for the game is that the characters are "heroes", not "villains".  That does not mean that these things are written in stone.  That is like reading the "world thematics" of "paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity" and making it an absolute.  Can the rites performed be "indirectly" powered by their deity, their ethos, their church, the taxi-maid in the sky, or even an exarch of the deity?  It is all "world thematics".  You are getting wrapped around the axle with them and whether they are house-rules or not.  In any case, it is unimportant to the discussion as pemerton doesn't use mechanical alignment so stripping a paladin of his class features because of a stray alignment is not something I'd expect to see in his game.



> I didn't say the deity couldn't punish a paladin that strays (please don't put words in my mouth and if you are unclear about exactly what I am saying all you have to do is ask.)... I said a 4e deity does not have the power to remove his powers... this is true... unless of course you are speaking of changing or house ruling default 4e.




So are you saying that a deity *can punish* a paladin that strays?

If a god can punish a paladin that strays, but the game doesn't concern itself with stripping *ANY* class of their class features.  Then it follows that the game is not interested in providing mechanical punishment by removing class features.  However, the form of punishment can be anything the DM decides it to be - excommunication from the church, being hunted by the faithful, being scorned by the populace, distrust from the masses.  The list can be infinite.  Which IMO is better than "the paladin strays, he loses his class features".

In a game that doesn't use mechanical alignment that is not even a relevant or important issue.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], myself and obviously others don't seem to have an issue at all with that.  Hint - maybe because our games DON'T use mechanical alignment at all.

You are right, 4e doesn't bother itself with removing class features (mechanical build options) for interpreted "cosmological infractions" (roleplay situations).  It leaves mechanical situations to be handled by mechanical means, and roleplay situations to be handled by roleplay means.  And it provides a very robust mechanical framework to deal with either if the DM chooses.  Skill challenges is only one of the pieces of that mechanical framework that can serve as a way to use mechanical means during roleplay situations.  If a DM wants to strip class features (mechanical build options) from a paladin because of perceived straying (roleplay situations) the game provides no "explicit" mechanical means to do so.  It also provides no mechanical means for determining what the King of Stalnosmad had for breakfast, or if his lineage is strong, or if he is a fervent follower of Melora.  It doesn't care to do so.  It is an irrelevant thing because the game doesn't bother to create a nailed down mechanical alignment system.  So it doesn't provide "explicit" mechanical means to "punish" alignment "infractions".  And IMO, it is better served by it.

But don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the DM can't strip a paladin of his class features if that is what the DM and player want to do.  The game simply doesn't provide that as a mechanical solution.  The same way the game does not provide a mechanical solution to determine what the weather is in the character's country of origin.  Neither are necessary mechanics for the game.  Why? Because it is preferable that roleplay events are handled within roleplay.  However, the game does provide significant support for multiclassing, hybridizing, retraining, and even just simply picking another class.  So the DM still has a robust mechanical arsenal at his disposal if that is what he wants to do.

Gone are the days of detect evil, or detect alignment being the go to 'mechanic' to "derail" things.  Now a player has to actually determine, and construct a relevant opinion for his character of whether a creature is actually "evil".  They can't just cast a spell and then go to town "rooting out evil".  

In one of the games I played recently, the DM had a succubus as an ally to the party, and she traveled with us for quite a while.  The paladin PC was constantly making remarks about it.  But the succubus never betrayed us and always acted in, what appeared to the characters to be, good faith towards them.  So the succubus stayed with us for several parts of a long adventure cycle.  The roleplay interaction between the paladin, the avenger, the succubus, and other characters, some of them defending the succubus, was quite fun.  This type of play would have been impeded by mechanical alignment.  Under some games that use mechanical alignment a "detect evil", or "detect alignment" would have given us "definite proof" of the succubus' alignment.  Depending on the DM, in some of those games the paladin would have been "forced" to make a decision as to the fate of the succubus with the party.  That would have been a "poorer" game play experience that what we had at our table.  This is another reason I don't use mechanical alignment.

On the subject of removing class features, when I ran the adventure "In the Dungeons of the Slavelords", I made certain modifications to the rules to "emulate" all the classes having some limitations during the trek through the dungeons.  It worked great and it was a nice change of pace.  All the mechanics are there if a DM really wants to get enterprising.



> You've totally missed the point of the discussion then... perhaps go re-read the thread for a more clear understanding of what is being discussed.




No thanks, I have read quite enough of it already.  I have a very clear picture of what is being discussed.  Arguing about alignment mechanics and the "rules" for it, for a game that is not using mechanical alignment is rather ridiculous.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Wasn't trying to do this at all, I apologize if it came off that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious... how do you determine if they change their interpretation "validly"?




Well validly is your idea but I'll bite. 

My primary criteria would be the player. Can the player justify these changes?  If so then it's good enough for me. 

Again, I refuse to police my players anymore.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] -I had a similar experience to your succubus example in an earlier 4e game. 

We were holed up in an abandoned fort escorting refugees. There was a large force descending on us. We learned that there was a spy amongst us and then had to root out the spy Ina skill challenge. 

It really hit home what removing mechanical alignment meant. Detect evil doesn't work nor do you have a number of plot screwing spells like detect lie and mind reading. 

Very interesting scenario that would not have worked under mechanical alignment.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Game theory is, in one sense, amoral. Or, alternatively, one could say that it posits that the only good for an agent is satisfaction of that agent's preferences. The way that you use game theoretic analysis to model moral choice is to posit that an agent's preferences including upholding moral requirements. Once you include morality in the game theoretic model in that way, an agent who knows that an action is evil will not prefer it and hence won't choose it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does introducing moral choice into the matter necessarily require that the agent’s preferences include upholding moral requirements?
Click to expand...


I infer from this response that you are not familiar with game theory - the theory of rational choice - or alternatively did not recognise that that was what [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] was referring to upthread.

In a game theoretic model of a decision-situation, a choosing agent won't have regard to moral considerations unless they are built into that agent's preference structure, because it is inherent to a game theoretic model that an agent chooses in accordance with his/her preferences. Game theoretic analysis doesn't have the resources, and doesn't purport to have the resources, to support moral criticism of preferences. But I take for granted that that is an ordinary part of moral evaluation. For instance, the fact that a torturer doesn't see the suffering of the victim as a reason not to torture doesn't mean that the torturer is excused from accusations of wrongdoing; rather, it tells us that the torturer has a deficiency in the way s/he appreciates the reasons that bear upon the decision to torture.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> He took action which he knew, or should have known, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities and, based on your comments about spotlight time, will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all.  Sounds like:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The Paladin (or Cleric) took action which he knew, or should have known, his patron, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities, being Paladin or Clerical) abilities, and will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all.



I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this.

In the first case, the player deliberately set out to have his PC thwart Vecna. The player chose to oppose a god, in order to pursue some other value/loyalty that his PC cared about.

In the second case, my concern is with those situations in which the player believes that his/her PC is pursuing and upholding the code/value to which his/her PC is dedicated, and the GM steps in to correct that belief. _That is the sort of evaluative judgement that I do not want to have to undertake as part of GMing_.

The two situations are not at all alike in the respects that concern me.



N'raac said:


> You certainly judged whether Vecna believed the PC did the right thing.  Why can’t the Raven Queen judge whether her Paladin does the right thing, or Moradin judge whether his cleric did the right thing?



I did not have to judge whether or not Vecna believed the PC did the right thing. _The player set out, deliberately, to have his/her PC thwart Vecna_. All I had to do was to give effect to the player's desire.

That is completely different from the GM correcting a player.



N'raac said:


> The player also deliberately acted in the RQ’s interests. Why was her reaction not adjudicated as having any consequences?



It was adjudicated. She didn't reward him. I didn't realise that I'm obliged to play the gods in my campaign like the handlers of Pavlovian dogs, handing out rewards and punishments on cue.



N'raac said:


> The Raven Queen judged that two of the PC’s did the right thing, and rewarded them.  By extension, she did not reward the Invoker – does that indicate she judged he did not do the right thing often enough to merit a reward?



The players know why that particular PC did not get an item upgrade - because his relevant item is the Rod of 7 Parts, and he hasn't found a further part yet. Within the fiction, the question hasn't come up, but I've already suggested one possible reason: the Raven Queen rewards her true servants ahead of a backsliding sometime-devotee.



N'raac said:


> Your most recent comments leave me unclear whether you have retained or dismissed the 4e alignment system



I hoped that I had made it sufficiently clear that I do not use mechanical alignment.



N'raac said:


> -pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of not using mecanical alignment is to extend the approach to play that you adopt within those "shades of grey" to the whole game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If everything is shades of grey, how was my example of a Paladin placed in a nasty situation, who ripped the throat out of a newborn, so clearly an inappropriate character
Click to expand...


I have reproduced my sentence to which you replied. I did not say "everything is shades of grey". I said that "The point of not using mechanical alignment is to extent the approach to play that you adopt within those "shades of grey" to the whole game." Within those shades of grey, you yourself have said that you don't impose GM judgement because alignment is not a straitjacket. That is the _approach_ that I referred to. Playing without mechanical alignment means adopting that approach to the whole game: refraining from GM judgement and letting the players make their choices.

That doesn't mean that everything is "shades of grey". It may be clear to a player of a paladin, for instance, and perhaps to everyone else at the table, that there is no reconciling tearing out a baby's throat with a commitment to honour and decency.



N'raac said:


> So, he concludes, if he refuses, the child dies anyway, and for nothing.  If he does, then all his work to infiltrate the cult is in vain, he will fail in his task of destroying the cult, and many more will share this poor child’s fate.  So he proceeds, promising in his heart that this atrocity shall be avenged, and the child's sacrifice remembered.
> 
> And the player looks across the table at the GM, declaring the above, and taking his action, which the player sincerely believes to be necessary to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number.  The needs of the cult’s many future victims regretfully outweigh the need to avoid this immediate atrocity.
> 
> If the player is the sole arbiter of his code, I think he must be taken to be roleplaying his Paladin’s devotion to Valour, Honour and Righteousness appropriately.  This is the only way that the _player_ gets to judge what it means to live up to the PC's professed values.



Unless I'm badly confused, the above is all hypothetical: that is, you are positing that a player of a paladin believes that the action you describe is consistent with honour and decency. You have not actually encountered this in play.

For what it's worth, my initial response is that the player is confused about what honour requires: the consequentialist reasoning the player engages in belongs to a system in which honour has no place (hence Weber deriding utilitarianism as a morality for shopkeepers); and the player is not engaging in the agent-centred reasoning that is crucial to reasoning with ideals such as honour (ie the key thing is not just _that the baby suffers_, but that the baby suffers at _my_ hands). But because I have never met this player, or had this player declare the action above in my game, I don't need to decide how I would respond in play, and (if so) how my own view about the player's confusion might manifest in play (if at all). If I am wrong, and you _have_ encountered and adjudicated this, please share.

There are, of course, other avenues that an enterprising player might take. For instance, there are theological ideas around the idea of the saviour as a scapegoat that might be brought to bear here. If the player was able to introduce some backstory about the special significance of the baby to be sacrificed, and so make it not an atrocity (your word) at all, but rather an episode in some providential plan, that could make a big difference. It would also have the virtue of being more genre-consistent, by reflecting an evaluation that expresses the pre-modern elements of the paladin archetype (providence, honour, etc) rather than verisimilitude-testing modern ideas (such as consequentialist moral reasoning).



N'raac said:


> removal of villains comes with the removal of “the struggle of Good versus Evil”.



I don't share your opinion here. Two of the best books I know about the struggle of good versus evil are The Quiet American and The Human Factor.

Or, going much more four-colour, I think the X-Men provides one of the better treatments of moral struggle in the fantasy/superhero genre. And Magneto is not a pre-ordained villain. Nor Mystique.

If the players want to play heroes, I'm happy to present them with characters to oppose, who pursue goals at odds with those of the PCs. But the players are going to have to make their own case for heroism. I'm not going to build into the basic framework of play the soundness of their choices. [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] points in the same sort of direction with the succubus example.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think having a PC take damage from being hit is much the same as permanently rewriting the PC's class, or removing a feat from a PC, and differs only in degree, then I think you have a very different conception from me and most other D&D playes as to what it at stake in each of those cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not take damage.
Click to expand...


No, his familiar did. I think the player is probably quite glad about that, because the PC can keep going without the familiar, but would be badly hurt if he took a standard level's worth of damage (33 hp).

He still has his feat - which is the character build resource in question. Which was my point. You are the first person I can recall who has equated the taking of damage with the removal of a character build resource, or the unilateral rewriting of a PC's class.



N'raac said:


> So, basically, it could happen under the action resolution mechanics, so it is OK for the GM to impose it outside the action resolution mechanics.



Are we back at the point where you are, once again, denying that the skill challenge mechanics are an element of action resolution?

What I said is that "The reason I have expressed it as "the familiar taking at least 1 hp of damage" was because you and Imaro were arguing that it was not possible under the rules.  At the table I didn't express it that way because there was no need to. It was enough to tell the player that his familar was out-of-action."

At the table, it is taken as obvious that the familiar, while acting as a conduit for Vecna to suck up soul energy, is also vulnerable to being damaged by Vecna (probably psychic or necrotic damage, although the type doesn't matter that much as the familiar will drop to 0 hp if it takes 1 hp of any damage type). The fact that this can be re-expressed in mechanical terms - that the familiar was active and hence vulnerable to damage - is not surprising, as the function of the rules in 4e is to support the fiction, but it is not the foremost thing in our minds at the time.

That doesn't mean that what was happening was happening outside the action resolution mechanics. It just means that some parts of those mechanics don't need to be expressly referenced in order to resolve the situation at hand.



N'raac said:


> You dismissed the "undead level loss" analogy pretty quickly, yet we should accept 4e Undead mechanics as proof positive your removal of the familiar is in accordance with the rules?



Why not? I haven't disputed that undead level loss is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it. I haven't disputed that rewriting paladins as fighters is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it.

Conversely, I have no issues with surge-draining undead in 4e. Nor do I have issues with mechanics that manipulate resource recovery times (obviously! otherwise I wouldn't use them). They are all live in the same functional space as taking damage has since the beginning of D&D.



N'raac said:


> I stand by my “GM Fiat” assessment
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> your insistence you were playing by the book is not accurate.



I'm sure the Flat Earth Society stands by its assessment that the earth is flat, too. Your assessment has about the same degree of credibility, though. What part of the skill challenge rules have I not complied with? What part of the rules for imposing mechanical consequences for choices have I not followed? What do _you_ think are the limits on imposing consequences that I have not complied with - and what part of "the book" do you think they are stated in?



N'raac said:


> The rules text you cited referred to the characters taking damage not voluntary) or voluntarily giving up/sacrificing a resource (such as an encounter power or a healing surge).



They are illustrative possibilities, and obviously intended as such. If direct evidence were needed, it is provided by the example I already cited of a WotC-published skill challenge which has as a consequence the non-voluntary loss of an encounter power for the duration of the encounter.

And I just found this on p 80 of the DMG2:

Consequences

. . . Penalties for failure in a skill challenge might include the loss of healing surges or some other lingering penalty . . .​
Also this on p 87:

*e sure to distinguish between what the characters find desirable and what the players enjoy. the characters probably don't like being attacked by drow assassins in the middle of the night, but the playrs will probably have fun playing out the encounter. . .

Consider these options as consequences for failure in a skill challenge:

. . .

* Impose a lingering effect, such as a disease or a curse that works like one, that hinders the characters for some time.*​*

Nor do the rules preclude such consequences flowing for choices made that do not themselves lead to failure. For instance, here is an example from p 101 of the DMG2 (and the relevant example was authored by Mearls, much like the earlier example skill challenge I mentioned):

A group of slaves tries to escape. The character can try to help them with a group Stealth check (DC 19) to avoid detection, help capture them with a group Athletics check (DC 19), or do  nothing. . . If the characters capture the slaves, they gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks involving guard patrols if they succeed but take a -5 penalty to all checks involving slaves and those sympathetic to them whether they succeed or fail.​
This is a clear example of a mechanical consequences flowing even from a successful skill check, based on the logic of the fictional positioning of the PCs (ie try to recapture slaves, and other slaves won't like you). My example of play is functionally identical (ie thwart Vecna, and he will punish you).

The relevant GMing skill is settling on a mechanically appropriate consequence - both appropriate in terms of the fictional positioning, and appropriate in terms of being neither to light to be noticeable nor too severe to be fair to the player. Luckily 4e is designed to be very robust in this respect - it is hard to go wrong in terms of severity, because the game gives so many cues about options that are meaningful but fair (eg healing surges, powers, action points, temporary situational penalties, etc).



N'raac said:



			I infer from your statements that damage will occur only from the action resolution mechanics within the game, not simply be imposed arbitrarily (eg.” Vecna is angered – you take damage”), and that the pickpocket is subject to all of the same rules applicable to any pickpocket, including the chance to be noticed in the act.
		
Click to expand...


To me, this just reiterates that you are unfamiliar with the action resolution mechanics of 4e. The consequence to the invoker player was not imposed "arbitrarily". It was imposed within the action resolution mechanics - that is, as a mechanical consequence of a choice made within the resolution of a skill challenge.



N'raac said:



			I also infer you would not consider it equitable to have an “unwinnable challenge” (eg. the pickpocket is so good he cannot fail, and the PC could never notice him), but I infer this from your reaction to the Chamberlain against whom the PC’s could not possibly succeed in persuading t grant them an audience with the King.
		
Click to expand...


I don't see the point in framing the players into situations in which the outcome is foreordained, no. That is why the outcome in the Soul Abattoir was not fore-ordained. It was not fore-ordained that they would successfully destroy it (although they did). Nor was it fore-ordained that Vecna would get the soul (he didn't). Nor was it fore-ordained that the imp would be zapped by Vecna (though it was). Nor was it fore-ordained that the invoker could not both thwart Vecna and keep his imp alive (though the invoker didn't try to achieve this particular outcome).



N'raac said:



			So how, in the fiction, did the player redirect the souls?
		
Click to expand...


By asserting his will and exercising his magical prowess. He was already containing their power so that it didn't overwhelm him and his friends; he then escalated his control, so as to send them to the Raven Queen rather than to Vecna.  As a 25th level deva invoker/divine philosopher/sage of ages, with Arcana and Religion skill bonuses in the neighbourhood of +40, he is one of the most magically puissant immortals around. This is the sort of feat that is his specialty.



N'raac said:



			I could see something as simple as "stop that", but it does not explain why the familiar self-activated and started the action in the first place.
		
Click to expand...


Why would it explain that? The PC didn't activate his familiar; Vecna did. Or, stepping out of the fiction and into the metagame, I as GM decided that Vecna would use the familiar to steal the souls.



N'raac said:



			Your “light touch” seems quite heavy from where I sit.
		
Click to expand...


And how is that relevant? Are you the player in question? I've already stated that, for different players in my group, who want different things out of having a familiar, I would do things differently. This particular player has framed his familiar in the way that he has, and I am working with that. (His earlier familiar, a dragonling called "Fatso", used to live in the party's Basket of Everlasting Provision and eat 1d4-2 person's worth of food per day.)



N'raac said:



			Your statement that the rules would work differently for a different player seems inconsistent with your claims you are precisely following the written rules, by the way.
		
Click to expand...


I never made such a statement: once again you are very careless in your reading, or else are projecting your own sense of what matters and what doesn't onto me.

What I said is that I wouldn't do the same sort of thing with other players' familiars (or henchmen or whatever). What is "light touch" for one player may not be for another. I thought it was GMing 101 that different players approach the game somewhat differently, and a good GM responds to that in framing situations and adjudicating them.



N'raac said:



			So what negotiation occurred?  You have been asked, repeatedly, whether the player explicitly relinquished full or partial control of his character resource, and the fact you have never provided a straight answer to this question has been highlighted several times.
		
Click to expand...


I have provided a straight answer. I have asserted, multiple times, that the player consented. I have also pointed out that you have absolutely no evidentiary basis on which to question that assertion, having no other epistemic access to the player's state of mind.

When did the negotiation take place? I've linked upthread already to an actual play post from around 2 years ago in which the PC returned to life with a "watcher" familiar. I've linked also to the thread in which I described his decision to implant the Eye of Vecna in his familiar. I've also mentioned, multiple times, that the imp acted independently of its master in a recent session, stealing a ring from an NPC and giving it to its master. (The ring was used during the encounter, too: both its bonus to Intimidate checks, and its ability to survive an attack by gaining temporary hit points at interrupt speed.)

I've just now also mentioned the previous familiar of this PC, who (at the player's instigation) lived in an elfin picnic basket and ate the party's food.

I've also mentioned that I have been friends with this person, and RPGed with him, for 20-odd years. Some of the relevant negotiations therefore began some time ago!


N'raac said:



			So the fact that the player did not complain the first time you co-opted his resource means it’s yours now to do with as you please?
		
Click to expand...


You have a habit of reading someone's words, and then imputing to them views that they did not assert and did not imply either. Do you think I would have the familiar try to murder the PC in his sleep, and then argue online that the player has consented to that? If you don't understand what is driving the logic of my GMing, then all you have to do is ask.

The earlier episode involved a confrontation between the PCs and servants of Levistus. They were demanding the return of the imp - which, they asserted, is the property of Levistus - but it became clear that what they really wanted was the Eye of Vecna. The PCs negotiated with them, and persuaded them -  partially through reason, partially through intimidation - that they should let the invoker keep the imp for the time being. It was during the course of that episode that the familiar stole a ring from the NPC and gave it to his master - the Ring of Levistus.

The imp has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it. The player did this, deliberately, knowing that the Eye is intimately connected to Vecna, and knowing that he was putting his imp into a "balance of powers" situation. In those circumstances, the player is inviting me to do something interesting and Vecna-related with the imp. I did so.

Perhaps in the game system that you play the GM can only frame interesting conflicts and complications by breaking the rules. (I know from my own experience that that can be an issue with some simulationist-leaning systems, for instance.) Part of the reason that I play the system that I do is that it does not have this problem: rather than emphasising mechanical limits upon the framing of complications, it emphasises mechanical engagement and flexibility in resolving them. (I mention this again below.)



N'raac said:



			Did the player, at any time in the entire scene, get to use his familiar
		
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "get to use his familiar"?

If you are asking "Did he activate his familiar" my memory is no, he didn't. He typically doesn't, unless he needs it to call down hellfire and brimstone on his enemies - which in this encounter I don't think he did.

If you are asking "Did he benefit from the fire resistance and bonus to Arcana checks provided by his familiar?", then of course. If you mean "Did he benefit from the bonus to Arcana, Perception and Insight checks resulting from having the Eye of Vecna implanted in his familiar", then of course.

Ultimately, I don't really understand what you are trying to establish by asking this question.



N'raac said:



			As is its recover after a short rest, where you have imposed an indefinite period of loss (one which you last noted you had not even decided the duration of).
		
Click to expand...




N'raac said:



			Am I wrong in believing the player receives a roll to avoid or mitigate the effects of the disease, and that its duration is governed by rules other than "the GM will decide when, how and if it recovers"?
		
Click to expand...


Once again you misdescribe. What makes you think that it is the GM who will decide when, how and if the familiar recovers? And why is it a shocking thing that I don't know the duration of the loss? When PC take damage, I don't decide how long that will last either: I just tell the players how many hp to knock off. The players get to use their resources to heal their PCs back up: that's their problem, not mine.

It may be that in whatever game you play the players have no options for recovery other than those explicitly set out for them in the rulebook. Happily for me, I play a system which is more flexible than that. And if, as GM, I only framed situations or imposed consequences to which I already knew the solution, then the game would be pretty boring! As I mentioned above, the system that I GM emphasises mechanics as a flexible tool for resolving complications, rather than as a straitjacket on the GM's introduction of and framing of complications. Rather than encouraging players to say "Hang on, that can't happen, it's against the rules", the system encourages the players to say "Whoah, did that thing happen? In that case, here's what we do in response!"

In this particular case, the player has plenty of resources, and is also a resourceful player. I'm sure he'll think of something, and I'm looking forward to learning what it is!*


----------



## Sadras

Manbearcat said:


> That is easy.  If alignment would have forced me (with nebulous, hand-wavey values statements - that are often internally in conflict) to take account of the conflict fallout and enforce my position on the value questions of Civilized Overseer vs Untamed Natural Order, it would have made for an objectively worse game for all parties.  And a more predictable one.  The standard bearer is that the Druid should be a champion of the Untamed Natural Order.  If my takeaway from each conflict was that she was a poor steward and thus the primal spirits should turn on her (and then I made that happen), she wouldn't have been happy (to be sure), and the game would have just produced the same, nuance-neutral, druid tropes of beating back civilization with a stick (pun intended).




Is it fair to say the druid already had this backstory regarding the internal struggle between civilization and the Natural Order before roleplaying, therefore the PC and DM were very much aware of the stakes and the type of challenges that would/should arise for the character through the game? 
In my honest opinion, for my table, alignment would not have been an issue for what you have described above. Remember we are talking about good,evil, chaotic & lawful actions. I do not view a druid turning back the tide of the primal spirits which are about to destroy a village as evil or chaotic just because the druid "defended/preserved" civilisation. Its unreasonable for a DM to insist that anything against Nature is evil just because one is a druid.

If a cleric of the Deity of Beauty fended off his flock from attacking persons because they had tattoos, piercings and the like because scarring of ones body was against their beliefs, that wouldn't make him/her evil. 

Let me give you an example in our group of something even more boundary pushing: 
In Mystara: Glantrian Wizards hate Dwarves. Dwarves hate Glantrian Wizards. I'm not going to get into the setting backstory too much, just to mention that it has been a violent history between the two peoples, with the wizards at one time experimenting on dwarves. Current politics being that any dwarf found in Glantri is captured & experimented on or killed.

It came to pass that a group of dwarves captured a Glantrian wizard well outside her country's borders. The PC dwarf cleric was brought in on the kidnapping and interrogation of the female wizard. The female wizard was not evil in any way. However due to racial & cultural backstory through the setting, there was an expectation that the Glantrian wizard was to be executed. In fact the PC was certain the NPC dwarves were going to do this with or without him. The PC cleric decided to take the responsibility of execution upon himself and so did, although took no delight in the act, but understood its necessity.

Evil act? Sure, this can be argued it is. Did I strip him of his powers? No, for two reasons.
(i) He did not do this out of enjoyment purposes, it was more a sense of duty born from the racial/cultural backstory of the setting.  
(ii) Kagyar (Mystara's equivalent of Moradin), given the setting's source material of him, would not IMO, condemn such an act.

Furthermore, I didn't straight-jacket the character either - if he had spared the female wizard he too would have not been judged by Kagyar. He might have been judged by the other dwarves present with him though.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> It was adjudicated. She didn't reward him. I didn't realise that I'm obliged to play the gods in my campaign like the handlers of Pavlovian dogs, handing out rewards and punishments on cue.
> 
> The players know why that particular PC did not get an item upgrade - because his relevant item is the Rod of 7 Parts, and he hasn't found a further part yet. Within the fiction, the question hasn't come up, but I've already suggested one possible reason: the Raven Queen rewards her true servants ahead of a backsliding sometime-devotee.




So classifying the character as a"backsliding sometimes-devotee" does not judge his actions?  In thwarting Vecna, he served the interests of the Raven Queen.  Vecna judged the action as meriting punishment.  RQ judged the action as not meriting a reward.  Two NPC deities judged that character, and one of them judged two others as meriting a reward.  So the deities do, it seems, judge their followers.



pemerton said:


> I hoped that I had made it sufficiently clear that I do not use mechanical alignment.




I suspect the thrust of my question was unclear.  It stems more from my own uncertainty whether (you consider) the 4e system to include mechanical alignment.  Some other posters opposing 3e and prior alignment seem quite pleased with the 4e model.  I am unclear of your position in that regard.  That also leaves me unclear as to whether Vecna is "an evil god" (which is suggested by your comments his value of secrecy is corrupted) or is not classified (which would seem more consistent with the comments on Devils, and on it being up to play to make that determination).



pemerton said:


> Unless I'm badly confused, the above is all hypothetical: that is, you are positing that a player of a paladin believes that the action you describe is consistent with honour and decency. You have not actually encountered this in play.




It occurs to me that most of the objections cited to alignment have also presented hypotheticals, largely on the line of "what if" the GM considers an act evil and I don't.



pemerton said:


> No, his familiar did. I think the player is probably quite glad about that, because the PC can keep going without the familiar, but would be badly hurt if he took a standard level's worth of damage (33 hp).
> 
> He still has his feat - which is the character build resource in question. Which was my point. You are the first person I can recall who has equated the taking of damage with the removal of a character build resource, or the unilateral rewriting of a PC's class.
> 
> Are we back at the point where you are, once again, denying that the skill challenge mechanics are an element of action resolution?
> 
> What I said is that "The reason I have expressed it as "the familiar taking at least 1 hp of damage" was because you and Imaro were arguing that it was not possible under the rules.  At the table I didn't express it that way because there was no need to. It was enough to tell the player that his familar was out-of-action."




We have not left the point where you keep waffling back and forth from "the familiar took damage as a result of the skill challenge", until presented with rules cites which indicate the familiar either was not active to take damage, or should have taken damage when the rest of the group took damage.  But I am fine leaving that for someone versed in the 4e rules to address.  In any case, I remain unclear whether the familiar is consider to have "taken 1 hp damage" or "was removed from the player's control".  I lean t the latter, as that seems to have been your intent, and as the recovery rule for it taking 1 hp damage is not in play.



pemerton said:


> At the table, it is taken as obvious that the familiar, while acting as a conduit for Vecna to suck up soul energy, is also vulnerable to being damaged by Vecna (probably psychic or necrotic damage, although the type doesn't matter that much as the familiar will drop to 0 hp if it takes 1 hp of any damage type). The fact that this can be re-expressed in mechanical terms - that the familiar was active and hence vulnerable to damage - is not surprising, as the function of the rules in 4e is to support the fiction, but it is not the foremost thing in our minds at the time.
> 
> That doesn't mean that what was happening was happening outside the action resolution mechanics. It just means that some parts of those mechanics don't need to be expressly referenced in order to resolve the situation at hand.




Did an actual roll within the game cause damage to the familiar?  I do not believe it did.  Do the rules provide for the GM to activate a component of the PC build unilaterally?  I believe one must depart from the rules to do so.  Do the rules provide for a PC's power or feat to take action, unilaterally, to oppose him?  I rather suspect not.  Again, I think it makes for a great game, and I think it's beneficial to depart from the rules to make a great game.  I remain uncertain why you feel it so important we believe you acted within the mechanics of the rules, however.



pemerton said:


> Why not? I haven't disputed that undead level loss is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it. I haven't disputed that rewriting paladins as fighters is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it.
> 
> Conversely, I have no issues with surge-draining undead in 4e. Nor do I have issues with mechanics that manipulate resource recovery times (obviously! otherwise I wouldn't use them).




Well and good.  What I see is that there is some line of demarcation between "removal of a PC's abilities that Pemerton likes" and "removal of a PC's abilities that Pemerton dislikes", not that Pemerton has an absolute dislike for rules allowing removal of a PC's abilities.  So, a matter of degree rather than an absolute.  [And you think you find yourself asking "how many times must I say the same thing..."]

What "functional space" they occupy, and what mechanics they share that space with, is a matter of pure opinion.



pemerton said:


> a WotC-published skill challenge which has as a consequence the non-voluntary loss of an encounter power for the duration of the encounter.




First, I a unclear whether this loss was a consequence of success.  Second, the scenario painted is not loss for the duration of an encounter, but for an indefinite period.  This leaves them far from identical.  Still a matter of degree - very short term loss; temporary loss of indefinite duration permanent loss (and is anything really permanent in a game where characters regularly return from the grave?).



pemerton said:


> And I just found this on p 80 of the DMG2:




Here we go again...



pemerton said:


> Consequences
> 
> . . . *Penalties for failure in a skill challenge *might include the loss of healing surges or some other lingering penalty . . .​




Pretty sure I asked last time you cited this whether the player failed.  You have since clearly stated he did not.  As such, I don't see a penalty for failure rule being relevant.



pemerton said:


> Consider these options as* consequences for failure *in a skill challenge:
> 
> . . .
> 
> * Impose a lingering effect, such as a disease or a curse that works like one, that hinders the characters for some time.[/INDENT]




Again, "for failure".  I thought he succeeded.  You confirmed he succeeded.



pemerton said:


> Nor do the rules preclude such consequences flowing for choices made that do not themselves lead to failure. For instance, here is an example from p 101 of the DMG2 (and the relevant example was authored by Mearls, much like the earlier example skill challenge I mentioned):
> A group of slaves tries to escape. The character can try to help them with a group Stealth check (DC 19) to avoid detection, help capture them with a group Athletics check (DC 19), or do  nothing. . . If the characters capture the slaves, they gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks involving guard patrols if they succeed but take a -5 penalty to all checks involving slaves and those sympathetic to them whether they succeed or fail.​




So a process simulation bonus or penalty based on the actions the characters selected (and on their moral choice to capture the slaves, rather than aid them or ignore them, no less).



pemerton said:


> This is a clear example of a mechanical consequences flowing even from a successful skill check, based on the logic of the fictional positioning of the PCs (ie try to recapture slaves, and other slaves won't like you). My example of play is functionally identical (ie thwart Vecna, and he will punish you).




It's very similar in that one group is displeased, resulting in a penalty (the slaves dislike you/Vecna toasts your familiar) and another group is pleased (the slavers/Raven Queen) and the character gets a benefit from them (a bonus to rolls with the slavers/oh, wait, maybe they aren't so identical after all...).



pemerton said:


> To me, this just reiterates that you are unfamiliar with the action resolution mechanics of 4e. The consequence to the invoker player was not imposed "arbitrarily". It was imposed within the action resolution mechanics - that is, as a mechanical consequence of a choice made within the resolution of a skill challenge.




There was no mechanic.  Everything was by fiat.  "Do you want to redirect the souls that your character resource decided, without your direction, consent or even knowledge, to direct to Vecna?"  "sure"  "No roll required - ZAP your familiar is incapacitated."



pemerton said:


> Why would it explain that? The PC didn't activate his familiar; Vecna did. Or, stepping out of the fiction and into the metagame, I as GM decided that Vecna would use the familiar to steal the souls.




So Vecna can activate the PC's familiar, but the Paladin's deity cannot cause him to recall the lessons of his training?



			
				N'raac said:
			
		

> Your statement that the rules would work differently for a different player seems inconsistent with your claims you are precisely following the written rules, by the way.






pemerton said:


> I never made such a statement:






pemerton said:


> I have already stated, upthread, that I have other players in my group with whom I would handle things differently




'nuff said



pemerton said:


> I have provided a straight answer. I have asserted, multiple times, that the player consented. I have also pointed out that you have absolutely no evidentiary basis on which to question that assertion, having no other epistemic access to the player's state of mind.




 [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has repeatedly requested a simple yes or no answer.  You have repeatedly responded with some variant on "lack of push back equals consent".



pemerton said:


> Do you think I would have the familiar try to murder the PC in his sleep, and then argue online that the player has consented to that?




Why not?  It's Levistus' imp, and he ticked off Levistus, right?  The Eye of Vecna grants Vecna the ability to co-opt the imp as he sees fit, and Vecna is ticked off with the character, right?  Again, not a question of absolutes, but of degree.



pemerton said:


> Ultimately, I don't really understand what you are trying to establish by asking this question.




You oppose removal of a character resource from the character sheet.  I find transfer of that resource to an NPC to oppose the PC does not enjoy higher moral ground.



pemerton said:


> Once again you misdescribe. What makes you think that it is the GM who will decide when, how and if the familiar recovers? And why is it a shocking thing that I don't know the duration of the loss? When PC take damage, I don't decide how long that will last either: I just tell the players how many hp to knock off. The players get to use their resources to heal their PCs back up: that's their problem, not mine.




You decided the normal recovery period does not apply.  You will decide how any attempt to recover the familiar will be adjudicated, whether it has any possibility of success and what the probability of such success will be.  That's close enough to deciding how long it will last for me.  And if he gets it back, will it actually be HIS familiar, or will it again be subject to the GM activating it for someone else's purposes?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Well validly is your idea but I'll bite.




Yes originally I used the word but you continued to use it in your answer as shown below...



Hussar said:


> If the PC's interpretation *validly* changed through play, that would be consistent, no?
> 
> But a very nice mischaracterization attempt. Good try.




It seems that you chose to continue using the word "validly" so I guess it is my "idea"...  how is this relevant though since you continued using the word?





Hussar said:


> My primary criteria would be the player. Can the player justify these changes? If so then it's good enough for me.
> 
> Again, I refuse to police my players anymore.




So you would decide whether the change was justifiable (by the player) or not... correct?  If so what is the criteria you would use to determine whether the change is or isn't justifiable??


----------



## Imaro

D'karr said:


> So what?  How is this important, or even relevant?  In a game without mechanical alignment it is unnecessary.




It was brought up in the discussion of DM  (by proxy of deities/cosmological forces in the game) ability to punish characters through denial of their build resources such as the punishments allowed on Paladins in previous editions... of course if you had actually read what the discussion was about you'd know why it was relevant as well as how it came up.





D'karr said:


> Even if I was to take the strictest reading of what you quoted, which I don't.  It is still "world thematics", there are no mechanical ramifications because the game does not provide for stripping *any* character of their class features. Do barbarians that are no longer chaotic become non-barbarians?  Do druids that are no longer neutral become non-druids?  Do monks that are non-lawful become non-monks?  In all instances the answer is no.  The game does not bother itself with tracking alignment.  And if the god wanted to punish a character it can.  If that is wanted it is up to the DM and player to decide how they want to do it.  "House rule" it if they want.  Removing his mechanical class features is not a thing the game bothers with, and for good reason.




PLEASE go back and get an understanding of what the issue is that relates to what you are trying (unsuccessfully) to discuss here.  If a poster states they have a problem with a DM being able to deny part of a character's impact on the fiction through taking away his build resources (as a part of his larger issue with mechanical alignment)... but then posts an example where they arbitrarily do exactly this, though on a smaller scale (and at this point it has been repeatedly asked is this just an issue of scale with no definitive answer)... people are going to ask you to explain yourself...  that is what is happening here.  All the stuff above you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the debate being had.  It's like you're having some imaginary side debate or something.



D'karr said:


> In a game without mechanical alignment this is a non-issue.  Therefore, since pemerton is not using mechanical alignment in his game this is a non-issue.




Huh?  Uhm... ok.  what is your point as it pertains to what is being discussed through this line of the thread? 




D'karr said:


> Once again, so what?  How is this even important or relevant?




If you decide to enter a thread and post comments... it kind of falls on you to take the responsibility of reading and comprehending what it is you are posting about.  If you're not sure what a debate revolves around... perhaps it is best not to comment until you do have a better understanding of it.  It's not my job to fill you in, the one above was a freebie but I'm not going to keep summarizing the arguments or issues being discussed for you... especially when both I and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have told you that you don't seem to have a grasp on what is being discussed.



D'karr said:


> This is the "rules lawyering" I've been speaking of.  This "rules absolutism" with regards to "world thematics" would be comical, if it wasn't so tiresome.   What default deities?  The deities are all "world thematics".  You will notice in the PHB that the deities appear on the chapter for "Character Creation" specifically under the section called out "Roleplaying".  Languages and Alignment appear in the same section.  Are the languages exclusive, meaning no other language can exist but the ones outlined there?  Are the directions of the "gods" exclusive, meaning no other 'strictures' can be added to what they direct their followers to do?




In a default game these are the things that exist... if you claim you are following the rules expect the rules to be brought up if some feel you aren't actually doing that.  Again this shows that you don't seem to understand the argument that is taking place or why certain things are being brought up for discussion.  



D'karr said:


> A DM can use the gods right out of the book as described, change their names and still use them out of the book as described, not use them at all, or change everything about them.  There are certain things that clearly fall under the umbrella of the DM to do with as he pleases.  The two that have been argued about, deities and artifacts, are the most classic examples of "always under DM jurisdiction".  If a player of mine brought up such a ridiculous claim as "it says in the book Pelor can't do X", or the even more egregious "it doesn't say in the book that Pelor can X", I'd actually laugh.




No one argued against the fact that a DM couldn't do as he pleases with anything... who or what are you arguing against exactly?  No one made this point in the entire thread.  I know I'm sounding like a broken record but perhaps you should go back and actually read the discussion and then you can probably make a more meaningful point in your posts.  right now it's like you're having your own seperate discussion over issues no one is arguing. 



D'karr said:


> This same "rules absolutism" regarding "world thematics" is what you are displaying when you read the entry for the paladin.  In the paladin class writeup, almost the entirety of the section labeled Paladins and Deities is "world thematics".  What "mechanical" things exist in that section?  If you mention "the paladin must choose the same alignment as his deity" as one, that might be the ONLY thing that *might resemble* a mechanical thing.  But since alignment in 4e is really not mechanical that option is mostly questionable as regards mechanics.  In that section it also says, "Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are *almost always* villains, not player characters".  Does that mean that a player cannot choose Evil or Chaotic Evil for his paladin?  No.  It is "world thematics".  The DM and Player decide that.  The base recommendation for the game is that the characters are "heroes", not "villains".  That does not mean that these things are written in stone.  That is like reading the "world thematics" of "paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity" and making it an absolute.  Can the rites performed be "indirectly" powered by their deity, their ethos, their church, the taxi-maid in the sky, or even an exarch of the deity?  It is all "world thematics".  You are getting wrapped around the axle with them and whether they are house-rules or not.  In any case, it is unimportant to the discussion as pemerton doesn't use mechanical alignment so stripping a paladin of his class features because of a stray alignment is not something I'd expect to see in his game.




I see so even though the books state that a paladin must choose the same alignment as his deity... it really means choose whatever you want.  And "almost always" (instead of... well using the word always) suddenly means always??  What it means is that this is how the default 4e game operates.  no other assertion pertaining to this has been made by anyone but you.  Again you're debating points that no one has made, lol... Seriously.





D'karr said:


> So are you saying that a deity *can punish* a paladin that strays?




Sure, in default 4e that would be handled in indirect ways...



D'karr said:


> If a god can punish a paladin that strays, but the game doesn't concern itself with stripping *ANY* class of their class features.  Then it follows that the game is not interested in providing mechanical punishment by removing class features.  However, the form of punishment can be anything the DM decides it to be - excommunication from the church, being hunted by the faithful, being scorned by the populace, distrust from the masses.  The list can be infinite.  Which IMO is better than "the paladin strays, he loses his class features".




You're entitled to your opinion, not everyone sees it that way but again, not sure what this has to do with why it was brought up in the first place??



D'karr said:


> In a game that doesn't use mechanical alignment that is not even a relevant or important issue.  @_*pemerton*_, @_*Manbearcat*_, @_*Hussar*_, myself and obviously others don't seem to have an issue at all with that.  Hint - maybe because our games DON'T use mechanical alignment at all.
> 
> You are right, 4e doesn't bother itself with removing class features (mechanical build options) for interpreted "cosmological infractions" (roleplay situations).  It leaves mechanical situations to be handled by mechanical means, and roleplay situations to be handled by roleplay means.  And it provides a very robust mechanical framework to deal with either if the DM chooses.  Skill challenges is only one of the pieces of that mechanical framework that can serve as a way to use mechanical means during roleplay situations.  If a DM wants to strip class features (mechanical build options) from a paladin because of perceived straying (roleplay situations) the game provides no "explicit" mechanical means to do so.  It also provides no mechanical means for determining what the King of Stalnosmad had for breakfast, or if his lineage is strong, or if he is a fervent follower of Melora.  It doesn't care to do so.  It is an irrelevant thing because the game doesn't bother to create a nailed down mechanical alignment system.  So it doesn't provide "explicit" mechanical means to "punish" alignment "infractions".  And IMO, it is better served by it.




That's funny because [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] claimed he took over and temporarily suspended the mechanical build resources of one of his players who displeased a deity with mechanics that were purely by the book... but you're claiming 4e doesn''t provide this whatsoever... interesting.



D'karr said:


> But don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the DM can't strip a paladin of his class features if that is what the DM and player want to do.  The game simply doesn't provide that as a mechanical solution.  The same way the game does not provide a mechanical solution to determine what the weather is in the character's country of origin.  Neither are necessary mechanics for the game.  Why? Because it is preferable that roleplay events are handled within roleplay.  However, the game does provide significant support for multiclassing, hybridizing, retraining, and even just simply picking another class.  So the DM still has a robust mechanical arsenal at his disposal if that is what he wants to do.




See my previous post



D'karr said:


> Gone are the days of detect evil, or detect alignment being the go to 'mechanic' to "derail" things.  Now a player has to actually determine, and construct a relevant opinion for his character of whether a creature is actually "evil".  They can't just cast a spell and then go to town "rooting out evil".




Perhaps... but then neither of us has seen the final form of the latest edition of the game, so pronouncing the days of detect evil "gone" might be just a tad premature.



D'karr said:


> In one of the games I played recently, the DM had a succubus as an ally to the party, and she traveled with us for quite a while.  The paladin PC was constantly making remarks about it.  But the succubus never betrayed us and always acted in, what appeared to the characters to be, good faith towards them.  So the succubus stayed with us for several parts of a long adventure cycle.  The roleplay interaction between the paladin, the avenger, the succubus, and other characters, some of them defending the succubus, was quite fun.  This type of play would have been impeded by mechanical alignment.  Under some games that use mechanical alignment a "detect evil", or "detect alignment" would have given us "definite proof" of the succubus' alignment.  Depending on the DM, in some of those games the paladin would have been "forced" to make a decision as to the fate of the succubus with the party.  That would have been a "poorer" game play experience that what we had at our table.  This is another reason I don't use mechanical alignment.




But as you expressed above, if you play where the DM isn't beholden to rules or thematics or anything else in the game... why couldn't the DM have just changed this particular succubus's alignment to neutral, in a game with mechanical alignment, and played out the same scenario with even more paranoia since then the players would be wondering why she didn't register as evil??  Or is there some reason everything else can be house ruled to fit except alignment mechanics?



D'karr said:


> On the subject of removing class features, when I ran the adventure "In the Dungeons of the Slavelords", I made certain modifications to the rules to "emulate" all the classes having some limitations during the trek through the dungeons.  It worked great and it was a nice change of pace.  All the mechanics are there if a DM really wants to get enterprising.




Again this isn't what the discussion was about but great commentary on whatever it is you are arguing for... against... not really sure.




D'karr said:


> No thanks, I have read quite enough of it already.  I have a very clear picture of what is being discussed.  Arguing about alignment mechanics and the "rules" for it, for a game that is not using mechanical alignment is rather ridiculous.




If you feel you have a clear picture of what is being discussed... well who am I too argue against that, just don't expect me to engage with any more of your posts if you're not actually discussing what everyone else is.  Because I can assure you the discussion isn't about alignment mechanics and the rules for it... in a game that has no mechanical alignment... and yes if this is what we were discussing I agree it would be silly.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> This is nonsense. I am not trying to prove that mechanical alignment hurts your game.




Pemerton I never said you were. If you believe I did, please quote me where I said so.



> I am explaining how it hurts mine. Hence, @_*N'raac*_'s view that it is not a problem for him is of no relevance, because N'raac is not me.




I believe you might be confusing the preposition 'their' and think I attributed to N'raac's games when it was meant for the non-alignment crowd's games.   



> If a player chooses to serve a god who is the exemplarof avalue, then in my game there is no "vision of that deity"separate from the player's conception of the value in question.





Are you saying in all your settings, the player's vision of that value defines the deity's vision of same value for the setting which is also aligned to the view of most of the followers of that deity? So in essence the player through his character is defining the view of the deity and its followers for the game?   
 


> My view is that, if the players already know at the start of play what their PCs' belies require, and how they will utimately answer the demands to which they are called, then what is the point of play?




You're presuming that in my type of campaigns the PCs beliefs cannot be challenged by the DM framing situations to challenge those beliefs which is ridiculous because such a thing happens everyday in real life. Beliefs on setting earth have been preset, yet everyday people's beliefs are challenged.  



> If the GM is informing the player what is required to live up to his/her desired archetype, what is the player doing? It seems like the player is basically dancing to the GM's script - or else has to abandon his/her desired archetype.




Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the players do not create the religion/beliefs of the setting. That has all been pre-established. The characters are certainly the protagonists in the story but they are not protagonists of the world. That's a little too much Descartes for me with his _anthropocentric_ philosophy.    



> I did not judge the PC's actions.




Yes, you did through the eyes of the deity which is perfectly fine.



> I did not judge the PC to have done the right thing or the wrong thing.




Once again, yes you did, through the eyes of the deity. Through the eyes of the deity he did the wrong thing.



> What I _did_ do is force the player to choose between the Raven Queen and Vecna. That is an example of "putting the player's conception of values, and of his/her PC, to the test."




No one is disputing this.



> I didn't just _decide_ that Vecna was dissatisfied with his "servant". The player _deliberately set out_ to thwart Vecna, and I adjudicated the consequence of Vecna's wrath.




So your primary issue seems to be whether an action is _deliberate_ or _not deliberate. _So if someone thwarts their deity by accident, said Deity should not become dissatisfied and consequences cannot be adjudicated. 
But going back to how players have supreme power over the view of their deities (always one and the same), a character (and interchangeably player) can _never_ make a mistake  which could thwart their Deity and therefore the Deity can _never_ become dissatisfied and therefore _no_ consequences to be adjudicated. IMO this is called a consequence-free environment_._ 



> That bears no resemblance to a player declaring an action believing it to be compliant with his/her PC's code and obligations, and the GM advising him/her otherwise. Which is what you and @_*N'raac*_ are saying makes for good play.




I can't speak for @_*N'raac*_ but I can say this for my group, they do not believe their PCs are infallible. Errors are made accidentally too, PCs are not all knowing, players are not all knowing. If consequences can only happen due to _deliberate_ actions, I would say that is a D&D _light_ game. 



> Where is the evaluative judgement? Where have I told the player that he did or did not make the right choice?




Unless you are an abusive DM, or Veca an abusive deity - punishment is usually a consequence of a wrong choice been made. 



> I'm personally not interested in: of exploring the GM's ideas about possible relationships between various values, rather than actually exploring those values.




You keep repeating this sentiment as if, it appears to me, they cannot simultaneously be done within a game.


----------



## Cadence

Sadras said:


> Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the players do not create the religion/beliefs of the setting. That has all been pre-established. The characters are certainly the protagonists in the story but they are not protagonists of the world. That's a little too much Descartes for me with his _anthropocentric_ philosophy.




I think there is a middle ground between two extremes.

I tend to put way too much work into building pantheons and cultures and stuff like that for the games I'm DMing - and I've always assumed (both as a player and as a DM) that the DM is the final arbiter in the Gygaxian sense (although too heavy of a hand is a game killer).  But as someone who's played clerics more than anything else, I'll often propose deities or belief systems for my characters to DMs who are less interested in filling all that out in advance.   And I expect the DM to have full editorial control over whatever idea I've suggested.  That strikes me as a totally different issue from the characters being the protagonists of the world - it seems like it's the players providing help/suggestions to a DM who can't possibly always have worked out everything in advance.   

In actual play, don't the clerics have to make decisions for their characters based on how they picture their characters deities policies?   I've always assumed and played that the DM can over-ride that, but neither the player or DM has spent decades immersed in that faith.  If the player inserts something into play that I hadn't thought about and I don't think is crazy on the face of it, then I'm not going to pause the game and mull over what the deity really thinks... I'm just going to run with it.  It seems similar to things that might come up with a character's family, past exploits, and even things like what common foods are usually available in inns.  On the other hand, if it is something I've already mulled over or seems insane, then I could nuke it and over-ride the characters attempted narration.   I don't actually remember any in play incidences of that, so maybe my player's have never pushed anything I thought was crazy, or maybe it wasn't a big deal at the time.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> But as you expressed above, if you play where the DM isn't beholden to rules or thematics or anything else in the game... why couldn't the DM have just changed this particular succubus's alignment to neutral, in a game with mechanical alignment, and played out the same scenario with even more paranoia since then the players would be wondering why she didn't register as evil??  Or is there some reason everything else can be house ruled to fit except alignment mechanics?




More to the point, is the Succubus actually Evil if she never takes any Evil actions?  In any case, if I were concerned about this, my concern would be more with divination spells in general than mechanical alignment.  If I can detect she is lying when she says she means us no harm, or cast an Augury that determines working with her will end badly, or read her thoughts, these will also remove the mystery.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> If a poster states they have a problem with a DM being able to deny part of a character's impact on the fiction through taking away his build resources (as a part of his larger issue with mechanical alignment)... but then posts an example where they arbitrarily do exactly this, though on a smaller scale (and at this point it has been repeatedly asked is this just an issue of scale with no definitive answer)... people are going to ask you to explain yourself...  that is what is happening here.  All the stuff above you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the debate being had.  It's like you're having some imaginary side debate or something.




In fairness, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has indicated that, at least to him, it is not simply a matter of scale.  He perceives some bright line that I, at least, do not in two respects

 - that the reduction of access to PC resources by their temporary removal, with some indefinite recovery time, at some point crosses a philosophical line.  Here, I cannot grasp why this is not simply a matter of scale.

 - that the motivation behind the removal of those resources differentiates the matter.  Here, I think I better see his point in that he does not perceive alignment-based judgment the same as an NPC making a judgment.  It's OK for Vecna to judge the character, but only if the player feels such a judgment is appropriate (ie the player does not feel that the character has done nothing for which the deity would reasonably make a negative judgment against him).  To some extent, I liken this to a common problem, that the player has imbued the character with some of his own beliefs, and takes great offense at any suggestion the character, and through it the player, is not 100% Good (in a plain English sense) as opposed to not following the Tenets of Good as expressed in D&D.

I'm pretty sure that, if I pulled out a broadsword and hacked into a mugger "because he was accosting an innocent person", our modern standards would not look kindly on an act that would be accepted of any Paladin in any D&D setting I have ever run across.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> So if someone thwarts their deity by accident, said Deity should not become dissatisfied and consequences cannot be adjudicated.



There is no such thing as "acciental thwarting". A player who is playing his/her PC as consonant with his/her deity's values is not in danger of "accidentally" contradicint his/her deity's values.

That's a result of not engaging in evaluative judgements in relation to my players' choices.



Sadras said:


> Through the eyes of the deity he did the wrong thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Unless you are an abusive DM, or Veca an abusive deity - punishment is usually a consequence of a wrong choice been made.



He did not "do the wrong thing through the eyes of the deity". He thwarted the deity. (As to whether Vecna is an abusive deity - isn't that a quesetion that answers itself?)

Judging that he angered the deity is _not_ judgint whether or not he did the right thing.

I also don't understand how this notion of "wrong in the eyes of X" relates to alignment adjudication at all. Every edition of D&D presents alignments as absolute values, not values relative to the perspective of some god or other.



Sadras said:


> But going back to how players have supreme power over the view of their deities (always one and the same), a character (and interchangeably player) can _never_ make a mistake  which could thwart their Deity and therefore the Deity can _never_ become dissatisfied and therefore _no_ consequences to be adjudicated. IMO this is called a consequence-free environment_._



_Please read this actual play post. You'll note that it is not "consequence free", even though only the players engage in adjudication as to what their PCs' various commitments require. The consequences flow from upholding those commitments, not from inadvertantly violating them.



Sadras said:



			I can say this for my group, they do not believe their PCs are infallible. 

<snip>

PCs are not all knowing, players are not all knowing.
		
Click to expand...


But GMs are all knowing?

In any event, the PCs in my game are not infallible. Some of my players judge their own characters quite harshly.



N'raac said:



			[pemerton thinks that] the motivation behind the removal of those resources differentiates the matter. Here, I think I better see his point in that he does not perceive alignment-based judgment the same as an NPC making a judgment. It's OK for Vecna to judge the character, but only if the player feels such a judgment is appropriate (ie the player does not feel that the character has done nothing for which the deity would reasonably make a negative judgment against him).
		
Click to expand...


That is roughly correct. If a player sets out to thwart Vecna, and does so, having Vecna inflict punishment is not questioning the player's judgement, nor underminging the player's conception of his character. In fact it affirms both.

Whereas telling a player who believes that s/he is playing his/her PC honourably, or in accordance with relevant commitments and requirements, is doing the opposite. It is the GM telling the player that s/he, the GM, knows better than the player what the player's conception of his/her PC demands.



N'raac said:



			So classifying the character as a"backsliding sometimes-devotee" does not judge his actions?
		
Click to expand...


First, it's using a description of the PC that is not uncommon at the table, and that is not inaccurate. (His devotion to the Raven Queen is certainly less than unswerving.)

Also, it is not an evaluative judgement, no. It doesn't judge whether or not loyalty to the Raven Queen is desirable.

If the player regarded his PC as unswervingly loyal to the Raven Queen, matters might be different. But he doesn't.



N'raac said:



			You oppose removal of a character resource from the character sheet.
		
Click to expand...


No I don't . For instance, I don't oppose inflicting damage.



N'raac said:



			Did an actual roll within the game cause damage to the familiar?  I do not believe it did.
		
Click to expand...


A roll is not required to inflict damage in any version of D&D. If a PC jumps over a cliff, for instance, or sticks his/her hand in a fire, damage can be applied without a to hit roll being required.

If a fireball spell is cast in any version of D&D, no roll is required to determine that damage is taken by its targets.

In other words, since when did an attack roll become a necessary prerequisite to inflicting damage?



Imaro said:



			If a poster states they have a problem with a DM being able to deny part of a character's impact on the fiction through taking away his build resources (as a part of his larger issue with mechanical alignment)... but then posts an example where they arbitrarily do exactly this, though on a smaller scale (and at this point it has been repeatedly asked is this just an issue of scale with no definitive answer)
		
Click to expand...




N'raac said:



			pemerton has indicated that, at least to him, it is not simply a matter of scale.  He perceives some bright line
		
Click to expand...


I have given a definitive answer: namely, that you and N'raac are the only two D&D players I have ever encountered who regard damage infliction (as opposed to, say, level drain, permanent ability drain, etc) as just a lesser version of stripping PC build elements or rewriting a PC's class.

Also, consequences flowing from a skill challenge are not arbitrary.



N'raac said:



			It's very similar in that one group is displeased, resulting in a penalty (the slaves dislike you/Vecna toasts your familiar) and another group is pleased (the slavers/Raven Queen) and the character gets a benefit from them (a bonus to rolls with the slavers/oh, wait, maybe they aren't so identical after all...).
		
Click to expand...


OK.

So we've established that the GM may play the PC's familiar with a light touch. I did so, in accordance with undestandings established over 20 years between me and the player in question.

We've estblished that a skill challenge can have consequences including lingering penalties/debuffs, including on a successful check.

And so now your argument that I broke the rules is that the lingering consequence did not bring with it a reward from the Raven Queen? Please show where in the rules it is stated that a PC is entitled to a reward from the Raven Queen every time s/he does the Raven Queen's bidding.



N'raac said:



			So Vecna can activate the PC's familiar, but the Paladin's deity cannot cause him to recall the lessons of his training?
		
Click to expand...


I don't understand this question. I don't think I've said anything about what a paladin's deity can or cannot do. The rulebooks state the deity's can send dreams and visitations, though, so I guess a paladin could be visited by his/her god. How is that relevant?



Imaro said:



			pemerton claimed he took over and temporarily suspended the mechanical build resources of one of his players who displeased a deity with mechanics that were purely by the book
		
Click to expand...


I did not "temporarily suspend build resources" - unless you mean I inflicted damage, which means that every GM in every game of D&D ever "temporarily suspended build resources" by having monsters/NPCs inflict damage on the PCs.

Anyway, [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] has a perfectly good understanding of what is going on in this thread, and has made some excellent contributins to it._


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I did not "temporarily suspend build resources" - unless you mean I inflicted damage, which means that every GM in every game of D&D ever "temporarily suspended build resources" by having monsters/NPCs inflict damage on the PCs.




Sure you did, when you decided the actions of the familiar as opposed to letting the player decide them, which in turn led to the familiar being in a position to take damage (which you then decided to deal to it in some way) and then in turn led to it's return time being arbitrarily decided by you as well.... or is that just like taking damage too??



pemerton said:


> Anyway, @_*D'karr*_ has a perfectly good understanding of what is going on in this thread, and has made some excellent contributins to it.




I guess you have your opinion and I, as well as [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have ours as to [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] 's responses to what he perceives to be the issues being discussed..


----------



## D'karr

Imaro said:


> ...but I'm not going to keep summarizing the arguments or issues being discussed for you... especially when both I and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have told you that you don't seem to have a grasp on what is being discussed.




Just because you keep on repeating it doesn't really make it so.  If you want to shut down conversation all you have to do is not respond to posts.  And if you don't like seeing what I've posted you can always ignore.  I won't feel slighted.



> In a default game these are the things that exist... if you claim you are following the rules expect the rules to be brought up if some feel you aren't actually doing that.  Again this shows that you don't seem to understand the argument that is taking place or why certain things are being brought up for discussion.




In a "default game" where a DM is already ignoring mechanical alignment these things don't by necessity exist.  In any case, when a DM decides to "create the world", whether that is of out whole cloth, or by using a published setting it is pretty well understood that the DM still retains the prerogative to change things to fit what he wants to convey for that world.  If I decide to use FR as a published setting for my game but decide to change the Open Lord of Waterdeep from Lord Neverember to Lord Jenkinsfell I'm pretty sure that I'm allowed to do that.  These "world thematics" are some of the most basic things a DM might change for his game, and nobody ever really bats an eye.



> That's funny because     [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] claimed he took over and temporarily suspended the mechanical build resources of one of his players who displeased a deity with mechanics that were purely by the book... but you're claiming 4e doesn''t provide this whatsoever... interesting.




Way to misdirect, quite amusing really.

Let's see - a familiar has one hit point.  A DM does damage to that familiar using the regular mechanics.  The familiar goes offline.  Looks to me like the base mechanics have worked exactly as expected.

What    [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] did not do was go through some sort of "mental process" or "rules checking process" to make an evaluation of whether what the PC was doing was "right or wrong", "good or evil", "black or white".  Then go and note which one of those it was.  Then "give the option to the player to change his mind", as n'raac suggested was possibly necessary.  And then remove a major class feature (their class) from the PC when he did not comply with pemerton's "conclusion/evaluation".

Pemerton doesn't use mechanical alignment in his game.  So removing a major class feature from a character for alignment "infractions" is not something I'd expect to see in his game.  But I guess my reading comprehension of what he has clearly stated, on multiple occasions, must not be clear...  LOL

So I pretty much stand by what I said before, 4e does not bother itself with providing "written in stone" punishments to remove major class features from characters.



> Perhaps... but then neither of us has seen the final form of the latest edition of the game, so pronouncing the days of detect evil "gone" might be just a tad premature.




Let's misdirect some more. Way to grasp at straws.    

I could care less what the new edition does or doesn't do.  Once again irrelevant to the conversation.  The specific example I was using had nothing to do with the new edition.  Detect Evil, Detect Alignment don't exist in the version of the game used for the succubus example, specifically 4e.



> But as you expressed above, if you play where the DM isn't beholden to rules or thematics or anything else in the game... why couldn't the DM have just changed this particular succubus's alignment to neutral, in a game with mechanical alignment, and played out the same scenario with even more paranoia since then the players would be wondering why she didn't register as evil??  Or is there some reason everything else can be house ruled to fit except alignment mechanics?




So you are saying that if mechanical alignment gets in the way it should be house-ruled out of the way.  Great, I guess we agree in at least one thing.  I guess then that we can agree that mechanical alignment is an impediment to *my* game.  And right here you are telling me that I should "house-rule" it in some way.

If I go to all the trouble of changing mechanical alignment whenever it is not convenient.  I'm doing it because either I want to preserve some sense of mystery, because I want the players to actually engage with the roleplaying instead of using spells to divine the cosmological bent of the creatures/NPCs, or any of countless other reasons.  Then why would I be using "mechanical alignment" at all?  In other words, mechanical alignment is an impediment to my game so I've made sure it is not an impediment - by not using mechanical alignment.  And you seem to agree that is what I should do.  Wow!!!!  Isn't that what we, on the not using mechanical alignment for our games discussion, have said since the beginning?

Thankfully the version of the game I use doesn't really "force" mechanical alignment so I don't have any/much work to do.



> If you feel you have a clear picture of what is being discussed... well who am I too argue against that, just don't expect me to engage with any more of your posts if you're not actually discussing what everyone else is.  Because I can assure you the discussion isn't about alignment mechanics and the rules for it... in a game that has no mechanical alignment... and yes if this is what we were discussing I agree it would be silly.




Yep, the more you write the clearer the picture.  Pemerton has provided very concrete example(s) of what in *his* game would have been impeded by alignment "rules".  At times he's even gone over how the rules of the game work for those that don't seem to have a clue.  He's used quite a bit of patience to clarify, I might add.  I provided an example of what in my games would have been impeded by alignment rules.  You even said, "then why not house-rule it?"  Isn't that what we have said all along...  Let me make it clear - In our games we don't use mechanical alignment because it is an impediment to the type of game we want to play/run.  Is that clear now?  Isn't that the question posed in the OP?

What I know pemerton, others, and I have said is that mechanical alignment is an impediment to *our* games.  Some of us have even put forth some examples of why it is an impediment.  So it seems like we are discussing mechanical alignment rules and why they are an impediment to our games.  Are you discussing something else?  Because what I have seen some here do is "rules lawyer" to death the examples to attempt to make it look like either we don't know what we are talking about for our games, or that somehow you (generic you) know better our preferences and our groups.  And since we obviously don't know what we are talking about then mechanical alignment is not an impediment to gameplay.  Clearly I'm not convinced by your argument.  Mechanical alignment continues to be an impediment to* my *games so I don't use mechanical alignment.

And you agreed with me again.  Wow! Two in a row.  I'm pretty sure the cold snap we have on the East Coast must be because Asmodeus is right at this moment making some snowmen.  LOL


----------



## D'karr

N'raac said:


> More to the point, is the Succubus actually Evil if she never takes any Evil actions?




Isn't that exactly my point?  From the POV of the players the succubus was not evil.  They never saw her do something that they would consider such.  So they had to make up their own minds as to what to do with her because of her actions.  Instead of casting Detect Evil, Detect Alignment, etc., and then dealing with the "certainty" of her evilness.  Behind the scenes we are pretty sure the DM was using the succubus against us, but we never discovered it so the game play went on.  The NPC was judged by the "content of her character" rather than the "content of the alignment box on her character sheet".  The play was infinitely more enjoyable.


----------



## Cadence

Stumbled across an example of a player/DM alignment dispute over at Paizo's boards: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qqzl?Is-Killing-always-evil .   Several posters in the thread seem like the type I wouldn't want anything to do with DMing, so it might not be worth reading unless you want to feel a lot better about your own gaming group.

But I'm kind of curious how the other pro-mechanical-alignment folks would view the act that thread discusses:  An officer of the law (an assumed to be paladin with drawn weapon) attempts to arrest you (and the accused-of-being-criminal folks you are traveling with) and orders you to put down your weapons.  What responses would be acceptable for each of the nine alignments?  In particular, which could view the drawing of the weapon as provocation enough to attack and kill the officers?

Thought it was also interesting that someone provided a relevant Conan excerpt from "Queen of the Black Coast" (particularly relevant because the character above was a Barbarian and was appealing to stereotype as well as alignment interpretation; http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600961h.html#queen1  search for "Why do the").    In the story, the killing happens after more provocation than was given in the original post.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I also don't understand how this notion of "wrong in the eyes of X" relates to alignment adjudication at all. Every edition of D&D presents alignments as absolute values, not values relative to the perspective of some god or other.




They are, however, some tangible cosmic force which empowers and disempowers, however.  The 3e discussion of alignment made that pretty clear.  Thus, I am not being judged by "what I believe to be Good", "what the GM believes to be good" or even "what is truly Good", but "what the cosmological force of Good in the GM's universe perceives as being good".



pemerton said:


> Whereas telling a player who believes that s/he is playing his/her PC honourably, or in accordance with relevant commitments and requirements, is doing the opposite. It is the GM telling the player that s/he, the GM, knows better than the player what the player's conception of his/her PC demands.




Whereas, to me, it is telling the player that the PC's vision of his relevant commitments and requirements is not shared by some deity (Cleric) or cosmic force (Paladin).  My PC believes he did right.  It does not matter what the Big Fuzzy Good Thing in the Sky thinks is right and appropriate in the situation.  If Good says otherwise, then Good is wrong.



pemerton said:


> If the player regarded his PC as unswervingly loyal to the Raven Queen, matters might be different. But he doesn't.




Why?  Does that mean you are judging whether such loyalty is, or is not, desirable?  It seems that, if the PC is not played as unswervingly loyal to the RQ, then either that PC considers that a failing on his part, or he does not consider unswerving loyalty to the Raven Queen to be desirable.  The Raven Queen is goddess of Fate.  If the character's child/sibling/lover/best friend dies, as was fated, could he not decide that his loyalty was misplaced?  Perhaps his vision of the desirability of serving the Raven Queen is proven (to his satisfaction - no one else's matters) wrong.



pemerton said:


> No I don't . For instance, I don't oppose inflicting damage.




The "Vecna did damage to the familiar" argument only came up when you were called on the inconsistency with the rules.  Initially, you indicated that taking a point of damage would have had the same effect (yet it would not, we now know, as that would have meant the familiar was back after a short rest).  Then, somehow, the argument morphed into the familiar having taken that point of damage (despite not sharing in group damage from prior results of the skill challenge - assuming there were any, but I cant recall that being definitively stated, only that it was a possibility on your notes for the challenge).  Then it became one that skill challenges can have consequences of success including indefinite loss of a character ability which normally gets removed by taking damage, and returns after a short rest.  It seems like 4e is based largely on GM fiat.



pemerton said:


> A roll is not required to inflict damage in any version of D&D. If a PC jumps over a cliff, for instance, or sticks his/her hand in a fire, damage can be applied without a to hit roll being required.




None of which occurred in the scene in question.



pemerton said:


> I have given a definitive answer: namely, that you and N'raac are the only two D&D players I have ever encountered who regard damage infliction (as opposed to, say, level drain, permanent ability drain, etc) as just a lesser version of stripping PC build elements or rewriting a PC's class.




Leaving aside the question of whether the familiar actually took a point of damage, it still is not recovering in its usual recovery time, is it?  And it was still activated by you, to oppose the PC.  Typically, a PC's own build elements do not actively oppose him.



pemerton said:


> [Also, consequences flowing from a skill challenge are not arbitrary.




They sure seem arbitrary from my vantage point.  "You succeeded, so you lose a character ability for an indefinite period.  You figure out how to get it back."  Maybe he can get an Atonement spell to get back in Vecna's good books?



pemerton said:


> So we've established that the GM may play the PC's familiar with a light touch. I did so, in accordance with undestandings established over 20 years between me and the player in question.




"We" have?  You have claimed this.  I remain of the view that activating the player's resource to oppose him, then removing it indefinitely when he stops it acting against his wishes, does not fall within the category of "a light touch".



pemerton said:


> And so now your argument that I broke the rules is that the lingering consequence did not bring with it a reward from the Raven Queen? Please show where in the rules it is stated that a PC is _entitled_ to a reward from the Raven Queen every time s/he does the Raven Queen's bidding.




No, my argument is that the "exactly identical" example you provided was not exactly identical.  It provided a bonus and a penalty which fit nicely within the game fiction.  It did not remove a character ability, it provided a situational bonus to skills used against certain NPC's and a situational penalty to others.  That, to me, is quite different.



pemerton said:


> I did not "temporarily suspend build resources" - unless you mean I inflicted damage, which means that every GM in every game of D&D ever "temporarily suspended build resources" by having monsters/NPCs inflict damage on the PCs.




You indefinitely removed the familiar, which is not the typical result of the familiar taking damage, even if we accept the loss was caused by damage to the familiar.  Had the player instead smacked his familiar upside the head for 1 point of damage, it would presumably have been unable to continue channeling souls to Vecna and be recovered after a short rest, by the usual rules.  And it would still have been co-opted by the GM, repurposed from a character resource to an adversary.

And, for the record, it still would have been a good game, so whatever rules were broken would be fine with me, as a GM or a player.   But they do not represent a "by the rules" occurrence, and they do represent removal of a character resource.  *They do not, however, represent a removal of a character resource based on what you define as an evaluative judgment.*  That bolded statement is my initial confusion, which you have dispelled.



Imaro said:


> Sure you did, when you decided the actions of the familiar as opposed to letting the player decide them, which in turn led to the familiar being in a position to take damage (which you then decided to deal to it in some way) and then in turn led to it's return time being arbitrarily decided by you as well.... or is that just like taking damage too??




Yup.



D'karr said:


> Isn't that exactly my point?  From the POV of the players the succubus was not evil.  They never saw her do something that they would consider such.  So they had to make up their own minds as to what to do with her because of her actions.  Instead of casting Detect Evil, Detect Alignment, etc., and then dealing with the "certainty" of her evilness.  Behind the scenes we are pretty sure the DM was using the succubus against us, but we never discovered it so the game play went on.  The NPC was judged by the "content of her character" rather than the "content of the alignment box on her character sheet".  The play was infinitely more enjoyable.




So is the problem the existence of alignment, or of divination spells?  It seems like a thought reading spell, or a "detect lies" spell, or any number of non-alignment driven divinations, could just as easily have removed the deception, or clarified there was no deception, much more readily than detecting alignment and getting "she is not evil" or "she is evil".  And maybe even "she is evil" (but you don't detect that she is sincerely attempting to assist you, and is trying to mend her evil ways - she just hasn't made it over the line to Neutral yet).


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> is the Succubus actually Evil if she never takes any Evil actions?





Imaro said:


> why couldn't the DM have just changed this particular succubus's alignment to neutral, in a game with mechanical alignment, and played out the same scenario with even more paranoia since then the players would be wondering why she didn't register as evil??



I have the same response to these remarks as [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] - what is the point of using mechanical alignment if these are the sorts of steps a GM has to take to stop it spoiling play?

So far in this thread I have seen two clear articulations of the contribution mechanical alignment can make to play.

One has been from me: in Gygaxian play, where moral scruples are an obstacle to success in killing and looting, mechanical alignment is a device for establishing trade offs between suffering the disadvanages of being scrupulous while getting the benefits of being a good guy (more friendly NPCs, more divine favour etc). This is the context in which the paladin was initially introduced. As far as I know none of the posters who has been active in this thread plays in this style, and so there is no one in this thread who is enjoying this particular form of contribution to play that mechanical alignment has to offer.

A second, and quite different, contribution that mechanical alignment can make to play has been articulated by [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]: mechanical alignment is a tool that the GM can use to define a cosmologically-enforced value system, and then in play the players, via their PCs, explore this system. This is not a style of play that appeals to me personally, but I am pretty sure I understand what it is about - it's a form of world exploration - and I can see how mechanical alignment can be a part of it. I know that Bedrock games is not the biggest admirer of Ron Edwards, but Ron Edwards has a nice (and not at all pejorative) characterisation of this way of using mechanical alignment:

In [this style of] play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.​
As far as I can tell, this captures exactly what Bedrockgames is talking about, right down to the point that the GM imposes morality not on his/her own account, but in his/her capacity as creator and arbiter of the imagined world.

There are other versions of morality and personality mechanics that can play a similar role to this use of alignment: Pendragon's personality mechanics can be used this way, I think, and I suspect that Ars Magica's can also (I've had an Ars Magic revised rulebook, from 1989, for some time, but am actually reading it closely for the first time at the moment).

There have been hints of a third way in which alignment might contribute to play that have been made from time to time, but they are hard to pin down. At first I thought [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] was articulating this approach, but subsequent posts have caused me to have doubts.

This third way treats alignment as a _role-playing challenge_: the player chooses an alignment for his/her PC, and is then expected to stick to it. The GM frames situations that might make that hard, eg because they tempt the player to depart from alignment, for reasons of expedience such as earning more XP or treasure. But a good player sticks to his/her alignment; while a bad one, who departs from or (in the extreme case) changes alignment is penalised for that. (This approach seems to me to be articulated in the 2nd ed rulebooks, and there are hints of it in Gygax's rulebooks too.)

This style of play also doesn't particularly appeal to me - I don't think of roleplaying as a _challenge_ in the way that this approach presupposes - but I can see that others might enjoy it, and I've known players who are into this sort of thing.

What has surprised me a bit in this thread, though - especially over the last few hundred posts - is that those who I thought might be into this style of play (eg [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], perhaps [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]) seem to have repudiated one of its underpinnings, namely, the role of the GM in adjudicating player roleplaying. Which has left me somewhat puzzled as to how those posters are using alignment in their games.



Cadence said:


> I think there is a middle ground between two extremes.
> 
> I tend to put way too much work into building pantheons and cultures and stuff like that for the games I'm DMing - and I've always assumed (both as a player and as a DM) that the DM is the final arbiter
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'll often propose deities or belief systems for my characters to DMs who are less interested in filling all that out in advance.   And I expect the DM to have full editorial control over whatever idea I've suggested.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In actual play, don't the clerics have to make decisions for their characters based on how they picture their characters deities policies?   I've always assumed and played that the DM can over-ride that, but neither the player or DM has spent decades immersed in that faith.  If the player inserts something into play that I hadn't thought about and I don't think is crazy on the face of it, then I'm not going to pause the game and mull over what the deity really thinks... I'm just going to run with it.  It seems similar to things that might come up with a character's family, past exploits, and even things like what common foods are usually available in inns.  On the other hand, if it is something I've already mulled over or seems insane, then I could nuke it and over-ride the characters attempted narration.   I don't actually remember any in play incidences of that, so maybe my player's have never pushed anything I thought was crazy, or maybe it wasn't a big deal at the time.



This strikes me as a version of the playstyle I'm imputing to Bedrockgames. It's about world exploration, but with elements of shared backstory authority, just as happens in your other examples like PC families and common foods at inns.



Sadras said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally not interested in . . . exploring the GM's ideas about possible relationships between various values, rather than actually exploring those values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating this sentiment as if, it appears to me, they cannot simultaneously be done within a game.
Click to expand...


Well, to put it crudely, they can't.

To explore values requires leaving open the answers to the questions like "What is the true nature of honour", "What does true honour demand", etc. Exploring the GM's conception of certain values presupposes that those questions have already been answered by the GM. Questions can't, at one and the same time, be both open and answered.

The impression I'm getting from some of the "alignment is not a straitjacket" posts is that the GM answers some of the big questions, but leaves the little questions open, and that is where the action of play takes place. This impression is reinforced by the number of recent posts saying "But whether or not to rescue the villain is not really an alignment question", or "Whether or not the druid should favour nature over civilisation is not really an alignment question" or "You solve the succubus problem by making her neutral and therefore, de facto, taking her outside the alignment mechanics." But if I am right about this - that the action is taking place in relation to questions that the GM's alignment rulings don't settle - then I'm not sure what useful purpose mechanical alignment is serving, except perhaps to take some questions off the table.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> The "Vecna did damage to the familiar" argument only came up when you were called on the inconsistency with the rules.



That is not how it looks to me. The way it looks to me is that I described an event that, in play, struck all relevant participants as obviously permissible within the rules. Some posters then stated that it was impermissible, and I referred in more detail to relevant rules elements to show that they were wrong.

Much as someone might, either in play or in post-play description, talk about their PC moving and then attacking; and only afterwards, in response to sceptical questioning, might have to unpack what happened in terms of move actions, standard actions etc.



N'raac said:


> Leaving aside the question of whether the familiar actually took a point of damage, it still is not recovering in its usual recovery time, is it?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the "exactly identical" example you provided was not exactly identical.  It provided a bonus and a penalty which fit nicely within the game fiction.  It did not remove a character ability, it provided a situational bonus to skills used against certain NPC's and a situational penalty to others.  That, to me, is quite different.



To me, this simply reinforces your unfamiliarity with 4e's mechanics.

In 4e, there is no fundamental difference between an enduring -5 penalty to a certain category of actions, and an enduring failure to regain an encounter power. And as far as mechanical impact is concerned, the -5 penalty is quite likely to be more severe. This is because one typical encounter power is one which permits a +5 to a certain category of skill check. Losing that power, for some extended period, is therefore tantamount to a -5 penalty to a check once per encounter. Whereas a lingering -5 penalty is (obviously) the equivalent of a -5 penalty to every relevant check while the penalty endures.

Hence, from the point of view both of basic mechanical structures, and practical effect, there is no difference between a -5 penalty and a suppressed encounter power. Both are "lingering consequences" of the sort that are referred to in the passages from the DMG2 that I quoted upthread.



N'raac said:


> They are, however, some tangible cosmic force which empowers and disempowers, however.  The 3e discussion of alignment made that pretty clear.  Thus, I am not being judged by "what I believe to be Good", "what the GM believes to be good" or even "what is truly Good", but "what the cosmological force of Good in the GM's universe perceives as being good".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it is telling the player that the PC's vision of his relevant commitments and requirements is not shared by some deity (Cleric) or cosmic force (Paladin).  My PC believes he did right.  It does not matter what the Big Fuzzy Good Thing in the Sky thinks is right and appropriate in the situation.  If Good says otherwise, then Good is wrong.



The notion of "what the cosmological force of Good perceives as being good" strikes me as incoherent. It is the force of Good - it doesn't have an opinion about what goodness is. It instantiates goodness!

There is no textual evidence in any version of D&D that supports this idea that the forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are _opinions_ about those values, as opposed to instantiations of those values.

Even in Planescape, it's not the case that (for instance) devils and demons regard the Upper Planes as having a flawed conception of goodness. Nor do they regard evil as their own good. They regard evil as evil, and embrace it.

This can also be cashed out with reference to the sort of game that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] describes. In that sort of game, if the GM tells you that what your PC is doing is evil, there is no scope for the character, as an inhabitant of the gameworld, to question that judgement. The relevant conception of good and evil defines what it is, within that gameworld, to be good or bad.


----------



## Manbearcat

@_*Nagol*_  and   @_*Sadras*_ , the website is entirely on the fritz so I'm not going to waste time trying to quote and format.  Here is the relevant bit where I was trying to clarify my thoughts.  The initial question posed just asked me if I could relay an anecdote about thematic conflict calibration between myself and a PC.  I did so but without the intent of providing an anecdote that would serve as an example to investigate the impact of pre-4e mechanical alignment on this sort of play.  Given that, I attempted to engage the conversation with an "in spirit" analogue to pre-4e alignment (* code/ethos QC by GM, homage to 4e's power sources - specifically with respect to how alignment constraints mandate being in accords with the ideals of those sources, lest the power source be turned off -,  and generic Druid tropes).  However, I think I can provide a (brief) breakdown of where troubles would have arisen for our play if the game was played under the auspices of 3.5.  That is below the quoted text that provides *



Manbearcat said:


> Some more clarification here.  When I was transcribing that anecdote of my table for the purposes of this thread, I wasn't applying strict alignment of D&D to the anecdote.  I was relaying it on the terms of the rules framework of "alignment as prescriptive guide for GM adjudication of character action and resultant metaphysical fallout".  In this case, the anecdote wasn't about neutrality or good or evil.  Further, it wasn't about Erathis or Melora extending or retracting a divine boon to a PC.  Druid's in 4e work off the Primal power source, not the Divine power source.  They are not "nature clerics".  They directly "draw on the spirits of nature that pervade the world."
> 
> As such, if an analogue to pre-4e alignment existed, it would require me to discern the character's actions with respect to these spirits of nature that pervade the world...and if they would continue extending their power, retract their power, or grow angry and attack the druid until she attones/relents from her position of Civilization (as steward or mediator over the destructive inclination of nature) over Raw, Savage Nature.  If I (GM) thought her (player) position and subsequent (character) actions were "rubbish" (as I outlined a possible, certainly not anomalous) take above, then it would be either retraction of power (primal spirits revoking her connection to the natural world) or fierce backlash until she relents and chooses Raw, Savage Nature over Civilization (as steward or mediator).  I think that would have been terrible for play.
> 
> Hopefully that is more clear.




Alright, so let us just pretend for a moment that 4e has all of the trappings of mechanical alignment and that Druids are a Divine character (rather than Primal) and could have their power font "turned off".  With that in mind, throughout the entirety of play, the unaltered evolution of this particular Druid would have had the following troubles along both alignment and nature reverence.

1)  I suspect the vast majority of GMs would have ruled that this Druid would have never passed muster as neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil.  Most evaluations of this character's body of work would have put them firmly in the lawful good camp.  This prohibited alignment would have made them an ex-druid, banishing from them all spells and druid features.  With respect to the ruleset's agenda that it sets out in the relevant texts, I don't see that as bad GMing.  I see that as correct GMing.

2)  This Druid did not revere nature.  She has never been "tinged with awe" and she has not "venerated" nature in the sense of it being prioritized above other ideals.  As was intended, this character had core principles that were at tension.  She had a very holistic approach, one that would be extremely heretical in a canon, druidic faith, that was premised upon all things fitting into their respective places and playing their role in a greater whole.  There was no divide between "unnatural" and "natural" to this character.  This, again is prohibited.  A druid ceasing to revere nature would suffer the same fate as 1 above.  If "revere nature" is to mean anything, and be a legitimate tool for adjudication, the rubber would need to meet the road somewhere.  If it wouldn't meet the road on this character, with her heretical homogenization of "unnatural" with "natural", then nothing would.  Spells, supernatural powers gone.  With respect to the ruleset's agenda that it sets out in the relevant texts, I don't see that as bad GMing.  I see that as correct GMing.

3)  Again, I'm the GM (as always).  I don't want to be QCing ethos decisions (neither intent nor consequences with respect to cosmological fallout) for legitimate adherence to canonical principles or heretical viewpoints/behavioral regime that should "cast you out."  I don't want to be "keeping tabs" on it and I don't want to "put it all in the hopper" and I don't want to "spit out a mandate" and I don't want to "have a conversation/deliberation with a PC to that end."

On all points 1-3, there is a problem for play in my game.  This character's body of work wouldn't have panned out.  Its evolution would have been tortured or rendered null.  And all the while I would have had to spend mental overhead on the adjudicating the cosmological fallout.  Those, singularly and certainly together, equal "harmful to my (and my players) preferred table aesthetic and play."


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> With respect to the ruleset's agenda that it sets out in the relevant texts, I don't see that as bad GMing.  I see that as correct GMing.



Agreed. This relates to my post two above yours (number 1027): I'm puzzled by the number of posts on this thread from the "pro-alignment" crowd which seem to evince an unwillingness to do the GMing work that the rules for mechanical alignment seem to clearly call for.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Agreed. This relates to my post two above yours (number 1027): I'm puzzled by the number of posts on this thread from the "pro-alignment" crowd which seem to evince an unwillingness to do the GMing work that the rules for mechanical alignment seem to clearly call for.




I often hear that D&D doesn't need to be saved from "poor GMing" because there isn't an epidemic of "bad GMs".  Nonetheless, I keep seeing calls of "well that is just bad GMing" on various, punitive, interpretations of cosmological fallout (of which I've seen manifest in real life...by real people...who certainly don't consider themselves poor GMs).  I've had these conversations with plenty of GMs in real life and it seems that almost every long term GM I know is significantly more strict (and I guess worse) in their GMing than the general populace on ENWorld.  I can tell  you precisely what they would say (as I've heard one iteration of another many times before).  They would say something akin to "If alignment has no teeth, from an adjudicative sense, and must be milquetoast in proportion to the punitive nature of the fallout (on the the player at the table by way of their PC's losses), then what is the point?"

That character above would have been an ex-Druid.  Plain and simple.  Plenty of reasonable (good) GMs would have asserted that as fact just as plenty of reasonable people will assert all sorts of various nuance within the L <==> N <==> C continuum which would give rise to Paladin's falling.  It is not poor GMing.  And if it is poor GMing, then we better reexamine the population density of "bad GMs" that we must create D&D rulesets around.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Several posters in the thread seem like the type I wouldn't want anything to do with DMing, so it might not be worth reading unless you want to feel a lot better about your own gaming group.
> 
> In any case, I'm kind of curious how the other pro-mechanical-alignment folks would view the act it question



I just read through the thread quickly, and my sympathies lie mainly with the OP, for two reasons.

First, the OP seems to have had his PC perform an action which is completely reasonable within the basic framework of the game, completely true to character, and utterly predictable by any GM. Whether it's "good" or "evil" seems irrelevant to me. (And I can't imagine anyone classifying it as "lawful" and thereby a threat to the PC's status as a barbarian.)

Second, within the framework of the morality of self-defence I think the OP has a lot going for him also. The biggest issue is the use of _lethal_ force, which is arguably disproportionate to the threat posed, but D&D is so casual about the use of lethal force - and pre-modern societies also tended to be more casual about it than modern societies - that I don't really feel the force of objections along those lines. (I mean, PCs are expected to invade orc fortresses and use lethal force all the time, without worrying about questions of proportionality.)

It is true that the threat to the OP's PC comes from a town guard, but it's clear from what the OP says that, _for that PC_, the town guard do not play a social role that gives their threats a special status in relation to him. The guards are, relative to the barbarian, asserting an authority that is not actually grounded in social reality. (For an interesting discussion of this in real life, I recommend the paper by Martin Krgyier and Rober van Krieken in Robert Manne's Whitewash.)



Cadence said:


> Thought it was also interesting that someone provided a relevant Conan excerpt from "Queen of the Black Coast"



That is a fictional rather than an actual historical example of the phenomenon I mention in the previous paragraph, but it makes the same point. I cited that passage in a seminar in 2012 to try to illustrate, in a pithy way, the notion that the authority of the law depends in a certain respect upon the actual fact of social uptake, and cannot be grounded simply in an abstract claim to rational authority.


----------



## Campbell

Let's take this from another angle. I'm not going to wade into specifics of any given edition of the game.

My fundamental issue with prescriptive personality mechanics (Alignment, WoD Humanity and Nature, SWSE Force mechanics, L5R Honor, GURPS personality flaws) is that they define the conflicts that game should focus on for you. They encourage morality rules lawyering by tying character behavior to specific rewards and denying specific benefits. What I enjoy about tabletop RPGs in particular is their capacity for a GM and their players to work together to determine what is at stake. I don't want to feel like I'm fighting against the tide for not trying to game these systems that encourage avoiding conflict rather than pushing play towards it.

When I sit down to create a character my first step is establish their belief systems, where they fall short, and how their beliefs clash with each other and the world around them. In the Scion game I'm currently playing in I play Reinhardt, a scion of Baldur. Reinhardt grew up in the streets of Berlin after his mother abandoned him, and at the start of play was a burgeoning thrash metal singer with severe anger management issues. The core conflict with the character is that he wants to make his no longer absentee father proud of him, but also despises being tied to him. He desperately wants to become his own man and is willing to fight whatever is in his way to do so. He views himself as a hero and leader, but constantly lashes out in anger at those around him despite the fact that he's a capable tactician and leader of men when he is in control of his faculties.

Thing is I don't actually want to know for certain whether or not he is living up to ideals of Aesir, but Scion's personality mechanics keep popping up. Now that we've reached demigod level and a squadron of 5 Valkyries have been sent to observe him to see if he is capable of leading einherjar in battle come Ragnarok I'm personally much more interested to see if he can prove his heroism to them then if he is acting in accordance with his game mechanic defined virtues. It is an unnecessary distraction away from the events of play which is where I want my focus to be.

I give my ST a lot of credit here. He does a good job of minimizing the impact of the rules, but it feels like a cloud hanging over my head.


----------



## D'karr

Cadence said:


> Stumbled across an example of a player/DM alignment dispute over at Paizo's boards: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qqzl?Is-Killing-always-evil .   Several posters in the thread seem like the type I wouldn't want anything to do with DMing, so it might not be worth reading unless you want to feel a lot better about your own gaming group.




This example you showed from the thread is yet another example of a situation in which mechanical alignment would impede/hamper the play experience of our games.  What does it matter that the act is deemed "evil" or not?  The relevant play is going to be the "roleplaying" circumstances/consequences of the actions.  So to what extent is the "mental overhead" or "mechanical process" to arrive at a conclusion of "evil" in any way useful?  Mechanical Alignment rapidly falls short of any real relevance to what is happening in game.  The length of that thread also shows that the "mental overhead" is clearly not trivial or even "reliably objective".  There might be as many "alignment conclusions" on that thread as there are participants, and not all of them are going to even be in the same ballpark.   

With mechanical alignment the only reason I would be going through the mental exercise is to determine if, as a DM, I'm going to "force" an alignment shift for the Barbarian character.  What heft does that really add to the situation? In what ways do mechanical alignment rules improve that situation? 

Now, don't get me wrong - I'll grant that the situation is quite ridiculous, and basically 2 dimensional.  I don't think that it would even come up in any of our games.  I see it more as an example of "very immature play", by which I mean play by very new or young players.  But with mechanical alignment I don't think it is anywhere that uncommon in a game like D&D, which as a base premise has almost always been a game of "murder-hobos".  I think I have seen examples similar to this one possibly hundreds, if not thousands of times on threads everywhere. 

From the standpoint of non-mechanical alignment the DM and the players in that group don't have to bother calculating whether that action was evil or not.  The action simply is, roleplay consequences follow. I see no benefit to what a ruling by mechanical alignment actually adds, or improves, in that situation.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> To explore values requires leaving open the answers to the questions like "What is the true nature of honour", "What does true honour demand", etc. Exploring the GM's conception of certain values presupposes that those questions have already been answered by the GM. Questions can't, at one and the same time, be both open and answered.




If the GM already has a clear, certain conception of “honour”, then where is the mental overhead several posters have indicated is required in adjudicating alignment?  The GM **knows** what Honour means, at least in his game.  If that mental overhead is, in fact required, then both player and GM are exploring what honour might mean in this game.



pemerton said:


> The impression I'm getting from some of the "alignment is not a straitjacket" posts is that the GM answers some of the big questions, but leaves the little questions open, and that is where the action of play takes place.




I think that’s fair.  That is also consistent with the statement often made that “we don’t really need alignment because none of our characters take actions blatantly out of step with their professed beliefs/alignment”.  The big picture seems well understood, at least in those games.

To your next comment, I see three separate issues, albeit not without their similarities.



pemerton said:


> This impression is reinforced by the number of recent posts saying "But whether or not to rescue the villain is not really an alignment question"




To some extent, it is.  However, to some extent, the tone of the game also enters into the picture.  As an extreme example, if the tone of my game is “Saturday morning cartoon”, then Good pretty much prohibits hurting, much less killing.  That “slay the Evildoers” Paladin does not fit in this game.

But that’s not D&D, right?  Well, it was the only D&D TV series produced to date, wasn’t it?  How much killing did those characters do?  Not the game I want to play, but one possible, if extreme, tone.

A game with a tone more in keeping with your (WAY) upthread Lancelot reference has a much more “life is cheap” tone to it, and killing town guards may be quite OK.  That seems more in keeping with the vision expressed by the CN barbarian in the linked Paizo thread.

I think that places less reverence on life than the setting of the dial in the by the book 2e and 3e alignment descriptions, where “respect for life” is a hallmark of Good.  That said, clearly there is considerable room for compromise on that ideal in the typical “smite the evildoer”  D&D game.



pemerton said:


> "Whether or not the druid should favour nature over civilisation is not really an alignment question"




It’s not.  It’s really not.  It does not place Good and Evil values in opposition.  It may be closer to a Law versus Chaos conflict, but it doesn’t zone in on that specifically.  In a game where Nature versus Civilization is a primary theme, alignment doesn’t really serve to reflect where participants stand in that regard.  In a game whose theme is largely Nature versus Civilization, I do have to question the play example where Primal Forces continue to empower one who has now become a clear Servant of Civilization.  We have reduced those Primal Forces to abilities which can be tapped by anyone who knows the right phrases and hand gestures, rather than a Force empowering its servants to pursue its objectives.  Just like “the cleric’s spells and the Paladin’s powers may never be taken away, and in fact new ones can be granted, regardless of their adherence to the tenets and goals of the beings ostensibly granting them their powers” invokes, to me, a “right rituals tap into power whether the power source likes it or not” vibe, rather than a “servants of a higher power” vibe.

In fact, a similar question could be asked of the Eye of Vecna.  Is it just a power source (whoever plunks the thing into their skull gets these powers to use as they see fit), or is it a channel by which Vecna may reward or punish its wielder for serving or thwarting his goals?  The former seems more consistent with “tap into the power source – you don’t have to serve that source’s goals” and the latter more consistent with “serving a higher power” theme.  

That, to me, could be a very real dividing line between a “magic item” (taps into arcane power which is there for the taking to any who know how to access and manipulate it)  and an “artifact” (provides a link to a higher power, and can never be fully under its wielder’s control).



pemerton said:


> or "You solve the succubus problem by making her neutral and therefore, de facto, taking her outside the alignment mechanics."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think we’re “making her neutral”.  If she is not evil, then she is not evil.  The question of whether Demons are creatures of pure evil which are beyond redemption is a campaign question.  However, if the answer is “yes, that is what Demons are”, then why would any rational being trust one, however benevolent her present behaviour may seem?  And, if she draws her powers from Pure Evil, should she retain them if she is straying from that path?  I would say she should be held to at least the same standard as the Cleric, or even the Paladin, retaining his powers.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it looks to me. The way it looks to me is that I described an event that, in play, struck all relevant participants as obviously permissible within the rules. Some posters then stated that it was impermissible, and I referred in more detail to relevant rules elements to show that they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way it looks to me is that your players trust you to interpret, apply and depart from the rules in a manner which will make an exciting, enjoyable game for all participants.  To me, that’s vastly superior than a group which lacks that trust in the GM, leaving him unable to depart from the strict rules mechanics for any reason.  To reiterate, I do not  accept that your game is run strictly by “the rules”.  That does not mean I deny it is a well run game, enjoyed by its participants.  The latter is far more important, so I do not understand the obsession of trying to get us to agree that the “rules as written” are being strictly applied.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 4e, there is no fundamental difference between an enduring -5 penalty to a certain category of actions, and an enduring failure to regain an encounter power. And as far as mechanical impact is concerned, the -5 penalty is quite likely to be more severe. This is because one typical encounter power is one which permits a +5 to a certain category of skill check. Losing that power, for some extended period, is therefore tantamount to a -5 penalty to a check once per encounter. Whereas a lingering -5 penalty is (obviously) the equivalent of a -5 penalty to every relevant check while the penalty endures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4e always strikes me as very mechanistic across the board.  Would it require a skill challenge to determine that a PC who has always been loyal to the local Baron receives a +2 bonus to interaction with those loyal to the Baron, and a -5 penalty to interaction with those who oppose him?  That is, he would find it easier to obtain aid from the Baron’s Sergeant at Arms, but more difficult to persuade rebels to share the location of their base or the identity of their leader?  That, to me, is what the bonus and penalty set out in the example you provided implies.
> 
> Perhaps an aside (something this thread clearly has stayed away from to date…), but if we move beyond the escaped slaves’ example further down the chain, and a skill challenge includes interaction with slaves (now with a -5 penalty), does that penalty influence the classification of such rolls (ie they would be Moderate without the penalty, but since we walk into the situation with that penalty, they are now Hard)?  I don’t know the answer, however if the challenge is still “moderate” whether or not you have a -5 penalty, the penalty seems much more one of mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The notion of "what the cosmological force of Good perceives as being good" strikes me as incoherent. It is the force of Good - it doesn't have an opinion about what goodness is. It instantiates goodness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it prizes “respect for life” above all, and I think capital punishment is valid, then my “Good” and that of “Cosmological Good” clearly differ.  Alternatively, if its “Good” is “all who follow evil must be stricken from the Earth”, it seems unlikely to accord with “Good” as we perceive it in the modern world.  Again, my example of the sword-wielding Paladin who is following his cosmological “Good” being a pretty poor fit as “Good” in 21st century North America.  Or, for that matter, Lawful, as he metes out justice as a vigilante, rather than making a citizen’s arrest and turning his foes over to face the justice of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manbearcat;6271117Alright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, I come back to the tone of the game.  If that is intended to see the Druid as a Priest of Nature, then this character clearly does not fit that mold, does she?  She becomes the “baby killing Paladin” within the setting. That tone is clearly not desired in your game, but I think we are back to “all power sources are amoral – if you know how to access them, you can use them”.  With that in  mind, why can’t a knowledgeable individual tap into Divine, Arcane and Primal power sources equally?  They’re all just power sources, like AC current, DC current and thermal energy.  They don’t question what they are used for, they just act as directed by the user.
> 
> Now, that definitely requires some means of transitioning that Druid to some other power source, not just leaving the Druid with a bunch of dead levels, rendering the character worse than dead (the dead can be revived, but the lost powers can neither be reclaimed nor revised).  But I find it something of a disconnect that “I strike you with the raw, primal power of the very Nature whose tenets I have abandoned” less than satisfying.
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read through the thread quickly, and my sympathies lie mainly with the OP, for two reasons.
> 
> First, the OP seems to have had his PC perform an action which is completely reasonable within the basic framework of the game, completely true to character, and utterly predictable by any GM. Whether it's "good" or "evil" seems irrelevant to me. (And I can't imagine anyone classifying it as "lawful" and thereby a threat to the PC's status as a barbarian.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I find myself back to tone.  I agree that there’s no question the Barbarian is moving towards Law in his actions, so the only question is Good versus Evil.  If the first response of an individual to any inconvenience is lethal force, that does not strike me as “respect for life”, so Good is clearly out.  If the person’s favoured , if not only, means of dealing with any inconvenience is “strike to kill”, it seems reasonable to classify that as Evil.  One Evil act does not make the person Evil, but a continued trend?  Yeah, just lashing out at anything that annoys you strikes me as a Chaotic Evil force of destruction.
> 
> I do agree that DD is pretty cavalier about the use of lethal force.  If the tone of the campaign is one where the character is stuck in a “kill or be killed” choice, selecting lethal force seems much more understandable.  What I don’t know is what the result of negotiation with, or surrender to, this guardsman is likely to be.  Is that a death sentence?  Then lethal force becomes a much more reasonable choice.  However, I think the “Heroes” we envision as Good (or even Neutral) would be more likely to seek to bluff their way out, disarm the guard, subdue him, or distract him and flee than to run him through and leave him dead on the cobblestones.
> 
> We’re seeing the example without context, though.  I believe the Guard was presented as a Paladin.  What action would he, an exemplar of Good in this setting, have taken against the PC’s?  If, on finding the stolen object, he would dispense summary justice in the form of execution without further ado, “respect for life” seems much less relevant to “Good” than in the standard D&D setting, so my interpretation of lethal force used against him would also change.
> 
> And here is where we come back to the views of that “Cosmological Good” not necessarily matching my own views of “good” in plain English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Cadence

Manbearcat said:


> Given that, I attempted to engage the conversation with an "in spirit" analogue to pre-4e alignment (* code/ethos QC by GM, homage to 4e's power sources - specifically with respect to how alignment constraints mandate being in accords with the ideals of those sources, lest the power source be turned off -, and generic Druid tropes). However, I think I can provide a (brief) breakdown of where troubles would have arisen for our play if the game was played under the auspices of 3.5. That is below the quoted text that provides *
> 
> Alright, so let us just pretend for a moment that 4e has all of the trappings of mechanical alignment and that Druids are a Divine character (rather than Primal) and could have their power font "turned off".




How I would think about it - noting that I'd never really questioned using mechanical alignment until this thread and have never found it a detriment in play myself (in that no one I've played with has ever done something egregious enough to make me question their alignment).

Case 1:
(a) It is established that druids are divine characters who are granted their powers from their unity with, and reverence for, nature where that unity is disrupted by going to the extremes of LG, CG, LN, or CN or not revering nature.
(b) The player decided to play a character of that class
(c) In the course of play the character stops revering nature, likes civilization just as much as nature, and move towards LG, and the player recognizes these changes in the character.

If (a) has been established as an axiom of the game, then shouldn't the player whose character gets to (c) voluntarily start having all their nature granted powers fail without the DM even needing to intervene?    To me, the player not role-playing as if their powers are being gradually shut down seems in the same family as a player trying to have their magic-user attempt to cast spells with no penalty while wearing armor, the paladin killing babies for fun and thinking they get to keep their powers, or the player of a deafened character having them knowing what's being said around them.  In all those cases the player seems like they are trying to _cheat_ in the sense of not playing the game by its rules.  If the player tried to ignore the casting penalty for armor, would you as DM make them take the penalty (or stop playing with them)?  I don't see how it is different if the player recognizes (a) as a rule and recognizes that they are violating it.

I would expect that the DM and player would work something out for the player to maintain some slightly altered powers by shifting their allegiances to a different divinity/power (become some sort of unique cleric/druid/divine-caster type).

Case 1.1: 
I agree (quite readily based on several anti-alignment posters previous posts) that it gets more complicated if we change (c) and the player doesn't recognize that they are shifting away from nature and are shifting towards an extreme alignment.  Then it gets into the DM having to either point that out to them or to ignore it.  That seems to go with your (3). I completely get the argument about not wanting the DM to have to enforce things that can be tied to a value judgement - things like the differences between LG and N (with LG tendencies) or what it means to revere and work for nature. I assume you would enforce things that don't have a value judgement - say a player isn't using their armor penalty as an arcane caster because they were forgetting to do so or because they found it annoying?

Case 2:
(a) It is established that druids are divine characters who are granted their powers from their unity with, and reverence for, nature where that unity is disrupted by going to the extremes of LG, CG, LN, or CN or not revering nature.
(b) The player would like to play a druid but has a character idea where their aliegence is split between a god of nature and a god of civilization, has a different stance on nature, and a world view that might not fit with N.

In this case I would think they would bring that idea to the DM.  If having a special druid archetype or alternate version of the druid didn't do violence to the setting, then I would expect the DM to help the player up a custom character class to fit their vision of the characters.  (For example, in last years 1e game the DM let me switch out my thief's pick pocket and open locks for ranger tracking.)  If the proposed class modification doesn't fit the established world at all, I wouldn't expect the DM to go with it any more than I would expect them to allow an elf in an agreed upon all human campaign, allow fire-arms in an agreed upon bronze age one, or let the player unilaterally decide to use some psionic supplement to introduce those to the game.



Manbearcat said:


> On all points 1-3, there is a problem for play in my game. This character's body of work wouldn't have panned out. Its evolution would have been tortured or rendered null. And all the while I would have had to spend mental overhead on the adjudicating the cosmological fallout. Those, singularly and certainly together, equal "harmful to my (and my players) preferred table aesthetic and play."




I think I would like a distinction between (i) having alignment/codes of honor and their having effects on the characters and (ii) how they are enforced.   I don't find (i) to be that much different than many other restrictions placed on players and their characters in the game.  The difference I see is in (ii) with the judgement required of the DM if they are the enforcers and how some DMs find it objectionable to insert disagreements on values into the game and/or how much mental overhead is used up for some DMs in monitoring such things if they are the enforcer.   

If a game doesn't want (i), that's fine -- you've just redefined how divine casters work in your game and they're different from RAW.  It just makes no sense to now say your playing a "3.5 D&D Druid" ... you're playing "a house-ruled druid that gets rid of the connection to nature".  People house-rule things all the time.  

If you go with (i), then you could put (ii) in the hands of the players and not the DMs, and if the whole table notices the paladin thinks killing babies is good then you stop playing with them instead of intruding to strip their powers.  For me, I don't find (ii) to take much mental overhead and (until reading this thread) didn't find it any different from enforcing the armor wearing caster penalty.

I don't agree that Case 1 above necessarily means this character's body of work would have been negated -- unless they insisted they were a perfectly good druid still or the DM refused to work on a rebuild with them.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> I just read through the thread quickly, and my sympathies lie mainly with the OP, for two reasons.
> 
> First, the OP seems to have had his PC perform an action which is completely reasonable within the basic framework of the game, completely true to character, and utterly predictable by any GM. Whether it's "good" or "evil" seems irrelevant to me. (And I can't imagine anyone classifying it as "lawful" and thereby a threat to the PC's status as a barbarian.)






D'karr said:


> This example you showed from the thread is yet another example of a situation in which mechanical alignment would impede/hamper the play experience of our games. What does it matter that the act is deemed "evil" or not? The relevant play is going to be the "roleplaying" circumstances/consequences of the actions. <snip> There might be as many "alignment conclusions" on that thread as there are participants, and not all of them are going to even be in the same ballpark.
> <snip>
> I think I have seen examples similar to this one possibly hundreds, if not thousands of times on threads everywhere.




I agree that even if it was evil, a single act that is arguably justifiable shouldn't be enough to move an alignment even if you're using the 1e Gygaxian rules... and that changing to evil doesn't seem like it should have that much of an effect on the character. 

I just thought it was interesting because, even after 1000+ posts, this thread didn't seem to have many actual in-play examples where the play actually turned into DM/Player disagreement over alignment interpretation and blew up... and that I think reasonable arguments could be made about whether the act in question was CN or not. 

My comment about "posters I wouldn't want to play with" wasn't related to whether it was reasonable to think this would be counted as a CN act for the barbarian ... but more about whether a min-maxed low Int CN Barbarian is a good choice for the game sessions I envision and whether I want to be in a room with people who think that shooting police officers trying to arrest you for a crime you committed in real-life modern America isn't something that should be thought of as an evil act. 



D'karr said:


> Now, don't get me wrong - I'll grant that the situation is quite ridiculous, and basically 2 dimensional. I don't think that it would even come up in any of our games. I see it more as an example of "very immature play",
> <snip>
> The action simply is, roleplay consequences follow. I see no benefit to what a ruling by mechanical alignment actually adds, or improves, in that situation.




Agreed. I wonder how upset the Barbarian's player will be if the Paladin's order chooses to respond with a level of force needed to deal with a seemingly rabid dog of emmense power. Granted Conan got away clean... but he was superbly competent relative to his world, and not level 4 in a world designed to challenge characters up to level 20.  Live by the min-max die by the min-max. (The nicer, but more rail-roady, thing to do would be to have the order investigate enough to see that the Barbarian thought he was in the right and give him the choice between execution or doing a quest as restitution.  Then when he weaseled out of that have them nuke him.)

< Insert agreement with @_*N'raac*_ 's remarks at the bottom of #1035. >


----------



## Manbearcat

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION], I'll try to evaluate your posts in full and post a response in the coming days.  However, I just want to clarify a few things:

1)  The primary issue that this character would have is a heretical deviation from classic "nature veneration" orthodoxy.  As I advised in the prior post, this character's philosophy evolved away from a strict demarcation of "natural" and "unnatural", homogenizing the two into one "all things are natural" pool.  For instance, there is a tendency to move the machinations and industry of beings of higher/more refined cognitive functions (eg humans and the infrastructure of civilizaton), who apply reason (rather than primal instinct) to solve problems and/or progress, from "natural" to "unnatural."  In the case of the Druid, this separation is an artificial one contrived, ironically enough, by the same higher/refined cognitive function that produces the "reason" that produces civilization.  By her way of seeing it, the axiom of "only the strong survives" is not upset by human civilization's encroachment on "natural habitat."  It is "natural" to dominate territory, create better/more efficient means for survival/perpetuation of species, whether it be erecting manufactured shelters or slaughtering the youth (and not consuming them) of competitors for prey.  By her way of thinking, "Civilization (and all of its trappings deemed "unnatural by cannon)" is just as "natural" as the primal fury of a pack of lions murdering (not consuming) a cheetah and her cubs.  Those of higher cognitive function have great responsibility in being stewards to assure as much mutual survival/perpetuation of species as possible.  They, and what they manufacture/create, are not outside of the natural order.  They are inherently a part of it.  Hence, homogenization of "Civilization" with "Natural Order" and the idea that raw, unchecked natural order is more of a destructive force with no awareness of, nor effort towards, stewardship of "all things natural."

2)  This evolution of ideals within an orthodoxy has no place within an alignment system.  There is orthodoxy and there is heresy.  There is LN and there is LG.  If orthodoxy and alignment were malleable, moving targets, they would be pointless.  But they are not.  Observation of this cannon is embedded in thie system.  As such, this evolution is impossible, even if the final product (heresy) may be aesthetically and functionally in-line with a non-D&D "veneration of nature."

Long story short, evolved ideals as heresy (even if still "playing for the same team") and ideals at extreme tension that must be prioritized become a poison pill where alignment is mandate.  Unsurprising, outside of just fun, high fantasy romps, these sort of "morality plays" are primarily what I'm interested in producing in play (if such weighty topics are going to be tangled with at all).


----------



## Campbell

I think part of the crux of the issue to me is that I have very little interest in exploring fantasy morality. The second the thematics of the game stop reflecting genuine human concerns is the second I lose interest. The reason I like Blood and Smoke and loathe Vampire - The Masquerade is that Blood and Smoke's Humanity mechanics are all about your character's connection to their specific human life and what it means to let go of that rather than Mark Rein-Hagen's conception of what it means to be human.

I just started to dig into Edge of the Empire's rules for force users and I thought it might be of interest to this discussion. When a force user uses a force power they roll a number of force die equal to their force rating. It's assumed that most force users are generally decent people (light side) and they can only use the white force dots that show up on the dice to power their abilities. They can elect to give into the dark side from time to time and utilize the dark force dots but that represents going against their destiny which utilizes the group's destiny pool freeing it up for GM use. Players can elect to inform the GM that they are embracing the dark side at any time which reverses the situation with their force dice. This is purely a matter of fictional positioning - the powers available are the same. 

Of course just because I'm not personally interested in chewing scenery doesn't mean I think it's a flawed mode of play, just one I'm not personally interested in.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

I'm late to the party as usual, and needless to say, I'm not going to read 1000+ posts, but here's my 2 bit.

1)  Having alignments improves the game by getting players to think about the morality of their actions, which adds depth to play.

2)  Alignments give a universal standard that players can agree on for moral issues.  I play with folks from differing religions and with varying political views, and unsurprisingly we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about the morality of some actions.  Alignment gives something we can work with in game without argument.


----------



## Umbran

Campbell said:


> My fundamental issue with prescriptive personality mechanics (Alignment, WoD Humanity and Nature, SWSE Force mechanics, L5R Honor, GURPS personality flaws) is that they define the conflicts that game should focus on for you.




GURPS personality flaws are on a character-by character basis.  If you took a flaw, but claim the game is defining the conflict for you, you have chosen to forget that you asked for it.

In L5R and Star Wars (and, arguably, WoD), the games make no bones about being of specific genres in which these pre-defined conflicts exist.  If you pick up Star Wars, and then gripe that the game is defining the Light side/Dark side conflicts for you... well DUH!  



> What I enjoy about tabletop RPGs in particular is their capacity for a GM and their players to work together to determine what is at stake.




Yes.  And then the only problem is if you choose a system that has these mechanics, and only then decide what you want to be at stake.  Which is kind of silly - the basic sorts of conflicts and what's at stake should be some of the first stuff you figure out, not he last, as they are often central to the genre of the game.  If you do that work with the GM before you choose the system, then there's no problem with those stakes being part of the system.  



> I don't want to feel like I'm fighting against the tide for not trying to game these systems that encourage avoiding conflict rather than pushing play towards it.




I completely reject the assertion that these systems encourage avoiding conflict.  I also suspect you may be implicitly limiting yournotion of "conflict"

In these systems, sometimes you will find a character is automatically driven to conflict (You're a paladin, you see an evil sorcerer - guess what?  Conflict!).  In other times, you will find the character held back from *physical* conflict (cuz cutting innocents into meaty chunks is bad, and all that).  But being held back from violence only shifts the basic conflict into a different form, it does not remove it.  The conflict is delayed or extended ("I can't cut these prisoners to ribbons, so they'll live, and I can expect the BBEG will hear about this, and act...") or becomes internal, or becomes a social conflict rather than a swordfight,  and so on.


----------



## Cadence

Manbearcat said:


> @_*N'raac*_ and  @_*Cadence*_, I'll try to evaluate your posts in full and post a response in the coming days.  However, I just want to clarify a few things:




Cool.  A few other musings to maybe incorporate...



Manbearcat said:


> This evolution of ideals within an orthodoxy has no place within an alignment system.  There is orthodoxy and there is heresy.  There is LN and there is LG.  If orthodoxy and alignment were malleable, moving targets, they would be pointless. But they are not. Observation of this cannon is embedded in thie system. As such, this evolution is impossible, even if the final product (heresy) may be aesthetically and functionally in-line with a non-D&D "veneration of nature.




I'm not sure why an orthodoxy can't be slowly moving or why that makes things pointless.   Don't real religions and what is acceptable in different countries drift over time? Drifting also seems to fit with the 1e DMG (iirc, maybe 2e) saying that what is considered good differs from country to country. 

I think it would come back to exactly where the Druids got their power from.   If it was established that they get it from the "spirits of the untamed green that hate industrialization" then I think the character would need to walk away and find a different power source.  And if I had gone through effort to type up the details of the setting in detail and that was a main source of tension in the game world, and they still pushed it. then I might even take it as a lack of respect on their part.  If the druid powers come from some "deity of the wild, where deities aren't super-powerful exemplars, but more like super-powerful NPCs" then maybe the character can try to work from the inside and try and convince the deity that the true wild is in the human heart and see how it goes.   If it sounds like a cool idea I'd probably run with it. If the power is nebulously drawn from "all of the spirits of the plants and animals, rocks and sees" then as a DM it sounds completely reasonable to me that there are still spirits of those things in the artificial lakes, clay bricks, and tilled fields of civilization -- they're just ones that other druids haven't tapped into yet.   

It seems to me that exploring religion in a world where deities actively send down servitors and give people spells is an essentially different act than philosophizing about it in a world where they're more distant.  If I'm running a game like the later then I feel I have the wiggle room to deal adjust to the druid.  If I'm running the former then of course the evolution of the character couldn't happen in the way it did in your game -- it would have resolved in some other way. Doesn't every game need pre-set parameters?  If I have a game where some player does a nice job of developing some technology organically in the game (dirigible, gun, antibiotics, etc...) - is another DM artificially constraining the players and shutting down valuable stories if they set up the world so that the physics/chemistry/biology work slightly differently?  Or, if I have it set up that the ultimate fate of men is the great unsolvable mystery that won't be solved until the end of the world (like in Tolkien), am I cheating the character if I don't listen to their cool idea of what it might be?

I'm wondering if it has to do with how long people imagine they might want to use the campaign world for.  Is it different if the world is only being used for that one group of people until they get tired of it, versus being something that might be tinkered with and developed over the years and used with many different parties?


----------



## Cadence

Manbearcat said:


> There is LN and there is LG.





I've been waiting for a chance to slip in something related to this and keep forgetting.  


The great wheel in 1e has all the in-between spots too.  If Arcadia is "neutral good lawfuls" then shouldn't its inhabitants be able to have that alignment?   If so then shouldn't the PCs?  And why isn't there anything between Concordant Opposition and those other outer planes (a land of the neutral-good lawful-neutrals).  And what kind of outsiders do the N deities have serving them?!?


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> I have very little interest in exploring fantasy morality.



Likewise.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Yes originally I used the word but you continued to use it in your answer as shown below...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you chose to continue using the word "validly" so I guess it is my "idea"...  how is this relevant though since you continued using the word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would decide whether the change was justifiable (by the player) or not... correct?  If so what is the criteria you would use to determine whether the change is or isn't justifiable??




Huh?  I just said that I wouldn't. So long as the player has a reason that's good enough for me. My judgement doesn't enter into it because I refuse to police my players.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I think it would come back to exactly where the Druids got their power from.   If it was established that they get it from the "spirits of the untamed green that hate industrialization" then I think the character would need to walk away and find a different power source.  And if I had gone through effort to type up the details of the setting in detail and that was a main source of tension in the game world, and they still pushed it. then I might even take it as a lack of respect on their part.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It seems to me that exploring religion in a world where deities actively send down servitors and give people spells is an essentially different act than philosophizing about it in a world where they're more distant.



I have a different perspective on this, I think.

The last two campaigns that I have run (one from 1998 to 2008, the other from 2009 to the present, in which it continues) both involve active deities with many servitors whom the PCs meet and interact with. Both have had divine PCs - paladins, clerics, cleric/monk multi-classes (well, the Rolemaster version thereof), etc. But this has not generated any particular pressure to deploy mechanical alignment, nor to prioritise GM conceptions of what the gods want over player conceptions (at least in relation to those gods where players are playing their PCs as exemplary servants).

To give a very simple (perhaps simplistic) example, from the first of those campaigns. One of the PCs was a fox who could shapeshift into a man. At first we all thought he was an animal spirit who was trying to better himself in karmic/reincarnation terms (a bit like the movie Green Snake). He had turned up in human form, but without memories, at a monastery, and the abbot had recognised his magical nature and had nursed him to health and introduced him to the human way of life. (This was all backstory, prior to starting as a 1st level PC - his shapechanging was handled via a variant of the Rolemaster lycanthropy rules.)

Then one day, about a year or so into the campaign, the player of that PC sent me an email in the form of a diary entry written by the abbot. It speculated that such a clever and puissant being as this man-fox couldn't be a self-upgrading animal, but must have some higher origin. So we subsequently decided that he was a banished animal lord of heaven. (This also fitted nicely into a part of the campaign based around module OA7 Test of the Samurai, which involves various animal lords, including a banished one as a villain.)

Anyway, on this revised version of the PC's backstory, his serving out his time as an ordinary fox was part of the karmic retribution for whatever he had done wrong. (This never became fully clear over the whole course of the campaign, but it was established that the PC, as animal lord of furred creatures, had clashed with the animal lord of birds - and it was jokingly speculated but never actually established that the clash might have been over a rights of geese vs rights of foxes demarcation dispute.)

Consequently, those PCs and NPCs who were helping him live a life as a human rather than a fox were helping him evade his karmic dues - and hence were themselves wrongdoers, at least in the eyes of the Lords of Karma. This came to light when some constables of heaven turned up one day to try to take the fox PC into custody for violating the edict of heaven. The other PCs (and their players) had to choose - side with the constables of heaven, or side with their friend. In the grandest RPG tradition, they sided with their friend. And hence found themselves in opposition to heaven. (And some were already a bit sceptical about heaven's bona fides, given other events going on in the campaign.)

How did the paladin and cleric/monk reconcile this with their obligations? Well, the paladin already knew that, while the gods in heaven were mighty, and in some cases enlightened, and on the whole (at least he believed at the time) benevolent, they were not as capable of true enlightenment as humans, and were capable of error. And this, he decided, was an error, grounded in an overly-rigid application of karmic principles without regard to more fundamental questions of character and motivation (those personal elements that, as he saw it at least, are linked to enlightenment). The cleric/monk, a member of a very esoteric sect, had no problem reaching a comparable conclusion, that even the Lords of Karma had not fully pierced the veil of illusion as his sect aimed at.

The point of the example (which turned out longer than I thought it would be) is to illustrate how, even when the gods and their servants are very actively involved in a game, it is still quite feasible to let the players take the lead in determining what counts as honouring the values of the gods/codes to which they are committed. It is also another illustration of a player deliberately setting up his PC as opposed to, or in conflict with, a particular divine entity, in which case I would regard it as a dereliction of my GMing duty not to have the entity respond in some fashion, such as in this case turning up to arrest the PC for violating heaven's edicts. I regard the two approaches set out in the two preceding sentences as both following from a more basic principle, namely of affirming and building upon the players' conceptions of what their PCs are and what they have done, rather than contradicting them.

And a tangent, following from that last sentence: one of my least favourite adventure structures, which seems inordinately popular among module writers, is the one in which the patron of the PCs ends up being the villain. What a way to nuke in a single big reveal the validity of everything the players thought they had chosen and achieved via their PCs! (And often using all the authors tricks one might find in an Agatha Christie story - ie neither expectation nor real prospect of the players, and thereby their PCs, figuring it out based on the fictional material actually provided to them.) This can be fine for Call of Cthulhu, where the players are meant to feel like they are adrift on the whims of the GM's madness; but as a more general approach it leaves me very cold, and seems an A-grade way to deprotagonise the players.



Cadence said:


> I'm wondering if it has to do with how long people imagine they might want to use the campaign world for.  Is it different if the world is only being used for that one group of people until they get tired of it, versus being something that might be tinkered with and developed over the years and used with many different parties?



I don't know. I've used Greyhawk in the past for 10 to 15 years, and Oriental Adventures/Kara Tur for over 10 years, with changing personnel over that time. (If I had to divide it into campaigns, I would say 3 GH campaigns and 2 OA campaigns.) I'm expecting to use GH, at least, again before my GMing days are over. But later games don't just have to be riffs or redos of earlier games. The actual play that happened earlier contributes backstory to the new campaign, but (at least the way I play, and take notes) that hardly locks everything down. If it did, that would probably be a reason for me to treat that campaign world as done: no more conflicts to resolve here! (I think my 4e campaign might end that way, unless the PCs make some errors of judgement in which case the do-over would be as Dark Sun rather than the default 4e world!)


----------



## pemerton

Another comment on the "trigger-happy barbarian" thread: as best I understand the initial scenario, the real action, it seems to me, is in the relationship between the barbarian and his friends. It seems that _they_ clearly knew the institutional significance of the NPC paladin and his demand that the stolen sword be handed over; yet they let the barbarian act as their de facto agent, thereby letting him get into a situation in which he is now probably a target for lawmen and bounty hunters across the land!

I may have missed it, but the debate over mechanical alignment doesn't seem to have helped bring out that (to me, at least) more interesting aspect of the situation.

Also, for all those who want more examples of why I (and I'm guessing others) don't use mechanical alignment, I refer you to these threads (two current, one about 6 months old):

Animate Dead and Alignment Restrictions
RPing and Evil Cleric
Alignment violations and how to deal with them


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> If the GM already has a clear, certain conception of “honour”, then where is the mental overhead several posters have indicated is required in adjudicating alignment?



You can ask [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] about that if you want an answer. It's his notion. And he's not answerable for my account of why I think that exploring a GM's conception of a value is at odds with exploring the value itself.

For me the issue is not cognitive power: classifying actions into normative frameworks is my dayjob, and I'm fairly good at it. It's my lack of desire to do so, combined with my desire that play focus on something else. I can handle the arithmetic of tracking arrows and rations too, but that doesn't mean that I want to.



N'raac said:


> If it prizes “respect for life” above all, and I think capital punishment is valid, then my “Good” and that of “Cosmological Good” clearly differ.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And here is where we come back to the views of that “Cosmological Good” not necessarily matching my own views of “good” in plain English.



This is exactly what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has described upthread: the GM, as author of the gameworld, stipulates what counts as good in that gameworld. It is a fantasy morality that the players then explore.

In such a game, though, it makes no sense for a PC, in character, to deny that the cosmological good of that gameworld is really good. Or to escalate to the metagame level, the players, in participating in a game set up along these lines, have agreed to accept, within the framework of the game, the morality that the GM stipulates. And everyone understands that they are exploring that stipulated morality. Mishihari Lord makes basically the same point not too far upthread:



Mishihari Lord said:


> Alignments give a universal standard that players can agree on for moral issues.  I play with folks from differing religions and with varying political views, and unsurprisingly we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about the morality of some actions.  Alignment gives something we can work with in game without argument.




My reasons for not particularly caring for this sort of play are the same as [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s, and I stated them a long way upthread: I have little or no interest in exploring a GM's fantasy morality. Which takes me to another comment made by Mishihari Lord:



Mishihari Lord said:


> Having alignments improves the game by getting players to think about the morality of their actions, which adds depth to play.



This doesn't fit with my personal experience, because what the players actually think about is the way their action fits within the GM's stipulated moral framework. Which, at least in my experience, isn't necessarily all that deep.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Originally Posted by *N'raac*
> 
> 
> If  the GM already has a clear, certain  conception of “honour”, then where  is the mental overhead several  posters have indicated is required in  adjudicating alignment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask  @_*Manbearcat*_   about that if you want an answer. It's his notion. And he's not  answerable for my account of why I think that exploring a GM's  conception of a value is at odds with exploring the value itself.
> 
> For me the issue is not cognitive power: classifying actions into  normative frameworks is my dayjob, and I'm fairly good at it. It's my  lack of desire to do so, combined with my desire that play focus on  something else. I can handle the arithmetic of tracking arrows and  rations too, but that doesn't mean that I want to.
Click to expand...



Working backwards.

I expressed the same a few posts upthread.  When I speak of mental overhead being problematic, its typically because I don't find it particularly useful for my GMing principles.  Anything that isn't useful for my GMing principles, and requires me to spend table time collating it and considering it, is a mental distraction.  A mental distraction may (or may not) be prohibitive to giving manifest a GMing principle.

Consider the PCs trying to win over a dis-unified group of ranger lodges in order to unite all of the lodges against a common foe that threatens them all.  During informal parlay, mechanical resolution indicates that the PCs have accrued a failure, lost a contest and gained emotional stress, what-have-you.  Now I have to consider what form this takes.  What is the immediate fallout and how does it respect player action and the fiction that has evolved "from there" "to here".  Further, how close are we to ultimate resolution of the conflict (mechanically) and denouement?  

Let us say that the offending PC (who lost the contest or initiated the action that led to the failure that led to the immediate fallout/consequence) and the NPC Ranger worship the same deity.  Perhaps it is a deity whose domain-driven commands consist of "exalt in the hunt" and "only the strong survive".  In a system with alignment-attendant consequences (PC build fallout due to cosmological inclination - which should be read as "my adjudication of cosmological inclination"), simultaneously to what I'm considering in the immediately preceding paragraph, I'm required to consider how well the offending PC's actions are reflecting their declaration of fealty to those ethos demands.  So while I'm hoping to spend 100 % of my mental overhead on compelling, engaging, genre-consistent, immediate, physical fallout between PC and NPC, with respect to the physical world context at the macro and the context of the nuance of the exchange at the micro, I'm simultaneously distracted by considerations external to my GM principles:

- Does my sense of the disparity between PC action and deity dictates indicate that its so egregious that there should be immediate PC-build fallout?

- If there is immediate PC-build fallout, what form should it take?  And how in the world do I make this manifestation not detract and distract from the exciting, climactic resolution of the unfolding conflict?

- If there isn't immediate PC-build fallout, is there enough of an implication on future fallout such that I should intervene and spend table time (and all of the problems for pacing, aesthetic, mood, etc that such action entails) deliberating the nature of this action with the player of the PC?

And what if the player of the PC disagrees (rightly or wrongly) with my take?  Maybe they feel that, within some legitimate nuance, they are observing the dictates of their deity.  That will exacerbate the situation dramatically (especially if it turns into a play-disrupting deliberation).

I hope that makes clear my position.  I want my focus to be laser-beam like on whatever GMing principle is paramount.  In the case above it is delivering authenticity (I have no conflict of interest influencing affairs and have administrated no heavy-handed fiat) and dynamism to the resolution of a climactic conflict of which all of my PCs are invested in.  I need to be focusing on all of the macro context that has driven this heated and seminal parlay, all of the micro-components that have evolved the conflict from initiation to the present moment, and how I can best leverage complications and immediate fallout to play into the themes that the PCs have built into their characters and that have emerged/evolved in play.  Anything external to that goal, whether trivial or outright antagonistic toward, is counterproductive.

One final note.  Having my own (within the real world) conception of any aspect of a deity's domain (perhaps glory in battle or fighting with honour) has little bearing, the way I see it, on how my player may see their PC's connection with the same deity's domain (within the fictional high fantasy world) and their own general conception of their PC.  I can be well-considered, a veritable bastion of intellectual profundity, on the topic and be utterly at odds with the player.  If that is so, now I'm committing mental overhead on how to bridge that gap (if its even possible).



Cadence said:


> It seems to me that exploring religion in a world where deities actively send down servitors and give people spells is an essentially different act than philosophizing about it in a world where they're more distant.  If I'm running a game like the later then I feel I have the wiggle room to deal adjust to the druid.  If I'm running the former then of course the evolution of the character couldn't happen in the way it did in your game -- it would have resolved in some other way.




I think you're running into my point here.  In proportion to (a) the rigidity of the deity's dictates and (b) the insidiousness of the game's mechanics that are wedded to them (in this case PC build fallout due to cosmological - GM - interpretation of PC fealty to those dictates), the less "wiggle room" (as you put it) there will be to deal with heresy/behavior that may challenge orthodox (and earn PC build fallout due to cosmological - GM - interpretation of PC fealty to those dictates).  As such, PC evolution outside of the orthodox stories that the setting paramaters (and insidious mechanics) expects to deliver is muted or outright neutered.  With respect to thematic evolution or PC (ethos, not build) fallout, a game such as 3.x D&D will have an extremely different inclination (and will therefore deliver a completely different aesthetic) than 4e D&D, while both will have a different inclination than Dogs (or Sorcerer).

Hence, why (a) and (b) together are problematic for the kind of play I'm looking for.



Cadence said:


> *Doesn't every game need pre-set parameters?*  If I have a game where some player does a nice job of developing some technology organically in the game (dirigible, gun, antibiotics, etc...) - is another DM artificially constraining the players and shutting down valuable stories if they set up the world so that the physics/chemistry/biology work slightly differently?  Or, if I have it set up that the ultimate fate of men is the great unsolvable mystery that won't be solved until the end of the world (like in Tolkien), am I cheating the character if I don't listen to their cool idea of what it might be?
> 
> I'm wondering if it has to do with how long people imagine they might want to use the campaign world for.  Is it different if the world is only being used for that one group of people until they get tired of it, versus being something that might be tinkered with and developed over the years and used with many different parties?




I apologize that I don't have the time to address your other post.  I will attempt to do so in the future.  

The bolded and underlined is what appears to be your main idea with the rest being supporting statements or clarifying queries.  I think our respective ships are running aground on the same rocky waters.  In the titanic clash of setting (perhaps a meticulously built, GM-derived world that is their masterwork) vs player protagonism vs thematic conflict...what is paramount?  Who is king of the hill and who is subordinate?

It seems to me that GMs (and players) vary severely on this issue and they expect their D&D to support this.  I see GMs here, and elsewhere, who have a visceral reaction to any perterbation of setting canon.  Either they have ingested an enormous amount of canonic material, or they have engineered their own, and are deeply invested in that (due to the time and effort spent).  In their case those "pre-set paramaters", as you put it, are paramount.  Player protagonism and thematic conflict inherent to those PCs are secondary concerns.  They are not peripheral, but they are nonetheless secondary.  The backdrop of Internal consistency of setting and its evolution (especially off-screen evolution) are the primary order of the day.  My guess is for "world builder" GMs or those heavily invested in pre-established setting canon, the players are the vehicle for the GM to watch how the model of their beloved setting responds to the players perturbing the initial parameters.  They are performing "a model run" of the setting they are heavily invested in.  

Then there are GMs who literally care only for what is on-screen and adlib setting only as is required to facilitate the thematic conflict that their PCs have built for.  Low resolution setting (limited "pre-set paramaters") is a boon for them and high resolution setting and insidious ethos mechanics embedded in that high resolution setting are anathema to their preferred style (and product) of play.

Most GMs are somewhere in between.  Personally, I am much, much, much, much closer to the latter rather than the former.  I take no satisfaction in world building, seeing how the players perturb my initial parameters and seeing how the "model run" plays out.  Although I've imbibed a generous portion of various systems, I'm not remotely invested in setting canon (which is why the 4e FR shakeup didn't make me chafe in the least, while it clearly did for so many others to the point that they would hate a system that is, by proxy, attached to the shakeup).  Hence, why I prefer broad descriptor action resolution tools and PC build components and low resolution settings without insidious ethos mechanics.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> This is exactly what @_*Bedrockgames*_ has described upthread: the GM, as author of the gameworld, stipulates what counts as good in that gameworld. It is a fantasy morality that the players then explore.
> 
> In such a game, though, it makes no sense for a PC, in character, to deny that the cosmological good of that gameworld is really good. Or to escalate to the metagame level, the players, in participating in a game set up along these lines, have agreed to accept, within the framework of the game, the morality that the GM stipulates. And everyone understands that they are exploring that stipulated morality. Mishihari Lord makes basically the same point not too far upthread:




I'm not sure this necessarily follows though.  Just because the cosmological force of "L/C/N good" defines what is "L/C/N good" doesn't then mean my character must believe the "good" action in any particular situation is always the best, right or correct action or that these cosmological forces are infallible (Yes, I realize this is a component of your way of playing but everyone doesn't play deities in this manner.). 

As an example in the Elric stories by Moorcock one could easily look at the Lords of Law in relationship to the Lords of Chaos (especially in the earlier adventures of Elric) and assume they are a positive force... But as the stories progress we come to see that unbridled and unchecked the forces of Law are just as detrimental and destructive to humanity as Chaos is...  Elric comes to realize this and though he started aligned to chaos, he then switches to law and finally he ultimately comes to serve the balance.  Even though these powers are capable of granting and stripping their aid and power from him throughout the stories (and Arioch leaves him in dire predicaments more than a few times to teach him obedience)  Elric is willing to make that sacrifice in order to do what he sees as the "correct" (though not necessarily good) action.   These stories are my basis at least for the personified cosmological forces I run in D&D and they are quite fallible and never pure representations of the actual forces since they have personalities and those personalities affect how they approach the force they represent (for a more modern take on personified and fallible cosmological forces see the Sandman comic series or tones of these types of beings in various comic books).  

Accepting that the morality of the campaign is as the GM stipulates does not mean that my character can not then question or even choose to go against that morality... It just means (in the same way a knight would have a code of chivalry laid out which he may or may not agree with and may or may not choose to aspire too) that there is a structure of what is "good" and a character can choose to agree with it, aspire too it, etc. or decide not to, with the accompanying consequences.  Exploring a morality is not the same as being beholden to said morality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> This is exactly what @_*Bedrockgames*_ has described upthread: the GM, as author of the gameworld, stipulates what counts as good in that gameworld. It is a fantasy morality that the players then explore.
> 
> In such a game, though, it makes no sense for a PC, in character, to deny that the cosmological good of that gameworld is really good. Or to escalate to the metagame level, the players, in participating in a game set up along these lines, have agreed to accept, within the framework of the game, the morality that the GM stipulates. And everyone understands that they are exploring that stipulated morality. Mishihari Lord makes basically the same point not too far upthread:
> 
> .




I do think there is still room for a pc to disagree with the gods or the cosmology...it is just the powers of the universe can make their will known. But you could have a paladin who loses his powers following a difficult choice and believes his god was wrong to strip him of his abilities. One interesting question under the alignment system is whether evil views itself as bad. This gets a different answer depending on the GM, and in the case of D&D novels, the author. The dark elf trilogy sort of tried to tackle that question and walk a bit of a fine line there. Where for examlpe the dark elves are clearly evil, but their mythology regarding the outside world offers them some justification for killing surface dwellers. I am not saying that is the correct approach or it is devoid of any holes, but this is one of the fun features of dealing with alignment.

i ran tons of ravenloft and there was a bit more grey there in terms of alignment, yet the world responded to evil in a palpable way. Part of the reason for the grey stems from the mystery of the dark powers...no one really knows what they are, if they are good or if they are evil, and while evil is punished, it is also rewarded. The GM kind of needs establish a clear point of view to run a setting like that. But from the players perspective things are not nearly as clear, and there is room for them to debate good and evil.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> How did the paladin and cleric/monk reconcile this with their obligations? Well, the paladin already knew that, while the gods in heaven were mighty, and in some cases enlightened, and on the whole (at least he believed at the time) benevolent, they were not as capable of true enlightenment as humans, and were capable of error.  <snip>
> 
> The point of the example (which turned out longer than I thought it would be) is to illustrate how, even when the gods and their servants are very actively involved in a game, it is still quite feasible to let the players take the lead in determining what counts as honouring the values of the gods/codes to which they are committed. It is also another illustration of a player deliberately setting up his PC as opposed to, or in conflict with, a particular divine entity, in which case I would regard it as a dereliction of my GMing duty not to have the entity respond in some fashion, such as in this case turning up to arrest the PC for violating heaven's edicts. I regard the two approaches set out in the two preceding sentences as both following from a more basic principle, namely of affirming and building upon the players' conceptions of what their PCs are and what they have done, rather than contradicting them.




All sounds perfectly reasonable for me based on how the game universe was set up in paragraph one and on wanting to have a fun game.  

--



Manbearcat said:


> So while I'm hoping to spend 100 % of my mental overhead on compelling, engaging, genre-consistent, immediate, physical fallout between PC and NPC, with respect to the physical world context at the macro and the context of the nuance of the exchange at the micro, I'm simultaneously distracted by considerations external to my GM principles:
> 
> - Does my sense of the disparity between PC action and deity dictates indicate that its so egregious that there should be immediate PC-build fallout?




I can understand mental overhead distracting you from what you want would be annoying.  (The overhead of the various powers certainly annoyed me in that first 13th age session).  The part that I have trouble relating to is that what you describe doesn't usually make me feel like I'm using mental overhead.  It seems like it should be the equivalent of catching something strange in your peripheral vision -- you worry about it when you notice it. 



> - If there is immediate PC-build fallout, what form should it take? And how in the world do I make this manifestation not detract and distract from the exciting, climactic resolution of the unfolding conflict?




Lets say a character does something egregiously against social norms and not related to religion or character build.  The party member is in the middle of a delicate argument/negotiation and suddenly decides to start denigrating the NPC using a tirade of profanity, or throws a mug of beer they were drinking in the NPCs face, or starts passing gas loudly and repeatedly.  Does it take effort to notice its egregious? Do you ignore the egregious act because acknowledging it would detract and distract?  Or does the obvious game reprecussion take place? 



> And what if the player of the PC disagrees (rightly or wrongly) with my take? Maybe they feel that, within some legitimate nuance, they are observing the dictates of their deity. That will exacerbate the situation dramatically (especially if it turns into a play-disrupting deliberation).




What if they try to justify the profanity laden tirade, food fight, or bodily functions as being a perfectly reasonable thing to have done in the situation?



Manbearcat said:


> One final note. Having my own (within the real world) conception of any aspect of a deity's domain (perhaps glory in battle or fighting with honour) has little bearing, the way I see it, on how my player may see their PC's connection with the same deity's domain (within the fictional high fantasy world) and their own general conception of their PC. I can be well-considered, a veritable bastion of intellectual profundity, on the topic and be utterly at odds with the player. If that is so, now I'm committing mental overhead on how to bridge that gap (if its even possible).




Do you answer your own concern?



Manbearcat said:


> I think you're running into my point here. In proportion to (a) the rigidity of the deity's dictates and (b) the insidiousness of the game's mechanics that are wedded to them (in this case PC build fallout due to cosmological - GM - interpretation of PC fealty to those dictates), the less "wiggle room" (as you put it) there will be to deal with heresy/behavior that may challenge orthodox (and earn PC build fallout due to cosmological - GM - interpretation of PC fealty to those dictates).




It seems like the solution is to just not have rigid deific dictates and/or to allow the players to enforce the punishments on themselves because they're good players.  I'm fine with either of those.  That would still avoid my biggest related annoyance -- having religious types who are granted the power to do miracles by the gods but who can never lose those powers no matter how badly they tick off their power granters (that really grates against my sense of order). 



Manbearcat said:


> I apologize that I don't have the time to address your other post. I will attempt to do so in the future.




No worries, and thanks for all of the answers so far (I think you've hit lots of the things from the other post in this one).  I kind of like...



Manbearcat said:


> I think our respective ships are running aground on the same rocky waters. In the titanic clash of setting (perhaps a meticulously built, GM-derived world that is their masterwork) vs player protagonism vs thematic conflict...what is paramount? Who is king of the hill and who is subordinate? <snip>
> 
> My guess is for "world builder" GMs or those heavily invested in pre-established setting canon, the players are the vehicle for the GM to watch how the model of their beloved setting responds to the players perturbing the initial parameters. They are performing "a model run" of the setting they are heavily invested in.
> 
> Then there are GMs who literally care only for what is on-screen and adlib setting only as is required to facilitate the thematic conflict that their PCs have built for. Low resolution setting (limited "pre-set paramaters") is a boon for them and high resolution setting and insidious ethos mechanics embedded in that high resolution setting are anathema to their preferred style (and product) of play.
> 
> Most GMs are somewhere in between. Personally, I am much, much, much, much closer to the latter rather than the former.




... and it seems to tie into some of the other threads going around on the nature of games.

I'd like to think that I'm somewhere in the middle.  I like the world-building aspect a lot, and having some firm elements to the setting helps me think quicker on my feet and go along with what the players have set their characters up to do.  But the whole point isn't for me to watch a model run of the world, its to give the players something they can really get into with their characters.  So I'm fully willing to hack and slice things to make it fit better... within reason.  

Could be I'm more world builder than I think and my players just never complain.  Or maybe I'm more the other side... in most of the actual play situations that your "anti" side describes here, I don't picture the play going much differently if I ran the snippets in question.  :::shrugs:::

---

On another note -- having time to post a lot lately, I've noticed lots of threads where each "side" seems to go out of their way to read the worst into what the "opposition" is saying -- like modern politics.  If opposing super-PACS were funding ads for the two sides in this argument to denigrate each other, would the two portrayals be something like: (a) DMs who build mazes for rats to run through and can't handle it when a rat tries to peer, or heaven forbid, climb over the edge, and (b) DMs who host story telling circles where no one is critiqued and everyone gets a participation trophy at the end?


----------



## Manbearcat

Cadence said:


> On another note -- having time to post a lot lately, I've noticed lots of threads where each "side" seems to go out of their way to read the worst into what the "opposition" is saying -- like modern politics.  If opposing super-PACS were funding ads for the two sides in this argument to denigrate each other, would the two portrayals be something like: (a) DMs who build mazes for rats to run through and can't handle it when a rat tries to peer, or heaven forbid, climb over the edge, and (b) DMs who host story telling circles where no one is critiqued and everyone gets a participation trophy at the end?




Hitting the sack shortly but I just wanted to address this one right quick if I may.

As we well know, humankind is nothing if not tribal.  Virtually everything we do betrays those instincts and our hobbies are certainly not free of this primal programming.

Personally, when I respond to most queries about varying playstyles, I'm not drawing primarily upon the words of what others are saying.  I feel confident in saying that throughout the life of my GMing RPGs, I have held dear every single playstyle and creative agenda at one point or another, and practiced each of the techniques and championed the GMing principles inherent to facilitating them.  When I comment on these things, I'm mostly drawing on that and considering past (and likely future given how aesthetic interests seem to wax and wane) incarnations of "my gaming self" with as much self-awareness as I am capable of mustering.

Beyond that, I suspect that your (a) and (b) were meant to be caricatures.  But to be honest, I think they actually well capture the deepest end of the spectrum for both sides.  I think there is a "my precious setting" inclination off the deep end on one side and a "freeform madness with no 'satisfying' protagonism because there is no authenticity to mechanical resolution" off the deep end on the other side.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> How did the paladin and cleric/monk reconcile this with their obligations? Well, the paladin already knew that, while the gods in heaven were mighty, and in some cases enlightened, and on the whole (at least he believed at the time) benevolent, they were not as capable of true enlightenment as humans, and were capable of error. And this, he decided, was an error, grounded in an overly-rigid application of karmic principles without regard to more fundamental questions of character and motivation (those personal elements that, as he saw it at least, are linked to enlightenment). The cleric/monk, a member of a very esoteric sect, had no problem reaching a comparable conclusion, that even the Lords of Karma had not fully pierced the veil of illusion as his sect aimed at.




Sounds like they were capable of deciding that the "cosmological good force" was not "good as they defined it".  Or are we now saying that the Heavens are not those 25+INT/WIS exemplars of good who can never be mistaken as to what Good really is?


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Doesn't every game need pre-set parameters?



Good question. A game like Burning Wheel tries to pare these down to the minimum - GM/player negotiation as to core conceit/theme (in that game expressed to a significant extent via Beliefs players choose for their PCs, which is meant to be done in conjunction with other players and the GM as part of the negotiation), and then relationships/affiliations chosen by the players. The rest is expected to develop in play.

I'm hoping to run a BW game after my 4e campaign finishes (around the end of this year on current projections). If so, I will be using Greyhawk for my maps and some basic setting stuff, but expect to work out the details roughly along the lines that BW expects.

I've never tried fully-fledged No Myth, but my 4e game works with pretty light setting notes: at the moment (at 25th level, after 5 years of play) they are up to 7 A4 pages, or around 4,500 words. Plus there is stuff from the 4e rulebooks, like descriptions of the planes and gods. Of course there are pages and pages of encounter notes (hundreds of them, I imagine them) but I very rarely go back and reference them: their main setting-creation function is the enduring memories that I and the players have of what happened in them. (I'm sure that means that from time to time, when we misremember, contradictions creep in. My view is that a contradiction no one has noticed doesn't really matter.)



Cadence said:


> If opposing super-PACS were funding ads for the two sides in this argument to denigrate each other, would the two portrayals be something like: (a) DMs who build mazes for rats to run through and can't handle it when a rat tries to peer, or heaven forbid, climb over the edge, and (b) DMs who host story telling circles where no one is critiqued and everyone gets a participation trophy at the end?



On (b), I will certainly plead guilty to the following opinion: there is no reason it should be harder for a player, or require jumping through more hoops, to play an interesting cleric or paladin or monk than an interesting fighter or wizard or thief.

Some player, of course, want to work more closely with the GM in foregrounding PC background, choices etc - upthread I've talked about how that influences my reading of "light touch" treatment of different player's PC's familiars. But I think that that sort of choice should be largely independent of class/archetype choice. If someone wants to play a paladin or a warlock but have the god/patron be basically off-screen and not a GM thing, that is fine by me. If someone wants to play a wizard and have the wizard's guild be at the forefront and something that the GM uses to frame complications for their PC, that's fine by me too.

On (a), I have had the experience of being GMed along the lines you describe: GMs who for whatever reason (sometimes but not always connected to world-building desires) couldn't handle active players. It's not my favourite way to play the game. Mechanical alignment is somewhat orthogonal to this; or, at least, that sort of GMing doesn't need mechanical alignment to underpin it. (There are many other ways a GM can deprotagonise his/her players, invalidating their choices and/or their conceptions of their PCs, without using mechanical alignment. Having Elminster turn up is just one well-known example.)


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Sounds like they were capable of deciding that the "cosmological good force" was not "good as they defined it".  Or are we now saying that the Heavens are not those 25+INT/WIS exemplars of good who can never be mistaken as to what Good really is?



This puzzles me. I am playing a game without mechanical alignment. So there is no "cosmological force of good". There are no "exemplars of good". There are active gods, and a banished god (Bastion of Broken Souls), and a dead god (Requiem for a God), and there are Lords of Karma, and a former Lord of Karma relieved of authority (the Ordainer, an RM NPC/monster, merged with aspects of Asmodeus and Demogorgon from the AD&D MM), and there are Storm Lords and Sea Lords (and a child descended from both, the love interest of one of the PCs and also a dragon), and there are animal lords, and former animal lords relieved of authority (including one of the PCs, as it turned out). And other beings too .

The players make their own judgements, in the course of playing their PCs, and act on them. In doing that, some of the players have the conviction that their PCs are serving the causes ("true enlightenment") to which they are devoted. I don't contradict them in that judgement. All the players also recognise that they are deliberately thwarting the constables of heaven enforcing the edict of the Lords of Karma. I don't contradict that judgement either! - which is to say, as the campaign unfolds they get more trouble from heaven.

I have attached to this post the chart that the players worked up over the course of the campaign, reflecting their understanding of connections between different entities as well as the PCs' relationship to them . (You'll see, for instance, that "heaven" is labelled "the so-called heavenly realm".) This chart couldn't be drawn up at the start of the campaign, by me or by them. The players don't themselves have control over most of that backstory, but as GM I am working it out in response to play. Some of the basic structures - the identities of the 9 immortals, say, or of the elemental giants - is known in advance. But the details that actually matter to play - like rivalries or alliance between various groups, or secret trysts that lie behind the birth of the dragon who is marked as a PC's "girlfriend" - are worked out during play, as the players direct their interest here or there and new ideas occur to me about how to introduce complications and maintain the pressure that will drive the game on. To borrow    [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s phrase, _that_ is the sort of thing on which I prefer to expend "mental overhead" when GMing a game. (   [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] might find the chart interesting also - it's hardly the product of no-myth play for the reasons I've just described, but it does illustrate the sort of campaign complexity I am happy to go to without having established things in advance.)


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I do think there is still room for a pc to disagree with the gods or the cosmology...it is just the powers of the universe can make their will known.





Imaro said:


> I'm not sure this necessarily follows though.  Just because the cosmological force of "L/C/N good" defines what is "L/C/N good" doesn't then mean my character must believe the "good" action in any particular situation is always the best, right or correct action or that these cosmological forces are infallible
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Accepting that the morality of the campaign is as the GM stipulates does not mean that my character can not then question or even choose to go against that morality... It just means (in the same way a knight would have a code of chivalry laid out which he may or may not agree with and may or may not choose to aspire too) that there is a structure of what is "good" and a character can choose to agree with it, aspire too it, etc. or decide not to, with the accompanying consequences.



If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is _the cosmological force of good_. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.

If alignment is handled in _this_ way, I don't see how it can do the job  [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION] wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.



Imaro said:


> in the Elric stories by Moorcock one could easily look at the Lords of Law in relationship to the Lords of Chaos (especially in the earlier adventures of Elric) and assume they are a positive force... But as the stories progress we come to see that unbridled and unchecked the forces of Law are just as detrimental and destructive to humanity as Chaos is...  Elric comes to realize this and though he started aligned to chaos, he then switches to law and finally he ultimately comes to serve the balance.  Even though these powers are capable of granting and stripping their aid and power from him throughout the stories (and Arioch leaves him in dire predicaments more than a few times to teach him obedience)  Elric is willing to make that sacrifice in order to do what he sees as the "correct" (though not necessarily good) action.



Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).

That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)

EDIT: correcting attribution of quote.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> This third way treats alignment as a _role-playing challenge_: the player chooses an alignment for his/her PC, and is then expected to stick to it. The GM frames situations that might make that hard, eg because they tempt the player to depart from alignment, for reasons of expedience such as earning more XP or treasure. But a good player sticks to his/her alignment; while a bad one, who departs from or (in the extreme case) changes alignment is penalised for that. (This approach seems to me to be articulated in the 2nd ed rulebooks, and there are hints of it in Gygax's rulebooks too.)




Well commentating on my group's style of play. Everyone has a chosen alignment - as far as I can tell most of the characters tend towards Good, choosing Neutral and Chaotic as a preference as opposed to Lawful, (besides the Dwarf who is Lawful Neutral) I'm guessing for that freedom and probably because they can relate as players to those alignments.

During adventures I might frame scenes, which might require of them to make moral choices, creating roleplaying challenges. 
It could be so much as testing mortal allegiances, questioning their approach to humanoids and other creatures, having theological debates with (rogue - not the class) priests who are of the same flock but possess a different view or it could be as simple as tempting them to do something less than good (for power, prestige, love...etc). 

I give experience points either way, for great roleplaying, poignant moments, character defining actions...etc
It is all good as long as the character's actions are believable/justifiable and if ever someone had to do something out of character they would be called on it, not necessarily by me, but by anyone at the table. It is very much an open forum.

As I have mentioned on my very first post in this thread, alignment is very much a descriptor for us. I mentally track the PCs alignment, it’s not something I consider continuously and therefore not much in the way of admin. I have an overall feel where they fit on the scale of evil-good. You may say the players are more aware of alignment than myself. 
It is the reason why I do not view alignment as a straight-jacket.  



> What has surprised me a bit in this thread, though - especially over the last few hundred posts - is that those who I thought might be into this style of play (eg @*Sadras* , perhaps @*N'raac* ) seem to have repudiated one of its underpinnings, namely, the role of the GM in adjudicating player roleplaying. Which has left me somewhat puzzled as to how those posters are using alignment in their games.




I would say the extent of my adjudication would depend on the setting. In an earth-type setting I would be a lot more stringent. Since we are currently roleplaying in the D&D basic world, there appears to be a lot more flexibility with regards to Alignment based on the setting.




> Well, to put it crudely, they can't.  To explore values requires leaving open the answers to the questions like "What is the true nature of honour", "What does true honour demand", etc. Exploring the GM's conception of certain values presupposes that those questions have already been answered by the GM. Questions can't, at one and the same time, be both open and answered.





Given that the players are not very familiar with the world and the pantheon, there is a large element of discovery for both players and characters.  



> The impression I'm getting from some of the "alignment is not a straitjacket" posts is that the GM answers some of the big questions, but leaves the little questions open, and that is where the action of play takes place.




I suppose that is true.



> This impression is reinforced by the number of recent posts saying "But whether or not to rescue the villain is not really an alignment question", or "Whether or not the druid should favour nature over civilisation is not really an alignment question" or "You solve the succubus problem by making her neutral and therefore, de facto, taking her outside the alignment mechanics." But if I am right about this - that the action is taking place in relation to questions that the GM's alignment rulings don't settle (snip)




Rescuing a villain is an Alignment question, the specific circumstances are just not one where I would adjudicate for a change in Alignment. Just because one does not enforce a change in Alignment or hand out "stick', does not mean Alignment adjudication does not exist.

The druid protecting the village against primal spirits would also in isolation not enforce an Alignment change. I feel this example was reaching if it expected any other answer.  
If the Druid continually resorted into controlling, manipulating, negating the destructive energies of the primal spirits, then perhaps yes, that would indicate perhaps a predisposition for that Druid to ascribe to the tenets of Law. Then a case could be made.  

As for the Succubus. This is an interesting one. Every now and again DMs throw out a Drizzt (a creature that should be evil, but is not). It questions if being evil/good is a nurture or nature phenomenon.
IMO the response to that question is for each individual DMs to answer, since they are the creators of their setting.  



> (snip) then I'm not sure what useful purpose mechanical alignment is serving, except perhaps to take some questions off the table.




For myself it provides a boundary for the purposes of roleplay immersion. I’m perhaps pedantic in that even though I might not have to deal with a breach of alignment, a limiting factor does exist (by having Alignment adjudicated) which coincides with how I view foresee the interaction of divine casters and the source of their divine power.
For instance: This limiting factor of alignment doesn’t permit one to ridicule the channelling divine energy to a mere mundane skill which can be learned by anyone, including one who possess an alignment opposing the source of divine force they are channelling.   

Another purpose being that Alignment might also aid for story purposes.  



> I'm puzzled by the number of posts on this thread from the "pro-alignment" crowd which seem to evince an unwillingness to do the GMing work that the rules for mechanical alignment seem to clearly call for.




What exactly where you expecting from the pro-alignment crowd? DMs declaring punishments or forcing actions on every perceived indiscretion? Everyone plays differently, as we have seen from that Barbarian thread @_*Cadence*_ posted, it does appear that, IMO, the straight-jacket kind of play does exist for whatever reason, but that is not my experience with Alignment.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

pemerton said:


> If alignment is handled in _this_ way, I don't see how it can do the job [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION] wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.




I think it helps here in that the argument is about a fantasy morality that no one really believes in rather than players' own moral codes.  The former is much less likely to be a cause of acrimony than the latter.

(I love the cosmology shown by your chart, by the way)

I think the hardest part of the approach you're advocating is that it's very tempting as a player to redefine the morality your character follows on the fly to avoid problems, which destroys the value of a moral code.  (In real life we just call this "rationalization" of course.)  I know that it would take a constant, significant mental effort on my part to make sure that I don't do that, and I'd rather not go to the trouble.  This is a big reason I'd rather have a DM-defined objective fantasy moral code for the game.  I can see your method working very well with players who want to put in the effort though.


----------



## Hussar

> What exactly where you expecting from the pro-alignment crowd? DMs declaring punishments or forcing actions on every perceived indiscretion? Everyone plays differently, as we have seen from that Barbarian thread @Cadence posted, it does appear that, IMO, the straight-jacket kind of play does exist for whatever reason, but that is not my experience with Alignment.




Well consistency would be nice. If alignment is a tool for judging character behaviour, then it would be nice if every example of actually using alignment to judge behaviour wasn't swept aside as an example of bad dming. 

Can someone give an example of using mechanical alignment to judge character behaviour that is acceptable to the pro-alignment crowd?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is _the cosmological force of good_. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.
> 
> If alignment is handled in _this_ way, I don't see how it can do the job @_*Mishihari Lord*_ wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.
> 
> Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).
> 
> That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)




That second quoted post isnt mine.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is _the cosmological force of good_. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.
> 
> If alignment is handled in _this_ way, I don't see how it can do the job @_*Mishihari Lord*_ wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.
> 
> ional clerics.)




As long as characters still have free will, they can disagree with the gods and develop their own ideas about good and bad. What alignment does is create potential consequences for acting out of accord with what is objectivley good-bad-lawful-chaotic in the world and it also simply sets down the idea that, whatever the individual pc might think about good, there is an objective meaning of good outside of him. PCs have limited perspective, they are not necessarily going to have a clear understanding, especially when the respective forces of law, chaos, good and evil are trying to thwart one another. Much of this will be setting specific though.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> If it makes sense for a character, within the gameworld (ie not a player commenting at the table at the metagame level, but the PC, in character) to assert "the cosmological force of good is not good", then I am puzzled as to the sense in which that being is _the cosmological force of good_. They seem to be just another person (or quasi-person), with desires which others might admire or condemn, but not an objective moral power at all.




Welll as I said above I tend to personify my cosmological forces and regard them as fallible because in the D&D milieu (where mortals become gods and, at least by the fiction in their novels still retain very human desires, wants and characteristics) it seems to fit.  So yes in a sense they are NPC's with desires which have somehow achieved enough power and the mantle necessary to define a certain type of good or a certain type of evil, or a certain type of chaos.  But as a good & lawful (or any other combination) being there are certain broad tenets that, in accepting their mantle as a cosmological power they must abide by.

I want to clarify something before we continue, I was very specific in the terms I used in the previous post because I was not asserting that "good was not good"... I was asserting that one may not believe the "good" thing to do (as defined by the tenets of the cosmological force) is not necessarily the "correct" or "proper" thing to do for said character in any particular situation (and the rules allow for this since they explicitly state, at least in the current editions I am familiar with that one action does not define one's alignment) that is a distinction I made purposefully.  

As an example... A paladin may know that by the tenets of the cosmological force in this world sparing an orc (considered a scourge on all that is righteous and wholesome in this particular world) is considered a non-good (though not evil because mercy is a tenet of good) act.  The paladin however does it any way and decides he will try and reform the orc.  Now he doesn't fall because this is not in and of itself an evil act but the paladin is now responsible for the actions of the orc he showed mercy.  This takes months/years/etc. of watching over the orc, trying to teach him new values, etc.  while taking responsibility for any actions the orc takes while under his guidance.  Ultimately the DM must decide whether individual orcs can or cannot be redeemed.  If the orc does reform... does this mean lawful good is not lawful good because one of its tenets doesn't consider the reform of orcs a good act?  No, good is still what it has always been and lawful has always been what it has always been.  But the paladin has discovered that reforming orc's is possible and so may in the future try to do so as opposed to killing them outright as lawful goodness sets forth as being one of it's tenets.      



pemerton said:


> If alignment is handled in _this_ way, I don't see how it can do the job @_*Mishihari Lord*_ wants it to do, of putting moral disagreements to one side while the players play the game, because those disputes can just be reactivated by the PCs who query the will of the gods and "cosmological forces" on the basis of their players' moral judgements.




Ultimately it's up to the type of game you're playing... alignment is a tool for the DM.  I assume in a game run by @_*Mish*_ihariLord, using the example above... that the paladin would have found that the orc ultimately could not be reformed and thus good is correct and there is no mortal quandary or even questioning in the slaughtering of orcs by the hundreds because they really are corrupt and evil all the time (IMO, this is a very high-fantasy, LotR-esque take on morality but valid all the same).  under the 3.X rules both scenarios are acceptable ways of the alignment issue playing out.   



pemerton said:


> Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).
> 
> That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)




I was the one who posted the quoted not Bedrockgames...


I believe you may be confusing Elric's morality and views (who is an aberration when it comes to values and morality in Melnibonean society with those of his people and the Young Kingdoms as a whole).  

I think a more apt example of "clerics" are the Sorcerer-priests of Pan Tang in the Elric stories... they commune with the same beings as those of the Melniboneans but the relationship is totally different... they are actual priests of chaos as opposed to having ancient pacts of semi-command like the Melniboneans do... though ultimately the end result is very similar (which is probably just one of the influences that have led to my view of there not being much difference between a priest who serves his deity and gets powers vs. a warlock who makes a pact with a deity and is granted powers).

I also think Prince Gaynor who once served the Balance but now serves Chaos is a good example of a fallen paladin in the world of the Young Kingdoms.  He didn't make any pacts but willingly chose to serve the Balance and then fell and served chaos.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> This puzzles me. I am playing a game without mechanical alignment. So there is no "cosmological force of good". There are no "exemplars of good". There are active gods, and a banished god (Bastion of Broken Souls), and a dead god (Requiem for a God), and there are Lords of Karma, and a former Lord of Karma relieved of authority (the Ordainer, an RM NPC/monster, merged with aspects of Asmodeus and Demogorgon from the AD&D MM), and there are Storm Lords and Sea Lords (and a child descended from both, the love interest of one of the PCs and also a dragon), and there are animal lords, and former animal lords relieved of authority (including one of the PCs, as it turned out). And other beings too .




I think most people would see The Heavens as "Good".  If we are presuming "Good" in alignment is good in English, "The Heavens" are similarly associated with "Good".  



pemerton said:


> The players make their own judgements, in the course of playing their PCs, and act on them. In doing that, some of the players have the conviction that their PCs are serving the causes ("true enlightenment") to which they are devoted. I don't contradict them in that judgement. All the players also recognise that they are deliberately thwarting the constables of heaven enforcing the edict of the Lords of Karma. I don't contradict that judgement either! - which is to say, as the campaign unfolds they get more trouble from heaven.




What prevents "True Enlightenment" being Neutral with respect to Good and Evil?  Why does whatever the PC's choose to pursue need to be classified as Cosmologically Good in order for it to be worthwhile?



pemerton said:


> I have attached to this post the chart that the players worked up over the course of the campaign, reflecting their understanding of connections between different entities as well as the PCs' relationship to them . (You'll see, for instance, that "heaven" is labelled "*the so-called heavenly realm*".)




Emphasis added.  The PC's have decided that what is "Good" by conventional wisdom and cosmological force (the Heavens themselves) is not really so good in their own eyes.  What would prevent the exact same judgment being made in a game using mechanical alignment?  In my view, nothing.  "If I have to choose between your God and my friend – I choose …. my friend".

However, if those Heavens whom the PC's are now actively opposing continue to grant miracles to one or more of those PC's. while working towards their downfall, or even their deaths, and watching their own numbers fall at the hands of those PC's, using the very gifts they continue to grant, that strikes me as lacking in verisimilitude.  Those abilities are no longer divine gifts, just tricks anyone with the right knowledge and skills can achieve, regardless of any faith or devotion on their part.



pemerton said:


> Sure, but the Elric stories are, in this respect at least, similar to REH Conan: modernist in tone and outlook, denying the existence of cosmological forces of good or evil and fluctuating between hints of nihilism and an embrace of a sort-of Nietzschean self-creation (including creation of value).
> 
> That can be fine for an RPG, but I don't see how that sort of cosmology has room for a paladin or a cleric. (Elric himself is, in D&D terms, a warlock or hexblade - he has made a pact. REH Conan has warlocks, sorcerers etc, but no paladins or traditional clerics.)




I find your own cosmology seems difficult to reconcile with Paladins and Clerics.  "My power comes from faith and devotion to a higher power - the one I turned my back on and now actively oppose".   Really?  A 25+ INT and WIS cosmic being keeps providing you with powers you use to oppose its objectives and slay its loyal followers?



Bedrockgames said:


> As long as characters still have free will, they can disagree with the gods and develop their own ideas about good and bad. What alignment does is create potential consequences for acting out of accord with what is objectivley good-bad-lawful-chaotic in the world and it also simply sets down the idea that, whatever the individual pc might think about good, there is an objective meaning of good outside of him. PCs have limited perspective, they are not necessarily going to have a clear understanding, especially when the respective forces of law, chaos, good and evil are trying to thwart one another. Much of this will be setting specific though.




Exactly.  If Good stands for Mercy, and my character considers Mercy a weakness, then that is a strike against my character aligning with Good.  Maybe his only inconsistency is with Mercy, and on balance he is still Good, or maybe he's more of a N with G tendencies kind of guy.  



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I also think Prince Gaynor who once served the Balance but now serves Chaos is a good example of a fallen paladin in the world of the Young Kingdoms.  He didn't make any pacts but willingly chose to serve the Balance and then fell and served chaos.




He also stands as a good example of the character losing old powers and gaining new ones due to a shift in allegiance.  ie let the Paladin fall, but let him regain mechanical abilities of comparable strength, derived from his new allegiances, skills, etc. as appropriate for the change in his mindset.


----------



## pemerton

Mishihari Lord said:


> I think it helps here in that the argument is about a fantasy morality that no one really believes in rather than players' own moral codes.  The former is much less likely to be a cause of acrimony than the latter.



That's what I was thinking, yes. But it seems to me that can't work if the PCs are free to second-guess the fantasy morality. (Of course the _players_ might disagree with it, but a bit part of the point of the fantasy morality is to keep those disagreements out of play, isn't it?)



Mishihari Lord said:


> I love the cosmology shown by your chart, by the way



Thanks.



Mishihari Lord said:


> I think the hardest part of the approach you're advocating is that it's very tempting as a player to redefine the morality your character follows on the fly to avoid problems, which destroys the value of a moral code.



I can see that it might look that way, but I haven't actually had that experience. I think the reason is because the players themselves don't lose anything by having their PCs suffer for making the moral choice: they (the players) still get to play a fun RPG.

(This is a bit like the passage I quoted upthread from the DMG2 - while the PCs don't want to be attacked by assassins in the night, for the players it might be fun.)


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> What exactly where you expecting from the pro-alignment crowd? DMs declaring punishments or forcing actions on every perceived indiscretion?



Perhaps on some, at least.



Hussar said:


> If alignment is a tool for judging character behaviour, then it would be nice if every example of actually using alignment to judge behaviour wasn't swept aside as an example of bad dming.
> 
> Can someone give an example of using mechanical alignment to judge character behaviour that is acceptable to the pro-alignment crowd?



This is the sort of thing I was thinking, yes.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> That second quoted post isnt mine.





Imaro said:


> I was the one who posted the quoted not Bedrockgames



Fixed.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> As long as characters still have free will, they can disagree with the gods and develop their own ideas about good and bad. What alignment does is create potential consequences for acting out of accord with what is objectivley good-bad-lawful-chaotic in the world



I don't understand in what way it is objective, if people within the gameworld can reasonably disagree with it.



Imaro said:


> I tend to personify my cosmological forces and regard them as fallible
> 
> <snip>
> 
> one may not believe the "good" thing to do (as defined by the tenets of the cosmological force) is not necessarily the "correct" or "proper" thing to do for said character in any particular situation



I understand the first sentence. It makes me think of Sword and Sorcery, plus some takes on classical mythology. I just don't understand why anyone would call them the powers of "good" or "evil" if in fact sometimes they are wrong (in the case of the good ones) or right (in the case of the evil ones).

Calling them Team A and Team B seems a bit bland too. But why not name them (for instance) by their pantheonic characteristics or aspirations?



Imaro said:


> A paladin may know that by the tenets of the cosmological force in this world sparing an orc (considered a scourge on all that is righteous and wholesome in this particular world) is considered a non-good (though not evil because mercy is a tenet of good) act.  The paladin however does it any way and decides he will try and reform the orc.  Now he doesn't fall because this is not in and of itself an evil act but the paladin is now responsible for the actions of the orc he showed mercy.  This takes months/years/etc. of watching over the orc, trying to teach him new values, etc.  while taking responsibility for any actions the orc takes while under his guidance.  Ultimately the DM must decide whether individual orcs can or cannot be redeemed.  If the orc does reform... does this mean lawful good is not lawful good because one of its tenets doesn't consider the reform of orcs a good act?  No, good is still what it has always been and lawful has always been what it has always been.  But the paladin has discovered that reforming orc's is possible and so may in the future try to do so as opposed to killing them outright as lawful goodness sets forth as being one of it's tenets.



Again, in this example I don't really see why we're calling those powers the powers of "Lawful good". Why not call them the "vicious retributivists"? Or something else more accurate or evocative? If they are capable of moral error, they don't seem very good to me.

I also don't understand how a character who forms the view that the divinity to whom s/he is devoted is capable of error can be a _paladin_. To me, that seems at odds with the archetype (apart from anything else, it seems to betoken a lack of appropriate humility). But obviously others see the paladin somewhat differently - to me that conceptions seems more like a (principled) warlock.



Imaro said:


> I believe you may be confusing Elric's morality and views (who is an aberration when it comes to values and morality in Melnibonean society with those of his people and the Young Kingdoms as a whole).
> 
> I think a more apt example of "clerics" are the Sorcerer-priests of Pan Tang in the Elric stories



I'm not talking about the in-character morality and views. I'm talking about the tropes and themes and aesthetics of the stories. I'm sure that, in the fiction, the priests of Set in REH's Stygia are very devout. But the author (with Conan as his some-time voice) regards their devotion as misguided. In D&D terms they are sorcerers or warlocks who are deluded (perhaps self-deluded). They are nothing like the saints and prophets and holy knights that the classic cleric and paladin archetypes are built around.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I think most people would see The Heavens as "Good".  If we are presuming "Good" in alignment is good in English, "The Heavens" are similarly associated with "Good".



They might. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not using mechanical alignment, and hence there is no "cosmological force of good". There are gods in heaven. Whether or not they are a force for good is not a question that the game mechanics themselves establish.



N'raac said:


> The PC's have decided that what is "Good" by conventional wisdom and cosmological force (the Heavens themselves) is not really so good in their own eyes.  What would prevent the exact same judgment being made in a game using mechanical alignment?  In my view, nothing.  "If I have to choose between your God and my friend – I choose …. my friend".



Yes - but the person making that choice doesn't then form the view that s/he is evil. S/he things that, by protecting his/her friend from an undeserved punishment, s/he is doing something that is morally permissible, perhaps even morally desirable or obligatory.

If it is coherent to say that "The Cosmologically Good god/force is wrong", or that "I am choosing well in opposing it", then why are we labelling it Good? Why not just label it Force A? Or, as my players did, "The so-called heavenly realm"?

Alignment tries to combine the labelling of teams with the prescription of values and conduct. This breaks down as soon as it is coherent, within the gameworld, to suggest that the good team is really doing evil or the chaotic team is really acting lawfully.



N'raac said:


> If Good stands for Mercy, and my character considers Mercy a weakness, then that is a strike against my character aligning with Good.



But it also suggests that my character is evil, unless Good is mistaken about what is good. Which strikes me as prima facie incoherent. 



N'raac said:


> Maybe his only inconsistency is with Mercy, and on balance he is still Good, or maybe he's more of a N with G tendencies kind of guy.



But if you go this way, this doesn't show that the character is correct in repudiating goodness - it just shows that s/he is not repudiating forcefully enough to get dumped. The character should still be receiving dreams or portents or whatever telling him/her that s/he is not conducting him-/herself properly.



N'raac said:


> What prevents "True Enlightenment" being Neutral with respect to Good and Evil?  Why does whatever the PC's choose to pursue need to be classified as Cosmologically Good in order for it to be worthwhile?



I don't fully understand the question, but if you're asking why is the good worth pursuing, and evil not, well those are (within limits that I don't think we need to worry about here) tautologies.

More crudely, "worthwhile" = "valuable" = "worthy of being valued" = "good".



N'raac said:


> However, if those Heavens whom the PC's are now actively opposing continue to grant miracles to one or more of those PC's. while working towards their downfall, or even their deaths, and watching their own numbers fall at the hands of those PC's, using the very gifts they continue to grant, that strikes me as lacking in verisimilitude.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I find your own cosmology seems difficult to reconcile with Paladins and Clerics.  "My power comes from faith and devotion to a higher power - the one I turned my back on and now actively oppose".



Who said that the powers of the paladins and clerics in that game came from the heavens? They came from higher beings, who have realised enlightenment. The gods might have created the world, and govern it according to natural law and the laws of karma, but they are not themselves truly enlightened.

As for verisimilitude, though, I find that very flexible for any god but the most petty. So even were it the case that a cleric or paladin was spurning his/her own god, a wise and merciful god might (i) know that a temporary rejection or repudiation by a favoured servant is all part of the providential plan, and hence (ii) continue to grant miracles. Is not the continued granting of miracles a sign to the wayward servant that s/he has made a mistake in judging his/her god as wrong?



N'raac said:


> He also stands as a good example of the character losing old powers and gaining new ones due to a shift in allegiance.  ie let the Paladin fall, but let him regain mechanical abilities of comparable strength, derived from his new allegiances, skills, etc. as appropriate for the change in his mindset.



This would be an instance of what I have described upthread as "paladin = warlock" (but shinier). I personally regard that as incompatible with the paladin archetype. The paladin is not being rewarded for allegiance. The paladin is answering the call of truth.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:


> Well consistency would be nice. If alignment is a tool for judging character behaviour, then it would be nice if every example of actually using alignment to judge behaviour wasn't swept aside as an example of bad dming.
> 
> Can someone give an example of using mechanical alignment to judge character behaviour that is acceptable to the pro-alignment crowd?



I don't see Alignment as judging player behavior, but simply a statistic that represents the current behavior of a game element, a construct within the game. 

Everything in D&D has an Alignment. Most everything in D&D has lots of the other common D&D statistics too (strength, intelligence, hit points, saving throws scores, and so on).  All of these scores can change depending upon what happens in the game. That's a good thing. Same with alignment. It determines certain behaviors and can change depending on results.

Scores in relation to game mechanics tell the referee how any particular game element interacts with other game elements. That means Alignments when dealing with the Alignment system. 

Player Characters as game constructs haven Alignments too. They also have scores like wisdom, intelligence, charisma, and slew of other stats, but only in so much as what a Player does not play in the game.

All the things a player actually does in place of a PC must be determined by the player. That means things like Morale, how much they remember of their past, what strategies they've developed, their loyalty to other characters (not just players), and so on. Everything in the Alignment system that is not defined for a PC, but is for an NPC or other game element, must be done by a player. 

Player actions change their character. That's every score and resource, not just Alignment. When players take actions that would shift their Alignment score, then they are informed of that. I include a Saving Throw on an Alignment shifting action so they are informed before they even take the action. This way they can feel out the edges of where their current alignment stands in particular situations within the game.

Players do not need to play to a particular alignment just like no one ever needs to play Ability Scores as attributes. But just like any score in the game Alignment affects how other elements in the game will interact with their game construct, the PC. 

Some classes are more difficult to play because they lose abilities when their Alignment shifts. The Alignment system _is_ the core system for the cleric class to master and get XP within (otherwise it becomes a poor substitute for gish class). And clerics who change Alignment often change significantly when that happens. 

Cleric subclasses (and other subclasses like Rangers and Paladins tied heavily to the cleric sphere of play) are usually the Alignment-specific classes. Stop being Neutral and your Druid becomes a standard Cleric losing all their specialty Druidic abilities. Like any Ranger or Paladin who becomes a Fighter the Druid becomes the same level of Cleric and may find more clerical abilities in another religion/deity. 

Paladins are a special case, yes. If they shift Alignment, they can never rejoin the ranks of Paladins in that campaign again. (Or you could just roll up another Paladin) But that challenge is what the Paladin class offers to players of it. Other Alignment-specific classes don't have this limitation.

Alignment in D&D is based off the three basic ways of playing a game. Cooperatively (together), Competitively (at odds), and Solo (each their own way). D&D is a cooperative game because the balance of the game tilts towards cooperation as the effective means of achieving mastery of the game for any individual. This mastery must still come individually for a player (not a character power), but the capabilities of a group as a team counts largely too. 

Cooperation is not a rule of the game players must solely follow. It is defined as certain operations within the game where game elements work in conjunction with each other rather than, well, the other two alignment behaviors. 

D&D is unique as a cooperative game (actually, it's incredibly unique in many ways) as it offers multiple systems for player to explore, each one selected prior to play according to the class they pick to focus on. Combat system. Magic system. The alignment system is one of the core designs of the game. What D&D does is make play of these roles complementary to each other with both niches and overlaps within the game construct which is the fantasy game world. Most cooperative games, and even 20 years ago there were few, make every game piece the same with only varying stats. However, this last difference is what makes D&D a role playing game.

So, before playing the game Players select an Alignment to start their PC in. They play the game and learn what those actions mean in relation to the Alignment system, or ignore it if they wish, and go about their business of achieving objectives within the game. But the DM still tracks their Alignment. Just as the DM tracks the changes to their age, location, what equipment they have, what scores their PCs have, and all the rest. These will change and its up to them to tell the Players when they do. 

While hopefully this generally covers character behavior and alignment it doesn't really get into judging Players and how they behave. A referee running a game of Monopoly, a DM running D&D isn't judging the players as good or bad people, but rather keeping track of how their PCs' scores change throughout the game. That's not ever bad DMing IMO, but necessary to even be a referee.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't understand in what way it is objective, if people within the gameworld can reasonably disagree with it.
> 
> ilt around.




Because they are wrong. It exists and is defined a particular way, regardless of what they think. Objective facts exist, and realities exist, yet people in the real world deny them or disagree about them all the time. Unless the god or force is stepping in to correct every minor mistake or error in moral understanding, there is bound to be dispute, and in a world where you can choose from among many different moral positions, there are going to be people who dont fit neatly into one category (someone who is primarily chaotic good for example but has some lawful good tendencies or sentiments). This really has never proved to be an issue for me during play at all. As long as the inhabitants of the setting have free will and they have a limited point of view (because they are finite entities and don't know everything) i dont see why they all have to walk around with perfect inowledge of alignments and behave in ways that reflect the alignments perfectly. There is room for difference of opinion, but there will be times when the gods make their will known (think of the famous scene in Constantine where Gabrial goes to smite someone but god no longer has his back).


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> They might. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not using mechanical alignment, and hence there is no "cosmological force of good". There are gods in heaven. Whether or not they are a force for good is not a question that the game mechanics themselves establish.




I think the game mechanics establish that they are a force for the brand of Good that they represent (typically, Heavens = LG, not the pure G of NG nor the freedom-loving G of CG).  Whether the PC's consider that the most valid form of Good is up to the players. 



pemerton said:


> Yes - but the person making that choice doesn't then form the view that s/he is evil. S/he things that, by protecting his/her friend from an undeserved punishment, s/he is doing something that is morally permissible, perhaps even morally desirable or obligatory.




You cited the character of Magneto upthread.  What did he call his little band of followers?  "Very well, if you choose to classify the defense of my friend over your petty rules and requirements as 'Evil', then so be it - I am 'Evil'. "  However, you keep leaping to Good or Evil - what happened to the middle ground of "Neutral"?  What became of the axis of Law and Chaos?  In your "Choose my friend or choose the Rules of Heaven" example, it seems like the Heavens value the rules, but the PC's value the individual - their friend.  That seems a lot more like Law and Chaos.  Especialy when one considers that the Karmic belief system means losing one's self to a new self in reincarnation.



pemerton said:


> If it is coherent to say that "The Cosmologically Good god/force is wrong", or that "I am choosing well in opposing it", then why are we labelling it Good? Why not just label it Force A? Or, as my players did, "The so-called heavenly realm"?




Because we like labels?  Why not refer to some characters as "spellcasters" and some as "swordswingers"?  Monk PC's don't wear drab robes, remove themselves to monasteries and chant all day long.  The Heavenly Realms are just that.  Should we refer to the "so-called United States"?  They don't seem to see eye to eye on every issue.  They had a civil war years ago.  The Heavenly Realms support the rules of Heaven - by definition.



pemerton said:


> But it also suggests that my character is evil, unless Good is mistaken about what is good. Which strikes me as prima facie incoherent.




Where did that wide middle ground go?  That great alignment chart holds vast spaces within each alignment, not a single point for each one.  "I am not perfectly 100% consistent with each and every tenet of Good" is not "I am irredeemably Evil".  What is "the greatest good for the greatest number"?  That seems like the mentality that accommodates "acceptable losses".  It seems like the viewpoint that suggests a remorseless murderer be removed from society - capital punishment - for the greater good.  Those things compromise Good.  They do not mean that the character meting out that justice is Evil.

For all that the anti-alignment group refers to shades of grey, they seem incapable of perceiving those shades within the alignment rules themselves.  



pemerton said:


> More crudely, "worthwhile" = "valuable" = "worthy of being valued" = "good".




OK, let's look at a mercenary.  "wealth" = "worthwhile" =  "valuable" = "worthy of being valued" = "good".  So therefore the greatest good is earning money, right?  The ultimate force of good in the Star Trek universe, then, are the Ferengi, right?

Or perhaps  "knowledge" = "worthwhile" =  "valuable" = "worthy of being valued" = "good", so any sacrifice in pursuit of knowledge (say, medical experiments on the homeless) must be "good" because it pursues something valuable.

Hey, most D&D characters think  "power" = "worthwhile" =  "valuable" = "worthy of being valued" = "good", so clearly "might makes right" is a tenet of Good, right?

You can rationalize an awful lot.  And people certainly do.



pemerton said:


> Who said that the powers of the paladins and clerics in that game came from the heavens? They came from higher beings, who have realised enlightenment. The gods might have created the world, and govern it according to natural law and the laws of karma, but they are not themselves truly enlightened.




So who does power the paladins and clerics?  Some nameless force with whose goals these few people (the PC's) are somehow fully in tune with, when no one else is?  Sounds like they have also fully realised enlightenment.  Why aren't they also higher beings?  And when did withdrawal from the world and all its concerns, leaving behind those lesser, unenlightended beings, become "Good"?  "I made it - pull up the ladder" is the hallmark of "Good"?



pemerton said:


> As for verisimilitude, though, I find that very flexible for any god but the most petty. So even were it the case that a cleric or paladin was spurning his/her own god, a wise and merciful god might (i) know that a temporary rejection or repudiation by a favoured servant is all part of the providential plan, and hence (ii) continue to grant miracles. Is not the continued granting of miracles a sign to the wayward servant that s/he has made a mistake in judging his/her god as wrong?




And is the God of Blind Justice wise and merciful?  Is continuing to grant those miracles to further the ability of the recipient to do wrong in the world wise and merciful?  Why is it only the PC's that count, and not the NPC's they wrong with their misuse of power?



Bedrockgames said:


> Because they are wrong. It exists and is defined a particular way, regardless of what they think. Objective facts exist, and realities exist, yet people in the real world deny them or disagree about them all the time. Unless the god or force is stepping in to correct every minor mistake or error in moral understanding, there is bound to be dispute, and in a world where you can choose from among many different moral positions, there are going to be people who dont fit neatly into one category (someone who is primarily chaotic good for example but has some lawful good tendencies or sentiments).




Perhaps that Paladin whose tenets are Justice, but who just can't get beyond his loyalty to a black sheep sibling, or an NG priest who just can't get over the slaughter of his village by Goblins when he was young?  Newsflash:  few, if any, people are perfect, and most of those who can claim to have always lived up to their principals 100% have, I suspect, pretty weak principals, or pretty skewed perceptions.



Bedrockgames said:


> This really has never proved to be an issue for me during play at all. As long as the inhabitants of the setting have free will and they have a limited point of view (because they are finite entities and don't know everything) i dont see why they all have to walk around with perfect inowledge of alignments and behave in ways that reflect the alignments perfectly. There is room for difference of opinion, but there will be times when the gods make their will known (think of the famous scene in Constantine where Gabrial goes to smite someone but god no longer has his back).




Limited to NPCs or PCs whose players sell them out in the [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] model.


A few recent posts asked for occurences where alignment has been enforced.  I think examples (hypothetical or otherwise) have been given a few times in the thread, but they get dismissed with "oh, that would never happen in our games".  Alignment can be policed at a pretty high level.  It seems the anti-alignment team sees alignment as valid only if we enforce it in a manner similar to enforcing real world laws by executing jaywalkers and litterbugs, rather than recognizing wide scope between minor and more serious infractions.


----------



## Hussar

howandwhy99 said:


> I don't see Alignment as judging player behavior, but simply a statistic that represents the current behavior of a game element, a construct within the game.




Then what is the point of mechanical alignment?  Descriptive alignment, sans any sort of mechanical effect achieves this perfectly well.  It's not like 4e doesn't have aligment, it certainly does.  What you are describing here is descriptive, not mechanical, alignment.



> Everything in D&D has an Alignment. Most everything in D&D has lots of the other common D&D statistics too (strength, intelligence, hit points, saving throws scores, and so on).  All of these scores can change depending upon what happens in the game. That's a good thing. Same with alignment. It determines certain behaviors and can change depending on results.




But this is inconsistent.  If alignment cannot judge player behavior, and is simply a statistic, then it cannot determine anything.  Stats don't determine anything, they simply describe.  A strong character is one with a high Str score.  That doesn't determine anything about the character though, other than a few basic elements.  I can have a high strength wizard for example.  



> Scores in relation to game mechanics tell the referee how any particular game element interacts with other game elements. That means Alignments when dealing with the Alignment system.
> 
> Player Characters as game constructs haven Alignments too. They also have scores like wisdom, intelligence, charisma, and slew of other stats, but only in so much as what a Player does not play in the game.
> 
> All the things a player actually does in place of a PC must be determined by the player. That means things like Morale, how much they remember of their past, what strategies they've developed, their loyalty to other characters (not just players), and so on. Everything in the Alignment system that is not defined for a PC, but is for an NPC or other game element, must be done by a player.
> 
> Player actions change their character. That's every score and resource, not just Alignment. When players take actions that would shift their Alignment score, then they are informed of that. I include a Saving Throw on an Alignment shifting action so they are informed before they even take the action. This way they can feel out the edges of where their current alignment stands in particular situations within the game.




Not really though.  Very, very few of my stats on my character sheet change according to my behavior.  I can fight hundreds of fights and my character does not get physically stronger.  I can solve a thousand riddles and my Int score remains unchanged.  3e and 4e allow stat bonuses based on level, but, no penalties.  I can kill a hundred orcs and get smarter.  I can solve a hundred riddles and get stronger.  I can unlock a hundred doors and somehow that makes me more charismatic.    There is no connection between your actions and any statistical change on your character sheet.



> Players do not need to play to a particular alignment just like no one ever needs to play Ability Scores as attributes. But just like any score in the game Alignment affects how other elements in the game will interact with their game construct, the PC.
> 
> Some classes are more difficult to play because they lose abilities when their Alignment shifts. The Alignment system _is_ the core system for the cleric class to master and get XP within (otherwise it becomes a poor substitute for gish class). And clerics who change Alignment often change significantly when that happens.
> 
> Cleric subclasses (and other subclasses like Rangers and Paladins tied heavily to the cleric sphere of play) are usually the Alignment-specific classes. Stop being Neutral and your Druid becomes a standard Cleric losing all their specialty Druidic abilities. Like any Ranger or Paladin who becomes a Fighter the Druid becomes the same level of Cleric and may find more clerical abilities in another religion/deity.
> 
> Paladins are a special case, yes. If they shift Alignment, they can never rejoin the ranks of Paladins in that campaign again. (Or you could just roll up another Paladin) But that challenge is what the Paladin class offers to players of it. Other Alignment-specific classes don't have this limitation.
> 
> Alignment in D&D is based off the three basic ways of playing a game. Cooperatively (together), Competitively (at odds), and Solo (each their own way). D&D is a cooperative game because the balance of the game tilts towards cooperation as the effective means of achieving mastery of the game for any individual. This mastery must still come individually for a player (not a character power), but the capabilities of a group as a team counts largely too.
> 
> Cooperation is not a rule of the game players must solely follow. It is defined as certain operations within the game where game elements work in conjunction with each other rather than, well, the other two alignment behaviors.




Alignment in no way promotes cooperation.  



> D&D is unique as a cooperative game (actually, it's incredibly unique in many ways) as it offers multiple systems for player to explore, each one selected prior to play according to the class they pick to focus on. Combat system. Magic system. The alignment system is one of the core designs of the game. What D&D does is make play of these roles complementary to each other with both niches and overlaps within the game construct which is the fantasy game world. Most cooperative games, and even 20 years ago there were few, make every game piece the same with only varying stats. However, this last difference is what makes D&D a role playing game.
> 
> So, before playing the game Players select an Alignment to start their PC in. They play the game and learn what those actions mean in relation to the Alignment system, or ignore it if they wish, and go about their business of achieving objectives within the game. But the DM still tracks their Alignment. Just as the DM tracks the changes to their age, location, what equipment they have, what scores their PCs have, and all the rest. These will change and its up to them to tell the Players when they do.




What DM tracks any of those things.  In no version of D&D am I aware of that a DM tracks equipment, player scores or anything like that.  I've yet to see a game where age plays any significant role.



> While hopefully this generally covers character behavior and alignment it doesn't really get into judging Players and how they behave. A referee running a game of Monopoly, a DM running D&D isn't judging the players as good or bad people, but rather keeping track of how their PCs' scores change throughout the game. That's not ever bad DMing IMO, but necessary to even be a referee.




No, it absolutely is not.  Not in the slightest is it required for the DM to track PC score changes.  This is a view of gaming that I completely and utterly reject.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:


> Then what is the point of mechanical alignment?  Descriptive alignment, sans any sort of mechanical effect achieves this perfectly well.  It's not like 4e doesn't have aligment, it certainly does.  What you are describing here is descriptive, not mechanical, alignment.



Alignment as a system, not just a mechanic, is used for the same reason every game uses game mechanics: to make the content playable. If it's non-referential, than you're dealing with fluff.



> But this is inconsistent.  If alignment cannot judge player behavior, and is simply a statistic, then it cannot determine anything.  Stats don't determine anything, they simply describe.  A strong character is one with a high Str score.  That doesn't determine anything about the character though, other than a few basic elements.  I can have a high strength wizard for example.



The Alignment system doesn't determine a player's actions. A player's actions in a game change their character's alignment. Just like any other score can be changed by them. 

Statistics are scores representing a specific situation within a game construct. You are within the Neutral alignment range. You have prepared 3 first level spells. You have 8 hit points. They aren't non-referential descriptors like in 4e. Alignments are references to the state of game mechanics.



> Not really though.  Very, very few of my stats on my character sheet change according to my behavior.  I can fight hundreds of fights and my character does not get physically stronger.  I can solve a thousand riddles and my Int score remains unchanged.  3e and 4e allow stat bonuses based on level, but, no penalties.  I can kill a hundred orcs and get smarter.  I can solve a hundred riddles and get stronger.  I can unlock a hundred doors and somehow that makes me more charismatic.    There is no connection between your actions and any statistical change on your character sheet.



Magical items change Ability Scores. So do age penalties. Plenty of house rules for these things can be implemented too. The game isn't focused on players maxing out their Ability Scores though. It's about gaining abilities within the role they've chosen. 

I can't account myself for 3e and 4e Ability Score increases. I don't intend to keep them for 5th if I run it.



> Alignment in no way promotes cooperation.



Alignment is the state of how game elements in the world are operating with other game elements. Study most any cooperative boardgame and you'll see they don't have rules "to cooperate", but are designed to make cooperation the best long term strategy. This is what Alignment does in D&D.



> What DM tracks any of those things.  In no version of D&D am I aware of that a DM tracks equipment, player scores or anything like that.  I've yet to see a game where age plays any significant role.



You never had a DM track what was on the map behind the screen? What monsters were in what room? What equipment they had? What stats made up the monsters? Tons of DMs have character logs aggregating stats for the PCs in their games. It's mind boggling to hear that someone has never even met a DM who does that.



> No, it absolutely is not.  Not in the slightest is it required for the DM to track PC score changes.  This is a view of gaming that I completely and utterly reject.



When you DM you don't track the PCs' XP? You don't know what equipment the party has? How much gold? Where they are on the dang map? What their positions are in combat?  How do you manage to pull off a balanced game when you use an adventure? That's core to DMing IME.


----------



## Hussar

howandwhy99 said:


> Alignment as a system, not just a mechanic, is used for the same reason every game uses game mechanics: to make the content playable. If it's non-referential, than you're dealing with fluff.
> 
> The Alignment system doesn't determine a player's actions. A player's actions in a game change their character's alignment. Just like any other score can be changed by them.




What stats can a player change through the player's actions in DnD?



> Statistics are scores representing a specific situation within a game construct. You are within the Neutral alignment range. You have prepared 3 first level spells. You have 8 hit points. They aren't non-referential descriptors like in 4e. Alignments are references to the state of game mechanics.




None of these things change from player behaviour.  And unless you are using alignment to judge player actions then they have no relation to anything. 



> Magical items change Ability Scores. So do age penalties. Plenty of house rules for these things can be implemented too. The game isn't focused on players maxing out their Ability Scores though. It's about gaining abilities within the role they've chosen.
> 
> I can't account myself for 3e and 4e Ability Score increases. I don't intend to keep them for 5th if I run it.




None of these things have the slightest bearing on player actions. 



> Alignment is the state of how game elements in the world are operating with other game elements. Study most any cooperative boardgame and you'll see they don't have rules "to cooperate", but are designed to make cooperation the best long term strategy. This is what Alignment does in D&D.




In what way?  Alignment in no way promotes cooperative behaviour and you have offered no evidence for how it can. 



> You never had a DM track what was on the map behind the screen? What monsters were in what room? What equipment they had? What stats made up the monsters? Tons of DMs have character logs aggregating stats for the PCs in their games. It's mind boggling to hear that someone has never even met a DM who does that.
> 
> When you DM you don't track the PCs' XP? You don't know what equipment the party has? How much gold? Where they are on the dang map? What their positions are in combat?  How do you manage to pull off a balanced game when you use an adventure? That's core to DMing IME.




Most of that has nothing to do with tracking the pc's in the slightest. As far as equipment and xp goes, other than a pretty broad view, no I don't track this. Why bother?

I would hope that any DM
I play with has far better things to do with his time than amass statistics. Good grief our current 4e game hasn't bothered tracking nearly anything. I could not actually tell you how much gold the party has.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:


> What stats can a player change through the player's actions in DnD?



Drop an item. Now your PC's equipment list has changed. 

This seems trivially easy. I'm guessing you're kidding me here for some reason. That's up to you. It seems blindly obvious that most DMs through D&D's history have tracked PC scores and stats and all that is entailed when implementing adventures when running campaigns. 



> None of these things change from player behaviour.  And unless you are using alignment to judge player actions then they have no relation to anything.
> 
> None of these things have the slightest bearing on player actions.
> 
> In what way?  Alignment in no way promotes cooperative behaviour and you have offered no evidence for how it can.
> 
> Most of that has nothing to do with tracking the pc's in the slightest. As far as equipment and xp goes, other than a pretty broad view, no I don't track this. Why bother?
> 
> I would hope that any DM
> I play with has far better things to do with his time than amass statistics. Good grief our current 4e game hasn't bothered tracking nearly anything. I could not actually tell you how much gold the party has.



Yeah. this feels like you're trying to be surreal. 

Good luck with your game. I'd suggest not even using the rules of 4e, which is a pretty rules heavy game, if you don't even bother keeping track of anything in it.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand in what way it is objective, if people within the gameworld can reasonably disagree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are wrong. It exists and is defined a particular way, regardless of what they think. Objective facts exist, and realities exist, yet people in the real world deny them or disagree about them all the time. Unless the god or force is stepping in to correct every minor mistake or error in moral understanding, there is bound to be dispute
Click to expand...


I am losing track of the example, so I'll have another go.

A player reads a rulebook and reads a definition of the alignment "lawful good" - let's say, as in Gygax's book, it says "greatest happiness of the greatest number". That player is playing a paladin. The PC find him-/herself in a situation where s/he must choose - shut the gate to the Abyss, or save his/her mother. The player, for whatever reason, decides that the PC chooses to save mum, so the gate remains open, and demons gradually conquere the world. The GM strips the player of paladinhood (temporarily or permanently - at the moment I'm not worrying about the degree of severity of consequence) for violating the tenets of lawful good.

In these circumstances, how would it make any sense for the PC, in the gameworld, to contest the moral judgement of the "cosmological forces of law and good"? How does it even make sense to suppose that the cosmological forces have made a mistake about the moral requirements of which they are the objective exemplars?




, and in a world where you can choose from among many different moral positions, there are going to be people who dont fit neatly into one category (someone who is primarily chaotic good for example but has some lawful good tendencies or sentiments). This really has never proved to be an issue for me during play at all. As long as the inhabitants of the setting have free will and they have a limited point of view (because they are finite entities and don't know everything) i dont see why they all have to walk around with perfect inowledge of alignments and behave in ways that reflect the alignments perfectly. There is room for difference of opinion, but there will be times when the gods make their will known (think of the famous scene in Constantine where Gabrial goes to smite someone but god no longer has his back).[/QUOTE]


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I think the game mechanics establish that they are a force for the brand of Good that they represent (typically, Heavens = LG, not the pure G of NG nor the freedom-loving G of CG).



Which game mechanics? I AM NOT USING MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT. Hence, the game mechanics do not establish that anyone is a force for any particular moral goal or value or failing. The heavens are not LG, nor NG, no CG. Those designations are part of the mechanical alignment system that I AM NOT USING.



N'raac said:


> You cited the character of Magneto upthread.  What did he call his little band of followers?  "Very well, if you choose to classify the defense of my friend over your petty rules and requirements as 'Evil', then so be it - I am 'Evil'. "



I discussed the ironic use of "evil" - Satan's "Evil, be thou my good" - about 1000 posts upthread. D&D's alignment mechanics, in labelling certain actions and beings "evil", is clearly not using the word ironically (for instance, the remarks in the 3E PHB about why evil alignments are dangerous are clearly not intended ironically).



N'raac said:


> However, you keep leaping to Good or Evil - what happened to the middle ground of "Neutral"?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where did that wide middle ground go?
> 
> Perhaps that Paladin whose tenets are Justice, but who just can't get beyond his loyalty to a black sheep sibling, or an NG priest who just can't get over the slaughter of his village by Goblins when he was young?



I'm not talking about the middle ground. Presumably we are all agreed that if mechanical alignment is being used then _some_ behaviour is not neutral but evil. _That's_ what I want to talk about. (Although presumably a paladin who does enough middle ground stuff rather than good stuff will change alignment from LG to something neutral, and hence lose his/her class.)

My contention is this: in a game using mechanical alignment in the way [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has described upthread, in which there are, therefore, objective cosmological forces of good and evil, a PC who does stuff that the force of good says is not good has no rational basis on which to disupte that judgement. The paladin who can't get beyond loyalty to his/her sibling, for instance, would have to recognise that in behaving that way s/he was falling short of his/her ideals. The priest who harbours vengeful hatred for goblins would have to recognise that that was a moral failing on his/her part. (This is hardly an unusual thing, either - most people recognise that they have emotions or inclinations that don't live up to their own ideals.) If, in the end/ that character was punished by the forces of cosmological good for those inclinations, the character could not rationally contest that punishment, as it is objectively correct and the character knows that to be so.

Related to my contention is a  question - echoing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: what would count as an example of permissible GM enforcement of alignment change in a game using mechanical alignment? For instance, how many times is the paladin allowed to sacrifice the requirements of justice in favour of his/her brother before being punished?



N'raac said:


> A few recent posts asked for occurences where alignment has been enforced.  I think examples (hypothetical or otherwise) have been given a few times in the thread, but they get dismissed with "oh, that would never happen in our games".



So the paladin can help his/her brother at the expense of justice as much as s/he likes without falling? And will only fall when s/he rips out a baby's throat?



N'raac said:


> So who does power the paladins and clerics?  Some nameless force with whose goals these few people (the PC's) are somehow fully in tune with, when no one else is?



I answered this question already - beings of true enlightenment. One of them lives in a western paradise. Others are truly beyond time and space (and they are noted on the relationship chart on the far right, towards the top).

And the PCs were not the only ones revering these beings (and I don't understand what makes you think otherwise).



N'raac said:


> Sounds like they have also fully realised enlightenment.



In what way?



N'raac said:


> And when did withdrawal from the world and all its concerns, leaving behind those lesser, unenlightended beings, become "Good"?  "I made it - pull up the ladder" is the hallmark of "Good"?



This is a major topic of discussion in the real world among those interested in the religion that my campaign was drawing upon. The enlightened being who lives in the western paradise, at least, experiences compassion for all living things, and hence has not left behind unenlightened beings.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I am losing track of the example, so I'll have another go.
> 
> A player reads a rulebook and reads a definition of the alignment "lawful good" - let's say, as in Gygax's book, it says "greatest happiness of the greatest number". That player is playing a paladin. The PC find him-/herself in a situation where s/he must choose - shut the gate to the Abyss, or save his/her mother. The player, for whatever reason, decides that the PC chooses to save mum, so the gate remains open, and demons gradually conquere the world. The GM strips the player of paladinhood (temporarily or permanently - at the moment I'm not worrying about the degree of severity of consequence) for violating the tenets of lawful good.
> 
> In these circumstances, how would it make any sense for the PC, in the gameworld, to contest the moral judgement of the "cosmological forces of law and good"? How does it even make sense to suppose that the cosmological forces have made a mistake about the moral requirements of which they are the objective exemplar).




i am not really seeing the problem. The character simply feels the god is incorrect or simply disagrees with his god because he has some minor chaotic tendancies. Remember, the Paladin doesn't have the PHB, he doesn't have access to the alignment description, all he has is his experiences in the  game world. There are other faiths out there, some that are good and would argue that saving your mother was the right thing to do. Can't he just be a Paladin that agrees with 90 percent of what his god says, but feels in the specific case where family is involved, things are different. All he knows is his god is powerful, and can strip him of his powers...it is still possible for a paladin to think the god was mistaken to take his powers away. I just do not see the issue. It certainly has occured in my games, and i dont slap the player down for having a character that disagrees with divine decree.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> A player reads a rulebook and reads a definition of the alignment "lawful good" - let's say, as in Gygax's book, it says "greatest happiness of the greatest number". That player is playing a paladin. The PC find him-/herself in a situation where s/he must choose - shut the gate to the Abyss, or save his/her mother. The player, for whatever reason, decides that the PC chooses to save mum, so the gate remains open, and demons gradually conquere the world. The GM strips the player of paladinhood (temporarily or permanently - at the moment I'm not worrying about the degree of severity of consequence) for violating the tenets of lawful good.




On what basis does the GM strip the Paladin of his Paladinhood for a single act?  Are you asserting this was an evil act?  If so, please tell us in what way it was evil.  It does not even appear to be a non-good act - he has saved a life, which seems quite consistent with both "respect for life" and "defense of the innocent".  He has not pursued the greatest good for the greatest number, but that seems to me to be the Lawful aspect of LG, not the Good aspect.  A Chaotic Good, or even Neutral Good, viewpoint could well be we save the mother now, then we stop the demons from endangering anyone else.

"Acceptable losses" strikes me as a Lawful compromise of pure Good.  



pemerton said:


> In these circumstances, how would it make any sense for the PC, in the gameworld, to contest the moral judgement of the "cosmological forces of law and good"? How does it even make sense to suppose that the cosmological forces have made a mistake about the moral requirements of which they are the objective exemplars?




Forces of Law and Good.  Perhaps the forces of Chaos and Good, or the forces of pure Good, or both, feel differently about the issue.  So who is right, the Exemplar of Law and Good, the Exemplar of 
Chaos and Good, or the Exemplar of Uncompromising Good?  Or could it be *there is no definitive perfect alignment*? Your obsession with "there can be only one right choice" is the problem here, not any form of alignment, mechanical or otherwise.



pemerton said:


> Which game mechanics? I AM NOT USING MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT. Hence, the game mechanics do not establish that anyone is a force for any particular moral goal or value or failing. The heavens are not LG, nor NG, no CG. Those designations are part of the mechanical alignment system that I AM NOT USING.




Your statement that 







			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> Whether or not they are a force for good is not a question that the game mechanics themselves establish.



 suggests that, in a game with mechanical alignment, the Heavens are "a force for pure good" and thus the PC's cannot rationally question their inherent Goodnes.  I disagree with your interpretation of those mechanics.  I believe that, if we are using mechanical alignment, the Heavens are a force for one viewpoint of Good, typically that of Lawful Good.  A NG or CG character might very well disagree with the manner in which the Heavens view Good.  In the game you described, it is my view that characters in a mechanical alignment game choosing to defend their friend over the dictates of Heaven chosen their friend over the rules, an act more Chaotic than Lawful, but still quite consistent with the ideals of Good.



pemerton said:


> I'm not talking about the middle ground. Presumably we are all agreed that if mechanical alignment is being used then _some_ behaviour is not neutral but evil. _That's_ what I want to talk about. (Although presumably a paladin who does enough middle ground stuff rather than good stuff will change alignment from LG to something neutral, and hence lose his/her class.)




It seems like every "not middle ground" example which has been raised is dismissed by you as something "reasonable players would never do", so the issue "would never come up" in your game.  Maybe that means well-implemented mechanical alignment would not become a bone of contention in your game.  



pemerton said:


> My contention is this: in a game using mechanical alignment in the way @_*Bedrockgames*_ has described upthread, in which there are, therefore, objective cosmological forces of good and evil, a PC who does stuff that the force of good says is not good has no rational basis on which to disupte that judgement. The paladin who can't get beyond loyalty to his/her sibling, for instance, would have to recognise that in behaving that way s/he was falling short of his/her ideals.




Yes, he is.  He is falling short of his Lawful ideals.  Now, if he facilitates his brother taking evil acts, I would say he is falling short of his Good ideals.  And I would go further to say it makes *no difference whatsoever* if he, or the player playing him, believes he is not falling short of those ideals.  He is giving his brother special treatment, departing from his ideals.  Maybe he can rationalize it, but that rationalization still leaves him failing to live up to his ideals when it comes to his brother.  And if he commits an evil act* in defense of his brother, then he will lose his Paladinhood.  

* not a Chaotic act.  Not a Non-Good act.  An actual EVIL act.

If he hides his brother from the City Guard, unwilling to believe his guilt and/or hoping to reform him, that is not a Good act, and it is a Chaotic act, but it is not an Evil act. If, having been discovered, he creates a distraction for his brother to escape, or stands in the path of the Guard to delay him so his brother can escape, again, he has not committed an Evil act. But if the Paladin decides that he will kill the guard rather than let his brother be taken to face justice for his crimes, then I would certainly consider that an evil act.  Is he sure he wishes to kill a man innocently endeavouring to carry out his non-Evil job?  Then he has not honoured Respect for Life.  He has not compromised that respect to adhere to someone other principal of Good, or even of Law.  He has deliberately committed an evil act.  Now, perhaps that would never happen in your game, because any reasonable player would recognize that killing a man for going about his non-Evil duties is an Evil act that no one sworn to good and sincerely honouring those principals would ever commit.  




pemerton said:


> The priest who harbours vengeful hatred for goblins would have to recognise that that was a moral failing on his/her part. (This is hardly an unusual thing, either - most people recognise that they have emotions or inclinations that don't live up to their own ideals.) If, in the end/ that character was punished by the forces of cosmological good for those inclinations, the character could not rationally contest that punishment, as it is objectively correct and the character knows that to be so.




Or it may be objectively correct, but the character cannot see beyond his own prejudices to acknowledge that it is so.  Bigotry is not a rational trait.



pemerton said:


> Related to my contention is a  question - echoing @_*Hussar*_: what would count as an example of permissible GM enforcement of alignment change in a game using mechanical alignment? For instance, how many times is the paladin allowed to sacrifice the requirements of justice in favour of his/her brother before being punished?




"How many times" seems very much an example of mechanistic, rather than mechanical, alignment.  Is his protection of his brother the sole failing in his otherwise unflagging devotion to Law and Good?  Then I would consider him LG.  Is that Cleric's sole deviation from his NG alignment an inability to overcome his distaste for Goblins?  Then he is NG with a failing.  He's not at the very top of the page on the alignment graph.  If he is plotting or implementing genocide of the Goblin race, he's probably slipped below the top third of the page into Neutral, if not evil.  But if he's an otherwise good man who just can't get along with goblins, I'd classify him as a good man with a single failing. 



pemerton said:


> So the paladin can help his/her brother at the expense of justice as much as s/he likes without falling? And will only fall when s/he rips out a baby's throat?




That seems quite consistent with your "the player may define any action he wishes to be in keeping with his code" lack of any mechanical alignment game - and even there it seems inconsistent not to accept the player's rationalization that he is STILL working actively to the greatest good for the greatest number, with the infant in question being a regrettable, but unavoidable, and thus acceptable, loss in that pursuit.

And yes, he has a single blind spot for his brother (or his family?), which does not make him "non-lawful".  It does mean he is not at the absolute left of the alignment chart, flat against the leftmost line on the page, the absolute pinnacle of Lawfulness.  Perfection is not required.  If it were, Neutral would fill virtually all of the page, with tiny little spots representing the other eight alignments.  It is unclear to me why you have such difficulty grasping this concept.



pemerton said:


> I answered this question already - beings of true enlightenment. One of them lives in a western paradise. Others are truly beyond time and space (and they are noted on the relationship chart on the far right, towards the top).
> 
> And the PCs were not the only ones revering these beings (and I don't understand what makes you think otherwise).
> 
> In what way?




Whatever they decide is deemed to be perfectly in keeping with these beings of True Enlightenment, as we can never judge them to fall short of their ideals in any way.  As such, they too must be fully enlightened, as they unfailingly select the choices in keeping with perfect enlightenment.  Clearly, their conception is that they are perfectly enlightened, and thus it must be so, for no one may judge their enlightenment.



pemerton said:


> This is a major topic of discussion in the real world among those interested in the religion that my campaign was drawing upon. The enlightened being who lives in the western paradise, at least, experiences compassion for all living things, and hence has not left behind unenlightened beings.




"What a shame that people go hungry", he said, between mouthfuls.  "If only some less enlightened beings, not removed from the world, would take some action in that regard.  Why, I would go myself, but then the next course would get cold."  It must be right to feel compassion and do nothing, for he has been defined as fully enlightened and of the highest moral standard, because the character who venerates him believes it to be so, and his judgment may never be questioned.

Perhaps Beings of True Enlightenment follow the principal of the Ascended in Stargate, refusing to involve themselves in mortal affairs.  And perhaps, despite believing, fervently and sincerely, that they are Good, they are Lawful Neutral, as they lack altruism and refuse to use a tiny fraction of their power to aid those less fortunate than themselves.  That they perceive themselves to be good (small g, not Alignment Mechanic Good) does not make it so.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> On what basis does the GM strip the Paladin of his Paladinhood for a single act?



Make it the 100th such act, then!



N'raac said:


> if the Paladin decides that he will kill the guard rather than let his brother be taken to face justice for his crimes, then I would certainly consider that an evil act.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Or it may be objectively correct, but the character cannot see beyond his own prejudices to acknowledge that it is so.  Bigotry is not a rational trait.



If the paladin/cleric serves a cosmological force of good, and loses abilities for it, how can s/he refuse to acknowledge that s/he acted evilly? I don't understand the reasoning process that would make sense within that campaign framework.



N'raac said:


> Whatever they decide is deemed to be perfectly in keeping with these beings of True Enlightenment, as we can never judge them to fall short of their ideals in any way.  As such, they too must be fully enlightened, as they unfailingly select the choices in keeping with perfect enlightenment.  Clearly, their conception is that they are perfectly enlightened, and thus it must be so, for no one may judge their enlightenment.



I don't understand any of this.

I don't know of any real-world doctrine of enlightenment that holds that complying with the ideals of enlightenment will itself render you, per se, enlightened.

And in any event, what makes you think the PCs never fall short? Just because the GM doesn't judge that doesn't mean that a player can't judge that his/her PC falls short (ie your claim about "no one" is false). I gave an example of that on one of the early pages of the thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Make it the 100th such act, then!
> 
> If the paladin/cleric serves a cosmological force of good, and loses abilities for it, how can s/he refuse to acknowledge that s/he acted evilly? I don't understand the reasoning process that would make sense within that campaign framework.
> 
> ad.




Reasons have been provided. Either you can swallow them or not. If you find this does not make sense, then probably not a good method for you.  

In my opinion, it makes total sense. While i think most paladins who lose their powers do to an obvious act of evil, would accept. It is easy to imagine one that doesn't for a variety of reasons (ranging from the paladin is imperfect and morally flawed to the paladin simply believes the deity is mistaken in this one case, even if he is right in 99 percent of all others). The limited point of view that a PC has, is another factor, as is the diverse nature of the gods themselves (this varies from setting to setting of course). If a setting where you can have two lawful good gods, who disagree on minor points it isn't so crazy that a pc might diverge from the deity's opinion. 

Also, you are holding up an extreme example where the god actually intervenes. Obviously it is harder to dismiss when the god does so. But gods don't intervene for everyhting. There is plenty of room for characters to develop minor notions that deviate slightly from their god's where it never rises to the level of requiring intervention. 

The main thing alignment does is it puts these judgments in the hands of the GM and establishes there are these cosmic forces and gods who can express will in the setting. But as long as humans have free will, they can reject that expression because they are misguided, stubborn, disloyal, etc. That wont change the god's judgment. The paladin still loses his powers, but there is a lot of interesting stuff that can take place should a fallen paladin get it into his head that his deity was incorrect to strip him of power. I just do not see the problem. If the player feels this is how his character would believe or behave, then i am mot going to stop him. You may feel this is illogical or doesnt make sense in the setting, but that doesn't matter at my table where players do that thing all the time.


----------



## Hussar

So your telling me that the paladin does something, loses his status, and the player is convinced that the DM and thus his god is wrong, and accepts this?  

You must have the most easy going players on the planet.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I understand the first sentence. It makes me think of Sword and Sorcery, plus some takes on classical mythology. I just don't understand why anyone would call them the powers of "good" or "evil" if in fact sometimes they are wrong (in the case of the good ones) or right (in the case of the evil ones).




I think you are still approaching this incorrectly, they are not "wrong" about what is good or what is evil... they define it. That does not however follow logically that a man or woman cannot disagree with said tenets. 




pemerton said:


> Calling them Team A and Team B seems a bit bland too. But why not name them (for instance) by their pantheonic characteristics or aspirations?




Well Moorcock's powers were referred to as the Lords of Law and the Lords of Chaos, sometimes straightforwardness and simplicity in naming conventions is an asset. Ultimately what you are talking about is so subjective that I'm not really sure how to address it, I mean if you want more exciting names, nothing in the book prohibits you from having your civilizations or peoples in your campaign world refer to the powers differently....




pemerton said:


> Again, in this example I don't really see why we're calling those powers the powers of "Lawful good". Why not call them the "vicious retributivists"? Or something else more accurate or evocative? If they are capable of moral error, they don't seem very good to me.




Because "vicious retributivists" doesn't adequately describe their nature... they are promoting this behavior towards what are considered evil beings in this campaign world. They are not promoting the general act of vicious retribution (and IMO, that would be an overly simplistic characterization of what they stand for)... but instead prescribe it's use on a race of creatures that it considers wholly or majorily evil. If orcs are wholly evil and not redeemable, well the issue is settled. However, even if a few/some orcs are redeemable, the powers of LG may consider the risk of redeeming them too great, puts too many people, civilizations, etc. at risk and so on. Are they wrong? I would say no even if a player could successfully redeem an orc... that doesn't tell us what the ramifications of trying to mass redeem them would be, or even what the effects of trying to redeem the next orc one encounters is. What if that next orc isn't redeemable and while traveling with the paladin savagely murders a family who takes them in? Whose right or wrong now? 




pemerton said:


> I also don't understand how a character who forms the view that the divinity to whom s/he is devoted is capable of error can be a






pemerton said:


> _paladin_. To me, that seems at odds with the archetype (apart from anything else, it seems to betoken a lack of appropriate humility). But obviously others see the paladin somewhat differently - to me that conceptions seems more like a (principled) warlock.




Again what "errors" are you speaking of... the power of LG did not err in defining what the appropriate action is considered for the force of LG (which would, I assume, take a much broader and more comprehensive view of LG than the fate of a single orc mattering). The paladin chose to do something different, yet how does this prove the cosmological forces were in error with their general tenet... nothing is 100% infallible not even the deities or cosmological forces... otherwise why are there 3 different types of good or evil? If I am the cosmological force of LG my views of good are not pure but instead influenced by my dedication to law and thus flawed in some ways. 




pemerton said:


> I'm not talking about the in-character morality and views. I'm talking about the tropes and themes and aesthetics of the stories. I'm sure that, in the fiction, the priests of Set in REH's Stygia are very devout. But the author (with Conan as his some-time voice) regards their devotion as misguided. In D&D terms they are sorcerers or warlocks who are deluded (perhaps self-deluded). They are nothing like the saints and prophets and holy knights that the classic cleric and paladin archetypes are built around.




I still think you are mistaken. Moorcock draws a definite line between the pact making Melnibonean's and their relationship with the Lords of Chaos and the Pan-Tang priests who have no such birthright pacts and actually worship them. Not sure what (except the pact and worship) differentiates a cleric from a warlock in D&D?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> So your telling me that the paladin does something, loses his status, and the player is convinced that the DM and thus his god is wrong, and accepts this?
> 
> You must have the most easy going players on the planet.




First, yes we are easy going. I think that makes for a better gaming experience. I prefer to be friends with easy going people, and my game group reflects that.

Second, this isnt what I am saying. I am saying the paladin does something, loses his status and the CHARACTER is convinced the god is wrong (the player may agree with the gm's alignment ruling or he may not, that is a seperate issue). 

But if i personally disagree with the call a GM makes, i do accept it, because it is part of the premise that the Gm determines what is lawful, chaotic, good, evil or neutral in the setting. That is what gives it the sense of having objective weight for me---it all flows from the mind of one individual-the GM. 

In fact, I don't really like playing with people who bog down the game by arguing over this stuff during play. I just don't get worked up if the GM makes a call i might disagree with. Now, if the GM consistently makes bad calls all the time, that is different, and he won't be the GM in our group for very long. The person we designate as GM needs to be a person whose judgment and fairness we respect.


----------



## Nagol

Bedrockgames said:


> First, yes we are easy going. I think that makes for a better gaming experience. I prefer to be friends with easy going people, and my game group reflects that.
> 
> Second, this isnt what I am saying. I am saying the paladin does something, loses his status and the CHARACTER is convinced the god is wrong (the player may agree with the gm's alignment ruling or he may not, that is a seperate issue).
> <snip>




Or even  the paladin does something, loses his status and the CHARACTER is convinced he did the correct thing for  the circumstances and he would do the same thing _even though it violates his tenets_.

In other words, the character accepts his fall because his beliefs no longer conform sufficiently to the ideal.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Nagol said:


> Or even  the paladin does something, loses his status and the CHARACTER is convinced he did the correct thing for  the circumstances and he would do the same thing _even though it violates his tenets_.
> 
> In other words, the character accepts his fall because his beliefs no longer conform sufficiently to the ideal.




Certainly could see this occuring.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I think you are still approaching this incorrectly, they are not "wrong" about what is good or what is evil... they define it. That does not however follow logically that a man or woman cannot disagree with said tenets.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "vicious retributivists" doesn't adequately describe their nature... they are promoting this behavior towards what are considered evil beings in this campaign world. They are not promoting the general act of vicious retribution (and IMO, that would be an overly simplistic characterization of what they stand for)... but instead prescribe it's use on a race of creatures that it considers wholly or majorily evil. If orcs are wholly evil and not redeemable, well the issue is settled.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> what "errors" are you speaking of... the power of LG did not err in defining what the appropriate action is considered for the force of LG
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The paladin chose to do something different, yet how does this prove the cosmological forces were in error with their general tenet



If the requirements of LG are settled, then choosing to do something different is choosing to do something that is not LG. If it causes you to immediately lose your paladinhood, that is sufficient proof that it is evil.

A paladin who nevertheless insists that s/he made the right choice is therefore asserting that it is good to do evil. On any non-ironic use of either "good" or "evil" that assertion is contradictory, given the premise that good has been objecitvely defined by those cosmological forces.

In the real world, people who reject the moral judgement of others - even the moral judgement of divine beings - are thereby denying that those beings are cosmological forces of obejctive goodness. But in the campaign set-up being described I don't see any scope for such denial, and hence don't see any scope for rejecting the moral judgement of the forces of good. The paladin, it seems to me, would have to concede that s/he chose evilly ie wrongly.



Bedrockgames said:


> While i think most paladins who lose their powers do to an obvious act of evil, would accept. It is easy to imagine one that doesn't for a variety of reasons (ranging from the paladin is imperfect and morally flawed to the paladin simply believes the deity is mistaken in this one case, even if he is right in 99 percent of all others).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The main thing alignment does is it puts these judgments in the hands of the GM and establishes there are these cosmic forces and gods who can express will in the setting. But as long as humans have free will, they can reject that expression because they are misguided, stubborn, disloyal, etc. That wont change the god's judgment.



Denying that the dictates of a cosmological force of objective good actually answer to the description "good" strike me as being in the same category as standing in lava and insisting that you are freezing ie devoid of all reason.

If a god has an opinion, of course someone might disagree with it. But a cosmological force of objective good doesn't have an opinion: it defines what counts as good. Arguing with it is like arguing that the square root of 4 is not really 2 even when someone has drawn you a 2x2 square and is holding it in front of your face.

As I said above, in the real world people can reject the condemnation of someone who claims to be good, while still affiriming their own goodness, because they can reasonably deny that some judging agents has a true grasp of objective moral requirements. But if the campaign starts from a presumption that there are objective cosmological forces who do have such a grasp, there seems to be no scope for such denial.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Make it the 100th such act, then!




So, 100 times, the Paladin has been faced with the choice of either saving his mother or failing to prevent the certain destruction of the world at the hands of the Forces of Evil? Seems like the other 99 didn’t pan out quite as expected, did they?

If he does not immediately lose his Paladinhood, then do we now accept the act in question was not Evil?  OK, so what is our justification for removal of his Paladinhood?  Has he committed 100 non-lawful acts in a row, or 100 out of 10,000?  You are tossing out some mathematical number with no context whatsoever, which leaves no answer.

It’s not a spreadsheet.  The Paladin does not compute that, if he rescues his mother, there is an 80% chance he can still shut down the Gate and prevent harm befalling anyone, a 10% chance that there will be 1-6 deaths (3.5 on average = 0.35 deaths), a 5% chance there will be 1-10 deaths (5.5 on average = 0.275 deaths) and a 5% chance that 2-16 people will die (9 on average = 0.45 deaths) which totals 1.075 statistical deaths which is more than 1 so saving his mother is not the greatest good for the greatest number (oh wait, we need to factor in alignment of those we will save – if some are not innocent, that throws the figures out again).  He makes the call that certain death for one person is, or is not, an acceptable loss weighed against the risks from the delay in dealing with the Gate.  Is Heroism sacrificing the few to save the many (well, tear out that baby’s throat, I guess) or is it finding a way (or striving to find a way) to save them all?



pemerton said:


> If the paladin/cleric serves a cosmological force of good, and loses abilities for it, how can s/he refuse to acknowledge that s/he acted evilly? I don't understand the reasoning process that would make sense within that campaign framework.




The Paladin does not have a Player’s Handbook to tell him what circumstances cause a Paladin to be judged, nor does he get an explanation from the GM.  He has to make his own calls.  Perhaps he acknowledges he made an error. Perhaps he has decided that the Gods of Good are unwilling to make the hard choices – it’s easy for them, up in their Heavens – they are not down here in the fray.  Maybe he has drifted from their “perfect good in an academic sense in their ivory tower” to a belief that compromises are a necessary evil here in the real world.



pemerton said:


> I don't know of any real-world doctrine of enlightenment that holds that complying with the ideals of enlightenment will itself render you, per se, enlightened.




You keep shifting between Real World and Fantasy Game.  We were discussing those PC’s who serve beings of perfect enlightenment.  You have indicated none but the player may judge that his character has strayed in any way from the tenets of his beliefs, and the wishes of the force he serves.  So if the player says the character never strays, then the character must be behaving in the manner of one who is perfectly enlightened.  How can he do so, if he himself is not fully enlightened?



pemerton said:


> If the requirements of LG are settled, then choosing to do something different is choosing to do something that is not LG. If it causes you to immediately lose your paladinhood, that is sufficient proof that it is evil.




Have you lost Paladinhood for straying from Good (you have become LN), straying from Law (you have become NG) or for committing a single Evil act?  How do you know?



pemerton said:


> A paladin who nevertheless insists that s/he made the right choice is therefore asserting that it is good to do evil. On any non-ironic use of either "good" or "evil" that assertion is contradictory, given the premise that good has been objecitvely defined by those cosmological forces.




Or perhaps he has decided LG is not the ultimate Good. Perhaps LG sacrifices too much Order to individual rights. Perhaps it is too willing to allow a few to suffer for the good of the many. Or perhaps he has come to realize (believe) that the standard set by the powers of LG is one that cannot rationally be attained in the real world, only in their paradise where the forces of Evil and Chaos are far, far away and don’t really need to be opposed.



pemerton said:


> As I said above, in the real world people can reject the condemnation of someone who claims to be good, while still affiriming their own goodness, because they can reasonably deny that some judging agents has a true grasp of objective moral requirements. But if the campaign starts from a presumption that there are objective cosmological forces who do have such a grasp, there seems to be no scope for such denial.




And denying the rightness of a paragon of Lawful Good seems, to me, to deny that Lawful Good is the best alignment – perhaps LN or NG is the best alignment, and those LG’s have it all wrong.  The followers of each alignment believe their way is best. To accept your position that one is clearly right requires me to also accept that all the others are clearly wrong.  I do not accept that.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> You keep shifting between Real World and Fantasy Game.  We were discussing those PC’s who serve beings of perfect enlightenment.  You have indicated none but the player may judge that his character has strayed in any way from the tenets of his beliefs, and the wishes of the force he serves.  So if the player says the character never strays, then the character must be behaving in the manner of one who is perfectly enlightened.  How can he do so, if he himself is not fully enlightened?



I already answered your question: to act in the same way as an enlightened being would act isn't, per se, to be enlightened.



N'raac said:


> Have you lost Paladinhood for straying from Good (you have become LN), straying from Law (you have become NG) or for committing a single Evil act?  How do you know?



Because the GM told you (and your character learned in a dream)? - as per the GMing advice that you and others have given in this thread.

Or is alignment a dissociated mechanic?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Denying that the dictates of a cosmological force of objective good actually answer to the description "good" strike me as being in the same category as standing in lava and insisting that you are freezing ie devoid of all reason.
> 
> If a god has an opinion, of course someone might disagree with it. But a cosmological force of objective good doesn't have an opinion: it defines what counts as good. Arguing with it is like arguing that the square root of 4 is not really 2 even when someone has drawn you a 2x2 square and is holding it in front of your face.
> 
> As I said above, in the real world people can reject the condemnation of someone who claims to be good, while still affiriming their own goodness, because they can reasonably deny that some judging agents has a true grasp of objective moral requirements. But if the campaign starts from a presumption that there are objective cosmological forces who do have such a grasp, there seems to be no scope for such denial.




We are just going back and forth now. If you cant accept our reasons that is fine, but clearly this works for us and we find it is not only possible for characters to disagree with or challenge the gods decisions at times, but is even desireable. No one is saying the pc can deny the object reality of the gods judgment. The pc's power is gone, that is a fact. How the individual pc rationalizes and unserstands that will vary. Remember they do not have the players handbook and are limited to their finite point if view. I can easily imagine a paladin stripped of his powers who disagrees with the deity because he is deluded, evil, arrogant, foolish, irrational, etc. There are all kinds of reasons and if players want to go there in my campaign, it is entirely kosher and doesn't disrupt the objective reality of these things in the setting.

and importantly, these are extreme cases where powers are stripped and the god makes its will known. Many everyday moral judgments pcs make and actions they take wont even attract the notice of these forces.


----------



## Hussar

But BRG, you're missing the point. Sure the PC could be played that way but the player knows for a fact that the PC is objectively wrong. Basically the player has to decide that his character is deluded and play his character as denying reality. 

What he can never be is right. 

IME what is far more likely to result is the players will simply internalize the DM's judgements and play characters according to what they know the DM expects. 

They simply realize that it is futile to challenge the DM's views and play accordingly. It's a self reinforcing loop because the DM now has few if any alignment problems and thus concludes that mechanical alignment is doing a good job. 

The problem for me is when I play at a table like this as a player I find it constrictive and stifling and as a DM it's boring as players won't challenge me. 

It works for you and that's great. But I think it works so long as you add the caveat that the players are willing to not challenge the DM's preconceptions.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> But BRG, you're missing the point. Sure the PC could be played that way but the player knows for a fact that the PC is objectively wrong. Basically the player has to decide that his character is deluded and play his character as denying reality.




Why is it delusional for the character to come to believe that Law compromises Good excessively, or that Good compromises Law excessively, and that therefore he cannot, in good conscience, follow the tenets of Lawful Good?  Is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good objectively wrong?  Both are different from Lawful Good, so for LG to be objectively right, all other alignments must be objectively wrong. I reject that presumption.

What the player cannot do is change the alignment of those LG powers to match his own.  Neither can they force the PC to adhere to their definition of morality in favour of his own beliefs.



Hussar said:


> IME what is far more likely to result is the players will simply internalize the DM's judgements and play characters according to what they know the DM expects.




Given your complete inability to envision any GM who actually runs a fair and enjoyable game, rather than being constantly out to screw the players, it hardly seems surprising that your experience is generally negative.



Hussar said:


> The problem for me is when I play at a table like this as a player I find it constrictive and stifling and as a DM it's boring as players won't challenge me.




This depends what is "constrictive and stifling". If the GM is dictating the characters' every decision, refusing to acknowledge that each alignment holds a vast array of possibilities, that a single act inconsistent with a given alignment does not mean alignment has changed, or that a character might well fall within one alignment while possessing the occasional trait or belief which might suggest a different alignment, to me that is bad GMing.  

Just as there are poor GM's out there, poor players also exist.  For some of these, any request they play within the agreed upon structure of any game is "constrictive and stifling" because they are a special snowflake who must always get their own way, and cannot abide any rules call, setting limitation, restriction on source material, and so on ad nauseum, which does not go precisely their own way.  These players tend to use "constrictive and stifling" to mean any request they play the same game as the rest of the group, and not have a temper tantrum if anything goes against them.  

I wish upon such players all the terrible GM's you have had to endure, and I wish such players upon those terrible GM's.  They deserve one another.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar, none of the things you mention are issues for me when i approach the game this way. It isn't a conflict between players and the GM, it is that the players are there to experience a world that feels real, not amorphous and we find having the GM control these aspects of setting helps create that. We are there to explore the setting as it is managed by the GM. This is just another part of that. One thing it definitely isn't for us is a proxy for discussing or debating real world morality. We are a diverse group in terms of religion, personal ethical philosophies and politics so we don't see what goes on in the game world as being moral judgments of the players by the GM.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But BRG, you're missing the point. Sure the PC could be played that way but the player knows for a fact that the PC is objectively wrong. Basically the player has to decide that his character is deluded and play his character as denying reality.
> 
> What he can never be is right.
> .




Deluded is one possibility but not the only one. He may just be coming to the realization that his alignment is different from his deity's. Perhaps he followed the Lawful good god, but is slowly realizing chaotic good is better approach. In a world where you have this broad range of alignments to choose from, there are all kinds of reasons people might disagree with their gods. A lot of this would depend on the specifics of the setting though and how quirky the gods are. You could have a setting where gods are not perfect exemplars of the alignments, but merely the best exemplars. Perhaps there are vague forces beyond the gods themselves and the gods are just pale reflections of these. So you might have a lawful good god who is right 99% of the time, but every once in a while gets a bit too zealous. It is a bit hard to get into because so much of this will depend on how the GM takes the notion of alignments, gods and planes and then uses that as a foundation for his own personal setting. Everyone takes a different approach. For some, the situation you describe above will be the case. But for others it won't.


----------



## Bedrockgames

N'raac said:


> Why is it delusional for the character to come to believe that Law compromises Good excessively, or that Good compromises Law excessively, and that therefore he cannot, in good conscience, follow the tenets of Lawful Good?  Is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good objectively wrong?  Both are different from Lawful Good, so for LG to be objectively right, all other alignments must be objectively wrong. I reject that presumption.
> .




I have seen this sort of thing occur in a campaign.


----------



## Hussar

Again BRG you are stipulating that the player is always wrong. The only reason that the PC is changing his alignment is to conform to the DM's interpretations of alignment. 

There is no way for your gods to be wrong. Any differing opinion is simply shuffled into a different alignment pigeonhole. 

IOW there is no way for the player's interpretation to be the correct one. 

N'raac claims that the powers cannot force pcs to adhere to their definition of morality but that's false. Any time my actions are out of line with the DM's interpretation of alignment my alignment is shifted to conform with the DM's interpretation.


----------



## Hussar

> Quote Originally Posted by N'raac  View Post
> Why is it delusional for the character to come to believe that Law compromises Good excessively, or that Good compromises Law excessively, and that therefore he cannot, in good conscience, follow the tenets of Lawful Good? Is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good objectively wrong? Both are different from Lawful Good, so for LG to be objectively right, all other alignments must be objectively wrong. I reject that presumption.
> .
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page110#ixzz2vRgY6PYm




But, N'raac misses the point here.  It's not that LG is the only good.  It's that any time there is a difference in opinion between the DM and the player over what LG means, the player is always wrong.  And, if the player has his character behave as if he is right, the player knows that the character is delusional.  After all, if the player was right, then the character would not have been penalised by the alignment mechanics.  

Again, N'raac here is just pigeonholing the action into a different slot.  There is no way for my character to perform an act that is LG if the DM does not agree that it is LG.  It is not possible, in your way of playing.

And, for the love of god, PLEASE stop trying to paint this as a good DM/Bad DM thing.  Good grief.  We've seen NUMEROUS examples in this thead alone between perfectly reasonable people over whether something is good or not.  I mean, I brought up the Dark Knight example of saving Raz Al Gul and freely admit that you can argue it either way.  No one is right, as far as I'm concerned.

What I find interesting is N'raac and Imaro both come out with strong interpretations that close off other interpretations and then tried to claim that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Leaving the villain to die is NOT an evil act according to them.  

My point is, it might be, it might not be.  Both sides have pretty strong arguments.  So, as a DM, I'm just not going to pick sides.  Either interpretation works and you get to stay a paladin in my game.  But, in N'Raac's game, there is no question at all.  It's not an evil act.  Therefore it's acceptable.  But, then again, in N'Raac's game, by his own words, I cannot play a Batman inspired paladin since he's decided that Batman isn't a paladin.

So, exactly how is this not limiting?  Why would I not feel restricted here?  I'm not calling N'raac a bad DM.  I've never sat at his table, I have no idea.  But, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't enjoy his game, not because of any failings, but, because of play style differences.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Again BRG you are stipulating that the player is always wrong. The only reason that the PC is changing his alignment is to conform to the DM's interpretations of alignment.
> 
> There is no way for your gods to be wrong. Any differing opinion is simply shuffled into a different alignment pigeonhole.




Well, i was responding to pemerton's point, which was it doesnt make logical sense for characters to disagree with the gods in a setting with objective alignments. So my post was not intended to address your concern, which is different. 


But to address it, this depends on the setting. I offered an example where under the alignment system you could have gods who are occassionally wrong. In that scenario, it would be possible for pcs to disagree and be right. But yes, one feature of having the gm make these determinations is the pcs cannot deny the realities of the setting and be correct. If the gm defines lawful good in the setting, then he gets to define it (though i can envision a setting where there are four gods of lawful good, each with slightly different interpretations of LG. it is entirely possible to have imperfect gods who are the best examples of lawful good that exist, but still flawed.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, N'raac misses the point here.  It's not that LG is the only good.  It's that any time there is a difference in opinion between the DM and the player over what LG means, the player is always wrong.  And, if the player has his character behave as if he is right, the player knows that the character is delusional.  After all, if the player was right, then the character would not have been penalised by the alignment mechanics.
> 
> Again, N'raac here is just pigeonholing the action into a different slot.  There is no way for my character to perform an act that is LG if the DM does not agree that it is LG.  It is not possible, in your way of playing.
> 
> And, for the love of god, PLEASE stop trying to paint this as a good DM/Bad DM thing.  Good grief.  We've seen NUMEROUS examples in this thead alone between perfectly reasonable people over whether something is good or not.  I mean, I brought up the Dark Knight example of saving Raz Al Gul and freely admit that you can argue it either way.  No one is right, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> What I find interesting is N'raac and Imaro both come out with strong interpretations that close off other interpretations and then tried to claim that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Leaving the villain to die is NOT an evil act according to them.
> 
> My point is, it might be, it might not be.  Both sides have pretty strong arguments.  So, as a DM, I'm just not going to pick sides.  Either interpretation works and you get to stay a paladin in my game.  But, in N'Raac's game, there is no question at all.  It's not an evil act.  Therefore it's acceptable.  But, then again, in N'Raac's game, by his own words, I cannot play a Batman inspired paladin since he's decided that Batman isn't a paladin.
> 
> So, exactly how is this not limiting?  Why would I not feel restricted here?  I'm not calling N'raac a bad DM.  I've never sat at his table, I have no idea.  But, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't enjoy his game, not because of any failings, but, because of play style differences.




If you feel this is restricting, then that is how you feel. No changing that. For me going your way is problematic for my sense of the setting, because the gods adjust to meet the definitions offered by individual pcs. I want Grog the God of Destruction to act like an independent entity outside the pkayers,s, not be shaped by the views of the players. But if your method works for you, i say go for it. I am not in the business of convincing you to use this approach. I think all anyone on the other side here is interested in pointing out, is this way works very well for us and adds to the game. We know this way doesn't work for hussar or pemerton. That is a given in this discussion. But it definitely works for Brendan and N'raac. 

One thing i will add is for me at least, this isn't a battle over who is right and who is wrong about what lawful good means, in my group that is your own subjective opinion on the text. I dont really care what player B or the GM thinks about alignment or real world morality. I am not there to impose my view of these things on them. We have all simply agreed to invest the GM with the power to define such things purely for the purpose of running a fictional setting that feels real.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, i was responding to pemerton's point, which was it doesnt make logical sense for characters to disagree with the gods in a setting with objective alignments. So my post was not intended to address your concern, which is different.
> 
> 
> But to address it, this depends on the setting. I offered an example where under the alignment system you could have gods who are occassionally wrong. In that scenario, it would be possible for pcs to disagree and be right. But yes, one feature of having the gm make these determinations is the pcs cannot deny the realities of the setting and be correct. If the gm defines lawful good in the setting, then he gets to define it (though i can envision a setting where there are four gods of lawful good, each with slightly different interpretations of LG. it is entirely possible to have imperfect gods who are the best examples of lawful good that exist, but still flawed.




Oh, and that's totally fair too.  "Slightly different interpretations" isn't going to get anyone in trouble I would think.  

It's when two people look at the same even and give opposite interpretations.  Which we've seen in this thread.  You're comfortable to simply leave it in the hands of the DM.  Me, I would not enjoy that.  It's not that God X is inconsistent in my view.  It's that when something comes up that hasn't been previously established, I'm not terribly interested in simply letting the DM decide.  

As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting.  When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting.  If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.

Again, this is all IMO.


----------



## Steely Dan

It depends on the setting for me, Alignment might not play a heavy role in a Dark Sun or Eberron campaign, but would feature heavily in a Planescape campaign.

Alignment can be a wonderful tool when implemented properly.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting.  When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting.  If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.
> 
> Again, this is all IMO.




And i believe this is just a playstyle faultline. I know folks who hold your preference here. Personally, for me, this is one of the few things that annoys me as a player if it happens. Generally stuff in the game wont bother me, but when the players exert that kind of control over the setting, i get irritated (not saying you are wrong to be doing this, just my reaction to it as a player is strong). I really started noticing this when wishlists first appeared in some of the groups i was in. It took me a while to figure out why it bothered me, but i think it was the fact that the players were exerting control over setting content to a degree (even if in a very minor way via wishlists). So the player being able to assert 'Grog beleives X just really hits me over the head when I am playing. I want to discover what Grog believes not dictate what he believes.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> Oh, and that's totally fair too.  "Slightly different interpretations" isn't going to get anyone in trouble I would think.
> 
> It's when two people look at the same even and give opposite interpretations.  Which we've seen in this thread.  You're comfortable to simply leave it in the hands of the DM.  Me, I would not enjoy that.  It's not that God X is inconsistent in my view.  It's that when something comes up that hasn't been previously established, I'm not terribly interested in simply letting the DM decide.
> 
> As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting.  When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting.  If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.
> 
> Again, this is all IMO.




Grog the Destroyer can believe any X he wants; the _*consequence*_ of Grog the Destroyer believing X is Y.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Again BRG you are stipulating that the player is always wrong. The only reason that the PC is changing his alignment is to conform to the DM's interpretations of alignment.




You're very hung up on this "right/wrong" absolute.  If the player says "Grog hits the ogre and decapitates him", but the GM says "No, Grog misses" then the GM is right and the player is wrong.  If the player says "Grog leaps across the chasm, landing cleanly on the other side" and the GM says "No, he falls to his death", then the GM is right and the player is wrong.  If the player says "Grog is far too strong to be dominated by a Charm Person spell", and the GM says "He failed his save and is Charmed", then the GM is right and the player is wrong.  

If the player says "Grog believes family is more important than saving the world" and the GM says "Grog does not believe that", then the player is right and the GM is wrong.  Grog's beliefs are not up to the GM.  How those beliefs are categorized by outside forces such as deities or some cosmological Force of Good and Law is not up to the player - again, we are back to setting - but the player, and only the player, can determine what Grog believes.  And Grog believes family is more important than saving the world. 

If Grog thinks that the Gods of Law think a couple of family members are more important than the world as a whole, then yes, Grog is wrong.  If Grog believes he is more moral than the Gods of Law because they do not place a sufficient priority on family, then neither Grog nor the Gods of Law are "right" or "wrong".



Hussar said:


> There is no way for your gods to be wrong. Any differing opinion is simply shuffled into a different alignment pigeonhole.




You make it sound like a character's alignment will bounce around like a pinball, with every choice of action shunting him to a new alignment.  Alignments are not tiny little compartments within which everyone has the precise same beliefs on every issue.  They are broad categories within which rest an array of similar, but different, viewpoints.  All LG characters value both Law and Good.  Some will place a higher priority on Law in general, and others on Good in general.  People are not perfect, so many will have specific issues where their views will not accord with Law, or with Good.  Alignment is an overall determination, so that one inconsistent belief will not preclude the character remaining in a given alignment.



Hussar said:


> N'raac claims that the powers cannot force pcs to adhere to their definition of morality but that's false. Any time my actions are out of line with the DM's interpretation of alignment my alignment is shifted to conform with the DM's interpretation.




The Powers set the definitions of their own morality.  They cannot force the PC's to agree that their value system, their priorities and their conclusions are the "most moral" ones.  



Hussar said:


> But, N'raac misses the point here.  It's not that LG is the only good.  It's that any time there is a difference in opinion between the DM and the player over what LG means, the player is always wrong.  And, if the player has his character behave as if he is right, the player knows that the character is delusional.  After all, if the player was right, then the character would not have been penalised by the alignment mechanics.




If the player is seeking to redefine LG from the campaign expectations, yes, the player is wrong.  If the player decides that there is no river in his character's path, and takes action accordingly, then the GM's statement there is a river is correct, and the delusional PC drowns.  If, in any game situation, there must be a "right" and a "wrong" answer, then the GM is the ultimate arbiter of which answer is right and which is wrong.  But the GM is not the arbiter of Grog's beliefs.  "Grog not care what priest say, what King say, or even what Gods say.  Grog's heart says family is more important, and Grog's heart cannot be wrong."



Hussar said:


> Again, N'raac here is just pigeonholing the action into a different slot.  There is no way for my character to perform an act that is LG if the DM does not agree that it is LG.  It is not possible, in your way of playing.




You do not get to redefine Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, to suit you, no.  Your character's moral choice is yours alone.  How others, from the urchin in the street to the Gods in their Heavens, define and react to that choice is theirs, and "they" are not PC's, so their choices do not belong to the players.  If human sacrifice is an evil act (and the precepts of Good and Evil suggest it is), you do not get to define your "Paladin" who sacrifices those who disagree with him (even if they are only Evil enemies of the Faith) as LG.  Respect for life is a hallmark of Good, so you do not get to define that your Religious Crusader, who forces the heathens to convert at swordpoint, then immediately kills them to guard against backsliding, as Good.  The GM does not get to define that your character KNOWS this is wrong, only that it is not consistent with the ideals of Good.  Like every other rules issue, someone must make a decision.



Hussar said:


> And, for the love of god, PLEASE stop trying to paint this as a good DM/Bad DM thing.  Good grief.  We've seen NUMEROUS examples in this thead alone between perfectly reasonable people over whether something is good or not.  I mean, I brought up the Dark Knight example of saving Raz Al Gul and freely admit that you can argue it either way.  No one is right, as far as I'm concerned.




I don't believe that one can "go either way".  I'm unsure who, if anyone, has suggested it can.  

Let's review:



			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
> 
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
> 
> People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
> 
> Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
> 
> Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.




Leaving an enemy to die in no way demonstrates altruism (it is a refusal to display altruism), a respect for life (R’as is being left to die) or a concern for the dignity of sentient beings (it doesn’t touch on this at all).  It is therefore not a Good act.  Bats is also not  hurting, oppressing or  killing others.  He is not undertaking an Evil act.  R'as is  by no means "innocent", so his death does not violate Good's motive to defend the innocent.  Arguably, allowing (or even causing) R'as death defends the innocent.  That, again, would not make such actions Good, but it also mitigates them against being Evil.

As the act is neither good nor evil, it is Neutral.  He is not upholding the values of Good, but neither is he opposing them.

If I move this into a typical D&D world, what credibility does the GM have to say that failure to save the Bad Guy is an evil (act not a non-good act - one which is, in fact, evil) when we consider the usual fate of the Bad Guys?  We cant accept that slaying dozens or hundreds of enemies to defend the innocent is OK, then balk at refusing to save the life of one of those enemies.  That would most certainly be *bad GMing* - it's completely inconsistent.

Bats' behaviour seems, to me, consistent with an LG alignment - he is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, and has concluded that R'as is on the wrong side of that equation - his death will bring greater good to a greater number than letting him live to endanger others again.  That, to me, is tempering the pure Good of respect of R'as life, like all other lives, with the Good of protecting others he could threaten, and Law balancing out in favour of many lives preserved from risk, rather than the single life lost.  Now, one might argue Bats is also balancing Law (turn him over to face the justice of the courts/the king in a D&D world) with Chaos (individual vigilantism), but I think that's a much more challenging interpretation in the 21st century than in a medieval fantasy world.



Hussar said:


> What I find interesting is N'raac and Imaro both come out with strong interpretations that close off other interpretations and then tried to claim that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Leaving the villain to die is NOT an evil act according to them.
> 
> My point is, it might be, it might not be.  Both sides have pretty strong arguments.  So, as a DM, I'm just not going to pick sides.




I haven't seen anyone argue that the act in question was an Evil one which should properly result in a Paladin losing his status as a consequence.  I would argue with any GM proposing it was.  The only possible argument I can see for this being "an evil act" is that the game in question takes place in a Saturday Morning Cartoon setting from a morality perspective, in which case I would expect the PC's would never consider lethal force as a non-Evil means of resolving a dispute.  

For the act in question, I cannot envision any reasonable GM, in a typical D&D setting, concluding that refusal to save a person who has already demonstrated his dedication to killing millions of innocents is "an evil act".



Hussar said:


> Either interpretation works and you get to stay a paladin in my game.  But, in N'Raac's game, there is no question at all.  It's not an evil act.  Therefore it's acceptable.




It's not a Good act either.  It must be taken in context.   If the Paladin's usual approach is "hey, what happens, happens.  I'm not going out of my way to help anyone else out", then he seems far less Good and far more Neutral.   But he doesn't seem much like a Paladin.



Hussar said:


> But, then again, in N'Raac's game, by his own words, I cannot play a Batman inspired paladin since he's decided that Batman isn't a paladin.




"Batman-inspired" or "Batman clone"?  First off, Batman isn't a fantasy character.  The bigger question to me, and the line Batman has straddled in the comics, and he's been written firmly on either side at various times, is whether he is motivated by altruism (his desire to protect the innocent) or vengeance (punishing by proxy the man who killed his parents).  The former indicates a Good character, the latter a non-Good motivation.  The Frank Miller Dark Knight doesn't strike me as "Good".  The early quite about seven ways to take down an enemy (three will kill  him, three will leave no lasting ill effects - I choose the seventh.  He's young, he'll probably walk again) doesn't scream "respect for life" over "enjoys hurting others", and only the fact he is pursuing these acts in defense of the innocent keeps him in the Neutral side of the equation.  But a lot of "Dark, edgy" writing seems to push for our "heroes" to behave less than heroically, so Good becomes a scarce commodity.  The revamped Bat Franchise made a conscious decision to move to a darker, more gritty Batman.



Hussar said:


> So, exactly how is this not limiting?  Why would I not feel restricted here?  I'm not calling N'raac a bad DM.  I've never sat at his table, I have no idea.  But, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't enjoy his game, not because of any failings, but, because of play style differences.




I don't find "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" to make for a great gaming experience.  Paladins have restrictions on their behaviour.  I find those restrictions are pretty easily accommodated if my character is, in fact, a stalwart follower of the precepts of Law and Good.  I would not envision a character who chafes under authority, or who doesn't really give a crap about anyone else, having become a Paladin in the first place.  In the Batman example, it is telling that, for him, the decision to leave someone - even someone guilty of the crimes R'as committed - to die, rather than making every effort to save him did not come easily.  A player seeking to emulate Batman would need to emulate that difficulty, not decide "Hey, Bats didn't save R'as, so I can just ignore anyone in danger and my character will be just like Batman".



Hussar said:


> As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting.  When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting.  If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.




You are the only one who is arguing that the GM can override Grog's beliefs.  But then, that depends on what those beliefs are.  If he says "Grog believes that you serve Law and Good by slaughtering the Orcish Race, and Grog answers to no man - he is a leader, not a follower", then pointing out the inconsistency with that "LG" scribbled on the page seems perfectly reasonable.  And no different from pointing a bit further down to advise that the race he has selected is not in this setting, so it will need to be changed.  If he has selected a deity whose tenets include obedience to one's superiors, then noting that his beliefs seem inconsistent with his religion is fine too.

This does not require Grog change his beliefs, but it does address the manner in which those beliefs interact with the setting.  A setting which should be consistent for all the players, not allow each to define, say, the LG alignment in any way they see fit.

Sometimes, changes to the setting can be made to accommodate the player, and sometimes the layer has to change his character a bit to accommodate the setting, or the group.



Nagol said:


> Grog the Destroyer can believe any X he wants; the _*consequence*_ of Grog the Destroyer believing X is Y.




Exactly.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> If the requirements of LG are settled, then choosing to do something different is choosing to do something that is not LG. If it causes you to immediately lose your paladinhood, that is sufficient proof that it is evil.




Ok, I'm with you so far...



pemerton said:


> A paladin who nevertheless insists that s/he made the right choice is therefore asserting that it is good to do evil. On any non-ironic use of either "good" or "evil" that assertion is contradictory, given the premise that good has been objecitvely defined by those cosmological forces.




First... "right" is not the same as "good" in this context.  One can feel they did the "right" thing in a situation regardless of whether it would be defined as good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral ect. by the cosmological forces of the world.  Going back to our favorite superhero Batman... if one of the tenets of good is that one does not kill... does that mean Batman makes the "wrong" choice if he decides to kill the Joker one day?  Who is this choice "wrong" for... the millions of people at risk every time the Joker breaks out of Arkham?  Now murdering the Joker may not be a "good" action but Batman could come to believe that it is the "right" choice after all the deaths and pain the Joker has caused.    

Now that said, again I find myself unclear of your point here... If a paladins actions are within the defined purview of "good" as set out by the cosmological forces of the world then it was a good act...  This however doesn't speak to whether the paladin feels that his actions were "right" or not.  



pemerton said:


> In the real world, people who reject the moral judgement of others - even the moral judgement of divine beings - are thereby denying that those beings are cosmological forces of obejctive goodness. But in the campaign set-up being described I don't see any scope for such denial, and hence don't see any scope for rejecting the moral judgement of the forces of good. The paladin, it seems to me, would have to concede that s/he chose evilly ie wrongly.




No the paladin has to concede that s/he chose an action that was not good... this does not in fact mean the paladin chose wrongly... you seem to keep using right as a synonym for good and wrong as a synonym for evil... but IMO, that is incorrect and may be why you're having a hard time understanding the difference in the paladin choosing an action he feels is "right" in the context of a situation vs. the paladin choosing the "good" thing to do in a situation or even the "lawful" thing to do in a situation... The paladin feeling his action was "right" does not in turn make that action good or lawful or anything else, the cosmological forces define what is "good" but not what is the right way to handle any particular thing for an individual character.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> *It's when two people look at the same even and give opposite interpretations.  Which we've seen in this thread.*  You're comfortable to simply leave it in the hands of the DM.  Me, I would not enjoy that.  It's not that God X is inconsistent in my view.  It's that when something comes up that hasn't been previously established, I'm not terribly interested in simply letting the DM decide.




Emphasis mine... exactly where did this happen at in the thread... I saw slight variations on the Batman example but I must have missed where there were actually opposite opinions expressed... could you cite this?



Hussar said:


> As a DM, I'd prefer the players to take much greater ownership over the setting.  When the player gets to say that Grog the Destroyer believes X, I feel that that leads to much greater player interest in the setting. *If the player says Grog the Destroyer believes X, and I simply say, "No he doesn't, you're wrong", the player has no investment in the setting.*
> 
> Again, this is all IMO.





Emphasis mine again... No one in the pro-alignment camp is telling Grog the Destroyer what he has to believe...


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> "right" is not the same as "good" in this context.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If a paladins actions are within the defined purview of "good" as set out by the cosmological forces of the world then it was a good act...  This however doesn't speak to whether the paladin feels that his actions were "right" or not.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> No the paladin has to concede that s/he chose an action that was not good... this does not in fact mean the paladin chose wrongly... you seem to keep using right as a synonym for good and wrong as a synonym for evil... but IMO, that is incorrect



In my view it's hard to give an account of right conduct where what is aimed at is not good.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> What the player cannot do is change the alignment of those LG powers to match his own.  Neither can they force the PC to adhere to their definition of morality in favour of his own beliefs.





Bedrockgames said:


> We are there to explore the setting as it is managed by the GM.





Bedrockgames said:


> this depends on the setting. I offered an example where under the alignment system you could have gods who are occassionally wrong.





Bedrockgames said:


> No one is saying the pc can deny the object reality of the gods judgment.



If the GM is running the gods like any other NPC, and there is nothing more to it than that, then of course it makes sense that a PC might repudiate the god's judgement.

But that's not the case I've been focusing on. (Nor am I talking about LG vs CG, which has it's own weirdness but is not what I am primarily talking about.)

I'm focusing on the case where the PC commits an evil act and thus blots his/her alignment copybook - as a paladin, s/he loses his/her class features; or if not a paladin, let's suppose that the evil act is such as to make him/her change alignment. (And how does s/he know this? Because she casts "Know Alignment" or "Detect X" on herself every morning from her magic sword, or has a cleric henchman cast it, or whatever.)

In this sort of case, the character knows that what s/he did was evil. And how can s/he reasonably dispute that within the gameworld? The metaphysical evidence that s/he acted evilly is irrefutable!

(If the gods are themselves fallible channellers of cosmological good and evil, that just makes things more complex. For instance, if a LG good makes a mistake and judges an action good that is actually evil, does his/her paladin who commits such an act lose status or not? According to the PHB s/he does, in which case the LG good presumably now has to concede that s/he got it wrong!)



Bedrockgames said:


> For me going your way is problematic for my sense of the setting, because the gods adjust to meet the definitions offered by individual pcs. I want Grog the God of Destruction to act like an independent entity outside the pkayers,s, not be shaped by the views of the players.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We have all simply agreed to invest the GM with the power to define such things purely for the purpose of running a fictional setting that feels real.



You run together "PC" and "player".

I am not talking about a gameworld in which the PCs are their own judges. I am talking about the role of the _players_.

In my games, at least, players - not the GM - decide the colour of their boots at the start of the campaign. This doesn't make those boots and their colour any less "real" as part of the gameworld.

A player might also decide that his/her PC's mother loves that PC; or alternatively, that his/her PC has been outcast by his/her family. The fact that the player stipulates these elements of backstory doesn't make those familial relationships any less "real" as part of the gameworld.

Hence, I do not think there is any generalisation from player-authored backstory to an absence of "reality" to the gameworld. And in my own experience there is no reason to think that codes and aspirations for the PC are in some radically different category.



N'raac said:


> This depends what is "constrictive and stifling".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Just as there are poor GM's out there, poor players also exist.  For some of these, any request they play within the agreed upon structure of any game is "constrictive and stifling" because they are a special snowflake who must always get their own way, and cannot abide any rules call, setting limitation, restriction on source material, and so on



My personal view is that every player is obviously a "special snowflake" - both in general, as an individual human being entitled to respect and dignity, and as a participant in a creative endeavour who is committing time and effort, and is entitled to commensurate respect and recognition.

Each PC is also, and obviously so (to me at least), a "special snowflake". I don't need a game with a "one unique thing" mechanic to make this obvious. The PC is the mechanical and story vehcicle via which a player will be principally engaging the game for hours at a time, session after session. That status should be reflected in mechanical design and story role.

Overall, and stripped of the pejorative tone, I think I quite like your "poor players". They are proactive, have a clear vision of what they want from the campaign, a keen sense of the rules, and aren't sitting at the table waiting for the GM to roll up (what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has called) the "plot wagon". Sounds to me like a recipe for good RPGing!


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> And i believe this is just a playstyle faultline. I know folks who hold your preference here. Personally, for me, this is one of the few things that annoys me as a player if it happens. Generally stuff in the game wont bother me, but when the players exert that kind of control over the setting, i get irritated (not saying you are wrong to be doing this, just my reaction to it as a player is strong). I really started noticing this when wishlists first appeared in some of the groups i was in. It took me a while to figure out why it bothered me, but i think it was the fact that the players were exerting control over setting content to a degree (even if in a very minor way via wishlists). So the player being able to assert 'Grog beleives X just really hits me over the head when I am playing. I want to discover what Grog believes not dictate what he believes.




Oh, totally agree.  Yes, this is a play style issue completely.  

Which, if you bring it back around to the original question, I guess i would answer it thusly:

Alignments can improve the gaming experience if you follow a particular play style.  For me, who doesn't enjoy that play style, it does not.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... exactly where did this happen at in the thread... I saw slight variations on the Batman example but I must have missed where there were actually opposite opinions expressed... could you cite this?




Not going to swim that far upthread.  But, for one, you've got the "Leaving the villain to die" example, where N'raac has claimed authority of interpretation that only his interpretation is correct.  Are you saying you cannot see an alternative interpretation?  You've got the "God of Beauty" example where you claimed that ritual scarification is not beauty.  Is there no alternative interpretation?  Way, way back, Cadence and Celebrim looked at an example and came up with exactly opposite interpretations, one claiming lawful the other claiming chaotic.

Do I need to cite more?




> Emphasis mine again... No one in the pro-alignment camp is telling Grog the Destroyer what he has to believe...




No, you're just telling Grog the Destroyer that what he believes is wrong.  Yeah, that's not telling someone what they have to believe.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Way, way back, Cadence and Celebrim looked at an example and came up with exactly opposite interpretations, one claiming lawful the other claiming chaotic.




In another thread I think @_*Celebrim*_ and I agreed it was possible we could both agree on neutral for that one if I explained the set-up right way.   I don't remember if we agreed on anything else about it... but I think it was a good demonstration of why simply having two dimensions for alignment necessarily leaves some poorly described cases.

I'm also kind of disappointed that your post #1110 didn't just end the thread.  I'm not sure we'll get to another stopping place that's as nice.



Hussar said:


> Which, if you bring it back around to the original question, I guess i would answer it thusly:
> 
> Alignments can improve the gaming experience if you follow a particular play style. For me, who doesn't enjoy that play style, it does not.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> In my view it's hard to give an account of right conduct where what is aimed at is not good.




Execution of a convicted criminal, where a society believes in capital punishment. It is not a Good act, yet it seems death to criminals is quite acceptable to LG Paladins.  If it is not, they need to revisit their adventuring style.



pemerton said:


> But that's not the case I've been focusing on. (Nor am I talking about LG vs CG, which has it's own weirdness but is not what I am primarily talking about.)




You have never actually addressed the fact that LG, CG and NG will disagree on many issues, so they cannot all be "right" despite all being "good".



pemerton said:


> I'm focusing on the case where the PC commits an evil act and thus blots his/her alignment copybook - as a paladin, s/he loses his/her class features; or if not a paladin, let's suppose that the evil act is such as to make him/her change alignment. (And how does s/he know this? Because she casts "Know Alignment" or "Detect X" on herself every morning from her magic sword, or has a cleric henchman cast it, or whatever.)




Any act so evil as to cause, in and of itself, a change of alignment would need to be pretty heinous, which would seem to make its evil pretty obvious.

In this sort of case, the character knows that what s/he did was evil. And how can s/he reasonably dispute that within the gameworld? The metaphysical evidence that s/he acted evilly is irrefutable!



pemerton said:


> (If the gods are themselves fallible channellers of cosmological good and evil, that just makes things more complex. For instance, if a LG good makes a mistake and judges an action good that is actually evil, does his/her paladin who commits such an act lose status or not? According to the PHB s/he does, in which case the LG good presumably now has to concede that s/he got it wrong!)




You keep ignoring that vast Neutral ground between "good" and "evil".  A case just on the cusp between N and E seems likely to be something that would only even be considered in truly dire situations, with some non-Evil motivator.  Weren't you the one criticizing us for just tossing out hypotheticals upthread?  At least our hypotheticals had an act, not just a "it's a close call the God gets wrong" descriptor.



pemerton said:


> My personal view is that every player is obviously a "special snowflake" - both in general, as an individual human being entitled to respect and dignity, and as a participant in a creative endeavour who is committing time and effort, and is entitled to commensurate respect and recognition.




"We are all unique individuals - just like everybody else!"



Hussar said:


> Not going to swim that far upthread.  But, for one, you've got the "Leaving the villain to die" example, where N'raac has claimed authority of interpretation that only his interpretation is correct.  Are you saying you cannot see an alternative interpretation?




Has someone provided a rules-supported interpretation that this is an Evil act, or a Good one, or are you just assuming there would be disagreement because all GM"s are myopic tyrants out to screw over the PC's ? Might there be a moral or ethical philosophy that would consider leaving R'as to die Good or Evil?  I suspect so - [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is the expert.  But they aren't the rule book authors, so their views don't change the rules in D&D.



Hussar said:


> You've got the "God of Beauty" example where you claimed that ritual scarification is not beauty.  Is there no alternative interpretation?




That was a non-alignment issue.  Given two GM's could come to opposite conclusions on what constitutes beauty, I guess all references to beauty should be struck from the game, correct?



Hussar said:


> Do I need to cite more?




More than zero?  Only if you want to support your case, I suppose.



Hussar said:


> No, you're just telling Grog the Destroyer that what he believes is wrong.  Yeah, that's not telling someone what they have to believe.




What are we saying is "wrong"? That Grog gets to define a universal standard of right and wrong, order and chaos and good and evil?  Yes, I think that is wrong. He does not get to dictate the beliefs of others.  Neither can anyone dictate his beliefs - being his values, not how they get defined by the rest of the universe.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Not going to swim that far upthread.  But, for one, you've got the "Leaving the villain to die" example, where N'raac has claimed authority of interpretation that only his interpretation is correct.  Are you saying you cannot see an alternative interpretation?  You've got the "God of Beauty" example where you claimed that ritual scarification is not beauty.  Is there no alternative interpretation?  Way, way back, Cadence and Celebrim looked at an example and came up with exactly opposite interpretations, one claiming lawful the other claiming chaotic.
> 
> Do I need to cite more?




Uhm, you kind of do.  In the N'raac example I can see alternatives but not one where it is a completely opposite interpretation.  As for the "beauty" example... that doesn't concern alignment so is irrelevant to whether people see opposite cases in situations concerning alignment.  Finally lawful good and chaotic good are not opposites.  the opposite of lawful good would be chaotic evil and the opposite of chaotic good woulds be lawful evil... so I still fail to see where anyone has went total opposite while viewing the same situation in this thread... that is the claim you made.




Hussar said:


> No, you're just telling Grog the Destroyer that what he believes is wrong.  Yeah, that's not telling someone what they have to believe.




Uhm, again... no I'm not I'm telling him whether his action is Lawful Good or something else... whether it was the "right" acton is up to Grog to decide...


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> In my view it's hard to give an account of right conduct where what is aimed at is not good.




Well in my view right conduct is dependent upon one's goals and if the action allows them to achieve said goals... now whether the conduct and/or goals align with a particular alignment is something totally different than whether the action was right or wrong for the character.  Again, perhaps it's your inability to put aside this subjective interpretation of what "right" and "wrong" mean that prevents you from being able to see that for some of us they do not equate to "good" and "evil".


----------



## Hussar

> Execution of a convicted criminal, where a society believes in capital punishment. It is not a Good act, yet it seems death to criminals is quite acceptable to LG Paladins.  If it is not, they need to revisit their adventuring style




Bingo. You have decided that execution is not a good act. And, taken a step further a paladin who executes someone is committing an evil act. 

Which nicely highlights one of the primary issues with alignment. One of the most common actions of a paladin (and let's not forget it's Smite evil, not Give evil a good talking to) is actually evil by the definitions of evil and good in the rules. 

But then apparently we can just sweep that away as poor dming. Convenient that. Anything which doesn't fit your playstyle is bad wrongfun and bad gaming.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Bingo. You have decided that execution is not a good act. And, taken a step further a paladin who executes someone is committing an evil act.




Why is not good == evil?  Why can't the good do neutral things when needed?  (Deciding between the corn flakes or crispix for breakfast? Letting the law part weigh in on whether it's more appropriate to lock up the bad guy, costing money that could feed the poor and allowing him the chance to escape and butcher more people, or execute him?).  

Isn't it only the continually being more neutral than good, or the doing of evil, that shifts the alignment over if one is being mechanical about it?


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> Bingo. You have decided that execution is not a good act. And, taken a step further a paladin who executes someone is committing an evil act.
> 
> Which nicely highlights one of the primary issues with alignment. One of the most common actions of a paladin (and let's not forget it's Smite evil, not Give evil a good talking to) is actually evil by the definitions of evil and good in the rules.
> 
> But then apparently we can just sweep that away as poor dming. Convenient that. Anything which doesn't fit your playstyle is bad wrongfun and bad gaming.




If execution is not a Good act -- and there is certainly strong evidence in that it does not place an emphasis on preserving life -- it doesn't make it Evil.  Execution as punishment for crimes heinous to justify societal outrage is probably a Neutral act.  

Lethal combat in self-defence probably (as in a lot of GMs will not view it so) is not a Good act either -- it would fall into Neutral.  Lethal combat in opposition of Evil or in defence of Good or innocents would be Good.

Note that paladins can commit pretty much as many Neutral acts as they wish so long as their overall alignment remains LG.


----------



## Hussar

Entering the home of someone and killing them is pretty hard to justify as self defence. Killing someone is pretty difficult to justify as morally neutral. 

But this is my point. It doesn't matter what I actually believe. The simple fact that you can make legitimate arguments either way means that there will be disagreements. 

Some feel that it is valid for the DM in the context of the game and campaign to tell the player that the player's interpretation is objectively mistaken. 

And that's fine for that playstyle. 

For me, that would be very unsatisfactory.


----------



## Hussar

Oh, and just so's everyone's on the same page here, Grog the Destroyer is a god, not a PC.  I think that got confused a little ways back.  So, in that case, the DM is definitely defining Grog's alignment and beliefs.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Any act so evil as to cause, in and of itself, a change of alignment would need to be pretty heinous, which would seem to make its evil pretty obvious.



And? You,   [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and   [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] are all saying that it makes sense, in such circumstances, for the character to assert that the "cosmological forces of good" have made an error. I don't see how that is coherent, _given the premise_ that such a force exists, and that the character has been acted upon it (by losing paladinhood or changing alignment).

Are you now saying that it _doesn't_ make sense, at least in cases of heinousness (whatever exactly that means in this context), for the character to contest the judgement of the cosmological force in question? In that case you're agreeing with me, aren't you?



N'raac said:


> Execution of a convicted criminal, where a society believes in capital punishment. It is not a Good act, yet it seems death to criminals is quite acceptable to LG Paladins.



Do you realise that this is hugely contentious?

Two of the most historically famous theorists of respect for life and the right to life - Locke and Kant - believe that capital punishment can be permitted and even mandatory. Kant, in particular, argues that the only way to respect the rationality of both victim and murderer is to execute the murder for murdering the victim.

The general trend of modern opinion (important elements within the US notwithstanding) is in favour of abolition, but I'm not 100% sure that modern opinion, grounded in a doctrine of universal human rights, is the best way to make sense of the moral requirements that we want to think of a _paladin_ living up to. It's certainly not the only way.



N'raac said:


> death to criminals is quite acceptable to LG Paladins. If it is not, they need to revisit their adventuring style.



Most paladins engage in conduct that roughly approximates to warfare rather than to execution. The two most obvious moral frameworks for analysing warfare are the paradigm of defensive violence (which is where most of the contemporary literature is focused) and consent.

Killing a perpetrator of wrongdoing in self-defence or defence of others is not disrespecting that person's life, on most non-pacifist accounts of self-defence: it is justly preventing their wrongful threat to the lives of others. (And it is a serious analytical error, in my view, to equate killing in self-defence with retributivist killing as by way of execution.)

But the consent model, which had more currency in pre-modern times (where the paladin lives as an archetype) is actually more interesting, I think, in the context of D&D. If an orc or hobgoblin or bandit has chosen to make himself (less often, at least in published D&D sources, herself) a warrior, then meeting him/her in open combat is honouring that choice, and hence honouring that person's disposition of his/her life, even if the upshot is that s/he dies. (If you read the Chretien de Troyes Arthur stories, you can see this ethos expressed as if it was quite ordinary.)



Hussar said:


> Entering the home of someone and killing them is pretty hard to justify as self defence. Killing someone is pretty difficult to justify as morally neutral.



Just on this point: this is roughly the justification for the Allied invasion of Germany during WWII - that the only way to defend against the organised military violence of Germany and its allies was to invade Germany. Part of this included entering the houses (or at least barracks/fortresses) of some Germans and killing them.

Now there's a reason that, in all the modern literature on morally permissible defensive military violence, WWII is treated as the paradigm case: there are very few people (to be honest, I don't think I've met anyone who wasn't a principled pacifist who took this line) prepared to argue that defensive violence extending to the invasion of Germany was not morally permissible in those circumstances. But the _logic_ of the argument is asserted by many people for many other wars, both prior to and subsequent to WWII.

That's not to say that I don't think some version of a pacifist paladin is not viable. I don't think thoroughgoing pacifism would be feasible, because a paladin is by definition a warrior. But a paladin who is pledged never to take a life - and so who primarily fights demons and undead, and who - if forced to fight living enemies - defeats them non-lethally - would in my view be easily viable and quite interesting. (I have GMed a paladin in a RM game who inclined very much in that direction.) If a player wants to play that character - and here I think we are in agreement - I don't see how it improves the gaming experience for the GM to say "In this gameworld the objective cosmological force of good is a Kantian retributivist, and so if you won't kill evildoers then you are chaotic and/or non-good and hence can't be a paladin."



Imaro said:


> Well in my view right conduct is dependent upon one's goals and if the action allows them to achieve said goals



This could easily go into non-rules-compliant territory, but I'll try and be careful.

You are saying that "A will facilitate the goal G" entails "A is right", provided that someone actually has goal G. And you seem to be asserting this entaliment for all values of A and G.

Here are two standard counterexamples - I mention them not so much to launch a debate about them, but to check whether you are really committed to what you seem to be saying.

Suppose that G = "kill all babies". And suppose that A = "club them at birth". Then we get "Clubbing all babies at birth will facilitate the goal of killing all the babies". As is notorious, there have been people over the course of human history how have had the goal of killing (at least some of) the babies. Are you really saying that it is therefore right to club those babies at birth? Most theories of right action would think that G is subject to some external constraint on moral permissibility before it can ground the rightness of a facilitating action.

Now, suppose that G = "increase the food supply". And suppose that A = "eat the bodies of the human dead". Then we get "Eating the bodies of the human dead would facilitate an increase in the food supply". Plenty of people, quite properly, pursue as a goal an increase of the food supply. But are you really saying that it follows from that goal that eating the bodies of the human dead would be right action? Many, if not most, theories of right action would think that even if G is a morally permissible (or obligatory) goal, there are nevertheless external constraints on the moral permissibility of actions which will facilitate that goal.

In the context of D&D, I would expect a character, who affirmed as a principle of right action that it is sufficient for an action to be right that it facilitate some goal to which s/he is committed, as a non-paladin. Because that person has no guiding principle other than desire. Using the language of the SRD, that person looks like s/he is either NE or CE:

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. . . A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.​
None of this is terrifically clear, but there is at least a hint that a CE character will act out of weakness of will (greed, hatred, lust) even when that will not facilitate his/her own goals, so perhaps NE is the best fit. (In my view, this also shows how reading the actual descriptors casts serious doubt on the introductory claim that "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types". That characterisation of CE seems to depict a very particular sort of personality: someone with wanton appetites and no ability or desire to control them.)



N'raac said:


> You have never actually addressed the fact that LG, CG and NG will disagree on many issues, so they cannot all be "right" despite all being "good".



A long way upthread I explained why I regard the L/C axis as (i) secondary, and (ii) incoherent. Probably the main reason it is incoherent is that it tells us that individualists like the American constitutional founders are chaotic, even though they are among the most important theorists and advocates of the rules of law. Another reason that it is incoherent is that a LG person is meant to be able to coherently assert both (i) that a CG person is fully good (eg Detect Good gives a maximum positive readout) while (ii) denying that a CG person's behaviour is free from moral criticism.

To avoid doubt: none of the above says anything about B/X alignment or Moorcock. Two teams, one aiming at a certain conception of order and the other at a certain conception of chaos, is not incoherent. But L/C as an axis in 9-point alignment has basically nothing in common with B/X or Moorcock. For instance, Law and Chaos don't label "objective moral forces" on the Moorcockian account; they are simply labels for teams of gods/immortals. (This is also relevant to   [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]'s remodelling of PF alignment along the line of cosmological "teams".)



N'raac said:


> You keep ignoring that vast Neutral ground between "good" and "evil".



That's because I don't care very much about it, for the following reasons.

If a GM judges every action that every player ever has his/her PC take as "neutral", and therefore irrelevant to the adjudication of mechanical alignment, then s/he may as well not be using mechanical alignment - in which case the claim that it is improving the gaming experience seems not to have been made out. In order to see how alignment might improve the gaming experience, I'm trying to understand and analyse cases where it has an effect on the gaming experience ("affecting" being a necessary condition of "improving"). (If I am playing a D&D game in which mechanical alignment is in play, I typically choose LN as my alignment: experience has taught me that few GMs are going to tell me that I'm being "too good" or "too evil" and therefore have to change alignment, and provided my character is played as crazy or wild the GM is unlikely to say that I'm not lawful enough. But this isn't a case of mechanical alignment "improving the gaming experience". It's a case of me finding a way to sidestep the alignment mechanics, at least as I have found them to be generally applied.)

But now that you draw my attention to neutrality, isn't a good (or evil) character who keeps doing neutral rather than good things going to change alignment to neutral? Which is still testable via Detect X spells and/or Know Alignment. So the character is still in the same position of not being able to rationally contest the judgement of the "objective cosmological forces", given the irrefutable metaphysical evidence.



Nagol said:


> Note that paladins can commit pretty much as many Neutral acts as they wish so long as their overall alignment remains LG.



Doesn't the second part of this sentence pretty much negate the first part? Given that doing neutral acts tend to make you neutral over time (doesn't it? if not, how does anyone's alignment ever change to neutral - only by doing evil acts?), the paladin better be careful about doing too many neutral acts.

Which also implies that eating breakfast or tying up one's shoelaces is not a neutral act. Nor a non-neutral act. It would seem to have no alignment significance at all.

Or perhaps a neutral act _is_ simply an act having no alignment significance - in which case I find it hard to believe that executing a person is a neutral act, as surely a deliberate killing is not an act that can have no alignment significance!



Cadence said:


> Why is not good == evil?  Why can't the good do neutral things when needed?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Isn't it only the continually being more neutral than good, or the doing of evil, that shifts the alignment over if one is being mechanical about it?



Your post here is why I regard these detours via "vast swathes of neutrality" and "the many shades of grey" as, ultimately, red herrings.

If everything is neutral or shades of grey, such that the GM never makes a call on alignment, then how is the mechanic improving the gaming experience? It seems that the game would be identical without it.

On the other hand, if the reason the GM never makes a call is because the players know what the boundaries are and stick within him, then we have the "confining" effect that   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned upthread, plus the second-guessing of evaluative judgement and of expressive responses that I mentioned upthread. 

And of course these features become only more prominent once the players start pushing the boundaries and the GM has to start making calls. And if the GM doesn't and won't make those calls, for whatever reason, then once again we seem, for functional purposes at least, not to be using mechanical alignment.



N'raac said:


> What are we saying is "wrong"? That Grog gets to define a universal standard of right and wrong, order and chaos and good and evil?  Yes, I think that is wrong. He does not get to dictate the beliefs of others.



Huh? This is a non-sequitur. Neither I nor   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have asserted that the "objective cosmological forces" get to dictate the beliefs of others. (A fortiori we have not asserted that any PC gets to do so, unless using mind control magic.) But "objective cosmological forces", if they do exist, do get to dictate what would count as a true belief: if it is objectively cosmologically evil to wantonly kill a helpless, unarmed person then someone who does so has acted evilly whatever s/he believes about the moral nature of his/her action. And in circumstances where these cosmological truths manifest themselves via eminently detectable changes to a person, such as loss of paladinhood or a change in answer to Detect X or Know Alignment, the "objective cosmological forces" also get to dictate the scope of reasonable belief for others. That is, they tell others what they should believe, or - to use a synonymous English expression, which is the one Hussar used - they tell others what to believe.

None of this should be shocking. It's roughly what "objective" means (as opposed to, say, "subjective" or "relative"). If those cosmological forces are objective, then they are constraints on truth, and if their objectivity manifests itself then they are constraints on rational belief also. Conversely, if they are _not_ constraints on truth and on rational belief, then they are not objective!



N'raac said:


> "We are all unique individuals - just like everybody else!"



Is this your attempt to argue that, in fact, people aren't individuals worthy of dignity and respect?


----------



## JamesonCourage

I don't want to wade into this... cluster_mumble_ of a debate, but I did want to say that while the alignments played a big part in the latter half of my long-running 3.5 game, dealing with alignments caused no debates (though it did cause people to ask for clarifications).

However, on a number of occasions, it caused my players to wonder if the Good thing was also the morally right thing to do. This popped up on another of occasions:

When the half-dragon lich brought it up with them during a two-session long debate on morality and alignment. He basically argued that Good and Evil were just two giant teams that had hijacked morality, and that fighting Evil just because they were on the other team wasn't inherently the morally right thing to do.
When the Sorcerer PC ascended to demi-godhood, and he was laying out his tenants and what he thought was right and wrong as compared to Good and Evil. He was greatly influenced by his long diplomatic talks with various important beings, ranging from Pistis Sophia (a ruler of a layer of Celestia) to Asmodeus himself (ruler of the Nine Hells) to Brock (another PC, and the leader of the church of Pelor on the Material Plane) to Therall (a Paladin that walked the fine line of falling), etc. He ended up commanding his followers to do out and do Good, but to always do the right thing, even if it wasn't Good.
When the players interacted with a Lawful Evil Monk that only hunted down "evil" creatures, after which he'd punish them (torture and kill for the worst of them, and break limbs and the like for the lesser offenders). Though he showed up as Evil with detection spells, he blew magic's idea of Evil off as stupid, as he "obviously wasn't" evil (since he only fought against it). He had a zero tolerance policy, though, and would threaten to kill others who stood in his way when he was on a mission against "evil". The PCs interacted with him a number of times (all Good PCs), and he was always more an ally than enemy, even until the end of the campaign.
When the players found out that while Asmodeus was Evil, but he was doing his best to keep Evil in check and preserve the balance of Good and Evil in the multi-verse (as his master, Ahriman, wanted him to do). While he performed some terrible acts to keep his position and power, he was also purposefully holding Evil back rather than letting it gain an advantage on Good (or wipe it out).

There are more examples, of course, but I don't see why saying that "that isn't a Good act" somehow also means "what you did was morally wrong." I get it in a colloquial sense, of course, but not from a D&D perspective. It might be common thinking within the world, but philosophers in the world likely debate that point (which would include many Paladins, Clerics, etc., I assume).

At any rate, I have no interest in engaging in the cluster_mumble_, as I said. You guys can carry on. It's definitely not wrong to not use alignment (my RPG doesn't use anything like it), but I don't see some of the objections to it, either. As always, play what you like


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> Do you realise that this is hugely contentious?
> 
> Two of the most historically famous theorists of respect for life and the right to life - Locke and Kant - believe that capital punishment can be permitted and even mandatory. Kant, in particular, argues that the only way to respect the rationality of both victim and murderer is to execute the murder for murdering the victim.
> 
> The general trend of modern opinion (important elements within the US notwithstanding) is in favour of abolition, but I'm not 100% sure that modern opinion, grounded in a doctrine of universal human rights, is the best way to make sense of the moral requirements that we want to think of a _paladin_ living up to. It's certainly not the only way.
> 
> Most paladins engage in conduct that roughly approximates to warfare rather than to execution. The two most obvious moral frameworks for analysing warfare are the paradigm of defensive violence (which is where most of the contemporary literature is focused) and consent.




How is it contentious when you are playing a Dungeon & Dragons game where the morals/ethics applicable to that period are *usually* the same as Earth's own Dark Ages up until the discovery of gunpowder? I think the 'right to life' during that time was pretty well established. There are thousands of historical records where capital punishment is very much acceptable in that kind of society. 
Is seems extremely misdirected to go into the philosophy spouted by Locke and Kant. Introducing modern western opinion on the subject matter without including African, Middle-Eastern and Asian approaches to punishment and the value of life seems a little bias.

I dont tend to think that paladins as having modern universal human rights views - not when you have inherently evil races running around causing havoc requiring the paladin to become a butcher of sorts. Unless you believe there are some inherently evil races currently existing on earth now


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't see why saying that "that isn't a Good act" somehow also means "what you did was morally wrong." I get it in a colloquial sense, of course, but not from a D&D perspective.



At this point, though, "Good" as a game term does not designate any objective cosmological moral force or judgement. It just labels a team who have their own opinions like anyone else.

Thus, if you go this way, alignment won't do the job some have said it can do, of keeping real-world moral debate out of the game, because any character (and hence the character's player) can reasonably assert that what Team Good wants isn't really good (in the ordinary language rather than game-term sense of "good").

Also, if you go this way, then in my opinion the classic paladin or cleric archetype becomes hard to play, as on this approach it makes sense to doubt whether the deities of Team Good are really good. Whereas for a classic paladin or cleric there is no rational gap here, as they are called to the service of a perfect being. Instead, you get what I have labelled upthread "paladin as warlock": the paladin has made a pact with Team Good, but it remains an open question whether Team Good are really good (in the ordinary language rather than game-term sense of "good").


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> I dont tend to think that paladins as having modern universal human rights views



Nor do I. According to Gary Gygax they do, however, as Gygax defines "good" in terms of universal human rights.



Sadras said:


> How is it contentious when you are playing a Dungeon & Dragons game where the morals/ethics applicable to that period are *usually* the same as Earth's own Dark Ages up until the discovery of gunpowder?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is seems extremely misdirected to go into the philosophy spouted by Locke and Kant. Introducing modern western opinion on the subject matter without including African, Middle-Eastern and Asian approaches to punishment and the value of life seems a little bias.



Perhaps you misunderstood the post to which you replied.

   [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] asserted, as if no argument were required, that capital punishment is obviously not good because it involves disrespect for life. I denied that. As part of my denial I pointed out that some major theorists of the right to life have regarded capital punishment as permissible and even mandatory. You seem to be agreeing with me that, at least within the context of D&D, it is not the case that capital punishment is obviously non-good.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> How is it contentious when you are playing a Dungeon & Dragons game where the morals/ethics applicable to that period are *usually* the same as Earth's own Dark Ages up until the discovery of gunpowder? I think the 'right to life' during that time was pretty well established. There are thousands of historical records where capital punishment is very much acceptable in that kind of society.
> Is seems extremely misdirected to go into the philosophy spouted by Locke and Kant. Introducing modern western opinion on the subject matter without including African, Middle-Eastern and Asian approaches to punishment and the value of life seems a little bias.
> 
> I dont tend to think that paladins as having modern universal human rights views - not when you have inherently evil races running around causing havoc requiring the paladin to become a butcher of sorts. Unless you believe there are some inherently evil races currently existing on earth now




So my paladin in your game can rape commoners with no repercussions?  My paladin cannot be charged with a crime if he murders someone of lower station?  

IMO most DnD games and certainly the writeup of alignment is based on modern morality.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Nor do I. According to Gary Gygax they do, however, as Gygax defines "good" in terms of universal human rights.
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstood the post to which you replied.
> 
> [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] asserted, as if no argument were required, that capital punishment is obviously not good because it involves disrespect for life. I denied that. As part of my denial I pointed out that some major theorists of the right to life have regarded capital punishment as permissible and even mandatory. You seem to be agreeing with me that, at least within the context of D&D, it is not the case that capital punishment is obviously non-good.




Would you say that is also possible to interpret it as evil using DnD definitions of alignment?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> So my paladin in your game can rape commoners with no repercussions? My paladin cannot be charged with a crime if he murders someone of lower station?




Did Galahad or Percival do these kinds of actions often? Do not confuse the Crusaders with Paladins. The PHB Paladin describes a very much romanticised Knight, not your brute Crusader Knight.



> IMO most DnD games and certainly the writeup of alignment is based on modern morality.




Yes to a degree that is certainly true, but the typical D&D settings do reflect a setting populace that does not reflect modern WESTERN morality, at least not in its entirety.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> At this point, though, "Good" as a game term does not designate any objective cosmological moral force or judgement. It just labels a team who have their own opinions like anyone else.



That was how my campaign handled it, yes.


pemerton said:


> Thus, if you go this way, alignment won't do the job some have said it can do, of keeping real-world moral debate out of the game, because any character (and hence the character's player) can reasonably assert that what Team Good wants isn't really good (in the ordinary language rather than game-term sense of "good").



And if groups want this type of moral debate, then awesome! They still get it.

If the group doesn't want that debate, then alignment could potentially facilitate that sort of play, too. Just say "it's agreed that in this D&D campaign, good and evil work as Good and Evil are described. If you aren't sure, ask the GM for his call on it." Boom, no more real-world moral debates.

Either way, I don't see the problem. I've seen both types of games played, and they both worked for my groups.


pemerton said:


> Also, if you go this way, then in my opinion the classic paladin or cleric archetype becomes hard to play, as on this approach it makes sense to doubt whether the deities of Team Good are really good. Whereas for a classic paladin or cleric there is no rational gap here, as they are called to the service of a perfect being. Instead, you get what I have labelled upthread "paladin as warlock": the paladin has made a pact with Team Good, but it remains an open question whether Team Good are really good (in the ordinary language rather than game-term sense of "good").



I don't see why this is a problem? Doubly so since you can handle alignment either way I've described (where it facilitates real-life morality debates, or it helps shut them down early). Alignment isn't something I always want (again, it has no equivalent in my RPG), but I don't see how it necessarily stifles either play style. But I'll admit I haven't read most of this thread, though I do feel as if I've somehow been here before...


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And? You,   @_*Imaro*_ and   @_*Bedrockgames*_ are all saying that it makes sense, in such circumstances, for the character to assert that the "cosmological forces of good" have made an error. I don't see how that is coherent, _given the premise_ that such a force exists, and that the character has been acted upon it (by losing paladinhood or changing alignment).
> 
> ".
> , .
> nd respect?




I think we are just going round in circles here. Me and other posters have provided several good reasons why a character in a setting with gods and cosmological forces of good, law, chaos and evil might believe his god was incorrect to strip him of power (ranging from the god actually being incorrect to the character being deluded, holding a different alignment, being arrogant and foolish, etc). For all of us those reasons are adequate and we allow them to operate in our oen campaigns, causing no disruption to our or our player's acceptance if the setting. That is all that matters. If these explanations are incoherent to you, okay. That is fine. But let's move on. I don't see any value being gained by debating these poiints again and again, after both sides have made their case about as well as they can.


----------



## Sadras

> @_*N'raac*_ asserted, as if no argument were required, that capital punishment is obviously not good because it involves disrespect for life. I denied that. As part of my denial I pointed out that some major theorists of the right to life have regarded capital punishment as permissible and even mandatory. You seem to be agreeing with me that, at least within the context of D&D, it is not the case that capital punishment is obviously non-good.




Thanks for setting me straight.
Typically, IMO, executing a criminal *(lets stick to human before getting messy with other species and the like)* would require for the "last rites" to be read so it is not done on the fly with no remorse. There is a sense of gravity for the action about to be committed. It is sacred to take a life. I'm also not convinced this is solely a question of good-evil, in that I find this also questions ones own Lawful nature.

If a crime has been committed with a severity that would warrant capital punishment due to the social structure of that particular setting, to follow that sense of order and meet out that justice, one would need to respect and follow the belief in a lawful system. Think of Eddard Stark executing the Night Watchman who fled the Wall. Neither Stark nor the Nightwatchman was evil but justice demanded for the youngster to be executed.

Generally I term the meeting out of justice as a Lawful Neutral act, completely impartial. If Stark had let the boy go, I would have termed that would have been an act of mercy and therefore Good. If he had tortured or taken enjoyment out of the execution that would have been an evil act. 
Also, just to mention, mob mentality is not a reflection of true alignment.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> If the group doesn't want that debate, then alignment could potentially facilitate that sort of play, too. Just say "it's agreed that in this D&D campaign, good and evil work as Good and Evil are described. If you aren't sure, ask the GM for his call on it." Boom, no more real-world moral debates.



I don't disagree with this, though as I've said multiple times upthread, it's not a playstyle that personally appeals to me.

The argument that I've been running, that (I think) you stepped into, is that it makes no sense _both_ to run the game in the way you have just described - positing objective cosmological forces of good and evil - and to allow that it makes sense for a character in such a gameworld to deny that the demands of objective cosmological good are really good. If you are going to run an "objective cosmological forces" game, then it seems to me that everyone buys into that, and the characters within the gameworld, recognising that there exist these forces of objective cosmological good and evil, accept their judgements.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Bingo. You have decided that execution is not a good act. And, taken a step further a paladin who executes someone is committing an evil act.
> 
> Which nicely highlights one of the primary issues with alignment. One of the most common actions of a paladin (and let's not forget it's Smite evil, not Give evil a good talking to) is actually evil by the definitions of evil and good in the rules.




As others have noted “Not Good” is not necessarily “Evil”.  Actions cannot be taken out of context.  Let’s once again look at the rules:

[h=3]







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Good Vs. Evil[/h]Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
> 
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
> 
> People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
> 
> Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
> 
> Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.




It seems clear that killing is not a good act.  Taken cavalierly, it is an evil act, as evil creatures lack compassion, kill for convenience or sport, etc.  

OK, so if we are executing people because they get in the way, and killing them is more convenient than keeping them alive, that seems pretty Evil.  A Good person who acknowledges the necessity of taking a life would still, IMO, respect “the dignity of sentient beings” and would wish this unpleasant act, however necessary, to be completed as painlessly as possible.  He will not condone torture, for example.

Now, why is the victim to be execute?  Because he has killed others?  In taking his life (a non-innocent life), we protect other innocents from future danger?  Protection of the innocent is consistent with the ideals of Good and taking a life is inconsistent, so there are elements of both good and evil in this action.  An action with blended Good and Evil seems to me to fall into Neutral territory.

We also have to assess the rule within the context of the game.  The game in general accepts heroes meting out death and violence.  The Paladin specifically is a soldier against evil.  Given that, it seems that the typical D&D cosmology must accept that violence, even lethal violence, is often not evil.  Now, we could pay Saturday Morning Cartoon D&D (He-Man; Thundercats), moving both Killing and Violence much further down the good/evil axis.  But that is not, at least IME, a typical D&D setting.



Nagol said:


> If execution is not a Good act -- and there is certainly strong evidence in that it does not place an emphasis on preserving life -- it doesn't make it Evil.  Execution as punishment for crimes heinous to justify societal outrage is probably a Neutral act.
> 
> Lethal combat in self-defence probably (as in a lot of GMs will not view it so) is not a Good act either -- it would fall into Neutral.  Lethal combat in opposition of Evil or in defence of Good or innocents would be Good.
> 
> Note that paladins can commit pretty much as many Neutral acts as they wish so long as their overall alignment remains LG.






pemerton said:


> Nor do I. According to Gary Gygax they do, however, as Gygax defines "good" in terms of universal human rights.




21st century morality also addresses human rights.  We still have prisons, we still have poverty, we still have war and we still, in some states have capital punishment, while in many others there are supporters of its return.



pemerton said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood the post to which you replied.
> 
> @_*N'raac*_ asserted, as if no argument were required, that capital punishment is obviously not good because it involves disrespect for life. I denied that. As part of my denial I pointed out that some major theorists of the right to life have regarded capital punishment as permissible and even mandatory. You seem to be agreeing with me that, at least within the context of D&D, it is not the case that capital punishment is obviously non-good.




Perhaps you misunderstand the relevance of ethical philosophy to a role playing game.

To be quite clear, I do not believe that the philosophy of ethics is any more than remotely relevant to the discussion of D&D game rules.  The D&D definitions of Good and Evil are contained in the rule books.  I am citing 3e as it is the most recent iteration of the 9 alignment grid, and as it is readily available online.  

It does not matter whether Descarte, Kant, Locke, Socrates, Plato, etc. would agree or disagree, until and unless they become writers at WoTC and define the alignment rules.  I see that as extremely unlikely, even if they were alive, as they would write a boring, disjointed, unwieldy, excessively lengthy discussion.  [For similar reasons, the prospects of this thread becoming game rules is similarly remote.]  I suspect I would not buy that edition.

In the context of D&D, Good acts are those acts consistent with the tenets of Good.  Execution does not demonstrate implies altruism, respect for life, or a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, nor involve personal sacrifices to help others.  It does lean towards evil, as evil implies killing others, so it is treading on dangerous ground.  How is the victim to be executed?  Within the obvious constraint, we should maintain respect for the dignity of all, even the prisoner.  Gladitorial bloodsport or deliberate torture move us further from the ideals of good.  If it must be done, let it be done quickly, with as little pain as possible, and with the knowledge that we are sacrificing the ideals of Good out of grim necessity.

“Protection of the Innocent” might perhaps hold us from the brink.  If the execution serves not even that Good tenet (eg. the victim is no longer any threat to anyone), justifying it as a non-evil act seems even more precarious.  Now we have a situation where, perhaps, this is an Evil act within a Good society, but it still carries issues for the Paladin.

Where that protection of the innocent remains, and the execution is lawful, then the Paladin is compromising the ideals of good in the interests of other ideals of good, and living up to the Lawful precepts of his alignment – the greatest good for the greatest number mandates non-good to this smaller few whose actions have caused their sentence of execution.



Hussar said:


> Would you say that is also possible to interpret it as evil using DnD definitions of alignment?




I believe it incorporates an Evil element, being killing, which requires it be justified as a “necessary evil” which also serves some Good purpose.  The Paladin does not get to decide, for example, that spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking or littering are valid death penalty offenses.

The action must be taken in context.



Sadras said:


> Typically, IMO, executing a criminal *(lets stick to human before getting messy with other species and the like)* would require for the "last rites" to be read so it is not done on the fly with no remorse. There is a sense of gravity for the action about to be committed. It is sacred to take a life. I'm also not convinced this is solely a question of good-evil, in that I find this also questions ones own Lawful nature./quote]
> 
> As much as possible, within the circumstances, respecting the dignity of even the person to be executed.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadras said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a crime has been committed with a severity that would warrant capital punishment due to the social structure of that particular setting, to follow that sense of order and meet out that justice, one would need to respect and follow the belief in a lawful system. Think of Eddard Stark executing the Night Watchman who fled the Wall. Neither Stark nor the Nightwatchman was evil but justice demanded for the youngster to be executed.
> 
> Generally I term the meeting out of justice as a Lawful Neutral act, completely impartial. If Stark had let the boy go, I would have termed that would have been an act of mercy and therefore Good. If he had tortured or taken enjoyment out of the execution that would have been an evil act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we straddle the line.  Does the punishment fit the crime?  A LN character should have little difficulty with this – it is the law.  Taken in context, is this an action taken to protect the innocent?  To some extent, I suppose it is – having the guardians of those sleeping citizens fail to carry out their duty places those innocent citizens at risk.
> 
> This seems like the toughest dilemma presented in this thread, Sadras.  I think it would mandate a careful look at the setting morality.  In my Saturday Morning Cartoon Campaign, clearly this would be an evil act.  In a gritty game seeking at least some medieval realism, it seems it could be a neutral act.  In a Shining Knights D&D morality game, we may be back to an Evil act.
> 
> For a case this much on the edge, I would want a discussion of the type of game we want to be playing, and we would hopefully have a group consensus as to the appropriate classification of the act, which could be Evil or Neutral depending on the game.
> 
> Now, this brings us back to the disagreement of the Paladin with the Cosmological Forces.  Let us assume consensus is that this is an Evil act.  The Paladin proceeds anyway, and loses his Paladinhood.  How can the character react?
> 
> It is perfectly reasonable for him to conclude that the standard set by those Cosmological Forces is simply unrealistic given the realities of life.  Respect for life is all fine in theory, but we must live in the real world, and in the real world sacrifices must be made.  “While the death of the watchman is regrettable, it was necessary, and I would take the same action again.  There is no room for the ideals of the Paladin in this situation.”
> 
> What I would find truly problematic would be a GM who considers it appropriate to throw this to the players as a no-win situation (that is, there is no viable option other than the execution, and I will take away your Paladinhood if the execution proceeds).  The tone of the campaign is set by the GM - if it's to be a Shining Knights game, then choices consistent with such a morality must not be a sentence of failure or death to the PCs.  If it's a Saturday Morning Cartoon game, it must be possible to resolve problems without violence.
> 
> I'm always amazed how GM's complain that players fail to play in-genre when their games are structured to punish in-genre play.
Click to expand...


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Would you say that is also possible to interpret it as evil using DnD definitions of alignment?



Trivially so using Gygax's definition, because the very clear trend of human rights thinking is that capital punishment is impermissible (see eg the 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, plus the constraints on capital punishment in Art 6 on the right to life), and Gygax defines "good" in terms of human rights.

Using the 3E definitions you would have to argue that capital punishment does not respect life. I gave a brief talk on this issue in late 2010, following a screening of Kieślowski's A Short Film About Killing. I certainly think the argument can be made, yes.

If a GM wants to stipulate, for whatever reason, that the camaign contains "objective cosmological forces" that decide the matter one way or the other, I can imagine some players being happy enough to go along with that, although I can imagine it might be hard for some players to stomach if they had a strong view one way and the GM stipulated matters the other way.

My own preference - which I think is pretty close to yours, maybe identical - is to let the player of the paladin decide what s/he thinks good and justice require, and adjudicate the campaign and frame complications in line with that. (Eg it would seem interesting to confront the player of an anti-capital punishment paladin with an imminent hanging to put on a bit of pressure!)

I'm certainly puzzled by the approach that seems to be emerging as the popular approach on this thread, that the GM stipulates an opinion held by the gods, labels it "good" or "evil" as appropriate, adjudicates paladinhood and alignment by reference to those opinions, yet leaves it an open question _within the campaign world_ whether "cosmological good" is _really_ good. To me that seems the worst of all worlds: GM enforcement without establishing the ingame rationale of genuinely objective good and evil; with the upshot being that, from the point of view of the character, the enforcement of alignment is essentially arbitrary.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Did Galahad or Percival do these kinds of actions often? Do not confuse the Crusaders with Paladins. The PHB Paladin describes a very much romanticised Knight, not your brute Crusader Knight.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes to a degree that is certainly true, but the typical D&D settings do reflect a setting populace that does not reflect modern WESTERN morality, at least not in its entirety.




I'd argue that D&D morality is far, far closer to modern morality than any feudal one.  I mean, heck, I live in Japan.  Under a code of Bushido, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone of lesser status for what we would consider to be extremely flimsy reasons by our modern standards.  Not only acceptable, but a just killing.  

The game gets really, really fuzzy when you start playing mix and match with different period moralities.  

N'raac - you have posited that your interpretation is the only valid one.  That you have the right of how alignment is interpreted.  Now, if you are playing in a game where the DM interprets things differently, would you be perfectly willing to abide by that other DM's interpretations?  If your DM tells you that no, you are wrong, would you simply shrug and accept it?  I mean, you're pretty vociferous in trying to prove an interpretation when no one is actually disagreeing with you.

The only thing we've said is that alternative interpretations exist.  No one's actually claimed to buy into those other interpretations, but, let's be honest here, those alternative interpretations most certainly exist.  

After all, you argued that murdering a high priest wasn't an evil act since it would send the high priest to his just reward in the afterlife.  Couldn't that exact same argument apply to a paladin killing everything that pings as evil?  After all, if someone detects as evil, and my paladin kills him on sight, then he goes to his just reward - endless torment in whatever Hell his alignment would send him to.  How is that an evil act?  Isn't that a specifically good act?  A morally just one?  The person is undoubtably guilty of evil acts - he does detect as evil and evil is objective in your game.  It is a real force and there can be no mistakes - something will only detect as evil if it is, in fact, evil.  By this interpretation, it could be argued that the good character has a moral imperative to kill anything evil since killing evil beings delivers them infallibly to justice.

So how can it be an evil act to destroy evil?

See how easy it is to turn anything into a huge alignment wank?  It's trivially easy to reinterpret alignment to fit nearly anything you want.  If I'm Dming, would you accept the above without question?  After all, you claim that it is my responsibility as the DM to determine setting elements.  You, as player, have no say in things.  I'm right, in my game, and you are wrong.  Just as in your game, you are right and I'm wrong.  

What would you do if you actually, honestly, disagreed with the DM?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't disagree with this, though as I've said multiple times upthread, it's not a playstyle that personally appeals to me.
> 
> The argument that I've been running, that (I think) you stepped into, is that it makes no sense _both_ to run the game in the way you have just described - positing objective cosmological forces of good and evil - *and to allow that it makes sense for a character in such a gameworld to deny that the demands of objective cosmological good are really good*. If you are going to run an "objective cosmological forces" game, then it seems to me that everyone buys into that, and *the characters within the gameworld, recognising that there exist these forces of objective cosmological good and evil, accept their judgements.*




1st Emphasis:  No one in this thread is arguing this... what we are arguing is that knowing what the good act is, does not necessitate a character choosing that act over others.  He may feel another act is his or her correct/right answer to the situation... this does not in turn mean that the powers of good are in error, just that the character has chosen an action he believes is right for him or her in said particular situation.  This is one of the reasons I asked you earlier in the thread to stop conflating the words "right" and "good", in this context they are not the same thing and I believe you are the only one using them in a manner where they do equate to synonyms.

2nd Emphasis: I'm still unclear how this stops a character from choosing an action that is not good, feeling it was the right choice for him/her (even if just at that moment)... and suffering the consequences for it?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> And? You,   @_*Imaro*_ and   @_*Bedrockgames*_ are all saying that it makes sense, in such circumstances, for the character to assert that the "cosmological forces of good" have made an error. I don't see how that is coherent, _given the premise_ that such a force exists, and that the character has been acted upon it (by losing paladinhood or changing alignment).




How can a fellow living in the SW universe believe that “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”  I’ve repeated the statement that the character may come to believe that Good must be compromised in the face of reality.  His beliefs may drift from those of Good, believing that some actions remove any respect for the life of the person committing them.

The error of the Forces of Good is in believing that those ideals can actually work here, in the Real World.



pemerton said:


> Do you realise that this is hugely contentious?




In our world.  Sure.  In the game world?  It seems quite uncontentious in fantasy fiction and in fantasy RPG’s.  To reiterate, I don’t care what real world philosophers say.  I’m not playing a game of real world philosophy.  We justify the Paladin’s actions as a heroic Soldier against Evil.  Toss him into the modern world and he’s a dangerous vigilante.  However, the game cannot exist without morally acceptable violence, so we accept in game that there is violence morally acceptable to the Paladin.



pemerton said:


> If a GM judges every action that every player ever has his/her PC take as "neutral", and therefore irrelevant to the adjudication of mechanical alignment, then s/he may as well not be using mechanical alignment




First, Neutral is part of the alignment spectrum.  Second, maintaining a Good (or Evil) alignment still requires Good (or Evil) acts.  Where a choice between Good and Neutral exists, what are the choices the character makes?  99% Neutral?  Character is unlikely to be Good.  99% Good?  That’s probably a more shining example of virtue than any Paladin ever played.  The fact that a given act creates extreme difficulty in classifying probably indicates it possesses insufficient elements of Good or Evil to be classified as either one.

Here again, setting matters.  [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] suggested a setting where most are Neutral, and only a few of the other alignments.  In that game maintaining a non-neutral alignment would seem to require more dedication to its precepts and principals than in a game where we assume people are more or less evenly divided between 9 alignments.



pemerton said:


> On the other hand, if the reason the GM never makes a call is because the players know what the boundaries are and stick within him, then we have the "confining" effect that   @_*Hussar*_ mentioned upthread, plus the second-guessing of evaluative judgement and of expressive responses that I mentioned upthread.




That sounds very similar to the often touted “my players are all reasonable” statement often used to back up lack of any need for an alignment system.  It seems like those players simply don’t push the boundaries, whether their motive is a lack of desire to do so, a mechanical alignment system (not so in your case, clearly) or a social contract.



pemerton said:


> Is this your attempt to argue that, in fact, people aren't individuals worthy of dignity and respect?




It is my statement that, if all the players are “Special Snowflakes”, then none of them are “Special Snowflakes”.  Providing the same treatment to everyone is not “special treatment”.  My reference was to that one player whose desires, game preferences, etc. must always override the preferences of everyone else in the group.  You co-opted that into “we should pay attention to all the players”.  When Players B, C and D want an aspect of the game that Player A does not, Player A has to be the Special Snowflake and get his way.  Player B, C and D cannot get what they want, unless their wants match Player A’s, so they are not “special snowflakes”.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> It seems clear that killing is not a good act.



This is a non-sequitur. From the fact that evil implies killing it does not follow that killing implies evil.

There is no reason, either in the wording of the definition of good in any version of D&D, nor in the overall presentation of the game, to suppose that defensive violence - even lethal violence used in self-defence or defence of others - is not morally justified.



N'raac said:


> Perhaps you misunderstand the relevance of ethical philosophy to a role playing game.
> 
> To be quite clear, I do not believe that the philosophy of ethics is any more than remotely relevant to the discussion of D&D game rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As much as possible, within the circumstances, respecting the dignity of even the person to be executed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Does the punishment fit the crime?



Both editions of AD&D, and 3E, all use ordinary moral notions to define mechanical alignment - Gygax uses notions like "human rights", "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" and "the common weal". 

I notice that you also use ordinary moral notions - "dignity of the person" and "the punishment fitting the crime" - when trying to explicate and think about alignment.

Saying that moral theorising has no relevance to making sense of these concepts is like saying that ordinary concepts of gold have no relevance to thinking about gold pieces, or that ordinary concepts of sharp edges have no relevance to thinking about a fighter's sword.

If you want to house rule that "human rights" or "punishment fitting a crime" in D&D have a different meaning from their ordinary usage that's obviously your prerogative, but in that case I don't know how I'm meant to make sense of your use of those phrases until you tell us your house-ruled meaning.



N'raac said:


> For a case this much on the edge, I would want a discussion of the type of game we want to be playing, and we would hopefully have a group consensus as to the appropriate classification of the act, which could be Evil or Neutral depending on the game.
> 
> Now, this brings us back to the disagreement of the Paladin with the Cosmological Forces.  Let us assume consensus is that this is an Evil act.  The Paladin proceeds anyway, and loses his Paladinhood.  How can the character react?
> 
> It is perfectly reasonable for him to conclude that the standard set by those Cosmological Forces is simply unrealistic given the realities of life.  Respect for life is all fine in theory, but we must live in the real world, and in the real world sacrifices must be made.  “While the death of the watchman is regrettable, it was necessary, and I would take the same action again.  There is no room for the ideals of the Paladin in this situation.”



If the player of the paladin has agreed that X is evil within the game, and then has his/her PC do X, I don't see how s/he has any standing to have the paladin conclude that X is not evil.

"Good" in D&D has never been defined in terms of the superogatory, only the required. So if something is unrealistic as a realistic goal, though admirable as an ideal, then it looks superogatory to me, but not a necessary condition of doing good.

There is a seperate issue of "dirty hands", but (i) the whole notion of dirty hands is very controversial, and (ii) the worldview that acknowledges dirty hands (eg Machiavelli, Weber, Walzer) is utterly incompatible with the worldview of the paladin. Because it denies the role of providence. A paladin who has lost faith to such an extent that s/he appeals to a dirty hands justification of action might be an object of pity, but unless s/he was deluded all along, and there really never was a god by whom s/he was properly called, then s/he is iredeemably fallen, and in the cold light of day would have to acknowledge that.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> 1st Emphasis:  No one in this thread is arguing this... what we are arguing is that knowing what the good act is, does not necessitate a character choosing that act over others.  He may feel another act is his or her correct/right answer to the situation... this does not in turn mean that the powers of good are in error, just that the character has chosen an action he believes is right for him or her in said particular situation.  This is one of the reasons I asked you earlier in the thread to stop conflating the words "right" and "good", in this context they are not the same thing and I believe you are the only one using them in a manner where they do equate to synonyms.
> 
> 2nd Emphasis: I'm still unclear how this stops a character from choosing an action that is not good, feeling it was the right choice for him/her (even if just at that moment)... and suffering the consequences for it?




But, if I'm playing a LG character, paladin or not, why would I choose an action that is not Lawful or Good?  Wouldn't that be out of character?  If I know that action X is judged as not LG, then how can it be the right thing to do for a LG character?  Wouldn't the most palatable action for my character be the one that is most in line with my alignment?  

In my mind, you are arguing that the character is incoherent.  The player thinks that a given action is the right one to do.  The player believes that it is in keeping with his conception of his character which he has created based on the beliefs that his character is LG.

But, in following his beliefs for his character, which he believes to be LG, he is actually violating his own code of ethics since alignment is supposed to be an outline for a characters code of ethics and morality isn't it?  

IOW, if I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (because the DM has told me before I do it) that my action is out of line with my chosen alignment, why would I continue to pursue that action, knowing that I'm violating the consistency of my own character?


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> In the game world?  It seems quite uncontentious in fantasy fiction and in fantasy RPG’s.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We justify the Paladin’s actions as a heroic Soldier against Evil.  Toss him into the modern world and he’s a dangerous vigilante.  However, the game cannot exist without morally acceptable violence, so we accept in game that there is violence morally acceptable to the Paladin.



Upthread you asserted that capital punishment was evil (or at least non-good) because it involved killing. Now you seem to be asserting the opposite. Which is it? (You seem to be proving [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point for him!)



Imaro said:


> No one in this thread is arguing this



Actually, [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] argues in the post right below yours.



N'raac said:


> How can a fellow living in the SW universe believe that “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”



Beause he lacks evidence. Note that, as the available evidence changes, so do the opinions of the character in question. Whereas I am talking about characters who have irrefutable evidence that their choices are not good (via the evidence of lost paladinhood, or the evidence of changed alignment as detected via magic).



Imaro said:


> knowing what the good act is, does not necessitate a character choosing that act over others.  He may feel another act is his or her correct/right answer to the situation... this does not in turn mean that the powers of good are in error, just that the character has chosen an action he believes is right for him or her in said particular situation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm still unclear how this stops a character from choosing an action that is not good, feeling it was the right choice for him/her (even if just at that moment)... and suffering the consequences for it?



Of course people can choose actions that they know are not good. But they cannot rationally choose such actions. They are obliged to acknowledge that their choice is flawed. Hence, for instances, people offer excuses for their choices.

For the sake of clarity, people can rationally choose the good without believing it to be the best. For example, someone might recognise that a certain heroic choice would be the best (say, rushing into the burning building to save someone) but might opt for the permissible but not superogatory choice of telephoning the fire brigade. But at this point we are not in the domain of someone knowingly choosing evil and belieiving it to be the best choice.

As I've noted upthread, there are various exceptions to these general principles. "Good" and "evil" can be used ironically, and in that sense someone can rationally repudiate the "good" choice (because the ironic use of "good" signals that they don't really think it's good at all). There are also theorists of dirty hands, according to which sometimes the only feasible choice is an evil one. But none of these are core cases for the typical D&D paladin.

A D&D paladin who chooses evil (eg becaus his/her anger leads him to strike down a helpless victim) is rationally obliged to repudiate that choice. (This is part of the logic of penance.)



N'raac said:


> I’ve repeated the statement that the character may come to believe that Good must be compromised in the face of reality.  His beliefs may drift from those of Good, believing that some actions remove any respect for the life of the person committing them.
> 
> The error of the Forces of Good is in believing that those ideals can actually work here, in the Real World.



And I've repeated the statement that this makes little sense. If an ostensible ideal is unrealisable, for instance, then it's not a genuine ideal, it's just fatuous. Or, if an ostensible ideal is realisable only with heroic effort, then it's superogatory - and falling short of it, but doing the right thing, is nevertheless good (though not the best that might be done).

It's not evil, or otherwise non-good, to do a good thing that's not the best thing.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> But, if I'm playing a LG character, paladin or not, why would I choose an action that is not Lawful or Good?  Wouldn't that be out of character?  If I know that action X is judged as not LG, then how can it be the right thing to do for a LG character?  Wouldn't the most palatable action for my character be the one that is most in line with my alignment?




Because your choices don't always include something that would be described as Lawful or Good? (Or is "lesser of two evils" just a saying?)  Because in the heat of the moment people don't have time to weigh everything perfectly?   Because maybe the character has other weaknesses and doesn't have the will power of Captain America and the battle against those inner demons is part of what they're role-playing?  Why do people in real life do things they regret all the time?



Hussar said:


> But, in following his beliefs for his character, which he believes to be LG, he is actually violating his own code of ethics since alignment is supposed to be an outline for a characters code of ethics and morality isn't it?




Because alignment is a rough sketch of what the character believes forced down into one of nine boxes?  Because people change their beliefs organically in real life?  Because a player doesn't have total insight into how a real person would react based on a few dozen hours of role-playing and might realize they should act differently?


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> if all the players are “Special Snowflakes”, then none of them are “Special Snowflakes”.



That makes no sense.

I have two children. Both of them are special. From the fact that both are special it does not follow that neither is. It follows, tautologically, that both are.



N'raac said:


> Providing the same treatment to everyone is not “special treatment”.



This is a non sequitur that turns on an equivocation on the meaning of "the same".

If the treatment you accord to everyone is that which is particularly and distinctively due to them as a unique individual, then you are treating everyone the same (in one sense of that word) but you are also according everyone special treatment, because (obviously) each is being treated differently, ie as befits him or her as a unique individual.

A school which says "We offer every student a unique learning experience" - as many do - is not contradicting itself. It is making a highly attractive pitch about the education that it is able to provide, namely, that for each student the program will be specially tailored to that student's distintive needs and aptitudes.



N'raac said:


> My reference was to that one player whose desires, game preferences, etc. must always override the preferences of everyone else in the group.



My game is full of such players. If the player of PC A wants A to do such-and-such, and the player of PC B wants A to do some different such-and-such, then the desires of A win out everyone time. Is A some terrible person? Or is it just that, in the rules of most RPGs, the player of a particular PC gets to choose how that PC acts, even if other participants in the game would prefer that the PC at some other way.

Putting the player in charge of adjudicating the extent to which his/her paladin or cleric lives up to that character's ideals doesn't raise any distinctive issue of selfishness beyond this ordinary principle, that it is up to each player to play his/her PC, and to develop, articulate and implement a conception of that PC.



N'raac said:


> That sounds very similar to the often touted “my players are all reasonable” statement often used to back up lack of any need for an alignment system.  It seems like those players simply don’t push the boundaries, whether their motive is a lack of desire to do so, a mechanical alignment system (not so in your case, clearly) or a social contract.



Alternatively, pushing the boundaries within the fiction might be part of the permitted social contract. Once you don't use mechanical alignment, there are no boundaries in the relevant sense, other than sincerity in the playing of the character (and a corresponding willingness to own the choices that you make in playing him/her). Speaking for my players, at least, they don't conform to my conceptions of what honour (and other salient values) demand. They make their own choices for their PCs, which frequenlty surprise me.

And you haven't actually answered my question. If the GM's response to differences of evaluative opinon is to simply push back the boundaries of neutrality, so that every declared action is within the "shades of grey" and there is never any need to adjudicate an action as evil (or good?), what role is the alignment system playing? When is it actually being put to work so as to improve the gaming experience?


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Because your choices don't always include something that would be described as Lawful or Good? (Or is "lesser of two evils" just a saying?)



In a standard providential morality, the person who chooses the lesser of two evils has chosen rightly, and has therefore not done a wrong thing.

For instance, if villains configure a situation so the paladin can only save X and Y but not A and B, the paladin is not responsible for the deaths of those s/he cannot save - the villains are. The paladin, in choosing to save only those s/he can (and thereby letting the others die, for some tenable sense of "letting"), has chosen the lesser of two evils, but hasn't thereby chosen evilly.



Cadence said:


> Because in the heat of the moment people don't have time to weigh everything perfectly?   Because maybe the character has other weaknesses and doesn't have the will power of Captain America and the battle against those inner demons is part of what they're role-playing?  Why do people in real life do things they regret all the time?



But these are all examples of irrational choices - as is shown by the fact of regret. The person who chooses wrongly out of ignorance or weakness doesn't maintain that s/he chose rightly. Rather, s/he concedes that s/he chose wrongly. Hence the regret. (If s/he chose rightly, there would be nothing to regret, would there?)



Cadence said:


> people change their beliefs organically in real life?



With the exception of those few blessed by revelation - which is, in its nature, uniquely personal - the only access people in real life have to moral truth is the best arguments of the best thinkers.

In D&D, though, the evidence is available publically and trivially. Detect X spells, and the loss of class powers, provide objective measures of these posited objective cosmological forces. They make the relevant truths publically accessible in irrefutable ways.

Arguing with a Detect Evil spell, or with your loss of class abilities, makes about as much sense as arguing with a tape measure. Ie none, to me at least.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> If an ostensible ideal is unrealisable, for instance, then it's not a genuine ideal, it's just fatuous.




Do you mean in a particular circumstance, or consistently over one's entire life?  If the former, that makes sense (and the next four sentences might be unneeded).  In the later, I can see an argument that if one's ideals are easy to meet consistently, then they've probably aimed too low.   Is that a common mentality in sports -that one can always do better and no performance is completely flawless?   And at least one popular real world religion seem to argue that it is impossible for human beings to always live up to its ideals.    Would that imply that a Paladin who always does the exactly right thing should be just as alien for a player to get into the character of as something from the far realms or a Sabbat vampire in WoD?


RE: @_*pemerton*_'s post #1143. That all sounds right to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> .
> 
> Beause he lacks evidence. Note that, as the available evidence changes, so do the opinions of the character in question. Whereas I am talking about characters who have irrefutable evidence that their choices are not good (via the evidence of lost paladinhood, or the evidence of changed alignment as detected via magic).




it is compelling evidenve. Most people would accept it and realize they are wrong. But the character doesn't have the players hsndbook. The character might believe the god is mistaken, but just powerful enough to enforce his will on the character. People existing in these settings do not require perfect knowledge of how the cosmology works. Characters have limited point of view and can beliebe whatever they want to believe. Even in our own world we see people deny the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence. I do not think it is so crazy that character might choose to believe his godwas in error. 

I really do think we've reached the end of the discussion here. If you cant accept this then that totally fine. But it is getting a bit frustrating being told by you that things we do in our games all thetime that make total sense to us and are viewed as completely logical and rational by our groups are irrational.  I think you will just have to continue being puzzled by our behavior.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I don't disagree with this, though as I've said multiple times upthread, it's not a playstyle that personally appeals to me.



That makes sense to me. I see alignment as a distinctly D&D thing, and when I'm not playing it, I don't want it. When I do use alignment, I also tend to do the "is Good actually good?" thing when I'm running the campaign.


pemerton said:


> The argument that I've been running, that (I think) you stepped into, is that it makes no sense _both_ to run the game in the way you have just described - positing objective cosmological forces of good and evil - and to allow that it makes sense for a character in such a gameworld to deny that the demands of objective cosmological good are really good. If you are going to run an "objective cosmological forces" game, then it seems to me that everyone buys into that, and the characters within the gameworld, recognising that there exist these forces of objective cosmological good and evil, accept their judgements.



Yeah, you'd think that it'd go one way or the other. Either you play as I described my campaign (shades of grey within the alignment system... "is Good actually good?"), or you'd go for the more clear-cut, no-debate approach ("Good is good, and we all agreed to this definition"). It doesn't make much sense to mix the two. To me, at least. I can easily see running with the "shades of grey" style and having many characters (even PCs) that don't end up questioning things, but if you're going with the "no-debate" approach, then mixing them doesn't seem like it'd work out well.

So, basically, if you want to be able to debate real-world morality in the game, there's still not a problem with saying "these things are Good and these things are Evil", in my experience, because you can still ask "but what is right and what is wrong?" And while you may discover, in play, that Good isn't always right (from your character's perspective), the alignment system certainly doesn't discourage you from exploring those questions. Again, in my experience.



Imaro said:


> This is one of the reasons I asked you earlier in the thread to stop conflating the words "right" and "good", in this context they are not the same thing and I believe you are the only one using them in a manner where they do equate to synonyms.



This is something I could see being a problem. I'm definitely not using them in the same way here.



Hussar said:


> But, if I'm playing a LG character, paladin or not, why would I choose an action that is not Lawful or Good?



Because your character feels that it would be morally correct to perform that action.


Hussar said:


> Wouldn't that be out of character?



If the character has been trying to be as morally straight as possible (which usually makes him end up at Lawful Good), then I sincerely doubt that it'd be out of character to continue to act in such a way. I say this from extensive personal experience on the "shades of grey" alignment side, and two LG PCs regularly debating their actions (as well as many NPCs that fell into that category that I ran).


Hussar said:


> If I know that action X is judged as not LG, then how can it be the right thing to do for a LG character? Wouldn't the most palatable action for my character be the one that is most in line with my alignment?



It depends on how beholden to that alignment he is. If he's a Paladin, I could see him being such a zealot that he's not going to stray from the path of Lawful Good; his faith in its ideals could blind him to any considerations that it might not always be the morally right path.

If, however, the character is concerned about right and wrong first and foremost (and not about alignment), and their actions have landed them a Lawful Good alignment, then it'd seem awfully out of character to not take the hypothetical non-LG action, as long as they felt that it was the morally right thing to do.


Hussar said:


> In my mind, you are arguing that the character is incoherent.



I don't understand your thought process.


Hussar said:


> IOW, if I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (because the DM has told me before I do it) that my action is out of line with my chosen alignment, why would I continue to pursue that action, knowing that I'm violating the consistency of my own character?



I think we might have different understandings of what "consistency of character" might mean. In my experience, nearly all PCs are driven by beliefs, and their actions based on these beliefs determine their alignments. Very few PCs are driven by a particular alignment itself.

So, for the overwhelming majority of PCs (in my experience), it's not contradictory at all to act on their beliefs. For the few PCs that are driven primarily by a particular alignment, it would be contrary to that PC's beliefs, and thus he wouldn't consider the action the "right thing to do", even if he might feel conflicted, since, in the end, that act would violate what he believes in most (the alignment he adheres to).

Does that make sense?


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> it is compelling evidenve. Most people would accept it and realize they are wrong. But the character doesn't have the players hsndbook. The character might believe the god is mistaken, but just powerful enough to enforce his will on the character. People existing in these settings do not require perfect knowledge of how the cosmology works.




Or, alternatively - note that in real-world mythologies, many gods are far, far short of omniscient.  Zeus?  Odin?  Wise, sure.  Knows lots of stuff, sure.  But not omniscient.  These gods pass judgments, and what they say may be enforced deific law, but they aren't always right!  One can even find stories in which the gods are not themselves static - they make choices, and even though you might figure they *know* the difference between good and evil, they fall from grace anyway...

So, if the GM is judging alignment, by way of fallible gods, it is still possible for the god to have made a bad judgement call.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> Arguing with a Detect Evil spell, or with your loss of class abilities, makes about as much sense as arguing with a tape measure. Ie none, to me at least.



The Lawful Evil Monk I gave as an example did almost exactly this -though he dismissed the spell more than argued about it. To him, the magic was obviously faulty; he lived his life tracking down murderers, rapers, thieves, etc., and punishing them. He hurt those who hurt innocent people. In his eyes, he was a good guy, and disputing that was nonsensical.

Of course, he would threaten innocent people that wouldn't cooperate with him, torture people before dismembering or murdering them, etc. By the book, he was pretty Evil. But, in his head, he was pretty far from it, and openly said so. This caused some debate amongst the PCs, but they would eventually go to him when they needed help and felt they had little other choice.

Yes, in the campaign world, he was measurably Evil. But, the debate was still on for whether or not what he was doing was right or wrong. In the campaign, the debate really wasn't "is the tool faulty?" (since they knew the Detect spell had functioned properly), but more of "is the tool always right?" And that was fun for us to explore.

Again, I'm not trying to convince others that this should be fun for them, I just don't see how this is somehow incoherent for the people that want to use alignment and still explore right and wrong. It's easy. I did it for years.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> Or, alternatively - note that in real-world mythologies, many gods are far, far short of omniscient.  Zeus?  Odin?  Wise, sure.  Knows lots of stuff, sure.  But not omniscient.  These gods pass judgments, and what they say may be enforced deific law, but they aren't always right!  One can even find stories in which the gods are not themselves static - they make choices, and even though you might figure they *know* the difference between good and evil, they fall from grace anyway...
> 
> So, if the GM is judging alignment, by way of fallible gods, it is still possible for the god to have made a bad judgement call.





I agree entirely. In fact my own setting has pallible gods on earth like greek or roman style gods, but has a more obscure and distant power from which goodness emanates. But even if the gods were not fallible, the people in the setting are not certain of that. They just have really darn good evidence. However a cynical character might just assume that Loff God of thunder and goodness is really just a powerful jerk imposing his will on the paladin. I just feel theplayers get to decide what is going on in their character's head and if they tell me their character disagree with the god's decision, i am fine with that.


----------



## Nagol

JamesonCourage said:


> The Lawful Evil Monk I gave as an example did almost exactly this -though he dismissed the spell more than argued about it. To him, the magic was obviously faulty; he lived his life tracking down murderers, rapers, thieves, etc., and punishing them. He hurt those who hurt innocent people. In his eyes, he was a good guy, and disputing that was nonsensical.
> 
> Of course, he would threaten innocent people that wouldn't cooperate with him, torture people before dismembering or murdering them, etc. By the book, he was pretty Evil. But, in his head, he was pretty far from it, and openly said so. This caused some debate amongst the PCs, but they would eventually go to him when they needed help and felt they had little other choice.
> 
> Yes, in the campaign world, he was measurably Evil. But, the debate was still on for whether or not what he was doing was right or wrong. In the campaign, the debate really wasn't "is the tool faulty?" (since they knew the Detect spell had functioned properly), but more of "is the tool always right?" And that was fun for us to explore.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to convince others that this should be fun for them, I just don't see how this is somehow incoherent for the people that want to use alignment and still explore right and wrong. It's easy. I did it for years.




So really the question became "Is Good the best yardstick for society/behaviour?"  

I can easily envision situations where the good choice is known/knowable, but fails to provide the best outcome for the person acting -- either personally, for those important to him, or to how he thinks the wider society should be affected.  The question then becomes how far down the slope will the characters go to pursue outcomes they consider best versus good.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, if I'm playing a LG character, paladin or not, why would I choose an action that is not Lawful or Good?  Wouldn't that be out of character?  If I know that action X is judged as not LG, then how can it be the right thing to do for a LG character?  Wouldn't the most palatable action for my character be the one that is most in line with my alignment?




Are you serious?  There are a multitude of reasons paladins fall, I'm not going to even try and create a comprehensive list of the reasons a paladin could choose to do something not good... or even evil.  Anything from emotions and passion to being unworthy as a paragon could all be reasons... Paladin does not equate to perfectly programmed robot. 



Hussar said:


> In my mind, you are arguing that the character is incoherent.  The player thinks that a given action is the right one to do.  The player believes that it is in keeping with his conception of his character which he has created based on the beliefs that his character is LG.




Well if the action clearly goes against the tenets of LG as put forth in the book and hashed out by the DM and player... I'm not sure how something like this arises?  You know the act you are about to commit is not LG.  As a character you don't define what is or isn't LG, that is defined by the cosmological powers... as a character however you have the free will to act as your mind and conscience dictate and if that means you commit enough non-lawful good acts that your alignment changes... well then apparently your character wasn't really LG... at least not as it is defined in this particular campaign setting...



Hussar said:


> But, in following his beliefs for his character, which he believes to be LG, he is actually violating his own code of ethics since alignment is supposed to be an outline for a characters code of ethics and morality isn't it?




Yes, and?? 



Hussar said:


> IOW, if I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (because the DM has told me before I do it) that my action is out of line with my chosen alignment, why would I continue to pursue that action, knowing that I'm violating the consistency of my own character?




Because people are rarely if ever perfectly consistent in their actions, because something may become more important to you than the tenets of LG, because you aren't really LG, because your character is not a robot and thus his entire personality and concept are not defined by LG... I mean like I said there are a multitude of reasons one could choose not to take a LG action even though your alignment is LG, and this is accounted for in the game, it is why a LG paladin doesn't fall because he takes a single neutral act.  I would argue that if your character is defined entirely and wholly by his alignment he is no longer a character and is more similar to a force of the cosmos or some such being.  again the closest thing that comes to mind is a robot.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> N'raac - you have posited that your interpretation is the only valid one. That you have the right of how alignment is interpreted. Now, if you are playing in a game where the DM interprets things differently, would you be perfectly willing to abide by that other DM's interpretations? If your DM tells you that no, you are wrong, would you simply shrug and accept it? I mean, you're pretty vociferous in trying to prove an interpretation when no one is actually disagreeing with you.




Like most things, it depends largely on the issue, and the context.  The alignment rules are there to be read and interpreted, like any other rule.  The extent of debate seems like it would depend on the underlying disagreement itself.  Some rules calls could go either way, and others are much clearer.

I suspect that, if the GM is providing alignment rulings that I can’t abide by, then alignment won’t be the only aspect of the game where we have significant differences.



Hussar said:


> The only thing we've said is that alternative interpretations exist. No one's actually claimed to buy into those other interpretations, but, let's be honest here, those alternative interpretations most certainly exist.




If no one buys into them, then we seem to concur those alternative interpretations are not valid.  If there is one you buy into, based on the actual rules and not solely on a real world sense of right and wrong, then let’s hear it.  If not, well, no one yet has asserted that leaving R’as to die was an evil act, despite your presentation of the scene as one where there would undoubtedly be heated disagreement.



Hussar said:


> After all, you argued that murdering a high priest wasn't an evil act since it would send the high priest to his just reward in the afterlife




Actually, I argued that it was not a sufficiently evil act to meet the Glabrezus wish-grating requirement of “unless the _wish_ is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation.”  when you asserted that Planar Binding was sufficient to generate an unlimited supply of free wishes.



pemerton said:


> There is no reason, either in the wording of the definition of good in any version of D&D, nor in the overall presentation of the game, to suppose that defensive violence - even lethal violence used in self-defence or defence of others - is not morally justified.




“Morally justified” is not “good”.  It is a departure from the tenets of good justified by other realities.  It is not Good to inflict violence on the Orc.  It is also not Good to stand by while the Orc inflicts violence on an innocent person.  There is no available choice which can be 100% consistent with the ideals of Good.



pemerton said:


> Saying that moral theorising has no relevance to making sense of these concepts is like saying that ordinary concepts of gold have no relevance to thinking about gold pieces, or that ordinary concepts of sharp edges have no relevance to thinking about a fighter's sword.




One need not have a Ph.D. in mineralogy to muddle through the concept of gold pieces.  We don’t agonize over how much different those coins must be in size to have identical weights, or vice versa.  We accept the simplifying assumptions provided by the game.  Except you seem incapable of accepting simplifying assumptions for ethical philosophy.



Hussar said:


> But, if I'm playing a LG character, paladin or not, why would I choose an action that is not Lawful or Good? Wouldn't that be out of character? If I know that action X is judged as not LG, then how can it be the right thing to do for a LG character? Wouldn't the most palatable action for my character be the one that is most in line with my alignment?




My preference is to define the character’s beliefs and use these to assess the alignment for which he is the best fit.  If those beliefs do not fit solidly in the LG frame, then he’s not a good choice to be a Paladin.  If my character is driven by a need for vengeance on the guilty which will consistently override his desire to protect the innocent, he may be LG, but he’s close enough to the edge that maintaining Paladinhood is unlikely.  With that in mind, I won’t select the Paladin class, unless I want this character to face the added challenge of likely falling.



Hussar said:


> In my mind, you are arguing that the character is incoherent. The player thinks that a given action is the right one to do. The player believes that it is in keeping with his conception of his character which he has created based on the beliefs that his character is LG.
> 
> But, in following his beliefs for his character, which he believes to be LG, he is actually violating his own code of ethics since alignment is supposed to be an outline for a characters code of ethics and morality isn't it?




No, it isn’t.  It’s a classification of where his views and beliefs, on the whole, place him.  He may well be LG while having some non-Lawful tendencies (places a greater value on family than on the community as a whole, for example) and/or some non-good tendencies (“The only good Orc is a dead Orc!”)  That LG alignment is a big, wide space.  Every LG character is not clustered at the top left corner of the diagram.



Hussar said:


> IOW, if I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (because the DM has told me before I do it) that my action is out of line with my chosen alignment, why would I continue to pursue that action, knowing that I'm violating the consistency of my own character?





What is consistency of the character, playing consistently with his value of family over society, or his thirst for justice?  It is when his beliefs come into conflict – that is, when he can take no action which is consistent with all of his beliefs, that the role playing becomes challenging.  I rather suspect [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] would agree with me on that, regardless of whether alignment is, or is not, in play?



pemerton said:


> Upthread you asserted that capital punishment was evil (or at least non-good) because it involved killing. Now you seem to be asserting the opposite. Which is it? (You seem to be proving @*Hussar* 's point for him!)




It is, in isolation, non-good.  That is not the same as evil.  It may be justified out of Evil by other circumstances, in particular the ideal of protecting the innocent.  It may also be moved back from Evil based on circumstances (as a just punishment for Evil done by the condemned), and should be carried out with the least practical violation of Good ideals.



pemerton said:


> Of course people can choose actions that they know are not good. But they cannot rationally choose such actions. They are obliged to acknowledge that their choice is flawed. Hence, for instances, people offer excuses for their choices.




Would the Paladin prefer that the criminal reformed, or even that he had not committed the crime?  I expect he would.  But he lives in an imperfect world, so a perfect choice does not always present itself.

I expect that a person who is capable of becoming a Paladin in the first place would not lightly commit an Evil act.  I doubt he received his Paladinhood by a morning seminar and 25 box tops.  It should therefore not be a “core case for the typical D&D paladin” that he chooses an evil act.  Now, a sneak thief caught in the act, lacking the Paladin’s moral fiber, may well choose the evil act of killing the person who came upon him.



pemerton said:


> My game is full of such players. If the player of PC A wants A to do such-and-such, and the player of PC B wants A to do some different such-and-such, then the desires of A win out everyone time. Is A some terrible person? Or is it just that, in the rules of most RPGs, the player of a particular PC gets to choose how that PC acts, even if other participants in the game would prefer that the PC at some other way.
> 
> Putting the player in charge of adjudicating the extent to which his/her paladin or cleric lives up to that character's ideals doesn't raise any distinctive issue of selfishness beyond this ordinary principle, that it is up to each player to play his/her PC, and to develop, articulate and implement a conception of that PC.




Not good enough – Player A also considers Player B’s choices inappropriate – his character should just get over his morbid fear of water and get on the boat so we can get on with the adventure.  And he does not want to play through Player C’s role playing of his seasickness  -the game mechanics don’t require any such seasickness.  Move along so we can get to the good part (ie the part that focuses on Player A, and his desires from the game).  That’s the special snowflake.

When each player recognizes the rights of all the other players are equal to his own, no one is receiving “special treatment”.  You may recognize each of your children differently, but I doubt you focus primarily on one, and the other gets attention if and when the first one is fully satisfied.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> Or, alternatively - note that in real-world mythologies, many gods are far, far short of omniscient.  Zeus?  Odin?  Wise, sure.  Knows lots of stuff, sure.  But not omniscient.  These gods pass judgments, and what they say may be enforced deific law, but they aren't always right!  One can even find stories in which the gods are not themselves static - they make choices, and even though you might figure they *know* the difference between good and evil, they fall from grace anyway...
> 
> So, if the GM is judging alignment, by way of fallible gods, it is still possible for the god to have made a bad judgement call.




So, basically, you'd be fine with losing your paladin's status to a bad judgement call, when the DM admits that it's a bad call?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> Are you serious? There are a multitude of reasons paladins fall, I'm not going to even try and create a comprehensive list of the reasons a paladin could choose to do something not good... or even evil. Anything from emotions and passion to being unworthy as a paragon could all be reasons... Paladin does not equate to perfectly programmed robot.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page116#ixzz2vbsvZs6U




So, the player, after being specifically told by the DM that it's an evil act, continues to perform that act and falls.  Well, that's fair I suppose.  Of course, the fact of the matter is, we're still stuck on the notion that the player can never actually be right. 

I'm finding it rather difficult to imagine a paladin player deliberately choosing to fall.  Talk about playing out of character.  I suppose if the player wanted to switch to anti-paladin or something but, that would probably be talked about beforehand.  We're talking about a situation though, where the paladin player honestly believes that he is not violating his alignment.  Which isn't the same at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> So, basically, you'd be fine with losing your paladin's status to a bad judgement call, when the DM admits that it's a bad call?




Under Umbran's example, it isn't a bad judgment call if the GM is appropriately factoring in the god's personality. It isn't just an arbitrary judgment where the GM justifies a questionable call by pointing to divine fallability, it is a judgment where you weigh in the god's imperfection and his persona. I have seen this at the table, where perhaps you have a god who leaps to the most obvious conclusions or has speciifc and quirky things that make him angry. Again, this is all very campaign specific, so it really does matter what the details are and we just talking about it in a vacuum so a bit difficult to really adress these kinds of concerns.

also, i dont know that umbran had paladins in mind in this example as he was responding to the the more general point on whether a character being rebuked by a god could believe the god is wrong in a setting with objective alignment.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Under Umbran's example, it isn't a bad judgment call if the GM is appropriately factoring in the god's personality. It isn't just an arbitrary judgment where the GM justifies a questionable call by pointing to divine fallability, it is a judgment where you weigh in the god's imperfection and his persona. I have seen this at the table, where perhaps you have a god who leaps to the most obvious conclusions or has speciifc and quirky things that make him angry. Again, this is all very campaign specific, so it really does matter what the details are and we just talking about it in a vacuum so a bit difficult to really adress these kinds of concerns.
> 
> also, i dont know that umbran had paladins in mind in this example as he was responding to the the more general point on whether a character being rebuked by a god could believe the god is wrong in a setting with objective alignment.




But, if the actual judgement of alignment can be fallible, then how does that work with mechanics?  Can my Detect Evil fail?  Know Alignment?  How is this not purely house rule territory?  I mean, there is nothing in the rules that tell me that any alignment based mechanic, from spells to magical items or anything else, can actually be wrong.  So my Evil Bane sword doesn't work all the time?  How do you rule when it doesn't work?  

This seems to be very problematic.  The mechanics make no allowance for the judgement of alignment to be fallible.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> So, the player, after being specifically told by the DM that it's an evil act, continues to perform that act and falls.  Well, that's fair I suppose.  Of course, the fact of the matter is, we're still stuck on the notion that the player can never actually be right.




Right in so far as objectively defining the cosmological force of Lawful Good?  He is "right" (in the way I believe you are using the term) whenever he chooses to perform an act that aligns with the tenets of LG and claims said action was lawful good.  Now if you are saying he can't do an evil act, or a neutral act... call it a lawful good act and be correct in his assertion... I'd say why should he be able to? 



Hussar said:


> I'm finding it rather difficult to imagine a paladin player deliberately choosing to fall.  Talk about playing out of character.  I suppose if the player wanted to switch to anti-paladin or something but, that would probably be talked about beforehand.  We're talking about a situation though, where the paladin player honestly believes that he is not violating his alignment.  Which isn't the same at all.




I could easily see a paladin who comes to care for someone so much that he is willing to fall in order to save them, doing whatever it takes to accomplish said goal... and in this case the goal of the player was not to become an anti-paladin. How can the paladin player honestly believe he is not violating his alignment when the DM is letting him know beforehand... or are we back to "Gotcha!"?  The player can believe his action is right as much as he wants, what he can't do is define what is and isn't LG since it exists outside of the character.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Right in so far as objectively defining the cosmological force of Lawful Good?  He is "right" (in the way I believe you are using the term) whenever he chooses to perform an act that aligns with the tenets of LG and claims said action was lawful good.  Now if you are saying he can't do an evil act, or a neutral act... call it a lawful good act and be correct in his assertion... I'd say why should he be able to?
> 
> 
> 
> I could easily see a paladin who comes to care for someone so much that he is willing to fall in order to save them, doing whatever it takes to accomplish said goal... and in this case the goal of the player was not to become an anti-paladin. How can the paladin player honestly believe he is not violating his alignment when the DM is letting him know beforehand... or are we back to "Gotcha!"?  The player can believe his action is right as much as he wants, what he can't do is define what is and isn't LG since it exists outside of the character.




According to your play style of course.  In my play style, choosing actions that are consistent with character beliefs would never result in an alignment shift since the player believes that his actions are in keeping with his alignment, and thus would actually be in keeping with his alignment.  LG, to me, does not exist outside of the character.  If my LG character is pulling a 24 and torturing prisoners to save someone (or something) then I would never consider my character to be actually LG.  

Then again, I wouldn't start torturing with that character since it would be out of character.  It would be like Superman starting to torture people.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, if the actual judgement of alignment can be fallible, then how does that work with mechanics?  Can my Detect Evil fail?  Know Alignment?  How is this not purely house rule territory?  I mean, there is nothing in the rules that tell me that any alignment based mechanic, from spells to magical items or anything else, can actually be wrong.  So my Evil Bane sword doesn't work all the time?  How do you rule when it doesn't work?
> 
> This seems to be very problematic.  The mechanics make no allowance for the judgement of alignment to be fallible.




Keep in mind we are in play style territory. This is how individual groups interpret alignment, gods etc. for me in my games things like a cleric's spells or a paladins abilities have to do with their personal relationship or covenant with their deity. So that would be subject to a gods personality to a degree. Know alignment would be more objective and not subject to error. Again though, I never said the deity is wrong. In the given example the deity might well be correct. I just don't object to the player deciding how his character feels about the god's judgment.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> According to your play style of course.  In my play style, choosing actions that are consistent with character beliefs would never result in an alignment shift since the player believes that his actions are in keeping with his alignment, and thus would actually be in keeping with his alignment.




So let me make sure I understand the logical construct of morality in your play style...

No LG character's behavior could ever result in an alignment shift because all actions ever committed by the character would be believed to be LG by the character and thus would be LG because if the character believes he is acting in a LG manner that makes it LG...  

Yeah, that's definitely not my thing and it seems like you have some pretty circular logic going on here but hey if that's the morality you choose for your campaigns then whatever floats your boat.




Hussar said:


> LG, to me, does not exist outside of the character.




So in your campaign the paladin is empowered and beholden to... himself?



Hussar said:


> If my LG character is pulling a 24 and torturing prisoners to save someone (or something) then I would never consider my character to be actually LG.




Perhaps your character didn't know what he was capable of until something important enough to him was put at risk...  



Hussar said:


> Then again, I wouldn't start torturing with that character since it would be out of character.  It would be like Superman starting to torture people.




Could you be more specific about exactly what version or incarnation of Superman we are talking about here... while I can't think of any that use torture off-hand... there are versions of Superman that do some questionable things, including murder in cold blood...

EDIT: Actually nevermind, I don't think characters with multiple versions and multiple writers are really good at being examples of specific consistent behavior.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Keep in mind we are in play style territory. This is how individual groups interpret alignment, gods etc. for me in my games things like a cleric's spells or a paladins abilities have to do with their personal relationship or covenant with their deity. So that would be subject to a gods personality to a degree. Know alignment would be more objective and not subject to error. Again though, I never said the deity is wrong. In the given example the deity might well be correct. I just don't object to the player deciding how his character feels about the god's judgment.




But, that's the problem.  If the deity is correct, then the player (and the character) is wrong.  They both can't be right.  So, why would I, the player, do something that I KNOW is wrong?  

And, again, this is problematic as well.  How can a spell granted by the gods be more objective than the god his/herself?  My cleric casts Detect Evil or Know Alignment and that gives a better handle on morality that a god?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> So let me make sure I understand the logical construct of morality in your play style...
> 
> No LG character's behavior could ever result in an alignment shift because all actions ever committed by the character would be believed to be LG by the character and thus would be LG because if the character believes he is acting in a LG manner that makes it LG...




With the caveat that the player was honest in his assessment that his behavior is actually consistent with his beliefs, yes.  Now, this presumes that the player is mature enough to actually judge his own behavior, but, by and large, once you place the ball in the player's hands, in my experience, they will be far harsher judges of what is consistent with the beliefs of their character than I will be.



> Yeah, that's definitely not my thing and it seems like you have some pretty circular logic going on here but hey if that's the morality you choose for your campaigns then whatever floats your boat.




It's only circular if the player is inconsistent.  Then again, I don't see players being any more inconsistent than DM's.




> So in your campaign the paladin is empowered and beholden to... himself?




How did you arrive at that.  The character is certainly empowered and beholden to a given deity (or power or philosophy).  However, the player is empowered to determine what that actually means instead of having it passed down to him from me.  So, if the player thinks that Act X is good, then it's good and we'll play from there.  It's not my job, or my wish, to police the behavior and dictate the morality of someone else's character.  



> Perhaps your character didn't know what he was capable of until something important enough to him was put at risk...




But, the player KNOWS, because you've told him, that his actions are morally wrong.  There is no grey here.  You've flat out told him that if he do X, then he will commit an evil act.  How he feels about things is immaterial.  Since the point of playing a morally strong character is to actually act morally, why would I abandon my morals?  That's the whole reason for playing this character.  If I wanted to play a character that isn't terribly concerned about morality, why on earth would I play a paladin or a cleric?  That's WHY you play that character.  Or, for me anyway, that's why I play those characters.  

So, for me, there is nothing important enough to compromise that morality.  If you tell me, in no uncertain terms, that X is evil, then my character will never do X.  That's radically changing the story of my character.  If I want to play a fallen character, sure, that's groovy.  But, outside of that, I'm not too sure why a player would knowingly throw away his character like that.


> Could you be more specific about exactly what version or incarnation of Superman we are talking about here... while I can't think of any that use torture off-hand... there are versions of Superman that do some questionable things, including murder in cold blood...
> 
> EDIT: Actually nevermind, I don't think characters with multiple versions and multiple writers are really good at being examples of specific consistent behavior.




Oh, please.  We're really going to have an alignment wank about SUPERMAN?  Even Superman isn't a decent enough exemplar of alignment?  Holy crap.  What would you consider a decent archetype for Lawful Good?


----------



## Sadras

N'raac said:


> For a case this much on the edge, I would want a discussion of the type of game we want to be playing, and we would hopefully have a group consensus as to the appropriate classification of the act, which could be Evil or Neutral depending on the game.




I tend to agree with you, there would definitely be a discussion at our table for this scenario. As for the paladin in my group, I definitely do not think the execution of the nightwatchman would be something he could swallow. We have already had a similar situation in our group, which I did mention upthread, where the PC Dwarvern cleric executed a wizard essentially because of her nationality (her people and the dwarves are historical enemies). The Dwarf is Lawful Neutral. Of course the Dwarf's actions were kept hidden from the Paladin.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Do you mean in a particular circumstance, or consistently over one's entire life?



It's complicated, because the nature of the "can't" here is problematic.

I don't think we're talking about ideals that a person can't conceivably live up to (eg we're not talking about cat trying to live the moral life of a human). Nor are we talking about the "can't" of causal impossibility - I think we're assuming free will, so that the character is free to choose and able to act in accordance with those choices. But equally I don't think we're talking about the "can't" of "well, actually, I guess I could have if I'd tried harder but I didn't, aw shucks".

The "can't" means something like "can't reasonably" - so when we say the ideals can't be realised in the real world, we mean something like "the ideals can't reasonably be realised in the real world". Note that "reasonably" here is an obviously normative notion, and so we don't have any evaluation of this claim that is itself value-free; the person who does evil on the grounds that goodness can't reasonably be achieved in the real world may just have a misguided conception of what is reasonable. (The selfish often do, particularly when weighing costs to themselves.)

Anyway, what is reasonable, given the nature of reality, depends very heavily on that nature. I think the providential outlook of a paladin or saint is important here: it shapes that person's understanding of what reality consists in, and hence of what is reasonable. Weber is one of the best authors on this, I think, though he is coming from the atheistic side. In "Politics as a Vocation" he distinguishes the "ethics of absolute ends" and the "ethics of responsibility", and argues that a good politician will follow the latter and not the former ethic, because it would be a dereliction of political duty to commit the polity on the basis of the sort of providential conviction that underpins an ethics of absolute ends. (The politician, says Weber, must aim at good in this world, not good in some other circumstance that lies on the other side of providential judgement.)

Now we can first think about Weber from the point of view of a paladin. The Weberian outlook seems an obvious instance of evil (or neutral? a difficult label to work with, for reasons already given). It is certainly not good, because it tolerates doing wrong because of a perceived need to choose between evils that disregards the balancing of the scales that providence will take care of.

But now let's think about Weber from the point of view of someone who agrees. That person does not judge the paladin - committed to, and following, the ethic of absolute ends - to be good. The paladin's not necessarily _evil_, either - more like a fool or ingénue. (Weber in fact allows something like an aesthetic admiration for the paladin or the saint. But they are not to be permitted to be in charge of anything!) The ideals are fatuous, because the underpinning necessary to make them valid - namely, that providence will deliver - is fantastic, at best a naïve hope.

That's the sort of thing I had in mind when I said that "ideals that can't be achieved" entails "ideals that are fatuous". If the ideals can realistically be achieved, and are worth achieving, but are just hard, then it doesn't follow that they're fatuous. (This would be a common take among some practitioners of meditation aimed at the pursuit of genuine mindfulness - it's hard to do, much like running really fast is hard, but it is worthwhile in its payoff, and hence is not fatuous. But is also not something that can't realistically be aimed at, and perhaps achieved. It can be achieved, and it is reasonable to expect real people to aim at it.)

A further complication is that some ideals that are hard to achieve are ideals of the superogatory rather than the obligatory: the category of the superogatory would encompass many of the ideals of that religion you mentioned, and the reason for holding these ideals as superogatory and not obligatory may precisely be that living in the real world doesn't conduce to achieving them. (Some practitioners of meditation aimed at mindfulness might have _this_ view of genuine mindfulness - it's worth all of us aiming at it, but we acknowledge that many perfectly good people will fall short.)

But if the paladin who falls short of ideas because they're not realistic is simply failing in the domain of the superogatory, then s/he has not committed an evil act, or even a neutral act - s/he has simply failed to perform the best possible act - and hence s/he will not fall. (Which is not the scenario that was presented, and that motivated my original comment about fatuous ideals.)

Sorry that's a long answer, but the connection between ideals and realism is a complicated one. (Random factoid: the phrase adopted by John Rawls late in his life, to describe his political ideals, was "realistic utopia".)


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> The Lawful Evil Monk I gave as an example did almost exactly this -though he dismissed the spell more than argued about it. To him, the magic was obviously faulty; he lived his life tracking down murderers, rapers, thieves, etc., and punishing them. He hurt those who hurt innocent people. In his eyes, he was a good guy, and disputing that was nonsensical.



Unless I misunderstood, he was denying that whatever the spell labels as "evil" is really evil, in a context in which it is not a premise of the campaign world that there are objective cosmological forces whose conception of such matters is exhaustive of the notion of evil.



JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah, you'd think that it'd go one way or the other. Either you play as I described my campaign (shades of grey within the alignment system... "is Good actually good?"), or you'd go for the more clear-cut, no-debate approach ("Good is good, and we all agreed to this definition"). It doesn't make much sense to mix the two. To me, at least. I can easily see running with the "shades of grey" style and having many characters (even PCs) that don't end up questioning things, but if you're going with the "no-debate" approach, then mixing them doesn't seem like it'd work out well.



On this I think we're agreed.



JamesonCourage said:


> So, basically, if you want to be able to debate real-world morality in the game, there's still not a problem with saying "these things are Good and these things are Evil", in my experience, because you can still ask "but what is right and what is wrong?"



On this, though, we clearly have different preferences. I find retaining the label "good" for something that might rightly be repudiated is unhelpful, much like retaining the label "round" for something that has corners.  Bracketing it as "D&D-ish good" doesn't really help me, either - I prefer to cut out the label and just talk about the ideals of the entity in question.

There is also the further question of who gets to adjudicate compliance with those ideals. For reasons I've already given at length upthread, I prefer that the player of a sincerely religious character have the prerogative of adjudicating what his/her ideals require. (I say a bit more about this below.)



Nagol said:


> The question then becomes how far down the slope will the characters go to pursue outcomes they consider best versus good.



This is an example of what I find confusing. Given that "best" means "most good", it seems somewhat contradictory to deny that the best is at least good.



Umbran said:


> if the GM is judging alignment, by way of fallible gods, it is still possible for the god to have made a bad judgement call.





Bedrockgames said:


> I agree entirely.



Just to check - are you two saying that it is OK for a GM to strip a player's PC of paladinhood (or cleric-hood), even though the player did not have his/her PC commit an alignment violation, because the GM is RPing a fallible god?

(This is a variation of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s question upthread.)



Hussar said:


> This seems to be very problematic.  The mechanics make no allowance for the judgement of alignment to be fallible.



I also agree with this.



Imaro said:


> You know the act you are about to commit is not LG.  As a character you don't define what is or isn't LG, that is defined by the cosmological powers



What does that "definition" mean? In what way is not just a stipulation that is applied more-or-less arbitrarily, action by action?

Up until the last ten or so pages of this thread, I always thought we were supposed to understand the "definition" as tracking a moral property - even if just an imagined, fantasy one. But now it seems that I'm being told quite the opposite - that it may not track any property at all. So how is it improving the game experience? Why not cut out alignment, describe the personalities of the gods, and have them bestow and withdraw powers more-or-less at will. Furthermore, why - on this account of alignment - is there anything remotely special about LG such that there cannot be non-LG paladins?



Hussar said:


> In my play style, choosing actions that are consistent with character beliefs would never result in an alignment shift since the player believes that his actions are in keeping with his alignment, and thus would actually be in keeping with his alignment.  LG, to me, does not exist outside of the character..





Imaro said:


> So let me make sure I understand the logical construct of morality in your play style...
> 
> No LG character's behavior could ever result in an alignment shift because all actions ever committed by the character would be believed to be LG by the character and thus would be LG because if the character believes he is acting in a LG manner that makes it LG



No. That's not what Hussar posted, and I'm puzzled why this has to be corrected in just about every reply.

Hussar talked about the _player's_ judgement that the character's behaviour is in keeping with the character's ideals. Not the character's self-evaluation.

And on this I share Hussar's preferences. If anything, the last ten or so pages of this thread have made me see less value in alignment, because one possible use I thought that had been indicated - of having the GM stipulate and adjudicate an objective morality for the purposes of the campaign - is now being repudiated by nearly all the "pro-alignment" posters, who seem to be saying that it is OK for good gods to do evil things, and be known by a PC (and the PC's player) to do evil things, and yet the PC still loses paladinhood because the god is fallible. From my point of view, that is drifting into very strange territory.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> If the deity is correct, then the player (and the character) is wrong.  They both can't be right.  So, why would I, the player, do something that I KNOW is wrong?





Hussar said:


> the player KNOWS, because you've told him, that his actions are morally wrong.  There is no grey here.  You've flat out told him that if he do X, then he will commit an evil act.  How he feels about things is immaterial.



Agreed. This is my puzzlement in a nutshell - if the GM-stipulated alignment is objectively how things are in the gameworld, then it makes no sense to contest that. As I mentioned upthread, it's like arguing with a tape-measure.



Hussar said:


> How can a spell granted by the gods be more objective than the god his/herself?  My cleric casts Detect Evil or Know Alignment and that gives a better handle on morality that a god?



I share your puzzlement.



N'raac said:


> “Morally justified” is not “good”.  It is a departure from the tenets of good justified by other realities.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is, in isolation, non-good.  That is not the same as evil.



How do you know these things?

Obviously few people think a world in which a person is killed by way of defensive violence is a better world than one in which a peaceful resolution was found. But on it's own that doesn't mean that it cannot be morally obligatory to perform an act of defensive violence, even a lethal act. (For instance, to prevent a culpable person killing an innocent person.) If the act is morally obligatory, then among other properties it probably has the property of being good in all the circumstances, in the sense of best instantiating the values that are worth pursuing. (After all, if it is morally obligatory to save the evil person then to do nothing would be to be derelict in one's duty - which, if that involves letting another die when one had a duty to intervene, looks like it might be evil.)

And what does the phrase "departure from the tenets of good justified by other realities" even mean? What are these "other realities"?

The only sense I can make of the phrase is that "it is an action that undermines, in one respect, a value - namely, the value of the life of the evildoer - because there is a permission, or perhaps a duty, to uphold a different value, or perhaps a different instantiation of the same value that is more worthy of being upheld - such as the life of the innocent." A person who makes the right choice about which instance of a given value to uphold, in circumstances where both instances cannot be upheld, looks like a good person to me.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> Unless I misunderstood, he was denying that whatever the spell labels as "evil" is really evil, in a context in which it is not a premise of the campaign world that there are objective cosmological forces whose conception of such matters is exhaustive of the notion of evil.



The Monk was saying that the spell was obviously faulty, as he, as a person, "obviously is not evil." The PCs (and players) knew that the spell wasn't faulty, and they knew that this Monk acted in a way which earned him the Evil alignment. However, the debate for whether or not what the Monk did was right or wrong was left open if the players wanted to explore it (and they did).


pemerton said:


> On this, though, we clearly have different preferences. I find retaining the label "good" for something that might rightly be repudiated is unhelpful, much like retaining the label "round" for something that has corners.



This seems like a bad comparison. Rather than break it down and go down that rabbit hole, let's just see if we can talk without the comparison, rather than past one another.


pemerton said:


> Bracketing it as "D&D-ish good" doesn't really help me, either - I prefer to cut out the label and just talk about the ideals of the entity in question.



I get that. I have no problem with your preference -it's my general preference, too. (Again, my RPG has no morality equivalent mechanic in the game.)

However, I'm saying that I don't see how having a "D&D Good" and "D&D Evil" really hurts that exploration, either. My players did plenty of it during our game, and we used D&D Good and D&D Evil. At certain points, it actually led to them further questioning right and wrong, rather than stifle any sort of moral exploration.

Again, I don't mind you not preferring it (and I can relate to that), I just don't see how it necessarily conflicts with moral exploration or is somehow incoherent with that goal. If that makes sense.


pemerton said:


> There is also the further question of who gets to adjudicate compliance with those ideals. For reasons I've already given at length upthread, I prefer that the player of a sincerely religious character have the prerogative of adjudicating what his/her ideals require. (I say a bit more about this below.)



Right, this is also just a play style thing. I have no problem with your preference. I was just commenting on how D&D alignments don't necessarily conflict with moral exploration during game play, based on my personal experiences.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> And, again, this is problematic as well.  How can a spell granted by the gods be more objective than the god his/herself?  My cleric casts Detect Evil or Know Alignment and that gives a better handle on morality that a god?




Great question.
For me, it all depends on the cosmology of the setting. If we are using mythological gods (flawed), they usually are in charge of specific Domains which are non-Alignment based, Domains would include Strength, Agriculture, Weather...etc
These Gods might be selfish, proud, arrogant...etc
Even Athena the Goddess of Wisdom reflected how flawed she was with Arachne.
Alignment could then be seen as Ideals, cosmological force greater than the gods - perhaps similar to 4e style. The Gods themselves might have an alignment, but would not necessarily be custodians/guardians of the tenets of that alignment. 
If your PC was too far removed from the alignment of your deity you would cease to have access to channel said deity's divine power.   

If you are using Deities of Good/Evil Law/Chaos where they are the cosmological force of Good/Evil Law/Chaos in the world then technically such Deities cannot be wrong within their chosen Domains.

Then you possess a third group, which is a Mix of Domains. Deities who have domains of Good/Evil etc but also non-Alignment based Domains. 
These Domains if the DM so wanted could then come into conflict with each other in specific situation which might create a "flawed existence" when adjudicating actions of mortals. A DM could also rule that even though they are Custodians of alignment-based domains they could still be flawed.

Both groups of Deities allow access to Divine Energy. Whether this Divine Energy is originates from Gods themselves or they are merely Custodians of it is again dependent on the cosmology of the setting. I believe both types have been covered by various traditional D&D settings.
So you as DM will decide if the Divine Energy is larger than the Deity or if the Deity the creator of the Divine Energy. That will provide you with insight into how Alignment Spells might work.

These are my quick ramblings and thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Now, this presumes that the player is mature enough to actually judge his own behavior, but, by and large, once you place the ball in the player's hands, in my experience, they will be far harsher judges of what is consistent with the beliefs of their character than I will be.
> It's only circular if the player is inconsistent.  Then again, I don't see players being any more inconsistent than DM's.




I believe the response to this was covered before by @_*Imaro*_ some time back, where it was mentioned (and this is definitely not as eloquently as he put it) that if players are so great and impartial - you should let them choose the monsters they wish to fight, the experience points and treasure items to be awarded (wishlists). We already let them point buy ability scores and just look at the number of 18's that characters now all possess. 

There are gamists and there are role-players, its part and parcel of the hobby. You might argue your players are all mature and sincere which is fine, but they still have a predisposition to a degree of bias within the game when it comes to their characters, which they should, *but* which the DM does not possess. And that, IMO, makes him a better adjudicator than the players.



> But, the player KNOWS, because you've told him, that his actions are morally wrong.  There is no grey here.  You've flat out told him that if he do X, then he will commit an evil act.  How he feels about things is immaterial.  Since the point of playing a morally strong character is to actually act morally, why would I abandon my morals?  That's the whole reason for playing this character.  If I wanted to play a character that isn't terribly concerned about morality, why on earth would I play a paladin or a cleric?  That's WHY you play that character.  Or, for me anyway, that's why I play those characters.




Ok we are going around in circles here. 
@_*N'raac*_ covered this some time back, if the action was so great, that it would be evil and of a degree where it would "insert punishment here" and perhaps even require an alignment change well then I doubt you would have a disagreement at the table. It would be fair to say, that the action would have questions attributed to it at least, the PC would have definitely had some doubt.   
Some of the examples posted have reflected that doubt, so it is extremely unlikely the player would have been surprised.  

I imagine most of the time, and this has been mentioned before, its the little continuous infractions that would have the DM address with the player that his character is slowly sliding down the alignment ladder.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, that's the problem.  If the deity is correct, then the player (and the character) is wrong.  They both can't be right.  So, why would I, the player, do something that I KNOW is wrong?
> 
> And, again, this is problematic as well.  How can a spell granted by the gods be more objective than the god his/herself?  My cleric casts Detect Evil or Know Alignment and that gives a better handle on morality that a god?




Again, very setting dependant. But alignment is a tangible thing. If someone is radiating evil, the spell will detect that. My own feeling is the spell's ultimate source may even be beyond the god that grabts it (remember, in my settings i tend to have greek like gods, very prone to personal quirks,  with a vague, demiurge type force operating int he background above the gods themselves). 

But I would also say to me, this gets into "overthinking it" territory. Ultimately what matters to me is the players have control of what their characters believe. If the gods rebuke them, even if the gids are right to do so, and the players decide the god is wrong, or there is a better way, that is their decision. They may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. But i find this makes for better play, where the players feel very much inside and in control of their characters, while I am in control of the setting they inhabit. I am not worried so much about things failing under intense scrutiny after the fact (many things in a fantasy setting can easily be criticized in that way, just that we all accept the reality as it is unfolding.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, that's the problem.  If the deity is correct, then the player (and the character) is wrong.  They both can't be right.  So, why would I, the player, do something that I KNOW is wrong?





The player and the character are not the same though. The player, and the gm may well all understand at the table that the character is violating the terms of his alignment, but the player may decide the character doesn't feel that way at all. Again, characters do not have the okayers handbook. They dont know all the setting conceits that the group does. So yes, we may in fact posit a setting where the gods are infallible, alignment is objective, and the judgments of the gods are always in accord with the alignment they represent (though i dont think this is the only way to approach objective alignment). But the characters do not know that is how the world is structured. And they probably are not walking around using terms like Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil. They just know that Ogard god of liberty and compassion, delrives his holy warriors of powers when they violate any of the 22 Laws of Ogard. I think most followers of ogard who break those laws and lose their powers would believe they were wrong to do so. Bnt i have had players present very believable positions in those circumstances where their character (not the player) disputes the gods decision. Again this can be for a wide variety of reasons, everything from the character's alignment is slowly changing and he is starting to agree with the tenets of another faith, to the character doesn't fit neatly into the alignment categories, to the character believes the cosmos shouldn't be the way it is, that his circumstances are special and an exception should have been allowed, to the character is deluded, arrogant, crazy, misguided by false teachings, etc. These reasons for the charcater believing other than his god in this case, totally work for me. And they are also in keeping with a lot of the movies and books i read where you have characters who reject their fate or reject the prnouncements of the gods (I was just watching a version of Legend of Condor Heroes where Yang Kang basically is motivated by this sort of thinking). I find that interesting and fun play. 


That said, if you or Pemerton can't accept that logic, it is totally fine. I don't want to force you guys to accept what b accept in my games. Everyone has a different meter of believability for these sorts of things. All i can say is i have been gaming this way since the late 80s, with several different groups of people, most of them quite intelligent in my estimation, and this never presented a problem for anyone at the table. So for me, this works absolutely fine. If it doesn't work for others, I advise them not to avoid using this approach.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> However, the player is empowered to determine what that actually means instead of having it passed down to him from me.  So, if the player thinks that Act X is good, then it's good and we'll play from there.  It's not my job, or my wish, to police the behavior and dictate the morality of someone else's character.




We've been down this aisle before. By RAW in 1e, 2e, 3/3.5, and PF, it is the DMs job.  If you play those games and don't enforce it, then you either decided to delegate it and have players that are good enough that it works fine for them to police themselves, or you house-ruled it away.  Both of which are fine.

If I remember right, didn't someone on the anti-side even say they'd hope the players would play their character losing powers if they failed to live up to how their deity thought they should?   (Would that mean player enforced deity expectations was fine?)

Didn't (almost?) everyone on the pro-side say they'd never needed to enforce the alignment rules because their player either didn't break alignment or could enforce it themselves?  (Would that mean that player enforced deity expectations was fine?)


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Just to check - are you two saying that it is OK for a GM to strip a player's PC of paladinhood (or cleric-hood), even though the player did not have his/her PC commit an alignment violation, because the GM is RPing a fallible god?





First, i wasn't really endorsing any type of judment against characters in that poste. But i can respond to this question.

Just to be clear here, this is getting into my own way of using the game, just like scene framing reflects your own preferences, not neccesarily the default assumptions of the rule bookks. So just keep that in mind in my response, because i realize paladins and alignment do not operate this way exactly according to the rules. 

My feeling is that more important than whether a paladin's or cleric's alignent in these situations is their relationship to their god. In my settings, you dont lose you spells (or get spells you were not expecting) because you broke from the bullet list of your alignment. You don't lose your smiting ability because you violated being lawful good. You lose these things because you violated tenets of your faith (whoch probably reflect the alignment closely) or angered your god in another way. I see the gods as very big characters in the setting. This is specific to clerics and paladins because for me, it just makes moresense that their powers come from their deity in some way and the deity gramts those abilities based on the character's standing in its estimation. So a chaotic neutral deity who normally encourages followerss to spread nasty rumors about the other gods, might react with anger and strip a character of powere if that character decides to spread terrible rumors about the chaotic nuetrtal deity (nothing in chaotic nuetral prohibits this, but it is clearly blasphemous and disrepectful to the god). I also should say, i allow holy warriors/paladins if any alignment (they just each have different codes of conduct). 

All that said, i dont view this as something to spring on the players as a surprise for your own amusement. I view it as part of playing the character of the god consistently. I am not looking for opportunities to strip characters of their power. So most gods will make their will clearly known in a number of ways. But a misunderstanding between the god and character could certainly arise in the right circumstances.


----------



## Sadras

Cadence said:


> Didn't (almost?) everyone on the pro-side say they'd never needed to enforce the alignment rules because their player either didn't break alignment or could enforce it themselves?  (Would that mean that player enforced deity expectations was fine?)




Yup. On this basis one could make the case that either the pro-side is either not playing the alignment rules stringent enough or that the anti-side is incorrectly perceiving the alignment rules to be quite stringent. 

Considering the pro-side all appear to play the same way (at least in this thread - last 60 pages since I have been following), the former does not appear plausible, as surely you would require at least one within the pro-side to play alignment (as a straight-jacket) as perceived by the anti-side.  

Given the above, one would come to the logical conclusion that the anti-side is perceiving the use of mechanical alignment incorrectly.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> And on this I share Hussar's preferences. If anything, the last ten or so pages of this thread have made me see less value in alignment, because one possible use I thought that had been indicated - of having the GM stipulate and adjudicate an objective morality for the purposes of the campaign - is now being repudiated by nearly all the "pro-alignment" posters, who seem to be saying that it is OK for good gods to do evil things, and be known by a PC (and the PC's player) to do evil things, and yet the PC still loses paladinhood because the god is fallible. From my point of view, that is drifting into very strange territory.




That isnt what i am saying. A good god wont commit evil, or intentionally perform an act with evil results. But a character can still make a flawed assesment of the situation and mistake evil for good. I also added, in my own games (apart from how these things are generally done) I enjoy fallible deities, who can be incorrect in their judgment of a player character's behavior due to a personality flaw or imperfect knowledge. So i might have a god who is 95% in accord with lawful good, but has one weaknessthat doesnt fit the alignment. Or alternatively, the god may enforce additional rules that have nothing to do with alignment at all, and just reflect its personal preferences. Again though, this is just how I run some of my games, and i consider it non standard alignment use. The reason is I bekieve cosmology and setting are imprtant and will alter parts of the rulesto fit it (so i may have different ryules for elves or monks in a particular setting). Alignment is no different. I will alter how alignment works to fit the setting. But i still play in games with much more standard useage of alignment, and at various points in the discussion that is what I was defending. But I felt this other approach, where you have a blend of cosmic alignment forces and falllible gods who are the best, but not the perfect, exemplars of these forces, was relevant.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> According to your play style of course. In my play style, choosing actions that are consistent with character beliefs would never result in an alignment shift since the player believes that his actions are in keeping with his alignment, and thus would actually be in keeping with his alignment. LG, to me, does not exist outside of the character. If my LG character is pulling a 24 and torturing prisoners to save someone (or something) then I would never consider my character to be actually LG.
> 
> Then again, I wouldn't start torturing with that character since it would be out of character. It would be like Superman starting to torture people.





Now, let’s assume we are not playing a solo game, and that there are other characters in the game, some or all of whom are also (or profess to be) LG.  One of these considers it quite appropriate to “pull a 24 and torture prisoners to save someone”.  In fact, he even asserts that your character’s refusal to do so means that he cannot truly be PG, as the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number requires we gain this information quickly, which can only be done by torturing it out of this one person.  Sucks to be him, but the greatest good for the greatest number absolutely requires he do so.

You raise your Superman case, and he asserts that Supes has never been placed in a situation where there was no other way, and he would do the same thing if he were, or if he would not, that just shows he’s not REALLY LG.  Maybe he’s NG because he can’t bring himself to any compromise of Good to one individual to serve Good for the Greatest Number.  Then he yanks some DC Archives off the shelf with the Golden Age Superman threatening to drop someone from a substantial height if his questions aren’t answered (the Superman morality has changed over the years, a point also made above, although the general populace is most familiar with the Big Blue Boy Scout Silver/Bronze Age Superman).

So you, the player who can never be wrong about his character’s beliefs and how they accord with alignment, are 100% certain that torturing the prisoner is violating the LG alignment, and the other player, who also can never be wrong about his character’s beliefs and how they accord with alignment, is 100% certain that torturing the prisoner is the only choice which does not violate the LG alignment.  Where do we go from there?



pemerton said:


> Agreed. This is my puzzlement in a nutshell - if the GM-stipulated alignment is objectively how things are in the gameworld, then it makes no sense to contest that. As I mentioned upthread, it's like arguing with a tape-measure.




In that 24 example, the character (and the player) may well conclude that this Cosmic Good is all fine, and my preference would have been for there to be another way, but there was not.  I’d do it again – at least in this case, the ends justify the means.  He has decided, perhaps, that Lawful good is not, after all, the best alignment you can be because it allows compassion to interfere with the greater good.  Perhaps he has decided that, in fact, Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot about compassion, and will do what is needed to TRULY deliver the greatest god for the greatest number, where those G characters are too mired in their compassion for those who don’t deserve it to take the necessary action for those who most merit protection and respect. 

Maybe he even becomes LE, like that monk who feels some people sacrifice any right to life or dignity by their actions.  



pemerton said:


> Obviously few people think a world in which a person is killed by way of defensive violence is a better world than one in which a peaceful resolution was found. But on it's own that doesn't mean that it cannot be morally obligatory to perform an act of defensive violence, even a lethal act. (For instance, to prevent a culpable person killing an innocent person.) If the act is morally obligatory, then among other properties it probably has the property of being good in all the circumstances, in the sense of best instantiating the values that are worth pursuing.




It is a compromise of one tenet of Good (not killing or hurting others) in the course of upholding another (defense of the innocent).  Cutting that person down in the street because, maybe, he might resort to violence is a very different context from defending the innocent from his attack.



pemerton said:


> And what does the phrase "departure from the tenets of good justified by other realities" even mean? What are these "other realities"?




You provide an excellent example above. 



pemerton said:


> Obviously The only sense I can make of the phrase is that "it is an action that undermines, in one respect, a value - namely, the value of the life of the evildoer - because there is a permission, or perhaps a duty, to uphold a different value, or perhaps a different instantiation of the same value that is more worthy of being upheld - such as the life of the innocent." A person who makes the right choice about which instance of a given value to uphold, in circumstances where both instances cannot be upheld, looks like a good person to me.




Where striking a person down in the street is much more likely an evil act, the same act in the defense of an innocent person is mitigated.  Whether that moves it to Good, or only out of Evil, is questionable.  I would say that the killing has lost its Evil character, moving it to Neutral, and the defense of the innocent is a Good act, making the entirety of the act Good on balance.  Overall, the character is upholding Good and not committing Evil, so an appropriate act for a Paladin.

A better act might well be talking the attacker down, or defeating him without killing him.  Superman would certainly manage one of the two.  But then, he’s Superman.  The Paladin may not be so clearly superior to his foe as to be confidently able to achieve those results before the innocent is harmed.  Now, if the attacker is a low level shopkeeper with a dagger, and our Paladin is 15th level and can easily prevent any loss of life (and he is aware of all of these facts), then the situation changes again.

Let’s take a different tack.  The culpable attacker has also made an enemy of a black hearted villain.  As the attacker charges the innocents, that villain steps from the shadows, and cuts the attacker down.  “Let that be a lesson to all who would cross me.”  Is he now Good because he saved the innocents, or does the motive behind his act change its character?  I would lean to the latter.

To reiterate, context is important.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Sadras said:


> Yup. On this basis one could make the case that either the pro-side is either not playing the alignment rules stringent enough or that the anti-side is incorrectly perceiving the alignment rules to be quite stringent.
> 
> Considering the pro-side all appear to play the same way (at least in this thread - last 60 pages since I have been following), the former does not appear plausible, as surely you would require at least one within the pro-side to play alignment (as a straight-jacket) as perceived by the anti-side.
> 
> Given the above, one would come to the logical conclusion that the anti-side is perceiving the use of mechanical alignment incorrectly.




It is also important to keep in mind, this has been a long discussion, with all kinds of hypotheticals being raised, and people responding to each other with huge, multipost quotes. Inconsistencies, unclear statements and the like are bound to creep in when that is the case. I am not going to hold a poster to something they said in passing on page twenty, just because it seems to cohtradict something they said on page 40. People are firing off responses, and in these kinds of discussions its where each side is asking a line of questions to "clarify" the other's position, answers wont be perfect. Ultimateky people are attemtping to describe how they use or do not use alignment in play. If you keep drilling down on either side you are bound to find issues you can point to...doesn't mean that method isn't working for them in practice. That is why i keep saying this part of the debate ended several pages back. There is only so much clarity we can offer to those who feel there is an inherent contradiction in our approach. At a certain point you just have to disagree and move on.


----------



## Grydan

Sadras said:


> I believe the response to this was covered before by @_*Imaro*_ some time back, where it was mentioned (and this is definitely not as eloquently as he put it) that if players are so great and impartial - you should let them choose the monsters they wish to fight, the experience points and treasure items to be awarded (wishlists). We already let them point buy ability scores and just look at the number of 18's that characters now all possess.




... eh?

If my players are telling me what kind of monsters they want to fight, and what sort of rewards they want then my response is "Awesome!". Far better to know what they're interested in seeing than making stabs in the dark. 

And when I'm on the other side of the screen, I definitely make sure the DM knows what I'd like to see, because that means I'm more likely to enjoy the experience.

As far as 18 point ability scores and point buy go ... how dare the players want to play the characters they want to play, eh? Back in the good old days, if you wanted to be a paladin you had to wait for the rolls that LET you be one. None of this new-fangled "playing characters you enjoy playing, for the fun if it". What do these kids these days think this is, a game or something? 

Sorry, but I play the game to have fun, and as far as I can tell, so do the people I play with. As choosing to place an 18 in an ability has never, in my experience, impeded someone's ability to roleplay, or reduced anyone's enjoyment of the game, I'm a little unclear on why people choosing to do so is supposed to be somehow a bad thing. 

If you're trying to link "players, given the opportunity, will choose stats that are unlikely to be randomly generated" with "players, given the opportunity, will act in ways contrary to their character's stated beliefs" ... I find that rather a stretch.


----------



## Manbearcat

Cadence said:


> If I remember right, didn't someone on the anti-side even say they'd hope the players would play their character losing powers if they failed to live up to how their deity thought they should?   (Would that mean player enforced deity expectations was fine?)




Notable alignment implications and enforcement in my games over the years:

1)  AD&D game - Ranger, when cornered by the urban authorities, turns evil after holding hostage and subsequently murdering a powerful merchant.  This was correct GMing.  The player of the PC had long intended to switch sides and this was the catalyst.

2)  AD&D game - Paladin fell due to continuously administering his own ideas of social and criminal justice rather than observing the decrees of the land's governing authorities.  In one memorable offense, he stopped the public flogging of an infamous thief and vandal (a street urchin who would steal food, give it out to locals in need, and then scrawl large, overt messages on the granaries to shame the local lord as an immoral hoarder), informally stripped the local constable and his deputies of all of their powers, and eventually he seized lands rightly owned and gave them to the meek.  He had a "Robin Hood Complex".  We were young (early teens).  This player thought he was doing the correct thing.  He fell as a result and the player had a conniption fit.  This was correct GMing on my part.

3)  3e game with a Monk.  Again, this character was all shades of chaotic.  I advised him going in what the expectations of his alignment were.  There was no chance he was going to be able to follow the tenets of Lawful as per 3.x as they run 100 % contrary to this player's personal behavior and the few characters he played were just iterations on the same free-spirited, reckless, counterculture, legitimate authority subordinating theme.  He picked up a level of Rogue when he got locked out of Monk and died (in-game) shortly thereafter.

4)  All of the various alignment detection spells in 3.x and having to commit to inane, world populating prep and alignment hiding contingencies to functionally play at all.  The Paladin in my 3.x game (he did not fall and is one of the few players I still play with) was particularly obnoxious with At-Will Detect Evil (quite possibly my least favorite ability in the history of all games).  After dealing with the pervasiveness of 4 and its affect on play (making many tropes utterly untenable except through the use of eye-roll-inducing, ham-handed GM tactics) and (unfun) GM-workload, I will never run another game with alignment as a central factor of play.  Not ever.  I (lovingly) run 1e megadungeons and that is it.

Now, I play with a very small group of players who share my creative agenda, genre and playstyle preferences.  There is little worse than running a game for an incoherent table and/or players who have no idea what they want out of play, cannot, or will not, analyze these things to give clear voice to them, yet feel that their intellectually lazy, visceral (not cerebral) reaction should be interpreted by me (cerebrally) and given legitimate credence.  People talk about "player entitlement" around here.  That is the only "player entitlement" I've ever born witness to.  The right to have negative feelings about something, have no idea why they have them so be unable to communicate them, passive-aggressively take them out on me or the group at large, and expect (through that childish behavior) to have their unspoken, unevaluated angst be understood by others, empathized with, and given legitimacy.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> that is it.
> 
> Now, I play with a very small group of players who share my creative agenda, genre and playstyle preferences.  There is little worse than running a game for an incoherent table and/or players who have no idea what they want out of play, cannot, or will not, analyze these things to give clear voice to them, yet feel that their intellectually lazy, visceral (not cerebral) reaction should be interpreted by me (cerebrally) and given legitimate credence.  People talk about "player entitlement" around here.  That is the only "player entitlement" I've ever born witness to.  The right to have negative feelings about something, have no idea why they have them so be unable to communicate them, passive-aggressively take them out on me or the group at large, and expect (through that childish behavior) to have their unspoken, unevaluated angst be understood by others, empathized with, and given legitimacy.




While i agree with you that disruptive players are not a good thing, and childish behavior is a problem, i dont really see it stemming from failure self analyze playstyle. In fact, I find people who are not entrenched in rpg theory or filled with a point of view taken from online message boards are generally more open minded and easy to game with than those who have very strongly held opinions about the way they like to game. Even in myself, largely due to the ideas i have been exposed to through online discussino and my own self assesment, i really have to turn it off at the table....otherwise i would be the one disrupting things. In the end, i am usually a bit happier with a table where the players have a wide variety of tastes and preferences. This is obviously something of a side issue, but i am not so sure incoherence in design or at the table is a bad thing.


----------



## Sadras

Grydan said:


> If my players are telling me what kind of monsters they want to fight, and what sort of rewards they want then my response is "Awesome!". Far better to know what they're interested in seeing than making stabs in the dark.




We seem to have completely different playstyles. I guess I cannot comprehend a Caramon Majere wishing to fight Draconians, and so the DM (or authors) introduced them so he could fight them. I also missed the part where after each kill, Tasslehoff loudly recited which items, magical or otherwise he wanted to find on his dead opponent before checking the deceased's treasure pouch. What am I saying, with your playstyle preference a Tasslehoff could probably do this while pick pocketing. Go Kender!
I also do not enjoy movies where I can predict the whole movie, but I'm not saying your style is badwrongfun, just not suited for my group.



> As far as 18 point ability scores and point buy go ... how dare the players want to play the characters they want to play, eh? Back in the good old days, if you wanted to be a paladin you had to wait for the rolls that LET you be one. None of this new-fangled "playing characters you enjoy playing, for the fun if it". What do these kids these days think this is, a game or something?




I'm referring to min-maxing and the 18's reflect a predisposition by players towards gamist tendencies. And given the number of min-maxing threads I'm guessing this was a problem for many DM's (verismilitude and all)



> Sorry, but I play the game to have fun, and as far as I can tell, so do the people I play with.




Apology accepted, not that I think you needed to apologise, but it was kind of you.



> As choosing to place an 18 in an ability has never, in my experience, impeded someone's ability to roleplay, or reduced anyone's enjoyment of the game, I'm a little unclear on why people choosing to do so is supposed to be somehow a bad thing.




I did not say it is a bad thing, only that it reflects a predisposition by players for gamist tendencies which can affect in-game roleplaying. This actually has been covered a while back in this thread.



> If you're trying to link "players, given the opportunity, will choose stats that are unlikely to be randomly generated" with "players, given the opportunity, will act in ways contrary to their character's stated beliefs" ... I find that rather a stretch.




I'm reflecting a player's predisposition for gamist tendencies which could influence character's actions which might conflict with a character's beliefs. Hence I mentioned that the DM makes for a better adjudicator than the player since he does not possess these biases.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> While i agree with you that disruptive players are not a good thing, and childish behavior is a problem, i dont really see it stemming from failure self analyze playstyle.




Conversely, I probably couldn't vehemently disagree more.  I find lack of self-awareness and introspection to be the primary causal mechanism of social discord in leisure activities specifically and social activities generally.  Being considerate of others is paramount.  But being functionally considerate of, and empathizing with, others is as much a by-product of firm understanding of self, and consistent presence of mind, than it is anything else.



Bedrockgames said:


> In fact, I find people who are not entrenched in rpg theory or filled with a point of view taken from online message boards are generally more open minded and easy to game with than those who have very strongly held opinions about the way they like to game. Even in myself, largely due to the ideas i have been exposed to through online discussino and my own self assesment, i really have to turn it off at the table....otherwise i would be the one disrupting things. In the end, i am usually a bit happier with a table where the players have a wide variety of tastes and preferences. This is obviously something of a side issue, but i am not so sure incoherence in design or at the table is a bad thing.




I'm not really talking about established rpg theory here.  You don't have to know a thing about The Big Model or metagame mechanics to understand that you, Johnny and Suzy want different things out of play (eg; system complexity, serious versus silly, genre conceits, GMing techniques, player authority) and they appear to be at tension with one another.


----------



## Bedrockgames

For me people dividing into tribes and erring worked up because there is some playstle cross over at the table is a bigger source of discord than lack of awareness of one's play style.

Don't get me wrong, knowing what you like and what you don't is fine and good. I have no problem with people understanding what they like. But the kind of self-analysis you appeared to be suggesting seemed a bit overboard to me. I think it is possible to take preference and style too far. For example, I love martial arts movies, and I have discovered over the years that in particular I love wuxia films and television shows. Beyond that I have identified further sub-groupings that appeal to me more than others. Knowing that has been helpful because it enabled me to find movies, films and books I would not otherwise have encountered. But were I to go deeper, and really examine for possible reasons why I live these things, I start to just draw lines in the sand, where instead of exposing myself to new and interesting martial arts movies and books, I establish criteria for what I am willing to watch. Because you framed this as the problem being an incoherent table, I saw what you said as connecting to this, and it is growing a problem in my opinion among gamers. Knowing what you like seems to have gone from being aid to help connect you to products you might enjoy more, to limiting who you game with, reducing your exposure to different styles of play, and creating more homogenous groups. I think these are not positive developments for gaming, and I have seen over time that the lines have hardened a bit. There have always been divisions. It is just now there are more, and they are over extremely subtle things. By all means don't play stuff you hate. But for my group, I want a broad range of people, and am not looking for folks who have really drilled down and examined their preferences beyond some basic things. Anything more detailed and subtle like what we are discussing here, I expect people to not turn into an issue at the table (i.e. if you like sandbox and world exploration as I do, don't piss all over a GM or player who happens to approach the game from more of a story approach). 

So while I have my preferences, which I am sure you and the other regular posters here have a handle on, I can also sit down to a game of Gumshoe or Dungeonworld if someone in my group really wants to play those. And I can make my setting exploration campaign a little more dramatic if a couple of players in my group seem to like that stuff. My expectation though is you aim for the average of the group. So if I have three pemertons, and one Nraac, I am probably going to take a much more relaxed and subjective approach to alignment. But if it is three Nraacs and one pemerton, we are going go with the more standard approach. For most people I game with, this sort of thing isn't an issue. The tables in my area have always been a blend of people and styles, so folks are used to that.  

So yes, knowing what you like, what other people like, can be useful. I just see it becoming as much of an obstacle to fun when it goes too far (and online, a lot of what I encounter on all sides of the gaming spectrum goes too far).


----------



## Grydan

Sadras said:


> We seem to have completely different playstyles.




Perhaps, though given some of what you say in the rest of the post, there also seems to be a degree of misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Perhaps you're perceiving greater differences than actually exist. Or perhaps not. 



> I guess I cannot comprehend a Caramon Majere wishing to fight Draconians, and so the DM (or authors) introduced them so he could fight them.




You're conflating character desires with player desires. The two need not be (and often aren't) synonymous. 

I might choose to play a character who is absolutely terrified of snakes.  If you ask the character, then he'd gladly tell you he'd rather fight anything than have to face snakes ... but I think it's rather clear even without stating it that there's not much point in telling anyone my character is afraid of snakes if I, as a player, don't want that to become relevant by having my character repeatedly placed in situations where he has to deal with snakes.

If, on the other hand, I genuinely don't want to deal with snakes, for whatever reason, it's far more effective to explain to the DM that I'd prefer it that we never encounter them than to make that desire part of any character I play. 



> I also missed the part where after each kill, Tasslehoff loudly recited which items, magical or otherwise he wanted to find on his dead opponent before checking the deceased's treasure pouch. What am I saying, with your playstyle preference a Tasslehoff could probably do this while pick pocketing.




Again, conflating players with characters. A player providing a wishlist of items to the DM gives the DM a resource to ensure that they can place desirable treasure in an adventure. If I want my players to be motivated to have their characters seek out treasure, rather than have treasure be something that they take when they find it but don't actively seek, then is it not useful to know which things (or types of things) they find interesting?

Just because the player wants a particular item, and has reason to believe that you will make it available at some point, does not mean the character they are playing even knows such an item exists, or what it does.

Characters might have wishlists too. Those may or may not coincide with their player's wishlists. A character stating, in game, what they'd like to find is not the same thing as a player having let the DM know.





> Go Kender!
> I also do not enjoy movies where I can predict the whole movie, but I'm not saying your style is badwrongfun, just not suited for my group.




Knowing what (some) of the enemies they're going to face are doesn't tell them what numbers of them they're facing, when they're facing them, where they're facing them, what those enemies will be trying to achieve ... 

Knowing that (some of) the treasure you'll find will be things you wanted doesn't tell you what you'll have to do to find it, where it is, what costs you'll have to pay, or whether you might not find you like something else you find more.

It's less "I can predict the whole movie", more "I've seen a trailer".

I doubt many people went to see 12 Years a Slave under the impression that it would feature an archaeologist fighting Nazis, for instance.

And while you're not saying my playstyle is badwrongfun, you do seem to be going out of your way to mischaracterize it and present it as ridiculous.




> I'm referring to min-maxing and the 18's reflect a predisposition by players towards gamist tendencies. And given the number of min-maxing threads I'm guessing this was a problem for many DM's (verismilitude and all)
> 
> 
> Apology accepted, not that I think you needed to apologise, but it was kind of you.
> 
> 
> I did not say it is a bad thing, only that it reflects a predisposition by players for gamist tendencies which can affect in-game roleplaying. This actually has been covered a while back in this thread.
> 
> 
> I'm reflecting a player's predisposition for gamist tendencies which could influence character's actions which might conflict with a character's beliefs.




Someone who is good at playing a role will be good at playing a role regardless of their stats. Someone who is bad at playing a role will be bad at playing a role regardless of their stats.

I see no reason to assume a correlation between desire for mechanical effectiveness and an inability to play in a manner consistent with a character's beliefs. 
It's particularly absurd if one then takes the inverse to be true, that players who intentionally pursue mechanical ineffectiveness are likelier to play in a manner consistent with their character's beliefs.

Are there players who only care about mechanical effectiveness? Sure. But unless the system actively provides mechanical rewards for playing in a manner inconsistent with a character's beliefs, I'm unclear on why we'd expect them to do so.

And frankly, on either side of the DM screen, the DM's sense of verisimilitude is rather low on my list of concerns (so that's probably a genuine playstyle difference).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I'm not really talking about established rpg theory here.  You don't have to know a thing about The Big Model or metagame mechanics to understand that you, Johnny and Suzy want different things out of play (eg; system complexity, serious versus silly, genre conceits, GMing techniques, player authority) and they appear to be at tension with one another.




Sure. That can happen. But as long as Johnny and Suzy are both in the group you need to find a way to keep them both at the table. Sometimes I feel like the kinds of categories that emerge online (through the big model, but also from people like me on the immersionist side of things) serve as an impediment to bringing these folks together, because the lines become like political party lines, where people refuse to cross over out of principle. In my experience, it is the people who have greater exposure to these gaming theory/forum ideas, that tend to present the bigger issue at the table. I don't know if it is too much self analysis, or self analysis that is just misleading, but I do see it in practice, and have even found for myself, I need to turn off that part of my brain. Self awareness is a good thing. Good can become bad though. I mean, education is also a good thing, I value higher learning, but there is such a thing as carrying it around with you too much. It is one thing to learn about history, philosophy and science to enrich your understanding of the world, but it is annoying if you allow that understanding to bog down your enjoyment of a movie or book. After my history degree, I was miserable to watch period films with (and I didn't allow myself to enjoy them for what they were). Wasn't until I turned that off, that I could watch things like Gladiator again and have fun doing so. I sense some of this occurring among gamers (even myself----had to step away from the forums and the rpg blogs for a bit, and remove a bit of the lens I had developed over time).


----------



## N'raac

Grydan said:


> As far as 18 point ability scores and point buy go ... how dare the players want to play the characters they want to play, eh? Back in the good old days, if you wanted to be a paladin you had to wait for the rolls that LET you be one. None of this new-fangled "playing characters you enjoy playing, for the fun if it". What do these kids these days think this is, a game or something?




Why do we need point buy at all?  Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character?  It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.

While we're at it, let them decide when the characters level up.  After all, the players will clearly have a better vision of when their characters have learned enough to advance than I can, with my limited grasp of their characters.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> This is an example of what I find confusing. Given that "best" means "most good", it seems somewhat contradictory to deny that the best is at least good.




It seems obvious to me.  Best means "most appropriate or most wanted".  Good is often synonym, but not is this case.  Good in this case means "reflecting the precepts and attitudes of the alignment axis identified by the name Good".

Let me try a couple of examples.

When faced with a situation where seeming obvious ramifications will cause untold future woe the paladin may choose to commit an evil act  (as in an act that reflects the precepts of the alignment axis identified by the name "Evil") in the present to prevent it and fall from grace as a result

When faced defending something precious to the PC (comrade, intimate, relic, honour, or anything else the PC holds dear), the PC needs to stay outside the precepts of the evil alignment for his actions or risk falling.

A paladin actions need not always be good; but they cannot be evil (and certainly a sufficient number of the actions should be good or lawful for the alignment to remain stable).  Effectively, the ends never justify the means since each act is judged individually.


----------



## Cadence

N'raac said:


> Why do we need point buy at all?  Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character?  It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.




Worked well in the 1e game we played last year -- although I angsted too much about what was reasonable and about what the 3-18 meant in the game world.  And that was how we always did it in VtM (although in that one the GM would be harsher about other things if you were too greedy).

From other threads that mention exceptional strength, it also seems to be the way that all fighters were made back in 1e/2e


----------



## Grydan

N'raac said:


> Why do we need point buy at all?  Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character?  It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.
> 
> While we're at it, let them decide when the characters level up.  After all, the players will clearly have a better vision of when their characters have learned enough to advance than I can, with my limited grasp of their characters.




I haven't used either of these approaches myself, but I have no objection to either of them.

What exactly am I supposed to be afraid is going to happen if I grant the players these freedoms? Characters with ability scores over 9000? Levelling once per turn?

If players think that being able to kill the Tarrasque with a single punch will make for a fun game, then let's try it and see. I expect that, much like playing a video game in God-mode, the amusement factor will have a rather brief half-life.

If the players would rather spend our limited play time picking out new character options and filling out character sheets than actually playing their characters, I'd be pretty surprised, but if that's what they find fun I'm not going to hold them back.


----------



## N'raac

Cadence said:


> Worked well in the 1e game we played last year -- although I angsted too much about what was reasonable and about what the 3-18 meant in the game world.




Getting bonuses in 1e/2e needed much higher scores.  17 STR for +1 to hit & damage is a 12 STR in 3e.  Other stats were a bit less over the top, but 16 DEX for a +2 and 15 for a +1 is a lot harder than 14 and 12, respectively.  I wonder how someone with all 17 s and 18s would have been greeted.  [Mind you, I rolled 18/18/18/17/17/16 once on 4d6, drop the lowest - random chance is, well, kinda random]



Cadence said:


> And that was how we always did it in VtM (although in that one the GM would be harsher about other things if you were too greedy).




So he saw a need to police it...



Cadence said:


> From other threads that mention exceptional strength, it also seems to be the way that all fighters were made back in 1e/2e




An outgrowth, I think, of the bonus structure, but I certainly saw a lot of 18 STR warriors and less than half with 01-50 on percentiles, I think.  We did have a player roll 18/00 STR once, though (and had the 17 CHA to be a Paladin).


----------



## Cadence

As an aside, another depressing alignment thread over on Paizo -- http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qs6i?Alignment-XY-chart .   If the player really thinks that's anywhere close to L or G I don't think I want them loose in society.

---

In the 1e game... 







N'raac said:


> I wonder how someone with all 17 s and 18s would have been greeted.



 Pretty responsible group, I think there was only one 18 in the party (someone with good enough stats to make a ranger).  Mine were 16/14/13/13/12/11 (not in that order) for a Half-elf Fighter/Thief. 

In the VtM game... 







N'raac said:


> So he saw a need to police it...



 He told us up front he'd take into account how our characters were stat-ed up as humans to decide who sired us and all, in order to make sure it was vaguely balanced.   

Talking about rolling in the old days... 







> An outgrowth, I think, of the bonus structure, but I certainly saw a lot of 18 STR warriors and less than half with 01-50 on percentiles, I think. We did have a player roll 18/00 STR once, though (and had the 17 CHA to be a Paladin).



 It's amazing how we never complained at the time.  But after a few games with a point system that lets me build a character I want to play for a particular game, I'm not anxious to go back.   I also like that the numbers actually differentiate the characters in play (although 3/3.5/PF sometimes seems like too much differentiation).

Traveler was always a hoot to make a character in.

---

 @_*pemerton*_ - Thank you for post #1164.  I appreciate the leads for things to read up on more and mull over.  (Couldn't XP -- although I sometimes wonder if the system is still counting them for the receivers after it informs them - does anyone still level?)


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> Now, let’s assume we are not playing a solo game, and that there are other characters in the game, some or all of whom are also (or profess to be) LG.  One of these considers it quite appropriate to “pull a 24 and torture prisoners to save someone”.  In fact, he even asserts that your character’s refusal to do so means that he cannot truly be PG, as the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number requires we gain this information quickly, which can only be done by torturing it out of this one person.  Sucks to be him, but the greatest good for the greatest number absolutely requires he do so.




As a DM?  Fantastic.  I have no need to get involved. That's the point of exploring morality in game. There's no big daddy DM handing down judgements from on high. 

And since you folks keep telling me that multiple behaviours are covered by the same alignment, wouldn't you come to the same conclusion?


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> Why do we need point buy at all?  Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character?  It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.
> 
> While we're at it, let them decide when the characters level up.  After all, the players will clearly have a better vision of when their characters have learned enough to advance than I can, with my limited grasp of their characters.




At the end of the day, why not?  How is the game worse for allowing players to decide all those things?

Unless you discount all the RPGs out there that actually do allow all these things and more as "not real RPGs" .


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The player and the character are not the same though.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the characters do not know that is how the world is structured. And they probably are not walking around using terms like Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil. They just know that Ogard god of liberty and compassion, delrives his holy warriors of powers when they violate any of the 22 Laws of Ogard.



I don't think this is orthodox - certainly not in classic D&D, where not only are alignments real ingame but they have associated languages.

In Planescape, there are planes whose essence is a particular alignment - I think the Great Wheel brings with it alignment as an ingame phenomenon.

And in your mooted set up, what to the gameworld inhabitants call Detect Evil, Holy Word etc? It can't be "Detect Beloved of Ogard", because there will be some Good characters who (presumably) don't worship Ogard.

Frankly, this seems to be replacing alignment with an allegiance mechanic of some sort (but keeping alignment-based spells?).



Bedrockgames said:


> i realize paladins and alignment do not operate this way exactly according to the rules.
> 
> My feeling is that more important than whether a paladin's or cleric's alignment in these situations is their relationship to their god.



This reinforces the impression that you are not using mechanical alignment in the traditional sense.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> I believe the response to this was covered before by Imaro some time back, where it was mentioned (and this is definitely not as eloquently as he put it) that if players are so great and impartial - you should let them choose the monsters they wish to fight, the experience points and treasure items to be awarded (wishlists).



I answered this upthread.

The whole point only makes sense if there is a conflict of interest. When it comes to treasure, what is the conflict of interest? Hence I use wishlists in my 4e game. When it comes to wanting to fight Orcus rather than Dispater, what is the conflict of interest? Hence in my 4e game the PCs encounter, as enemies, NPCs and monsters of the sorts that their players have indicated they want to encounter in the game. When it comes to adherence to a code or realisation of an ideal, what is the conflict of interest?

I've posted and linked to this example before, but no one has taken up the question: this is a case in which a player, playing his PC, elected to be bound by his code of honour, and hence to keep a promise, that he had never made but that had been made in his name, even though the upshot was that a villain lived whom he believed deserved to die. What is the conflict of interest?

Answer: there isn't one! The only reason that it matters that the villain die is because this is what the player, inhabiting his PC within the fiction, thinks should happen. The only reason that it matters that the promise be kept is because this is what the player, inhabiting his PC in the fiction, thinks should happen. If, within the fiction ,the player can't see a way to satisfy both these desires for what happens, why should the GM rather than the player choose which way to go?

Or, if the player takes a different interpretation and decides that there is a way that both desires _can_ be satisfied, and so decides that breaking the promise is consistent with the PC's code, what is the problem? The player still exercised ingenuity and engaged with the game.



Grydan said:


> Knowing what (some) of the enemies they're going to face are doesn't tell them what numbers of them they're facing, when they're facing them, where they're facing them, what those enemies will be trying to achieve



Right. A player deciding who his/her PC's enemies will be is good. Deciding the disposition of the enemy forces is clearly a different matter - that obviously does give rise to a conflict of interest. And choosing the enemy's motivations in any given encounter removes the possibility of surprise, which is not necessarily a conflict of interest but can make for anti-climactic play (hence the logic of the GM exercising a hefty degree of backstory authority).

But it seems to me (and unless I'm badly mistaken you agree) that a player deciding what counts as answering to his/her PC's ideals does not raise the same issues.



Sadras said:


> I'm reflecting a player's predisposition for gamist tendencies which could influence character's actions which might conflict with a character's beliefs.



I discussed this example about 1000 posts upthread (ie right near the start). If you are playing Gygaxian D&D, in which the goal of play is to loot (and perhaps to kill from time-to-time as a means of looting), then a class like the paladin makes sense as a "gamist" construct: you become mechanically more effective, but the trade off is that your range of permitted strategies and tactics is narrowed. (No ambushes, no poison etc.)

But this is irrelevant when - like me - one is not playing a Gygaxian game. In the example I have just linked to, the player of the dwarf does not get any mechanical benefits, or power-ups, by keeping his promise, nor by breaking it. There is no conflict of interest because there is nothing to be gained by lying about, or distorting, what counts as consistency with the code.



Grydan said:


> Are there players who only care about mechanical effectiveness? Sure. But unless the system actively provides mechanical rewards for playing in a manner inconsistent with a character's beliefs, I'm unclear on why we'd expect them to do so.



Exactly. Gygaxian D&D _does_ provide rewards for playing inconsistently with a paladin's beliefs - hence the view I have expressed throughout the thread that if you are playing Gygaxian D&D alignment clearly can improve the gaming experience.

But as soon as you stop playing Gygax-style, there ceases to be any such advantage. Hence no reason to think a player will depart from his/her character's professed ideals except as a deliberate choice. Hence no conflict of interest in having the player be the chief arbiter here.



Sadras said:


> I guess I cannot comprehend a Caramon Majere wishing to fight Draconians, and so the DM (or authors) introduced them so he could fight them. I also missed the part where after each kill, Tasslehoff loudly recited which items, magical or otherwise he wanted to find on his dead opponent before checking the deceased's treasure pouch.





Grydan said:


> You're conflating character desires with player desires. The two need not be (and often aren't) synonymous.
> 
> <snip>'
> 
> A player providing a wishlist of items to the DM gives the DM a resource to ensure that they can place desirable treasure in an adventure. If I want my players to be motivated to have their characters seek out treasure, rather than have treasure be something that they take when they find it but don't actively seek, then is it not useful to know which things (or types of things) they find interesting?



Grydan, I'm 100% agreed. This repeated conflation of players with characters is very frustrating.   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I just posted corrections on this very point about a dozen or so posts upthread.



Grydan said:


> I might choose to play a character who is absolutely terrified of snakes.  If you ask the character, then he'd gladly tell you he'd rather fight anything than have to face snakes ... but I think it's rather clear even without stating it that there's not much point in telling anyone my character is afraid of snakes if I, as a player, don't want that to become relevant by having my character repeatedly placed in situations where he has to deal with snakes.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I genuinely don't want to deal with snakes, for whatever reason, it's far more effective to explain to the DM that I'd prefer it that we never encounter them than to make that desire part of any character I play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Characters might have wishlists too. Those may or may not coincide with their player's wishlists. A character stating, in game, what they'd like to find is not the same thing as a player having let the DM know.



All very good points.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Now, let’s assume we are not playing a solo game, and that there are other characters in the game, some or all of whom are also (or profess to be) LG.  One of these considers it quite appropriate to “pull a 24 and torture prisoners to save someone”.  In fact, he even asserts that your character’s refusal to do so means that he cannot truly be PG, as the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number requires we gain this information quickly, which can only be done by torturing it out of this one person.  Sucks to be him, but the greatest good for the greatest number absolutely requires he do so.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So you, the player who can never be wrong about his character’s beliefs and how they accord with alignment, are 100% certain that torturing the prisoner is violating the LG alignment, and the other player, who also can never be wrong about his character’s beliefs and how they accord with alignment, is 100% certain that torturing the prisoner is the only choice which does not violate the LG alignment.  Where do we go from there?



We play the game, don't we? At least that's what my group does.

Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?



Hussar said:


> As a DM?  Fantastic.  I have no need to get involved. That's the point of exploring morality in game.



Exactly!



Hussar said:


> And since you folks keep telling me that multiple behaviours are covered by the same alignment, wouldn't you come to the same conclusion?



This is why, upthread, I suggested that these "shades of grey" and "great swathes of neutrality" ideas are the functional equivalent of dispensing with mechanical alignment.



Sadras said:


> if the action was so great, that it would be evil and of a degree where it would "insert punishment here" and perhaps even require an alignment change well then I doubt you would have a disagreement at the table.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> its the little continuous infractions that would have the DM address with the player that his character is slowly sliding down the alignment ladder.



On the first point - why do you think this? In the quote higher up in this post, [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] posits the opposite. And two posters have just recently posted some quite contentious examples in the thread, that I'll respond to in a moment.

On the second, if N'raac as GM believes that killing in defence of others is never good, then a paladin who keeps doing that will probably drift away from LG towards LN. If the GM "addresses" this with the player, that strikes me as pretty close to the GM telling the player how to play a paladin. The player has two choices: stop playing a paladin; or play a paladin in the way the GM thinks is fitting. To me, this is no different from the GM telling the player of the thief that his/her PC is not sneaky enough, and so is going to have to forcibly change class to a fighter (but one who forevermore can use only leather armour).



Nagol said:


> When faced with a situation where seeming obvious ramifications will cause untold future woe the paladin may choose to commit an evil act  (as in an act that reflects the precepts of the alignment axis identified by the name "Evil") in the present to prevent it and fall from grace as a result





N'raac said:


> In that 24 example, the character (and the player) may well conclude that this Cosmic Good is all fine, and my preference would have been for there to be another way, but there was not.  I’d do it again – at least in this case, the ends justify the means.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> those G characters are too mired in their compassion for those who don’t deserve it to take the necessary action for those who most merit protection and respect.



These examples are contentious. They presuppose, for instance, that utilitarianism is inconsistent with good - despite the 3E SRD defining "good" by reference to "altruism", and utilitarianism being the major moral theory most often defended by its adherents as genuinely altruistic. (Most objections to utilitarianism in the contemporary literature begin from a premise that each individual enjoys a permissible sphere of self-regard.)

Now, in my view at least, a paladin cannot be a utilitarian and be remotely consistent with the archetype. A paladin believes in providence; utilitarianism is about as anti-providential as a moral outlook can get. (At least in its formal structure; its adherents are often prone to Whiggish optimism.) So a paladin who chooses (say) to kill an innocent in order to stave of catastrophe has already committed the greatest error possible - s/he has doubted that providence will deliver, and in a failure of humility has assumed that it is him/her rather than the deity who has to weigh and measure all the consequences of everyone's actions. But the central evil here, at least from the point of view of character drama, is not the killing of the innocent but the betrayal of faith and the error of pride.

That's my take on things, at least. But let's put that to one side, and suppose that, for whatever reason - perhaps the gameworld is REH-style and providence isn't part of it - the paladin character really is correct to believe that but for his/her "evil" act then catastrophe will ensue. Then why should she fall? Why are we fetishising a list of taboo actions, which apparently have no grounding in actual value or right conduct (because, in _this_ case, upholding value and principles of right conduct _requires_ doing the "evil" thing)? And why would those "compassionate" people who are too sentimental to actually do what is required (perhaps they're also to squeamish to amputate a gangrenous limb!) be regarded as "good"? Self-indulgent sentimentality is itself a vice.

To elaborate on my reply to [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] above, about fatuous ideals, this sort of pointless fetishisation would be an example of such fatuousness.

And for an example of this scenario actually playing out within the D&D canon, I point to Sturm Brightblade in the Dragonlance Chronicles, who realised that the Knights of Solamnia's fetishisation of their rules was actually _preventing_ them from doing good. Those books, at least, took this as evidence that Sturm was a _better_ knight, not a fallen one.



N'raac said:


> It is a compromise of one tenet of Good (not killing or hurting others) in the course of upholding another (defense of the innocent).  Cutting that person down in the street because, maybe, he might resort to violence is a very different context from defending the innocent from his attack.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where striking a person down in the street is much more likely an evil act, the same act in the defense of an innocent person is mitigated.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A better act might well be talking the attacker down, or defeating him without killing him.



I don't understand the point about preventative violence. Very few theorists of self-defence think that the principles of defensive violence licence the sort of preventative violence you describe. There is an epistemic difference - in the case of an actual attack, the threat to the innocent is immediate and manifest, whereas who knows whether the "blackhearted" person might ever actually lash out. There is also a metaphysical difference - in the case of the actual attack, the threat is actual. In the case of the "blackhearted" person, the person might always reform, and curb his/her "evil" tendencies. (For a paladin, this "providential" dimension of the situation might be particularly important.)

(And lest I be accused of introducing philosophical analysis where it's not warranted, the above principles are pretty fundamental to the law of self-defence, and of attempts, in at least most common law jurisdictions, and I suspect civil law ones also.)

The suggestion of "mitigation" is quite contentious. The normal legal treatment of self-defence is not that it is an excuse (say, like duress) but that it is a justification. (Ie there is no wrongdoing that would require excusing.) That's also the most common moral analysis.

And finally, as I stated in the post to which you replied, of course it would be better if the innocent could be saved with no need to kill the attacker. But that we can imagine a better outcome does not mean that the actual outcome, and the action that leads to it, is not good. Hence the category of the superogatory. More banally, from the fact that a person might give his or her whole fortune to a beggar, it doesn't follow that giving a single gold piece is therefore not good but only neutral.



N'raac said:


> Let’s take a different tack.  The culpable attacker has also made an enemy of a black hearted villain.  As the attacker charges the innocents, that villain steps from the shadows, and cuts the attacker down.  “Let that be a lesson to all who would cross me.”  Is he now Good because he saved the innocents, or does the motive behind his act change its character?



Suppose that motive changes the morality of the action - how would that show that when the _paladin_ engages in defensive violence out of an _admirable_ motive that s/he is not performing a good act?

And to actually answer your question:

[sblock]We suggest that an individual A finds himself in affray with B if and only if:

a.	A is endangered by his physical proximity to violence perpetrated by B;
b.	B’s threat to A is not licensed by A’s culpability;
c.	B is not culpable for the danger posed to A; and
d. 	A is reasonably perceived to be a threat by B…​
In effect, being stuck in a fight endangers A, which gives him the right to defend himself. But, if he manifests the possibility that he will exercise that right, he becomes a danger to everyone else, which gives them the right to use force against A also. That is the nature of affray, and is summarized in the following principle:

_Affray–privilege principle_: Where two parties A and B are in affray with respect to one another, then each of A and B acquire symmetrical privileges to commit harm to each other, subject to requirements that the harm be necessary and proportionate…​
Consider the following … :

WRONGFUL ATTACK: Wrongdoer (W) culpably attacks Victim (V). Consequently, W forfeits his rights not to be harmed. V proceeds to fight back. Inadvertently, bystander Smith becomes involved in the conflict. That is, Smith is endangered by his proximity to the conflict between W and V.​
In this situation there are a number of courses of action open to Smith. As we noted above … a bystander such as Smith could attempt to make it clear that he is no threat to anyone. If Smith succeeds in this regard, then although he presumably enjoys the privilege to use force against both W and V to protect himself, he does not enter into affray with either, because he does not satisfy condition (d).

A second alternative is that Smith responds to the danger merely by threatening the culpable party, W. In this scenario, with respect to V, Smith does not satisfy criterion (d), and is not in affray. Nor are Smith and W in affray, because criterion (c) is not satisfied. So the conflict simply becomes an extension of a traditional self-defense case, where Smith and V are together fighting off the unjust attacker W, and W fails to obtain any privilege to commit violence against either.

A third alternative is that Smith responds in a way that threatens V. This could happen because he aligns himself with W or because he responds in a relatively indiscriminate fashion, using force, or threatening to do so, against both W and V. Whatever the case, we assume that Smith is not culpable for threatening V. Smith is excused of culpability, either in light of duress or ignorance. Consequently, Smith becomes a nonculpable threat to V, much as V is a nonculpable threat to Smith. A situation of mutual endangerment has arisen, and Smith and V are in affray with respect to each other.

Not only does this give rise to privileges to commit violence on the part of both V and Smith, we believe it also gives rise to privileges to commit violence on the part of W. This is because, in addition to privileges to inflict harm that arise from the opportunity to defend oneself, there are also privileges to inflict harm arising from the opportunity to defend others. For instance, suppose that W can see that V and Smith will kill each other unless W intervenes to shoot Smith first. If W were struck by a pang of remorse and wished to minimize the harm that he will cause, may he shoot Smith? We suggest he may. 

We are not suggesting that the criminal law does or should permit such behavior; but we are suggesting that, in the absence of a suitable institutional framework to limit the use of violence (in a Lockean state of nature, for instance), this last act would be permissible. After all, the wrongdoer’s deed does have the effect of saving an innocent party from death.

We suggest the following principle as a rough attempt to identify the privilege to defend others in these sorts of circumstance:

P.	Anyone who is witness to one party A threatening another party B, provided B is not herself culpably threatening A, acquires a privilege to use harm against A to defend B, subject to certain proportionality and necessity constraints.​
A potentially alarming feature of this principle, however, is that it appears to entail that the wrongdoer W may kill V, against whom he initiated the original unjust threat! We stand by this feature, despite its counterintuitive nature. We do, however, wish to stress the distinction between the permissibility of killing, as opposed to blameworthiness for the eventual harm that comes about. W is to a large degree culpable and blameworthy for the deaths of either V or of Smith, if either should happen to die, even if it is at the hands of each other, rather than by the deed of the wrongdoer. But because of the circumstance of affray that has arisen between Smith and V, the wrongdoer W – in virtue of P – obtains privileges to kill either party, subject to suitable proportionality and necessity constraints. And it is this fact about the rights that is of most relevance when determining permissibility…

Someone who rejects P might maintain that the stain of the wrongdoer’s initial culpability remains with him, even if he later has the opportunity to minimize harm by inflicting harm on some of the parties to an affray. Such a person would presumably put forward a revised version of P that licenses intervention only to parties that are not culpable for the existence of the conflict; or would license intervention only with certain intentions. Suppose that, in consequence of some such revision, it remains impermissible for the wrongdoer to kill a party against whom he culpably initiated an unjust threat. Pushed to more extreme cases, this seems absurd. Suppose the conflict between W, V, and Smith develops into a much larger battle, involving many more parties. If W has the opportunity to prevent a massacre of dozens by killing V, whom he originally intended to murder, then this is surely permissible. P supports this claim, and we ask those who would deny it to supply a more plausible alternative.

A second possibility is that we might think using violence in defense of others, in the absence of a motive of self-defense, places one under greater restriction to use force only against those who are culpable for the threat they pose. According to this view, P would have to be revised to only apply when witnessing one party culpably threatening another, rather than to the broader category of nonrighteous threats that we have favored. Again, this will lead to the absurd outcome that outside parties will be unable to intervene to prevent a massacre between nonculpable parties to a conflict.

It is plausible, however, to suppose that a principle like P is subject to more stringent proportionality constraints than a principle of self-defense. If someone attempts to cut off your arm, one presumably obtains the privilege to inflict lethal harm in self-defense, if that is necessary to prevent the attack. But if Smith is only endangering V’s arm, and not V’s life, then it seems improper for W to kill Smith in order to protect V, even if that is necessary to prevent the attack.[/sblock]


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Thank you for post #1164.  I appreciate the leads for things to read up on more and mull over.



You're very welcome.



Cadence said:


> another depressing alignment thread over on Paizo -- http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qs6i?Alignment-XY-chart.



Depressing because the paladin-sorcerer cast "unnatural lust"?

To me that suggests either a fairly juvenile game - in which case, why are we worrying about alignment again? - or else that there is more going on than the OP in that thread has explained.

Let's suppose it _is_ a juvenile game. If enforcing alignment is meant to make the player of that character be less juvenile, why not just have the GM veto the player's declared actions on "too juvenile" grounds? Cut out the middleman, I say!

Or if the issue isn't the juvenile play per se, but that (for whatever reason) we can't handle a juvenile _paladin_, then just tell the player that s/he can't play a paladin. Again, why go via a rather cumbersome middleman?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is orthodox - certainly not in classic D&D, where not only are alignments real ingame but they have associated languages.
> 
> In Planescape, there are planes whose essence is a particular alignment - I think the Great Wheel brings with it alignment as an ingame phenomenon.
> 
> And in your mooted set up, what to the gameworld inhabitants call Detect Evil, Holy Word etc? It can't be "Detect Beloved of Ogard", because there will be some Good characters who (presumably) don't worship Ogard.
> 
> Frankly, this seems to be replacing alignment with an allegiance mechanic of some sort (but keeping alignment-based spells?).
> 
> This reinforces the impression that you are not using mechanical alignment in the traditional sense.




I was just trying to answer your question, certainly not interested in debating this any further. All i was trying to say is the way i often run games is to have some things fall more under the purview of gods, but leave other things to the broader control of alignment forces. Specifically i tend to see paladins and clerics as operating under a pact, code or covenant related to their deity. But this is just one way I play. At this point i think we are in such a different page, in terms of how we approach the game, playstyle, and how we even think about these things, that it is just going to be an endless back and forth. I was simply trying to answer a specific question of yours. Hopefully it gave you some clarity. 

But i want to clarify, In my settings a spell like detect evil, would have all kinds of names, and would function as described in the book (except perhaps in ravenloft). I just see the spell names as mechanical terms for players and gms, not the every day language people in the setting use (same with alignment). As for alignment languages, i never really embraced them.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> As a DM? Fantastic. I have no need to get involved. That's the point of exploring morality in game. There's no big daddy DM handing down judgements from on high.




Nice sidestep. Your example was you playing a Paladin, so you were not the GM.  If the other Paladin keeps his powers, then yours must be wrong about torture being evil. If yours keeps his powers, then he is wrong about your actions being evil

If you are both right, then the gods just provide powers to anyone who knows the right gestures, incantations and rituals and divine casters are just wizards/sorcerers by another name. This, to me, makes Paladins akin to Warlocks as well – both have powers granted from other beings and, once granted, they can never be lost.



pemerton said:


> On the second, if N'raac as GM believes that killing in defence of others is never good, then a paladin who keeps doing that will probably drift away from LG towards LN. If the GM "addresses" this with the player, that strikes me as pretty close to the GM telling the player how to play a paladin. The player has two choices: stop playing a paladin; or play a paladin in the way the GM thinks is fitting. To me, this is no different from the GM telling the player of the thief that his/her PC is not sneaky enough, and so is going to have to forcibly change class to a fighter (but one who forevermore can use only leather armour).




You are conflating player with game role. I no more have to bring my personal morality to the table as GM than I as a player must share my character’s belief system.  If I plan on defining “killing in defense” as wrong, that is a huge change in the underlying assumptions of the game, so this should clearly be stated explicitly to the players as a setting conceit well before we start the game. The Zeitgeist setting places characters in the role of special investigators in a quasi-police force, and suggests mitigation or elimination of penalties for striking non-lethally to encourage that approach. While defensive violence is not an issue for alignment in that case, it is more discouraged by the setting than is typically the case, so that is communicated up front.  [IIRC, it’s an option, not a setting requirement, but the up front communication is the key.]



pemerton said:


> Now, in my view at least, a paladin cannot be a utilitarian and be remotely consistent with the archetype. A paladin believes in providence; utilitarianism is about as anti-providential as a moral outlook can get. (At least in its formal structure; its adherents are often prone to Whiggish optimism.) So a paladin who chooses (say) to kill an innocent in order to stave of catastrophe has already committed the greatest error possible - s/he has doubted that providence will deliver, and in a failure of humility has assumed that it is him/her rather than the deity who has to weigh and measure all the consequences of everyone's actions. But the central evil here, at least from the point of view of character drama, is not the killing of the innocent but the betrayal of faith and the error of pride.
> 
> That's my take on things, at least. But let's put that to one side, and suppose that, for whatever reason - perhaps the gameworld is REH-style and providence isn't part of it - the paladin character really is correct to believe that but for his/her "evil" act then catastrophe will ensue. Then why should she fall? Why are we fetishising a list of taboo actions, which apparently have no grounding in actual value or right conduct (because, in _this_ case, upholding value and principles of right conduct _requires_ doing the "evil" thing)? And why would those "compassionate" people who are too sentimental to actually do what is required (perhaps they're also to squeamish to amputate a gangrenous limb!) be regarded as "good"? Self-indulgent sentimentality is itself a vice.




Once again ignoring the real world ethical philosophy issues, at least to the extent possible, did we set out to play a game where providence is real, or an REH model sword & sorcery world? Which choice would be made in the realm of alignments would depend on the desired tone of the game. Similarly, my “Saturday Morning Cartoon” morality game would be much less accepting of defensive violence than a typical D&D game (or action movie).  The alignment rules as written, and taken in context, presuppose a certain tone.



pemerton said:


> And for an example of this scenario actually playing out within the D&D canon, I point to Sturm Brightblade in the Dragonlance Chronicles, who realised that the Knights of Solamnia's fetishisation of their rules was actually _preventing_ them from doing good. Those books, at least, took this as evidence that Sturm was a _better_ knight, not a fallen one.




Better Knight, or better Paladin? The two need not be the same.

Again, not interested in modern ethical philosophy.  The group should come to a decision on what level of violence in defense of self and others is acceptable at this table, in this game world, without needing a degree in philosophy to play (unless, I suppose, the theme and tone of your game requires a degree in ethical philosophy to play).

For someone who has said he does not want to bring his day job to the gaming table, it sure shows up a lot in your discussions of the gaming table.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> That's my take on things, at least. But let's put that to one side, and suppose that, for whatever reason - perhaps the gameworld is REH-style and providence isn't part of it - the paladin character really is correct to believe that but for his/her "evil" act then catastrophe will ensue. Then why should she fall? Why are we fetishising a list of taboo actions, which apparently have no grounding in actual value or right conduct (because, in _this_ case, upholding value and principles of right conduct _requires_ doing the "evil" thing)? And why would those "compassionate" people who are too sentimental to actually do what is required (perhaps they're also to squeamish to amputate a gangrenous limb!) be regarded as "good"? Self-indulgent sentimentality is itself a vice.




Because the source of the power lies within the precepts defined by good and it withdraws if the recipient commits an act within the precepts of evil -- I see no reason to present these forces as intelligent.  They are in effect forms of elemental forces found in the D&D universe.  Committing an action inside the precept of evil breaks the tie between paladin and the force.  Is does not ponder motive; it does not accept excuse;  it is deaf to rationalisation.  The fragility is part and parcel of the ceremony establishing the state of grace.

As to can a good outlook be a vice, that goes back to [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]'s "Can evil be good?" exploration.  Is a paladin with his outlook the best choice for every mission?  No.  He has an allegiance to something above and beyond most people -- a bond that restricts him from taking certain steps no matter how convenient or obvious.


----------



## Bedrockgames

N'raac said:


> Again, not interested in modern ethical philosophy.  The group should come to a decision on what level of violence in defense of self and others is acceptable at this table, in this game world, without needing a degree in philosophy to play (unless, I suppose, the theme and tone of your game requires a degree in ethical philosophy to play).
> 
> For someone who has said he does not want to bring his day job to the gaming table, it sure shows up a lot in your discussions of the gaming table.




I have to agree strongly with this. I am at the table to game, not to use it as a proxy for discussing the philosophy of ethics. Heck, I even minored in Philosophy in college, but I really don't think the game table is the place to name drop or get swept up in philosophical jargon. To


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> Depressing because the paladin-sorcerer cast "unnatural lust"?




More that someone wouldn't find the magical equivalent of spiking a drink with GHB and raping someone to be legally or morally questionable.


----------



## nofax1

My view of the D&D alignment system (which I am in favor of):*

Lawful Good*: "I borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower with his permission.  I accidentally broke it.  I will pay to have it repaired and I will mow his 

yard for a month to make up for it."


*Neutral Good*: "I borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission.  I accidentally broke it.  I will pay to have it repaired and I'll mow his 


yard once to keep him off my back."


*Chaotic Good*: "I borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission.  I accidentally broke it.  I will sneak it back into his garage and I'll 


leave $20 for him."


*Lawful Neutral*: "I borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower with his permission.  I accidentally broke it.  I will pay to have it repaired but I'm not mowing 


his lawn."


*Chaotic Neutral*: "I borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission.  I accidentally broke it. I will leave it in his yard for him to find in 


the morning."


*Lawful Evil*: "I borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower with his permission.  I accidentally broke it.  I contacted a lawyer to sue my neighbor for his 


faulty equipment."


*Neutral Evil*: "I took my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission. I left it in my yard to rust.  I told the other neighbors that he's a 


pedophile."


*Chaotic Evil*: "I took my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission. I then burned his house down and laughed."


*True Neutral*: "I can't be bothered with mowing."


----------



## Arduin's

fagura said:


> But what do they offer to an experienced player?




Well, for classes that have alignment limitations they define what you ethically can and cannot do.  If, like in my game world, HP and super human power a PC gains as they increase in level is tied, even if unknown to the PC's, to deities, it is a defining world view that when changed, has huge consequences.  

So in short, they offer an experienced player much of what a character class offers an experienced player.  Simple and easy peasy


----------



## Hussar

So N'raac in your games a church can never suffer schism or heresy since every ethical question can have only one answer that is true for a given alignment. 

After all in your example and in fact all your examples there can only be one valid interpretation which is handed down by the DM. 

This is not interesting for me. I want more ambiguity in the game than this.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> More that someone wouldn't find the magical equivalent of spiking a drink with GHB and raping someone to be legally or morally questionable.



I think when I click on your Paizo links I'm not getting the full thread. Is there some feature or functionality that I haven't noticed?


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> Because the source of the power lies within the precepts defined by good and it withdraws if the recipient commits an act within the precepts of evil -- I see no reason to present these forces as intelligent.  They are in effect forms of elemental forces found in the D&D universe.



First, thanks for the reply. This actually makes sense to me as a cosmological set-up: good and evil aren't "values" or "aspirations" or "ideals" at all; they are just forces constituted by lists of requirements and permissions.

Personally, this isn't very attractive to me, because the actual lists seem somewhat arbitrary, in so far as they make no pretence to being motivated or generated by reference to some genuine higher ideal. I have always thought of reverence of a being like Imix as something like a sign of madness - what sensible person reveres elemental fire for its own sake? Your approach makes paladins (and clerics) too much like Imix worshippers (though perhaps less dangerous) for my taste.

The religious adherents, saints and paladins (both in the real world and from story and legend) revere the divinity/"providential force" that they do precisely because that force is (supremely) intelligent as well as perfect in its motivations and its appreciation of values. They are called to an ideal that presents itself as a genuine one, not as a somewhat arbitrary list.



N'raac said:


> Better Knight, or better Paladin? The two need not be the same.



Within the default D&D context they are exactly the same. Likewise within Dragonlance, and Tolkien, and Arthurian legend, and real-world attitudes of the high mediaeval upper class.

And here are some relevant quotes:

AD&D 2nd ed PHB, reprinted version
The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. . . T]he paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry.

Pathfinder SRD
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. . .  Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.

OSRIC p 18
The Paladin class in OSRIC superficially resembles such legendary warriors as Sir Galahad or Sir Gawaine of the Arthurian cyclecycle, but is more closely similar to characters described in the works of Poul Anderson. His “Three Hearts and Three Lions” [a book which draws extensively upon the tropes of Arthurian and Carolingian romance] is particularly highly recommended.

4e PHB pp 89-91:
Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. . . As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. . . Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. Most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony . . .​
And of course both in Unearthed Arcana from AD&D, and in Essentials 4e, paladins are described as _cavaliers_ - which is a synonym for "knight".

But even if one thought that not all paladins were knights, how would that alter my point that Sturm Brightlblade is an example, at the heart of D&D canon, of fetishistic adherence to pointless rules being seen as a vice rather than a virtue, and hence not a marker of goodness?



N'raac said:


> did we set out to play a game where providence is real, or an REH model sword & sorcery world?



I don't know - but if it is established from the start that the gameworld is one without divine providence, what is a paladin even doing in that gameworld?

Whereas for me the matter is actually flipped around: default D&D permits the paladin as a class, and therefore has to leave open the rationality of being a paladin (otherwise the player of a paladin is being set up to lose from the get-go), and therefore has to leave open the question of divine providence. And for me, that is all I need - that the matter is left open. The players can sort out the details, and resolve the question, in play.



N'raac said:


> you playing a Paladin <snip> If the other Paladin keeps his powers, then yours must be wrong about torture being evil. If yours keeps his powers, then he is wrong about your actions being evil



Why? Divine beings move in mysterious ways (recall Job, and also the prodigal son). Perhaps providence has plans for this erring paladin that haven't been revealed yet, but that will be in due course.

It would be a sin of pride and a failing of humility to presume to judge in these circumstances! And of course you can always talk to the other player, whether in character or out of it.

And in case you think I'm just making all this up, this is exactly the approach taken by the paladin of the Raven Queen in my game to the "backsliding" invoker-wizard. Why does the Raven Queen keep him around and powered up? Because he's going to be useful in some grand scheme some day! It just hasn't been fully revealed yet.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if N'raac as GM believes that killing in defence of others is never good, then a paladin who keeps doing that will probably drift away from LG towards LN. If the GM "addresses" this with the player, that strikes me as pretty close to the GM telling the player how to play a paladin. The player has two choices: stop playing a paladin; or play a paladin in the way the GM thinks is fitting. To me, this is no different from the GM telling the player of the thief that his/her PC is not sneaky enough, and so is going to have to forcibly change class to a fighter (but one who forevermore can use only leather armour).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating player with game role.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "game role"?



N'raac said:


> I no more have to bring my personal morality to the table as GM than I as a player must share my character’s belief system.



Who said that you do?

But how does this bear on the fact that if the GM tells the player that s/he is engaging in action that is drifting away from LG to LN, and hence that his/her PC's paladin status is in jeopardy, this _is_ telling the player how to play a paladin. Playing a LG PC is part and parcel of what it is to play a paladin, just as playing a sneaky PC is part and parcel of what it is to play a thief. Telling the player how to be honourable is not fundamentally different from telling a player how to be sneaky.



N'raac said:


> up front communication is the key



To what? It can be the key to making sure the player knows how the GM expects him/her to play a paladin. That doesn't speak to my contention, though, that the GM telling the player of a paladin (upfront or otherwise) how s/he must play to successfully be honourable is not very different, as far as I can see, from the GM telling the player of a thief (upfront or otherwise) how s/he must play to successfully be sneaky.

From my point of view all of that is the player's gig - part of playing the PC in accordance with the player's conception of it.



N'raac said:


> For someone who has said he does not want to bring his day job to the gaming table, it sure shows up a lot in your discussions of the gaming table.



Huh? Once again you seem to have mistaken me for you. _You_ are the one who is asking these questions about whether or not defensive violence is good or evil if perpetrated by someone who wants that assailant dead anyway (in post 1176). I just offered an answer to your question - but I didn't write that answer to adjudicate a D&D game, I can assure you! If you didn't want the question answered, why did you ask it? If you don't think moral philosophy is the best way to answer it, what alternative method do you suggest?

Because I don't play with mechanical alignment I don't need to answer that question before I play the game. I don't need to tell my player what s/he can or cannot do if s/he wants a PC to remain a paladin. As    [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has articulated pretty clearly, I want these matters, if they come up, to be addressed by the players in the course of play.



Bedrockgames said:


> I really don't think the game table is the place to name drop or get swept up in philosophical jargon.



Luckily I'm not at the game table. I'm on a discussion board discussing things (including by answering a question which was put to me by another poster).


----------



## Hussar

A point to remember and a reason I have not once in this thread taken a single stand on what constitutes good or evil in this thread is because at the game table I don't have to. 


Just like I don't police my players I don't presume that my interpretations of DnD alignment are anything more than my personal interpretations. I certainly won't present them as fact.


----------



## Hussar

I think N'raac's example of the two LG characters gives a good chance to show how the two play styles work and I think, showcases some of the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches.  Now, before I go any further, I want to posit a baseline.  No one is being dishonest.  Everyone honestly believes what they are saying and no one is being a dick.  There are no bad players or DM's in the example groups.  There, with that boilerplate out of the way, let's look at how things play out at the two different tables.

Scenario 1 -Mechanical Alignment Table- two players are playing LG classes where alignment has specific impacts on the class (probably cleric or paladin, but there are others) are faced with a difficult situation.  One LG character decides that he wants to torture a prisoner in order to gain information necessary to succeed at their goals.  The other LG character opposes this, as he sees torture as evil.

Player 1:  I'm going to torture this prisoner to get the information we need.  If we fail, many people will die and LG posits that the greatest good for the greatest numbers is a primary consideration.  Yes, torture is not something we'd do every day, but, there are extenuating circumstances and sacrificing this one guy means that we save many more.

Player 2:  The ends do not justify the means.  That's a very slippery slope and many horrible things have been done in the name of the "greater good".  Torture is evil.  Full stop.  Don't do this.

Both players turn to the DM for a ruling.  Is this an evil act or not. Since there are no "aha gotcha" rules in play, the DM makes an adjudication and the players play accordingly.

The strength here, to me, is consistency.  Everyone knows where they stand and can act accordingly.  Regardless of how the DM rules, everyone knows which way is up.  It's faster certainly and resolves a lot of inter-party conflict.  The weakness, though, is, at the end of the day, the DM here is telling one of the players that he's wrong.  Depending on who the DM backs, the other player now has to adjust his character to fit with the ruling.  if the DM says that torture is evil, no matter what, then Player 1 either has to conform to that ruling or risk mechanical punishments for not doing so.  Again, presuming that both characters are playing classes where alignment matters.

Scenario 2 - Descriptive alignment table - Two players are playing LG classes, but, because alignment is descriptive, there are no mechanical penalties for straying outside of alignment.  One LG character decides that he wants to torture a prisoner in order to gain information necessary to succeed at their goals.  The other LG character opposes this, as he sees torture as evil.

Player 1:  I'm going to torture this prisoner to get the information we need.  If we fail, many people will die and LG posits that the greatest good for the greatest numbers is a primary consideration.  Yes, torture is not something we'd do every day, but, there are extenuating circumstances and sacrificing this one guy means that we save many more.

Player 2:  The ends do not justify the means.  That's a very slippery slope and many horrible things have been done in the name of the "greater good".  Torture is evil.  Full stop.  Don't do this.

The discussion continues for some time.  The DM does not intervene.  Eventually Player 1 puts it to the challenge - either Player 2 can forcefully stop him, or he's going to go ahead and torture this guy.  Player 2 has his character leave in disgust to wait outside.

The strength here is that the DM is in no way telling the players how to play their characters.  And, it allows for alignment conflicts where the players themselves have to find some sort of resolution.  It's interesting to me, here, that you can make a pretty decent case in either direction.  The alignment descriptions are broad enough that it's possible for either character to be right.  As a DM, I'd be sure to test this at a later time as well.  If Player 1 believes the ends justify the means, then, how far will he go with that?  Is it always true?  What's the limit?  And, additionally, I would want to add in more conflict between the two characters in new situations.  How will they handle things the next time around?  Will there be any give or take between the two viewpoints?  Can one viewpoint win the other over?  

The downside here is it could very well blow up in my face.  The game grinds to a screeching halt as the two players get locked into a never ending debate and endless alignment wank.  And, true, it also means that there will be times when there is apparent contradiction - two people sharing a morality, possibly worshipping the same god, can hold very contradictory viewpoints.  Again, I can see how this could be problematic for some people.

At the end of the day, I obviously prefer Scenario 2.  That should come as no surprise to anyone.  It's a play style thing.  Both points have good and bad.  To me, and purely to me, alignments don't add enough to the game to really want mechanical alignment.  Descriptive, for me, is just more fun.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> So N'raac in your games a church can never suffer schism or heresy since every ethical question can have only one answer that is true for a given alignment.




And we're back to "there can be only one approach to every issue for each alignment".  I thought we might actually have gotten beyond that one.  To take, say, an LG church, one might favour Law more than Good ("Suffer not a witch to live"), while another favours Good over Law ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone").  They might differ over which tenets of Good take priority, perhaps in respect of defensive violence, with one sect believing in protection of the innocent and the other in turning the other cheek/the meek shall inherit the Earth.  This is before we get into the possibility of different alignments worshipping the same deity.

But none of those LG churches seem likely to be built on premises of "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" or to practice human sacrifice.



pemerton said:


> The religious adherents, saints and paladins (both in the real world and from story and legend) revere the divinity/"providential force" that they do precisely because that force is (supremely) intelligent as well as perfect in its motivations and its appreciation of values. They are called to an ideal that presents itself as a genuine one, not as a somewhat arbitrary list.




The real world - real or fictional - also features monotheism prominently, an aspect not present in many D&D worlds.  The real world therefore is far from a perfect template.  Your suggestion that religion does not present rules which may seem somewhat arbitrary is an interesting one.  Does the religion  prescribe diet (fish on Fridays; no pork; no beef)?  Perhaps it sets rules on celibacy or birth control?  Does it have writings on tattooing (Leviticus rules against it, I believe).



pemerton said:


> Within the default D&D context they are exactly the same. Likewise within Dragonlance, and Tolkien, and Arthurian legend, and real-world attitudes of the high mediaeval upper class.
> 
> And here are some relevant quotes:AD&D 2nd ed PHB, reprinted version
> The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. . . T]he paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry.​





Not seeing "knight" in here.




pemerton said:


> Pathfinder SRD






pemerton said:


> Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. . .  Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.




Still no knight




pemerton said:


> OSRIC p 18






pemerton said:


> The Paladin class in OSRIC superficially resembles such legendary warriors as Sir Galahad or Sir Gawaine of the Arthurian cyclecycle, but is more closely similar to characters described in the works of Poul Anderson. His “Three Hearts and Three Lions” [a book which draws extensively upon the tropes of Arthurian and Carolingian romance] is particularly highly recommended.




This one says your comparisons to Arthurian legend is superficial only, and also mentions only two Knights of the Round Table, neither Arthur nor Lancelot whom you have addressed, as being of the very select worthy few, contrary to your "one and the same" claim.  Perhaps all Paladins are Knights, but not all Knights are Paladins!




pemerton said:


> 4e PHB pp 89-91:






pemerton said:


> Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. . . As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. . . Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. Most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony . . .




So why must they choose a deity to receive powers a deity doesn't grant anyway?  Again, no Knights​


pemerton said:


> And of course both in Unearthed Arcana from AD&D, and in Essentials 4e, paladins are described as _cavaliers_ - which is a synonym for "knight".




Cant speak to essentials, but in UA, Paladins became a subclass of the Cavalier, so once again, all Paladins are Cavaliers, but many Cavaliers are not Paladins.



pemerton said:


> But even if one thought that not all paladins were knights, how would that alter my point that Sturm Brightlblade is an example, at the heart of D&D canon, of *fetishistic adherence to pointless rules *being seen as a vice rather than a virtue, and hence not a marker of goodness?




Emphasis added - that sounds much more LN than LG.  Does a Paladin view the tenets of Law and Good as "pointless rules", or to "their chosen cause", "something greater than themselves"?



pemerton said:


> I don't know - but if it is established from the start that the gameworld is one without divine providence, what is a paladin even doing in that gameworld?




Fighting for his chosen cause.  He doesn't really need to if everything will work out whether he tries or not.



pemerton said:


> It would be a sin of pride and a failing of humility to presume to judge in these circumstances!




So you are judging the player or character who presumes to judge as committing a sin, then, and failing in a virtue.



pemerton said:


> What do you mean by "game role"?




In that context, the game role of the player was GM.  You referred to the GMs views of Good, where I perceive the GM adjudicating the game world's Good, whether exactly as defined in the rules and interpreted by the GM, or house ruled to differ in some manner.



pemerton said:


> But how does this bear on the fact that if the GM tells the player that s/he is engaging in action that is drifting away from LG to LN, and hence that his/her PC's paladin status is in jeopardy, this _is_ telling the player how to play a paladin. Playing a LG PC is part and parcel of what it is to play a paladin




And some acts are inconsistent with playing LG.



pemerton said:


> just as playing a sneaky PC is part and parcel of what it is to play a thief. Telling the player how to be honourable is not fundamentally different from telling a player how to be sneaky.




If the PC chooses to wear bright colours with bells on his boots, and feston himself with glowing baubles, should we assume he is nonetheless very sneaky?



pemerton said:


> Huh? Once again you seem to have mistaken me for you. _You_ are the one who is asking these questions about whether or not defensive violence is good or evil if perpetrated by someone who wants that assailant dead anyway (in post 1176). I just offered an answer to your question - but I didn't write that answer to adjudicate a D&D game, I can assure you!




Without digging through the thread, I believe the question under review was whether defensive violence was good or evil in the game context.  That would logically lead to assessing the question in light of the game rules and definitions of Good and Evil.  Much of this thread seems to come down to questions posed by someone suggesting that this question is wholly unanswerable in the game's alignment terms and can only cause irreconcilable differences at the gaming table.  When the issue is addressed through the lens of the alignment rules to show that no, this really is not that tough under those rules, it then gets turned into a real world philosophical debate.  Again, real world ethical philosophy is not relevant to the game rules.  Good and Evil are what the rules state them to be.  A longsword does 1-8 damage, as does a battle axe, regardless of whether a physics and/or biology expert demonstrates that one causes greater physical trauma in the real world, and they use the same rolls to hit even if physics show without question that one is superior in penetrating armor, or certain types of armor.



Hussar said:


> Just like I don't police my players I don't presume that my interpretations of DnD alignment are anything more than my personal interpretations. I certainly won't present them as fact.




How is interpreting the game rules for alignment markedly different than interpreting the game rules for spells, class powers, combat, etc.?  Why can't the player decide exactly how his spells work, whether he hits and how much damage he does to match the concept of the character?  Who would  know better than the player how powerful his character is, based on his conception of that character?


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> This is not interesting for me. I want more ambiguity in the game than this.




"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" seems less than ambiguous to me - although your later post clarifies this greatly.  It is an excellent post - xp if I can



Hussar said:


> I think N'raac's example of the two LG characters gives a good chance to show how the two play styles work and I think, showcases some of the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches.  Now, before I go any further, I want to posit a baseline.  No one is being dishonest.  Everyone honestly believes what they are saying and no one is being a dick.  There are no bad players or DM's in the example groups.  There, with that boilerplate out of the way, let's look at how things play out at the two different tables.
> 
> Scenario 1 -Mechanical Alignment Table- two players are playing LG classes where alignment has specific impacts on the class (probably cleric or paladin, but there are others) are faced with a difficult situation.  One LG character decides that he wants to torture a prisoner in order to gain information necessary to succeed at their goals.  The other LG character opposes this, as he sees torture as evil.
> 
> Player 1:  I'm going to torture this prisoner to get the information we need.  If we fail, many people will die and LG posits that the greatest good for the greatest numbers is a primary consideration.  Yes, torture is not something we'd do every day, but, there are extenuating circumstances and sacrificing this one guy means that we save many more.
> 
> Player 2:  The ends do not justify the means.  That's a very slippery slope and many horrible things have been done in the name of the "greater good".  Torture is evil.  Full stop.  Don't do this.
> 
> Both players turn to the DM for a ruling.  Is this an evil act or not. Since there are no "aha gotcha" rules in play, the DM makes an adjudication and the players play accordingly.
> 
> The strength here, to me, is consistency.  Everyone knows where they stand and can act accordingly.  Regardless of how the DM rules, everyone knows which way is up.  It's faster certainly and resolves a lot of inter-party conflict.  The weakness, though, is, at the end of the day, the DM here is telling one of the players that he's wrong.  Depending on who the DM backs, the other player now has to adjust his character to fit with the ruling.  if the DM says that torture is evil, no matter what, then Player 1 either has to conform to that ruling or risk mechanical punishments for not doing so.  Again, presuming that both characters are playing classes where alignment matters.




To me, part of this strength is a consistent tone for the game. Are we playing larger than life adherents to Good, or are we playing battle-hardened, jaded mercenaries?  Players should be coming to the table with characters that fit the game's tone, just as I would not be building The Punisher to play in a four colour superheroes game (since Bats and Supes keep showing up as D&D Paladins).



Hussar said:


> Scenario 2 - Descriptive alignment table - Two players are playing LG classes, but, because alignment is descriptive, there are no mechanical penalties for straying outside of alignment.  One LG character decides that he wants to torture a prisoner in order to gain information necessary to succeed at their goals.  The other LG character opposes this, as he sees torture as evil.
> 
> Player 1:  I'm going to torture this prisoner to get the information we need.  If we fail, many people will die and LG posits that the greatest good for the greatest numbers is a primary consideration.  Yes, torture is not something we'd do every day, but, there are extenuating circumstances and sacrificing this one guy means that we save many more.
> 
> Player 2:  The ends do not justify the means.  That's a very slippery slope and many horrible things have been done in the name of the "greater good".  Torture is evil.  Full stop.  Don't do this.
> 
> The discussion continues for some time.  The DM does not intervene.  Eventually Player 1 puts it to the challenge - either Player 2 can forcefully stop him, or he's going to go ahead and torture this guy.  Player 2 has his character leave in disgust to wait outside.




Why could the same result not occur under vision 1?  The GM rules, and Player 1 says "Then the Tenets of Good are wrong.  My character will do what is right - save those lives - either Player 2 can forcefully stop him, or he's going to go ahead and torture this guy."  If anything, I have more respect for PC 1 in this situation - he knows that this will carry a personal cost, but he will nonetheless be true to his beliefs in what is right, though even the heavens themselves rally against him.



Hussar said:


> The strength here is that the DM is in no way telling the players how to play their characters.  And, it allows for alignment conflicts where the players themselves have to find some sort of resolution.  It's interesting to me, here, that you can make a pretty decent case in either direction.  The alignment descriptions are broad enough that it's possible for either character to be right.  As a DM, I'd be sure to test this at a later time as well.  If Player 1 believes the ends justify the means, then, how far will he go with that?  Is it always true?  What's the limit?  And, additionally, I would want to add in more conflict between the two characters in new situations.  How will they handle things the next time around?  Will there be any give or take between the two viewpoints?  Can one viewpoint win the other over?




First, these are moral and ethical conflicts, but we have tossed out alignment, so it is not an alignment conflict.  Anyone and everyone can call himself LG, no matter what actions they take in the alleged name of those principals.  That's not a positive or a negative.

Second, what actually happens at the game table?  PC 1 abandons his principals and walks away?  How happy is PC 1?  Now, if my PC feels strongly about this issue, he's likely to:

 - walk from the PC group entirely - I brought a principled warrior of Good and Righteousness, a Hero, to a game of ruthless thugs - sorry, I misread the tone of the game, so I will make a ruthless bastard character to better fit the murderhobo game we are actually playing.

 - push the matter to confrontation - will the rest of the party permit or oppose this atrocity?  Either PC 2 goes, or PC 1 does - they are simply not compatible.

 - take PC 2 up on his challenge - if you want to torture those helpless prisoners, it will be over my dead body.  We have established that Paladins are OK killing for their principals.  Having "PC" tattooed on his forehead does not mean I will treat his transgressions differently than anyone else's.



Hussar said:


> The downside here is it could very well blow up in my face.




The above certainly reflects examples of this.



Hussar said:


> The game grinds to a screeching halt as the two players get locked into a never ending debate and endless alignment wank.  And, true, it also means that there will be times when there is apparent contradiction - two people sharing a morality, possibly worshipping the same god, can hold very contradictory viewpoints.  Again, I can see how this could be problematic for some people.




PC vs PC is also problematic for some people.  And I note all of the same results can occur under Model 1 as well.  It only requires PC 2 sticking to his viewpoints, whether or not they are the views of his religion, or his (previous?) alignment.  In fact, both characters could easily be, and remain, LG in the scenario set.  Even if I accept PC 2's act, however motivated, remains an evil act, a single evil act does not cause him to change alignment.  If I accept his desire to protect the innocent balances out his willingness to torture these prisoners, then we move to a N act, and he doesn't even lose Paladinhood.  Yet the PC's can still have very different opinions, refuse to work together or even come to physical violence over the appropriate approach to this situation.

The fact that the GM expresses his opinion, and/or the opinion of the Force of Good, does not change the free will of the characters or their players.  I note nothing stops a GM from saying "By my own morality, I agree that the right thing to do is torture the prisoners.  But that is not what the Forces of Good believe."  Further, nothing stops Player 1 from saying "By my own morality, I agree that the right thing to do is torture the prisoners.  But that is not what my PC believes."  Nor does anything preclude Player 2 from saying "By my own morality, I agree that it is wrong to torture the prisoners.  But that is not what my character believes."  And every person can say so with perfect honesty.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> Why could the same result not occur under vision 1? The GM rules, and Player 1 says "Then the Tenets of Good are wrong. My character will do what is right - save those lives - either Player 2 can forcefully stop him, or he's going to go ahead and torture this guy." If anything, I have more respect for PC 1 in this situation - he knows that this will carry a personal cost, but he will nonetheless be true to his beliefs in what is right, though even the heavens themselves rally against him.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page122#ixzz2vqxPYfwk




But, Player 1 is objectively WRONG.  He knows he's wrong.  There's no question that he's wrong.  (Presuming of course that the DM didn't side with him in the first place - otherwise, he's absolutely right and Player 2 is now objectively wrong)  He knows that he is so wrong that he is actually being punished for how wrong he is.  It is now an evil act to torture that prisoner, no matter what.  

There can be no belief when you have objective facts.  I don't believe that 2+2=4.  It's an objective, provable fact.  Belief doesn't enter into it at all.  The player can no more believe that he's still right than he can believe that 2+2=5.  He's wrong and nothing he does can change that. 

So, he's faced with the choice - act in a manner he KNOWS is wrong or act in a manner he KNOWS is right.  Considering that he's a paladin, and his whole reason for play is to act in a right manner, why on earth would he choose to act wrongly?


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> Within the default D&D context they are exactly the same. Likewise within Dragonlance, and Tolkien, and Arthurian legend, and real-world attitudes of the high mediaeval upper class.




Pre-PF, I think all Paladins were Knights, but certainly not all Knights were Paladins (otherwise all knights would be LG; in 1e Deities and Demigods the only Arthurian Knights with Paladin levels were Arthur, Galahad, and Launcelot - the rest were Fighter; see the Cavalier class in any edition it appears in; see also the Dragoon Fighter archetype in PF).  

In PF the link to the classical knight is weakened   - in Core the mount is just one choice among a few and Ultimate Combat notes that "[w]hile all paladins are true believers, not all are the knights in shining armor with glimmering blades portrayed in legends—some paladins prefer unconventional tactics and forms".  UC gives the Divine Hunter archetype based on ranged attacks and the Holy Gun archetype based on firearms as examples.

--




pemerton said:


> I think when I click on your Paizo links I'm not getting the full thread. Is there some feature or functionality that I haven't noticed?




I logged out of Paizo and tried it and the whole thing came up.  Maybe I was reading too much into it, but I didn't think so -- It was the one where the original poster said it involved "unnatural lust" (the first time its mentioned in the thread), the post two above it where another player in that group described it as "cast date rape", and the one or two where the original poster made it sound like they couldn't convince the paladin's player that casting date rape was a bad thing.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> But, Player 1 is objectively WRONG.  He knows he's wrong.  There's no question that he's wrong.  (Presuming of course that the DM didn't side with him in the first place - otherwise, he's absolutely right and Player 2 is now objectively wrong)  He knows that he is so wrong that he is actually being punished for how wrong he is.  It is now an evil act to torture that prisoner, no matter what.
> 
> There can be no belief when you have objective facts.  I don't believe that 2+2=4.  It's an objective, provable fact.  Belief doesn't enter into it at all.  The player can no more believe that he's still right than he can believe that 2+2=5.  He's wrong and nothing he does can change that.
> 
> So, he's faced with the choice - act in a manner he KNOWS is wrong or act in a manner he KNOWS is right.  Considering that he's a paladin, and his whole reason for play is to act in a right manner, why on earth would he choose to act wrongly?




No, player 1 knows his stated action has a quality of evil to it.  He can still do the action if he believes strongly enough that it is worth the price -- and it may be.   Perhaps the lives he could save (or whatever other intel he is trying to gather) are worth more to the PC than his state a grace (for a paladin).

There's nothing wrong with making that choice -- so long as you know the consequences.  Should the knowledge of evil give player 1 pause?  Yep.  But it should be no guarantee he won't follow through.


----------



## nofax1

Nagol said:


> No, player 1 knows his stated action has a quality of evil to it.  He can still do the action if he believes strongly enough that it is worth the price -- and it may be.   Perhaps the lives he could save (or whatever other intel he is trying to gather) are worth more to the PC than his state a grace (for a paladin).
> 
> There's nothing wrong with making that choice -- so long as you know the consequences.  Should the knowledge of evil give player 1 pause?  Yep.  But it should be no guarantee he won't follow through.




Isn't this exactly what happened to Anakin Skywalker?


----------



## pemerton

Double post deleted.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> AD&D 2nd ed PHB, reprinted version
> The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. . . T]he paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not seeing "knight" in here.
Click to expand...


Who lives for the ideals of chivalry but a knight?



N'raac said:


> Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. . . Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no knight
Click to expand...


Who does the phrase "Knights, crusaders" refer to if not knights?



N'raac said:


> The Paladin class in OSRIC superficially resembles such legendary warriors as Sir Galahad or Sir Gawaine of the Arthurian cyclecycle, but is more closely similar to characters described in the works of Poul Anderson. His “Three Hearts and Three Lions” [a book which draws extensively upon the tropes of Arthurian and Carolingian romance] is particularly highly recommended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one says your comparisons to Arthurian legend is superficial only
Click to expand...


And then goes on to recommend a book which draws upon Carolingian romances such as the Song of Roland. Who do you think figured both as characters in, and the audience for, those romances? Knights.



N'raac said:


> Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. . . As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. . . Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. Most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no Knights
Click to expand...


What do you think happens to someone who undergoes a knighting ceremony? S/he becomes a knight.

(The above is actually all a little bit surreal.)



N'raac said:


> Perhaps all Paladins are Knights, but not all Knights are Paladins!





Cadence said:


> Pre-PF, I think all Paladins were Knights, but certainly not all Knights were Paladins



I didn't argue to the contrary. Paladins are ideal(ised) knights.

My point was that, when Sturm Brightblade in the Dragonlance Chronicles becomes a better knight for rejecting rules fetishism, this does not stand in some contrastive relationship to what it might mean to become a better paladin. Rather, it's an instance of what it means to live up to knightly ideals (of which a paladin is the limit case).

(And N'raac, are you conceding or denying that paladins are knights, and the ideal exemplars of knighthood?)


*******************




N'raac said:


> why must they choose a deity to receive powers a deity doesn't grant anyway?



What makes you say that a deity doesn't grant a paladin power? 

From the 4e PHB p 89:

Paladins smite enemies with divine authority . . .Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action. . . Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory!​
Plus paladin powers have the "divine" keyword, which is defined as follows (4e PHB p 54):

Divine magic comes from the gods. The gods grant power to their devotees, which clerics and paladins, for example, access through prayers and litanies​
The text I quoted states that "Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity". You seem to be ignoring the word "directly." The 4e conception of divine power is that it is granted in a mediated fashion - eg it is accessed via prayer and litany. Much the same idea is expressed by Gygax in his DMG: cleric spells below 6th level are not granted by the god directly (unless the god is a comparatively weak demi-god, per Deities and Demigods).

(This another instance of 4e harking back to certain pre-3E traditions of the game.)



N'raac said:


> Your suggestion that religion does not present rules which may seem somewhat arbitrary is an interesting one.  Does the religion  prescribe diet (fish on Fridays; no pork; no beef)?  Perhaps it sets rules on celibacy or birth control?  Does it have writings on tattooing (Leviticus rules against it, I believe).



I don't think the adherents of these religions regard the rules, or adherence to them, as arbitrary. They are underpinned by reasons, against which particular instances of compliance can then be judged (eg in some religions which require fasting, the sick and pregnant are not obliged to fast).



N'raac said:


> Why could the same result not occur under vision 1?  The GM rules, and Player 1 says "Then the Tenets of Good are wrong.  My character will do what is right - save those lives"





N'raac said:


> fetishistic adherence to pointless rules
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that sounds much more LN than LG.
Click to expand...


Well, you're the one (not me) who has said that the cosmological force of good insists on adhering to certain precepts even when adhering to those precepts will not advance the interest or value at which those precepts obstensibly aim. (The first of the above two quotes illustrates your presentation of such a scenario.)

If you're also saying that you conception of the requirements of LG - ie adherence to precepts when adhering to those precepts won't actually uphold the salient values (eg life) - is actually a conception of the requirements of LN, that's your issue to sort out. (Though I'm not surprised that you've ended up in seeming contradiction: I've already argued upthread that nine-point alignment is not a coherent evaluative framework.)



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it is established from the start that the gameworld is one without divine providence, what is a paladin even doing in that gameworld?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting for his chosen cause.  He doesn't really need to if everything will work out whether he tries or not.
Click to expand...


Are you asserting that all believers in providence must be fatalists? I think you'll find that the actual history of human religious belief provides little evidence for that assertion.

Just to pick one example, when the abolitionists took the view that providence was on their side, they took that to be a reason to produce more pamphlets, and to work harder on the underground railroad, not as a reason to abaondon all effort.In folk wisdom, the denial of your apparent assertion is summed up in the phrase "God helps those who help themselves."


****************



N'raac said:


> some acts are inconsistent with playing LG.



Some acts are also inconsistent with being cunning. So if a player's description of his/her PC is "cunning thief", but the GM thinks s/he is not being very cunning, is the GM allowed to rewrite the PC's character sheet?



N'raac said:


> How is interpreting the game rules for alignment markedly different than interpreting the game rules for spells, class powers, combat, etc.?  Why can't the player decide exactly how his spells work, whether he hits and how much damage he does to match the concept of the character?  Who would  know better than the player how powerful his character is, based on his conception of that character?



This has been answered repeatedly upthread.

The reason that a player doesn't get to adjudicate his/her own action resolution mechanics is because s/he has a conflict of interest. But       [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION],       [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION] and I have described a playstyle in which _there is no conflict of interest_ in the player deciding what counts as living up to his/her ideal. As I put it to       [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] ten or twenty posts upthread (post 1195),

I've posted and linked to this example before, but no one has taken up the question: this is a case in which a player, playing his PC, elected to be bound by his code of honour, and hence to keep a promise, that he had never made but that had been made in his name, even though the upshot was that a villain lived whom he believed deserved to die. What is the conflict of interest?

Answer: there isn't one! The only reason that it matters that the villain die is because this is what the player, inhabiting his PC within the fiction, thinks should happen. The only reason that it matters that the promise be kept is because this is what the player, inhabiting his PC in the fiction, thinks should happen. If, within the fiction ,the player can't see a way to satisfy both these desires for what happens, why should the GM rather than the player choose which way to go?

Or, if the player takes a different interpretation and decides that there is a way that both desires _can _be satisfied, and so decides that breaking the promise is consistent with the PC's code, what is the problem? The player still exercised ingenuity and engaged with the game.​
Perhaps in your game there _is_ a conflict of interest in the player deciding what it is involved in a character living up to his/her professed ideals. I'd certainly be interested to read an explanation of that, perhaps illustrated by some examples from actual play.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated upthread that adjudicating the action resolution mechanics does not require judging the adequacy a players' expressive responses and evaluations. Wheres deciding whether or not his/her play of a PCreally lives up to the ideas that s/he believes that it does live up to does require such judgement.

I will repeat this again: if someone _believes_ that, in playing their PC a certain way, they are exemplifying certain ideals; and I, as GM, correct them, then I am telling them that their judgement as to what those ideals demanded and permitted is in error. And that is not something that I want to do when engaged in a reasonably light-hearted, collaborative creative endeavour.

Now it is obvious that these things that matter to me (and I believe to some other posters) don't matter to you. It does not follow that the relevant differences don't exist!



N'raac said:


> both characters could easily be, and remain, LG in the scenario set.  Even if I accept PC 2's act, however motivated, remains an evil act, a single evil act does not cause him to change alignment.



It makes no difference to       [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point whether or not the GM rules that the PC's alignment changes. The point is that the GM is ruling that the player's judgement as to what is permitted by his/he PC's professed ideals (LG) _permit is wrong_.



N'raac said:


> So you are judging the player or character who presumes to judge as committing a sin, then, and failing in a virtue.



No. I'm not judging a player or a character. I didn't describe an episode of play.

I'm telling you how I understand the archetype of a paladin; what sort of experience I am looking for when I play a paladin; and how I configure a gameworld so as to create room for that archetype and that paladin.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you seem to have mistaken me for you. You are the one who is asking these questions about whether or not defensive violence is good or evil if perpetrated by someone who wants that assailant dead anyway (in post 1176). I just offered an answer to your question - but I didn't write that answer to adjudicate a D&D game, I can assure you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the question under review was whether defensive violence was good or evil in the game context.  That would logically lead to assessing the question in light of the game rules and definitions of Good and Evil.
Click to expand...


You still seem to be mistaking me for you. I don't play with mechanical alignment. Hence for me nothing "logically leads to assessing the question in light of the game rules and definitions of Good and Evil". When I play there are no such game rules, nor any such definitions.

(Though I am mildly curious as to what _your_ method is for undertaking that assessment, given that you appear to repudiate the only method I am familiar with for assessing whether a given sort of conduct is consistent with, or falls short of, certain ideals.)


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> But, Player 1 is objectively WRONG.  He knows he's wrong.  There's no question that he's wrong.  (Presuming of course that the DM didn't side with him in the first place - otherwise, he's absolutely right and Player 2 is now objectively wrong)  He knows that he is so wrong that he is actually being punished for how wrong he is.  It is now an evil act to torture that prisoner, no matter what.




There is no question, in the scenario you paint, that torture is an evil act (or a non-good act, or a good act in this case, or refraining from torture is a  non-good, or even evil, action in this case).  The question is whether the character considers it *right* to commit an *evil* act in pursuit of a greater *good*, or whether the character considers it *wrong* to pursue *good* through *evil* means.  Is the road to Hell paved with good intentions?  Is it wrong to have good intentions?



Hussar said:


> So, he's faced with the choice - act in a manner he KNOWS is wrong or act in a manner he KNOWS is right.  Considering that he's a paladin, and his whole reason for play is to act in a right manner, why on earth would he choose to act wrongly?




What he knows is whether a specific action is good, evil or neither.  Only he can decide what is right or wrong in the broader circumstances.  Is it is both lawful and good to use a "date rape" spell?  I suggest it is not, and I am quite happy telling the player of a Paladin that it is not.  That he may not consider it *wrong* is up to him, but it does not change my adjudication of whether it is *lawful*and/or *good*.



Nagol said:


> No, player 1 knows his stated action has a quality of evil to it.  He can still do the action if he believes strongly enough that it is worth the price -- and it may be.   Perhaps the lives he could save (or whatever other intel he is trying to gather) are worth more to the PC than his state a grace (for a paladin).
> 
> There's nothing wrong with making that choice -- so long as you know the consequences.  Should the knowledge of evil give player 1 pause?  Yep.  But it should be no guarantee he won't follow through.




Precisely.



pemerton said:


> Who lives for the ideals of chivalry but a knight?






			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> knight  /naɪt/  Show Spelled [nahyt]  Show IPA  noun  1. a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior in the Middle Ages.
> 2. (in Europe in the Middle Ages) a man, usually of noble birth, who after an apprenticeship as page and squire was raised to honorable military rank and bound to chivalrous conduct.
> 3. any person of a rank similar to that of the medieval knight.
> 4. a man upon whom the nonhereditary dignity of knighthood is conferred by a sovereign because of personal merit or for services rendered to the country. In Great Britain he holds the rank next below that of a baronet, and the title Sir  is prefixed to the Christian name, as in Sir john smith.
> 5. a member of any order or association that designates its members as knights.
> 
> chiv·al·ry  /ˈʃəl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ri/  Show Spelled [shiv-uh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l-ree]  Show IPA  noun, plural chiv·al·ries for 6.  1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.
> 2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.
> 3. the medieval system or institution of knighthood.
> 4. a group of knights.
> 5. gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry.





Given that the term is defined only by reference to knighthood, I'll give you the relationship.  Now, does every knight live up to these ideals, or is it the case that not all knights are Paladins?  I note Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, neither of whom, I suspect, would lay claim to dexterity in arms. 



Does it also follow that there can be no Commoner Paladins?  What was Joan of Arc's rank in the nobility?




pemerton said:


> Who does the phrase "Knights, crusaders" refer to if not knights?




Crusaders, perhaps?



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> cru·sade  /kruˈseɪd/  Show Spelled [kroo-seyd]  Show IPA  noun  1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
> 2. any war carried on under papal sanction.
> 3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), cru·sad·ed, cru·sad·ing.
> 4. to go on or engage in a crusade.




#1 is too specific for D&D.  #2 requires earthly sanction from a religion.  #3 can be any idea or cause, not necessarily that of Law or Good, but seems the best fit from that perspective.  It does  not seem to require a Knight.





pemerton said:


> And then goes on to recommend a book which draws upon Carolingian romances such as the Song of Roland. Who do you think figured both as characters in, and the audience for, those romances? Knights.




Right after dismissing your comparison as superficial.



pemerton said:


> My point was that, when Sturm Brightblade in the Dragonlance Chronicles becomes a better knight for rejecting rules fetishism, this does not stand in some contrastive relationship to what it might mean to become a better paladin. Rather, it's an instance of what it means to live up to knightly ideals (of which a paladin is the limit case).




It seems like he moved away from an Order drifting to or stuck in LN over LG.



pemerton said:


> (And N'raac, are you conceding or denying that paladins are knights, and the ideal exemplars of knighthood?)




Denied.  Many Paladins will fail the definition of Knight (although for some reason, D&D 4e absolutely dismisses the idea of any Paladin who has not been raised to noble status by being Knighted - I thought that was the flexible edition, for some reason).  Many Knights are not dedicated to the ideals of Paladinhood.

Where does a Black Knight fit into your assertion of the game's intentions?



pemerton said:


> What makes you say that a deity doesn't grant a paladin power?
> 
> From the 4e PHB p 89:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paladins smite enemies with divine authority . . .Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action. . . Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory!​
> Plus paladin powers have the "divine" keyword, which is defined as follows (4e PHB p 54):
> Divine magic comes from the gods. The gods grant power to their devotees, which clerics and paladins, for example, access through prayers and litanies​



​
Already addressed.  The deity cannot take them away.  The Paladin seems to tap into divine power like the druid taps into primal forces (without their acquiescence) and the wizard taps into Arcane sources.  He just needs to know the right rituals and he gets the powers of his choice, never to be removed.



pemerton said:


> I don't think the adherents of these religions regard the rules, or adherence to them, as arbitrary. They are underpinned by reasons, against which particular instances of compliance can then be judged (eg in some religions which require fasting, the sick and pregnant are not obliged to fast).




You are the one who began the discussion of adherence to arbitrary rules.  



> First, thanks for the reply. This actually makes sense to me as a cosmological  set-up: good and evil aren't "values" or "aspirations" or "ideals" at all; they  are just forces constituted by lists of requirements and permissions.
> 
> Personally, this isn't very attractive to me, because the actual lists seem  somewhat arbitrary, in so far as they make no pretence to being motivated or  generated by reference to some genuine higher ideal.




The fact that the rules list them as the ideals of Good seems to me to provide the game conceit that they are motivated or generated by reference to that ideal.



pemerton said:


> Some acts are also inconsistent with being cunning. So if a player's description of his/her PC is "cunning thief", but the GM thinks s/he is not being very cunning, is the GM allowed to rewrite the PC's character sheet?




And we're back to Brave, Brave Sir Robin - he has written it on his character sheet, and thus when he flees, wets himself, or refuses to emerge from beneath his bed, he must be doing so bravely.  



pemerton said:


> It makes no difference to       @_*Hussar*_'s point whether or not the GM rules that the PC's alignment changes. The point is that the GM is ruling that the player's judgement as to what is permitted by his/he PC's professed ideals (LG) _permit is wrong_.




What ideals did he profess to live up to?  The defined by game rules ideals of Law and Good, or did he define his own ideals, which may best be demonstrated outside actions one might define as Lawful and Good?  If you are not using mechanical alignment, why would you judge the character's consistency with mechanical alignment descriptors?



pemerton said:


> No. I'm not judging a player or a character. I didn't describe an episode of play.




You are judging the hypothetical episode of play which Hussar set down and I responded to, leading to your response. 



pemerton said:


> You still seem to be mistaking me for you. I don't play with mechanical alignment. Hence for me nothing "logically leads to assessing the question in light of the game rules and definitions of Good and Evil". When I play there are no such game rules, nor any such definitions.




You are discussing how you perceive mechanical alignment to work, are you not?  Then your discussion must, to be at all relevant, must consider those game rules and definitions.

You know, for someone who protested so vehemently against some of us, myself included, commenting on 4e rules when we are not familiar with 4e, you sure claim a lot of knowledge of mechanical alignment while indicating you don't use it and have not for many years.

In a game featuring mechanical alignment, I need not assess whether a character is "honourable".  I must assess whether his actions meet the criteria of his professed alignment, and whether they meet the criteria of some other alignment.  I do not see "Honourable Kindness" represented among the alignments, although I see honour and kindness expressed in many alignments.


----------



## Cadence

Flipping through the 1e Deities and Demigods, I knew that the deities in the book were expressly exempt from class/alignment restrictions.  I didn't recall that apparently applied to the heroes too.  The book is chock full of non-pure-neutral mortal Druids.  It also has a few not-classically-Knightly paladins (although they were all Lawful Good).


Hiawatha - Druid 8/ Paladin 15/ Ranger 10 
Theseus - Paladin 13 / Bard 9  
Yamamoto Date - Paladin 15


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Flipping through the 1e Deities and Demigods, I knew that the deities in the book were expressly exempt from class/alignment restrictions.  I didn't recall that apparently applied to the heroes too.  The book is chock full of non-pure-neutral mortal Druids.  It also has a few not-classically-Knightly paladins (although they were all Lawful Good).
> 
> 
> Hiawatha - Druid 8/ Paladin 15/ Ranger 10
> Theseus - Paladin 13 / Bard 9
> Yamamoto Date - Paladin 15



Yes, I agree there were exceptions (though I'm not sure that a samurai really counts as one!)

But I think you're losing the context.

I mentioned the example of Sturm Brightblade as an example, from core D&D material - the Dragonlance Chronicles, for heavens sake! - who did _good_, and became a beter Knight of Solamnia, precisely because he eschewed the fetishism of rules and precepts in favour of the realisation of the underlying values.

  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] asserted (by way of rhetorical question) that Sturm being a better knight didn't mean he showed us a better paladin. Now obviously N'raac can play the game however he wants, but how can it be seriously asserted that Sturm is not intended as a model for knightly, chivalric, honourable, paladin-esque behaviour within the context of D&D play?

This has the same degree of plausibility as his argument upthread (reiterated just above because, in a moment of alliterative enthusiasm the 2nd ed authors mentioned only Galahad and Gawaine from the Arthurian tales) that Aragorn, Arthur and Lancelot have nothing to tell us about what a paladin might look like or how one might be played.

How much plausibility? None.

EDITed to add: I agree that Hiawatha does have more relevance to understanding the D&D paladin than does Elton John or Paul McCartney.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> What he knows is whether a specific action is good, evil or neither.  Only he can decide what is right or wrong in the broader circumstances.



How is that to be determined, if not by some account of the connection between the act and some good? But then who gets to define the latter good? If the character, then in what sense does the "cosmological force" have a monopoly on what counts as good? If the objective force, then how come it disapproves of the character acting in pursuit of its own ends? 



N'raac said:


> The fact that the rules list them as the ideals of Good seems to me to provide the game conceit that they are motivated or generated by reference to that ideal.



In that case, how does a character who takes action to further that ideal count as acting evilly? Which is what you are positing, when you posit a character who _acts evilly_ yet can plausibly claim to be _acting for the greater good_.



N'raac said:


> You are the one who began the discussion of adherence to arbitrary rules.



And? I pointed out that those who adhere to the rules don't believe them to be arbitrary, typically because they have a conception of the underlying rationale for adhering to the rule, which they then give effect to in their judgements as to what counts as compliance or non-compliance.

You are positing "cosmological forces" that apply precepts _without any regard_ for the underlying values they serve. That is rules fetishism. You also seem to think that it can simultaneously be LG and LN, but that's a contradiction I'll leave for you to resolve.



N'raac said:


> What ideals did he profess to live up to?  The defined by game rules ideals of Law and Good, or did he define his own ideals, which may best be demonstrated outside actions one might define as Lawful and Good?



When I play D&D, I don't first read the rulebooks about Law and Good and Evil and whatnot. I draw upon my own knowledge of the culture and tradition and tropes and history and legend and wish-fulfilment and ludicrous romance that the game is built upon.

When I was a boy, that was Lego Castle and knights and dragons. I would like to think that today my conception of chivalric romance is more sophisticated. It can certainly be adapted in ways I had never thought of when I was young (for instance, the treatment of duty in Act 2 of the Valkyrie, which I at least find incredibly moving).

For me, the point of fantasy RPGing is to connect to these stories, and tropes and themes. To the extent that I have a conception of what LG is, its because I know its the alignment of paladins, and I know what a paladin is because I know those stories. To the extent that I have a conception of what LN is, its because I know that is the alignment of the quintessential martial artist, and I know _that_ trope. To the extent that I have a conception of what CG is, its because I can imagine Robin Hood and his merry man, jolly outlaws who only rob from the rich and who give to the poor.

You seem to be positing something exactly backwards: that I would read the alignment system, try to get some independent handle on it (though I'm not sure how, because you don't want me to use the only methods that strike me as relevant), and then from that to work out what a paladin is, or what a monk is? I personally find that a very strange way to approach the game.



N'raac said:


> In a game featuring mechanical alignment, I need not assess whether a character is "honourable". <snip>  I do not see "Honourable Kindness" represented among the alignments



From the d20 SRD:

a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. 

. . .

A paladin who . . . grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities​
In other words, to adjudicate a paladin within the mechanical alignment and code framework of 3E I _do_ need to adjudicate his/her conduct by reference to honour and also helping those in need (which = kindness, as far as I can tell).

Here is some more from the same source:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.​
Now how is "acting with honour" defined? As not lying or cheating (= telling the truth and keeping one's word). So lawful characters are defined as honourable. Indeed, the definition of the paladin's code overlaps heavily with lawfulness ("respect legitimate authority" is very close to "respect authority", given that I think it is widely accepted that LG types don't respect tyrants and other illegitimate authorities). The "helping those in need" and "punishing those who threaten or harm innocents" seems to come from the paladin's goodness, however:

"Good" implies altruism [= kindness], respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.​
The particular form of personal sacrifice the paladin makes is the sacrifice of risk-taking in the defence of others: that is the sacrifice appropriate to an honourable warrior (= knight). 



N'raac said:


> you sure claim a lot of knowledge of mechanical alignment while indicating you don't use it and have not for many years.



Put it this way: I don't think I'm claiming knowledge that I don't have.



N'raac said:


> And we're back to Brave, Brave Sir Robin - he has written it on his character sheet, and thus when he flees, wets himself, or refuses to emerge from beneath his bed, he must be doing so bravely.



Are you intending to imply by this that GM-enforced alignment is needed to keep players true to their conceptions of their characters? I can't see what other purpose this particular remark serves.

If that is what you are intending, then I see no evidence that it is true. On this point my experience is very much the same as    [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s - most players, when given the freedom to do so, will play sincerely. That a player's sincere conception of what honour, or paladinhood, requires might be different from mine, or from another player's, is not a problem. It's a wonderful thing!


********************



N'raac said:


> Given that the term is defined only by reference to knighthood, I'll give you the relationship.  Now, does every knight live up to these ideals, or is it the case that not all knights are Paladins?  I note Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, neither of whom, I suspect, would lay claim to dexterity in arms.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where does a Black Knight fit into your assertion of the game's intentions?



Did I ever assert that all knights are paladins? No. Did I assert that paladins state the ideal of knighthood? Yes. I stand by that second assertion.

A black knight is a villain. A _blackguard_, even! In the language of the original game, an anti-paladin. (Just as an evil high priest is an anti-cleric, and a person wrongly exercising the power of the papacy is an anti-pope.)

And what knighthood as part of the contemporary British honours system has to do with D&D at all is beyond me. (Though at least I didn't anticipate the red herring. I had assumed that your irrelevant example would be the chivalric aspirations of some of the WWI fighter pilots.)



N'raac said:


> Does it also follow that there can be no Commoner Paladins?  What was Joan of Arc's rank in the nobility?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> for some reason, D&D 4e absolutely dismisses the idea of any Paladin who has not been raised to noble status by being Knighted



The whole point of the story of Joan of Arc is that she _is_ a knight, is truer to the ideals and aspirations of knighthood than those who call themselves knights. (Two classic cinematic representations of this idea is found in John Boorman's Excalibur, first when Arthur hands Excalibur to Uriens so that Uriens can knight him as a necessary condition of swearing fealty, and then when Percival is knighted so he can take up the challenge to defend Guinevere's honour. In both cases, each is inwardly a true knight than those around them, and the ceremony merely reflects that. Natural law, and providence, is a significant component of the cultural outlook from which the paladin archetype springs. And to allude to    [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]'s example of Yamamoto Date, in The Seventh Samurai we find the similar idea expressed with respect to Toshiru Mifune's character, who even though not literally a samurai is in certain ways truer to the underlying ideals than some of the "real" samurai.)



N'raac said:


> Crusaders, perhaps?



Who do you think these were? (Hint: French, German and English knights.) Who do you think there greatest exemplars were? (Hint: the crusading orders of knighthood, such as the Templars and the Teutonic Knights.) How did they fight? Whether in the lands around Anatolia and Jerusalem, or in the lands around Prussia and Poland, they fought by putting on heavy armour, getting onto heavy horses, and charging. _That_ was the source of their military power - the mounted charge. What is the name for a heavily-armed mounted warrior? (Hint: a knight.)



N'raac said:


> Right after dismissing your comparison as superficial.



Have you read Three Hearts and Three Lions?

In the meantime, here are some of Wikipedia's greatest hits:

[sblock]Holger Carlsen is an Allied covert operative who assists the Danish Resistance to the Nazis. After an explosion, he finds himself carried to a parallel universe, which proves to have the Matter of France as its historical past. . . His quest finally leads him to discover that he is Ogier the Dane . . .

The Matter of France, also known as the Carolingian cycle, is a body of literature and legendary material associated with the history of France, in particular involving Charlemagne and his associates. . .

Central figures of the Matter of France include Charlemagne and his paladins, especially Roland, hero of The Song of Roland . . .

Ogier the Dane first appears as one of Charlemagne's knights, in Chanson de Roland​[/sblock]

Gee, I wonder if any of that involves knights? That's right, ALL OF IT DOES. In other words, the book that OSRIC cites as the immediate inspiration for the D&D paladin is a modern version of mediaeval stories written for knights about knights.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Yes, I agree there were exceptions (though I'm not sure that a samurai really counts as one!)
> 
> But I think you're losing the context.




I disagree.  I think those examples clarify that the heavily armored mounted Knight is one example of a character who might, if he also hols true to specific ideals of LG, be a Paladin.  The "Knight in Shining Armor" is one example of a Paladin in a certain culture.  But not all Paladins are Knights, and not all Knights are Paladins.  I would not expect all Samurai to qualify either, as I believe their hallmark is more Law than Good, but a Samurai could certainly be Good and be an exemplar of the ideals of both Law and Good.  Such a character would face a significant challenge should his obligations as a Samurai (Law) come into conflict with his ideals of Good.



pemerton said:


> I mentioned the example of Sturm Brightblade as an example, from core D&D material - the Dragonlance Chronicles, for heavens sake! - who did _good_, and became a beter Knight of Solamnia, precisely because he eschewed the fetishism of rules and precepts in favour of the realisation of the underlying values.




First, Dragonlance is not universally viewed as "core D&D".  For a hyperbolic discussion of same (by its author's admission), see http://grognardia.blogspot.ca/2008/04/how-dragonlance-ruined-everything.html.  It tossed Halflings for Kender.  It removed, at least initially, clerical spells (so a Cleric was a fighter with poorer rolls to hit, weaker weapon choices and less hp).  And it removed Paladins, replacing them with Knights of Solamnia.  IOW, a specific choice was made that the Knightly Order of which Sturm Brightblade was a member *was not* an order of Paladins.



pemerton said:


> @_*N'raac*_ asserted (by way of rhetorical question) that Sturm being a better knight didn't mean he showed us a better paladin. Now obviously N'raac can play the game however he wants, but how can it be seriously asserted that Sturm is not intended as a model for knightly, chivalric, honourable, paladin-esque behaviour within the context of D&D play?




You are putting words in my mouth.  What I have said is that blind adherence to fetishistic dogmatic rules is closer to LN than to LG, such that the specific character departed from the rules of his Order to become closer to a Paladin-esque character.  Had there been Paladins in DL, he perhaps would have become one.  But the fact that most of the Order were bound more to rules than to the ideals of Good indicated that not all those Knights were Paladins, or exemplars of Paladinlike LG behaviour.

It has been many years since I read the first DL module or two (our group was never really taken with the setting), but I recall some early discussions of how the KoS seemed a variance of Paladins, who were more Good than Lawful, to a class more Lawful than Good.



pemerton said:


> This has the same degree of plausibility as his argument upthread (reiterated just above because, in a moment of alliterative enthusiasm the 2nd ed authors mentioned only Galahad and Gawaine from the Arthurian tales) that Aragorn, Arthur and Lancelot have nothing to tell us about what a paladin might look like or how one might be played.




I do not see where, from the quote, you cited, it is any more plausible that the choice of examples was pure alliteration rather than specific Knights chosen for their specific characteristics.  Even if "The Knights of the Round Table" were cited, they were specifically called out as having a "superficial resemblance".  It has also been pointed out that few of the Knights of the Round Table were Paladins in the Deities & Demigods sourcebook.  The Cavalier, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, seems a clear indication that, while the medieval Europe setting of D&D envisioned all Paladins as Knights (although again, Deities & Demigods, provided other examples), not all Knights were Paladins.  Not even close.



pemerton said:


> In that case, how does a character who takes action to further that ideal count as acting evilly? Which is what you are positing, when you posit a character who _acts evilly_ yet can plausibly claim to be _acting for the greater good_.




To me, the alignment system takes the position that the ends do not justify the means.  Many heroic tales include Our Hero admonishing another, often a youthful sidekick, that, if we stoop to their methods, then we have already lost.  That is a definite trope of fantasy fiction, and of heroic fiction in general.  The Paladin has faith that he need not stoop to evil means to accomplish Good - providence will ensure that the Righteous shall prevail.



pemerton said:


> And? I pointed out that those who adhere to the rules don't believe them to be arbitrary, typically because they have a conception of the underlying rationale for adhering to the rule, which they then give effect to in their judgements as to what counts as compliance or non-compliance.
> 
> You are positing "cosmological forces" that apply precepts _without any regard_ for the underlying values they serve. That is rules fetishism. You also seem to think that it can simultaneously be LG and LN, but that's a contradiction I'll leave for you to resolve.




Once again, you provide your opinions as mine.  I am positing that those cosmological forces  have a conception of the underlying rationale for adhering to the rule, and neither they nor their True Believers consider them to be arbitrary.  It is interesting that _the Lord moves in mysterious ways_ only when we discuss mysteries of which you are supportive.



pemerton said:


> When I play D&D, I don't first read the rulebooks about Law and Good and Evil and whatnot. I draw upon my own knowledge of the culture and tradition and tropes and history and legend and wish-fulfilment and ludicrous romance that the game is built upon.




Excellent.  So do I.  I then evaluate the consistency of my character's views, shaped by those traditions, tropes, history and legend in light of the manner in which alignments are set out in the rulebook, and select the alignment that I find to be the best match for that character's ideology.  If I find this a close call, I discuss it with the GM, perhaps other players, to see what best fits with the parameters of this setting and game.

Only having done that do I assess mechanics such as class selection.  Having determined my character believes the ends justify the means, and that he is perhaps only borderline LG, or perhaps not LG at all, I do not select the Paladin class, because my character is, quite clearly, not a devoutly LG character.  That is, I do not read the rulebook first, decide to play a Paladin because I like the name, or some mechanic, then chafe because the Paladin class mechanically does not fit my character conceptually.  I select mechanics second, based on concept first.

This sounds like what you are describing, until we get to some dogged determination that your character _simply must_ be LG and/or a Paladin, rather than selecting game mechanics consistent with the concept you have developed independent of those mechanics.



pemerton said:


> To the extent that I have a conception of what LG is, its because I know its the alignment of paladins, and I know what a paladin is because I know those stories. To the extent that I have a conception of what LN is, its because I know that is the alignment of the quintessential martial artist, and I know _that_ trope. To the extent that I have a conception of what CG is, its because I can imagine Robin Hood and his merry man, jolly outlaws who only rob from the rich and who give to the poor.




I thought you were developing your character outside the rulebook first.  Why do you find the need to define your character primarily in rulebook jargon?  This is the failing of many players of Thieves, back in the day, who decided the name means "I must steal from my friends", ultimately moving the name to Rogue to help these poor people who could not get past the tag attached to a certain class.



pemerton said:


> From the d20 SRD:a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
> 
> . . .
> 
> A paladin who . . . grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities​
> In other words, to adjudicate a paladin within the mechanical alignment and code framework of 3E I _do_ need to adjudicate his/her conduct by reference to honour and also helping those in need (which = kindness, as far as I can tell).
> 
> Here is some more from the same source:Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and *judge those who fall short of their duties*.​





Emphasis added.  Didn't you tell us all that, in the discussion of @_*Hussar*_'s scenario where two characters disagreed on the appropriateness of torture to the LG alignment, to judge the other was completely inappropriate, as it demonstrates the sin of pride?  Yet here, we see that the rule book directly contradicts you.  That again suggests that one assess the alignment based on what the rules say.  Perhaps you would describe that as Chaotic Hypocritical.  YOUR CHARACTER would not judge others.  Great - I fully support your right to realize your vision of your character.  So pick an alignment which is non-lawful, as your character does not judge others, or which is lawful, acknowledging that he has a trait which is not consistent with Law, but also possesses many traits which are lawful - he tells the truth, keeps their word, respects authority and  honors tradition.  But don't then decide our character is also OK lying and cheating, chafes under authority and values change - or at least, don't do so while insisting the rest of us accept he remains lawful.​


pemerton said:


> A black knight is a villain. A _blackguard_, even! In the language of the original game, an anti-paladin. (Just as an evil high priest is an anti-cleric, and a person wrongly exercising the power of the papacy is an anti-pope.)




Indeed - he is both a villain and a Knight.  There was no anti-paladin in the original game (outside the occasional magazine article), and clerics of both good and evil deities existed.



pemerton said:


> The whole point of the story of Joan of Arc is that she _is_ a knight, is truer to the ideals and aspirations of knighthood than those who call themselves knights.




Then we are departing from the dictionary definitions of _Knight._  It's very difficult to converse rationally when we must first intuit the Pemerese meaning of familiar-sounding words.  Perhaps this is why the rule books seek to define more narrowly terms that have broad interpretations in general language.  To me, if the word is defined in the rule book, that definition replaces its ordinary meaning for purposes of the game.  [This is similar to matters of law, where we turn to ordinary meaning, often from dictionaries, only when the term does not have a defined meaning under statute or at law.]



pemerton said:


> Who do you think these were? (Hint: French, German and English knights.) Who do you think there greatest exemplars were? (Hint: the crusading orders of knighthood, such as the Templars and the Teutonic Knights.) How did they fight? Whether in the lands around Anatolia and Jerusalem, or in the lands around Prussia and Poland, they fought by putting on heavy armour, getting onto heavy horses, and charging. _That_ was the source of their military power - the mounted charge. What is the name for a heavily-armed mounted warrior? (Hint: a knight.)




Yet none of this makes them Paladins.  Perhaps there were some within their orders (and/or legends) who might also be Paladins,  but again, all Paladins are not Knights and all Knights are not Paladins.  The addition of the Cavalier, referenced a few times in this thread, seems an explicit recognition that mounted Knights are hardly all Paladins.  One might well have a character who is both a Knight and a Paladin.  It does  not mean all Knights are Paladins, nor that all Paladins are Knights, nor that each member of either group aspires to be a member of the other.


----------



## N'raac

BTW, @_*pemerton*_, if your vision of the ideals of Paladinhood (and LG behind it) come from the tropes of literature and legend, how does that reconcile with 4e's radical shift to allow Paladins of Good, Neutral and Evil deities?  I can be a Paladin of the God of Murder and Carnage under 4e rules, espousing the ideals of Chaos and Evil, which hardly seems consistent with your vision.  I could play such a character in any edition, but I don't believe he would be accepted as LG, and only 4e would accept him as a Paladin.

To me, that is another indication that "ordinary English meaning" must often be superseded by "specific definition within relevant rules".


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> Yes, I agree there were exceptions (though I'm not sure that a samurai really counts as one!)
> 
> But I think you're losing the context.




Sorry, wasn't trying to address your previous argument directly - was just adding some stuff I thought was interesting in regards to how 1e addressed Paladins and alignment.




pemerton said:


> @_*N'raac*_ asserted (by way of rhetorical question) that Sturm being a better knight didn't mean he showed us a better paladin. Now obviously N'raac can play the game however he wants, but how can it be seriously asserted that Sturm is not intended as a model for knightly, chivalric, honourable, paladin-esque behaviour within the context of D&D play?




Certainly, all else being held fixed or not slipping too far, being a better knight seems like it should make a current paladin be a better paladin.  The not back sliding too far on the connection to the divine seems vital - if Joan or Lancelot turned their back on God, they'd merely be Knights.


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] : I can't XP you but good overall reply in post 1222.


----------



## Nagol

Just pointing out there were several types of knight historically:


Holy orders like the Hospitalier, Templar, and Teutonic
Landed knights -- promoted by nobility and controlling a fief
 Household knights -- promoted by nobility and given a position inside someone else's fief
Knights Errant -- promoted by nobility, but not granted a fiefdom nor position in a household

It would be... odd if the latter three categories were considered divinely inspired.


----------



## Hussar

Reading through this, I'm finally having something of an epiphany about play styles.  Let me see if I can get this out in a way that makes sense.  Again, this is all my own opinion and I'm not trying to argue that this is the only way to see things.  The reason that we're having such a difficult time reconciling these views is that the three basic play styles represented in this thread have fundamentally different criteria for what makes a good game.

1.  The Gamists.

Nagol some time back asked about strongly gamist players and how you would rein them in in a game without mechanical alignment.  The funny thing is, that's the wrong question.  To see how gamist players react to my approach, you only have to work your way back a few pages to an exchange between myself and [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION].  There, he argued that alignment is a statistic and as such, needs to be tracked just like you track everything else in the game.  My response was that I track virtually nothing in the game and he responded by throwing up his hands and declaring that I wasn't even playing a game anymore.

And, from his perspective, he has a very good point.  The goal of gamist play is to challenge yourself against the scenarios provided by the DM.  You play from the perspective that everything is a puzzle or challenge.  Alignment is useful in that it defines some of the difficulty levels of the game.  Without mechanical alignment, you are free to choose the solution which is the most expedient. But, that's ultimately unsatisfying.  It's like playing a video game on easy mode.  There's no challenge (or at least the challenge is significantly reduced).

The same goes for the idea of the players choosing their own levels or being able to choose what monsters to face.  That wouldn't work in a gamist game.  It would be entirely boring.  It's God Mode play.  Very unsatisfying.

2.  The Simulationists (with a heavy dose of immersionists)

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] talks about "exploring the DM's world".  That's a pretty clear simulationist approach to the game.  And, if alignment can mean multiple things, you can't really explore it.  It's like trying to explore a quantum situation where something is and is not at the same time.  It's not going to be satisfying, because you can't explore it.  

With [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], he's approaching things heavily from a world building point of view.  If a player (and thus a character because for an immersionist, there should be little to no difference) can define morality, then there isn't any morality in the world.  It's like the situation with the Glabrezu wish that got brought up earlier in the thread.  For N'raac, you use the alignment mechanics to increase the difficulty to gain a free wish because if it was easy, everyone in the world who could, would do it.  For me, the world can go hang.  I'd allow the wishes to go through because it would make an interesting story.  Which brings us to the third corner of the triangle:

3. The Narativists.

The goal for Nar play is to create an interesting story through the collaboration of the entire table.  This isn't simply collective story telling though since we also have the additional random element of the mechanics.  N'raac brings up the idea of the two paladins, with one deciding to torture a prisoner and justifying it through the idea of the "greater good".  He talks about how it would be a great game for a player, knowing that it was evil, to still choose to fall.  And, yeah, that could be great.

But, the problem for me, is that's the DM's story, not the player's.  The DM is telling the player, "That is an evil act, if you do that, you will violate your paladin's oath".  The player can then choose to follow the DM's story or not, but, at no point can he tell his own story.

For me, the cooler story would be for the player to choose to go through with it.  As a DM, you can bet that I'm going to run with that.  What can be justified for the greater good?  How far will this character go?  What about the next time?  What about the other character?  What if he sees that the ends actually do justify the means and chooses to change his character.  This just adds all sorts of conflicts into the party and I'm going to be in the corner giggling like a concussed monkey on peyote.  

Again, no one is wrong here.  Everyone is actually right, but the criteria are very different and that needs to be kept in mind when discussing this.  Pemerton's approach likely won't work at Imaro's table, for example.  His players and Imaro himself would likely balk at this style of play.  That does not make Pemerton wrong though.  It's just a different way of gaming.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I do not regard myself as a simulationist.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> Reading through this, I'm finally having something of an epiphany about play styles.  Let me see if I can get this out in a way that makes sense.  Again, this is all my own opinion and I'm not trying to argue that this is the only way to see things.  The reason that we're having such a difficult time reconciling these views is that the three basic play styles represented in this thread have fundamentally different criteria for what makes a good game.




I'm not sure your categories work well in this regard.

What we have to determine is motivations to play versus and the consequence that fall out.  Please note the use of "can" rather than "will" -- each person has a different threshold of deviance from expected norms and different internal checks and balances to modify behaviour in a group dynamic.

For most PCs, alignment acts as a sanity check/group consensus as to how each PC is acting.  For a few it acts as a check on behaviour.  I'm going to concentrate on the latter for the moment.

A better list of player types for this would be found in _Robin Law's Good Game Mastering_.

Power Gamer -- wants to success in game.  Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in power play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to provide both play balance and genre expectation when they interfere with in-game success.  

Tactician -- wants to work through challenging logical situations.  Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in tactical play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to provide both play balance and genre expectation when they contradict an obvious logical way forward.  

Butt-kicker -- wants to blow of steam and have fun.  Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in butt-kicker play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to provide both play balance and genre expectation when they interfere with immediate action.  

Method Actor -- wants to explore a specific role.  Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in method play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to play balance and genre expectation when they conflict with how a particular personality would react or if the player view and the DM's view of the genre are out of sync.  

Storyteller -- wants to build a compelling story.  Without checks on behaviour someone trying to build a compelling narrative can ignore behavioural restrictions when those restrictions interfere with what is perceived a better twist/narrative turn.

Casual Gamer -- wants to hang out with friends.  Without checks on behaviour someone engaging in casual play can ignore behavioural restrictions pretty much at any time.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Reading through this, I'm finally having something of an epiphany about play styles.



I think this is a pretty well-thought out, reasoned post, and I wanted to publicly acknowledge it in the thread (since XP comments aren't available, and since I can't hit Hussar with XP at this time). It's very civil, thoughtful, and hitting on some truths, in my opinion. I can see how people might disagree with bits and pieces, but I also think this post adds a lot to this discussion.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> 2.  The Simulationists (with a heavy dose of immersionists)
> 
> With @_*N'raac*_, he's approaching things heavily from a world building point of view.  If a player (and thus a character because for an immersionist, there should be little to no difference) can define morality, then there isn't any morality in the world.  It's like the situation with the Glabrezu wish that got brought up earlier in the thread.  For N'raac, you use the alignment mechanics to increase the difficulty to gain a free wish because if it was easy, everyone in the world who could, would do it.  For me, the world can go hang.  I'd allow the wishes to go through because it would make an interesting story.  Which brings us to the third corner of the triangle:




I don't know why we keep coming back to the Glabrezu, but I don't find the issue to be about alignment.  It's about his mechanics - specifically, that either 







> the _wish_ is used to create pain and suffering in the world



 or 







> the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation




The purpose of asking for a wish from the Glabrezu also seems to be adjusting, as you originally presented it as an example of the trivial ease with which a spellcaster could access unlimited wishes, a purpose which seems much more akin to an effort to play on God Mode than to create  an interesting narrative.  The thread in question asserted that the non-spellcasters were shut out of the game because the spellcasters took over the narrative, so it was not presented as a means of creating an interesting narrative for everyone, but of the specific player taking over the game.  The wish itself kept changing, trying to find something sufficiently evil to be granted, so it did not seem to fit into any kind of narrative.  I recall killing a high priest, killing a King and destroying an orphanage.  I'm sure there were a few others.  I don't  believe we ever addressed whether the character was an exemplar of LG beliefs throughout his demon summoning and Evil wish-making, but I suppose if the player wants t claim that, it furthers a narrative just as coherent.



Hussar said:


> 3. The Narativists.
> 
> The goal for Nar play is to create an interesting story through the *collaboration of the entire table*.  This isn't simply collective story telling though since we also have the additional random element of the mechanics.  N'raac brings up the idea of the two paladins, with one deciding to torture a prisoner and justifying it through the idea of the "greater good".  He talks about how it would be a great game for a player, knowing that it was evil, to still choose to fall.  And, yeah, that could be great.
> 
> But, the problem for me, is that's the DM's story, not the player's.  The DM is telling the player, "That is an evil act, if you do that, you will violate your paladin's oath".  The player can then choose to follow the DM's story or not, but, *at no point can he tell his own story*.




OK, you lost me.  Are we telling a collaborative story, or this one player's own story which no one else at the table has any right to interfere with?


Hussar said:


> For me, the cooler story would be for the player to choose to go through with it.  As a DM, you can bet that I'm going to run with that.  What can be justified for the greater good?  How far will this character go?  What about the next time?  What about the other character?  What if he sees that the ends actually do justify the means and chooses to change his character.  This just adds all sorts of conflicts into the party and I'm going to be in the corner giggling like a concussed monkey on peyote.




Well, given there are no consequences, I guess Player 1 does whatever he sees fit, and Player 2 can either continue role playing his vision of his character, becoming an opponent of Player 1, or toss his own morals out the window as well.  Apparently, the Gods are all concussed monkeys on peyote anyway.

Play style will certainly enter into the matter - it permeates the game - but I don't see how "do whatever you want and the higher powers will be presumed to agree with you" falls inside any specific playstyle.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> For me, the cooler story would be for the player to choose to go through with it.  As a DM, you can bet that I'm going to run with that.  What can be justified for the greater good?  How far will this character go?  What about the next time?  What about the other character?  What if he sees that the ends actually do justify the means and chooses to change his character.  This just adds all sorts of conflicts into the party and I'm going to be in the corner giggling like a concussed monkey on peyote.
> 
> Again, no one is wrong here.  Everyone is actually right, but the criteria are very different and that needs to be kept in mind when discussing this.  Pemerton's approach likely won't work at Imaro's table, for example.  His players and Imaro himself would likely balk at this style of play.  That does not make Pemerton wrong though.  It's just a different way of gaming.




So if the ends can justify the means, when does the paladin fall -- when the expected ends aren't achieved or ever?

For example, in the torture scenario, a paladin decides to torture someone because the greater good will be achieved (say a mad bomber needs to be stopped).  The other paladin storms off unwilling to participate.

Potential Resolution #1
The torture takes place.  The paladin rushes off with his vital information and stops the bomb.  Does he now fall?  The torture accomplished good, but still caused evil.  Or does the fact the paladin helped the greater good absolve him from the evil in the commission of torture?  

Potential Resolution #2
The torture takes place.  The paladin rushes off with his vital information but fails to stop the bomb.  Does he now fall?  The torture accomplished no good, and still caused evil.  Or does the fact the paladin expected it to help the greater good absolve him from the evil in the commission of torture?  In which case, so long as the character always has good intentions, can anything be justified?  If so, is the paladin an exemplar for anything other than intentions since end results need never occur?

Potential Resolution #3
The torture takes place. The paladin rushes off with false information and because of his side trek, fails to stop the bomber.   Does he now fall?  His evil act prevented good from happening.

Potential Resolution #4
The torture takes place. No information is gained as the subject didn't know what the paladin thought he did.   Does he now fall?  His evil act caused no good.

Potential Resolution #5
The torture takes place.  The second paladin stops the bomber before the paladin's information could be put to use.   Does he now fall?  His evil act caused no good.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol, remember, for me the paladin falls when the player says he does. That's for the player to decide. And any of those results would lead to interesting play.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I do not regard myself as a simulationist.




Why not?  You said that you want to explore the DM's setting. That's what sim play is all about. You aren't really interested in defeating challenges and creating a collaborative story isn't your goal. 

How would you characterize yourself?


----------



## Arduin's

Hussar said:


> You aren't really interested in defeating challenges and creating a collaborative story isn't your goal.




What's a "collaborative story"?  Story  A recital of events that have happened (past tense) or have alleged to have happened.

Are you running a PC in real time or are you sitting around with other players telling stories about what you played in the past?

The former is NOT a story, the latter IS.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Why not?  You said that you want to explore the DM's setting. That's what sim play is all about. You aren't really interested in defeating challenges and creating a collaborative story isn't your goal.
> 
> How would you characterize yourself?




We have already had this conversation. I do not wish to debate GNS again. Sufficient to say I think the model is a bad one, and do not find it at all helpful to label myself a simulationist. I want a setting gaff feels real, I also want lots of other things. I never said anything about 'exploring' the GM's concepts of alignment (pemerton did). I just want the setting to feel like a real thing outside my character. If you want to apply GNS labels to yourself, feel free. Find those categories reductive and artificial. GNS has a huge number of problems. One of its biggest issues is how it tries to define simulationist.


----------



## N'raac

Nagol said:


> So if the ends can justify the means, when does the paladin fall -- when the expected ends aren't achieved or ever?
> 
> For example, in the torture scenario, a paladin decides to torture someone because the greater good will be achieved (say a mad bomber needs to be stopped).  The other paladin storms off unwilling to participate.
> 
> Potential Resolution #1
> The torture takes place.  The paladin rushes off with his vital information and stops the bomb.  Does he now fall?  The torture accomplished good, but still caused evil.  Or does the fact the paladin helped the greater good absolve him from the evil in the commission of torture?
> 
> Potential Resolution #2
> The torture takes place.  The paladin rushes off with his vital information but fails to stop the bomb.  Does he now fall?  The torture accomplished no good, and still caused evil.  Or does the fact the paladin expected it to help the greater good absolve him from the evil in the commission of torture?  In which case, so long as the character always has good intentions, can anything be justified?  If so, is the paladin an exemplar for anything other than intentions since end results need never occur?
> 
> Potential Resolution #3
> The torture takes place. The paladin rushes off with false information and because of his side trek, fails to stop the bomber.   Does he now fall?  His evil act prevented good from happening.
> 
> Potential Resolution #4
> The torture takes place. No information is gained as the subject didn't know what the paladin thought he did.   Does he now fall?  His evil act caused no good.
> 
> Potential Resolution #5
> The torture takes place.  The second paladin stops the bomber before the paladin's information could be put to use.   Does he now fall?  His evil act caused no good.






Hussar said:


> Nagol, remember, for me the paladin falls when the player says he does. That's for the player to decide. And any of those results would lead to interesting play.




We're really back to the division of decisionmaking between player and GM.  Why should we not let the player make other important decisions, any of which may lead to interesting play, like:

 - whether the torture succeeds or the subject resists?
 - whether the subject had useful info at all?
 - the timing , including whether the info is extracted in time for the Paladin to stop the bomber?
 - whether having found the bomber, the Paladin succeeds in stopping him, or fails?

And why can't the second Paladin decide that he prays and receives a flash of insight, so he hurries off to find the bomber while the first is still busily torturing his prisoner?  

For that matter, who decided there was a bomber, and that he is mad, and that there is someone who may now his whereabouts, and that we were able to successfully take him prisoner?

Shared storytelling seems like it would share that around the table - which may mean another player's contribution to the story is that the act of Torture causes a reaction from the Forces of Good against the torturer?  After all, that second Paladin has a right to his concept that the powers of a Holy Warrior require ongoing devotion to Good to be retained, doesn't he?  Alternatively, if the issue is Player 2 being able to change Player 1's character, why can't Player 2 decide this greater devotion results in a reward for his Paladin?  Meanwhile, Player 3 feels his Wizard has so perfectly exemplified the ideals of LG that he should have all the divine powers of Paladins added to his character sheet as well.

It seems like a lot of this "sanctity of character concept" discussion limits what aspects are actually in the player's control, on a basis I find pretty arbitrary.


----------



## Hussar

Arduin's said:


> What's a "collaborative story"?  Story  A recital of events that have happened (past tense) or have alleged to have happened.
> 
> Are you running a PC in real time or are you sitting around with other players telling stories about what you played in the past?
> 
> The former is NOT a story, the latter IS.




You cannot create a story in real time?  That's an interesting point of view.  Not one I share, but interesting nonetheless.  What does improv theater do if it doesn't create a story in real time?



Bedrockgames said:


> We have already had this conversation. I do not wish to debate GNS again. Sufficient to say I think the model is a bad one, and do not find it at all helpful to label myself a simulationist. I want a setting gaff feels real, I also want lots of other things. I never said anything about 'exploring' the GM's concepts of alignment (pemerton did). I just want the setting to feel like a real thing outside my character. If you want to apply GNS labels to yourself, feel free. Find those categories reductive and artificial. GNS has a huge number of problems. One of its biggest issues is how it tries to define simulationist.




You want a setting that feels (I assume that's an autocorrect gaff in the quote  ) real to you.  You want it to feel like a real thing outside of your character.  That's about as simulationist an approach as it gets AFAIK.  Your goal is a functioning world that is independent of the characters.  That might not be the only goal, but it is a goal.  

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



N'raac said:


> We're really back to the division of decisionmaking between player and GM.  Why should we not let the player make other important decisions, any of which may lead to interesting play, like:
> 
> - whether the torture succeeds or the subject resists?




Irrelevant.  Governed by the mechanics of the game which was agreed to before play began.  There are systems where things work that way, but, D&D isn't one of them.  The Intimidation rules are pretty clear on how this sort of thing is resolved in D&D.



> - whether the subject had useful info at all?




Well, I'd say that if the paladin goes through with things, and the DM simply says, "Nope, he didn't know anything", that would violate the whole "interesting story" part.  That's just a dick move by the DM.  And, since the guy being tortured here (how did he become a bomber?) is an NPC, then he falls under the DM to run.  No one has questioned that.



> - the timing , including whether the info is extracted in time for the Paladin to stop the bomber?




Governed by the mechanics.  Again, Intimidate rules apply.  The players know that and would act appropriately



> - whether having found the bomber, the Paladin succeeds in stopping him, or fails?




Because we all sat down to play a game and we agreed, in sitting down, that success and failure is governed by the mechanics and the dice.  For the same reason you don't get to declare that your attack hit or miss.  

However, no one agreed that you get to force your singular interpretations of alignment to the exclusion of all other interpretations, onto the players at my table.  At your table, fine and dandy.  But not at mine.  Alignment is subject to multiple reasonable interpretations that are supportable by the phrasing of the mechanics.  I do not want to play at a table where the DM has decided that his, and his alone, interpretation is the only valid one.



> And why can't the second Paladin decide that he prays and receives a flash of insight, so he hurries off to find the bomber while the first is still busily torturing his prisoner?




What mechanics would allow for this?  Is there any power that the paladin has that would do this?  If not, then why does the paladin player feel that he is entitled to much up new rules on the fly?



> For that matter, who decided there was a bomber, and that he is mad, and that there is someone who may now his whereabouts, and that we were able to successfully take him prisoner?




Umm, the DM?  Again, no one has said that the DM cannot introduce or control NPC's?  Nor has anyone claimed that the DM cannot introduce complications or setting elements.  Everything would have had to have been played out and been the results of play.



> Shared storytelling seems like it would share that around the table - which may mean another player's contribution to the story is that the act of Torture causes a reaction from the Forces of Good against the torturer
> 
> After all, that second Paladin has a right to his concept that the powers of a Holy Warrior require ongoing devotion to Good to be retained, doesn't he?  Alternatively, if the issue is Player 2 being able to change Player 1's character, why can't Player 2 decide this greater devotion results in a reward for his Paladin?  Meanwhile, Player 3 feels his Wizard has so perfectly exemplified the ideals of LG that he should have all the divine powers of Paladins added to his character sheet as well.
> 
> It seems like a lot of this "sanctity of character concept" discussion limits what aspects are actually in the player's control, on a basis I find pretty arbitrary.




How is it arbitrary?  Or, rather, any more arbitrary than simply following the rules of the game?  The game rules don't allow the player to force a reaction from the Forces of Good, nor do they allow Player 3 to add powers to his character sheet.  

You are simply stuck in this idea that the rules are somehow the physics of the world.  This is not a criteria that is shared here.  The wizard cannot add paladin powers since that's not, in any way, conducive to the criteria of "an interesting narrative".  Now, the wizard could start taking paladin levels or multiclass into paladin, or behave the way a paladin might sans the actual paladin powers, but, that's a separate issue.

But, of course there are limits on what the player controls.  That's never been in contention.  Players don't get to dictate NPC behaviors, for example.  They generally don't get to dictate scenario elements.  They certainly don't get to contradict previously established facts.  

They don't do that because it would run counter to "creating an interesting narrative".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Like I said, I am not going to debate GNS again, but I do not feel simulationist as a label offers any insight into my play style. I certainly don't find it useful for myself as a category.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Like I said, I am not going to debate GNS again, but I do not feel simulationist as a label offers any insight into my play style. I certainly don't find it useful for myself as a category.




Ok, fair enough.  Ignore the label then.  Would you say that I have correctly characterised your criteria though?  Even if it is mislabeled?  You want a believable world that exists independent of the characters, correct?  Allowing the players to define alignment would make that world less believable since it would mean that morality in the game world would be fluid, as in not nailed down.  Correct?


----------



## Bedrockgames

My objection to pemerton's approach to alignment is rooted in a desire for a believable and consistent world. But like I said, I have lots of things I want and expect in play. This is just one thing that matters to me. the label 'simulation suay as it's defined in GNS (and the big model) does not capture why I am at the table.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> My objection to pemerton's approach to alignment is rooted in a desire for a believable and consistent world.



How is the gameworld that results from my playstyle unbelievable or inconsistent?

There are plenty of actual play examples linked upthread to provide material for an answer to that question.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in power play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to provide both play balance and genre expectation when they interfere with in-game success.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in tactical play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to provide both play balance and genre expectation when they contradict an obvious logical way forward.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in butt-kicker play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to provide both play balance and genre expectation when they interfere with immediate action.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Without checks on behaviour someone engaging in casual play can ignore behavioural restrictions pretty much at any time.



Is this empirical prediction? Something for which you have seen evidence in actual play? Speculation?

In Gygaxian D&D, using poison is a shortcut to in-game success. A behavioural prohibition on using poison is therefore a disadvantage. How does the notion of "behavioural restrictions that provide play balance" generalise beyond Gygaxian play, though? For instance, how does a 4e paladin get a game advantage by departing from genre expectations?

I have played with serious power gamers and tactical players (eg multiple Australiasian M:tG champions). I haven't noticed that an absence of GM-enforced mechanical alignment gives rise to the problems you describe. I believe this is because my game doesn't particularly mechanically reward departure from professed character concept (which was  [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION]'s point a couple of dozen or so posts upthread).



Nagol said:


> Without checks on behaviour someone trying to build a compelling narrative can ignore behavioural restrictions when those restrictions interfere with what is perceived a better twist/narrative turn.



How is "better" interacting here with "ignoring behavioural restrictions"? I can parse the sentence but I don't know what you have in mind as an example.



Nagol said:


> Without checks on behaviour, someone engaging in method play can ignore behavioural restrictions that are meant to play balance and genre expectation when they conflict with how a particular personality would react or if the player view and the DM's view of the genre are out of sync.



And how is GM enforcement of alignment going to solve this issue with this sort of player? As opposed to just preventing them from method-acting and forcing them to play some other style.

Bottom line: how is the game better if we force power, tactical, butt-kicker, method, storyteller etc players to play fighters and wizards (for whom alignment is irrelevant) but don't let them play paladins and clerics? How is that improving my play experience?



N'raac said:


> Why should we not let the player make other important decisions, any of which may lead to interesting play, like:
> 
> - whether the torture succeeds or the subject resists?
> - whether the subject had useful info at all?
> - the timing , including whether the info is extracted in time for the Paladin to stop the bomber?
> - whether having found the bomber, the Paladin succeeds in stopping him, or fails?
> 
> And why can't the second Paladin decide that he prays and receives a flash of insight, so he hurries off to find the bomber while the first is still busily torturing his prisoner?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It seems like a lot of this "sanctity of character concept" discussion limits what aspects are actually in the player's control, on a basis I find pretty arbitrary.



I have addressed this multiple times upthread and you have not responded.

The conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's action is successful is obvious. It removes the dynamic of challenge from the game. Likewise the player authoring backstory around big reveals removes suspense.

Where is the conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's behaviour answers to that PC's professed ideals?


----------



## howandwhy99

Bedrockgames said:


> My objection to pemerton's approach to alignment is rooted in a desire for a believable and consistent world. But like I said, I have lots of things I want and expect in play. This is just one thing that matters to me. the label 'simulation suay as it's defined in GNS (and the big model) does not capture why I am at the table.




You might be having problems with The Big Model because it isn't actually a game theory at all, but a narrative theory. That's why it uses dozens of narrative theory terms and no (virtually none?) game theory terms. It is utterly irrelevant to designing quality games. 

Game play is deciphering the code that is a game in order to achieve one or more objectives within that code. Story _making_ is about expressing one's self when existing within a culture of narrative. They are radically different acts. Stories often are created as codes so they might be comprehended by others, at least more or less. That's reading or interpreting the expressions of others, deciphering the pattern behind the coded expressions. Neither should be done in an absolutist manner. We can't be completely certain we are the ones expressing just as we can't be completely certain what other people are expressing. 

What I do to support role playing in my game is use a separate game system to define each role provided within it. Fighter characters (PC and NPC) improve by discovering how the system works by navigating and learning it. For PCs activity must be done by a player. For an NPC this is collected in what the NPC knows due to their experiences. 

I'm guessing you're closer to me in that you want a game with achievable objectives (story making cannot be a game objective, it's impossible). D&D can be that as long as you have a game that is a pattern. The expression of a code as defined by the rules. A comprehensible and discoverable reality in the referees mind related to the players as they play. That this code can use and be similar to fantastic or realistic elements is secondary, but like frosting on the cake. It's not absolutely necessary, but it can add to the enjoyment. To say it's about story telling is like saying Chess is really about medieval politics and not its mathematical design at all - IOW not about gaming at all. Gaming and game play are fundamentally separate from storytelling.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> Just pointing out there were several types of knight historically:
> 
> 
> Holy orders like the Hospitalier, Templar, and Teutonic
> Landed knights -- promoted by nobility and controlling a fief
> Household knights -- promoted by nobility and given a position inside someone else's fief
> Knights Errant -- promoted by nobility, but not granted a fiefdom nor position in a household
> 
> It would be... odd if the latter three categories were considered divinely inspired.



By "odd" do you mean "true to what people at the time believed"?

Is the goal of fantasy RPGing to emulate Tolkien - ie to present a world that expresses the pre-modern conceits of "fairy stories", Arthurian romance and the like? Or to emulate REH, and present an essentially modern outlook located within the tropes of historical and fantastic fiction?

If the latter, then no doubt notions that the feudal hierarchy is divinely established and sanctioned will be scoffed at. But as I have suggested multiple times upthread, a paladin has no place in such a gameworld. It's not a coincidence that REH's Conan contains no paladins or saints. (The closest I can think of is in The Phoenix on the Sword.)

If the former, then of course the knights that don't belong to holy orders are nevertheless participants in a divinely ordained hierarchy, and draw such divine inspiration as is suitable to their tasks. Mediaeval kings were _annointed_, after all - like bishops - although they did not themselves take holy orders. Paladins, and other knights called to divine service, are the highest exemplar to which other knights aspire.



N'raac said:


> OSRIC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Paladin class in OSRIC superfi cially resembles such legendary warriors as Sir Galahad or Sir Gawaine of the Arthurian cycle, but is more closely similar to characters described in the works of Poul Anderson. His “Three Hearts and Three Lions” is particularly highly recommended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see where, from the quote, you cited, it is any more plausible that the choice of examples was pure alliteration rather than specific Knights chosen for their specific characteristics.
Click to expand...


Please tell me one feature of Galahad or Gawaine that makes them more paladin-like than Arthur or Lancelot?

Especially as you are relying on Deities and Demigods (with its instances of Hiawatha and Theseus) to contest my characterisation of paladins as ideal knights: in D&DG both Lancelot and Arthur are presented as paladins (as, unsurprisingly, is Galahad), while Gawaine is presented as a fighter.



N'raac said:


> Even if "The Knights of the Round Table" were cited, they were specifically called out as having a "superficial resemblance".



Yes. Because they are from the Arthurian Cycle -  "the Matter of England" - rather than "the Matter of France". The OSRIC book then goes on immediately to point out the novel, by Poul Anderson, from which paladins were directly drawn by original D&D players. This is a book about Carolingian knights (ie "the Matter of France"). Are you ignoring that point? Do you have a different interpretation of Three Hearts and Three Lions from the one I have put forward, namely, that it presents the paladin as a knight? (I assume you realise that the Random House Dictionary gives, as the first two meaings of the word "paladin", "any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne" and "any knightly or heroic champion.")



N'raac said:


> while the medieval Europe setting of D&D envisioned all Paladins as Knights (although again, Deities & Demigods, provided other examples), not all Knights were Paladins.  Not even close.



Who are you addressing this point too? Who has denied it? I have not asserted that all knights are paladins. I have asserted that paladins are ideal knights - paragons of knighthood.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A black knight is a villain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is both a villain and a Knight. There was no anti-paladin in the original game (outside the occasional magazine article), and clerics of both good and evil deities existed.
Click to expand...


In the original game, clerics of evil were called anti-clerics.

The fact that a black knight is a villain doesn't show that paladins aren't ideal knights. Indeed, the villainy of a black knight is particularly evident because of the degree to which they fall short of that ideal.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think [the crusaders] were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this makes them /B] Paladins.
Click to expand...


No. It shows that the Crusaders were knights - an identity that you denied upthread. I have now established that the crusaders were knights - French (including Norman), German and English knights, to be exact, whose military advantage consisted in their use of the mounted charge. It is the PF rules that says that paladins are knights and crusaders. Hence PF seems to agree with me that the connection between paladins and knights is a genuine one. (As does the 2nd ed PHB, with its reference to chivalric ideals. As does the 4e PHB. As does OSRIC. I haven't reviewed the AD&D PHB or the 3E PHB, but I believe that they likewise draw the connection.)



N'raac said:


> The whole point of the story of Joan of Arc is that she is a knight, is truer to the ideals and aspirations of knighthood than those who call themselves knights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we are departing from the dictionary definitions of Knight. It's very difficult to converse rationally when we must first intuit the Pemerese meaning of familiar-sounding words.
Click to expand...


Well, another way of putting it would be this: it is hard to talk about ideals, and what counts as exemplifying or falling short of them, with someone who declines to admit the usage of words (like "good", "knight", "beauty", "love" etc) to refer to those ideals, and who appears to be unfamiliar with the relevant source material (or perhaps incapable or of engaging in, or unwilling to engage in, any but the most literal-minded reading of it).

In any event, here is the relevant dictionary definition (entry 4 in the Collins World English Dictionary, according to dictionary.reference.com): "a heroic champion of a lady or of a cause or principle". Part of the point of the legend of Joan of Arc is that she exemplifies this definition better than those who are knights purely in the formal sense (of having been knighted).

There is a notion, perhaps unfamiliar to modern Canadians but intimately familiar to mediaeval persons, that externally bestowed office is intended to correspond to innate or divinely ordained capacities, such that a person who is knighted but is false or inadequate will, in the end, have that corruption show through; and conversely, someone who is by external measure ignoble or humble, but is in the eyes of the divinity noble or worthy, will eventually have that worth manifest itself in material form. (This is the logic of such stories as Cinderella, the Princess and the Pea, the Bronze Ring etc. It is also expressed by Tolkien's poem about Strider, put into Bilbo's pen and mouth - "All that is gold does not glitter" - but of course, in the end, Aragorn does glitter as inner nature and external trappings are reconciled. Likewise for Saruman, in a converse fashion.)



N'raac said:


> if your vision of the ideals of Paladinhood (and LG behind it) come from the tropes of literature and legend, how does that reconcile with 4e's radical shift to allow Paladins of Good, Neutral and Evil deities?



Have I mentioned that I don't use mechanical alignment?

I've discussed extensively upthread the logic behind a paladin of a god of beauty (Corellon), fate (the Raven Queen), love (Sehanine), prowess (Kord), truth (Ioun), civilisation (Erathis) and nature (Melora). That covers all the gods labelled in 4e as unaligned.

A paladin of Bane (war) or Asmodeus (tyranny) strikes me personally as fallen or self-deluded; even moreso a paladin of Tiamat (greed), Zehir (night), Vecna (secrets) or Torog (imprisonment). If a player wants to show me I'm wrong, go to town! Gruumsh is a god of barbarism - I don't think he is served by knights in shining armour. The Chained God is in a special category again. He doesn't even have angels serving him (see The Plane Above, p 34).

I ran a module (P2) in which a knight of Lolth had realigned himself with Orcus, and confronted the knight of the Raven Queen (first in a dream vision, then in the flesh). It was an interesting encounter. Of course, a knight of Lolth, or of Orcus for that matter, doesn't regard him-/herself as self-deluded. The fact that s/he uses necrotic rather than radiant powers offers a bit of a clue, though! (From the 4e DMG, p 163: "Evil and chaotic evil deities have clerics and paladins just as other gods do. However, the powers of those classes . . . are strongly slanted toward good and lawful good characters. . . You can alter the nature of powers without changing their basic effects, making them feel more appropriate for the servants of evil gods: changing the damage type of a prayer, for instance, so that evil clerics and paladins deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage.")



N'raac said:


> I can be a Paladin of the God of Murder and Carnage under 4e rules



You would probably be an anti-paladin, dealing necrotic damage. (And as per p 90 of the PHB, the rules are authored on the assumption that players won't be playing such PCs - obviously if they do so, they have also taken on the need to do whatever adjustments or corrections are needed to make it all hang together.)


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> To me, the alignment system takes the position that the ends do not justify the means.



What do you mean by "the ends do not justify the means"? As Bertrand Russell famously asked, What else would?

Nothing _but_ the ends can justify any means: action taken without reference to the ends at which it aims is the quintessence of irrationality (or, perhaps, non-rationality).

Do you mean that people are under duties not to do certain things, even if they believe that doing such things might realise other values?

In that case, how can the "alignment system" take such a position, given that one of the alignments that it defines is Chaotic Evil, which recognises no notion of duty at all, and indeed no motivating principle but unconstrained self-regarding passion? Or Neutral Evil, which recognises no notion of duty at all, and no motivating principle but rational self-regard?

Do you mean that, as defined with the alignment system, Goodness brings with it a notion of duty not to perform certain actions, even if it seems that doing so might realise values for which Good people have a high regard? That seems plausible, though there is the conflicting evidence that Gygax defines Lawful Good by reference to a moral conception - Benthamite "greatest happiness of the greatest number" - that is famous mostly because it denies the existence of any such duties.

In real life, of course, utilitarians who deny the existence of such duties as barriers to the pursuit of the realisation of valuable things don't concede that they are departing from the dictates of Goodness. Rather, they argue that their conception of what goodness is, and of what duties exist (namely, the duty to maximise utility) are superior to other competing conceptions of value, goodness and duty. It is only in the somewhat Bizarro- world of D&D's mechanical alignment that a utilitarian is robbed of the vocabulary to state his/her case.



N'raac said:


> Many heroic tales include Our Hero admonishing another, often a youthful sidekick, that, if we stoop to their methods, then we have already lost.



Yes. What does this show us about mechanical alignment, other than remind us of the point that I already made, namely, that it robs us of the vocabulary to actually argue these points. (For example, if "Good" is defined as "complying with duties X, Y, Z" then it becomes tautologous for the mentor to caution the youth against adopting evil ways - whereas the actual point of these stories is that the advice is non-tautologous. The mentor hero has intuited an important but non-obvious truth about the connection between duty, action, value and perhaps also providence.)



N'raac said:


> I am positing that those cosmological forces  have a conception of the underlying rationale for adhering to the rule, and neither they nor their True Believers consider them to be arbitrary.



In that case, why would an adherent of those forces dispute their dictates - for instance, if their is a rationale to not torturing, why would the paladin want to torture, and argue that torturing is right because it will, in the overall balance, better respect life?



N'raac said:


> I do not read the rulebook first, decide to play a Paladin because I like the name, or some mechanic, then chafe because the Paladin class mechanically does not fit my character conceptually.  I select mechanics second, based on concept first.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I thought you were developing your character outside the rulebook first.  Why do you find the need to define your character primarily in rulebook jargon?



The paladin is not "rulebook jargon". It is a bundle of tropes packaged in mechanical terms.

No doubt you will regard this as arrogant, but I take the view that my handle on what a paladin is, and what it means to play one, is at least the equal of that of Gary Gygax, Poul Anderson and Tracy Hickman. I don't look to their rather half-baked and in places incoherent notion of "lawful good" in order to work out what it means to play a paladin. I take my lead from more fundamental sources. And when I am GMing a paladin, I don't look to the alignment mechanics to pose challenges and push the player. I look to my knowledge of (i) the source material, (ii) the ingame situation, (iii) the character as portrayed by the player, and (iv) the player. The alignment mechanics do not offer anything useful to me in either role, as far as I can see.



N'raac said:


> Didn't you tell us all that, in the discussion of Hussar's scenario where two characters disagreed on the appropriateness of torture to the LG alignment, to judge the other was completely inappropriate, as it demonstrates the sin of pride?



No. Perhaps you've forgotten, or perhaps you didn't read very carefully.

I said that to second-guess the torturing paladin's retention of divine abilities would be a sin of pride. The sin of pride consists in judging the divine - and it's decision to leave the torturing paladin vested with divine power - not in applying the determinations of the divine to the mortal.



N'raac said:


> Yet here, we see that the rule book directly contradicts you.



There is nothing there that entails, implies or even hints that the paladin is expected to judge the divinity.



N'raac said:


> That again suggests that one assess the alignment based on what the rules say.



I'm not sure how I'm meant to interpret this sentence. Also, where does the rules text talk about which ends justify which means, such that - simply from reading the rules text - you extracted the claim I have quoted at the top of this post?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> How is the gameworld that results from my playstyle unbelievable or inconsistent?
> 
> There are plenty of actual play examples linked upthread to provide material for an answer to that question.




I am not trying to knock your playstyle, or say it can't be consistent, but for me, if the players can do things that establish setting material (for example decide whether Yom God of Yams is angry or not at the pcs for taking a particular action) that both is likely to lead to inconsistency in the setting (one day Yom is happy the pkayers eat his sacred yams, the next day he is furious) and makes these things that are supposed to be external to my character feel less external because players are influencing how they behave. If players deciding the god is angry at them or not, doesn't disrupt your sense of an external and consistent settingm then that is fine, it isn't an issue for you. But i find stuff like that very disruptive to my sense of an external and consistent setting.


----------



## Hussar

howandwhy99 said:


> You might be having problems with The Big Model because it isn't actually a game theory at all, but a narrative theory. That's why it uses dozens of narrative theory terms and no (virtually none?) game theory terms. It is utterly irrelevant to designing quality games.
> 
> Game play is deciphering the code that is a game in order to achieve one or more objectives within that code. Story _making_ is about expressing one's self when existing within a culture of narrative. They are radically different acts. Stories often are created as codes so they might be comprehended by others, at least more or less. That's reading or interpreting the expressions of others, deciphering the pattern behind the coded expressions. Neither should be done in an absolutist manner. We can't be completely certain we are the ones expressing just as we can't be completely certain what other people are expressing.
> 
> What I do to support role playing in my game is use a separate game system to define each role provided within it. Fighter characters (PC and NPC) improve by discovering how the system works by navigating and learning it. For PCs activity must be done by a player. For an NPC this is collected in what the NPC knows due to their experiences.
> 
> I'm guessing you're closer to me in that you want a game with achievable objectives (story making cannot be a game objective, it's impossible). D&D can be that as long as you have a game that is a pattern. The expression of a code as defined by the rules. A comprehensible and discoverable reality in the referees mind related to the players as they play. That this code can use and be similar to fantastic or realistic elements is secondary, but like frosting on the cake. It's not absolutely necessary, but it can add to the enjoyment. To say it's about story telling is like saying Chess is really about medieval politics and not its mathematical design at all - IOW not about gaming at all. Gaming and game play are fundamentally separate from storytelling.




You do realise that this is hardly a widely accepted concept don't you?  And that you are presenting your theory as fact rather than a possibility.  I'd say that you are positing a theory of gaming that is very contentious and needs a very large bucket of proof before it can even remotely be accepted as fact.  

You are essentially arguing that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a better role playing game than something like Fate and that an entire play style - i.e. those of us who believe that storytelling and gaming are perfectly compatible, are 100% wrong.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> Is this empirical prediction? Something for which you have seen evidence in actual play? Speculation?




A mixture of empirical observation, basic understanding of human behaviour, and application of the maxim "Hope for angels; plan for devils."



> In Gygaxian D&D, using poison is a shortcut to in-game success. A behavioural prohibition on using poison is therefore a disadvantage. How does the notion of "behavioural restrictions that provide play balance" generalise beyond Gygaxian play, though? For instance, how does a 4e paladin get a game advantage by departing from genre expectations?




It's hard for me to comment on 4e specifically.  From what I do know, there are fewer built-in checks on the 4e paladin (since they cannot fall) thus there are fewer genre expectations assigned to them.  If effect, paladins are now a label assigned to a set of mechanics associated with "Divinely-powered Defenders".



> I have played with serious power gamers and tactical players (eg multiple Australiasian M:tG champions). I haven't noticed that an absence of GM-enforced mechanical alignment gives rise to the problems you describe. I believe this is because my game doesn't particularly mechanically reward departure from professed character concept (which was  [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION]'s point a couple of dozen or so posts upthread).




I specifically addressed this in my post.  



> How is "better" interacting here with "ignoring behavioural restrictions"? I can parse the sentence but I don't know what you have in mind as an example.




The torture example is as good a situation as any.  The unspoken group understanding may be a paladin will always take the high road since that is baked into the class <-- alignment restrictions == behavioral restrictions.  The paladin player may declare "Let the torture begin!"  <-- ignoring behavioral restrictions because the player is a great fan of _24_ and it always worked out for Jack so why shouldn't a LG exemplar of all that is good and light in the world torture a woman who's only link is being the sister of a suspect?  

I know I and about half my current group would not consider that an improved narrative.



> And how is GM enforcement of alignment going to solve this issue with this sort of player? As opposed to just preventing them from method-acting and forcing them to play some other style.




I find it solves the issue trivially.  "Dude, we had that discussion.  It is an evil act.  Is this the point you wish to fall?  No?  After struggling with temptation, what is the character going to do?"  It does  not limit the player from method acting -- it helps the player method act the PC originally chosen consistently and in accordance with the group understanding for world norms.



> Bottom line: how is the game better if we force power, tactical, butt-kicker, method, storyteller etc players to play fighters and wizards (for whom alignment is irrelevant) but don't let them play paladins and clerics? How is that improving my play experience?




The interesting thing about the player categorisations I used is they don't map to character classes and an individual player is a composite of the motivations obviously.  I've seen butt-kickers play every class in 1e save the Thief and every class in 3.X,  I've seen tactical and power players in every class in 1e and 3.X.  Method actors, storyteller, and casual players have always been across the board.

What you are doing to reducing the number of potential stories  (the fall of a paladin, the faithless cleric, the civilisation of a barbarian).  And that's cool.  I find it interesting that a proponent of Burning Wheel would ignore/dislike the obvious stake/motivational conflict/stress points baked into these classes.  They are designed for the DM and/or other players to pressure and for the stressed PC to react and fall (or not) as appropriate within the world context.  



> Where is the conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's behaviour answers to that PC's professed ideals?




If there are ramifications attached to behaviours (like falling for example), that is an answer right there.  If there are no ramifications for behaviour then the biggest issue is player rationalisation/blindness to his own PCs actions and what those actions truly mean inside the world: how the PC is viewed by others and the reasons for it (from personal experience),   Additionally, there is the potential for conflict when more than one person (multiple PCs OR NPCs) shares the same ideals but take radically different approaches that leave them diametrically opposed.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:
			
		

> A mixture of empirical observation, basic understanding of human behaviour, and application of the maxim "Hope for angels; plan for devils."
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page125#ixzz2wDsEN2PD




IOW, you're a proponent that mechanical alignment is required to make players play characters in a manner consistent with your views of what that class should be.  Or to put it another way, alignment is necessary as a stick to enforce player behaviour.

Again, totally not interested in policing my players.

I note your paladin torture example has now taken a rather hyperbolic twist - the paladin is considering torture, not because it is the only available choice, but, because it's more convenient and players will always choose convenience over playing their characters.  You are absolutely right and I would also find such a narrative uninspiring.  But, then, I play in a group where the entire group would find your paladin uninspiring and thus, it would not happen at my table.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> By "odd" do you mean "true to what people at the time believed"?




Absolutely not and I dispute that there was any such belief attached to the noble promotion to knight.  It was the least form of nobility assignable and existed to handle a combination of multiple sons and limited land, assignment of loyalties through subinfeudation, a safety valve for class mobility.  In fact, the two ideals most commonly attached to the non-Church orders are the Code of Chivalry -- an aristocratic warrior code with deference to God pretty far down the list (and pretty much _every_ group had that form of clause in it somewhere) and Courtly Love -- which focused on the here and now in ways while not opposed to the Divine not aligned with it either.

I find it odd anyone would think the promotion to knight meant a stronger association with the divine than say entering the lay clergy, becoming a friar, entering a monastery, entering the Church, or _joining one of the holy orders of warriors that exist_.  It meant you were a guy to be respected, who could mete out some forms of temporal justice, was allowed to bear arms and armour, appear at court, and get hospitality as you travel.



> Is the goal of fantasy RPGing to emulate Tolkien - ie to present a world that expresses the pre-modern conceits of "fairy stories", Arthurian romance and the like? Or to emulate REH, and present an essentially modern outlook located within the tropes of historical and fantastic fiction?
> 
> If the latter, then no doubt notions that the feudal hierarchy is divinely established and sanctioned will be scoffed at. But as I have suggested multiple times upthread, a paladin has no place in such a gameworld. It's not a coincidence that REH's Conan contains no paladins or saints. (The closest I can think of is in The Phoenix on the Sword.
> 
> If the former, then of course the knights that don't belong to holy orders are nevertheless participants in a divinely ordained hierarchy, and draw such divine inspiration as is suitable to their tasks. Mediaeval kings were _annointed_, after all - like bishops - although they did not themselves take holy orders. Paladins, and other knights called to divine service, are the highest exemplar to which other knights aspire.




Peasants also participate the divine hierarchy, your point?  Knights were anointed as a ceremony of attainment and that ceremony (and the religious aspect) varied considerably from region to region.  In all cases, however they swore loyalty to the lord investing them first -- not to God.  They swore to maintain the Church but so did the guildsmen and men-at-arms.  



> Please tell me one feature of Galahad or Gawaine that makes them more paladin-like than Arthur or Lancelot?




Galahad is the only knight proved pure enough to be worthy to find the Grail.  Gawain is one of the greatest of the round table (possibly the best before the arrival of Lancelot).  He does not suffer from Lancelot's failings, however such as killing innocents who try to wake him in his tent _and sleeping with his lord's wife_ (a pretty unforgivable sin at the time that is mitigated only because the French added Lancelot to the stories much later) that drove Lancelot insane for a few years.  Lancelot is the better horseman and with lance and sword.  In short, _he is a better Fighter_.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> IOW, you're a proponent that mechanical alignment is required to make players play characters in a manner consistent with your views of what that class should be.  Or to put it another way, alignment is necessary as a stick to enforce player behaviour.




No.  alignment is a mechanism in the game that helps the players and GM understand world norms and acts a form of shorterhand for describing a character's general outlook and expected range of reaction.  

In some cases, it is a used by the designers as a limiting factor for classes that allow those classes access to abilities with strings attached.  My view of the classes doesn't come into it.  

It is not a stick any more than a player choosing a psychological disadvantage under Hero is handing me a stick -- he is handing me a set of norms for his character.  I'll let a player know if the words on his sheet need to change after extended play in a different alignment, but that really reflects how forces outside the PC interact with it (such as the various detect spells, _Holy Word_ etc.).  In other words, I adjudicate player action and the world reaction just as I do for any other form of environmental involvement.  The only time I "police" alignment is when there are strings that can be severed that the player attached to the PC all by himself.



> Again, totally not interested in policing my players.
> 
> I note your paladin torture example has now taken a rather hyperbolic twist - the paladin is considering torture, not because it is the only available choice, but, because it's more convenient and players will always choose convenience over playing their characters.  You are absolutely right and I would also find such a narrative uninspiring.  But, then, I play in a group where the entire group would find your paladin uninspiring and thus, it would not happen at my table.




The original example had two paladins arguing about whether to take this road -- implying there is another.  If PC A wants to do something and PC B says no because that is a bad road, then there is probably another path.  There are different possibilities as to why A wants to go down this path; convenience is one, desperation is another, perhaps the player wants to instigate a fall.  The reasons don't matter to me.  The action and the environmental reactions do.


----------



## Arduin's

Per the English language, saying what you are CURRENTLY doing in NOT telling a story.  One MAY *incorrectly* label it as such but, by definition it is simply announcing what one is doing.  Doing it with a group of people doesn't change that fact.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Irrelevant. Governed by the mechanics of the game which was agreed to before play began. There are systems where things work that way, but, D&D isn't one of them. The Intimidation rules are pretty clear on how this sort of thing is resolved in D&D.




The alignment rules are also rules incorporated in the mechanics of the game.  Those that choose not to use mechanical alignment are removing a mechanic of the game.  The stated basis for doing so, at least for some opponents of mechanical alignment, is that it detracts from the player’s ability to create and realize his vision of the character, and his vision of the character should not be overridden by any other vision which might be imposed by a game mechanic.

The GM sets the DC of the Intimidate check, interpreting the facts of the game world into the mechanics governing the PC’s interaction with that game world, and the success or failure of his chosen actions.  The GM similarly interprets the mechanical alignment rules to assess the success or failure of the PC in maintaining his stated ideals and, if his abilities are derived from devotion to that ideal, whether he has demonstrated the devotion needed to maintain those abilities.



Hussar said:


> Well, I'd say that if the paladin goes through with things, and the DM simply says, "Nope, he didn't know anything", that would violate the whole "interesting story" part. That's just a dick move by the DM. And, since the guy being tortured here (how did he become a bomber?) is an NPC, then he falls under the DM to run. No one has questioned that.




So the fact that the player chooses a person to torture (say, the sister of the bomber, as that example shows up elsewhere) because he thinks that person knows something she is not sharing.  It is not possible that the sister has, in fact, not seen her brother for many weeks/months/years, as she claims, and knows nothing of his whereabouts?  OK, the player gets to dictate the knowledge of NPC’s now.  How did we decide that what an NPC knows is in the PC’s purview here, but the skills of the bomber, say, are not within his purview.



Hussar said:


> Governed by the mechanics. Again, Intimidate rules apply. The players know that and would act appropriately




Please refer me to the core rules for Torture as an intimidation technique, as my quick SRD/online search found a lot more questions on whether torture is a form of intimidation (none from any SRD) than rules for using torture, whether as intimidation or for some other mechanic.  The threat of torture is much more often linked to Intimidate (which makes some sense – that high CHA makes your threats more vivid and seem more real).  The fact that Bluff is a synergestic skill also reinforces the expectation that intimidation is more about making a threat than carrying it out.

The Intimidate rules indicate the target is considered friendly, but only while it remains intimidated, after which it changes.  It does not state what information will be shared – much like alignment, “friendly” is a GM interpretation.  Changing another’s behaviour requires a minute of interaction, but torture doesn’t seem like a 60 second process.

Presumably, the player also knows a failure by 5 or more will result in false information (she “cracks under torture” and provides random information because she really did not know the answer, but was so terrified that she picked something out of the air to make it stop).





Hussar said:


> Because we all sat down to play a game and we agreed, in sitting down, that success and failure is governed by the mechanics and the dice. For the same reason you don't get to declare that your attack hit or miss.




And, under the alignment rules, you don’t get to declare that your actions are consistent with your stated alignment or moral code.  If we are not using alignment rules, we all sat down to play a game and we agreed, by sitting down, that the alignment rules governed moral codes.  Or we agreed to deviate from those rules – just as we could agree to deviate from the usual rules on GM interpretation and/or the dice dictating the success or failure of other actions.

You defend every rule you wish to retain with “the rules dictate this”, but you are modifying the rules to remove the alignment rules.  Why is that the only rule which can safely be removed?  I envision a persuasive and intimidating fellow whose combat prowess is incredible, but I must still roll the dice to determine the success or failure of my efforts to intimidate or battle.  The GM interprets the rules to set the DC of my rolls, and the modifiers which apply to them.  My character’s success in carrying out my vision is governed by mechanics.  He feels less than persuasive when his targets always resist his charms or his threats; he doesn’t feel like a great combatant when he continually gets Worf’d due to powerful enemies and/or poor die rolls.  He’d feel a lot more persuasive if the DC’s were low enough to guarantee success, or the opponents were less powerful, or he received more bonuses.  Yet he does not.  The GM sets these based on his interpretation of the rules, and whether my character lives up to my conception is largely up to luck and the GM’s choice of what elements to introduce.

So how is a GM interpretation of alignment, or removal of alignment from the game, markedly different?  It does not involve die rolls – the choice of whether to follow the morals and structures of my alignment is mine alone.  But the requirements are governed by GM interpretations, just as those interpretations determine my required skill and luck to realize my vision of the character in other regards.
  @_*pemerton*_ has noted quite clearly that he does not wish to make these interpretations, and so he removes these mechanics from his game.  You seem to feel that these are not mechanics in any remotely similar sense.  I grasp his logic much more easily than yours.



Hussar said:


> How is it arbitrary? Or, rather, any more arbitrary than simply following the rules of the game? The game rules don't allow the player to force a reaction from the Forces of Good, nor do they allow Player 3 to add powers to his character sheet.




 Nor do they allow him to dictate that his actions are consistent with his alignment, forcing a reaction from the Forces of Good of doing nothing.  It is arbitrary in that you are choosing which areas to retain mechanics for, and which to eliminate them.  Your comment that, having chosen to torture some poor bystander, the player is somehow able to dictate that his victim has valuable knowledge seems similarly arbitrary.



Hussar said:


> But, of course there are limits on what the player controls. That's never been in contention. Players don't get to dictate NPC behaviors, for example. They generally don't get to dictate scenario elements. They certainly don't get to contradict previously established facts.




Yet, as stated above, they get to dictate the views and actions of the Forces of Good (who must accept their vision of morality), and scenario elements (I choose to torture the sister, so therefore she must know something).  If they don’t get to contradict previously established facts, how do we establish them?  If Player 2 refused to torture someone last month because “such an evil act would offend the Great Powers of Righteousness and Justice”, is that now fact?  If so, what happens when Player 1 insists it’s OK to torture the sister this week?



Hussar said:


> They don't do that because it would run counter to "creating an interesting narrative".





Who decides what constitutes “an interesting narrative”?  Maybe “Screw this investigation – I’m going to skin the sister and roll her in salt – maybe that will make her more cooperative” is not an “interesting narrative” to some at the table.



pemerton said:


> I have addressed this multiple times upthread and you have not responded.
> 
> The conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's action is successful is obvious. It removes the dynamic of challenge from the game. Likewise the player authoring backstory around big reveals removes suspense.
> 
> Where is the conflict of interest in the player deciding whether or not his/her PC's behaviour answers to that PC's professed ideals?





I would suggest the decision to torture the prisoner is motivated by a desire to succeed in locating the Mad Bomber – that is, to succeed in the game.  The player is prepared to depart from his respect for the rights of the sister in the interests of improving or hastening his success at taking in the Mad Bomber.  Thus, he is motivated to consider this to be an acceptable act.



pemerton said:


> Please tell me one feature of Galahad or Gawaine that makes them more paladin-like than Arthur or Lancelot?




To do so, one must agree on the features which are, and are not, important to Paladinhood, which seems the crux of the discussion.  Neither Galahad nor Gawaine sleep with someone else’s wife, much less with the Queen.  They don’t kill innocent people.  @_*Nagol*_ sums these up as well.



Nagol said:


> Galahad is the only knight proved pure enough to be worthy to find the Grail. Gawain is one of the greatest of the round table (possibly the best before the arrival of Lancelot). He does not suffer from Lancelot's failings, however such as killing innocents who try to wake him in his tent _and sleeping with his lord's wife_ (a pretty unforgivable sin at the time that is mitigated only because the French added Lancelot to the stores much later) that drove Lancelot insane for a few years. Lancelot is the better horseman and with lance and sword. In short, _he is a better Fighter_.






pemerton said:


> Especially as you are relying on Deities and Demigods (with its instances of Hiawatha and Theseus) to contest my characterisation of paladins as ideal knights: in D&DG both Lancelot and Arthur are presented as paladins (as, unsurprisingly, is Galahad), while Gawaine is presented as a fighter.




Could this mean there is NOT 100% agreement on which of these Knights is, in fact, a Paladin?  I suggest that one’s choice also depends largely on which aspects of myth and legend one chooses to focus on, and which aspects one chooses to downplay or ignore.



pemerton said:


> (I assume you realise that the Random House Dictionary gives, as the first two meaings of the word "paladin", "any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne" and "any knightly or heroic champion.")




Funny how there are so many definitions of a term whose meaning you find to be clear and obvious.  It seems that you are seeking to impose your interpretations of the words – your judgment of what ideals make one a Knight, or a Paladin - on the rest of the Board.



pemerton said:


> The fact that a black knight is a villain doesn't show that paladins aren't ideal knights. Indeed, the villainy of a black knight is particularly evident because of the degree to which they fall short of that ideal.
> 
> No. It shows that the Crusaders were knights - an identity that you denied upthread. I have now established that the crusaders were knights




Are they Knights?  Are Knights mounted soldiers with no particular moral ideals, or are they individuals whose combat training is of less importance than their dedication to the ideals of Knighthood?  You seem to present both, switching between them in a manner I find less than predictable.

Oddly, the term “Paladin” in popular culture has also taken on a relationship to a hired soldier (Have Gun, Will Travel and the Marvel comic character, for example).  These characters fit poorly with Charlemagne’s Knights, or the D&D concept of a Paladin.



pemerton said:


> In any event, here is the relevant dictionary definition (entry 4 in the Collins World English Dictionary, according to dictionary.reference.com): "a heroic champion of a lady or of a cause or principle". Part of the point of the legend of Joan of Arc is that she exemplifies this definition better than those who are knights purely in the formal sense (of having been knighted).




So it is your selected dictionary definition (selected from the numerous possible definitions under various dictionaries; the fourth in the dictionary you selected) which is the only relevant one?  So do Knights exemplify the virtues of Knighthood without actually being Knighted (Joan) or are they Knighted but need not exemplify those virtues (the Crusaders; the Black Knight)?  The definitions seem to twist and change to suit the argument you wish to advance.

There is a notion, perhaps unfamiliar to modern Canadians but intimately familiar to mediaeval persons, that externally bestowed office is intended to correspond to innate or divinely ordained capacities, such that a person who is knighted but is false or inadequate will, in the end, have that corruption show through; and conversely, someone who is by external measure ignoble or humble, but is in the eyes of the divinity noble or worthy, will eventually have that worth manifest itself in material form. (This is the logic of such stories as Cinderella, the Princess and the Pea, the Bronze Ring etc. It is also expressed by Tolkien's poem about Strider, put into Bilbo's pen and mouth - "All that is gold does not glitter" - but of course, in the end, Aragorn does glitter as inner nature and external trappings are reconciled. Likewise for Saruman, in a converse fashion.)



pemerton said:


> Have I mentioned that I don't use mechanical alignment?






pemerton said:


> To the extent that I have a conception of what LG is, its because I know its the alignment of paladins, and I know what a paladin is because I know those stories. To the extent that I have a conception of what LN is, its because I know that is the alignment of the quintessential martial artist, and I know _that_ trope. To the extent that I have a conception of what CG is, its because I can imagine Robin Hood and his merry man, jolly outlaws who only rob from the rich and who give to the poor.




My comment, to which you provided the above response, replied to your statement that YOUR VISION of the LG alignment is shaped by its being the alignment of a Paladin, and this is shaped by your vision of a Paladin.  Are you now saying you do not have such a vision of the alignments you are arguing about?



pemerton said:


> I've discussed extensively upthread the logic behind a paladin of a god of beauty (Corellon), fate (the Raven Queen), love (Sehanine), prowess (Kord), truth (Ioun), civilisation (Erathis) and nature (Melora). That covers all the gods labelled in 4e as unaligned.
> 
> A paladin of Bane (war) or Asmodeus (tyranny) strikes me personally as fallen or self-deluded; even moreso a paladin of Tiamat (greed), Zehir (night), Vecna (secrets) or Torog (imprisonment). If a player wants to show me I'm wrong, go to town! Gruumsh is a god of barbarism - I don't think he is served by knights in shining armour. The Chained God is in a special category again. He doesn't even have angels serving him (see The Plane Above, p 34).




Yet you also tell me your vision of a Paladin is shaped by their devotion to Knightly ideals.  Fate and Death?  Nature and Civilization?  I note you also pick and choose which aspects to list.  From Wikipedia (which may not be accurate – feel free to correct – I left the evil ones off, although it seems one can be a Paladin of an evil deity, and the GM chooses whether this alters his powers – not the player, which seems odd under your model):

[h=3]







			
				4[SUP said:
			
		

> th[/SUP] ed deities] Good and Lawful Good deities



[/h]







			
				4[SUP said:
			
		

> Avandra - Good Goddess of Change, Luck and Travel, Patron of Halflings.
> Bahamut - Lawful Good God of Justice, Protection and Nobility. Patron of Dragonborn.
> Moradin - Lawful Good God of Family, Community and Creation (as in smithing). Patron of Dwarves
> Pelor - Good God of Sun, Agriculture and Time. Seasonal God of Summer.
> *Unaligned deities*
> 
> 
> 
> Corellon - Unaligned God of Beauty, Art, Magic and the Fey. Seasonal God of the Spring and Patron of Eladrin.
> Erathis - Unaligned Goddess of Civilization, Inventions and Law.
> Ioun - Unaligned Goddess of Knowledge, Skill and Prophecy.
> Kord - Unaligned God of Storms, Battle and Strength.
> Melora - Unaligned Goddess of Wilderness, Nature and the Sea
> Raven Queen - Unaligned Goddess of Death, Fate and Doom. Seasonal Goddess of Winter.
> Sehanine - Unaligned Goddess of Illusion, Love and the Moon. Seasonal God of Autumn and Patron of Elves.



Some of the Good ones have pretty un-knightly spheres of influence.  Many of the unaligned have some consistent and some inconsistent spheres of influence.   “I serve the Goddess of Death, Fate and Doom” does not seem to accord well with Knightly principals, yet seems a hallmark of your game.



pemerton said:


> What do you mean by "the ends do not justify the means"? As Bertrand Russell famously asked, What else would?




If we accept that the means can be justified only by the ends, it does not follow that all means can be justified at all.  It follows only that nothing else can justify the means.



pemerton said:


> Do you mean that people are under duties not to do certain things, even if they believe that doing such things might realise other values?




I believe the alignment system sets this out.  “We cannot accomplish good by doing evil” seems very consistent with the Good alignments, although ultimately the question is how much Evil will we tolerate in pursuit of Good.



pemerton said:


> In that case, how can the "alignment system" take such a position, given that one of the alignments that it defines is Chaotic Evil, which recognises no notion of duty at all, and indeed no motivating principle but unconstrained self-regarding passion? Or Neutral Evil, which recognises no notion of duty at all, and no motivating principle but rational self-regard?




Funny how the “do whatever you must do to achieve your goals” alignments are all evil, isn’t it?



pemerton said:


> In real life




Again, not interested in discussing real life philosophy of ethics.  It is no more relevant to the game than the real life physics of giants, fire breathing dragons or magic.



pemerton said:


> I said that to second-guess the torturing paladin's retention of divine abilities would be a sin of pride. The sin of pride consists in judging the divine - and it's decision to leave the torturing paladin vested with divine power - not in applying the determinations of the divine to the mortal.




We have established that, in the 4e D&D world, Paladin powers can be granted by deities of any alignment, so perhaps my judgment is that Orcus is now empowering this deluded fellow, the better to sow confusion amongst the populace about the true values of the Raven Queen.  If I slay him, and retain my Raven Queen granted powers, then it must be so, mustn’t it?

Come to think of it, 4e’s “Paladin powers invested by ceremony involving knighthood can never be removed” seems a lot more oriented to rank of knighthood making one a Paladin than any link to adherence and dedication to the virtues and ideals of Knighthood.  Joan of Arc underwent no ceremony, but the Black Knight did.  Only the latter meets the description of a 4e Paladin.



Hussar said:


> Again, totally not interested in policing my players.




Both you and @_*pemerton*_ seem to come back to this a lot.  Yet you both indicate you are very selective as to who sits at your table, and that you have no players who would play out of genre/out of character when running a Paladin.  I suggest the player selection process itself is a means of policing your players.  If the fellow sitting at your table turns out to play largely out of genre and out of character, how long will he be sitting at your table?  Will he get a warning that his play is not in accordance with the expectations of the group, and that failure to change his behaviour will result in sanctions?

I can’t recall any real issues with alignment ever  cropping up with a player who our group kept playing with for very long.



Hussar said:


> I note your paladin torture example has now taken a rather hyperbolic twist - the paladin is considering torture, not because it is the only available choice, but, because it's more convenient and players will always choose convenience over playing their characters. You are absolutely right and I would also find such a narrative uninspiring. But, then, I play in a group where the entire group would find your paladin uninspiring and thus, it would not happen at my table.




So, then, such a player would be policed.  You simply have a group which, at present, requires no policing.  So do I.  Maybe that’s why alignment disputes don’t come up, despite the fact that the rules are certainly there.


----------



## N'raac

It does occur to me (and it has before) that the debate has largely become one of whether alignments detract from the gaming experience, rather than whether they improve it.  I think they provide a framework which can be useful to newer players, or to players who might need this extra guidance in role playing their characters.  At its extreme, as @_*Hussar*_  consistently indicates, it can be a stick, but I don't think that stick is commonly used, or needed, in situations where the player will be in the game for long, as such a player won't just have issues with the alignment system.  In fact, I would suggest a player who challenges and argues alignment calls likely also challenges and argues numerous other rules calls in various aspects of the game, and either will be tolerated despite this, or will simply be removed from the game - no longer sitting at the table.

I suspect that many of our groups are not all that different.  The players by and large have a consistent vision of "good and honourable characters", and run characters intended to reflect such ideals consistently.  At such a table, alignment doesn't really crop up all that often (my, and I think other proponents of alignment's, experience) and its removal does not have any real adverse result (@Hussar and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s experience).  But that kind of lay, I believe, typically comes with experience.  No one at my table has not gamed (and gamed with me) for less than 20 years.  A new player would almost certainly be known to at least one existing player, so would likely not be invited were that player not familiar with them if they are an experienced gamer.  If they were a new gamer, then they would learn gaming at our table, so learn our playstyle.  In the last case, alignment may be a useful guide for them, but they would likely learn similarly through play.

But if the game - and the hobby itself, overall - is to survive, grow and thrive, it can't be made up entirely of the 20+ year veterans who have not yet dropped the hobby.  It needs to replace its losses and attract new players to grow.  The play of a character as a CHARACTER, rather than a bundle of statistics and abilities, is a prime difference, at least to me, between computer games and tabletop gaming.  Alignment, or aspects, or psychological disadvantages/complications, or whatever model one wants to choose (and all have their strengths and weaknesses) assist in reflecting the character as more than just a pawn whose role is limited to whatever move will be most strategically and tactically effective at "winning the game" - accomplishing whatever objectives have been set, internally or externally, as "victory conditions".  They tend to fade to the background (like many mechanics) when playing with skilled and experienced role players.


----------



## pemerton

Arduin's said:


> Per the English language, saying what you are CURRENTLY doing in NOT telling a story.



But per the English language, saying what an _imaginary_ person is currently doing may well be telling a story. (I'm not saying that it has to be, but it's certainly a good candidate.)

And this is what RPGing, at its base, involves.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> for me, if the players can do things that establish setting material (for example decide whether Yom God of Yams is angry or not at the pcs for taking a particular action) that both is likely to lead to inconsistency in the setting (one day Yom is happy the pkayers eat his sacred yams, the next day he is furious)



Why? Why are players less consistent in their depiction of setting elements (such as PCs, gods, family members, etc) than GMs?



Bedrockgames said:


> makes these things that are supposed to be external to my character feel less external because players are influencing how they behave.



To me, this doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with consistency. It doesn't really seem to have much to do with believability either, unless by "believability" you mean something like "prone to generate a certain sort of immersion".


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Why? Why are players less consistent in their depiction of setting elements (such as PCs, gods, family members, etc) than GMs?




because five people each deciding these things for the god, will produce more inconsistency than one person deciding these things. I just find when you have the GM calling the shots on things external to the players it tends to be more consistent and feel more objective. If i am letting the players decide when grok is angered it is different than if the GZm is the one making that call. 



> To me, this doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with consistency. It doesn't really seem to have much to do with believability either, unless by "believability" you mean something like "prone to generate a certain sort of immersion".




Well clearly we disagree and that is fine. If you find that stuff believable or find it doesn't impact believabilitym that is great. For me it does impact believability. 

Pemerton, i think it is really time for us to just accept we do things differently, we like different things, we find different things believable and not worry about convincing each other.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> It's hard for me to comment on 4e specifically.  From what I do know, there are fewer built-in checks on the 4e paladin (since they cannot fall) thus there are fewer genre expectations assigned to them.



4e paladins, in my experience, are the most genre-expressing version of the class. Because of the mechanical build of the class, the only way to play an effective paladin is to play a selfless warrior who valiant hurls him-/herself between his/her friends and the enemy.

There is no need for genre _expectations_, because the natural play of the class delivers. (Much like we don't need _genre expectations_ or alignment enforcement to keep an AD&D wizard out of melee - the natural play of the class delivers that result for us.)



Nagol said:


> I know I and about half my current group would not consider that an improved narrative.



So why do you need alignment restrictions to refrain from declaring such actions for your PC, then?

In the real world, the torturer believes that things will be better if s/he extracts the information by way of torture. But what is the corresponding belief in a player of an RPG that makes him/her declare that her PC tortures the suspect, if s/he believes that that would ruin the narrative?

That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. It is key to the whole contention (by [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and now, I think, you) that departing from alignment generates some sort of advantage for the player. I haven't yet been shown what that advantage is, unless I am playing a game within a rather Gygaxian "skilled player, gold-as-XP" framework.



Nagol said:


> "Dude, we had that discussion. It is an evil act. Is this the point you wish to fall? No? After struggling with temptation, what is the character going to do?" It does not limit the player from method acting -- it helps the player method act the PC originally chosen consistently and in accordance with the group understanding for world norms.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there is the potential for conflict when more than one person (multiple PCs OR NPCs) shares the same ideals but take radically different approaches that leave them diametrically opposed.



Unless I am misundertanding, you are taking quite a bit of what I regard as _play_ and either (i) making it pre-play, or (ii) substituting GM (or perhaps majority participant?) decision-making?

If the person who is diametrically opposed to your conception of certain ideals, and so would play the torturing paladin, is able to have his/her mind changed by stipulatig that that is _evil_, I personally don't really see why you can't just tell them "By the way, I don't want your paladin to be a torturer". I'm not really seeing how intermediating the construct of alignment changes the basic dynamic here, which is that those who think the torturing paladin is bad for the game are shutting down the preferences of those who disagree.



Nagol said:


> What you are doing to reducing the number of potential stories  (the fall of a paladin, the faithless cleric, the civilisation of a barbarian).



How so?


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Both you and pemerton seem to come back to this a lot.



That's mostly because you and others sometimes assert that a key funciton of alignment is to police the players, and other times deny that. I'm curious as to which it is.



N'raac said:


> Yet you both indicate you are very selective as to who sits at your table



I haven't indicated that at all. I've said that my current group consists of long time friends. Many of them I met by inviting them to join an ongoing RM game when I was a university student.

I have said I'm not interested in playing with people who aren't sincere, but that doesn't strike me as much of a threshold for selectivity.



N'raac said:


> If the fellow sitting at your table turns out to play largely out of genre and out of character, how long will he be sitting at your table?



Why would someone agree to join a group, agree to play in (say) a 4e game based around the core books, and then break that agreement? You are positing a player who is basically a liar. If not wanting to play with liars is your threshold for selectivity, then I'm happy to say that yes, I'm on the other side of it!

As for playing out of character, if a player decides what the characer of his/her PC is, then why/how is s/he going to end up out of character? This is ultimately the same question - if a player signs on to play an honourable character, why wouldn't s/he tackle that task sincerely? Or, conversely, if s/he wants to play a different sort of character - say, a cutthroat roguish type - why wouldn't s/he just change to that, either by changing PCs or transitioning the existing PC?

The whole assumption here seems to be that players have some sort of incentive to spoil the game; and that it is somehow difficult to stick to a character and to an agreed genre without being a spoiler.

Perhaps that is so in 3E - I don't know it's mechanical or play dynamics well enough. I certainly have not found it to be so in the games that I run, though.



N'raac said:


> I suggest the player selection process itself is a means of policing your players.



I suggest that this is nonsense. If I start a jazz quartet, do you think I'm not going to care about who I play with? But that doesn't mean I'm dictating how they play their improvisations.

If I start a book club, do you think I'm not going to care about who I read with? (Just to give one example, I am not going to sit down to read The Human Factor with a white supremacist.) It doesn't follow from that that I am dictating how my fellow readers respond to the books we read.

The notion of sincerity is a something that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have repeatedly reiterated as (i) what we are looking for from fellow participants, and (ii) the reason why we are not interested in alignment-policing. This has nothing to do with selectivity. It has to do with attitudes towards a shared creative endeavour. If you want to understand why we don't like alignment, I'd suggest that you focus on that, rather than ignoring or dismissing it.


----------



## nijineko

i have removed all alignment based effects from my games. instead i use a contract system. people enter into contracts to gain powers outside the normal limits. some abilities can detect with whom you've entered into a contract or contracts. 

i do have moral and ethical laws in my games. players are made aware that they exist and generally what it is, if not exactly what they are, and in-game, characters may or may not believe in them, and can learn from the different claims of whomever they encounter. players are encouraged to play as they believe and to disagree with whomever they feel like in-game. 

i think it is a great guideline for both new and old players - it is handy to have a niche or pigeon hole in which to describe to others the general sorts of behaviors to be expected from a given character. as the OP stated, alignment systems are a guideline, not a law. another reason i use the contract system - gives certain players the opportunity to work in all the twisty wording they like, and see if they can sneak it past me (or the reverse), and other players the assurance of knowing exactly what to expect out of a given association with a being of power or organization.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> 4e paladins, in my experience, are the most genre-expressing version of the class. Because of the mechanical build of the class, the only way to play an effective paladin is to play a selfless warrior who valiant hurls him-/herself between his/her friends and the enemy.
> 
> There is no need for genre _expectations_, because the natural play of the class delivers. (Much like we don't need _genre expectations_ or alignment enforcement to keep an AD&D wizard out of melee - the natural play of the class delivers that result for us.)
> 
> So why do you need alignment restrictions to refrain from declaring such actions for your PC, then?




Because of the other half of the play group, perhaps?



> In the real world, the torturer believes that things will be better if s/he extracts the information by way of torture. But what is the corresponding belief in a player of an RPG that makes him/her declare that her PC tortures the suspect, if s/he believes that that would ruin the narrative?




Because the _PC_ believes it will make things better in-world?

[/QUOTE]That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. It is key to the whole contention (by  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION],  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and now, I think, you) that departing from alignment generates some sort of advantage for the player. I haven't yet been shown what that advantage is, unless I am playing a game within a rather Gygaxian "skilled player, gold-as-XP" framework.

Unless I am misundertanding, you are taking quite a bit of what I regard as _play_ and either (i) making it pre-play, or (ii) substituting GM (or perhaps majority participant?) decision-making?

If the person who is diametrically opposed to your conception of certain ideals, and so would play the torturing paladin, is able to have his/her mind changed by stipulatig that that is _evil_, I personally don't really see why you can't just tell them "By the way, I don't want your paladin to be a torturer". I'm not really seeing how intermediating the construct of alignment changes the basic dynamic here, which is that those who think the torturing paladin is bad for the game are shutting down the preferences of those who disagree.[/QUOTE]

I have a quick 2-3 minute spiel on how alignment works in my campaign pre-play.  It covers the axes at a very high level.

The player's mind may not be changed -- he may try the same tactic in other games looking for the "correct" answer.  The fact that it is considered an evil act in the current campaign simply means there are consequences for the PC created to be limited to pursuing those options.  [/QUOTE]

Torture, poisoning, killing friendly allies, indiscriminate killing of neutral townsfolk, killing all the hostages in order to catch/kill the hostage-takers, the list is so long and so little of it is tested by a single player!  It's easier to point out individual exceptions when they occur.



> How so?




I can have every story presented Hussar through having two LG Fighters in place of two Paladins.  The fighters can argue the same ideologies and face the different choices inherent to play as I described earlier and the result is the same as two paladins at Hussar's table.  Whereas my table can also have stories related temptation resisted of not, atonement, sacrifice of ideal, and pathos of loss of grace that are much more likely to occur and organically develop because the mechanics enforce the stakes rather than relying on player initiative.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> Why? Why are players less consistent in their depiction of setting elements (such as PCs, gods, family members, etc) than GMs?




Because there are _N_ players all with ideas that haven't incorporated all the ideas of the others at the table and the players typically less information about back-story and hidden elements than the DM.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:


> You do realise that this is hardly a widely accepted concept don't you?  And that you are presenting your theory as fact rather than a possibility.  I'd say that you are positing a theory of gaming that is very contentious and needs a very large bucket of proof before it can even remotely be accepted as fact.
> 
> You are essentially arguing that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a better role playing game than something like Fate and that an entire play style - i.e. those of us who believe that storytelling and gaming are perfectly compatible, are 100% wrong.




In the future that may be something you're going to have to learn to live with. And it's not a niche belief. Games as group storytelling is a niche belief.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Why would someone agree to join a group, agree to play in (say) a 4e game based around the core books, and then break that agreement? You are positing a player who is basically a liar. If not wanting to play with liars is your threshold for selectivity, then I'm happy to say that yes, I'm on the other side of it!




Perhaps he thinks that you are breaking the agreement when you, say, activate his familiar without his consent, then have it take actions opposing him, then refuse to have it recover in the manner the rules say it recovers.  I don't think either you or he would  be insincere, but that possibility certainly seems quite reasonable.

The player who feels torture is unacceptable to the Good PC and the one who feels it is required of him in the current circumstances can both be perfectly sincere.



pemerton said:


> I suggest that this is nonsense. If I start a jazz quartet, do you think I'm not going to care about who I play with? But that doesn't mean I'm dictating how they play their improvisations.




Unless, of course, you dislike their improvisations and find them a poor fit for the group.



pemerton said:


> If I start a book club, do you think I'm not going to care about who I read with? (Just to give one example, I am not going to sit down to read The Human Factor with a white supremacist.) It doesn't follow from that that I am dictating how my fellow readers respond to the books we read.




Yet your own example suggests that you would refrain from inviting someone because of the manner in which you anticipate he will respond.


----------



## Cadence

howandwhy99 said:


> In the future that may be something you're going to have to learn to live with. And it's not a niche belief. Games as group storytelling is a niche belief.





Of course we're not generally talking about game playing in general. In RPGs,  the idea that a story is being created is hardly a niche idea.  If it were you wouldn't have to tell people ad-nauseam that they've been spending 30+ years deluding themselves about what they're doing.



pemerton said:


> But per the English language, saying what an imaginary person is currently doing may well be telling a story. (I'm not saying that it has to be, but it's certainly a good candidate.)
> 
> 
> And this is what RPGing, at its base, involves.


----------



## Hussar

howandwhy99 said:


> In the future that may be something you're going to have to learn to live with. And it's not a niche belief. Games as group storytelling is a niche belief.




Just to add to Cadence's point, you have argued your points at some length and have yet to gain any traction with them.  Why do you think that is?



			
				N'raac said:
			
		

> The Intimidate rules indicate the target is considered friendly, but only while it remains intimidated, after which it changes. It does not state what information will be shared – much like alignment, “friendly” is a GM interpretation. Changing another’s behaviour requires a minute of interaction, but torture doesn’t seem like a 60 second process.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page126#ixzz2wHQ0SPR0




Wow, so not getting back into this rules wank with you.  You and I interpret rules very, very differently.  I know that you would interpret "friendly" in the most restrictive means possible.  Thus, even if the player succeeded, you would simply interpret the rules so that they failed instead.  You have repeatedly demonstrated that this is how you DM.  

But, please, this is a play style thing.  Do not presume that all DM's interpret the rules the way that you do.  The fact that you are incapable of extrapolating the mechanics to include torture does not mean that it cannot be done.  It apparently cannot be done at your table, but, then, I'm not playing at your table.  Take it as a given that some of us interpret things differently.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:


> Just to add to Cadence's point, you have argued your points at some length and have yet to gain any traction with them.  Why do you think that is?



Well, that's not true at all. But I understand for you it is. Why do a small group of individuals dogpile those who disagree with their pet philosophy? I don't know, maybe people don't accept change easily? 

The fact is, games and puzzles have been designed as codes since games and puzzles have existed. You might disagree, but a single philosophy doesn't disprove hundreds of years of practice. The same goes with the thousands of games in our hobby which are balanced to be games for players to succeed at. Many might be called incoherent, but that's only for a lack of understanding for several years. And look at what even that wrought: D20 is still one of the most popular systems in gaming. 

I'd really wish you and Cadence didn't try and close off other people's ideas when they disagree your own. It's possible you might actually be able to learn something about games and game design.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> The player who feels torture is unacceptable to the Good PC and the one who feels it is required of him in the current circumstances can both be perfectly sincere.



In which case, why is there the need to shut one down? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already indicated that he would enjoy having this situation unfold, at the table, between two sincere players.



N'raac said:


> Unless, of course, you dislike their improvisations and find them a poor fit for the group.



Telling someone I don't want to play with them is not telling them how to play. Telling someone I don't want to go to the movies with them is not telling them what movie to watch. The equivalences that you are drawing are spurious, almost comically so.

Musical groups break up because of "creative differences" all the time. That is not a sign of one party telling the other what to do. It is a consequence of neither being able to tell the other what to do.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I start a book club, do you think I'm not going to care about who I read with? (Just to give one example, I am not going to sit down to read The Human Factor with a white supremacist.) It doesn't follow from that that I am dictating how my fellow readers respond to the books we read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet your own example suggests that you would refrain from inviting someone because of the manner in which you anticipate he will respond.
Click to expand...


You are correct that I have no interest in hanging out with racists, or talking to them about their racist views, or hearing them explain how apartheid South Africa was a bastion against communism in sub-Sarahan Africa.

Not wanting to spend time with someone, and having little or no interest in what they have to contribute to the world, has very little in common with telling them what to do or say. It's a big world. Their are plenty of other people in it besides me. They can find someone else to rant too.

In other words, the equivalences that you are drawing are spurious. By your measure, every time you decline an invitation from someone to do something, or decline to invite someone to join you in some activity, you are dictating to them. The proposition only has to be stated for its absurdity to be obvious.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone agree to join a group, agree to play in (say) a 4e game based around the core books, and then break that agreement? You are positing a player who is basically a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he thinks that you are breaking the agreement when you, say, activate his familiar without his consent, then have it take actions opposing him, then refuse to have it recover in the manner the rules say it recovers.
Click to expand...


I don't see what this has to do with anything I said, other than that you are once again positing that you know me, my friends and my game better than I do. Are you suggesting that my friend is a liar? Are you suggesting that I'm a liar? 

My friend lurks on this site from time-to-time, and at our last session commented that he had looked at this thread and seen you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] white-knighting on his behalf. He found it quite amusing. He also made the point to me, that I had already made on this thread and thought was obvious, that part of the reason that he put the Eye in his imp rather than himself was so that he was free to conflict with Vecna without suffering personal blowback, and that - had he had the Eye in himself - he would not have crossed Vecna.

Gee, who would have thought that I would know my player and my game better than some random guy on the internet?


----------



## Grydan

Bedrockgames said:


> Like I said, I am not going to debate GNS again, but I do not feel simulationist as a label offers any insight into my play style. I certainly don't find it useful for myself as a category.




What I like about this statement is how succinctly it sums up how I feel about the traditional alignments:

I do not feel Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil as labels offer any insight into my or my players' characters. I do not find them useful as categories.


----------



## Hussar

howandwhy99 said:


> Well, that's not true at all. But I understand for you it is. Why do a small group of individuals dogpile those who disagree with their pet philosophy? I don't know, maybe people don't accept change easily?
> 
> The fact is, games and puzzles have been designed as codes since games and puzzles have existed. You might disagree, but a single philosophy doesn't disprove hundreds of years of practice. The same goes with the thousands of games in our hobby which are balanced to be games for players to succeed at. Many might be called incoherent, but that's only for a lack of understanding for several years. And look at what even that wrought: D20 is still one of the most popular systems in gaming.
> 
> I'd really wish you and Cadence didn't try and close off other people's ideas when they disagree your own. It's possible you might actually be able to learn something about games and game design.




I'd agree with you except for the fact that you are insisting that anyone who disagrees with you "lacks understanding" in how games work.  That's not how it works.  You have your theory, I have mine.  We can use your theory to explain why something works (or doesn't) or we can use my theory, depending on which fits the situation better.

The reason you have a problem with removing mechanical alignment is because you are insistent on a style of gaming which prioritises mechanics over all other considerations.  You play to decode the code or solve the puzzle.  By removing mechanical alignment, I am removing an element of the puzzle which would make the game less fun for you.  And I totally get that.  Solving the game is important to you.  It's closer to a Gygaxian approach to gaming where the players are there to overcome the scenario.

Totally get that.

The problem is, for me, that approach leads to games that I do not enjoy very much.  I'm not interested in "solving the riddle" or overcoming the scenario.  I'm just as happy when the group fails as when it succeeds.  My goal is to create, through the medium of the mechanics, a story that the entire group contributes to.  It's a very different approach.  

Where I get off your train though is when you're telling me that I'm not really playing a game anymore.  Sorry, but, I'm not interested in that sort of taxonomy.


----------



## Hussar

Grydan said:


> What I like about this statement is how succinctly it sums up how I feel about the traditional alignments:
> 
> I do not feel Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil as labels offer any insight into my or my players' characters. I do not find them useful as categories.




Now, to be fair, I would actually disagree with this.  I have no real problems with alignment as descriptors.  By and large, they do cover things pretty well.  Good people do generally good things, which, by and large, most of us can agree on.  Evil people do evil things and again, we can probably agree more often than not.

My beef comes with trying to tie those descriptors into game mechanics.  As I said, for one, the primary purpose of those mechanics is to enforce player behaviour which creates a table dynamic i do not enjoy and for two, because we're talking about morality, the idea that you can have mechanics which actually do a better job of covering morality than a live person is, IMO, ludicrous.


----------



## Grydan

Hussar said:


> Now, to be fair, I would actually disagree with this.  I have no real problems with alignment as descriptors.  By and large, they do cover things pretty well.  Good people do generally good things, which, by and large, most of us can agree on.  Evil people do evil things and again, we can probably agree more often than not.
> 
> My beef comes with trying to tie those descriptors into game mechanics.  As I said, for one, the primary purpose of those mechanics is to enforce player behaviour which creates a table dynamic i do not enjoy and for two, because we're talking about morality, the idea that you can have mechanics which actually do a better job of covering morality than a live person is, IMO, ludicrous.




So, by disagreeing, are you saying that *I* in fact _do_ feel they offer insight into my characters and that I _do_ find them useful as categories? Because I didn't really say anything about whether they are useful or meaningful to you or anyone else. If you find them to be so, that's fine with me ... but it doesn't change that I don't. 



I think there's more widespread disagreement about what is good and what is evil than your post suggests, including areas where some people's definitions of evil include things that other people would consider good. And while good people might _generally_ do good things, and evil people might _generally_ do evil things, that certainly allows for the possibility of good people doing evil things and evil people doing good things.

And note that I didn't reject the labels 'good' and 'evil', I rejected the Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic variations on those (along with Neutrality in all its variations), and only in the sense that I reject them as being useful _for me_.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Grydan said:


> What I like about this statement is how succinctly it sums up how I feel about the traditional alignments:
> 
> I do not feel Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil as labels offer any insight into my or my players' characters. I do not find them useful as categories.




Fair enough, but I do think there is a huge difference between GNS categories and alignments. Alignments are constructs that simply reflect the cosmology of default D&D settings, they are not intended to apply to players, play styles or to creative agendas. They are specific to D&D and RPGs can easily exist without them. GNS makes a universal claim through its categories about how people approach RPGS.


----------



## Hussar

Grydan said:


> So, by disagreeing, are you saying that *I* in fact _do_ feel they offer insight into my characters and that I _do_ find them useful as categories? Because I didn't really say anything about whether they are useful or meaningful to you or anyone else. If you find them to be so, that's fine with me ... but it doesn't change that I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's more widespread disagreement about what is good and what is evil than your post suggests, including areas where some people's definitions of evil include things that other people would consider good. And while good people might _generally_ do good things, and evil people might _generally_ do evil things, that certainly allows for the possibility of good people doing evil things and evil people doing good things.
> 
> And note that I didn't reject the labels 'good' and 'evil', I rejected the Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic variations on those (along with Neutrality in all its variations), and only in the sense that I reject them as being useful _for me_.




Oh totally agree. I was commenting that I find the labels fairly useful, not that you should.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Fair enough, but I do think there is a huge difference between GNS categories and alignments. Alignments are constructs that simply reflect the cosmology of default D&D settings, they are not intended to apply to players, play styles or to creative agendas. They are specific to D&D and RPGs can easily exist without them. GNS makes a universal claim through its categories about how people approach RPGS.




To be fair here I was using the GNS labels as fairly convenient labels.  I didn't mean them to be the main part of my idea. The meat of my theory is that there are (at least) three pretty strongly held goals being espoused here and that the criteria surrounding these goals means that we are arguing past each other. 

For example you make "a believable world separate from the PC's" an important goal. I can honestly say that this is not really a considers action for me. So while this makes mechanical alignment important to you, for me, it does not do anything. My basic reaction is "so what?"


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Wow, so not getting back into this rules wank with you.  You and I interpret rules very, very differently.  I know that you would interpret "friendly" in the most restrictive means possible.  Thus, even if the player succeeded, you would simply interpret the rules so that they failed instead.  You have repeatedly demonstrated that this is how you DM.
> 
> But, please, this is a play style thing.  Do not presume that all DM's interpret the rules the way that you do.  The fact that you are incapable of extrapolating the mechanics to include torture does not mean that it cannot be done.  It apparently cannot be done at your table, but, then, I'm not playing at your table.  Take it as a given that some of us interpret things differently.




There are very different interpretations of "friendly", as past discussions have shown.  The rules provide a handy chart:



> Attitude
> Means
> Possible Actions
> Hostile
> Will take risks to hurt you
> Attack, interfere, berate, flee
> Unfriendly
> Wishes you ill
> Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
> Indifferent
> Doesn’t much care
> Socially expected interaction
> Friendly
> Wishes you well
> Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
> Helpful
> Will take risks to help you
> Protect, back up, heal, aid




Which will probably unformat as soon as I hit reply.  Yet we have very different interpretations of what these words mean from different GM's and players.  When we have valid interpretations of alignments that differ, you consider that makes alignment a bad rule which should be removed.  Why does the vastly different interpretations of "friendly" versus "helpful" not mean those rules should be removed?  It seems like, if the Intimidated target is Helpful to the bomber, and you have Intimidated her into being Friendly toward you, we need to resolve the "chat/advise/offer limited help" she will offer you with her "willingness to take risk to help, protect, and aid" the bomber.  That doesn't mean the PC should gain no benefit.  It does mean that the intimidated (or diplomacy'd) target should not lose all her prior allegiances.

You have trimmed enough of my response that it is no longer clear that I asked you to cite the rules, after you indicated use of torture to intimidate would  be:



Hussar said:


> Governed by the mechanics. Again, Intimidate rules apply. The players know that and would act appropriately




So the players would know how this specific GM interprets Friendly, its interaction with Intimidate and its interaction with other attitudes and allegiances of the target, despite the fact we have established different GM's interpret this very differently.  They would also somehow know how the GM has extrapolated the Intimidate rules to incorporate both the effectiveness and the time requirement of torture, which is not, contrary to the implication of your response above, contained in the rules for the Intimidate skill.

Now, a player who has gamed with you for many years may have a pretty good idea how you will interpret Friendly, Helpful, Intimidate, torture, etc.   But he should also have an equally "pretty good" idea of how you interpret alignment, were you using it.  So it seems no more unreasonable to delegate the decision of how the NPC victim reacts to the character's use of Intimidate and Torture than to delegate the decision of how the NPC Forces of Good reacts to his tactics in this regard.  Both require significant interpretations of the rules at a minimum, perhaps exrapolation from, or addenda to, the rules as well.



pemerton said:


> Telling someone I don't want to play with them is not telling them how to play. Telling someone I don't want to go to the movies with them is not telling them what movie to watch. The equivalences that you are drawing are spurious, almost comically so.




I'd say it pretty clearly says you don't like their play style. 



pemerton said:


> I don't see what this has to do with anything I said, other than that you are once again positing that you know me, my friends and my game better than I do. Are you suggesting that my friend is a liar? Are you suggesting that I'm a liar?




I'm not sure why the issue becomes such a personal one to you.  I am saying you can sincerely believe that your co-opting of the familiar fell within the rules of the game while others can sincerely believe it was not.  That was the crux of the discussion on this issue - whether the activation and use of the familiar by the GM was within the rules of the game.

To clarify, we (or at least I) were not debating whether it was, or was not, accepted by or acceptable to the player.  Nor was my disagreement whether, if the rules were altered, they were altered in a good way or a bad way.  It was not whether you were a good GM or a bad GM, nor whether he was a good player or a bad player, nor whether it made the game better or worse.  To the extent those issues were discussed, my sense was that those who felt it was a violation of the rules of the game felt that it was a positive move for all involved in the game. 

That does not change the fact that it constituted the GM taking control of a player resource in a manner not provided for in the rules, at least in the opinion of several posters, most of which have a better grasp of the 4e rules than I do, and whose quotes were sufficient to persuade me they were correct.  Although my initial comments on the issue were not directed to rules legality anyway, but to the fact that you had removed a PC resource unilaterally, rather than requiring the choice of whether to remove that resource to the player.

But since the issue has been brought up:



pemerton said:


> My friend lurks on this site from time-to-time, and at our last session commented that he had looked at this thread and seen you and @_*Imaro*_ white-knighting on his behalf. He found it quite amusing. He also made the point to me, that I had already made on this thread and thought was obvious, that part of the reason that he put the Eye in his imp rather than himself was so that he was free to conflict with Vecna without suffering personal blowback, and that - had he had the Eye in himself - he would not have crossed Vecna.




and to return to the context of the discussion, the player was OK with you removing a character resource based on his behaviour.  He chose to create a situation of conflict with Vecna which placed that character resource at risk.  I wonder whether, had you been playing a traditional mechanical alignment game, he might not be OK with you removing a character resource which was contingent on maintaining a specific alignment, given his choice of character, and his choice of actions, placed his character in a moral or behavioural conflict.  Tough to say, of course.  While I continue to find the two similar, I certainly agree that a Paladin falling from grace is greater in significance by several orders of magnitude.  I rather suspect, however, that he would either be similarly accepting, or that he would not have placed his character in that conflict in the first place, as many players choose not to, by choosing a character not so beholden to alignment.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> To be fair here I was using the GNS labels as fairly convenient labels.  I didn't mean them to be the main part of my idea. The meat of my theory is that there are (at least) three pretty strongly held goals being espoused here and that the criteria surrounding these goals means that we are arguing past each other.
> 
> For example you make "a believable world separate from the PC's" an important goal. I can honestly say that this is not really a considers action for me. So while this makes mechanical alignment important to you, for me, it does not do anything. My basic reaction is "so what?"




What i dislike is being put into a category that has a lot of other assumptions imbedded in it because of one important goal that has been identified. I have several importsnt goals during play. Experiencing a living and believable world is just one (and possibly not the most important one). I di understand you were just trying to make sense of the different positions. I think once you start thinking "i am a simulationsist, or my player is a gamist" you begin to limit yourself. 

And I do understand the value of models (my father made a living teaching a social styles program that divided people into four basic types to help maximize sales). The problem with models like that, is you start seeing things through the model and stop taking people on an individual basis (for example, because i grew up around the social styles model, i find myself wanting to group posters into categories like Driving Analytical or Amiable Expressive. This is just a habit i have developed being around that model my whole life. but in actuality, i dont really understand peoples' positions until i let those categories go). My attutide toward things like GNS is the same (and i do understand that it isnt supposed to categorize people, just agendas). I think these sorts of models will distort your perception if you are not cautious in your application of them. I also personally feel it is a biased and not very good model. So when people try to pin it to me, naturally i am resistant.


----------



## Cadence

howandwhy99 said:


> Well, that's not true at all. But I understand for you it is. Why do a small group of individuals dogpile those who disagree with their pet philosophy? I don't know, maybe people don't accept change easily?
> 
> The fact is, games and puzzles have been designed as codes since games and puzzles have existed. You might disagree, but a single philosophy doesn't disprove hundreds of years of practice. The same goes with the thousands of games in our hobby which are balanced to be games for players to succeed at. Many might be called incoherent, but that's only for a lack of understanding for several years. And look at what even that wrought: D20 is still one of the most popular systems in gaming.
> 
> I'd really wish you and Cadence didn't try and close off other people's ideas when they disagree your own. It's possible you might actually be able to learn something about games and game design.




I'm happy to admit that "pattern recognition" is a big part of how RPGs can be played and often are played, and is certainly fundamental to many (most?) things called games. And it is certainly true that:



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm not being absolutist when I deny absolutist ideologies like "all games are stories" and "playing a game is telling a story".




But the content of many of your posts don't just deny those absolute ideologies.  Instead they regularly involve claims that RPGs don't involve stories at all, that anyone who thinks story is important to the way RPGs are often played is a forge-acolyte, that no one used to think about RPGs that way pre-forge (despite  1e and  Moldvay quotes and personal anecdotes to the contrary), and that many of us have no clue what we've been doing since the early 80s (even earlier in some cases, a bit later in others).



			
				howandwhy said:
			
		

> Cherrypicking quotes from early texts of D&D isn't going to help you relegate D&D to the Forge model of gaming or any attempt to define gaming or roleplaying as storytelling. Those are ideas invented less than 20 years ago. D&D is 40 years old.






			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> There is no shared fiction being created in D&D.






			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Role playing isn't creating a story. It isn't "creating" anything.






			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> No games have resolution systems (as storygames aren't really games).






			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> A referee has no story to tell of his or her own and is never to make decisions within a game.






			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Except it isn't. No fiction is created when role playing.






			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Guess what? Game play is about addressing the math, the patterns we are deciphering in the game.




I think it's great that you'll...



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> keep on denying storygames when held as some absolutist ideology only weirdos would deny when in comes to role playing and role playing games.




and I've certainly learned things from some of your posts and have been inspired to think about things in different ways.  But I think your presentation  is the thing that's "closing off other people's ideas" and at least gives me the impression that you have no desire to "learn something about games and game design" because you are already _the_ expert.

I wonder if more profitable discussions would result from posts starting from things like  "But viewing RPGs as 'pattern recognition games' would say...."  rather than
"Since RPGs are pattern recognition and not storytelling, we know that..." ?     (It might even get people to think about the posts long enough to internalize the point that not everyone plays RPGs for the story creation.)


----------



## howandwhy99

Cadence said:


> I wonder if more profitable discussions would result from posts starting from things like  "But viewing RPGs as 'pattern recognition games' would say...."  rather than "Since RPGs are pattern recognition and not storytelling, we know that..." ?   (It might even get people to think about the posts long enough to internalize the point that not everyone plays RPGs for the story creation.)



I understand that's what you're asking. Be accepting of different opinions (I am) and be the one oddball who won't accept the Big Model. That's not how change works or the opening to new ideas. I want games like older games promised to be and the narrative theory masquerading as game theory has removed even the imagination of those from conversation. The main issue is the default understanding of what people are actually doing at the game table is completely different. Beginning conversations with the idea that games include narratives ends the discussion, not grows it. There is no place to go from there just as if I were to try and help storygame designers make better games so players can game them rather than use them to tell stories with. They don't want to be playing the game at all. At best its a nuisance to get to the story.  But who else around here is thinking outside that box? I post my opinion as what I believe because I currently do. I don't see anyone else don't much different.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I'd say it pretty clearly says you don't like their play style.



And?

Upthread, you said that choosing who to play with, on the basis of whether or not one would enjoy playing with them, was tantamount to policing them.

That is not true.

Now you're saying that choosing not to play with someone because one wouldn't enjoy it is saying that one wouldn't enjoy their playstyle.

That is true, but seems irrelevant. Telling someone that you don't enjoy playing with them is not policing them. Lots of people do things that I don't enjoy. And they're welcome to. I'm not stopping them. I'm just not doing it with them.

Upthread you have, multiple times, suggested that a player might play his/her "honourable" character as Brave, Brave Sir Robin. Now, I assume you realise that Brave, Brave Sir Robin - as presented by Monty Python - is a joke. So I assume that the player you're talking about is also playing in a comedic or otherwise over-the-top, ironic style. I don't mind small amounts of humour in the game - eg the backstory to the dwarf fighter PC that I have already set out upthread - but I mostly enjoy, and GM, a serious game. That means that I don't want to play with that comedic player. But s/he is welcome to find another group who want to play comedic D&D - I'm not stopping her. 

(A different scenario would be where a player wants to play an honourable PC, but the game mechanics make that suicidal for the PC. Low-level classic D&D has this feature; low-level Rolemaster can also exhibit it. This is a case of mechanics/genre mis-match. One reason I enjoy GMing 4e is that it does not have this sort of problem.)



N'raac said:


> I'm not sure why the issue becomes such a personal one to you.



Because you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] called me a hypocrite and implied I am a liar.



N'raac said:


> I am saying you can sincerely believe that your co-opting of the familiar fell within the rules of the game while others can sincerely believe it was not.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it constituted the GM taking control of a player resource in a manner not provided for in the rules



Have you read the game rules?

The game rules specify that the GM may play the familiar with a "light touch". What is your basis for disputing that the player and I in question had established the relevant parameters of "light touch" between us? 

The game rules also make it clear that resource depletion, including resource depletion that extends beyond the normal recovery period, is a standard consequence of skill challenge resolution. Which is what happened in the episode in question.

An astronomer and a flat-earther may have a disagreement about whether the earth is (roughly) spherical, but only one of those opinions is worth listening to, however sincerely both may be held.



N'raac said:


> Although my initial comments on the issue were not directed to rules legality anyway, but to the fact that you had removed a PC resource unilaterally



This is also incorrect. The loss of the resource was not unilateral. It was a component of action resolution within a skill challenge.



N'raac said:


> in the opinion of several posters, most of which have a better grasp of the 4e rules than I do



By "several" you mean "one". [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. 



N'raac said:


> the player was OK with you removing a character resource based on his behaviour.  He chose to create a situation of conflict with Vecna which placed that character resource at risk.  I wonder whether, had you been playing a traditional mechanical alignment game, he might not be OK with you removing a character resource which was contingent on maintaining a specific alignment, given his choice of character



Who knows? But that is not the case that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have expressed primary concern with. We have expressed concern with the case where the player believes that s/he is honouring the relevant ideals, and the GM takes a different view.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] - again I refuse to get into a rules debate with you. You have proven on many occasions that you are not interested in differing interpretations and will go to great lengths to rules lawyer any interpretation you do not agree with. 

Needless to say I find this style of dming overly antagonistic and not conducive to the games I am interested in playing.


----------



## Savage Wombat

As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject.  I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.

May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point?  Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Because you and @_*Imaro*_ called me a hypocrite and implied I am a liar.




I certainly did not intend to imply you were a liar.  We clearly have different interpretations.



pemerton said:


> Have you read the game rules?




I have read all the rules that were cited in the discussion.



pemerton said:


> The game rules specify that the GM may play the familiar with a "light touch". What is your basis for disputing that the player and I in question had established the relevant parameters of "light touch" between us?




No one, to my knowledge, disagrees that you and your player were happy with the extent to which you were playing the familiar.  To classify playing the familiar with a "light touch" means unilaterally activating it to oppose the PC interprets the phrase "light touch" in a manner I feel falls well outside the term.  I would therefore say there was a departure from the rules which was, at worst, offensive to no one at the table and at least implicitly approved, if not expected and desired by the player in question.  Not really that different from a pre-4e group deciding to play without alignment (I remain unclear whether your approach deviates from the 4e alignment rules, but it's not really relevant).

I also see shutting down the familiar in the manner done, and altering its recovery time, as a departure from the rules.  I don't believe I was alone in that.  Even if it was perfectly within the rules, I perceive it as removing access to a character resource based on character behaviour, which seems a much lower order of magnitude, but otherwise similar to a character falling from grace and losing character abilities indefinitely.  You clarified, however, that you differentiated the two on the basis of whether the player believed the offense taken by the higher power was appropriate, so I see the basis for the difference.  [ie the player  believes the character honoured his ideals/the ideals of the higher power and the GM does not]

Any discussion of whether "the rules" were followed has a measure of uncertainty, as one of the rules of most RPG's is that the GM should interpret, modify and/or alter the rules if this will enhance the game, so by the RAW, we have the flexibility to depart from the RAW.

In any case, it's obviously an issue to which you have taken considerable offense, which I had neither anticipated nor intended, so I apologize for any manner in which you feel I slighted you.



Hussar said:


> @_*N'raac*_ - again I refuse to get into a rules debate with you. You have proven on many occasions that you are not interested in differing interpretations and will go to great lengths to rules lawyer any interpretation you do not agree with.




Suit yourself.  If someone wishes to cite the rules for use of torture in applying the intimidation skill, I'm interested in seeing these clear-cut rules the players would know.  Otherwise, I believe that they, like me, likely would not now them.  In any case:



Savage Wombat said:


> As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject.  I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.
> 
> May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point?  Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?




While I'm not seeing that lack of civility rear its head yet, I do agree that the last few pages seem more about "why I will not respond to your comments" than about any meaningful discussion, so I agree that the discussion appears to have run its course.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> To classify playing the familiar with a "light touch" means unilaterally activating it to oppose the PC interprets the phrase "light touch" in a manner I feel falls well outside the term.



I don't really see how your feeling as to what falls within or outside a rules term is relevant. If my players and I have established a workable application of the phrase to our game, on what basis are we breaking the rules?



N'raac said:


> I also see shutting down the familiar in the manner done, and altering its recovery time, as a departure from the rules.



In which case Mike Mearls departed from the rules when he wrote a skill challenge which could remove encounter powers for the rest of the adventure. And the monsters that can suck healing surges and encounter powers without them being expended by the player must be outside the rules too!

Or, alternatively, you are not familiar with 4e's basic scheme for resouces and mechanical consequences.



N'raac said:


> I perceive it as removing access to a character resource based on character behaviour



This describes the whole of D&D game play - players declare actions for their PCs, which can result in the loss of resources (eg hit points lost, gold pieces spent or stolen, etc).

Until you look at the particular adjudicative mechanicsm whereby a consequence ensued, I don't think you can say anything very meaningful about the nature and style of a particular episdoe of play.



N'raac said:


> I apologize for any manner in which you feel I slighted you.



Thank you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Savage Wombat said:


> As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject.  I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.
> 
> May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point?  Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?




I would say you are indeed correct.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise

Savage Wombat said:


> As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several *dozen* pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject.  I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.
> 
> May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point?  Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?



Fixed that for you. 

And thirded.


----------



## Dannorn

fagura said:


> And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else. In today's society anyone with a sword roaming the streets and killing wrong-doers would be definitely considered evil. In d&d settings, not necessarily. So, there is the need to describe in every setting what are the boundaries between those axes. This is not an easy task (and btw is up to the setting designers). And even if it was done, does this mean that in every single part of this world, all societies think alike? I really doubt if that might be the case. In practice, depending on the place or tribe he grew up (nevertheless in the same setting), a character might consider an action evil or absolutely necessary to serve good. Does this mean that when he travels he becomes evil because the place he is currently at perceives actions differently than him? Does a paladin smite murderers in town X but not in town W because in the first town society does not accept murder whereas in the second it is endorsed?




Odds are this has been brought up but while this may be true in the real world it falls short in D&D for the simple reason that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos aren't just arbitrary constructs they're forces; channelable, measurable, tangible FACTS. While cultures may differ on what is acceptable the definitions of Good and Evil are written in the very fabric of the universe.

Charity is always a Good act though it may be committed with evil intent, and torture is always an Evil act, though it may be commuted with good intent and it is the DMs job to arbitrate whether an Evil act for a Good cause is Good or Evil on behalf of the universe and whether a shift in alignment or loss/change in abilities is warranted.


----------



## Campbell

What always frustrates me about these sorts of threads is how we often get so lost in the particular examples that come up. We expect a silver bullet - principles of gaming that will always work for any given group for every given situation. We eye people who have different principles of gaming for any hint of hypocrisy when the truth is there's a reason why they are principles rather than procedures. Actual play doesn't exist in some sort of platonic state. What will work for one group of people who have particular ways they view gaming with their own particular social dynamics does not necessarily work for a different group. 

Sometimes the right call for a given situation may not even be consistent with your usual GMing principles. Something as simple as a given player being in a sour mood because they didn't do well on an exam or had a bad day at work might even gum up the works. Actual play is messy, but its where we actually live when we play.

I'll admit that earlier in this discussion I was getting pretty upset that when I made a point it would get thrown into the zeitgeist of "show them their principles are fundamentally flawed". When I talk about how alignment doesn't work for me I'm not arguing that it doesn't serve a purpose for anyone. I'm not going to get caught up in trying to tell people how they should approach the hobby.

We approach things in fundamentally different ways as has been seen in thread after thread. I'm not even going to attempt to put labels on things because by now we should tend to have a general sense on how all of us approach things. I would just hope in the future that we could at least make the attempt to address each other where we live. Obviously it does little good to address [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] with an example that assumes player decisions should have a one to one correspondence with character decisions.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. Well said sir. And kudos for avoiding labels. Wish I had done that.


----------



## pemerton

Reflecting on and riffing on [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s post.

I think actual play examples are helpful if we're asking how alignment might (or might) improve the gaming experience. They give a sense of how someone's game unfolds. They illustrate what someone cares for in gaming.

There's a reason that I've referred to this post multiple times in this thread. The post is the one about the dwarf "paladin" (fighter/cleric) who ended up being bound by a promise that he didn't want to keep, given in his name by companions who didn't want him to know about it and weren't intending to honour it (until he forced them to). Of all my actual play posts over the years of my 4e campaign, I think it's the best and clearest illustration of how I enjoy approaching moral questions in my game.

There are a few reasons for that.

First, it is relatively high-stakes in story terms. It's about brining a vicious murderer and pillage to justice.

Second, it shows how a GM can modulate the unfolding game - NPC personality and backstory, skill challenge framing from check to check, etc - to keep those stakes in the foreground, and so prevent the players from squibbing on dealing with them.

Third, it shows a player choosing an outcome on the basis of a sense of his PC's moral duty which does not depend upon the threat of external alignment sanction. It thereby helps rebut, in my view, the claim that there must, _in general_, be a conflict of interest in letting players decide what honouring their PCs' ideals requires. It also helps rebut the claim that, _in general_, immersion into the role of a paladin or cleric or similar conviction-oriented PC requires a sense of the GM as arbiter of moral truth.

Fourth, it shows how intra-party moral disagreements can be handled within the bigger D&D picture of party play, without need for an external dictation of moral requirements, and with recourse to the device of "we're all good aligned" or some similar externally enforced basis for intra-party tolerance.

There's probably some other reasons too, but the above are some of the main ones.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Very late to the party here, but just to add my experience - whether alignments improve the gaming experience or not depends entirely on how they are understood by the players, and what alignments are available.

Most problems I've seen with alignment in games come from one source - alignment being treated as a set of rules on has to mindlessly follow and which one will be penalized for disobeying. Unfortunately a number of 1E and 2E sources presented alignment precisely in that way.

This is why the most disruptive characters in any games I've run were 2E Paladins - not because an LG character was inherently disruptive if they treated alignment as a guide, but because the players of Paladins tended to be obsessed with avoiding "falling" (which the books went on about excessively and constantly loved to suggest as a plot device!), so treated alignment as hard rules they must follow or else, not as the underlying mindset of a character, leading to them obsessing over minutiae or getting into pointless arguments or the like (even when their behaviour was fine under a broad "LG" guideline).

Other players who played their PCs in a similar "Oh god I must follow these rules!" way with regards to alignment also tended to be disruptive and detract from the game.

Once everyone started treating alignment as a guide, not a set of rules, it rarely detracted. Unfortunately many classes still had it as part of their rules which complicated matters.

So I think keeping the understanding of alignment as a personality thing and less of a rules thing very much helps with keeping it as something that helps the game rather than hinders it.

The biggest step forwards for alignment in my experience was in 4E, with the addition of Unaligned. This was not the same as the frequently-confused "True Neutral" (which some books presented as Neutral Apathetic, others as Fascist Enforcer of Neutrality, and all sort of other things), but suited PCs who did not have a strong moral ethos (which is to say, most PCs, in my experience - I say that as someone who mostly plays NG himself), but wasn't devoted to Neutrality either. This made alignment a much easier thing to deal with.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I don't really see how your feeling as to what falls within or outside a rules term is relevant. If my players and I have established a workable application of the phrase to our game, on what basis are we breaking the rules?




The question came up solely, in my view, because you stated you were following the rules as written.  That statement was challenged, in my view correctly.  However, as I have said a few times before, and in hindsight wish I had assessed earlier, whether the rules as written were followed, interpreted, varied, overridden or ignored entirely, was tangential to the discussion, at best.

I don't want to revisit why we think your analogies to other published materials are flawed.  It's not relevant to the discussion, and it just upsets you, so why go back there?

Although, in the broader scheme, a perception that "following the rules", not just "having a good game" is of greater or lesser importance seems like it may shed some light on different alignments and/or different interpretations of alignment.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, I was looking at the "Similar Threads" list at the bottom of this page and for S&G's I clicked on the oldest link:  A Game Without Alignments - My Own Experience.  There's some familiar faces in a nearly ten year old thread.  And, funnily enough, the points made there in 2 pages pretty much mirror everything that's been said here.  Interesting read.


----------



## Campbell

While I can't speak for anyone else one point I would like to bring up again is that not all of us who don't care for alignment have issues with personality mechanics in general. I know that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is particularly partial to Burning Wheel's belief system and I really like Blood and Smoke's Humanity, Aspiration, and Mask & Dirge mechanics. For my tastes it comes down to wanting players to have a say in what is at conflict and pushing play towards conflict rather than away from it. I would have no issue with a player defined vow mechanic for paladins that encouraged paladins to question the vows they've taken that would come up more often and be less all or nothing. One of my fundamental issues with alignment is how it either dominates play or doesn't matter at all. Either you're completely fine or whoosh - no powers at all.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> it comes down to wanting players to have a say in what is at conflict and pushing play towards conflict rather than away from it.



This reminds me of a comment I've seen from [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] (and others too, perhaps): that classical HERO-style or paladin-style personality disadvantages tend to make the player push play (as best s/he can) away from sites of conflict or temptation; and that when the GM then drops in such conflicts (eg orc babies) they act as something of a "gotcha" for the player in question.

Mechanics that reward the player for going along with the GM's conflict, and pushing towards it him-/herself, serve my purposes better.


----------



## Abraxas

Campbell said:


> For my tastes it comes down to wanting players to have a say in what is at conflict and pushing play towards conflict rather than away from it. I would have no issue with a player defined vow mechanic for paladins that encouraged paladins to question the vows they've taken that would come up more often and be less all or nothing. One of my fundamental issues with alignment is how it either dominates play or doesn't matter at all. Either you're completely fine or whoosh - no powers at all.



In my experience, players having a say in what is at conflict has nothing to do with alignment - it is about talking to the players and seeing what sort of game they want. Also, IME, alignment isn't all or nothing unless you make it all or nothing and view every action as black or white with no shades of gray.

That has been the curious thing about the various comments in this thread (and why I kept reading) - why must alignment be treated as absolute (and only alignment), but things like deities can be treated as a spectrum. In one case I got my answer - tho I must admit I found it puzzling. Of course I also found it puzzling to see the implications that people who use alignment are doing it wrong if they don't use it as a stick.

Oh well it was a mostly interesting thread.


----------



## Hussar

Abraxus said:
			
		

> Of course I also found it puzzling to see the implications that people who use alignment are doing it wrong if they don't use it as a stick.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page130#ixzz2wn3tla3E




Well, what's the point of mechanical alignment if it isn't a stick?  I mean, I use purely descriptive alignment - ie. alignment is simply a shorthand description with no mechanics tied to it.  So, it can't be a stick.  If you're using mechanical alignment as nothing but a shorthand description, why tie penalties to it?

Or, to put it another way, without any actual penalties associated with mechanical alignment, how is it mechanical alignment anymore?  It's just so that Bane weapons and Detect Evil spells still work?  Well, those things work in my game too, since you can still have alignment keyed effects in a descriptive alignment system.  Basic and Expert D&D had that as well.

So, if there is no stick, what is the point of maintaining mechanical alignment?


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> there's a reason why they are principles rather than procedures. Actual play doesn't exist in some sort of platonic state. What will work for one group of people who have particular ways they view gaming with their own particular social dynamics does not necessarily work for a different group.
> 
> Sometimes the right call for a given situation may not even be consistent with your usual GMing principles.



There is an interesting discussion relevant to this point in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner (p 251):

Announcing Risk of Failure Before the Roll
According to the Burning Wheel (page 34), when a test is made, the player announces intent and task and the GM announces the results of a potential failure. It's a good habit to get into, and a valid rule, but I confess that I do not explicitly announce the terms of each test. Why? Two reasons: I find the results of failure implicit in most tests. If I'm doing my job correctly as GM, the situation is so charged that the player knows he's going to get dragged into a world of [hurt] if he fails. We project the consequences into the fiction as we're talking in-character and jockeying before the test. . . 

The second reason . . . is a bad habit of BWHQ. My players trust me. They know that I have a devious GM-brain that will take their interests into hear and screw them gently but firmly. I can't write rules about this kind of trust and, frankly, I think basing a game solely on trust is awful. It leads to all other sorts of bad habits. However, it does have its positive side. . . [It] allows for the game to move a little faster  . . . and provides room for the occasional inspired surprise. . .

When I do announce failures before a roll, it's often after getting explicit intent and task from the player - we get everything clear about what's being rolled for. Even then, I'll keep my failure results vague . . . If the failure comes up, then I embellish with details. . .

Do I still support it? Announcing the risks of failure before a roll is absolutely a good rule and practice to follow. It forms good habits. It adds a new dynamic to the game - knowing that failure isn't arbitrary when you roll the dice. I'm a poor role model, so definitely follow what's written in the book.​
Of course that last sentence contains at least an element of irony - if Luke Crane really thought he was such a bad roll model, he wouldn't have given us the preceding page-length commentary on his rationale for departing from the rule, and the way such departure both flows from, and affects, the dynamics of play.

For me, the degree of detail in which one announces consequences of failure prior to actual resolution is one of those things where fluidity is important. If it's obvious at the table that (for instance) thwarting Vecna will anger Vecna; and if it's also obvious that the same mechanism whereby Vecna is acting provides him with a mechanism to channel his anger (eg having his Eye implanted in an imp); and if this is part of the whole rationale whereby the player implanted that Eye in that imp in the first place; then it seems to me that the precise consequences can be left unstated, to be revealed as an "inspired surprise", without deprotagonising the player.

4e also has a relevant mechanical difference here from BW - namely, a clear suite of basic mechanical devices pertaining to consequences (eg level-appropriate damage; healing surge depravation; burdens on normal recharge processes) - that mean that players familiar with the mechanics have a fairly clear idea of what sorts of results are in play, in general terms, without the GM having to specify the details every time.

But Luke Crane is absolutely right that in some cases, clarifying what failure might consist in is part and parcel of clarifying exactly what it is that is being attempted. And the original rule is also right, at least in some cases: it can improve play, by making clearer the stakes of a player action declaration, to state exactly what is at stake in some particular moment of resolution.

But sometimes, as he says in the quoted passage, those stakes will have been made clear without the need for any express statement.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> There is an interesting discussion relevant to this point in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner (p 251):Announcing Risk of Failure Before the Roll
> *******************************************
> For me, the degree of detail in which one announces consequences of failure prior to actual resolution is one of those things where fluidity is important. If it's obvious at the table that (for instance) thwarting Vecna will anger Vecna; and if it's also obvious that the same mechanism whereby Vecna is acting provides him with a mechanism to channel his anger (eg having his Eye implanted in an imp); and if this is part of the whole rationale whereby the player implanted that Eye in that imp in the first place; then it seems to me that the precise consequences can be left unstated, to be revealed as an "inspired surprise", without deprotagonising the player.​





I remain confused as to what, exactly, the failure was.  Was there a failed roll early on which caused the familiar to either activate spontaneously?  Did a later failed roll cause the familiar be harmed, or to have a reduced recovery rate, in resolution of the PC's actions?  I thought the player's rolls succeeded, such that loss of the familiar was a consequence of success, not of failure.

No response needed if there was no failed roll.  Just trying to clarify if there was an aspect to the sequence of play that I misinterpreted.
​


----------



## fagura

It's really interesting how far this discussion went these last two months. I never imagined it would go that far when I originally posted it.
I 've been watching your posts (although I ve been missing a couple of pages from time to time) and many examples of in-game problems or lack of them mainly due or thanks to the way alignment is used by each table.

Alignment use came up in the final stages of a living campaign setting I am co-creating too. We decided to keep the alignments 'unofficially' (for gaming session purposes that is), but abandon them in player vs player interactions in the living world. I don't wish to spam here describing the setting and all, I do believe it offers several distinctive features compared to previous living worlds, if anyone is interested he can find our intro video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNHNwR5utpU.

To say the least, this thread proves that alignment implementation has its issues and the way it s used is under debate although others see a tool and others a burden.


----------



## granan

*Don't over complicate alignment*

I suppose alignment is there to help enhance the game. Unfortunately, many players either toss it aside or become totally crippled by it. As the DM I never allow the game to be played by evil characters. So alignment then becomes easy to judge in game. I only penalize players if things get to far away from what a group of good or neutral PC's should look like. I give them the freedom to act how they would like, however there is a limit before bad karma happens.


----------



## pemerton

granan said:


> I suppose alignment is there to help enhance the game. Unfortunately, many players either toss it aside or become totally crippled by it



Why is it unfortunate that some people don't use alignment mechanics?



granan said:


> As the DM I never allow the game to be played by evil characters. So alignment then becomes easy to judge in game. I only penalize players if things get to far away from what a group of good or neutral PC's should look like.



What happens at your table if there are participants who disagree on what counts as good or evil?


----------



## Savage Wombat

pemerton said:


> Why is it unfortunate that some people don't use alignment mechanics?




He deliberately used the phrase "toss it aside".  Which implies ignoring something without examining it for useful potential. 

The people in this thread who eschew alignment do so after careful consideration.  They know the up-side, they just don't think it outweighs the down-side.


----------



## Dannorn

Hussar said:


> Well, what's the point of mechanical alignment if it isn't a stick?  I mean, I use purely descriptive alignment - ie. alignment is simply a shorthand description with no mechanics tied to it.  So, it can't be a stick.  If you're using mechanical alignment as nothing but a shorthand description, why tie penalties to it?




You can tie penalties to something without it being a stick. Are proficiencies a stick? Of course boy but you're still penalized for not having them. Like anything else it becomes a stick when you start using it to hammer players and punish them for not playing the way you want. 



> So, if there is no stick, what is the point of maintaining mechanical alignment?




To provide an additional challenge to the player. Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment, so when a situation comes up where the player knows going against their alignment is the smarter option they'll do it, every time. Mechanical alignment gives the player reason to pause and consider other options, because the easy/smart option might push them far enough that they'll get an alignment shift along with any and all penalties that entails. It also encourages players to find clever ways of getting the same results as going against their alignment while still staying true to it.


----------



## granan

pemerton said:


> Why is it unfortunate that some people don't use alignment mechanics?
> 
> What happens at your table if there are participants who disagree on what counts as good or evil?




Because alignment mechanics need not be difficult. If a PC put Lawful or Good on their character sheet it is easy to discern when they violate their ethics in game. So when they ignore a wrong or commit a wrong, as the DM its my prerogative to judge it and chart the alignment shift. One wrong act does not mean a change it just happens just like in real life. Some players don't think much about a campaign beyond hack and slash. Sure the Paladin needs to be Lawful Good but that's about as far as alignment goes for some.

That's easy as the DM I'm the judge and a participant does not have to see it the way I see it. Especially if a campaign world is designed as a forsaken place such as Dark Sun. In my current campaign everything is not black and white, sure there is good and evil but sometimes there is a whole lot of gray and I do give the PC's room to play.


----------



## pemerton

Dannorn said:


> Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment, so when a situation comes up where the player knows going against their alignment is the smarter option they'll do it, every time.



Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly asked for arguments or examples that make out this claim.

What advantage does a player get by (for instance) having his/her PC break a code of honour while purporting not to?

I understand that a _character_ might get an advantage from lying or cheating. But what advantage does a _player_ get from having his/her paladin PC lie or cheat? For instance, how does that make the game more fun?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I understand that a _character_ might get an advantage from lying or cheating. But what advantage does a _player_ get from having his/her paladin PC lie or cheat? For instance, how does that make the game more fun?




I guess ultimately that would depend on what the player finds fun...  Perhaps he enjoys moral versatility but likes paladin powers?  Maybe the fact that he can play on an honorable reputation and when convenient stab an opponent in the back is enjoyable for the player.  Maybe there isn't one reason. 

IMO... It's akin to asking... Why do some players enjoy building and playing characters that use exploits and/or broken rules when building their characters?  How does that make the game more fun for them?  regardless of why... it happens.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Why do some players enjoy building and playing characters that use exploits and/or broken rules when building their characters?  How does that make the game more fun for them?



For some, because they prefer "build" to play. (But I suspect this is a minority.) For others, because it increases the scope of their control over the game, by increasing the range and depth of their player resources.



Imaro said:


> Perhaps he enjoys moral versatility but likes paladin powers?  Maybe the fact that he can play on an honorable reputation and when convenient stab an opponent in the back is enjoyable for the player.



These seem to me to be reasons for the _character_ moreso than they are reasons for the player. The player of a morally fickle character is not him-/herself being "morally versatile" - it is not immoral to tell a story about a murderer, for instance.

On the matter of "stabbing oppoenents in the back". There is one approach to play where this really is a convenience for the player - namely, Gygaxian "skilled" play - but no one on this thread seems to be GMing that sort of game. Conversely, if you consider, say, 4e, it is in fact not at all convenient for the player of a paladin to stab an opponent in the back. The character's power - given the mechanical build - comes from being forthright, not sneaky. (Both in and out of combat.)

Hence my question: what sort of game is a (non-Gygaxian) GM running, in which the GM's framing and resolution of situations, in conjunction with the mechanics, really does make it more convenient _for the player_ to stab opponents in the back? And why is alignment the preferred solution, rather than (say) the GM revisiting his/her approach to the framing of situations?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> On the matter of "stabbing oppoenents in the back". There is one approach to play where this really is a convenience for the player - namely, Gygaxian "skilled" play - but no one on this thread seems to be GMing that sort of game. Conversely, if you consider, say, 4e, it is in fact not at all convenient for the player of a paladin to stab an opponent in the back. The character's power - given the mechanical build - comes from being forthright, not sneaky. (Both in and out of combat.)
> 
> Hence my question: what sort of game is a (non-Gygaxian) GM running, in which the GM's framing and resolution of situations, in conjunction with the mechanics, really does make it more convenient _for the player_ to stab opponents in the back? And why is alignment the preferred solution, rather than (say) the GM might revisiting his/her approach to the framing of situations?




Let me try explaining this in 4e terms...  Does a paladin who tricks his opponent into imbuing a poison that makes him dazed, blinded or immobilized gain a benefit in combat effectiveness against said opponent over a paladin that fights his opponent in an honorable duel?  None of the paladins powers are reduced in effectiveness because he poisoned his opponent so then why wouldn't he?

IMO: This isn't dependent upon a particular play style or edition.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Let me try explaining this in 4e terms...  Does a paladin who tricks his opponent into imbuing a poison that makes him dazed, blinded or immobilized gain a benefit in combat effectiveness against said opponent over a paladin that fights his opponent in an honorable duel?  None of the paladins powers are reduced in effectiveness because he poisoned his opponent so then why wouldn't he?
> 
> IMO: This isn't dependent upon a particular play style or edition.




But, at this point, presuming we had an honourable LG 4e paladin, doing this would be very out of character would it not?  

So why is he doing it?  If the player cares so little about playing in character in the first place, alignment isn't going to fix the problem. 

Again we're back to policing the players. If we don't hold that stick over them then of course the will ignore their character. I mean it was said so pretty clearly a few posts above this. Alignment is apparently required to make players play in character. 

Why not trust that the players will actually be capable of playing in character?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, at this point, presuming we had an honourable LG 4e paladin, doing this would be very out of character would it not?




Yes and no since there is no objective LG in this play style... unless of course he believes defeating this opponent with the use of poison and deceit is justifiable because it is helping him defeat a greater evil than the one he is performing... so maybe not.  I'm unclear on how... if the player is free to determine whether his actions are LG or not... we can say he is acting out of character for a LG paladin?  in order to do this we need an objective LG, right?



Hussar said:


> So why is he doing it?  If the player cares so little about playing in character in the first place, alignment isn't going to fix the problem.




To survive against a superior or even an unknown (power wise) opponent??  Because in the end the defeat of evil justifies evil actions... it justifies killing doesn't it?  Who knows, why do his motivations matter if there is no objective LG to measure them against.  

To your second point who said he makes a regular occurrence of it?  Perhaps he only does it when he thinks a foe is superior in combat prowess... does that matter?

Not sure what problem (since we are speaking to games that don't use alignment) you are speaking of.  I was asked why a player would act in a certain way in a non-Gygaxian "skilled play" game... my answer (unless we are now talking about games where death is totally off the table and all encounters are tailored so that PC's will always win) because they want to survive...  so I'm not sure what "problem" you are speaking to.  



Hussar said:


> Again we're back to policing the players. If we don't hold that stick over them then of course the will ignore their character. I mean it was said so pretty clearly a few posts above this. Alignment is apparently required to make players play in character.




This is your assertion, not mine.  I don't profess to know how all players will play with or without alignment... i'd say painting with a broad brush, means you're bound to run into those who don't fit your pre-conceptions though. 



Hussar said:


> Why not trust that the players will actually be capable of playing in character?




Because a player is advocating for his character in the "game".  If by not staying strictly in character there is an advantage to be had... I think (in the same way there are players who purposefully exploit "broken" builds, feats, powers, etc.)  there will be players who will exploit the inherent advantage in not always being a paragon of virtue.  Assuming every player has the same definition of fun (staying in character) or reasons for playing the game (staying in character) or motivation (staying in character) seems a little naive and dismissive of the wide array of player types even the 4e books acknowledge.


----------



## Dannorn

pemerton said:


> Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly asked for arguments or examples that make out this claim.
> 
> What advantage does a player get by (for instance) having his/her PC break a code of honour while purporting not to?
> 
> I understand that a _character_ might get an advantage from lying or cheating. But what advantage does a _player_ get from having his/her paladin PC lie or cheat? For instance, how does that make the game more fun?




Apologies if I wasn't clear my point was that without mechanical reinforcement alignment ceases to be a consideration, rather than players will actively act against alignment for giggles.

It's like traps, if you tell your group that you don't use traps how often are they going to take the time to search for traps as opposed to just rushing down the hallway?

Example from an old group: we'd captured someone spying on us, he didn't raise a hand against us and answered all questions, it was abundantly clear he was just a guy who'd been offered money to watch us and he wasn't willing to stick his neck out for his employer. With the prisoner stripped of equipment and bound the Neutral Good fighter says we should kill him, just in case he tries to warn the guy. He wasn't aiming to be disruptive or acting out of alignment for shock, he just didn't consider that a good aligned character probably wouldn't kill a guy tied to a chair who'd done us no wrong.


----------



## Hussar

Note that is not my assertion Imaro. @Grannon specifically states that "Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment."

The brush is not mine. I'm not painting with it. And this is hardly the first time this has been stated in this thread. 

For me assuming that a player in a role playing game actually wants to role play and not abuse the system seems a pretty healthy assumption.  I would rather assume good faith on the part of the players. Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics as you yourself say.


----------



## Jacob Marley

I am a fan of alignment. It is a useful shorthand (in combination with race, class, prestige class, region and deity) of signalling to the DM the type of character that the player is interested in, and thus the types of challenges the player is interested in facing. When a player says s/he is interested in playing a Neutral Good Half-Elf Cleric Seeker of the Misty Isle from the Wild Coast who worships Ehlonna, that gives me a pretty clear indication of how to frame encounters to engage the player. Those two words, Neutral Good, convey a lot of information in a very efficient manner.

In my nearly twenty-five years of playing D&D, I cannot say that I have ever tracked alignment - I see no point. If a character were to change alignment it would come about via the player signalling through play that s/he is interested in pursuing a different direction. The Neutral Good Half-Elf Cleric Seeker of the Misty Isle from the Wild Coast who worships Ehlonna begins studying the teachings of Vecna, and is intrigued. The player drives the change.

I don't buy the argument that without mechanical alignment a player has no reason to hold to their alignment. My Swords & Wizardry (OD&D retroclone) campaign has no mechanical alignment system (only a descriptive alignment); the players still hold to their alignment. My 3.x campaign does have a mechanical alignment system, and the players hold to their alignment. I don't think mechanical alignment presents a very strong incentive structure.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> For me assuming that a player in a role playing game actually wants to role play and not abuse the system seems a pretty healthy assumption.  I would rather assume good faith on the part of the players. Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics as you yourself say.




So, again, presume good faith on the part of the players (and no similar presumption for the GM), the mantra I have come to associated with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].  And yet...



Hussar said:


> But, at this point, presuming we had an honourable LG 4e paladin, doing this would be very out of character would it not?




Why are you presuming bad faith on the part of this hypothetical player? Can he not have concluded that, in the interests of Good, this compromise to his principles must be made?  That it is, in fact, more honourable in serving the greater good - the benefit of all those this villain will go on to harm (in the same manner he has harmed so many already) by sacrificing his own principles than it would be to place his own prestige as "an honourable warrior" in priority to the best interests of all those people?  Seriously, does the Paladin consider it more important that he look good in the history books, or that the people be freed from this tyrant?



Hussar said:


> So why is he doing it?  If the player cares so little about playing in character in the first place, alignment isn't going to fix the problem.




In my example, I suggest the Paladin is playing perfectly in character.  You seem to presuming that no one sincerely playing their character in character could possibly play that character differently than how you envision him being played.  I don't agree that the Paladin cannot deviate from the precepts of LG and still be played "in character".  What this scene establishes, in a game where alignment is used, is that this character's viewpoint may not perfectly coincide with the ideals of "LG", and that he will follow his principles, even if that means risk of loss of his status, his powers, etc.  That seems to me to carry the potential for a stronger game than one where:

(a)   The player says "Code of honour says no, so no poison".

(b)  Hussar says "Poison? What happened to your Code of Honour"? so the player abandons that idea, because other wise he will be perceived to have violated your perception of how he should play his character.

(c)  The player says "Using this poison is consistent with the ideals of Honour" and thus it is deemed that his use of poison is consistent with the ideals of Honour, and great songs and epic tales are woven of Perry the Poisonous Paladin and his unshakeable honour in poisoning the tyrant king.

You can sub "LG" for "Code of honour" in any of the above and it's not a great result either, frankly.  But it doesn't matter whether it's mechanical alignment or some other presumption of the need for the player to stay "in character" as you view staying in character.

And how do we know that 4e Paladin is LG, much less what the precepts of LG are, if we are not using alignment.  I don't think the Paladin [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] refers to in his 4e game is LG anyway, is he?



Hussar said:


> Again we're back to policing the players. If we don't hold that stick over them then of course the will ignore their character. I mean it was said so pretty clearly a few posts above this. Alignment is apparently required to make players play in character.
> 
> Why not trust that the players will actually be capable of playing in character?




So, then, it is OK for the NG character to slash the throat of the fellow tied to the chair, and he is still virtuous and holy, perhaps even more so, after taking that action.  And the Paladin may choose to use that poison without compromise to his honour - or even enhancing his honour.  Is that correct?  Or is there some "stick"* that you would apply in your game should such an event occur?  That you interpret any possible "out of alignment" action suggested as "an insincere player playing out of character" suggests to me that you do not, in fact, have the trust you suggest we apply above.  

Which actually makes more sense - "players are sincere and GM's are not" is a tough one for me to wrap my head around.  "I am sincere but I have little confidence in the rest of you" seems much more consistent, at least.

* Funny...any penalty related to alignment is a "stick", but any other negative consequence to a character arising from the rules of the game are just part of the game, and natural consequences of the characters interacting with the world.  In larger than life fantasy, where Good and Evil are not just abstract concepts, but actual forces of the universe, it seems to me that consequences of interacting with the world can easily include consequences related to those real forces.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I find myself wondering if Hussar has ever read "Knights of the Dinner Table".  A stereotype has to exist before it can be satirized, after all.


----------



## Hussar

Note the shift in the example.  It's very interesting.  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] brought up the idea of the paladin player choosing to ignore his code of ethics and use poison as a way of gaming the system to gain more power in game.  He could overcome a foe using poison by ignoring his code.  That was Imaro's example.

Now, the goalposts sprout wheels and suddenly the example is completely different.  The paladin player is no longer trying to gain extra power in game (which is Imaro's example) but is playing to character and honestly believing in his actions.

Let's be absolutely clear here.  Imaro's example, which I was responding to, was an example of a player acting in bad faith.  So suddenly trying to claim inconsistency by claiming that the player is acting in good faith, is a misreading of the conversation.

Additionally, where in this thread have I given a single example of a DM acting in bad faith [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]?  Can you show one?  I've repeatedly, REPEATEDLY stated that the DM, acting in good faith, is still holding a stick over the players.  

So, one more time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAD DM PUNISHING PLAYERS.  I AM TALKING ABOUT HOW THE MECHANICS FORCE THE DM TO POLICE THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE PLAYERS AND JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS IN A MANNER I FIND DETRIMENTAL TO THE GAME.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Note that is not my assertion Imaro. @Grannon specifically states that "Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment."




Yes well, I wasn't addressing @Grannon's point...  I believe he uses it for that but I was answering a specific question asked by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].



Hussar said:


> The brush is not mine. I'm not painting with it. And this is hardly the first time this has been stated in this thread.




Again, you are the one who addressed the point to me in reply to an answer to a totally different question, so I feel it is you who (in the context of our interaction) are using the brush and painting broadly with it. 



Hussar said:


> For me assuming that a player in a role playing game actually wants to role play and not abuse the system seems a pretty healthy assumption.




Well the problem is that you are assuming that no other priorities supersede playing in character (which IMO is only a part of "roleplaying" since their are roleplaying games where one does not stay "in character".) for any one or more particular players... again 4e has a list of player types by motivation and I believe only one (maybe two) types actually have playing in character as their primary reason for participation.

As to your point about abuse of the system... Character Op boards(as well as the need for errata, balance, etc.)... at least of the last 2 editions would seem to argue against your presumption... 



Hussar said:


> I would rather assume good faith on the part of the players. Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics as you yourself say.




Where did I say this... show me where I said... "Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics.".  If you can't show where I actually made this statement then please stop putting words in my mouth and/or assigning an argument to me I didn't make.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Note the shift in the example.  It's very interesting.  @_*Imaro*_ brought up the idea of the paladin player choosing to ignore his code of ethics and use poison as a way of gaming the system to gain more power in game.  He could overcome a foe using poison by ignoring his code.  That was Imaro's example.
> 
> Now, the goalposts sprout wheels and suddenly the example is completely different.  The paladin player is no longer trying to gain extra power in game (which is Imaro's example) but is playing to character and honestly believing in his actions.




First, what code of ethics?  We are talking about a game where alignment isn't objectively defined correct?  SO there is no code of ethics to follow.  Does 4e have a paladin code?  

As to your second point... why can't he do both??



Hussar said:


> Let's be absolutely clear here.  Imaro's example, which I was responding to, was an example of a player acting in bad faith.  So suddenly trying to claim inconsistency by claiming that the player is acting in good faith, is a misreading of the conversation.




No it's really not.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> So, then, it is OK for the NG character to slash the throat of the fellow tied to the chair, and he is still virtuous and holy, perhaps even more so, after taking that action. And the Paladin may choose to use that poison without compromise to his honour - or even enhancing his honour. Is that correct? Or is there some "stick"* that you would apply in your game should such an event occur? That you interpret any possible "out of alignment" action suggested as "an insincere player playing out of character" suggests to me that you do not, in fact, have the trust you suggest we apply above.
> 
> Which actually makes more sense - "players are sincere and GM's are not" is a tough one for me to wrap my head around. "I am sincere but I have little confidence in the rest of you" seems much more consistent, at least.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page132#ixzz2xGcC0G00




Show me an example during an actual game where this actually happens and then we'll talk.  Otherwise, you're just building strawmen.  I dunno.  I don't play with sociopathic people who would honestly, in good faith, argue that what you are proposing is consistent with good or with any sort of code of honor.  

That's the problem with hypotheticals.  You can construct any hypothetical you like.  But, do you honestly see this happening at any table, regardless of whether or not it has mechanical alignment?  Would you honestly believe that the player is acting in good faith in these cases?  Would you not be absolutely terrified of that player if he or she actually was arguing in good faith?

But, hey, if that's the kind of players you are used to dealing with, then, by all means, use mechanical alignment.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Where did I say this... show me where I said... "Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics.".  If you can't show where I actually made this statement then please stop putting words in my mouth and/or assigning an argument to me I didn't make.




Here, 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Because a player is advocating for his character in the "game". If by not staying strictly in character there is an advantage to be had...* I think (in the same way there are players who purposefully exploit "broken" builds, feats, powers, etc.) there will be players who will exploit the inherent advantage in not always being a paragon of virtue.* Assuming every player has the same definition of fun (staying in character) or reasons for playing the game (staying in character) or motivation (staying in character) seems a little naive and dismissive of the wide array of player types even the 4e books acknowledge.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page132#ixzz2xGfL7Abc (Bold Mine)




How is that not specifically stating that the player is acting in bad faith?  He is "exploiting" the game.  One doesn't exploit something in good faith.  What do you mean by this if it isn't players acting in bad faith - they are advocating a belief for their character that they know the character would not actually have.  Thus the exploitation.

And, again, how is this not policing your players?  If you trusted your players to act in good faith, then you wouldn't be concerned that they were going to exploit their characters wouldn't you?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Here,
> How is that not specifically stating that the player is acting in bad faith?  He is "exploiting" the game.  One doesn't exploit something in good faith.  What do you mean by this if it isn't players acting in bad faith - they are advocating a belief for their character that they know the character would not actually have.  Thus the exploitation.




How does exploiting an advantage in a game equal playing in bad faith?  In poker if I exploit the fact that one of the other players has a tell, am I playing in bad faith?  I don't think so.

To your second point, the player is not advocating a belief for their character that they know the character would not actually have.  A paladin more concerned with good than law (whatever these things mean when they aren't objectively defined) could easily see poison as a necessary evil (like killing) when facing the Giant chieftain whose forces will ravage the country side if the paladin fails to stop him in one on one combat.  The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.  The funny thing is that you automatically assume the use of poison can't fit into a LG alignment... but there is nothing objectively stating that in 4e.



Hussar said:


> And, again, how is this not policing your players?  If you trusted your players to act in good faith, then you wouldn't be concerned that they were going to exploit their characters wouldn't you?




It's not about policing my players, it's about my campaign having objective definitions of cosmological forces in game...  When you depend on those cosmological forces for your power and you forsake their causes/taboos/ethos/etc.  that power may be stripped from you.  It's the same way my players loose the ability to attack with a weapon if it's taken away or access to spells if a spell book is stolen.  It's not about policing anymore that making sure a wizard actually has access and components for the spells he casts if the warrior actually has the weapon/feat/etc. he claims to attack with.  If those are also considered policing then I guess it's policing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Imaro said:


> How does exploiting an advantage in a game equal playing in bad faith?  In poker if I exploit the fact that one of the other players has a tell, am I playing in bad faith?  I don't think so.




I shouldn't get involved in this, but I think what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is trying to say is that there are 2 levels to D&D: The in-world level and the metagame level.  Exploiting the game at a metagame level in order to gain benefits in-world could be argued as playing in bad faith.

To use your poker analogy, that game is also technically played on 2 levels(probably on more than 2 levels, but that's a discussion for another time).  There's the tournament rules and there's the rules of poker itself.  The tournament rules might tell you that if you are a certain amount late to show up for the game you automatically forfeit or receive some penalty.  If you were to hire someone to delay your opponent so they couldn't make it to the game on time, you are exploiting an advantage in the metagame in order to receive an advantage in the game itself.  Which sounds like you aren't playing in good faith.

Just as the same way, exploiting broken builds or exploiting the benefit of not being a paragon of virtue are similar situations.  There are rules(or lack of rules in the case of non-mechanical alignment) that affect the game but aren't necessarily part of the game.  It is saying "Great, since there is no rule that prevents my character from poisoning the monster, I'm going to do it.  There's nothing the DM can do to stop me and this suddenly becomes so much easier for my character than fighting the monster fairly."

Which is something you don't have to worry about if the player in question is making decisions entirely from in-world.  It's likely that he'd instead say "I'm a Paladin, and Paladins don't use the quick and easy way if it is dishonourable or evil.  I guess I have to fight the monster fairly."  However, since you need to worry about the player completely disregarding his character's personality and morals in order to gain a benefit, you need to restrain them with rules.


----------



## Imaro

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Just as the same way, exploiting broken builds or exploiting the benefit of not being a paragon of virtue are similar situations.  There are rules(or lack of rules in the case of non-mechanical alignment) that affect the game but aren't necessarily part of the game.  It is saying "Great, since there is no rule that prevents my character from poisoning the monster, I'm going to do it.  There's nothing the DM can do to stop me and this suddenly becomes so much easier for my character than fighting the monster fairly."
> 
> Which is something you don't have to worry about if the player in question is making decisions entirely from in-world.  It's likely that he'd instead say "I'm a Paladin, and Paladins don't use the quick and easy way if it is dishonourable or evil.  I guess I have to fight the monster fairly."  However, since you need to worry about the player completely disregarding his character's personality and morals in order to gain a benefit, you need to restrain them with rules.




Yes but if there is no objective definition of "Lawful Good" how does one violate it or even determine what it does or doesn't mean to be a LG paladin?  I've given in character reasons for why a paladin might resort to the use of poison (Good means putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few... even the needs of myself) so I'm not seeing how that is an issue and I've done this to show that I'm not speaking to the player disregarding his character's personality.  

The problem I'm seeing is that you can't say that LG is wholly open to the player's interpretation and then claim every exact player will somehow share a hive mind wherein LG is defined and represented the exact same by each and every one of them.  Some will not find the use of poison in certain situations to be outside their concept of LG... Is it LG to use the poison in this situation or not?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro poison being evil is the base assumption of your point. You're saying that the paladin is doing morally questionable things to gain more power in the game. That was your original example. 

Which has now shifted to a case where it isn't about exploiting the rules to gain more power in game but a situation similar to the torture one above where there are real in game justifications for his actions. 

Sorry but that's not exploiting system. That's just playing the game. Exploiting means to gain unfair advantage by gaming the system for personal gain. 

IOW Majoru has the right of it.


----------



## Imaro

First your definition of exploit doesn't align with my understanding of the word and I think that's causing issues...

ex·ploit
_verb_
ikˈsploit/


*1*.
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).



There is nothing in that definition that forces one to act in "bad faith".




Hussar said:


> Imaro poison being evil is the base assumption of your point. You're saying that the paladin is doing morally questionable things to gain more power in the game. That was your original example.




Poison isn't evil in my example, "questionable" for a LG paladin to use... well IMO it is...  but again we are speaking to 4e where that is not a given.  My point was to show a situation where a paladin would use a questionable as opposed to honorable tactic to gain a tangible benefit, since it was claimed his build actively makes doing such things a sub-optimal choice.  You brought objective good and evil into it not me.



Hussar said:


> Which has now shifted to a case where it isn't about exploiting the rules to gain more power in game but a situation similar to the torture one above where there are real in game justifications for his actions.




Nothing has "shifted" my point was never about "rules" being used in bad faith (which again is not the same as exploiting something), it was about whether the paladin could in fact gain an advantage by not playing to what most would consider the traditional restrictions on behavior.  If any character can buy and use poison... how is it using the rules in "bad faith"? The only thing it even comes close to using in bad faith are the subjective morality of 4e, but even then it can be justified within a LG framework if the good it accomplishes is worth it.  You don't seem to have a complete grasp of the discussion this example stemmed from. 



Hussar said:


> Sorry but that's not exploiting system. That's just playing the game. Exploiting means to gain unfair advantage by gaming the system for personal gain.




I never claimed it was a usage of the rules in bad faith... I agree it's just playing the game but I've also shown that even in 4e the paladin can gain a tangible advantage by taking questionable actions... even when the play style is not Gygaxian "skilled-play".  That was the original point.


----------



## Hussar

Ahh. I see now. Exploit certainly has some pretty negative connotations so you might see my confusion. 

I guess it comes down to motivation. Is the player making the choice simply out of expediency or out of a good faith interpretation of his character's ethics?  

To me, the latter is hallmark of good play. Certainly it might sometimes allow characters to do things that would be forbidden under mechanical alignment but that's a feature not a bug.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> @*Imaro* brought up the idea of the paladin player choosing to ignore his code of ethics and use poison as a way of gaming the system to gain more power in game. He could overcome a foe using poison by ignoring his code. That was Imaro's example.




No, he cited an example where the use of a less than honourable tactic by a 4e Paladin would provide him with a mechanical advantage. 



Hussar said:


> The paladin player is no longer trying to gain extra power in game (which is Imaro's example) but is playing to character and honestly believing in his actions.




Why can’t the player believe that the Paladin honestly believes that the use of poison to facilitate the defeat of an evil opponent is an acceptable and justifiable tactic?  Would you object if he also used rat poison to keep rats out of his castle’s food supplies?



Hussar said:


> Let's be absolutely clear here. Imaro's example, which I was responding to, was an example of a player acting in bad faith. So suddenly trying to claim inconsistency by claiming that the player is acting in good faith, is a misreading of the conversation.






Hussar said:


> Additionally, where in this thread have I given a single example of a DM acting in bad faith @*N'raac* ? Can you show one? I've repeatedly, REPEATEDLY stated that the DM, acting in good faith, is still holding a stick over the players.




In my view, the simple assumption that the GM will use alignment as a stick is itself an assumption of bad faith on the part of the GM.   He cannot be “acting in good faith” while “holding a stick over the players”.  Capitalization does not make your views any more persuasive.



Hussar said:


> That's the problem with hypotheticals. You can construct any hypothetical you like. But, do you honestly see this happening at any table, regardless of whether or not it has mechanical alignment? Would you honestly believe that the player is acting in good faith in these cases? Would you not be absolutely terrified of that player if he or she actually was arguing in good faith?




OK, first, can you point me to your non-hypothetical examples of the bad things that happen when alignment is applied reasonably and in good faith, in a game where all parties are, in fact, acting in good faith?  

Second, what should be more terrifying – that a person would believe killing his way to success and profit is itself the activity of a moral and good person, or that he would consider it appropriate to do so in the most effective manner possible?  Many states adopted lethal injection to administer the death penalty.  Were they barbaric compared to a state that hacks their criminals to bits or has them drawn and quartered?



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Just as the same way, exploiting broken builds or exploiting the benefit of not being a paragon of virtue are similar situations. There are rules(or lack of rules in the case of non-mechanical alignment) that affect the game but aren't necessarily part of the game. It is saying "Great, since there is no rule that prevents my character from poisoning the monster, I'm going to do it. There's nothing the DM can do to stop me and this suddenly becomes so much easier for my character than fighting the monster fairly."
> 
> Which is something you don't have to worry about if the player in question is making decisions entirely from in-world. It's likely that he'd instead say "I'm a Paladin, and Paladins don't use the quick and easy way if it is dishonourable or evil. I guess I have to fight the monster fairly." However, since you need to worry about the player completely disregarding his character's personality and morals in order to gain a benefit, you need to restrain them with rules.




You are imposing the view that use of poison is immoral on the player.  Perhaps he believes, instead, that having reached the heart-wrenching decision that violence – LETHAL violence – is the only means of delivering the greatest good to the greatest number, he also believes that this decision should be implemented as quickly and as effectively as possible.  Frankly, that does not seem unreasonable, especially once we accept that the decision that lethal force is for the greater good is not a significant compromise of morality or ethics.



Imaro said:


> The problem I'm seeing is that you can't say that LG is wholly open to the player's interpretation and then claim every exact player will somehow share a hive mind wherein LG is defined and represented the exact same by each and every one of them. Some will not find the use of poison in certain situations to be outside their concept of LG... Is it LG to use the poison in this situation or not?




Sure you can.  Similar to Majoru’s point, we do not police the players in game.  We police them at the metagame level – only those players who share the hive mind are permitted to join the game.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> I guess it comes down to motivation. Is the player making the choice simply out of expediency or out of a good faith interpretation of his character's ethics?
> 
> To me, the latter is hallmark of good play. Certainly it might sometimes allow characters to do things that would be forbidden under mechanical alignment but that's a feature not a bug.




And who decides whether the player is acting in good faith?  Your immediate reaction was to assume he was not, since he was not acting the way you envision a Paladin acting.  

 Character actions are not forbidden under mechanical alignment - they simply have consequences. In a game where Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are supposed to be actual forces, not just philosophical concepts, that is also a feature, not a bug.

This also flashes back to a much earlier aspect of the discussion that the player has a motivation to assess that his character's choice of expediency is indeed a good faith interpretation of his character's ethics.  Unconscious exercise of bias is far from unusual.  I doubt any of us have not been biased at some point in this discussion alone, assuming aspects to a post which were not in the poster's mind.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Show me an example during an actual game where this actually happens and then we'll talk.  Otherwise, you're just building strawmen.  I dunno.  I don't play with sociopathic people who would honestly, in good faith, argue that what you are proposing is consistent with good or with any sort of code of honor.




WAITAMINNIT!

The helpless prisoner tied to a chair, and the NG fighter's assertion he should be killed so he does not report back to his master, WAS an example from an actual game, wasn't it?


----------



## N'raac

Yup, it was an example from an actual game...



Dannorn said:


> Example from an old group: we'd captured someone spying on us, he didn't raise a hand against us and answered all questions, it was abundantly clear he was just a guy who'd been offered money to watch us and he wasn't willing to stick his neck out for his employer. With the prisoner stripped of equipment and bound the Neutral Good fighter says we should kill him, just in case he tries to warn the guy. He wasn't aiming to be disruptive or acting out of alignment for shock, he just didn't consider that a good aligned character probably wouldn't kill a guy tied to a chair who'd done us no wrong.


----------



## Dannorn

Jacob Marley said:


> In my nearly twenty-five years of playing D&D, I cannot say that I have ever tracked alignment - I see no point. If a character were to change alignment it would come about via the player signalling through play that s/he is interested in pursuing a different direction. The Neutral Good Half-Elf Cleric Seeker of the Misty Isle from the Wild Coast who worships Ehlonna begins studying the teachings of Vecna, and is intrigued. The player drives the change.




And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment?  I'll bring up the Neutral Good fighter who wanted to kill the prisoner, he wasn't acting out of alignment intentionally, he figured as adventurers killing is what we do, what makes this any different. Still there were a number of instances before and after that suggested he was playing closer to True Neutral, but he never suggested he wanted to change his alignment and since the way he saw it at the end of the day he was a nice guy who helped people out he wouldn't respond to suggestions he should.  In a descriptive system how do you deal with that?  And he wasn't disruptive it was just that for every stolen good returned at no charge there was some helpless prisoner run through because the rest of us insisted on questioning someone after the fight.

Though I've never been a fan of player defined alignment because I find most players have an idea of who their character is and how they should act but when the play is actually happening it's all about the game and achieving the goal as quickly as possible with the best odds of success. So the noble warrior who would never attack a defensless opponent will totally bury his sword in the villain who's on his knees begging for his life, he's the villain can't give him a chance to escape.



> I don't buy the argument that without mechanical alignment a player has no reason to hold to their alignment. My Swords & Wizardry (OD&D retroclone) campaign has no mechanical alignment system (only a descriptive alignment); the players still hold to their alignment. My 3.x campaign does have a mechanical alignment system, and the players hold to their alignment. I don't think mechanical alignment presents a very strong incentive structure.




Then you're lucky cause in every game I've been in with descriptive alignment the only people giving any regard to their alignment at all are the paladins and clerics because alignment is a big part of those classes.


----------



## Dannorn

Hussar said:


> Additionally, where in this thread have I given a single example of a DM acting in bad faith? Can you show one?  I've repeatedly, REPEATEDLY stated that the DM, acting in good faith, is still holding a stick over the players.




In what way?  How is mechanical alignment any different from say, traps?  If players don't think about traps they probably end up setting them off, are traps a stick the GM is holding over the players?  Are ambushes a stick?  Proficiencies?  What is it about alignment that makes it some grave threat being dangled above players heads?



> So, one more time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAD DM PUNISHING PLAYERS.  I AM TALKING ABOUT HOW THE MECHANICS FORCE THE DM TO POLICE THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE PLAYERS AND JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS IN A MANNER I FIND DETRIMENTAL TO THE GAME.
> 
> Is that clear enough?




Again how do the mechanics force anything of the sort?  If anything it forces the players to consider their actions more if, and only if, they actually care what their specific alignment is.


----------



## Hussar

> Though I've never been a fan of player defined alignment because I find most players have an idea of who their character is and how they should act but when the play is actually happening it's all about the game and achieving the goal as quickly as possible with the best odds of success. So the noble warrior who would never attack a defensless opponent will totally bury his sword in the villain who's on his knees begging for his life, he's the villain can't give him a chance to escape.




And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player. 

So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?


----------



## Jacob Marley

Dannorn said:


> And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment?  I'll bring up the Neutral Good fighter who wanted to kill the prisoner, he wasn't acting out of alignment intentionally, he figured as adventurers killing is what we do, what makes this any different. Still there were a number of instances before and after that suggested he was playing closer to True Neutral, but he never suggested he wanted to change his alignment and since the way he saw it at the end of the day he was a nice guy who helped people out he wouldn't respond to suggestions he should.  In a descriptive system how do you deal with that?  And he wasn't disruptive it was just that for every stolen good returned at no charge there was some helpless prisoner run through because the rest of us insisted on questioning someone after the fight.




Lets start with the notion that alignments in my campaigns are fairly broad, and characters can have tendencies (e.g. Neutral Good (Neutral)) and inconsistencies. In fact, I expect there to be a certain amount of inconsistency in the portrayal - it adds depth to the character! Lets add to that notion the fact that I cannot possibly know the feelings and thought processes that the player, and thus the character, is going through as s/he takes a particular action. Those thoughts and feelings affect a character's alignment. I leave it to the players to indicate when their thoughts and feelings no longer align with their stated alignment.

To answer your questions, I'd let him continue playing the character as Neutral Good. The player isn't being intentional disruptive to the table. Now, _if_ he was being disruptive, or his actions were grossly inconsistent with his stated alignment, then I'd talk to the player about it outside the game. I find talking to my player's about these issues is a much more productive way to handle differences.

Now, to be sure, the campaign milieu will react to his _actions_. He will earn a reputation, and that reputation will affect how others react to him. But this is separate from me declaring a change in his alignment.



Dannorn said:


> Though I've never been a fan of player defined alignment because I find most players have an idea of who their character is and how they should act but when the play is actually happening it's all about the game and achieving the goal as quickly as possible with the best odds of success. So the noble warrior who would never attack a defensless opponent will totally bury his sword in the villain who's on his knees begging for his life, he's the villain can't give him a chance to escape.




That's fine. My players behave differently.



Dannorn said:


> Then you're lucky cause in every game I've been in with descriptive alignment the only people giving any regard to their alignment at all are the paladins and clerics because alignment is a big part of those classes.




I've never denied that my introduction to, nor my participation in, role-playing games was/is unique. However, I don't believe that it is a matter of luck. I went out and found players who value what I value in gaming.


----------



## Hussar

I think from now on I'll just let [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION] do my talking for me.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> I think from now on I'll just let @_*Jacob Marley*_ do my talking for me.



And the people rejoiced!

(Just kidding, of course )


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.
> 
> So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?




Are you aware that there are  gradations between "zero" and "automatically"?   

No, I do not believe that players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character.  Neither do I believe it is automatic that alignment will be used by the GM as a stick to beat players into submission.

I do believe that rationalizations often occur to suggest that what is most expedient is, indeed, playing in character.  And if alignments are not cosmological forces that are defined objectively, outside the decisionmaking process of the PC, playing in character may well go against alignment.  That's why a single inconsistent act, or even an inconsistent personality trait or two (consistent to the character, but inconsistent with his alignment) does not mean a change of alignment overall.  It's also why a character's alignment can change - he's simply not following the precepts of LG because he is following his character.

You seem to reject outright the possibility that a player can "play in character" and, as a result, play inconsistently with his alignment.  If we take your approach, then each alignment is defined by how the character claiming it behaves - so get the player to name his own unique alignment.  He can be Greedy-Violent, or Pious-StuckUp.  Everyone needs their own, since they are deemed to always be perfectly playing to that alignment, so two people can only share one if they share a hive mind.

Alignment as a real, cosmological force means it is external to the character, just like the rest of his environment.  The player can't decide the precepts of the alignment, only he extent to which his character, played in character, will adhere to those precepts.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac, why would you think I would disagree with any of that？

Note that the automatic bit is not mine but Dannorns. You need to take that up with him, not me. 

My beef as it has always been is that objective alignment is defined by the DM and is unnecessarily restrictive. I have zero problem with the player defining the precepts of alignment and the adhering to his own interpretation.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.
> 
> So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?




Again, as I stated earlier, this is painting with a wide (IMO too wide) brush.  In fact I would be reluctant to claim players (in a general sense) will do anything automatically, they are individuals and thus will respond to different things in different ways.  Do I think some players will choose the most expedient option over playing in character (though as I stated before many/most nearly all things can be justified when there is no objective view of alignment)... yes absolutely.  Have I seen it in actual games... yes.  Would you claim there isn't a player who would ever do this?  If not just because you haven't experienced it (or actively avoid it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 

Now do I think that is the only reason for mechanical alignment... NO!!  I just want that to be very clear because it seems you have been intent on ascribing this view to me throughout this conversation.  

Let me turn this around a bit...What I don't get is with consistent players who always act in accordance with their alignment... how mechanical alignment becomes a problem.  It seems this would eliminate the need for a DM to track, police or whatever the alignment of the characters (since they are always in accordance with their chosen alignment) and the characters are always considered (when interacting with spells, class mechanics, etc.) whatever they stated their alignment is at all times... so how does mechanical alignment, in this case, actively detract from a game?  It seems that in this perfect scenario it would fade into the background and require little to no interaction on the part of the DM...


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I have zero problem with the player defining the precepts of alignment and the adhering to his own interpretation.




I'm curious... what would your actions be as DM if the player started to play his character inconsistently with the precepts said player set out?


----------



## Jacob Marley

Hussar said:


> I think from now on I'll just let  @_*Jacob Marley*_  do my talking for me.




You may come to regret that!


----------



## Savage Wombat

Jacob Marley said:


> Now, to be sure, the campaign milieu will react to his _actions_. He will earn a reputation, and that reputation will affect how others react to him. But this is separate from me declaring a change in his alignment.




Not that I disagree with this - but I have had players in my group who would think that this "actions have consequences" style is just as much a "stick" - to use Hussar's term - as taking away paladin abilities.  So if Jacob Marley were DMing a game with one of these players, they'd give him the same "why won't you let me play my character the way I want?" arguments.  _Especially _if said "consequences" were subject to the DM's ruling as opposed to a book rule.

I understand where Hussar is coming from, but I remain baffled that he's never had a player that needed set boundaries.


----------



## Dannorn

Hussar said:


> And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.
> 
> So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?




Small correction, again apologies if I was unclear, I trust players to play their characters and do so consistently, I do not however trust them to accurately and honestly describe their alignments.  The player of the NG fighter I mentioned never stopped thinking of his character as good, at no point did he look at his character and say, "You know I've just killed 4 out of the 5 helpless people we had bound for questioning, I don't think I'm Neutral Good anymore."

Mechanical alignment allows someone to watch the players from the outside (the GM) and reflect how the universe reacts to their actions, it also gives players a reason to actually think about their alignments beyond picking one that fits the _idea_ of the character they want to play.



Jacob Marley said:


> Now, to be sure, the campaign milieu will react to his _actions_. He will earn a reputation, and that reputation will affect how others react to him. But this is separate from me declaring a change in his alignment.




Ok, so characters will react to his actions, but 4 of the fundamental forces of the universe won't?  I think the main problem is two very different ways of looking at alignment.  You view alignment as shorthand for describing a character's personality, where as I, on top of that, view it as how the character stands out to the energies of the universe.  Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are tangible, measurable forces in D&D, like background radiation, and alignment is how your character shows up.  It's basically what energies you give off, and that's how the Detect, Protection, and Magic Circle spells work, because your alignment isn't just how you behave it's how you resonate with the world at your very core.


----------



## Hussar

Savage Wombat said:


> I understand where Hussar is coming from, but I remain baffled that he's never had a player that needed set boundaries.




Not for a long time. I find that if you are clear at the outset that you will not police the characters and it's the player's responsibility to act in accordance with his own character, players are far more strict and unforgiving of themselves than I would ever be. 

Then again I've found the same approach works great for evil campaigns. When you place the blame for a game going pear shaped squarely in the player's laps they become very invested in making sure the game runs it's course.


----------



## Hussar

Dannorn said:
			
		

> Small correction, again apologies if I was unclear, I trust players to play their characters and do so consistently, I do not however trust them to accurately and honestly describe their alignments.




Whereas I do trust the players to know their characters better than I do.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> I'm curious... what would your actions be as DM if the player started to play his character inconsistently with the precepts said player set out?




Then it's time to have an out of character conversation to find out what's going on. Trying to bludgeon the player back into line with alignment mechanics works poorly IMO.


----------



## pemerton

Dannorn said:


> without mechanical reinforcement alignment ceases to be a consideration, rather than players will actively act against alignment for giggles.



Why? My experience in this respect is like  [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION]'s posted above: I haven't seen it.



Dannorn said:


> With the prisoner stripped of equipment and bound the Neutral Good fighter says we should kill him, just in case he tries to warn the guy. He wasn't aiming to be disruptive or acting out of alignment for shock, he just didn't consider that a good aligned character probably wouldn't kill a guy tied to a chair who'd done us no wrong.



To me this is down to the player's expectations of the GM. If the players have their PCs parole the prisoner instead, what will the GM do? If the GM has all paroled prisoners break their word to the PCs, then no wonder the players stop playing their PCs as decent people!



Imaro said:


> if the player is free to determine whether his actions are LG or not... we can say he is acting out of character for a LG paladin?  in order to do this we need an objective LG, right?



No. Not many people think that the tastiness of food is objective, yet I can still talk meaninfully to my friends about whether or not a meal was delicious.



Imaro said:


> Does a paladin who tricks his opponent into imbuing a poison that makes him dazed, blinded or immobilized gain a benefit in combat effectiveness against said opponent over a paladin that fights his opponent in an honorable duel?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This isn't dependent upon a particular play style or edition.



4e is set up with multiple barriers to your poison scenario, including the rarity of poisons, and their magic-item style cost. The player of a paladin who wants to immobilise a target, instead of spending 250 gp on a 5th level poison, can spend that on some other item that will enhance an attack.

The only way I can see this poison issue coming up in any regular way is a paladin being in play alongside an executioner assassin. If a group have worked out how to make that viable for them - along the lines of a superman-batman team-up - then go for it. It shouldn't be any more overpowered than the paladin teaming up with a fighter, so it's not as if the player of the paladin has a reason to angle for a poison-using buddy rather than someone else.

In other words, the systems in 4e that regulate access to poisons - which I would characterise as reflecting a particular play style and/or edition - absolutely do make a difference to whether the player of a paladin is motivated to use poisons in the way you describe.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Why can’t the player believe that the Paladin honestly believes that the use of poison to facilitate the defeat of an evil opponent is an acceptable and justifiable tactic?





N'raac said:


> No, he cited an example where the use of a less than honourable tactic by a 4e Paladin would provide him with a mechanical advantage.



Which is it?

If the player sincerely believes that the action declared is honourable, then who is deciding that in fact it is "less than honouable"? And why is that other person's decision authoritative?



Dannorn said:


> And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment?



Who is judging that the character is out of alignment? If the player makes that judgement, then s/he can rewrite the character sheet appropriately. If the GM would play the character differently, OK - the GM can remember that next time s/he is a player in the game. In the meantime, let the player play his/her PC.



N'raac said:


> ACharacter actions are not forbidden under mechanical alignment - they simply have consequences.



What is forbidden is the player playing his/her PC as s/he conceives of it - for instance, what is forbidden is a paladin exhibiting the player's rather than the GM's conception of honour, where those do conceptions differ.



N'raac said:


> And who decides whether the player is acting in good faith?





N'raac said:


> we do not police the players in game.  We police them at the metagame level – only those players who share the hive mind are permitted to join the game.



I commented on this upthread (about 60-odd posts) but got no reply.

How do you decide someone is acting in good faith? The same way you decide someone is not cheating or lying! And how does not wanting to play with cheats or liars suddenly turn into playing with "only those who share the hive mind"? What hive mind? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has expressly _disavowed_ imposing his view on a player's action declaration.

(See also [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION]'s post upthread at 1336 - both about the difference between disruptive and sincere players, and about playing with players who value the same things in a game - which has little or nothing to do with being a "hive mind" about the meaning of honour or goodness).



Savage Wombat said:


> I have had players in my group who would think that this "actions have consequences" style is just as much a "stick" - to use Hussar's term - as taking away paladin abilities.



This notion of consequences was discussed a long way upthread - [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] talked about "physical consequences" to contrast with "moral judgement" consequences.

Adjudicating physical consequence fairly and so as to drive play forward, rather than stifle it, is (in my view, at least) at the heart of GMing once you move away from Gygaxian "skilled" play. This is true in framing a combat encounter - what is at stake if the PCs lose? - or in framing a non-combat challenge - what happens if the PCs don't extinguish the fire in the first 10 minutes of fighting it?

If the player sincerely thinks his/her PC is honourable, and the GM wants to introduce NPCs who disagree, that has to be done with thought and care, just like framing any other situation. The GM also has to be open to the PC persuading the NPCs that s/he is right and their adverse judgement was mistaken. (This is where social resolution mechanics can be helpful.)


----------



## Rbledsaw

Not only to I make the players pick an alignment, but I allow them to choose where their character falls on a spectrum of vices and virtues. If they dont' have a good idea, then I make them roll a d6.


Sin123456VirtuePride321123HumilityEnvy321123KindnessWrath321123PatienceSloth321123DiligenceAvarice321123CharityGluttony321123AbstinenceLust321123Chastity
I've found this really helps the players not only chose an alignment, but better know what subtle tendencies their character may have. For example, a Lawful Good Paladin may have issues with Lust.


----------



## Campbell

I'm not certain why we continue to discuss this issue as if a silver bullet exists. Why does there need to be a single solution that works for all gaming groups in all situations? We talk about players and GMs in generalities as if they were not unique individuals with individual needs and wants. I would never argue that mechanical alignment does not serve a purpose for those who enjoy its effects on play. I also realize there is a tremendous amount of variability in the way that mechanical alignment is dealt with in games.

What I do find problematic is that any explanation of why I don't find its use to be fruitful in my games is treated as a personal affront. I think we need to be extroadinarily careful about throwing around terms like bad roleplay and poor GMing as if there were some sort of platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game should be. To my mind the best sort of roleplay and best sort of GMing is the type that is suited to the social dynamics and play priorities of the group in question.

I'm fully willing to discuss if my play priorities should be considered by the designers of the game or if they are too contradictory to the rest of the market. That's a conversation I'm willing to have. I personally think its a shame that there appears to be an element of the community who does not wish to see the diversity of the hobby embraced in what at least was once the hobby's standard bearer. I'm not certain how large a segment of the community people like me are, but I feel like we are at least significant. 

I'm asking for a seat at the table of the community I've been part of for almost 15 years. I don't want to control it - just be a part of it.


----------



## Hussar

I agree Campbell. I've tried to be careful throughout this thread not to speak for anyone else. Alignment mechanics do not improve the game for me. 

If they work for others than fine. But I don't think I've yet to argue that anyone was wrong for saying it does or doesn't.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> To me this is down to the player's expectations of the GM. If the players have their PCs parole the prisoner instead, what will the GM do? If the GM has all paroled prisoners break their word to the PCs, then no wonder the players stop playing their PCs as decent people!




Two issues seem juxtaposed here.  The first is whether the characters are "decent people" who do not cut the throats of their prisoner, but spare his life, perhaps set him free, etc.  The second is whether that decency has positive, neutral or negative in-game consequences.  If the GM has the consequences of Good behaviour consistently be negative - the prisoners break their word, return to attack the PC's, warn the Big Boss, etc. - then it is quite understandable that players will gravitate away from Good alignments in his game.  If people generally attack spellcasters on sight in the GM's world, and it is common for dead magic zones to make magic useless, I expect players will similarly gravitate away from wizards and sorcerers in similar fashion.  This GM penalizes those character choices.

Second is whether the characters are _decent people_ - ie of Good alignment - because the players say they are.  That is, they routinely kill the prisoners, torture townsfolk for information, etc., rationalizing that it is all for the Greater Good - do they get to declare they are still Good, and we all accept that because this is the player's character, so the player gets to dictate whether they are good?  Or do the cosmological forces of Good see through such rationalizations and they are not Good, however loud and long they may protest because the character's actions speak louder than the player's words?



pemerton said:


> 4e is set up with multiple barriers to your poison scenario, including the rarity of poisons, and their magic-item style cost. The player of a paladin who wants to immobilise a target, instead of spending 250 gp on a 5th level poison, can spend that on some other item that will enhance an attack.




He has access to the poison.  He chooses to use it.  Does he, or does he not, gain a mechanical action?  Is the use of poison deemed "honourable" because the player says it is so, or is it not?



pemerton said:


> The only way I can see this poison issue coming up in any regular way is a paladin being in play alongside an executioner assassin. If a group have worked out how to make that viable for them - along the lines of a superman-batman team-up - then go for it. It shouldn't be any more overpowered than the paladin teaming up with a fighter, so it's not as if the player of the paladin has a reason to angle for a poison-using buddy rather than someone else.




Crossing company lines, I am reminded of an Avengers issue where Thor states that they have won the day, but the actions of a teammate have robbed the victory of all honour.  If my character is an honourable warrior, truly concerned with fighting a fair fight, is that consistent with continuing to work with this poisoner, or with conveniently stepping out of the room so my less honourable "friends" can torture the prisoner without offending my honour.  Should my honourable character also suggest, before leaving, that they be careful THIS TIME so the prisoner does not _accidentally _fall down the stairs, run into a door, slip and skin themselves with a knife then pour salt in the wound, apply a red-hot brand to their genitalia, set their own hair on fire or suffer any other clumsy misfortunes similar to the last dozen prisoners I left them alone to interrogate?



pemerton said:


> Which is it?




It is both.  A dishonourable tactic is being employed to achieve a desired end.  The desired end is benevolent, the tactics used to achieve it less so.  Is developing a vaccine that can cure cancer benevolent and honourable?  Is testing it on homeless people a benevolent and honourable means to achieve that end?  

Is the defeat of the evil tyrant a good, and benevolent/ objective?  So does that justify mandatory military service for all members of our Good nation between the ages of 16 and 35, with draft-dodging or desertion punishable by death to maintain military ?

In our world, we can have endless debates, but Good is not a cosmological force which directly influences our world.  And if Good is a cosmological force, then it has an answer to these questions.



pemerton said:


> If the player sincerely believes that the action declared is honourable, then who is deciding that in fact it is "less than honouable"? And why is that other person's decision authoritative?




Those posters who are indicating that the Paladin would not use a _less than honourable tactic such as this_ in their games appear to be deciding it is less than honourable.  They keep telling us that examples posted of alignment issues would never happen in their games, not because the actions can be justified as being within the parameters of Lawful or Good behaviour by a sincere player, but because their players would never stoop to such machinations, and would never claim a character taking such actions is honourable, good, etc.  Hence the hive mind - we all agree what is appropriate, or at least acceptable, for a Good or Lawful character, in which case mechanical alignment would never really come up.



pemerton said:


> Who is judging that the character is out of alignment?




The tangible cosmological forces of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil which, as they are not PC's, are managed by the GM.



pemerton said:


> If the player makes that judgement, then s/he can rewrite the character sheet appropriately. If the GM would play the character differently, OK - the GM can remember that next time s/he is a player in the game. In the meantime, let the player play his/her PC.




By all means.  And let the GM adjudicate the results, including the success or failure of the action (adjudicated by die rolls for the skills the GM considers appropriate to the DC set by the GM with whatever bonuses or penalties the GM adjudicates to be applicable) and the reactions of NPC's from urchins in the street through leaders of men to deities and beyond them to the cosmological forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.



pemerton said:


> What is forbidden is the player playing his/her PC as s/he conceives of it - for instance, what is forbidden is a paladin exhibiting the player's rather than the GM's conception of honour, where those do conceptions differ.




You keep coming back to the player being prohibited from making choices, rather than the fact that his choices have consequences beyond his direct control.  In my view, there are a wide range of possible choices with a given a alignment, nor does the occasional choice which might fall outside that alignment mean alignment as a whole has changed.  You keep coming back to the Honourable Dwarf (you know, the one who conveniently left the room while his less honourable companions questioned the prisoner and **surprise** committed him to something, instead of just torturing the prisoner).  Would he be less than Honourable to decide that the Justice of the Land must override the hastily and ill-considered commitments of his companions, which they had no Lawful authority to undertake?  Or to carry out the promise made for him, but never again leave either of the two who made that ill-considered promise alone in an interrogation again?  Or to keep his word, poorly given, and sever all ties with those who so cavalierly committed him to such an action?  Some of those choices might be considered "disruptive" to the game, or they might be considered great role playing, depending on the group.



pemerton said:


> And how does not wanting to play with cheats or liars suddenly turn into playing with "only those who share the hive mind"? What hive mind? @_*Hussar*_ has expressly _disavowed_ imposing his view on a player's action declaration.




How did we become the ones that equated not playing with cheats and liars into only playing with those who share the hive mind?  It seems you are deciding what everyone's arguments are, not just your own.  Despite the constant protests that there is no "hive mind", both you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have repeatedly claimed that no sincere player, and no player you game with, has ever, or would ever, play their character in a manner remotely similar to the examples raised where mechanical alignment would come into play.  It seems like your groups are of sufficiently similar mindset - the "hive mind" - that serious disagreements on alignment interpretation would never arise in your games.  Yet, somehow, despite the fact that these disagreements would never arise, somehow the very use of alignment would have radical negative implications for your games.



pemerton said:


> Adjudicating physical consequence fairly and so as to drive play forward, rather than stifle it, is (in my view, at least) at the heart of GMing once you move away from Gygaxian "skilled" play. This is true in framing a combat encounter - what is at stake if the PCs lose? - or in framing a non-combat challenge - what happens if the PCs don't extinguish the fire in the first 10 minutes of fighting it?




Someone a little bit upthread noted that some players would view powerful NPC's who disagree with the PC's conception of morality as at least an equal "stick" to the alignment rules.  If their characters are jeered in the street, criticized for their actions, or arrested for their crimes, that's just the heavy-handed GM trying to beat them into submission and play their characters the way he wants them played.  

There are extreme views on both sides.  On the one side is the GM who considers each alignment can justifiably make only one decision in response to each choice they face, so he basically scripts the characters for the players - any deviation will be severely penalized.  On the other side is the player who considers any negative consequence arising due to his character's choices being the mean micromanaging GM attempting to enforce his iron-fisted rule on the players.  Somewhere between the two extremes lies a vast continuum of good gaming.



pemerton said:


> If the player sincerely thinks his/her PC is honourable, and the GM wants to introduce NPCs who disagree, that has to be done with thought and care, just like framing any other situation. The GM also has to be open to the PC persuading the NPCs that s/he is right and their adverse judgement was mistaken. (This is where social resolution mechanics can be helpful.)




OK, let's leave aside the difference between whether the character's behaviour was Good or Honourable or what have you and being a smooth talker who can persuade others to buy into his rationalizations.  Do the players have to be equally open to the possibility that the NPC's persuade them that their view is right, and their adverse judgement was appropriate, such that the character will accept whatever consequences they feel are appropriate, or is this a one way street where only the NPC's views are subject to logic and persuasion?

Let's take that one step further, to the two player characters who disagree on whether torturing the mad bomber's sister is an acceptable tactic.  They use their interaction skills, the social resolution mechanics are implemented, and one of the characters wins overwhelmingly.  Is the other character now obliged to fervently believe that he was in error, and be grateful for being prevented from his inappropriate action and being set back on the True Path of Righteousness, regardless of how the player feels about the issue?  

Does my character get to always be right because he invests lots of character resources into the ability to persuade others to see things his way, or is he just very good at pulling the wool over others' eyes?  If the choice is mine, then I choose the former.  And I do so in all sincerity because I envision my character always and invariably knowing, and adhering to, the moral right of any situation.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Then it's time to have an out of character conversation to find out what's going on. Trying to bludgeon the player back into line with alignment mechanics works poorly IMO.




This approach seems less about the "bludgeoning"... and more about the approach to bludgeoning.  As I and others on this side of the debate have tried to stress... alignment is only a bludgeoning tool if the DM/GM uses it in such a manner in the same way I could bludgeon a player "back into line" with an OoC conversation.  Conversely I see nothing that is inherently less about bludgeoning a player into accepting your views of his character in an OoC conversation as opposed to using the alignment rules in-game.


----------



## Abraxas

Campbell said:


> What I do find problematic is that any explanation of why I don't find its use to be fruitful in my games is treated as a personal affront. I think we need to be extroadinarily careful about throwing around terms like bad roleplay and poor GMing as if there were some sort of platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game should be. To my mind the best sort of roleplay and best sort of GMing is the type that is suited to the social dynamics and play priorities of the group in question.



Replace "why I don't find" with "why I do find" and your statement is just as true.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Campbell said:


> What I do find problematic is that any explanation of why I don't find its use to be fruitful in my games is treated as a personal affront. I think we need to be extroadinarily careful about throwing around terms like bad roleplay and poor GMing as if there were some sort of platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game should be.



I'm not saying that this isn't happening in the thread, but is this happening often in this thread? I'm skipping most of it (because when I check in an skim, most of it is the normal boring stuff), so I'm not sure.

I know that when I chipped in pages ago (no idea how many), I said something along the lines of "I don't use alignment in my RPG, as it's not my preference, but here's how I used alignment to help aid moral debates in my long-running 3.5 game of D&D." I got a couple questions, then people stopped responding. Which is fine, by the way, because I had expressed a disinterest in becoming deeply involved in this thread.

It just seemed like my conversation went smoothly, and nobody was telling anyone they were GMing poorly or RPing badly, though I did kinda feel like anti-alignment people were saying I shouldn't have used alignment. No insults were thrown either way, though.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> It is both. A dishonourable tactic is being employed to achieve a desired end. The desired end is benevolent, the tactics used to achieve it less so. Is developing a vaccine that can cure cancer benevolent and honourable? Is testing it on homeless people a benevolent and honourable means to achieve that end?




On a side note, in a Vampire The Masquerade game I ran many years ago, the PC's (all vampires) discover a secret laboratory that is kidnapping vampires, killing them and using their blood to develop an AIDS vaccine (vampire blood in VtM heals people).  It was an interesting scenario.  Do they stop the scientists, who are successfully curing AIDS and protect the Masquerade, or do they help them?  Funnily enough, no mechanical alignment needed whatsoever.




> Is the defeat of the evil tyrant a good, and benevolent/ objective? So does that justify mandatory military service for all members of our Good nation between the ages of 16 and 35, with draft-dodging or desertion punishable by death to maintain military ?
> 
> In our world, we can have endless debates, but Good is not a cosmological force which directly influences our world. *And if Good is a cosmological force, then it has an answer to these questions.
> *
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page136#ixzz2xUfGXwKA




But, that's the problem in a nutshell.  The bolded part is my whole problem.  If there are answers to these questions, then there is no more discussion.  It's good or its evil.  End of story.  I don't want there to be an answer to the question.  I certainly don't want to impose that answer over the ideas of my players and I don't really want the DM telling me the answer either.  On top of that, I really don't want to enforce those answers by stripping away player character resources at a meta-game level (forcing alignment change, stripping XP, stripping class features).

My answer to all of these issues is, "Well, go with what you feel is the correct answer, seen through the lens of your character, and lets see where that takes us shall we?"



> How did we become the ones that equated not playing with cheats and liars into only playing with those who share the hive mind? It seems you are deciding what everyone's arguments are, not just your own. Despite the constant protests that there is no "hive mind", both you and @Hussar have repeatedly claimed that no sincere player, and no player you game with, has ever, or would ever, play their character in a manner remotely similar to the examples raised where mechanical alignment would come into play. It seems like your groups are of sufficiently similar mindset - the "hive mind" - that serious disagreements on alignment interpretation would never arise in your games. Yet, somehow, despite the fact that these disagreements would never arise, somehow the very use of alignment would have radical negative implications for your games.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6283067&noquote=1#ixzz2xUh5rn2T




Wait, what?  Who said that disagreement never occurs?  Who said that alignment (or more accurately, morality) is never disagreed on?  Good grief, the whole point of ejecting mechanical alignment is to _encourage_ disagreements between the players.  If there is objective alignment, then there cannot be disagreement, can there?  No one can claim, "Well, I thought this was good" when they absolutely know that it's evil.  

The examples that we are rejecting are the rather ridiculous ones like baby eating paladins.  It's just as ridiculous as the Smite on Sight paladin, which can be justified under alignment mechanics.  But, will almost never see actual play.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> But, that's the problem in a nutshell.  The bolded part is my whole problem.  I*f there are answers to these questions, then there is no more discussion.  *It's good or its evil.  End of story. * I don't want there to be an answer to the question.*  I certainly don't want to impose that answer over the ideas of my players and I don't really want the DM telling me the answer either.  On top of that, I really don't want to enforce those answers by stripping away player character resources at a meta-game level (forcing alignment change, stripping XP, stripping class features).






Hussar said:


> *The examples that we are rejecting *are the rather ridiculous ones like baby eating paladins.  It's just as ridiculous as the Smite on Sight paladin, which can be justified under alignment mechanics.  But, will almost never see actual play.




How can there be examples you reject when there is no answer to the questions?  Your rejection of a given moral stance requires there be an answer.  Whereas I believe those of us that are using alignment are not stating that each and every question has an objective answer for each alignment.  Some do, but those are the extreme examples - the ones for which your rejection indicates you also perceive an answer. Many don't.

Is it "more good" to execute a murderous criminal out of concern for the possibility he will re-offend, or to imprison, but not kill, him because you also respect his right to live?  I see no "right" or "wrong" answer here - two Good characters could rightly disagree on which Good is paramount, with no definitive answer.  But if you prefer to suggest that it is Good and Righteous that he be slowly tortured to death as a show for the masses, and an example of what happens to those who stray from the Righteous Path, I think we're getting a lot closer to one of those questions that does have an answer.



Hussar said:


> My answer to all of these issues is, "Well, go with what you feel is the correct answer, seen through the lens of your character, and lets see where that takes us shall we?"




Funny... that's not your response to the poison-using Paladin or the NG fighter slitting the throats of helpless prisoners, is it?  You seem to assume the GM suddenly becomes a despot demanding each decision can have only one right response if we have alignment, yet he will be accepting of any choice and action if we don't.  I don't think an alignment dictator will suddenly be a better GM if we take the alignment rules away, or that their inclusion turns him into a despot.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> How can there be examples you reject when there is no answer to the questions?  Your rejection of a given moral stance requires there be an answer.  Whereas I believe those of us that are using alignment are not stating that each and every question has an objective answer for each alignment.  Some do, but those are the extreme examples - the ones for which your rejection indicates you also perceive an answer. Many don't.
> 
> Is it "more good" to execute a murderous criminal out of concern for the possibility he will re-offend, or to imprison, but not kill, him because you also respect his right to live?  I see no "right" or "wrong" answer here - two Good characters could rightly disagree on which Good is paramount, with no definitive answer.  But if you prefer to suggest that it is Good and Righteous that he be slowly tortured to death as a show for the masses, and an example of what happens to those who stray from the Righteous Path, I think we're getting a lot closer to one of those questions that does have an answer.




But, you are playing with objective alignment.  As a DM you must have a right or wrong answer.  Otherwise, the system doesn't work.  You keep complaining about a lack of consistency, but, when pressed to actually give an answer, you prevaricate and say that there is no definitive answer.  Which is it?  Is alignment objective or not?  Does the DM decide where something falls on the alignment spectrum or not?  

In your own example, which paladin do you judge is correct in interpreting alignment and which one is wrong?  Because, under mechanical alignment, in order to be consistent, you must decide.  And the players must abide by your decision.  That has been your constant refrain throughout this thread.  Are you now refusing to decide, and thus alignment is no longer objective?




> Funny... that's not your response to the poison-using Paladin or the NG fighter slitting the throats of helpless prisoners, is it?  You seem to assume the GM suddenly becomes a despot demanding each decision can have only one right response if we have alignment, yet he will be accepting of any choice and action if we don't.  I don't think an alignment dictator will suddenly be a better GM if we take the alignment rules away, or that their inclusion turns him into a despot.




But, you have to be an alignment dictator.  By your own words, the DM defines alignment within his game.  The players must abide by his decision.  At no point does the player get to decide which is good or evil.  

Now, if the NG fighter is killing prisoners, yeah, I'm allowed to have an opinion and I would certainly see this as out of character.  So, I would pull the player aside and see why he thinks this is acceptable.  And, in game, this certainly could have consequences - if it's known that the fighter kills prisoners, no one will surrender to him anymore.  People will obviously treat him differently.  Again, there's no problem with in game consequences.  Additionally, the other players might react as well.  They are allowed to have opinions on the matter.

But, you are advocating the DM as the dictator of alignment.  Let's not lose sight of that.  Throughout this thread, you have repeatedly stated that it is the DM and no one else, who decides morality in the game.  Full stop.  How is that not "alignment dictator?"


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> What I do find problematic is that any explanation of why I don't find its use to be fruitful in my games is treated as a personal affront. I think we need to be extroadinarily careful about throwing around terms like bad roleplay and poor GMing as if there were some sort of platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game should be.





JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not saying that this isn't happening in the thread, but is this happening often in this thread?



For me, it underscores the bulk of my participation for the past 1300 posts.

Upthread, at post 42, I posted as follows:

suppose a GM decides that (say) inadvertantly killing someone in a context of defence of others is not evil. And then a paladin PC inadvertantly kills someone, and the player of that PC takes a different view from the GM (s/he has a stricter view about the impermissibility of various forms of non-intentinal homicide, either for real, or as part of his/her conception of his/her PC). Now there is a gap between the value framework within which the player is conceiving of his/her PC, and the value framework that the GM is applying - the player expects that his/her paladin should be subject to divine sanction, but the GM doesn't deliver. How is that improving the play experience or the depth of either character, or player's engagement with the game?

The above example is not purely hypothetical - it came up in my game. Because I don't use alignment, as GM rather than imposing my own moral judgement I followed my player's lead and made the character's response to (what he took to be) his PC's moral error a focus of play in that particular session.

Here's another example from actual play. The player of a paladin (and the other players as well), in the course of the game, form the view that the ancient pacts that had been reached between the gods, the demons and the lords of karma in order to bring stability to the heavens amounted, in effect, to an unfair sacrifice of the interests (in life and wellbeing) of present-day mortals. So they took it upon themselves to disregard the pacts, to ally with the one god who had been exiled from the heavens for taking a similar view, and to use an artefact borrowed from that god to rewrite the heavenly and karmic order to produce a new solution to the cosmological problems that also ensured that the mortal realm did not suffer as it otherwise would have.

My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad) and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces.

<snip>

For example of play to which an alignment system would be an impediment, see the two provided earlier in this post.​
That it to say, I gave examples that answered the thread question - examples, with explanations, of episodes of play in my game to which alignment would have been an impediment.

At post 56 I received this reply:



N'raac said:


> Can't agree with that - it seems like the challenges to the character's belief can easily facilitate great role playing, rather than impede it.



Which is to say, another poster told me that I was wrong in my own understanding and interpretation of my own play experience, and that alignment would not have been an impediment to my play experience after all, and the only reason that I think it would have been is because I don't understand how alignment should be used.

I understand perfectly well how alignment could be used. I have seen it in play. I have read much about its use, including (but by no means limited to) this thread. It remains the case that alignment would have been an impediment to my play experience in the episodes of play described above, because alignment requires me, as GM, to substitute my moral judgement (be it real, or merely imagined for the purposes of the game) for that of the players, by deciding whether or not their behaviour conforms to the requirements (of virtue, of honour) that they have set for themselves in playing their PCs.



Abraxas said:


> Replace "why I don't find" with "why I do find" and your statement is just as true.



It is not an affront to me that you enjoy playing with alignment. What is an affront to me is to be told - in post 56 and continuing, repeatedly, over 1300-odd posts - that I am mistaken in my own assessment of my own play experiences. (Other things that I have been told is that because I don't use alignment my game must lack moral or thematic depth, and also that because I don't use alignment my game must lack consequences - as if every non-alignment-using RPG - which is practically all of them except D&D - must lack these things.)

The following post - number 97 upthread - remains true for me. Whether others find it useful for understanding and developing their own RPGing is up to them:



pemerton said:


> The reason that alignment is an active impediment for me, as opposed to merely a waste of time, is that by pigeonholing behaviour into pre-determined moral categories questions are answered by stipulation that I don't want to answer by stipulation.
> 
> And I certainly don't need aligment as a roleplaying guide. If I, or one of my players, wants to play a paladin, or a sneaky thief, or a chaotically tainted drow, or whatever, no guide in the form of alignments is needed. Having decided what to play, we just play it - and then let the character evolve in play
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This doesn't relate to playing with jerks. I play with people whose company I enjoy. It doesn't mean that we have the same moral outlook, or have the same ideas about how to develop PCs or respond to situations posed in play. Sometimes I'm shocked by the things my players have their PCs do. I can express that shock by saying as much - I don't need to do anything additional like telling them "By the way, that shows that your PC is evil".
> 
> This is exactly what I mean by the player having to subordinate his/her judgement to that of the GM: this is the GM telling the player how his/her PC should act, given that the player wants his/her PC to do the right thing.
> 
> I personally don't see the attraction of that sort of play. As a GM I want the players to play their PCs, and as a player I want to play my own PC. If we are assuming that the player is playing sincerely, then why should the GM's opinion as to what is right be given priority over the player's?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For me, as far as evaluation is concerned, I similarly want the players to make action declarations for their PCs, which prompt judgements by them and by the other participants, which might then lead those others to have their characters do certain things in the game - and the overall situation, and its value, is the outcome of those choices and their intersection. I don't want it predetermined either via consensus or via GM stipulation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the issue is, for me, one of who decides what happens in the game, and what its value is.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the question [about value] _does not have to be decided_ as part of the mechanical resolution of play. It is about provoking real evaluative judgements and motivations in the participants.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4e is set up with multiple barriers to your poison scenario
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The only way I can see this poison issue coming up in any regular way is a paladin being in play alongside an executioner assassin. If a group have worked out how to make that viable for them - along the lines of a superman-batman team-up - then go for it. It shouldn't be any more overpowered than the paladin teaming up with a fighter, so it's not as if the player of the paladin has a reason to angle for a poison-using buddy rather than someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has access to the poison.  He chooses to use it.  Does he, or does he not, gain a mechanical action?  Is the use of poison deemed "honourable" because the player says it is so, or is it not?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If my character is an honourable warrior, truly concerned with fighting a fair fight, is that consistent with continuing to work with this poisoner
Click to expand...


Neither question makes much sense to me.

If the group has worked out how to make the paladin-assassin team-up viable within their play expectations and campaign set-up, then why am I asking whether honour is consistent with working with the poisoner? I'm already positing that the group has sorted this issue out to their satisfaction. They don't need me, or anyone else as far as I can see, sticking his/her bib in to tell them that in fact they've got things wrong.

As for the paladin's poison use, as I said the scenario you describe is not going to come up in 4e for multiple reasons. How is the paladin going to have access to the poison? Why would s/he spend 250 gp or more buying a poison when s/he has other options? Why would the GM place poison as a treasure for a paladin?

If the player of a paladin, for whatever reason, decides to make poisons part of his/her schtick (perhaps s/he's playing a drow paladin?) then we are back in the territory of asking whose conception of honour is determinative for play purposes. Why wouldn't it be the player's?



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'raac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t the player believe that the Paladin honestly believes that the use of poison to facilitate the defeat of an evil opponent is an acceptable and justifiable tactic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'raac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he cited an example where the use of a less than honourable tactic by a 4e Paladin would provide him with a mechanical advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> If the player sincerely believes that the action declared is honourable, then who is deciding that in fact it is "less than honouable"? And why is that other person's decision authoritative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is both.  A dishonourable tactic is being employed to achieve a desired end.  The desired end is benevolent, the tactics used to achieve it less so.
Click to expand...


Who has decided that the tactic is not benevolent, or is dishonourable?

If the player takes the view that his/her PC is being dishonourable, _and_ the player takes the view that his/her PC must do penance of some sort, or otherwise suffer, for acting dishonourably, then there is no need for GM intervention via mechanical alignment, is there? The player will (presumably, at least in my experience) play out the penance. I gave an actual play example along these lines upthread, in posts 42 and 97.

But if the player does not take the view that the behaviour is "less than honourable" or "less than benevolent", then why must the GM's view prevail? I have stated my reasons for preferring the player's view to prevail in such circumstances.



N'raac said:


> do the cosmological forces of Good see through such rationalizations and they are not Good, however loud and long they may protest because the character's actions speak louder than the player's words?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In our world, we can have endless debates, but Good is not a cosmological force which directly influences our world.  And if Good is a cosmological force, then it has an answer to these questions.



First, you are making assertions about our world which I believe are not permitted by board rules.

Second, who _at the gaming table_ decides that these are rationalisations? Presumably the GM. Which takes me back to my core question - why would I, as GM, want to substitute my own judgement (whether real, or imagined for the purposes of gameplay) for that of the players?



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dannorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is judging that the character is out of alignment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tangible cosmological forces of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil which, as they are not PC's, are managed by the GM.
Click to expand...


I would have hoped that the context of my question - in response to [MENTION=6762594]Dannorn[/MENTION] referring to players who consistently play their PCs out of alignment - made it clear that I was not asking who, _in the fiction_, makes such a judgement about the PC. I am asking who, _at the gaming table_, makes such a judgement about the player's play of his/her PC.

The answer you give is that the GM does (wearing the hat of the "cosmological forces"). I am not interested in doing such a thing in the course of play. It impedes my play experience. Hence mechanical alignment, which - as you state - requires making such judgements as GM, is an impediment to my play experience. For this reason, my game does not include "cosmological forces of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil". It contains gods, demons, devils, primordials, lords of karma, and like cosmological entities, around whom the PCs organise themselves and in relation to whom the players frame their PCs' loyalties and opposition.

In my current game, the player of the chaos sorcerer regards some of the Arcomentals - the so-called Elemental Rulers of Good - as benevolent beings worthy of respect. The player of the Rod of Law-wielding, Erathis-worshipping invoker/wizard takes a more dim view of them. Which of those character is correct? _That is not a question on which I take a view as GM_ in the course of adjudicating the game. It is a question which is a prime focus of play. The conclusion of the campaign may lead to some resolution - or may not, depending on how things proceed.



N'raac said:


> Those posters who are indicating that the Paladin would not use a _less than honourable tactic such as this_ in their games appear to be deciding it is less than honourable.



I have personal views about the morality of warfare and related matters. They are available in print for anyone who is interested in them. But they are not part of my adjudication of the game. If a player plays his PC according to a moral conception that I personally do not share, I - along with anyone else at the table who takes a different view - might say as much. As I said upthread in post 97, I might express my shock. But that has nothing to do with adjudicating the game, whether it comes from me or another player.

The point that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are trying to convey is that, _if a player agrees that the tactic in question is less than honourable_, then in our experience there is no reason to suppose that he will declare it as an action for his/her PC - or, if s/he does do so, then presumably s/he is ready to do whatever penance or endure whatever punishments might follow.

But our other point is that, if the player does not agree that the tactic is dishonourable, then as GMs we are not going to intervene to impose our evaluation (be that real or imagined) upon the character.



N'raac said:


> Two issues seem juxtaposed here.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Second is whether the characters are _decent people_ - ie of Good alignment - because the players say they are.  That is, they routinely kill the prisoners, torture townsfolk for information, etc., rationalizing that it is all for the Greater Good - do they get to declare they are still Good, and we all accept that because this is the player's character, so the player gets to dictate whether they are good?



Why not?

If this is the players' sincere belief, within the context of the game, how would it improve my play experience, as GM, to second-guess them?

Of course, I personally doubt that there are many people in the world, or at least that part of it that I interact with for RPGing purposes, who would sincerely take that view - who would sincerely put forward, as decent people, murderers and torturers. So I don't think the example really has much bite. It's like asking what would I do if the player of a paladin wanted to play his/her PC as a white supremacist - I don't need to form an opinion on that because I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen to me.

I actually don't think the two issues are as distinct as you think they are. My view is that one reason why players who are otherwise decent might tend to have their characters resort to the sort of behaviour you describe is because the GM routinely adjudicates and frames them into "no win" scenarios, where being decent is an obstacle to success. Hence my point about prisoners who break their word when released on parole - if the GM routinely has prisoners keep their word when paroled, or exchange information for release on parole, than the players have considerably less incentive, from the point of view of succeeding at the game, to play their PCs as vicious.



N'raac said:


> both you and Hussar have repeatedly claimed that no sincere player, and no player you game with, has ever, or would ever, play their character in a manner remotely similar to the examples raised where mechanical alignment would come into play.



That's because I don't think many such players exist in my gaming circles. Presumably you agree with us, because (as far as I know) you have never seen such players either, and hence (as far as I have followed your posts) do not need to use mechanical alignment to keep them in line.

If I have misunderstood, and if in fact you do play with (or have played with) such players, and you did use mechanical alignment to keep them in line, then I would be very interested in reading a post about how that worked.



N'raac said:


> They keep telling us that examples posted of alignment issues would never happen in their games, not because the actions can be justified as being within the parameters of Lawful or Good behaviour by a sincere player, but because their players would never stoop to such machinations, and would never claim a character taking such actions is honourable, good, etc.



Frankly, this is because the examples you keep coming up with are contrived and have - as best I can tell - no basis in actual play. Where, for instance, is the player who regards eating babies in sacrifice to Orcus as justifiable for a paladin who is ostensibly implacably opposed to that demon lord; or who regards poisoning foes, or slaughtering and torturing prisoners, as honourable tactics? Perhaps such players are out there, but I personally have not met them. Hence, whatever stress they might place on a gaming table, I have not had to deal with it. Does mechanical alignment help cope with or defuse such stresses? (The poster who has come closest to answering this question, I think, is [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION], but s/he did not indicate precisely what sorts of moral disagreements among posters s/he was using mechanical alignment to sidestep.)

The closest I have come, in play, to what you describe is a player who played a character who would lure men into compromising positions, then murder and mutilate them. The idea was that the PC was a type of avenger against men who subordinate women by soliciting prostitutes. Whatever the deeper moral merits (or otherwise) of the position expressed by that PC (and her player), there was no doubt that it pushed some other players' buttons as far as good taste in gaming is concerned. When the player in question realised this, the PC was retired and a new one, more conventional in outlook and activities, was introduced. For me, this therefore counts as an example of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s suggestion upthread that out-of-character, metagame-level communication is the more useful way to try and deal with these issues of value disagreement, rather than the ingame, in-play method of mechanical alignment.

Anyway, I have given some examples upthread that illustrate real moral differences among participants that did not need to be resolved out of game, because they provided excellent material to be the focus of play. For instance, there was the player of the paladin who regarded inadvertent killing in defence of others as a great wrong although I as GM did not. And I think I also mentioned the PC who slew unconscious hobgoblins on the battlefield, to the cheers of liberated villagers but the shock of his fellow PCs, who had become used to paroling prisoners. And I don't think this is the first post in this thread in which I have mentioned the conflict between the chaos sorcerer and the Erathis-worshipping rod-wielder. I don't recall you discussing how these examples might be adjudicated at your table. (Other than suggesting, in post 56, that a paladin might judge him-/herself more harshly than his/her deity - which makes no sense to me because, unless we are supposing that the deity is tempering the demby way of mercy, that would simply mean that the paladin is mistaken. Which still means that the _player's_ conception of the relevant values in play is being subordinated to that of the GM as controller of the deity.)


**************************************




N'raac said:


> some players would view powerful NPC's who disagree with the PC's conception of morality as at least an equal "stick" to the alignment rules.  If their characters are jeered in the street, criticized for their actions, or arrested for their crimes, that's just the heavy-handed GM trying to beat them into submission and play their characters the way he wants them played.



Well, that depends on how such circumstances are framed, and also on the resources that the players have to bring to bear. This is why I mentioned, in the post to which you are replying, that the availability of social conflict mechanics can play an important role here. Where such mechanics exist, the players can takes steps, via their PCs, to sway those NPCs to their side.

For me as a player, the way that a GM adjudicated an attempt by me as a player to have my PC win over jeering mobs would be an important test-case of that GM's style. If the GM allows it to be resolved in accordance with the social-resolution mechanics, I suspect that is my type of GM. If the GM stonewalls and railroads, then I know that the game is probably not for me, because the GM _is_ trying to use those NPCs to beat me into submission. Which is not at all the sort of game I'm interested in playing. (Or in GMing, for that matter.)



N'raac said:


> Do the players have to be equally open to the possibility that the NPC's persuade them that their view is right, and their adverse judgement was appropriate



That very much depends on the system. In The Dying Earth, absolutely - being bamboozled by others is an important part of the play experience. In 4e D&D, which is the system I am currently GMing, no. There are no mechanics whereby the GM can obliged a player to regard his/her PC's mind as changed on some point.

But this question strikes me as having no bearing on whether or not a GM is a GM under whom I would want to play. Because it tells me nothing about whether or not a given GM is a stonewalling railroader.



N'raac said:


> Let's take that one step further, to the two player characters who disagree on whether torturing the mad bomber's sister is an acceptable tactic.  They use their interaction skills, the social resolution mechanics are implemented, and one of the characters wins overwhelmingly.  Is the other character now obliged to fervently believe that he was in error, and be grateful for being prevented from his inappropriate action and being set back on the True Path of Righteousness, regardless of how the player feels about the issue?



This also depends on the system. Burning Wheel absolutely encourages players to resolve these sorts of disagreements via the Duel of Wits. It also makes it clear that the outcome of a Duel of Wits is binding externally but not internally. The losing character (PC or NPC) is obliged to conform with the outcome until the relevant conditions change (as stipulated by the game rules). But s/he is permitted to remain inwardly opposed - the compliance may be merely coerced and external.

4e D&D has no comparable mechanic for resolving conflict between PCs, but I did ad hoc one on one occasion to bring to an end a debate among the players about which of two possible goals to pursue, after the debate had sucked up perhaps an hour or more of table time over two sessions. I mentioned the procedure used in this post, though not in any detail - from memory it was dX (d6? d10? I can't remember) + CHA, totalled for each side of the debate.



N'raac said:


> Does my character get to always be right because he invests lots of character resources into the ability to persuade others to see things his way



As I said above, that depends on the system. Of course, in The Dying Earth, which has the strongest persuasion mechanics of any system I'm familiar with, there is no assumption that persuasion equals rightness. The Dying Earth takes it for granted that the PCs are persuasive charlatans or crude buffoons. Cycnicism is inherent in the set-up for the game. (Consequently, of course it has no PCs comparable to paladins or clerics; it has only sorcerers, just like any sword-and-sorcery setting.)



N'raac said:


> You keep coming back to the player being prohibited from making choices



Yes. Because mechanical alignment precludes (some) choices. It precludes a player from choosing to play a character committed to a value set as interpreted by the player, because the interpretation of the relevant values is in the hands of the GM. (Who, via the cosmological forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos gets to decide what counts as honouring relevant values, and in the case of a cleric or paladin whether the player gets to continue playing the PC that s/he built.)


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> For me, it underscores the bulk of my participation for the past 1300 posts.
> 
> Upthread, at post 42, I posted as follows:



Not reading the whole thing, or I would've read the thread.

However, here's my thoughts on some of it. Please, add to this if I'm missing something, though.


pemerton said:


> My own view is that nothing would have been added to that arc of play (which unfolded over several years) by having me, as GM, assign an alignment to the gods (and thereby foreclose the issue of whether their decisions and agreements were good or bad)and then judging the behaviour of the PCs (including the paladin PC) by reference to that labelling of cosmological forces.



I've already talked about how I used alignment to define Good and Evil in my campaign, not right and wrong. With that in mind, I have a problem with you framing alignment as purely used as objectively defining something as good or bad. There was plenty of debate about what was right or wrong from my players during my campaign, and I even gave multiple in-play examples (as I know that you value them).

So, as I said, I have problem with your framing, here.


pemerton said:


> That it to say, I gave examples that answered the thread question - examples, with explanations, of episodes of play in my game to which alignment would have been an impediment.
> 
> At post 56 I received this reply:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'raac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't agree with that - it seems like the challenges to the character's belief can easily facilitate great role playing, rather than impede it.
Click to expand...


When someone else uses the qualifiers "it seems" and "can easily", I guess I don't take it nearly as harsh as you do (jumping to "bad RP" and "poor GMing", neither of which was said in this reply).


pemerton said:


> Which is to say, another poster told me that I was wrong in my own understanding and interpretation of my own play experience, and that alignment would not have been an impediment to my play experience after all, and the only reason that I think it would have been is because I don't understand how alignment should be used.



Another poster seems to have written that they don't see things your way, and that they seem to think it could have gone just fine with alignment. They've made zero attack on your GMing skills, and haven't called your game "bad RP" or something similar. It looks like you're taking things personally, here, but like I said, if this has been most of the thread, I'm interested in hearing about it. I honestly haven't read the majority (and won't), so it could be. It's why I asked.


pemerton said:


> I understand perfectly well how alignment could be used. I have seen it in play. I have read much about its use, including (but by no means limited to) this thread. It remains the case that alignment would have been an impediment to my play experience in the episodes of play described above, because alignment requires me, as GM, to substitute my moral judgement (be it real, or merely imagined for the purposes of the game) for that of the players, by deciding whether or not their behaviour conforms to the requirements (of virtue, of honour) that they have set for themselves in playing their PCs.



Okay?

I never argued with that, man. I was curious if most of the thread had been accusations of poor GMing and bad RPing. I haven't seen it by any of the lingering major players of this thread, but I was curious.

I'm not here to debate you on alignment or if you've interpreted something as a personal attack. It's really not worth my time. No offense, but I've seen threads where you seem to jump on an innocent post, and I've seen times where you fight back against outright attacks on your play style. I don't know which case this one is yet, so I specifically asked Campbell (and not you or Hussar) because I trust that poster's judgment.


pemerton said:


> Yes. Because mechanical alignment precludes (some) choices. It precludes a player from choosing to play a character committed to a value set as interpreted by the player, because the interpretation of the relevant values is in the hands of the GM.



Just wanted to voice my objection to this framing, again.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I've already talked about how I used alignment to define Good and Evil in my campaign, not right and wrong. With that in mind, I have a problem with you framing alignment as purely used as objectively defining something as good or bad.



This issues has been discussed at length upthread. We appear to see it differently. For me, "Good" is a general term of moral commendation of things, including actions; and "Evil" is a general term of moral condemnation. Hence, to say that an action is evil but nevertheless right is, in my view, contradictory. (Perhaps certain "dirty hands" scenarios are an exception, but I don't think anyone in this thread has invoked such scenarios.)

I recognise that, of course, a character might regard something as right which some or other divine power asserts is not good - but that just shows that the character and the god disagree. It doesn't show that the conduct in question is both (say) not good and yet right.



JamesonCourage said:


> When someone else uses the qualifiers "it seems" and "can easily", I guess I don't take it nearly as harsh as you do



For me the real issue is this: the OP asked whether alignment improves the game experience. I explained, in some detail, why it impedes my experience. That another player has different experiences from me doesn't change that fact, nor undermine my explanation.

I find it quite interesting to hear how others might be playing the game differently from me. I find it frustrating (and a little bit affronting, although not all that affronting - but that was the verb that was put into play by some of the posts I was replying to) to have posters try to tell me that if only I knew how to use alignment properly than I would find it to improve my experience.

A core priority for me is sincere expressive and evaluative responses by the participants in the course of play. To have the GM - whether playing the gods, or the "cosmological forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos" or whatever else - tell the players that their conceptions of the demands of their PCs' convictions are mistaken is an obstacle to this. For faithful PCs, in particular, it means that either (i) it turns out that the PC's faith was misguided, if the player ends up having to conclude that the god's decrees do not align with what is right (in which case the god was "good" only in some notional or stipulated sense, but not in any substantive sense), or else (ii) it turns out that the PC's evaluative beliefs were misguided, if the player ends up having to conclude that s/he misunderstood what his/her PC's convictions required. Either of (i) or (ii) means that the player's response (in the case of (i), his/her affirmation of faith as a value; in the case of (ii), his/her interpretation of whatever particular value/convictions are in issue) is being subordinated to that of the GM.

The only other poster I have seen engage with the significance of faith, and the way that an alignment system has implications for a player's affirmation of faith as a value for his/her PC, is    [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. Other posters who have discussed the issue seem quite content with the idea that gods might make moral errors, or that religious PCs might find themselves in reasonable disagreement with their patron deities. For me, this is the model of paladin-as-warlock: it suggests to me that the paladin has made a pact, and does not really fit with my conception of what faith, as a value and a commitment, requires. (The only poster I can recall who has embraced the idea that the player really is expected to subordinate the judgement of rightness to the dictates of the gods - which by my lights does make sense of faith in the game, but does not satisfy my particular priorities for affirming expressive/evaluative responses by players - is    [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION]. To be honest I've been surprised that this is not a more widespread approach - to me it seems to be one pretty plausible interpretation of what 2nd ed AD&D alignment aims at, and also 3E alignment.)

Other posters in this thread seem to me to have other priorities in relation to some of these aspects of play. For instance, most of those other players, as best I can tell (eg    [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION],    [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], probably others too), seem to prioritise consistency of the gods as NPCs adjudicated by the GM over affirming the expressive/evaluative responses of the players; and to draw (some version of) the distinction you also have drawn between "goodness" and "rightness". The upshot of this, such that when it comes to paladinhood and clerichood it is the judgement of the GM that has priority over the players' judgements, seems to be something they are happy to embrace.

That is all fine, of course: others can play as they wish. But it is not an argument that alignment is not an impediment to _my_ gaming experience, because it gives me no reason to embrace those consequences of using mechanical alignment.

An additional aspect of the discussion that comes through mostly in    [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s posts, and that reminds me of some aspects of the long Fighters vs Spellcasters thread, is what seems to be an ongoing attempt to show that    [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are really doing the very thing that we say we don't want to do, namely, to show that we really _are_ policing player choices and subordinating player's evaluative judgements to the GM's judgement. This is the only rationale I can see for the comments about hive minds, being picky about whom we play with, etc. It is also the only rationale I can see for the many posts attempting to argue that my adjudication of a particular event involving the invoker PC in my game thwarting Vecna was really a case of me as GM adjudicating a player's evaluative judgement as expressed via an action declaration for his/her PC.

I personally don't find that a very productive way of proceeding. When I read a poster describing asserting that s/he doesn't like or use some feature of play (eg martial metagame mechanics), I tend to start from the assumption that this is true. I don't tend to assume that his/her game is really, in mechanical and broader aspects of play, just the same as my 4e game. (And the next question, of course, is to find out exactly how s/he uses the hit point mechanic!) Likewise when I read a poster saying that s/he likes adventure paths, or that s/he likes sandboxing, or whatever, I tend to start from the assumption that this is true. I don't tend to assume that his/her game is really a scene-framing game of the sort I tend to prefer.

Similarly, in this thread, when someone posts that s/he likes mechanical alignment, I tend to take him/her at her word and assume that s/he likes and is making use of some of the features that I associated with mechanical alignment, such as GM authority over what counts as satisfying particular values/ideals. (Given that D&D has always defined alignment in relation to various values and ideals.) I don't set out to try and show that s/he really doesn't value those things, and is in fact running a game just like mine without realising it.

And if in fact some of those other posters _are_ running games in which players' evaluative judgements take priority over the GM's in respect of those values, including faith, to which the PCs in question are committed, then in what way are they using mechanical alignment? For instance, if they really are playing in such a way, how does the GM have any role in tracking alignment? I'd be happy to have this explained, but so far the only posters (that I can recall) who have said that they use alignment in this particular way are Hussar and    [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION], and they have both disavowed using mechanical alignment in favour of player-driven purely descriptive alignment.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> But, you are playing with objective alignment. As a DM you must have a right or wrong answer. Otherwise, the system doesn't work. You keep complaining about a lack of consistency, but, when pressed to actually give an answer, you prevaricate and say that there is no definitive answer. Which is it? Is alignment objective or not? Does the DM decide where something falls on the alignment spectrum or not?




As seems typically, you take a very binary vision.

Taking a life is an evil act.  Defending the innocent is a good act.  So is taking a life to defend an innocent, or risking an innocent’s safety in order to preserve a life good or evil?  It contains elements of both, and thus it is not a binary “one or the other”.  Our Paladin, faced with the choice, cannot make an entirely good, nor a fully evil, decision in that snapshot moment, so my answer to the question of “Is the choice the character made Good or Evil” is “NO”.  That is, the choice the character made is neither good nor evil.  The other choice would also have been neither good nor evil.  It falls between the two on the alignment spectrum.

Now, the PC values come into play.  One might feel the only proper action is to take a life to defend the innocent.  Another may feel that act is improper, and accepting the risk to innocents to preserve that life is the only proper action.  Neither, however, feels that the innocent are unworthy of any protection, nor that it is appropriate to engage in wanton slaughter.  In other words, moral conflict between two viewpoints, both falling within the broad spectrum of Good.



Hussar said:


> In your own example, which paladin do you judge is correct in interpreting alignment and which one is wrong? Because, under mechanical alignment, in order to be consistent, you must decide. And the players must abide by your decision. That has been your constant refrain throughout this thread. Are you now refusing to decide, and thus alignment is no longer objective?




“Neither action is fully consistent, nor wholly inconsistent, with the precepts of LG” is itself a decision.  And I believe I have said numerous times thoughout this thread that grey areas and close calls should be a subject of group discussion.  You seem to interpret any situation – hardly restricted to alignment – where the GM makes the ultimate call as a situation where the GM should accept no input, no challenge and no question to his decisions, ruling as a dictator over the gaming table with an iron fist.



Hussar said:


> Now, if the NG fighter is killing prisoners, yeah, I'm allowed to have an opinion and I would certainly see this as out of character. So, I would pull the player aside and see why he thinks this is acceptable.




As has been stated upthread, this is just as much an imposition of your judgment as the application of alignment rules.  I contrast this with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s approach, as I believe he would accept that the NG fighter truly and sincerely believes that the compromise of the prisoner’s right to live is justified by the protection of the innocent, including the PC’s, in this instance, and that the player sincerely believes this compromise falls within the Good alignment (or does not compromise it to the point the character, on balance, is not Good).



Hussar said:


> And, in game, this certainly could have consequences - if it's known that the fighter kills prisoners, no one will surrender to him anymore. People will obviously treat him differently. Again, there's no problem with in game consequences. Additionally, the other players might react as well. They are allowed to have opinions on the matter.




Sure.  In alignment games, those “other people” can include deities and cosmological forces, which are real and tangible in the D&D game world.



Hussar said:


> But, you are advocating the DM as the dictator of alignment. Let's not lose sight of that. Throughout this thread, you have repeatedly stated that it is the DM and no one else, who decides morality in the game. Full stop. How is that not "alignment dictator?"




As I have said a few times before, I don’t believe I have seen anyone in the pro-alignment posters advocate for GM as alignment dictator.  But then, I don’t see the GM as a dictator when I ask whether some position of advantage provides me with a  bonus to hit and he decides it does not, either.  There is a lot of scope between “makes the final adjudication” and “dictator, which again seems imperceptible in your binary world.



pemerton said:


> As for the paladin's poison use, as I said the scenario you describe is not going to come up in 4e for multiple reasons. How is the paladin going to have access to the poison? Why would s/he spend 250 gp or more buying a poison when s/he has other options? Why would the GM place poison as a treasure for a paladin?




How does anyone else have access?  250 gold coins is not that expensive in any D&D game I’ve played.  And why is it impossible a defeated enemy would have a store of poisons which the PC’s might choose to sell, destroy or keep?  Sometimes, the PC’s find items not perfectly suited for their own use (or items the GM thought they might sell, but they choose to keep).



pemerton said:


> Who has decided that the tactic is not benevolent, or is dishonourable?




Every poster who has said “a Paladin would not do that in my games”.  That’s how we got on to the topic.



pemerton said:


> In my current game, the player of the chaos sorcerer regards some of the Arcomentals - the so-called Elemental Rulers of Good - as benevolent beings worthy of respect. The player of the Rod of Law-wielding, Erathis-worshipping invoker/wizard takes a more dim view of them. Which of those character is correct? _That is not a question on which I take a view as GM_ in the course of adjudicating the game. It is a question which is a prime focus of play. The conclusion of the campaign may lead to some resolution - or may not, depending on how things proceed.




For myself, I don’t see a character deciding that Law is more important than Good being inconsistent with the alignment rules.  An LN character would typically feel that way.  And LN is, of course, the best alignment, for reasons including not letting sentimentality over “good” and “evil” get in the way of pure, perfect order.



pemerton said:


> But our other point is that, if the player does not agree that the tactic is dishonourable, then as GMs we are not going to intervene to impose our evaluation (be that real or imagined) upon the character.




Yet your posts, and those of several anti-alignment posters, upthread contain numerous examples of things that a Good character, or an honourable one, would just never do in your games.  That indicates that you have formed an evaluative decision of those actions.  These are mixed liberally with your statements that the GM does not form an evaluative judgment (by extension, I assume the players cannot form such an evaluative judgment as well, although their characters certainly can and will, although I don’t believe that has ever been stated).



pemerton said:


> Of course, I personally doubt that there are many people in the world, or at least that part of it that I interact with for RPGing purposes, who would sincerely take that view - who would sincerely put forward, as decent people, murderers and torturers.




Then why is this thread, among other commentaries, filled with NG fighters killing prisoners, Paladins considering torture to locate the Mad Bomber, and whether leaving the villain to die is an evil act which would mean Batman isn’t a Paladin?

Add up the typical Paladin’s body count and tell me again that he would not be a murderer in modern parlance.  We clearly accept that killing, if  not torture, is not at all inconsistent with a Good alignment in the D&D world.



pemerton said:


> The closest I have come, in play, to what you describe is a player who played a character who would lure men into compromising positions, then murder and mutilate them. The idea was that the PC was a type of avenger against men who subordinate women by soliciting prostitutes. Whatever the deeper moral merits (or otherwise) of the position expressed by that PC (and her player), there was no doubt that it pushed some other players' buttons as far as good taste in gaming is concerned. When the player in question realised this, the PC was retired and a new one, *more conventional in outlook and activities*, was introduced.




So there was an evaluative judgment of that character made at the table, then.  I thought you didn’t pass evaluative judgments on sincere players or their characters at all.  To be clear, I agree the methodology used was not one of mechanical alignment



pemerton said:


> Anyway, I have given some examples upthread that illustrate real moral differences among participants that did not need to be resolved out of game, because they provided excellent material to be the focus of play.




You and I don’t agree on whether alignment prevents this play.  Examples



pemerton said:


> For instance, there was the player of the paladin who regarded inadvertent killing in defence of others as a great wrong although I as GM did not. (Other than suggesting, in post 56, that a paladin might judge him-/herself more harshly than his/her deity - which makes no sense to me because, unless we are supposing that the deity is tempering the demby way of mercy, that would simply mean that the paladin is mistaken. Which still means that the _player's_ conception of the relevant values in play is being subordinated to that of the GM as controller of the deity.)




You note what the player and PC thought, and what you the GM thought.  You make no mention of what the deity thought.  And yes, the Paladin may hold himself to a higher standard than he might hold others, and regret not keeping more strictly to his principals, even when his superiors feel his actions can be forgiven.  How is it that such a difference in viewpoints of this nature can never be excellent material to be the focus of play?






pemerton said:


> And I think I also mentioned the PC who slew unconscious hobgoblins on the battlefield, to the cheers of liberated villagers but the shock of his fellow PCs, who had become used to paroling prisoners.




Could this be good role playing?  Sure.  Would it mean immediate alignment change?  Why should it?  Even if I accept that killing helpless prisoners is an evil act (and let’s review that typical Paladin body count again…), a Good person will undoubtedly fail to fully live up to the precepts of Good on some occasions.  Could Good PC’s disagree on the fate of hobgoblin prisoners?  Absolutely.  The “shock of his fellow PC’s” seems like an evaluative judgment, by the way.  Whether the action is, or is not, “Good” in no way prevents the PC taking it, arguing that it was the appropriate action, or maintaining a Good alignment.  Unless we think causing the death of an enemy is always Evil, in which case no D&D character can lay any claim to a Good alignment.



pemerton said:


> And I don't think this is the first post in this thread in which I have mentioned the conflict between the chaos sorcerer and the Erathis-worshipping rod-wielder. I don't recall you discussing how these examples might be adjudicated at your table.




Is someone arguing the Chaos Sorcerer is Lawful, or the Erathis worshipper is not?



pemerton said:


> That very much depends on the system. In The Dying Earth, absolutely - *being bamboozled by others* is an important part of the play experience.




This doesn’t suggest the one who succeeded on the social skill actually was in the moral right, but that he was able to argue his way out of it.  It actually suggests a predetermination he was in the wrong – that is, that an evaluative judgment had already been made.



pemerton said:


> In 4e D&D, which is the system I am currently GMing, no. There are no mechanics whereby the GM can obliged a player to regard his/her PC's mind as changed on some point.




Then why should it be a simple die roll to impose such results on the rest of the world?  I dislike PC’s who are somehow immune to the forces which the rest of the world are subject.



pemerton said:


> Yes. Because mechanical alignment precludes (some) choices.




You have indicated some choices upthread which would be precluded in your game, as well.  Murder in the name of the Raven Queen comes to mind (yet she herself rose to power by murdering her predecessor, did she not?)



pemerton said:


> It precludes a player from choosing to play a character committed to a value set as interpreted by the player, because the interpretation of the relevant values is in the hands of the GM. (Who, via the cosmological forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos gets to decide what counts as honouring relevant values, and in the case of a cleric or paladin whether the player gets to continue playing the PC that s/he built.)




It prevents the player from unilaterally deciding the label to be placed on his or her values.  I don’t think that is actually precluded in your games either – or does the fact that the poisonous Paladin feels his actions are honourable mean that no one, PC or NPC, may disagree (or that their disagreement can never be correct)?



JamesonCourage said:


> Just wanted to voice my objection to this framing, again.




Quoting only one line from an excellent post to ad my agreement with the concise and well written comments.  XP if I can (probably can’t).



pemerton said:


> It is also the only rationale I can see for the many posts attempting to argue that my adjudication of a particular event involving the invoker PC in my game thwarting Vecna was really a case of me as GM adjudicating a player's evaluative judgement as expressed via an action declaration for his/her PC.




Since we keep coming back to this, let’s try again.  Your earlier posts read, to me, like a statement that PC resources should not be removed for PC behaviour.  That view was inconsistent with the Vecna/familiar scene.  Your later explanations clarified (I think!) your view is restricted to removal of PC resources for evaluative judgments as to whether the PC was behaving consistently with his own values, differentiating the familiar/Vecna scene.

Presumably, had the player laid claim to ultimate service to the provider of the familiar and to Vecna, and that his actions were consistent with such service, his claims would be accepted as true and no negative consequences would arise at the hand of any of those patrons.  Clearly, however, he made no such claim.

[And this still, in no way, indicates the mechanics were consistent with 4e rules, if you want to go  back to that, however I am hopeful we are done with that discussion.]


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> This issues has been discussed at length upthread. We appear to see it differently. For me, "Good" is a general term of moral commendation of things, including actions; and "Evil" is a general term of moral condemnation.



I'm having a hard time grasping how you saying this is much different than N'rrac saying that he sees things differently in your post. I understand your point of view (even if I think mine is easy to grasp after my explanation), but I don't think you're saying I'm a poor GM or inflicting bad RP on my group.


pemerton said:


> I find it quite interesting to hear how others might be playing the game differently from me. I find it frustrating (and a little bit affronting, although not all that affronting - but that was the verb that was put into play by some of the posts I was replying to) to have posters try to tell me that if only I knew how to use alignment properly than I would find it to improve my experience.



Out of curiosity, has this happened by the major players in this discussion? I don't know if it's happening or not, I just know that I never saw it when I poked my head in, but that was only for maybe one page every 10-15 that went by.


pemerton said:


> (i)(ii)(i)(ii)(i)(ii)



I'm going to admit to skipping any paragraph where this is a thing. No offense, it's not personal. I do it to Manbearcat as well. (I think he's noted as such, and gracefully avoids them in posts to me.)

I skimmed the next few paragraphs. Nothing I feel interested in replying to.


pemerton said:


> An additional aspect of the discussion that comes through mostly in    @_*N'raac*_'s posts, and that reminds me of some aspects of the long Fighters vs Spellcasters thread, is what seems to be an ongoing attempt to show that    @_*Hussar*_ and I are really doing the very thing that we say we don't want to do, namely, to show that we really _are_ policing player choices and subordinating player's evaluative judgements to the GM's judgement.



I think this is the case, yes. I'm not sure if he sees that as a particularly bad thing (since he's basically trying to do a "gotcha" with your own interpretation of "policing the players" or something similar), but it seems to be the same argumentative debate on both sides that I see certain posters get into again and again. And it's one of the reasons I'm skimming when I decide to read at all.

Read the next couple of paragraphs, and nothing in there makes me want to reply. Maybe some of this will help other posters here, but all I can say is "okay."


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm having a hard time grasping how you saying this is much different than N'rrac saying that he sees things differently in your post.



The difference is that I'm not telling you to change your meta-ethical framework so as to realise that alignment is really impeding your game. That I cannot make useful sense of a framework that you are using is - from your point of view - a mere biographical fact about me which (I would have thought) has no bearing on the utility of that framework for you.

A comparable point is that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION] both use descriptive alignment. Whereas I ignore alignment altogether - unlike them I find it unhelpful even as a general description (particularly because, as was discussed way upthread, I cannot make any useful sense of Law and Chaos in the way that AD&D and 3E deploy those notions). I am not trying to tell them that they are doing it wrong.



JamesonCourage said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it frustrating (and a little bit affronting, although not all that affronting - but that was the verb that was put into play by some of the posts I was replying to) to have posters try to tell me that if only I knew how to use alignment properly than I would find it to improve my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, has this happened by the major players in this discussion?
Click to expand...


Yes. I would say it is the single most prominent strand in the posts in this thread from [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]. It crops up in others' posts also.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I contrast this with pemerton’s approach, as I believe he would accept that the NG fighter truly and sincerely believes that the compromise of the prisoner’s right to live is justified by the protection of the innocent, including the PC’s, in this instance, and that the player sincerely believes this compromise falls within the Good alignment (or does not compromise it to the point the character, on balance, is not Good).



I don't play a game with alignment. The notion of "NG" does no work at my table. The PC in question is neither NG nor not-NG, because those descriptions are not part of the framework of my game.



N'raac said:


> “Neither action is fully consistent, nor wholly inconsistent, with the precepts of LG” is itself a decision.  And I believe I have said numerous times thoughout this thread that grey areas and close calls should be a subject of group discussion.



There is something on which I lack a firm grasp, that was raised by [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] at around post 50 or so upthread: in what circumstances does the use of mechanical alignment actually matter, in your game, if all these questions that actually come up in play are not resolved by reference to it?

Or if that is not so, and if some questions are resolved by reference to it, could you provide an example?



N'raac said:


> How does anyone else have access?



In the case of an executioner assassin, by way of class ability. In the case of other PCs, they might purchase it.



N'raac said:


> why is it impossible a defeated enemy would have a store of poisons which the PC’s might choose to sell, destroy or keep?



If the paladin chooses to destroy it, then it was not a treasure parcel for that player, and hence s/he can expect to find something else. If the paladin chooses to keep it, then it was a treasure parcel for that player. Why would the player of a paladin, who thought using poison was dishonourable, choose to cash in his/her treasure parcels in this way?

This metagame rationing of treasures found is part of what I am referring to when I talk about those features of 4e that mean that the player of the paladin has no incentive to have his/her PC use poison. Of course, if you depart from those features then the incentive structure might change - but a GM who sets up such an incentive structure (eg where PCs have an incentive to loot because there is no metagame cap on how much loot they can collect) should hardly be surprised that it leads to corruption on the part of the PCs! (After all, why should a player in a game be expected to deliberately underpower his/her playing piece just to make an imaginary moral point? This is why Gygax gave the paladin more powers - so that s/he _wasn't_ underpowering him-/herself. But post-AD&D paladins are not more poweful than any other PC of the same level.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who has decided that the tactic is not benevolent, or is dishonourable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every poster who has said “a Paladin would not do that in my games”.  That’s how we got on to the topic.
Click to expand...


You have misunderstood my question. I am asking who, in the course of playing and adjudicating the game, makes that decision?

I have never encountered a player who regards baby-eating as honourable. So in my game, it is the _player_ who decides that such behaviour is not honourable, and hence who - if playing an honourable PC - refrains from it. What I am trying to ascertain is whether you regard that decision as one to be made by the player, or by the GM, in the course of play.



N'raac said:


> I don’t see a character deciding that Law is more important than Good being inconsistent with the alignment rules.



In my campaign, there is a morally-laden cosmological question at issue - heavenly order vs primordial chaos. I don't think the alignment mechanics have anything to say to it at all, because the alignment mechanics do not tell me whether law or chaos is more desirable (and I do not see why a LN character should oppose a CN one any more than a peanut-butter eater should oppose a chocolate-eater). That's just one way in which the alignment mechanics do not contribute to my game.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the player does not agree that the tactic is dishonourable, then as GMs we are not going to intervene to impose our evaluation (be that real or imagined) upon the character.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet your posts, and those of several anti-alignment posters, upthread contain numerous examples of things that a Good character, or an honourable one, would just never do in your games.  That indicates that you have formed an evaluative decision of those actions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So there was an evaluative judgment of that character made at the table, then.  I thought you didn’t pass evaluative judgments on sincere players or their characters at all.
Click to expand...


This has been discussed, extensively, upthread.

I have never denied having evaluative responses. In fact, in post 97 upthread, I indicated that I have them and may well share them with my players - eg expressing shock at actions they declare for their PCs. But these are not part of my adjudication of the game as GM. There is no difference between me having a shocked reaction, another player having a shocked reaction, or a third party observer of play having a shocked reaction.



N'raac said:


> the typical Paladin’s body count and tell me again that he would not be a murderer in modern parlance.



In modern parlance the paladin is a soldier, not a murderer. Some soldiers kill very many other people. To say that this makes them murderers is highly contentious.



N'raac said:


> You and I don’t agree on whether alignment prevents this play.



I reiterate that you have no evidential basis on which to judge that alignment is not an impediment to my enjoyment of those episodes of play. I aslo reiterate that you tend to conceive of "an episode of play" purely in terms of the fictional events that occurred during that episode, whereas I am referring also to the emotional and other experience of the participants. The same fictional events could have been achieved via GM railroad, but that doesn't mean that the presence or absence of GM railroading has no bearing on my enjoyment of the play experience.



N'raac said:


> You make no mention of what the deity thought.



This is because, in my approach to play in relation to these sorts of situations, the deity is not being played as an independent entity. The player and GM in concert are shaping the deity's responses through the unfolding of the paladin PC at the table. 



N'raac said:


> Could this be good role playing?  Sure.  Would it mean immediate alignment change?  Why should it?



I don't know - I'm not the one who uses alignment.

What I do know is that I do not want to use a system which makes me wonder whether or not this is an evil act that may (or may not) prompt an alignment change. Deploying that framework contributes nothing to my game, and detracts from those aspects that I enjoy.



N'raac said:


> I dislike PC’s who are somehow immune to the forces which the rest of the world are subject.



PCs in 4e are not immune to being persuaded. But the mechanical resolution is different - the player gets to decide (whereas for NPCs the matter is determined via skill checks).



N'raac said:


> Your earlier posts read, to me, like a statement that PC resources should not be removed for PC behaviour.



As I have repeated stately, PCs lose hit points as a result of their behaviour. Hence, unless you somehow inferred that PCs in my game never lose hp, I don't see how you ever came to this conclusion.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> The difference is that I'm not telling you to change your meta-ethical framework so as to realise that alignment is really impeding your game.



Are the major players in this thread accusing you of "poor GMing" and "bad RP"? That's what I asked about.

I also haven't seen posts where they tell you to change how you play, but simply challenge your framing of alignment as unhelpful in a certain type of play that involves exploring morality. If they are saying that, then they shouldn't. I just haven't seen it. Any idea where that was said?


pemerton said:


> A comparable point is that @_*Hussar*_ and @_*Jacob Marley*_ both use descriptive alignment. Whereas I ignore alignment altogether - unlike them I find it unhelpful even as a general description (particularly because, as was discussed way upthread, I cannot make any useful sense of Law and Chaos in the way that AD&D and 3E deploy those notions). I am not trying to tell them that they are doing it wrong.



I'm going to resort to "okay" again.


pemerton said:


> Yes. I would say it is the single most prominent strand in the posts in this thread from @_*Imaro*_ and @_*N'raac*_. It crops up in others' posts also.



When was this? This still isn't an accusation of "poor GMing" or "bad RP", but it shouldn't go on. I haven't seen it, but I'd like to voice my disapproval if it is indeed happening.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> As seems typically, you take a very binary vision.
> 
> Taking a life is an evil act.  Defending the innocent is a good act.  So is taking a life to defend an innocent, or risking an innocent’s safety in order to preserve a life good or evil?  It contains elements of both, and thus it is not a binary “one or the other”.  Our Paladin, faced with the choice, cannot make an entirely good, nor a fully evil, decision in that snapshot moment, so my answer to the question of “Is the choice the character made Good or Evil” is “NO”.  That is, the choice the character made is neither good nor evil.  The other choice would also have been neither good nor evil.  It falls between the two on the alignment spectrum.
> 
> Now, the PC values come into play.  One might feel the only proper action is to take a life to defend the innocent.  Another may feel that act is improper, and accepting the risk to innocents to preserve that life is the only proper action.  Neither, however, feels that the innocent are unworthy of any protection, nor that it is appropriate to engage in wanton slaughter.  In other words, moral conflict between two viewpoints, both falling within the broad spectrum of Good.
> 
> /snip




But, you the DM, wearing the hat of "cosmological forces" has to make a decision.  How can it be good and not good at the same time?  That's exactly the problem you accuse me of by not using mechanical alignment in the first place.  It's inconsistent.  

The mechanics force you to make a decision as a DM.  Because if it's not evil, then the paladin can do it with no consequence, but, if it is evil, then the paladin must face mechanical consequences.  Way, way back, there was the example of the badly wounded paladin leaving the child to be eaten by the giant.  

Evil or not?  

And the point is, if you simply waffle and say, "Well, it could be either" then alignment is no longer objective.  That's the very definition of subjective alignment.  Which is no problem for me, but, you've been pretty consistent with claims that the DM must make an adjudication.  That alignment must be set by the DM. 

But apparently when the rubber meets the road, that gets set aside?  When do you decide if something is "falling within the broad spectrum of Good" and when it falls outside?  And how is your game improved by ensuring that the DM and only the DM can make that determination?

See, [MENTION=37609]Jameson[/MENTION] Courage, I've been told very, very often in this thread that without mechanical alignment, my games will devolve into chaos with players doing whatever and apparently arguing that players play in good faith to their chosen characters is submitting everyone to a "hive mind" where there is no disagreement.  But, as soon as we start talking about the other side of the equation, no one seems to be able to say how their game is improved.  There are exceptions all over the place.  Alignment is good apparently, until it's not good in which case, the DM, after talking it out with the players, makes a ruling.  Me, I just skip to the end.  The players tell me if something is good or not.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I don't play a game with alignment. The notion of "NG" does no work at my table. The PC in question is neither NG nor not-NG, because those descriptions are not part of the framework of my game.




Whether we slap the NG label on the character or simply allow the player to say his character is a decent fellow who does the best that a good person can do, is devoted to helping others and works with legitimate authority but does not feel beholden to them - he believes in doing what is good without bias for or against order, we still have a description which we cannot gainsay.  If the player decides his basically decent character decides to take any given action, we must accept that the action is benevolent and decent, since the PC's moral code calls for such and he can never be outside that moral code without player consent.



pemerton said:


> If the paladin chooses to destroy it, then it was not a treasure parcel for that player, and hence s/he can expect to find something else. If the paladin chooses to keep it, then it was a treasure parcel for that player. Why would the player of a paladin, who thought using poison was dishonourable, choose to cash in his/her treasure parcels in this way?




So if my character wants a very specific item of treasure, can he simply toss away whatever else he finds until the GM gives him what he wants?  



pemerton said:


> In my campaign, there is a morally-laden cosmological question at issue - heavenly order vs primordial chaos. I don't think the alignment mechanics have anything to say to it at all, because the alignment mechanics do not tell me whether law or chaos is more desirable (and I do not see why a LN character should oppose a CN one any more than a peanut-butter eater should oppose a chocolate-eater). That's just one way in which the alignment mechanics do not contribute to my game.




I don't quite grasp how we have an order versus chaos conflict, if the lawfuls and the chaotics get along fine.  Conflict implies they don't get along so well. 



pemerton said:


> I reiterate that you have no evidential basis on which to judge that alignment is not an impediment to my enjoyment of those episodes of play. I aslo reiterate that you tend to conceive of "an episode of play" purely in terms of the fictional events that occurred during that episode, whereas I am referring also to the emotional and other experience of the participants. The same fictional events could have been achieved via GM railroad, but that doesn't mean that the presence or absence of GM railroading has no bearing on my enjoyment of the play experience.




Absent the same play with and without alignment, and a comparative study, we have no evidential basis for any specific element adding to, or detracting from, play.



pemerton said:


> I don't know - I'm not the one who uses alignment.




You seem to frequently switch between having no idea how alignment works, as you don't use it, to being expert in its usage to determine how others would apply it and how that application would detract from your enjoyment of the game.  Which is it?



pemerton said:


> \PCs in 4e are not immune to being persuaded. But the mechanical resolution is different - the player gets to decide (whereas for NPCs the matter is determined via skill checks).




Sorry, but where the player decides, the PC is de facto immune.

As to loss of hp being comparable, we've danced that dance more than enough, I think.  Do the hit points just vanish with no mechanics behind their removal, or are they based on actual rolls failed by the player, or succeeded at by his enemies.  You have consistently provided rules quotes on the consequences of failure to support the adjudication being simply part of the rules, while steadfastly refusing to indicate what roll the player failed to result in a negative consequences you imposed.  As such, my opinion remains unchanged.



Hussar said:


> But, you the DM, wearing the hat of "cosmological forces" has to make a decision.  How can it be good and not good at the same time?  That's exactly the problem you accuse me of by not using mechanical alignment in the first place.  It's inconsistent.




It can be both "not good" and "not evil", just as it can be neither chaotic nor lawful.  It would be inconsistent only if the same action, under the same circumstances, is good sometimes, evil others and neither at other times.  It is also inconsistent if the action is categorically Evil for PC 1 and definitively Good for PC 2.  To judge that circumstances have no impact on judgement of the action also invites ridiculous results.  Is it Good to kill people?  In a vacuum, I must say no.  But the decision to kill is not made in a vacuum, and the context must impact on the judgment of the action.  You seem to want a simplistic check the  box "this is good, that is evil" model, and I reject that as being a reasonable implementation of alignment in any form


----------



## Hussar

> It can be both "not good" and "not evil", just as it can be neither chaotic nor lawful. It would be inconsistent only if the same action, under the same circumstances, is good sometimes, evil others and neither at other times. It is also inconsistent if the action is categorically Evil for PC 1 and definitively Good for PC 2. To judge that circumstances have no impact on judgement of the action also invites ridiculous results. Is it Good to kill people? In a vacuum, I must say no. But the decision to kill is not made in a vacuum, and the context must impact on the judgment of the action. You seem to want a simplistic check the box "this is good, that is evil" model, and I reject that as being a reasonable implementation of alignment in any form
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page138#ixzz2xb5FXmQn




So murdering babies is morally neutral?  Torturing prisoners is morally neutral?  Poison use is morally neutral?  (although that last one i might actually buy - after all hunters have used poison for hundreds of years, if not thousands)

It's not inconsistent for something to be evli for PC 1 and good for PC 2.  It's subjective, true, but not inconsistent.  It would only be inconsistent if you insist that good and evil are objective.  If alignment is objective, then it must be one or the other, all the time, for all people.  That's why its objective.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> See, @_*Jameson*_ Courage, I've been told very, very often in this thread that without mechanical alignment, my games will devolve into chaos with players doing whatever and apparently arguing that players play in good faith to their chosen characters is submitting everyone to a "hive mind" where there is no disagreement.  But, as soon as we start talking about the other side of the equation, no one seems to be able to say how their game is improved.  There are exceptions all over the place.



True. I think you and other posters are going in circles for no good reason. Just because you don't use alignment doesn't mean you're inconsistent; on the flip side, just because you do, it doesn't mean you can't explore morality. I think both sides have tried arguing how the other side isn't effective (for them), but the lack of more explicit "(for me)"s has really soured the conversation.

There's been far, far too much "I'm going to trap you now to prove a point" and "here's what you're saying, now watch me beat it up" going on for this to be a good discussion (for me).


Hussar said:


> Alignment is good apparently, until it's not good in which case, the DM, after talking it out with the players, makes a ruling.  Me, I just skip to the end.  The players tell me if something is good or not.



I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Li Shenron

Well, I suppose today's L&L article about the new approach to Paladin's Oaths pretty much cuts all discussions like an axe... Frankly, I don't know yet how to wrap my head around it, except for thinking "you should have seen this coming"  : http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130401


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> So murdering babies is morally neutral?  Torturing prisoners is morally neutral?  Poison use is morally neutral?  (although that last one i might actually buy - after all hunters have used poison for hundreds of years, if not thousands)




If you consider any of these actions to be Evil, then have you not also made a decision about morality for your game, mechanical alignment or not?  A Paladin carrying out a "clearly evil" action (whatever we consider those actions to be) and remaining in a state of grace seems jarring for the game, lacking in verisimilitude. If a player sincerely  believes that this action which you and/or others at the table consider "clearly evil", what is the reaction?  Whether "the Paladin falls" or "we take the player aside to chat about it", an effort is being made to direct this player's play.  I thought the problem with alignment was that a third party was telling the player how to play his character?

"Whatever the PC does is deemed consistent with his alignment" is, I submit, the other extreme to "Any decision can have only one right choice for any given alignment, and any deviation from the GM's perception of the right choice will result in immediate and irrevocable negative consequences".  I doubt many play at either extreme - between them lie many opportunities for good play.



Hussar said:


> It's not inconsistent for something to be evli for PC 1 and good for PC 2.  It's subjective, true, but not inconsistent.  It would only be inconsistent if you insist that good and evil are objective.  If alignment is objective, then it must be one or the other, all the time, for all people.  That's why its objective.




So murdering babies, torturing prisoners an poison use may or may not be evil, or good, actions, depending on the character?  This seems the same result as your criticism of taking actions in their context in assessing alignment issues.  So we, at the table, accept that killing a baby, for any reason, could  be a "not evil" act?  Do we accept that there are situations when torture, distasteful and vile as it is viewed in isolation, could be acceptable for the greater good?  If we do not, then we classify that as an act of evil which can never be justified by the Greater Good.  But then, don't place the characters in scenarios where an unwillingness to compromise the ideals of Good means certain failure, or in situations where no non-evil choice exists, and then wonder why players never want to run a Good character.  That's the case whether we define Good in alignment terms, or game outside of any alignment structure - if good and decent behaviour and honourable tactics mean certain defeat, expect players to build characters who are more pragmatic, and therefore have a shot at success.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

N'raac said:


> Sorry, but where the player decides, the PC is de facto immune.




See, this is where I think howandwhy's "D&D is just code-breaking" comes from. The player deciding is *not* de facto immunity. I have chosen, as a player, for some _very bad_ things to happen to my character, up to and including death. If it fit the mood and the story I spoke to the GM and asked for bad stuff to happen. And I play with a fair number of people that would do the same.


----------



## Desdichado

pemerton said:


> There is something on which I lack a firm grasp, that was raised by [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] at around post 50 or so upthread: in what circumstances does the use of mechanical alignment actually matter, in your game, if all these questions that actually come up in play are not resolved by reference to it?



Posts 90 and 95, to be precise.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac, are you honestly going to continue to argue that there are players out there, numerous enough that it would actually be an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified?  What kind of players do you play with?

Again, do you honestly believe that there are enough players out there to make it an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that torture is morally good?  That poison use is morally justified?

That's my problem with your examples N'raac - you are picking, to my mind and certainly my experience, bizarre examples that just would not come up.  Or would not come up often enough to ever be a problem.  

If the player is choosing these things out of expediency, then he's no longer acting in good faith.  He doesn't actually believe (or believe that his character believes) in his justifications - he's just trying to "win" D&D.  

Again, I cannot really believe that you've met more than one player who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified.


----------



## Desdichado

Hussar said:


> N'raac, are you honestly going to continue to argue that there are players out there, numerous enough that it would actually be an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified?  What kind of players do you play with?
> 
> Again, do you honestly believe that there are enough players out there to make it an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that torture is morally good?  That poison use is morally justified?
> 
> That's my problem with your examples N'raac - you are picking, to my mind and certainly my experience, bizarre examples that just would not come up.  Or would not come up often enough to ever be a problem.
> 
> If the player is choosing these things out of expediency, then he's no longer acting in good faith.  He doesn't actually believe (or believe that his character believes) in his justifications - he's just trying to "win" D&D.
> 
> Again, I cannot really believe that you've met more than one player who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified.



Believe.  And I specifically link that for the sole purpose of demonstrating that yes, such people do exist, and are, in fact, relatively commonplace in _our_ society.  This isn't some kind of out-there hypothetical scenario.

And if you don't believe that it's commonplace, do a Google search for apologia for the comments made in that hearing.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> N'raac, are you honestly going to continue to argue that there are players out there, numerous enough that it would actually be an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified?  What kind of players do you play with?[/.quote]
> 
> Wow, [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION], thanks for that very depressing link.  Compared to that, my "infiltrate the Evil cult  the baby will die either way and others will be saved" is starting to look downright LG!
> 
> 
> 
> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, do you honestly believe that there are enough players out there to make it an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that torture is morally good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Morally good" in isolation, or "morally justified" in certain circumstances?  Were you not among those asserting that two Paladins might reasonably differ on whether it was acceptable to torture the Mad Bomber's sister?
> 
> 
> 
> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That poison use is morally justified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "This court sentences the accused to death by lethal injection"  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection, it seems that this was perceive preferable to  electrocution (are Lightning Bolts and Shocking Grasps immoral?), hanging (we have asphyxiation spells, I believe), firing squad (missile attacks), gas chamber (oh look - more poison!), and beheading (melee damage).  Should use of those other means to defend the innocent also be considered morally unjustifiable?
> 
> I'm not sure whether poison use is a question of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos (honourable combat vs surreptitious means)?
> 
> 
> 
> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my problem with your examples N'raac - you are picking, to my mind and certainly my experience, bizarre examples that just would not come up.  Or would not come up often enough to ever be a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what are your examples of alignment calls that were not so readily justified that have detracted from your games?  I suspect those of us not seeing the issue would consider them bizarre examples that just would not come up with a reasonable GM, so I doubt they would resolve the issue, but it might be helpful to see where you are coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*f the player is choosing these things out of expediency,* then he's no longer acting in good faith.  He doesn't actually believe (or believe that his character believes) in his justifications - he's just trying to "win" D&D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who judges whether the choice is based on expediency or sincerity?  Surely not the GM, as your premise seems based on the belief his calls cannot be permitted to have any impact on the player's perception of his, or his character's, morality.  Who is qualified to judge the player's sincerity, but not his conception of honour?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hussar

If you cannot tell if your players are being sincere or not N'raac, I suggest talking with them out of game.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my campaign, there is a morally-laden cosmological question at issue - heavenly order vs primordial chaos. I don't think the alignment mechanics have anything to say to it at all, because the alignment mechanics do not tell me whether law or chaos is more desirable (and I do not see why a LN character should oppose a CN one any more than a peanut-butter eater should oppose a chocolate-eater)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite grasp how we have an order versus chaos conflict, if the lawfuls and the chaotics get along fine.  Conflict implies they don't get along so well.
Click to expand...


I don't quite follow your comment. As I said, I don't understand why a LN character - say, a stereotypical monk - should oppose a CN one - say, a stereotypical bard - any more than a peanut-butter eater should oppose a chocolate eater. They might have the odd snipe at one another, and they never dine together! But they're hardly going to go to war, are they? 

But what does the prospect of "lawfuls and chaotics getting along fine" have to do with a conflict between heavenly order and primordial chaos? My game does not have lawfuls and chaotics. It has gods and primordials (and their various allies, servants and devotees). The basis of their conflict has nothing to do with one being a monk and the other being a bard. It is grounded in their incompatible attempts to impose their wills upon the world - incompatible because they want to do fundamentally different things with it.



N'raac said:


> It is also inconsistent if the action is categorically Evil for PC 1 and definitively Good for PC 2.



This is highly contestable for at least two reasons. First, it assumes without argument that morality is not personal in any way - whereas many moral traditions (especially pacifist ones) require particular group members or role-holders to be under moral obligations that do not generalise across others. Second, it assumes without argument that various forms of moral subjectivism and relativism are false.



N'raac said:


> If the player decides his basically decent character decides to take any given action, we must accept that the action is benevolent and decent, since the PC's moral code calls for such and he can never be outside that moral code without player consent.



You seem not to understand what it means not to use mechanical alignment. That means that _there is no adjudication_ of the PC's morality. There is no such thing as an action being inside or outside the character's moral code, as far as the game's mechanics are concerned.

If a player decides that his/her "basically clever" character dives headfirst into the volcano in order to do some wacky thing with the lava, we are not obliged to judge that as clever. Nor are we obliged to judge otherwise, either. (Maybe there really was some wild genius behind the wacky plan.) Deciding whether a PC is clever or not is not part of the adjudicative framework of the game.



N'raac said:


> Whether we slap the NG label on the character or simply allow the player to say his character is a decent fellow who does the best that a good person can do, is devoted to helping others and works with legitimate authority but does not feel beholden to them - he believes in doing what is good without bias for or against order, we still have a description which we cannot gainsay.



What do you mean that "we cannot gainsay it"? Other participants in the game can gainsay it however they want. They can, in character, have the characters they control speak to the PC. They can, out of character, hurl abuse or dice at the player. It is no different from the player who describes his PC as clever but is regarded by other participants as a fool.

But none of these judgements have adjudicative significance.



N'raac said:


> Who judges whether the choice is based on expediency or sincerity?





Hussar said:


> If you cannot tell if your players are being sincere or not N'raac, I suggest talking with them out of game.



Hussar's reply is pretty good.

I'd add: players who are insincere, and are playing in a group where the general expectation is sincerity, are comparable to players who cheat on their dice rolls, in the sense that the proper response is not one that occurs within the context of play, and involves adjudicating actions. It is a completely outside-of-play response, where you work out whether or not this person is a good fit for the sort of game you want to play in.

OK, so maybe that doesn't add much to Hussar's point!



N'raac said:


> where the player decides, the PC is de facto immune.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The player deciding is *not* de facto immunity. I have chosen, as a player, for some _very bad_ things to happen to my character, up to and including death. If it fit the mood and the story I spoke to the GM and asked for bad stuff to happen. And I play with a fair number of people that would do the same.



In addition to Vyvyan Basterd's point, I would point to freeform social resolution, which I believe remains pretty popular among D&D players. In free from play of that sort, no one (PC or NPC) gets persuaded of anything except as a result of talking things out and then deciding how the character in question would react.

That doesn't mean that no NPC ever persuaded a PC of anything, nor vice versa.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'raac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be good role playing? Sure. Would it mean immediate alignment change? Why should it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know - I'm not the one who uses alignment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to frequently switch between having no idea how alignment works, as you don't use it, to being expert in its usage to determine how others would apply it and how that application would detract from your enjoyment of the game.  Which is it?
Click to expand...


Allow me to paraphrase, then: I don't care. 

(Although I also don't know. The situation is radically underspecified. Presumably there is a possible state within the framework of mechanical alignment where a character is so close to the precipice that any evil act, no matter how modest, will result in the loss of good alignment. Given that in asking the question you haven't given me any of this contextual information, how am I supposed to answer it? Or to flip it around: for all you know about the PC as played in my game it _should_ have led to immediate alignment change, because the PC was already really close to that precipice.)


----------



## pemerton

*Some stuff about how default 4e works*



N'raac said:


> So if my character wants a very specific item of treasure, can he simply toss away whatever else he finds until the GM gives him what he wants?



You are running together the character with the player. It is the player who provides the GM with a wishlist, not the character (who does not even know the GM exists, unless you're playing a break-the-fourth-wall style of game).

The weirdest thing about this, for me, is the player of a paladin even framing the discovery of poison as a discovery of treasure! Why is that treasure, for a paladin?

From the GMing point of view, the game is built around the assumption of so many parcels per PC per level. If the player of the paladin, for whatever reason, does treat the poison as a treasure then there's one of the parcels placed!

If you don't play in this way - if you make treasure an actual reward, for instance, as opposed to simply another aspect of player resources that accrues through play - then you are pushing back towards Gygaxian play. Which will of course push players towards expedience in the play of their characters. At which point mechanical alignment makes sense to me, as I first stated back in post 9 (though I personally am poor at GMing Gygaxian play and don't enjoy it much as a player).

********************************



N'raac said:


> As to loss of hp being comparable, we've danced that dance more than enough, I think.  Do the hit points just vanish with no mechanics behind their removal, or are they based on actual rolls failed by the player, or succeeded at by his enemies.



Hit point loss can occur for all sorts of reasons. For instance, a player might spend a healing surge to activate an ability of some sort (whether freeform or via a pre-specified power). A player might declare an action - like jumping into some dangerous terrain - that results in hit point loss if it succeeds but not if it fails (because the action having failed, the PC remains stuck in safe terrain).

There are all sorts of ways hit points can be lost beside failing a roll or having an enemy succeed at a roll. This is particularly significant in the adjudication of a skill challenge, because in a skill challenge _only the player's roll_, so the GM often has to introduce consequences for declared actions by reference to the fictional situation, with player successes modulating those consequences but not necessarily eliminating them all (eg the example from Mike Mearls in DMG2 that I posted upthread, where a consequence for success in helping recapture slaves is a penalty on subsequent Diplomacy checks made to charm slaves).

Once again, I feel that your comments display your unfamiliarity with some of the core techniques for adjudicating 4e, and particularly skill challenges.



N'raac said:


> You have consistently provided rules quotes on the consequences of failure to support the adjudication being simply part of the rules



By way of repetition (4e DMG 2, p 101, author Mike Mearls):

If the characters capture the slaves, they gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks involving guard patrols . . . but take a -5 penalty to all checks involving slaves and those sympathetic to them​
Although personally I had worked out the relevant principles of adjudication well before I read this example. So that this example came to me not as a revelation but as an instance of what I already knew to be the case.



N'raac said:


> while steadfastly refusing to indicate what roll the player failed to result in a negative consequences you imposed



The player didn't fail a roll. Failing a roll is not a necessary condition of suffering a consequence.

What is key is that the player elected _not to make _a roll: he did not try to contest Vecna, and thereby run the risk of losing control over the flow of souls. Rather, he took modest pleasure (both in character and for real) in the fact that his plan had worked: he had successfully got the benefit of the Eye of Vecna for some time, while setting up his familiar as a buffer between himself and Vecna's malign influence.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], you seemed mildly curious about the general tone and dynamics of the thread.

Here is a recent post in which I am told that I don't have enough evidence to know whether or not using mechanical alignment would be detrimental to my play experience (together with my reply, a very modest contribution to epistemology and the philosophy of science):



N'raac said:


> Absent the same play with and without alignment, and a comparative study, we have no evidential basis for any specific element adding to, or detracting from, play.



Are you being punched in the face right now? I assume not - yet presumably you are confident that if that were being punched right now, it would detract from your current experience.

I don't need a double-blind controlled study to know what things do and don't detract from my play experience. It's not that inaccessible. I have played with alignment. I have played without. I know what it's about. I know that, and also why, I don't enjoy its impact upon a game.

As I said in a part of my earlier post to which you did not respond, for any given set of ingame events, it is possible to achieve them via GM railroading. Yet such railroading would not be fun (for me, at least). It would be a detriment to my play experience. Which underscores my point, that the quality of a play experience is not dependent just upon the sequence of ingame events but also the experience of making choices, expressing emotions, experiencing these in others, etc, etc. The use of alignment changes the context and hence the nature of those choices, expressions and experiences in ways that I prefer them not be changed.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Yes. I would say it is the single most prominent strand in the posts in this thread from @_*Imaro*_ and @_*N'raac*_. It crops up in others' posts also.




I'm still waiting for an example of this (if it's the single most prominent strand in my posts shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples)... since IMO you are mistaken.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I'm still waiting for an example of this (if it's the single most prominent strand in my posts shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples)... since IMO you are mistaken.



Here are two that I found in a couple of minute's reading around about the late 500s:



Imaro said:


> The problem with the trust your players argument is that it ignores the fact that ultimately D&D is a game, a game where a player is advocating for their particular character. It is not a game where death only happens if the player agrees, it is not a game where you are constructing a "story" and it is not a game where individual awards, treasure, etc. are meaningless.  Thus there is plenty of impetus for a player to do what is convenient/best/optimized/etc. for their character...
> 
> I mean if I trust my players and they are all there to participate in a challenging but fun fantasy adventure... well shouldn't I *trust* them to select appropriately challenging monsters for themselves  and shouldn't I *trust* them to set appropriate DC's for themselves?  I mean if I can trust them to follow the edicts and code of a particular deity or cosmological force without advocating for themselves when it becomes easy or (in their minds) necessary for their characters survival... Why shouldn't I *trust* them to select appropriate treasure for their victories, or anything else in the game?   Yeah, as you can probably tell,  I'm not really buying the "player trust" argument.






Imaro said:


> there are literally hundreds if not thousands of fantasy role playing games that don't have alignment in them much less alignment with a mechanical effect.  In fact I am hard pressed to think of a game outside D&D (Besides clones) that uses alignment, in a way that directly impacts the game.  This, IMO and regardless of how minimal people try to paint alignment in earlier editions (which I generally disagree with but will leave that argument for another thread), is a true D&D-ism and I'm finding it hard to sympathize with those claiming it should be taken out of the game when there are so many other games without alignment.  This is one of those things where I feel like if you want alignment gone or morally subjective paladins... then perhaps you are looking for a different "story" than the one D&D has been designed (out of the box) to facilitate for the majority of it's run.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Here are two that I found in a couple of minute's reading around about the late 500s:




Where in these posts am I even commenting about you specifically?  I am expressing my particular views on a certain stance... or are we now at a point where, on a *discussion board* I have no right to post a dissenting opinion concerning alignment in relationship to yours?  If so what are we discussing?


EDIT: Just so we have some context here, this is what you claimed I have been doing...



pemerton said:


> I find it quite interesting to hear how others might be playing the game differently from me. I find it frustrating (and a little bit affronting, although not all that affronting - but that was the verb that was put into play by some of the posts I was replying to) to have posters try to tell me that if only I knew how to use alignment properly than I would find it to improve my experience.




And you were asked this...



JamesonCourage said:


> Out of curiosity, has this happened by the major players in this discussion? I don't know if it's happening or not, I just know that I never saw it when I poked my head in, but that was only for maybe one page every 10-15 that went by.





No where in the posts you quoted am I telling you that you don't understand alignment or if you used it properly it would improve anything... I am expressing my views concerning the "trust your players" argument that was presented and the claim of what the "D&D story"/should alignment be removed stance.  So again please provide an example of what you claim I have been doing...


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I don't quite follow your comment. As I said, I don't understand why a LN character - say, a stereotypical monk - should oppose a CN one - say, a stereotypical bard - any more than a peanut-butter eater should oppose a chocolate eater. They might have the odd snipe at one another, and they never dine together! But they're hardly going to go to war, are they?
> 
> But what does the prospect of "lawfuls and chaotics getting along fine" have to do with a conflict between heavenly order and primordial chaos?




The last seems to presuppose a conflict between Law and Chaos that goes beyond simple sniping.  If Chaos is actively seeing to undermine Law, and vice versa, in an epic fantasy manner, them simply getting along seems unlikely.  How many members of the Fellowship of the Ring thought that maybe Sauron might be a good choice to run the world, so perhaps we ought to give him a chance?  Really, that's just politics, right?  I mean, I like Aragorn, he's a great guy and fun at parties.  But he doesn't really have the political experience to run the North, does he?  Whereas Sauron has centuries of experience.



pemerton said:


> My game does not have lawfuls and chaotics. It has gods and primordials (and their various allies, servants and devotees). The basis of their conflict has nothing to do with one being a monk and the other being a bard. It is grounded in their incompatible attempts to impose their wills upon the world - incompatible because they want to do fundamentally different things with it.




So one wants a Lawful world and the other a Chaotic world, or so I presume.  Would not a Lawful character lean to a Lawful world, and a Chaotic character to a Chaotic one?  Now, most games I see focus largely on Good/Evil, and Law/Chaos does tend to play out much as you suggest - a bit of occasional sniping, and perhaps the occasional debate regarding tactics.



pemerton said:


> This is highly contestable for at least two reasons.




Again, not interested in real world history and philosophy of ethics.  Once these are tangible forces, many of the questions go away, in no small measure because the assumption of those active forces implements many of the assumptions you cite.  I don't need giants to abide by the cube/square law,  dragons whose flight and breath weapons can be scientifically duplicated or real world ethical philosophy to play a fantasy game.  I don't care that the geography could not exist, that the sociology is all wrong, that those economics could not exist (much like inflation and unemployment could not both be high under pre-1970's economic theory), that the political science is all wrong or that no society could make ends meet under this system of taxation. YMMV.



pemerton said:


> You seem not to understand what it means not to use mechanical alignment. That means that _there is no adjudication_ of the PC's morality. There is no such thing as an action being inside or outside the character's moral code, as far as the game's mechanics are concerned.




It has been repeatedly stated that the PLAYER defines whether any given action falls within the PC's moral code, so we are assuming all actions are within his moral code.  Where a character's abilities are derived from adherence to a moral code, the lack of any negative consequence for a given action presupposes those action were not inconsistent with that moral code ("Hey, Samson, get a haircut!")  It seems more correct to say that there are no mechanical consequences for actions within or outside the character's moral code, which removes any need to adjudicate it.



pemerton said:


> What do you mean that "we cannot gainsay it"? Other participants in the game can gainsay it however they want.




He still has all those powers and abilities gained and maintained by his ongoing state of grace within his moral code.  That seems pretty persuasive evidence, comparable to a mechanical alignment system's use of a Detection spell.



pemerton said:


> In addition to Vyvyan Basterd's point, I would point to freeform social resolution, which I believe remains pretty popular among D&D players. In free from play of that sort, no one (PC or NPC) gets persuaded of anything except as a result of talking things out and then deciding how the character in question would react.




This removes all characters from any binding social mechanics.  Resolution is at the whim of the player or the GM.  "No matter how persuasive your character is, you can never persuade the innkeeper to part with a free drink"  may not fit with some player's concept of their suave, persuasive character, so we remove some character concepts from the game by eliminating any social mechanisms.  On the flip side, nothing prevents every player describing their characters as highly persuasive if no investment of character resources in mechanical persuasiveness is required.  

While that is not my preferred approach either, it is at least consistent.  "The PC can never be swayed without the player's consent,. but NPC's are subject to diplomacy rolls" grants the PC's an ability NPC's can never have, an approach which has never sat right with me.



pemerton said:


> *Some stuff about how default 4e works*
> 
> You are running together the character with the player. It is the player who provides the GM with a wishlist, not the character (who does not even know the GM exists, unless you're playing a break-the-fourth-wall style of game).
> 
> The weirdest thing about this, for me, is the player of a paladin even framing the discovery of poison as a discovery of treasure! Why is that treasure, for a paladin?
> 
> From the GMing point of view, the game is built around the assumption of so many parcels per PC per level. If the player of the paladin, for whatever reason, does treat the poison as a treasure then there's one of the parcels placed!




It's treasure if it can be used to accomplish his goals of defeating the Tyrant Duke, so we're into a circle game.

So the Paladin smashes the vials to the floor - "Vile poisons - such a dishonourable villain who would stoop so low."  You owe me a different treasure package, GM.  "Gold and gemstones!  The love of money is the root of all evil.  Leave it lie in the filth it leads men to."  You owe me a different treasure package, GM.  Here's the short list of things my character is not morally opposed to taking as 'treasure'.



pemerton said:


> Hit point loss can occur for all sorts of reasons. For instance, a player might spend a healing surge to activate an ability of some sort (whether freeform or via a pre-specified power). A player might declare an action - like jumping into some dangerous terrain - that results in hit point loss if it succeeds but not if it fails (because the action having failed, the PC remains stuck in safe terrain).
> 
> There are all sorts of ways hit points can be lost beside failing a roll or having an enemy succeed at a roll. This is particularly significant in the adjudication of a skill challenge, because in a skill challenge _only the player's roll_, so the GM often has to introduce consequences for declared actions by reference to the fictional situation, with player successes modulating those consequences but not necessarily eliminating them all (eg the example from Mike Mearls in DMG2 that I posted upthread, where a consequence for success in helping recapture slaves is a penalty on subsequent Diplomacy checks made to charm slaves).
> 
> Once again, I feel that your comments display your unfamiliarity with some of the core techniques for adjudicating 4e, and particularly skill challenges.




Neither the comments by others more versed in 4e nor your own quotes from the rules leave me any more confidence that you were playing "by the book".  Your own quotes have all referred to "consequences of failure", yet no failure has been identified.  In any case, I find the question of whether it was "by the book" pretty much moot.  You're not running alignment by even the 4e book, are you?  Why is it in any way important that you be perceived to have run things "by the book"?  Clearly, you ran a game that both you and the player enjoyed - who cares whether it was "by the book"?



pemerton said:


> By way of repetition (4e DMG 2, p 101, author Mike Mearls):
> If the characters capture the slaves, they gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks involving guard patrols . . . but take a -5 penalty to all checks involving slaves and those sympathetic to them​





Seems like something that applies to all characters, not specific ones who have specific allegiances.  Got any where a penalty is specifically applied to a Paladin or Cleric for violating honour or the tenets of a deity, an invoker for ticking off one of his sources of power or a Warlock for breaching his Pact?​


pemerton said:


> The player didn't fail a roll. Failing a roll is not a necessary condition of suffering a consequence.




Yet all your rule cites refer to consequences of failure.  If he did not fail, then the result could not have been a consequence of failure, could it?


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> If you cannot tell if your players are being sincere or not N'raac, I suggest talking with them out of game.



IO

IOW, change any behaviour I might find undesirable by outside the game sticks rather than in-game sticks.  Ultimately, I believe the player is sincere in playing his character in a manner he believes will result in the most fun from the game.  Either his fun is compatible with the rest of the group's fun, or it is not.  In the latter case, something needs to be changed.  If the player views each and every possible effort towards a compromise that makes the game fun for everyone as "a stick", then we are not going to find a solution that works for everyone, are we?

I've certainly seen the occasional player who views the GM as an adversary, and any negative consequences, in game or out, applied to his actions, any adjudication which does not go his way and any possible failure in the game to be "a stick" used by the GM to "bludgeon the players".  I'm uncertain why such players keep playing at all - it seems like that would  be a very negative experience - but I have no desire to have them in my game.  But that goes far beyond alignment rules.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> If Chaos is actively seeing to undermine Law, and vice versa, in an epic fantasy manner, them simply getting along seems unlikely.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So one wants a Lawful world and the other a Chaotic world, or so I presume.  Would not a Lawful character lean to a Lawful world, and a Chaotic character to a Chaotic one?  Now, most games I see focus largely on Good/Evil, and Law/Chaos does tend to play out much as you suggest - a bit of occasional sniping, and perhaps the occasional debate regarding tactics.



I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not - you post all this stuff which looks like it's intended as rebuttal, then say that L/C plays out mostly as I describe. So in whay way am I wrong?

Any way, I think your bit about "lawful worlds" and "chaotic worlds" puts the cart before the horse. If you actually look at the personalities, why would the monk and bard be in conflict except for occasional sniping or practical jokes played by the bard on the monk? What does the monk want that the bard objects to? - even the bard doesn't object to the occasional quiet moment of meditation.

In 4e, the Primordials want to undo the world and remake it. The Gods want to preserve the world within the Lattice of Heaven. The explanation for their conflict is not that one is disciplined and the other unruly - in 4e Thor would side with the gods just as much as Heimdall or Tyr would.


**************************************




N'raac said:


> It has been repeatedly stated that the PLAYER defines whether any given action falls within the PC's moral cod



What do you think this means for play? It's like saying the player defines his/her PC's eye colour - it's not a statement about mechanics or adjudication, because _there is no mechanical alignment_.



N'raac said:


> Where a character's abilities are derived from adherence to a moral code, the lack of any negative consequence for a given action presupposes those action were not inconsistent with that moral code



I think you're missing the bigger picture. A player might _assert_ that his/her PC's power derives from being honourable. But the other players, and/or their PCs, can look at the PC's conduct and deny this. For instance, in my own game the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen (mostly in character, sometimes out of it) routinely denies the claims of the fighter/cleric of Moradin to be acting in a truly honourable way; and the player of the dwarf (generally in character) characterises the paladin as a worshipper of an evil god.

Because my game does not use mechanical alignment, there is no need to resolve this disupte as a comonent of the procedures of play. Is the paladin of the Raven Queen an honourable knight whose power derives from uprightness? Or the deluded servant of a power-hungry god-sorcerer? There is no mechanical answer to this question. It is a thematic question posed by, and addressed by, actual play. Different participants naturally respond to it in different ways.


********************************




N'raac said:


> "The PC can never be swayed without the player's consent,. but NPC's are subject to diplomacy rolls" grants the PC's an ability NPC's can never have, an approach which has never sat right with me.



The PC, like the NPC, has the capacity to persuade others. The player, unlike the GM, has a mechanical resource available.

These are quite different things.

The tradition of different resolution mechanics for PCs vs NPCs in respect of social conflicts also goes back a long way: in AD&D, for instance, NPCs but not PCs roll reaction on a random table, make morale checks to see if they are afraid or not, and make loyalty checks to see if they keep their word or not.


***************************************




N'raac said:


> It's treasure if it can be used to accomplish his goals of defeating the Tyrant Duke, so we're into a circle game.
> 
> So the Paladin smashes the vials to the floor - "Vile poisons - such a dishonourable villain who would stoop so low."  You owe me a different treasure package, GM.  "Gold and gemstones!  The love of money is the root of all evil.  Leave it lie in the filth it leads men to."  You owe me a different treasure package, GM.  Here's the short list of things my character is not morally opposed to taking as 'treasure'.



Are you describing? Projecting? What actual play examples do you have in mind.

Also, why are you supposing that it is the character who authors the wish list? That is something the player does.

If the player of the paladin wants build resources that will help him/her defeat the tyrant duke, why would s/he choose poison as one of those resources? S/he would ask the GM for something befitting his/her character conception. And why would it have to be looted. Virtually none of the treasure in my 4e game is looted. It is bestowed as gifts by allies or by the gods, or is created by the PCs themselves.



N'raac said:


> Your own quotes have all referred to "consequences of failure", yet no failure has been identified.



My quote from the DMG 2, p 101, does not refer to consequences of faiure. It refers to a -5 penalty consequent upon success.



N'raac said:


> Seems like something that applies to all characters, not specific ones who have specific allegiances.



It only applies to characters who help the guards recapture escaped slaves. How is that not a specific allegiance?


*********************************




N'raac said:


> not interested in real world history and philosophy of ethics.  Once these are tangible forces, many of the questions go away



I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion in the second sentence without using real-world reasoning.


----------



## Desdichado

N'raac said:


> I've certainly seen the occasional player who views the GM as an adversary, and any negative consequences, in game or out, applied to his actions, any adjudication which does not go his way and any possible failure in the game to be "a stick" used by the GM to "bludgeon the players".  I'm uncertain why such players keep playing at all - it seems like that would  be a very negative experience - but I have no desire to have them in my game.  But that goes far beyond alignment rules.



I'm not so vain as to think that this is directed towards me in any way.  Nor am I so OCD that I feel the omission of a number of details from this scenario is a problem.  But since I literally used those exact words earlier in this thread, I'll offer up this probably completely unnecessary and superfluous preemptive aside anyway.

First, it is entirely possible for a GM to abuse that role and actually bludgeon his players without that being an issue on the side of the players.  Just saying.  I know you didn't say otherwise, but I think there's the risk of that being implied.  The "totatitarian temptation", to use Jonah Goldberg's phrase, is seductive to most people in our society, and GM's, who feel a sense of ownership, big picture vision, and "I know what this game needs better than the players" rather easily are hardly immune from it.  When this happens, this clearly isn't a player issue.  Although I do agree with your later sentiment expressed above; I don't know why a player would wish to game in such an environment.  And I say this as a gamer who primarily identifies with the GM's side of the screen, although naturally I play on both sides frequently.

Secondly, even players and GMs that don't normally have any kind of adversarial or antagonistic relationship often find, in my experience, the catalyst needed to develop traits of one in alignment, which is a flaw with the concept of alignment, and not with the character traits of either the player or the GM.  This is, indeed, my fundamental bone to pick with alignment and it's twofold: 1) it crosses the line between what is GM territory and what is player territory in rather overt terms.  Not to make light of obviously much more serious situations, but in a gaming group dynamic, it's like Germany invading the Sudetenland or Russian invading the Crimea (good heavens, I Godwined myself.  But I trust that that _won't_ actual derail the discussion.)  It's the GM using the system to enforce, or at least penalize, player behavior.  And not in in-game ways (like if your character insults the duke, his guards throw you out of the duchy, or put you in the stocks, or whatever) it's in a much more cosmological, metagamish manner.  The entire concept grates the wrong way against me, and it hardly requires an antagonistic player who wants all adjudications to go his way to get that vibe out of alignment.  Especially when applied to a class in which alignment restrictions are part and parcel of the mechanics.  

And 2) it's so poorly defined, poorly expressed, poorly understood, and subject to so many wildly differing interpretations that barring the extremely unlikely coincidence of all players and the GM being on exactly the same page as to what alignment actually means, it is a constant source of conflict.  Sure, by "conflict" I might mean that the player accepts what the GM says without complaint and moves on, but even in that case, the potential of the game, and the satisfaction in the game is not insignificantly diminished for the player.


----------



## jsaving

N'raac said:


> The last seems to presuppose a conflict between Law and Chaos that goes beyond simple sniping.  If Chaos is actively seeing to undermine Law, and vice versa, in an epic fantasy manner, them simply getting along seems unlikely.



There seem to be a couple of thoughts permeating the various posts on this.  One is that Law and Chaos are about as relevant to one's overall moral philosophy/outlook as one's taste for peanut butter versus chocolate, and it would therefore be deeply unreasonably to expect much conflict between them except perhaps when splitting a candy bar.  Another is that Law and Chaos are deeply important, but only in an abstract sense because everyone understands the key struggle is whether Good-aligned characters can defend their "points of light" against Evil.  And in campaigns that see Law and Chaos this way, it *is* hard to see why they'd provoke much infighting amongst Team Good or Team Evil.

But Law and Chaos may have much greater practical relevance in campaigns that treat them differently.  Historically (and by "historically" I am referring primarily to the Moorcock novels from which Gygax got the idea), Law wanted to freeze the universe in amber whereas Chaos wanted to bring it down around everyone's ears, with individual allegiances shifting between these two primal universal forces depending on whether their momentary interests were best served by preserving the status quo or disrupting it.  Later on came the idea of chaotics defending their right to "be left alone" versus the modron-type central planner slotting everybody into (what he deems to be) their most efficient role to produce a harmonious and effective society.  These kinds of concerns echo much more deeply into the real-world concerns people face and might be a lot more likely to fracture people who genuinely want to help people but disagree on proper means.

Take the LE ruler who rids the land of its formerly pervasive bandits and sets about single-mindedly putting people where they can best boost societal productivity with a partial end-goal of enriching himself.  As the creator and maintainer of a "point of light," albeit one with a somewhat sinister tinge, a significant chunk of his Good-aligned citizenry might be inclined to support him over a CG alternative who would scrap government so  that each individual could rise to their maximum potential unshackled by outside interference.  The CGs may be more than a little disturbed as their ranks swell with CEs (who don't care about anyone's potential but just want to be able to get away with as much as they can), whereas the LEs might chuckle to see LGs signing on in droves (who hate the heavy-handedness of the regime but see the abolition of government as a surrender to the marauding hordes who forever lurk on the fringes of the city).

These kinds of tradeoffs don't really exist in 4e, because LG and G are explicitly defined as "getting along just fine" despite some minor disagreements -- much like the peanut butter and chocolate analogy some have been using in this thread.  But then again, unlike past editions, 4e didn't view Law and Chaos as impersonal forces battling for all eternity and constantly seeking new adherents for their cosmic war.  For those who do see Law and Chaos in this way, it's no surprise they find themselves baffled by the PB/chocolate analogy.  But this isn't because of a "misunderstanding" in the conventional sense, but rather because the editions (4th especially) just have a radically different notion of what Law/Chaos mean, that carries through to expectations about how important they can or should be in everyday gameplay.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> @_*JamesonCourage*_, you seemed mildly curious about the general tone and dynamics of the thread.
> 
> Here is a recent post in which I am told that I don't have enough evidence to know whether or not using mechanical alignment would be detrimental to my play experience (together with my reply, a very modest contribution to epistemology and the philosophy of science):



Yeah, he's wrong.

I also specifically asked about accusations of "bad RP" or "poor GMing" from major players in this thread, if you have any of those.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> Historically (and by "historically" I am referring primarily to the Moorcock novels from which Gygax got the idea), Law wanted to freeze the universe in amber whereas Chaos wanted to bring it down around everyone's ears



OK, but I dont' see what this has to do with my stereotypical LN monk or my stereotypical CN bard. The monk wants to meditate. The bard wants to play practical jokes and have a good time. Unless someone actually forces the two to live in the same very small house for weeks at a time with no escape, I don't see that they are going to come to blows. The bard can find someone else with whom to go to the pub; and if the monk is too disturbed by the ensuing noise, s/he can go and medidate in a field on the outskirts of town.

In other words, AD&D and 3E don't share the Moorcockian conception of Law and Chaos. It figures more prominently in B/X, and also in 4e (although in my game at least the conflict between heavenly order and primordial chaos is not about the fate of society but the fate of the mortal world).



jsaving said:


> Take the LE ruler who rids the land of its formerly pervasive bandits and sets about single-mindedly putting people where they can best boost societal productivity with a partial end-goal of enriching himself.



I don't really see in what way this person is evil, at least at this level of description. What is evil about ending banditry and boosting production? Or about self-enrichment, for that matter, which is a goal that nearly all contemporary people have.



jsaving said:


> As the creator and maintainer of a "point of light," albeit one with a somewhat sinister tinge, a significant chunk of his Good-aligned citizenry might be inclined to support him over a CG alternative who would scrap government so  that each individual could rise to their maximum potential unshackled by outside interference.



As you have described it I'm not seeing the sinister tinge. Unless your reference to "putting people where they can best boost societal productivity" is a reference to enslavement or something similar. But in that case why would good people support this ruler?

For me, your example drives home my broader difficulties with Law and Chaos as expressions of personal social theory: AD&D and 3E build in an assumption that someone's view about freedom and regulation can be divorced from the view of human welfare. Whereas in fact every serious thinker, from Milton Friedman to Karl Marx, has favoured a view about freedom and regulation because of it's connection to human welfare. When John Rawls, for instance, describes libertarian "government" as not only unjust but not even decent, he is not leaving it an open question whether or not it is good. He thinks that it is an evil. But D&D forces Rawls to imagine that someone can be a committed libertarian who is nevertheless good, because it insists that Rawls accept that CG is a feasible moral outlook.

For me, that is not really coherent.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not - you post all this stuff which looks like it's intended as rebuttal, then say that L/C plays out mostly as I describe. So in what way am I wrong?




In the typical game world, my experience is that Good and Evil are in a state of open warfare, while Law and Chaos are existing in fairly peaceful co-existence.  I recall one published scenario which structured a mixed G/N/E band of Lawfuls against a force of Chaotics, but I don’t ever recall seeing a second.


The original rules had Law, Neutral and Chaos, but “Law” rapidly became “Good” and “Chaos” became “Evil”.  An old White Dwarf article proposed the 2 axis grid (using Dr. Who and the Daleks to suport CG and LE), which went into Basic, and AD&D, and then came out of BECMI.  The original Moorcock source never really made it into the game materials.



pemerton said:


> In 4e, the Primordials want to undo the world and remake it. The Gods want to preserve the world within the Lattice of Heaven. The explanation for their conflict is not that one is disciplined and the other unruly - in 4e Thor would side with the gods just as much as Heimdall or Tyr would.




As I read your earlier posts, the Primordial vs Gods conflict seemed like Law vs Chaos.  That may have been a misread on my part.  What does the Lawful Monk and Chaotic Bard  have to do with the Primordials vs the Gods (some of the latter being chaotic – not sure whether any of the former are Lawful)?



pemerton said:


> What do you think this means for play? It's like saying the player defines his/her PC's eye colour - it's not a statement about mechanics or adjudication, because _there is no mechanical alignment_.




Eye colour seems more objectively measured to me.  I would suggest the player defines his character’s attitudes and outlooks.  The observer defines them, subjectively with no objective alignment rules, as “Good” or “Evil”, “Lawful” or “Chaotic”.  Maybe some people think that Bard’s more Neutral, or even Lawful, based on his overall behaviour.  Maybe some in his order view that Monk as a Chaotic influence, out adventuring with musicians, of all things, instead of meditating on a proper schedule.



pemerton said:


> The PC, like the NPC, has the capacity to persuade others. The player, unlike the GM, has a mechanical resource available.
> 
> These are quite different things.




Why have mechanics for persuasion at all?  Why not just let the player tell you whether his character is persuasive or not?  He gets to decide his character is stubborn and impossible to persuade, why not how persuasive he is as well?



pemerton said:


> The tradition of different resolution mechanics for PCs vs NPCs in respect of social conflicts also goes back a long way: in AD&D, for instance, NPCs but not PCs roll reaction on a random table, make morale checks to see if they are afraid or not, and make loyalty checks to see if they keep their word or not.




I can’t argue that this is not a longstanding tradition of D&D rules.  It’s been around as long as, say, fighters and wizards – as long as hardy Dwarves and agile Elves.  Why, it’s been around as long as mechanical alignment!  J



pemerton said:


> Also, why are you supposing that it is the character who authors the wish list? That is something the player does.




The Paladin decides what he will take as treasure and what he will leave as he does not value it.  The player is just helping you out by telling you what his character considers trash, and what is treasure.



pemerton said:


> My quote from the DMG 2, p 101, does not refer to consequences of faiure. It refers to a -5 penalty consequent upon success.
> 
> It only applies to characters who help the guards recapture escaped slaves. How is that not a specific allegiance?




They can recapture the slaves for any reason, and any PC could do so.  Which other PC’s could have had a character resource removed by Vecna for their interference?  I view that bonus/penalty structure as a social interaction result of their activity.  They did not lose a character resource – no one has a lesser or greater diplomacy or intimidate skill.  The circumstantial bonus or penalty applied to specific applications of the skills have changed due to a change in the circumstances.




pemerton said:


> I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion in the second sentence without using real-world reasoning.





“Once these [Law, Chaos, Evil and Good] are tangible forces, many of the questions go away”?  I don’t need any real world history and philosophy of ethics to reach those conclusions.  Do you know of a lot of objectively tested real world moral theories?  I don’t think we have tangible, verifiable forces of these concepts in the real world, but maybe I have missed them.  



Hobo said:


> I'm not so vain as to think that this is directed towards me in any way. Nor am I so OCD that I feel the omission of a number of details from this scenario is a problem. But since I literally used those exact words earlier in this thread, I'll offer up this probably completely unnecessary and superfluous preemptive aside anyway.




FWIW, I was not directing anything towards you.  But your comments are good ones, and welcome.



Hobo said:


> First, it is entirely possible for a GM to abuse that role and actually bludgeon his players without that being an issue on the side of the players. Just saying. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I think there's the risk of that being implied. The "totatitarian temptation", to use Jonah Goldberg's phrase, is seductive to most people in our society, and GM's, who feel a sense of ownership, big picture vision, and "I know what this game needs better than the players" rather easily are hardly immune from it. When this happens, this clearly isn't a player issue. Although I do agree with your later sentiment expressed above; I don't know why a player would wish to game in such an environment. And I say this as a gamer who primarily identifies with the GM's side of the screen, although naturally I play on both sides frequently.




Either side, or both, can definitely be at fault.  My focus was on the “problem player”, and your comments add some balance to that – thanks!



Hobo said:


> Secondly, even players and GMs that don't normally have any kind of adversarial or antagonistic relationship often find, in my experience, the catalyst needed to develop traits of one in alignment, which is a flaw with the concept of alignment, and not with the character traits of either the player or the GM. This is, indeed, my fundamental bone to pick with alignment and it's twofold: 1) it crosses the line between what is GM territory and what is player territory in rather overt terms. Not to make light of obviously much more serious situations, but in a gaming group dynamic, it's like Germany invading the Sudetenland or Russian invading the Crimea (good heavens, I Godwined myself. But I trust that that _won't_ actual derail the discussion.) It's the GM using the system to enforce, or at least penalize, player behavior. And not in in-game ways (like if your character insults the duke, his guards throw you out of the duchy, or put you in the stocks, or whatever) it's in a much more cosmological, metagamish manner. The entire concept grates the wrong way against me, and it hardly requires an antagonistic player who wants all adjudications to go his way to get that vibe out of alignment. Especially when applied to a class in which alignment restrictions are part and parcel of the mechanics.




The problem player I envision would be no more accepting of the Duke punishing their rudeness.  To me, however, alignment pushes the Cosmological Force into a role not too dissimilar from that of the Duke – a powerful NPC who may take offense and/or action based on the actions of the PC’s.



Hobo said:


> And 2) it's so poorly defined, poorly expressed, poorly understood, and subject to so many wildly differing interpretations that barring the extremely unlikely coincidence of all players and the GM being on exactly the same page as to what alignment actually means, it is a constant source of conflict. Sure, by "conflict" I might mean that the player accepts what the GM says without complaint and moves on, but even in that case, the potential of the game, and the satisfaction in the game is not insignificantly diminished for the player.




While I can’t dispute that issues can arise when the rules are less than clear, I don’t think that’s less of an issue for many other rules.  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I had some lengthy discussion on whether Planar Binding equals unlimited wishes from Glabrezu, as one small example.



pemerton said:


> I don't really see in what way this person is evil, at least at this level of description. What is evil about ending banditry and boosting production? Or about self-enrichment, for that matter, which is a goal that nearly all contemporary people have.




At the risk of setting off a firestorm, are we to accept that a goal shared by much of contemporary society is necessarily Good?  I think Mother Theresa is widely considered Good, and she would have been under a vow of perpetual poverty, I think.  I don’t recall Ghandi or Mandela doing a lot of product endorsements.

Too far into real world already, so I’ll just delete your latest jaunt into philosophy of ethics.  Maybe someone else will want to discuss that with you.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> OK, but I dont' see what this has to do with my stereotypical LN monk or my stereotypical CN bard. The monk wants to meditate. The bard wants to play practical jokes and have a good time. Unless someone actually forces the two to live in the same very small house for weeks at a time with no escape, I don't see that they are going to come to blows.



You are right that the personality-quirk aspects of Law and Chaos, like meditation and carousing, wouldn't prompt much in the way of fundamental disagreement.  It's the other aspects of Law and Chaos that cause problems -- "wanting to have a good time" is one minor manifestation of the bard's desire to be free from external structure/judgment, while "wanting to meditate" is one minor manifestation of the monk's desire to have everyone understand and accept their proper placement in the greater whole.  And *those* aspects of the stereotypical LN monk and CN bard are much more problematic from a "can't we all just get along" point of view.



pemerton said:


> For me, your example drives home my broader difficulties with Law and Chaos as expressions of personal social theory: AD&D and 3E build in an assumption that someone's view about freedom and regulation can be divorced from the view of human welfare. Whereas in fact every serious thinker, from Milton Friedman to Karl Marx, has favoured a view about freedom and regulation because of it's connection to human welfare. When John Rawls, for instance, describes libertarian "government" as not only unjust but not even decent, he is not leaving it an open question whether or not it is good. He thinks that it is an evil. But D&D forces Rawls to imagine that someone can be a committed libertarian who is nevertheless good, because it insists that Rawls accept that CG is a feasible moral outlook. For me, that is not really coherent.



I agree with much of what you wrote here.  Friedman picks CG rather than LG for his alignment in part because he sees freedom and altruism as inextricably bound together, whereas Rawls makes the opposite judgment and opts for LG rather than CG.  But the fact that Friedman sees no legitimate way for a genuinely altruistic person to favor social democracy doesn't make him correct, nor does Rawls' view of libertarianism as a stalking horse for selfishness make him correct.  All it does is say that they feel very strongly that their alignments are the right way to go, which is after all what alignment is supposed to signify in-game.

I *do* expect that there'd be deep disagreements over the number of people they'd expect to occupy each square of the alignment grid if we could see what alignments people in society truly have.  Rawls would be deeply convinced that those who claim to combine selflessness with a love of freedom (CG) secretly want that freedom so they can prey on the innocent, and he would therefore expect to see the CE square chock-full while the CG square would be essentially empty.  On the other hand, the Chicago economists would "know" social democracy is just a stalking horse for the road to serfdom and would expect everyone who espouses LG sentiments to secretly be LE and show up as such when tested.  

But I don't see either of these perspectives as invalidating the 9-square alignment model or "forcing" anybody to acknowledge the legitimacy of each square.  If anything, these perspectives actually reinforce (at least to me) the importance of the Law/Chaos dimension and demonstrate how and why it can fracture Team Good, with CGs and LGs each deeming the other's point of view to be illegitimate...


----------



## Hussar

To be fair though, the Lawful/Chaotic axis has been largely ignored throughout much of DnD. Most conflicts have been presented in terms if good and evil. 

And to me this fits with genre. Fantasy is usually about morality stories. Good vs evil. Good vs good. Evil vs evil. Fantasy is rarely grounded in ethics which is where lawful and chaotic are derived. 

To me SF does ethics much better.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> the fact that Friedman sees no legitimate way for a genuinely altruistic person to favor social democracy doesn't make him correct, nor does Rawls' view of libertarianism as a stalking horse for selfishness make him correct.  All it does is say that they feel very strongly that their alignments are the right way to go, which is after all what alignment is supposed to signify in-game.
> 
> I *do* expect that there'd be deep disagreements over the number of people they'd expect to occupy each square of the alignment grid if we could see what alignments people in society truly have.
> 
> <snip>.
> 
> But I don't see either of these perspectives as invalidating the 9-square alignment model or "forcing" anybody to acknowledge the legitimacy of each square.  If anything, these perspectives actually reinforce (at least to me) the importance of the Law/Chaos dimension and demonstrate how and why it can fracture Team Good, with CGs and LGs each deeming the other's point of view to be illegitimate...



Your first paragraph I can agree with (though there may be issues of simple ignorance or confusion, rather than actual malice, diagnosed by both sides). It is in the second paragraph, and then bridging that to the last paragraph I've quoted that I find alignment breaks down.

In D&D, Rawls (or Friedman or whomever) can cast Know Alignment (or Detect X in 3E) and learn that someone is good. And when Rawls casts Detect Good, he gets told that a CG person is good and that a LG person is good. The spell doesn't tell him that one is more good than the other (eg it doesn't make the LG people register as really good, and the CG people register as "well-intentioned but confused about social and economic causation"). Likwise, in reverse, for Friedman.

That is why I think D&D does force those within the gameworld to acknowledge the legitimacy of each square, and therefore leads to incoherence. Because a LG person is obliged to acknowledge the full goodness of a CG person, and vice versa. (Evil might have a parallel issue, but I'm not even sure that overt commitment to evil makes sense, so the notion of a CE person forming the view that a LE person is not really evil enough isn't as clear to me. That's why I choose LG and CG as my examples.)

A single spectrum model, like early classic D&D and 4e, doesn't have the same problem. I'm not in love with those systems either, but I don't find them literally incoherent.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> As I read your earlier posts, the Primordial vs Gods conflict seemed like Law vs Chaos.  That may have been a misread on my part.  What does the Lawful Monk and Chaotic Bard  have to do with the Primordials vs the Gods (some of the latter being chaotic – not sure whether any of the former are Lawful)?



In my game there is a conflict between (most of) the Gods, and (most of) the Primordials. Heavenly order - reaching its ultimate expression in the Lattice of Heaven - and elemental chaos. (There is a subsidiary conflict between the Gods and the Demon Lords, who want dissolution without recreation. Though for the chaos drow, this is not subsidiary, because it establishes the Primordials as the middle-way between two extremes, whereas the more mainstream perspective sees a dichotomy rather than two extremes with a middle.)

My point about the monk and bard is that Law and Chaos as expressed in AD&D and 3E (i) don't have much bearing on the cosmological question in my game, which is much more about design and creation rather than discipline and irresolution (which is how Law and Chaos tend to be framed), and (ii) to explain why I find the L-C part of mechanical alignment even less helpful than the G-E part. In particular, nothing in AD&D or 3E tells me which of Law or Chaos is more desirable - in fact the mechanics of the game require me to treat either as a completely rational object of desire, whereas the rules make it quite clear that evil is undesirable (see "X Evil is the worst because . . .), whereas for the players in my game choosing whether to opt for heavenly order or elemental chaos is something they have to do. And in respect of which they might benefit from guidance. Which alignment mechanics, in my view, do not provide.



N'raac said:


> I would suggest the player defines his character’s attitudes and outlooks.



I still don't know what you mean by this. A player plays his/her character. Through that play, and how the player characterises the PC both in and out of character, we get a sense of how the player views the PC. Just as we learn whether the player thinks his/her PC is clever, or subtle, or ruthless, so we learn whether the player thinks his/her PC is honourable, or wretched, or whatever.

It is not part of the PC building process, nor the action resolution/adjudication process, to determine whether the player's conceptions of his/her PC are correct. That's what it means to play without mechanical alignment.



N'raac said:


> Why have mechanics for persuasion at all?  Why not just let the player tell you whether his character is persuasive or not?  He gets to decide his character is stubborn and impossible to persuade, why not how persuasive he is as well?



Because we are demarcating what parts of the gameworld the player is in control of, what parts the GM is in control of, and what parts are determined via action resolution. The sort of symmetry you are arguing for - as if it was a matter of justice between players and . . . (whom?) . . . - doesn't really resonate with me.

Do you think the game you're describing would be much fun to play? I'd need to see the details, but to me it doesn't sound that promising without more. (Eg if once per session the "persuasive" player can spend a token to declare that one NPC has changed his/her mind on one topic, maybe that could work.)

I know that the approach I'm using does make for a sastifactory and satisfying game.



N'raac said:


> The Paladin decides what he will take as treasure and what he will leave as he does not value it.  The player is just helping you out by telling you what his character considers trash, and what is treasure.



Yes. That's my point. It is the player who authors the wishlist, including by playing the paladin. The paladin doesn't know that treasure is a rationed resource like hit points or skills or any other aspect of PC build. That player does, though, and in all those matters makes choices and advises the GM accordingly.



N'raac said:


> Do you know of a lot of objectively tested real world moral theories?  I don’t think we have tangible, verifiable forces of these concepts in the real world, but maybe I have missed them.



I think you are expressing opinions here that violate board rules. So I won't pursue them further.



N'raac said:


> At the risk of setting off a firestorm, are we to accept that a goal shared by much of contemporary society is necessarily Good?  I think Mother Theresa is widely considered Good, and she would have been under a vow of perpetual poverty, I think.  I don’t recall Ghandi or Mandela doing a lot of product endorsements.



I don't see any particular connection between product endorsements and earning money via effort. (I don't think Benjamin Franklin would see any particular connection there either.)

Most contemporary Catholics would, I think, regard the vow of poverty taken by nuns and others as superogatory - a good that is exemplary, but not obligatory for everyone to achieve. They would accept that one can be good without being poor.

D&D has certainly never taken the view that being a good PC requires being poor, or that aspiring to material well-being constitutes an evil action.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Yes. That's my point. It is the player who authors the wishlist, including by playing the paladin. The paladin doesn't know that treasure is a rationed resource like hit points or skills or any other aspect of PC build. That player does, though, and in all those matters makes choices and advises the GM accordingly.




And, by building his character to accept only specific items as "treasure", it follows that you must respond by delivering those treasures, to keep his treasure packets on par with his level.  Not really different from letting him design/select/assign his own treasure within a wealth guideline.  But if he chooses to use poisons, and chooses to classify that as honourable, then clearly whatever power he serves does not disagree to the extent of removing his powers, his state of grace remains, and it seems his use of poison must be honourable.



pemerton said:


> I think you are expressing opinions here that violate board rules. So I won't pursue them further.




I am quite happy to have no further discussions of real world ethical and moral philosophy.



pemerton said:


> I don't see any particular connection between product endorsements and earning money via effort. (I don't think Benjamin Franklin would see any particular connection there either.)
> 
> Most contemporary Catholics would, I think, regard the vow of poverty taken by nuns and others as superogatory - a good that is exemplary, but not obligatory for everyone to achieve. They would accept that one can be good without being poor.
> 
> D&D has certainly never taken the view that being a good PC requires being poor, or that aspiring to material well-being constitutes an evil action.




Funny...my question was whether we are to take anything accepted by much of contemporary society is necessarily Good.  I then provided a few examples of people I believe contemporary society consider Good who clearly did not share the goal you suggested was in no way tinged with evil.  Your response is to attack the examples, rather than to answer the question.

The question remains *"are we to accept that a goal shared by much of contemporary society is  necessarily Good?"  *I will refrain from cluttering the question with any further examples to avoid distracting from it.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> In D&D, Rawls (or Friedman or whomever) can cast Know Alignment (or Detect X in 3E) and learn that someone is good. And when Rawls casts Detect Good, he gets told that a CG person is good and that a LG person is good. The spell doesn't tell him that one is more good than the other (eg it doesn't make the LG people register as really good, and the CG people register as "well-intentioned but confused about social and economic causation"). Likwise, in reverse, for Friedman.
> 
> That is why I think D&D does force those within the gameworld to acknowledge the legitimacy of each square, and therefore leads to incoherence. Because a LG person is obliged to acknowledge the full goodness of a CG person, and vice versa.



Very thought-provoking, but perhaps I can tweak your argument a bit in a way that might prompt at least a degree of consensus.  D&D does force those within the gameworld to acknowledge there will be people who _perceive_ synergies between Chaos and Good and therefore occupy the CG alignment square.  What it does NOT do is force anyone to acknowledge such people actually end up serving the broader, small-g good.  To the extent an LGer, for example, "knows" libertarian principles necessarily undermine Good rather than boosting it, he "understands" that CG is an intellectual fraud no matter how fervently its adherents might believe otherwise and "recognizes" much suffering will be inflicted on innocents if CGers were to have their way with the world.  CGers might even come to be seen as a greater threat than Team Evil due to its "fifth column" aspect.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> And, by building his character to accept only specific items as "treasure", it follows that you must respond by delivering those treasures, to keep his treasure packets on par with his level.  Not really different from letting him design/select/assign his own treasure within a wealth guideline.



What do you mean "not really different"?

A wishlist system is no different from letting the player choose, except that it puts the actually timing/context of delivery into the hands of the GM.

But it can be very different from letting the PC choose. From the PC's point of view there may be no choice at all.



N'raac said:


> But if he chooses to use poisons, and chooses to classify that as honourable, then clearly whatever power he serves does not disagree to the extent of removing his powers, his state of grace remains, and it seems his use of poison must be honourable.



First, this strikes me as unrelated to the earlier poison example. It was argued that, in 4e, a paladin has no reason not to use poison. I provided some reasons, namely, that the amount of treasure to which the PC has access (at least in default 4e) is capped within the parcel system, and so the player has no motivation to take his/her parcels in poison form.

Second, your comment seems confused in the same way I diagnosed not very far upthread. The player might assert that his/her paladin is the honourable warrior of an honourable god. _But no one else, either in the game or at the table, is bound to believe this._ For instance, as I have mentioned multiple times, the players of the two paladins in my game - the paladin of the Raven Queen and the fighter/cleric of Moradin - snipe at one another, and at one another's gods, constantly in game. The paladin of the Raven Queen regards the dwarf as self-deluded, thinking he pursues important matters but in fact unable to see beyond petty concerns to cosmological truth. The "paladin" of Moradin sees the Raven Queen as an evil god and her servant as, at best, amoral. But hardly honourable.

Part of the point of not using an alignment system is to create space at the table for this sort of disagreement about whether characters and gods really live up to their professed ideals. There is no "objective" answer. Whereas you are positing that everyone is bound to agree with the player. That is not how it works at my table, and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has made it clear it doesn't work like that at his table either.



N'raac said:


> I then provided a few examples of people I believe contemporary society consider Good who clearly did not share the goal you suggested was in no way tinged with evil.  Your response is to attack the examples



I didn't attack the examples. I pointed out that vows of poverty have almost always been regarded as superogatory rather than obligatory.

Your comment is puzzling in another way. From the fact that pursuit of material wellbeing is compatible with goodness (assuming that to be so) it doesn't follow that renouncing material wellbeing must be evil. There can be more than one way of living a good life. (And given the role differentiation that has always characterised human life, especially in the contemporary economy, one would want this to be so!)



N'raac said:


> I am quite happy to have no further discussions of real world ethical and moral philosophy.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The question remains *"are we to accept that a goal shared by much of contemporary society is  necessarily Good?"  *



*I'm not sure how I'm meant to comply with both of these at once.

But from the point of view of the game designers, I wouldn't design a game that is founded on a premise that most of my customers and players are evil!*


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> D&D does force those within the gameworld to acknowledge there will be people who _perceive_ synergies between Chaos and Good and therefore occupy the CG alignment square.  What it does NOT do is force anyone to acknowledge such people actually end up serving the broader, small-g good.



This would be one way of handling it, I guess. I've always taken it for granted that Detect X detects "realities" rather than the targeted being's perceptions/hopes/aspirations. But perhaps I was wrong about that.


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ... Are wishlists a "rule" of 4e?  Or are they a suggestion for a certain play style?  I don't feel like pulling my 4e DMG out at the moment but I could have sworn it was more a suggestion or an option as opposed to the default rules for 4e treasure.  Also don't essentials have rules for random generation of treasure?  And if so aren't essentials the most current rules, you definitely refer to them as far as SC's are concerned don't you?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ... Are wishlists a "rule" of 4e?  Or are they a suggestion for a certain play style?  I don't feel like pulling my 4e DMG out at the moment but I could have sworn it was more a suggestion or an option as opposed to the default rules for 4e treasure.  Also don't essentials have rules for random generation of treasure?  And if so aren't essentials the most current rules, you definitely refer to them as far as SC's are concerned don't you?



I have described wishlists as default 4e. The Essentials Rules Compendium advocates them on p 299 (though for reasons that I personally don't agree with, says that Rare items should be an exception).

The randomness of Essentials treasure is not about item selection but about randomising the number of parcels.

As I have now posted several times, if you play 4e in a more Gygaxian style, in which player choices can vary the amount of treasure PCs receive, then players have an incentive to be expedient in improving their stock of player resources. This is the original context in which mechanical alignment was invented, precisely to force some players not to be expedient in return for other benefits. (The issue in 4e would be that there are no benefits for playing a good PC - it doesn't increase your access to healing or Raise Dead as it does in classic D&D, and paladins are not mechanically stronger than other PCs.)

If that is why you want to use mechanical alignment, go to town! It doesn't change the fact that, for me, mechanical alignment is an impediment to my game experience (given I'm playing default, non-Gygaxian, 4e).

It would also be odd to insist on the necessity for alignment to dissuade player expedience in an otherwise Gygaxian game and yet deny that it is the GM's role to use alignment to place pressure on the players to have their PCs act in certain ways.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I have described wishlists as default 4e. The Essentials Rules Compendium advocates them on p 299 (though for reasons that I personally don't agree with, says that Rare items should be an exception).
> 
> The randomness of Essentials treasure is not about item selection but about randomising the number of parcels.




EDIT: I know what stance *you* take, I was asking what the default stance in the game was...

Okay, I looked in my DMG and I see that wishlists are about magic items... we're talking about poison which would be a consumable or a gold piece treasure in another form... I don't think wishlists and tailoring treasure extends to that area... Or is it default in 4e that players can write out what magic items, consumables and what form their monetary treasure takes as well??



pemerton said:


> As I have now posted several times, if you play 4e in a more Gygaxian style, in which player choices can vary the amount of treasure PCs receive, then players have an incentive to be expedient in improving their stock of player resources. This is the original context in which mechanical alignment was invented, precisely to force some players not to be expedient in return for other benefits. (The issue in 4e would be that there are no benefits for playing a good PC - it doesn't increase your access to healing or Raise Dead as it does in classic D&D, and paladins are not mechanically stronger than other PCs.)




Could you please define what you mean when you use the phrase Gygaxian style, I just what to be certain we are on the same page...



pemerton said:


> If that is why you want to use mechanical alignment, go to town! It doesn't change the fact that, for me, mechanical alignment is an impediment to my game experience (given I'm playing default, non-Gygaxian, 4e).




I thought we both stated earlier in the thread that neither of us was concerned with or trying to change what the other chose to do with alignment, didn't we?  I am approaching this from a stance of theoretical/hypothetical discussion... not of one discussing you personally or trying to convince you personally of anything... this is the stance I believed both of us to be taking at this point...



pemerton said:


> It would also be odd to insist on the necessity for alignment to dissuade player expedience in an otherwise Gygaxian game and yet deny that it is the GM's role to use alignment to place pressure on the players to have their PCs act in certain ways.




I'm not sure where I denied this... quote please?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> What do you mean "not really different"?




I mean "not really different".  A wishlist can have enough items on it to allow some choice to the wish grantor, or it can be a specific list of which items must be granted when - a shopping list, more than a wish list, if you will.  The player can, through what the PC will accept and what he will reject (everything but those specific items which fill his treasure packet quota) define the loot his PC will find.  You can decide when, but only within the limits of him finding it rapidly enough to keep pace with his prescribed level of treasure.



pemerton said:


> I didn't attack the examples. I pointed out that vows of poverty have almost always been regarded as superogatory rather than obligatory.
> 
> Your comment is puzzling in another way. From the fact that pursuit of material wellbeing is compatible with goodness (assuming that to be so) it doesn't follow that renouncing material wellbeing must be evil. There can be more than one way of living a good life. (And given the role differentiation that has always characterised human life, especially in the contemporary economy, one would want this to be so!)




Here may lie some of the difference.  First, "not good" means just that, and not "evil". One can be between the two.  There is LOTS of space there.  

Second, I do not need the alignment definitions to tell me I am good.  I do not require a pat on the head and a cookie from the game designer for being D&D Good.  Maybe I'm Neutral. Really.  I get up in the morning, go to work, come home and go to bed. I'm not out there protecting innocent life.  I live a pretty good life - I could get by with a lot less, and dedicate my accumulated wealth and/or my time to helping others - meaningful personal sacrifice. I guess I give a few bucks to charity, do some occasional discount or free work, serve on a charity's Board and get involved in my profession.  But I'm not missing any meals, I have disposable income for computers, games and other recreation, and I take regular vacations.  I'm OK being ordinary, and I'm OK classifying "ordinary" as between Good and Evil.

Third, and this extrapolates from second, I don't even think I WANT to be D&D Good.  No, seriously, hear me out. I don't think I'm heroically strong, or agile or hardy - we think of, I think, professional athletes and above for those, at the bottom rung.  I'm above average intelligence, but I don't think I'm heroically smart/clever/cunning/wise. We don't have a lot of role models for that, but I'd call Steven Hawkings a Wizard, not a guy who provides tax consultation. When we look for heroic levels of CHA, it's not even the average politician or actor, but the superstars - the Beatles, Hitler, Churchill and Marilyn Monroe - that rank as Heroic.

I want my D&D Good to be Heroic too. That probably means not just what'sobligatory - that's not heroic, just normal.  I want larger than life fantasy characters in ability and in their virtue - the ones who go to that superogatory level.  Larger than life strength, and larger than life virtue is what I want in my heroic fantasy.  I'm life size, thanks (maybe a little pudgier, but overall, about life size), not a Larger Than Life Heroic Fantasy Character.  I don't need to be heroically strong, or smart. And I don't need the game to classify me as heroically moral, or ethical, or virtuous either.  Keep my larger than life heroes larger than me - that's the way it should be.



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure how I'm meant to comply with both of these at once.




The first step is accepting that D&D is not the real world, and need not have real world standards.



pemerton said:


> But from the point of view of the game designers, I wouldn't design a game that is founded on a premise that most of my customers and players are evil!




Nor would I.  But they don't need to be presumed Good either.  Certainly not Larger than Life Fantasy Good.  If they were, that gaming money would be used to charitable purposes, and so would all those gaming hours.  We'd be sacrificing them altruistically helping others, not spending them on our own entertainment.  My larger than life Heroic Characters don't spend their evenings playing games!


----------



## Campbell

For me not preferring to dwell on fantasy morality has nothing to do with confusing fantasy worlds with the real world. I find value and meaning in fiction of all stripes because it raises questions that are at least somewhat relevant to my daily experience. I just got back from seeing Captain America: The Winter Soldier and what I enjoyed most about the movie was how it reflected the struggle between living by our ideals in a world that does not conform to our expectations. I don't expect martial conflicts to be relevant to my day to day existence, but experiencing empathy for the situation the characters found themselves in was important to my experience of the movie.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> D&D is not the real world, and need not have real world standards.



Stated like this, it's like saying "D&D is not the real world, and need not have real world mathematics". The sentence can be uttered, but what does it mean? What does it mean, for instance, to say that in D&D the square root of 9 is not 3 but 2? Of that if I lie two 10' poles end-to-end, the resulting length is 15' and not 20'.

So if, in the D&D world, humans and other intelligent beings are as close to real-world human beings as the game rules suggest, and if real-world human beings have an interest in being alive that underpins some sort of right to life, that is defeasible in some circumstances (eg self-defence) but not in others (eg "I really don't like the look of you!"), then how would the game-world humans and similar intelligent beings be different?

Nothing in your discussion of any of the hypothetical cases that has come up - eating babies, torturing and killing prisoners, etc - makes me think that you are bringing to bear any standards different from those that are at stake in the real world. And for good reason - the situations are relevantly different.

And the rulebooks bear this out. The 2nd ed AD&D PHB says that good characters "are just that" ie good. Where "good" is clearly being used in its ordinary sense. 

The 3.5 SRD says that ""Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." This sets out a standard for goodness which is obviously grounded in real world standards: other regard, extending to a willingness to make personal sacrifices to help others, is key to ordinary conceptions of morality, and distinguishes moral sensibility from selfishness, amoralism and sociopathy; respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings are key values of enlightenment morality, as expressed (for instance) in the Declaration of Independence and the UDHR.


*****


Part of what I prefer about spectrum-style L-N-C or 4e alignment is that it makes it easier to understand the motivations of those at the "wrong" end of the spectrum. Why, for instance, do agents of chaos (in 4e, say, that would be primordials and demons) pursue the dissolution of creation without regard for the lives and dignity of those beings whose lives are part of that creation? It's not because they "have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient", nor because they "[kill] for sport" (which is how the 3.5 SRC characterises evil). It's because they think there are other values in play - free expression and creativity, even entropy itself as a value - besides with the interests in life and dignity of sentient beings pale into insignificance. From the standpoint of the typical game participant, and of the typical character in the gameworld, such views might be wrong, even (in a certain sense crazy), but they at least establish a framework within which we can make sense of these beings as (by their own lights) rationally motivated. We can also imagine them as having a certain sort of cognitive bias - because they are so committed to their project of re-creation of the world, they fail to notice the significance of the lives and interests of the sentient beings living in this world here and now. That is a cognitive bias that is familiar to us from the real world, among Soviet planners, National Socialist demographers, imperial bureaucrats, even social security officials and parking inspectors.

Because of this, even if I dispense with the labels as unhelpful (which I do) at least I know how I am meant to envisage a primordial, or a fire giant who serves one, being motivated.

As I was discussing not far upthread with [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION], one of my problems with 9-point alignment is that it decouples moral concerns of the sort obviously in play with Good and Evil from social theoretic conceptions, in ways that make no sense at all - for instance, I'm supposed to imagine that it can be true that both a person who is committed to dissolution of all social bonds, and a stalwart conservative, can both be equally serving "the dignity of all sentient beings". That makes no sense at all: whoever has the right of it in an imagined debate between (say) Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman about what is the best way to serve the dignity of all sentient beings, they can't both be correct.

jsaving suggested is that perhaps what alignment measure is hopes/convictions rather than realities, but then it seems that a couple of commune spells could settle the issue ("What sorts of economic and political arrangements will best serve the dignity of all sentient beings?") and also it seems that very few people are going to turn out to be evil (most selfish people tend to _think_ that they're serving the interests of others; they're sincere but self-deluded).


***************

But anyway, I don't see how I'm possibly meant to work any of this out without having regard to the real world. Bracket parts of the real world, sure - I'm happy to run a D&D game in which we ignore all the socio-economic reality that explains why, in a feudal economy, it can be very hard for peasants to life a life of equal dignity - but this is not bracketing the standards by which we measure and understand these morality of these phenomena. With those bracketed, how are we meant to make sense of anything at all?

I mean, how would anyone make sense of the phrase "respect for ilfe" other than by thinking about the real-world meaning of that phrase?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Okay, I looked in my DMG and I see that wishlists are about magic items... we're talking about poison which would be a consumable or a gold piece treasure in another form... I don't think wishlists and tailoring treasure extends to that area



I guess a 4e GM might think that wishlists are great for magic items, but that when it comes to placing poisons, potions, residuum, scrolls etc they would do that without regard to whether members of the party are paladins, ritual casters, multiple leaders, etc.

But I don't see _why_ a GM would do that. It's not like there is some deep and inherent distinction between the relevance of a magic item to some particular PC (whether that be in mechanical terms, story terms or both) and the relevance of a poison, a potion or some ritual component.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> As I was discussing not far upthread with @_*jsaving*_, one of my problems with 9-point alignment is that it decouples moral concerns of the sort obviously in play with Good and Evil from social theoretic conceptions, in ways that make no sense at all - for instance, I'm supposed to imagine that it can be true that both a person who is committed to dissolution of all social bonds, and a stalwart conservative, can both be equally serving "the dignity of all sentient beings". That makes no sense at all: whoever has the right of it in an imagined debate between (say) Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman about what is the best way to serve the dignity of all sentient beings, they can't both be correct.




OK, I'll put aside my reservations on real world ethical philosophy for the moment to pose one basic question.  If the two have different viewpoints, which stand in radical opposition to each other, and it seems clear they do, and if they cannot both be correct - one must be right, and the other wrong - how is it that the debate persists?  Why have we not determined who was categorically wrong, and who was undeniably correct?

This frames Law and Chaos in the 9 box grid in the fashion of "which will best enable delivery of the moral right"?  The LG character sees order and structure as best suited to deliver the greater good, while the CG character perceives freedom and independence as the best means of establishing Good.  The LN and CN characters see the two as an end unto themselves, and not a means to achieving some other purpose (be it good or evil).  And the LE character sees laws and order as a structure through which he can best achieve his own aims - the strong rule and the weak serve, and that is the way of things - where the CE character sees no constraints "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

To the rest of your post, you have ignored the entire point.  I don't want my Heroic Fantasy Game to accept that providing for my family and dropping a few bucks in the plate at church each Sunday is Heroic Good.  I want Captain America Good for my Heroic game, not some ambivalent "well, we'll try to fight off the Goblin horde if it doesn't place us at too much risk, but we expect to be paid and I want 25% in advance".  I want characters who make real, heroic sacrifices to help people to be Fantasy Good, not characters who might volunteer one evening a month at a local community group and otherwise spend their time on their own enrichment and enjoyment.  It's not good enough to be just "Good  enough" to meet the Heroic tenets of Good.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I guess a 4e GM might think that wishlists are great for magic items, but that when it comes to placing poisons, potions, residuum, scrolls etc they would do that without regard to whether members of the party are paladins, ritual casters, multiple leaders, etc.
> 
> But I don't see _why_ a GM would do that. It's not like there is some deep and inherent distinction between the relevance of a magic item to some particular PC (whether that be in mechanical terms, story terms or both) and the relevance of a poison, a potion or some ritual component.




Because the DM is running a simulationist-style game (which I don't believe is the same as a Gygaxian skill game) and the treasures have been placed to represent what the monster/NPC/etc. would have irregardless of who comes knocking.  So going back to our example with the paladin again, if he is helping to bring down something like an evil assassin's guild, then some of the treasure he finds may very well be poisons.  My larger point is that there are other styles of games (like some simulationist games) in which a paladin could discover poison as a treasure, outside of Gygaxian skilled-play.


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> Because the DM is running a simulationist-style game (which I don't believe is the same as a Gygaxian skill game) and the treasures have been placed to represent what the monster/NPC/etc. would have irregardless of who comes knocking.  So going back to our example with the paladin again, if he is helping to bring down something like an evil assassin's guild, then some of the treasure he finds may very well be poisons.  My larger point is that there are other styles of games (like some simulationist games) in which a paladin could discover poison as a treasure, outside of Gygaxian skilled-play.




By contrast, why would the Paladin find a Holy Sword held by a Cult of the Dark One?  Why would they not seek to destroy such an affront, or if they lack the resources to destroy it, to hide it away that it might never be used to oppose their vile aims?

Let's say the Paladin does take the poison, believing its use is not inconsistent with his virtuous and honourable beliefs, surprising the GM?  Does that mean that the treasure packet the GM was planning to place for the Paladin, let's say some Evil Bane weapon, is now not placed, and not found (as his treasure has to be kept level with the campaign expectations), or that his existing treasure packet somehow disappears (the poison somehow corrupts his existing Holy Weapon)?  I assume not, since that would mean we are penalizing the Paladin/player for choosing a path the GM considers less than honourable by keeping the treasure the GM felt would be inappropriate to the Holy Warrior.  But then, doesn't he gain a mechanical advantage by getting both his Honourable treasure and the use of the Dishonourable treasure?  Seems like a circle game to me.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Because the DM is running a simulationist-style game (which I don't believe is the same as a Gygaxian skill game) and the treasures have been placed to represent what the monster/NPC/etc. would have irregardless of who comes knocking.



But why would such a GM be using wishlists at all? Or confining him-/herself to treasure parcels?

And alternatively, why couldn't such a GM use wishlists and simply place the wished-for items in logical places (that's what I do) while not counting against the treasure parcel budget those things which the PCs don't actually treat as treasure (such as a poison or unholy symbol or whatever else the paladin rejects/destroys)?

It doesn't really seem to me on either approach that the player of the paladin has a reason to treat the poison as treasure.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Let's say the Paladin does take the poison, believing its use is not inconsistent with his virtuous and honourable beliefs, surprising the GM?  Does that mean that the treasure packet the GM was planning to place for the Paladin, let's say some Evil Bane weapon, is now not placed, and not found (as his treasure has to be kept level with the campaign expectations)



Correct! Just like a Gygaxian GM, after the players find the Hammer of Thunderbolts hidden in the giant's secret compartment, might think twice before placing a vorpal sword in the next dungeon.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> But why would such a GM be using wishlists at all? Or confining him-/herself to treasure parcels?




Because that's what the game (4e) suggests that he do... as far as magic items go.  Ultimately I'm not sure the relevance of this as to my larger point being that there are other play styles where a paladin can gain a benefit from using poison outside of Gygaxian skilled play.



pemerton said:


> And alternatively, why couldn't such a GM use wishlists and simply place the wished-for items in logical places (that's what I do) while not counting against the treasure parcel budget those things which the PCs don't actually treat as treasure (such as a poison or unholy symbol or whatever else the paladin rejects/destroys)?




Because, unless the DM is controlling where the PC's are going next... there may not be a "logical" place to put the tailored magic items.  

Why are you assuming the paladin would reject/destroy poison (Say Bloodstinger poison) when there is nothing that says he can't use it?  Why would he reject a mechanical advantage to increase his damage?  Especially when the use of poison is not explicitly forbidden by his alignment in 4e and carries no disadvantage for it's use?  You're assuming a paladin wouldn't use poison but you haven't given a reason for why he wouldn't use it...



pemerton said:


> It doesn't really seem to me on either approach that the player of the paladin has a reason to treat the poison as treasure.




The player of the paladin chooses to use the poison because it increases his damage output, he has no restrictions around it's use and Bloodstinger poison at least, is relatively inexpensive.  There are some resaons, now what I haven't seen is you give a reason for the player to reject the poison, as far as I can tell in 4e there isn't one so why would he?


EDIT: Earlier your point was that the mechanical build of the paladin in 4e would make it so that he wouldn't benefit from the use of tactics/items/powers that conflicted with his archetype but we've already shown that's not true... now we seem to be shifting to a totally different point in which the GM/DM shouldn't offer him poison or anything he could use for a benefit that doesn't reinforce his moral stance... how is this not just a well disguised stick to keep him playing and acting in a particular way by denial of the choice not too?  And if alignment is not objective why is it wrong or undesirable for the LG paladin to use poison?


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> Correct! Just like a Gygaxian GM, after the players find the Hammer of Thunderbolts hidden in the giant's secret compartment, might think twice before placing a vorpal sword in the next dungeon.




I'm obviously missing something, as it seems you are now saying 4e play is pretty much the same as Gygaxian skilled play, which I'm pretty sure is the opposite of what you intend to say.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think Gygaxian Skilled Play suggests that, if the players are clever enough to find the extra loot, bully for them.  Pure "Gygaxian Skilled Play" might go so far as to say the GM places such treasure as the random rolls on the monster's treasure type calls for, no more and no less.  But I'm not sure anyone but you knows precisely what you mean by "Gygaxian Skilled Play".  I'm assuming it to mean "extrapolate from the rules we see in 1e AD&D, and perhaps other EGG writings, as being the Gygaxian ideal of game play".


----------



## N'raac

Imaro said:


> Because, unless the DM is controlling where the PC's are going next... there may not be a "logical" place to put the tailored magic items.




Well, one reference [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] used was "a gift from the Gods", so I suppose he could just find it lying on his bedroll after a blissful dream of his deity's congratulations for serving the faith.  Of course, that also seems like reinforcement that what he has done was consistent with his faith, so he has been morally judged.  It seems tough for the Dwarf to suggest the Paladin isn't true to his ideals when a Holy Sword materializes at his feet in the night...



Imaro said:


> Why are you assuming the paladin would reject/destroy poison (Say Bloodstinger poison) when there is nothing that says he can't use it?  Why would he reject a mechanical advantage to increase his damage?  Especially when the use of poison is not explicitly forbidden by his alignment in 4e and carries no disadvantage for it's use?  You're assuming a paladin wouldn't use poison but you haven't given a reason for why he wouldn't use it...
> 
> The player of the paladin chooses to use the poison because it increases his damage output, he has no restrictions around it's use and Bloodstinger poison at least, is relatively inexpensive.  There are some resaons, now what I haven't seen is you give a reason for the player to reject the poison, as far as I can tell in 4e there isn't one so why would he?




To me, this is that "hive mind".  All my players just *know* poison is dishonourable and they would therefore never use it.  We don't need alignment rulings because we all share a common vision and playstyle that renders alignment rules superfluous.  And we have played that way for so long that we can't see any other possibility.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> If the two have different viewpoints, which stand in radical opposition to each other, and it seems clear they do, and if they cannot both be correct - one must be right, and the other wrong - how is it that the debate persists?  Why have we not determined who was categorically wrong, and who was undeniably correct?



In part because they value different things - they have different conceptions of welfare. And in part because we lack the relevant evidence and methodology to settle the question.

D&D doesn't have room for differing conceptions of welfare, because it is all packaged into the notion of "Good" - so LG and CG characters have the same conception of welfare ("goodness") while disagreeing over . . .  (something? - I'm not sure what). And LE characters, who to my mind are most naturally thought of as having a different conception of welfare (eg it seems natural to me that hobgoblins would regard hobbits and elves as overly sentimental), are presented as repudiating welfare as a value at all. It's all very weird to me.



N'raac said:


> This frames Law and Chaos in the 9 box grid in the fashion of "which will best enable delivery of the moral right"?  The LG character sees order and structure as best suited to deliver the greater good, while the CG character perceives freedom and independence as the best means of establishing Good.



Which enlivens the question - why not just ask the gods for the answers? In the real world, Friedman and Burke have different conceptions of welfare as well as different views about social causation and consequences, but D&D doesn't seem to have room for the former.



N'raac said:


> The LN and CN characters see the two as an end unto themselves, and not a means to achieving some other purpose (be it good or evil).



I can read the words but they don't make any sense to me. Why would someone value order as an end in itself? It sounds like a fetish or pathology to me.

When I see LN characters actually presented in scenarios or in play, it turns out that (if they're not just self-disciplined monks, who as I've argued needn't fight with a bard at all) they _do_ in fact value order because of its contribution to welfare - they just object to the LG character's conception of welfare. But in D&D this isn't viable, because a LN character can't contest with a LG character over what genuine altruism or dignity requires - rather, they have to express a level of disregard for those things.



N'raac said:


> I don't want my Heroic Fantasy Game to accept that providing for my family and dropping a few bucks in the plate at church each Sunday is Heroic Good.



Yet if you look at the MM you'll see that hobbits, elves and dwarves are all good characters because they do roughly this. Are you advocating for alignment as its written, or as you want it to be?


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I'm obviously missing something, as it seems you are now saying 4e play is pretty much the same as Gygaxian skilled play



No, I'm saying that even Gygax advocates placing treasure for future discovery having regard to the treasure that it is already in the game and being used by the PCs.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Earlier your point was that the mechanical build of the paladin in 4e would make it so that he wouldn't benefit from the use of tactics/items/powers that conflicted with his archetype



No. My point was that the mechanical build of a paladin gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use stealth or backstabs; and that the default approach to treasure awards in 4e gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use items such as poisons.



Imaro said:


> Why are you assuming the paladin would reject/destroy poison (Say Bloodstinger poison) when there is nothing that says he can't use it?



I'm not assuming that s/he would. I'm saying that s/he has no reason not to - why add poison to your treasure list when you could forego it with the confident expectation that your GM will drop an item that you desire in its place.



Imaro said:


> Why would he reject a mechanical advantage to increase his damage
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The player of the paladin chooses to use the poison because it increases his damage output, he has no restrictions around it's use and Bloodstinger poison at least, is relatively inexpensive.



Because it takes a standard action to apply, and so is not well-suited to a defender? Because it affects only one target, and as a defender you're likely to be engaging targets on an "all in" basis rather than being selective about which target to try and pick off? Because for a comparable amount of money you could acquire a viable AoE attack using Alchemist's Fire? Or even acquire Holy Water, which can be thrown as a minor action (still not ideal for a paladin because of their marking requirements, but better on the action economy than the poison).

There are other and better ways to improve your performance as a paladin than spending a standard action to get a chance of doing OG 5 poison on your next attack.

If a player wants to use the poison, go to town! My point is that I don't think the system sets up any particular incentive to do so, given the rules for item acquisition, and the general character of a paladin's mechanics and the way it plays.



Imaro said:


> we seem to be shifting to a totally different point in which the GM/DM shouldn't offer him poison or anything he could use for a benefit that doesn't reinforce his moral stance... how is this not just a well disguised stick to keep him playing and acting in a particular way by denial of the choice not too?



You seem to have reversed what I said - my point was that if the player doesn't want to play a poison-using paladin, s/he won't be disadvantaged by a GM who is following the default treasure rules, of placing items that the players actually want for their PCs. I don't see how the GM conforming to the player's desire is any sort of stick.



Imaro said:


> And if alignment is not objective why is it wrong or undesirable for the LG paladin to use poison?



Because the player regards poison as dishonourable and wants to play an honourable warrior? I mean, that's like asking "If tastiness is not objective, then why wouldn't the player eat mud?" Answer: because s/he doesn't like it!


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Well, one reference [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] used was "a gift from the Gods", so I suppose he could just find it lying on his bedroll after a blissful dream of his deity's congratulations for serving the faith.  Of course, that also seems like reinforcement that what he has done was consistent with his faith, so he has been morally judged.  It seems tough for the Dwarf to suggest the Paladin isn't true to his ideals when a Holy Sword materializes at his feet in the night.



This makes no sense. If the player thinks that s/he is playing an honourable warrior true to his/her god's conception of honour; and the player tells the GM that s/he wants a Holy Sword for his/her paladin; and the GM places the treasure as a gift from the gods (and receiving gifts in a dream is hardly out-of-genre - eg The Phoenix on the Sword); how is this the GM making a judgement of the player's play of the PC? Where did any judgement occur? All I can see is reading and implementing a wishlist.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> In part because they value different things - they have different conceptions of welfare. And in part because we lack the relevant evidence and methodology to settle the question.
> 
> D&D doesn't have room for differing conceptions of welfare, because it is all packaged into the notion of "Good" - so LG and CG characters have the same conception of welfare ("goodness") while disagreeing over . . .  (something? - I'm not sure what). And LE characters, who to my mind are most naturally thought of as having a different conception of welfare (eg it seems natural to me that hobgoblins would regard hobbits and elves as overly sentimental), are presented as repudiating welfare as a value at all. It's all very weird to me.
> 
> Which enlivens the question - why not just ask the gods for the answers? In the real world, Friedman and Burke have different conceptions of welfare as well as different views about social causation and consequences, but D&D doesn't seem to have room for the former.




And in the D&D world there are LG and CG Deities who also disagree as to which alignment is best.  And there are Neutral and Evil deities (with regards to Good/Evil) who have a different conception of welfare.  Just as Hobgoblins and Hobbits have different values, so do the Hobgoblin Gods and the Hobbit Gods.  So which answer(s) you get depends on which God(s) you ask.



pemerton said:


> I can read the words but they don't make any sense to me. Why would someone value order as an end in itself? It sounds like a fetish or pathology to me.




So any value hierarchy which differs from your  own is a fetish or a pathology?  Seems like that would lead to conflict between those various value systems - ie alignments.



pemerton said:


> When I see LN characters actually presented in scenarios or in play, it turns out that (if they're not just self-disciplined monks, who as I've argued needn't fight with a bard at all) they _do_ in fact value order because of its contribution to welfare - they just object to the LG character's conception of welfare. But in D&D this isn't viable, because a LN character can't contest with a LG character over what genuine altruism or dignity requires - rather, they have to express a level of disregard for those things.




In other words, they value these things less than the LG character does - hence they are LN, and not LG.  Those LG folk are OK, I guess, but they are too willing to compromise Order out of maudlin sympathy.  



pemerton said:


> Yet if you look at the MM you'll see that hobbits, elves and dwarves are all good characters because they do roughly this. Are you advocating for alignment as its written, or as you want it to be?




Where does it say that Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves just go to work five days a week, come home at night, and their only contribution to the welfare of others is dropping a few insignificant coins into the Poor Box?  For characters who are going to be epic in power and ability, and stand out from the crowd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect their moral standads to be just as "larger than life" as their physical and mystical abilities.



pemerton said:


> This makes no sense. If the player thinks that s/he is playing an honourable warrior true to his/her god's conception of honour; and the player tells the GM that s/he wants a Holy Sword for his/her paladin; and the GM places the treasure as a gift from the gods (and receiving gifts in a dream is hardly out-of-genre - eg The Phoenix on the Sword); how is this the GM making a judgement of the player's play of the PC? Where did any judgement occur? All I can see is reading and implementing a wishlist.




As the Dwarf who adventures with that Paladin, my character doesn't see the player telling the GM he wants a Holy Sword and the GM checking a rulebook to determine that the PC's level is about right for X% of his treasure for this level to be reflected as a holy sword.  He doesn't see "reading and implementing a wishlist".  He sees the magical sword being granted from the Deity of Honour and Justice.  Seems to indicate the Paladin's actions are recognized as consistent with those precepts, and being rewarded, from where that Dwarf sits.  Does the deity of Honour and Righteousness not actually represent those ideals?  Does he randomly hand out rewards to just anyone, regardless of whether they serve, sit by, or actively oppose his values?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> No. My point was that the mechanical build of a paladin gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use stealth or backstabs; and that the default approach to treasure awards in 4e gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use items such as poisons.




Okay, this appears to be my mistake... I thought earlier you made a general statement about the paladin's build working best when played in a forthright and honorable manner (paraphrasing here), but you've clarified that you were only speaking to the use of the stealth skill and the backstab (power/class ability) specifically... is that correct?

As to the "default" approach to treasure in 4e... again there is nothing specifically about tailoring consumables, gear, alchemical items, gold items, etc. to PC's... there is general advice about treasure being usable by the PC's but as I've said, the poison is usable by every PC so I'm not sure on what basis (unless we've now switched to the PC's get exactly what they want/prefer) it would be excluded? 



pemerton said:


> I'm not assuming that s/he would. I'm saying that s/he has no reason not to - why add poison to your treasure list when you could forego it with the confident expectation that your GM will drop an item that you desire in its place.




Please show me in the DMG where it says this should take place for treasure other than magic items?  I was under the impression that this was the area that was totally under the DM's control but I could be mistaken.  Also, here is a quote from the PHB that seems to support my view that not all treasures should/will be tailored to PC's in default 4e.



			
				PHB pg. 260 said:
			
		

> "Treasure comes in a variety of forms, but it falls into two basic categories: magic items you can use and money you can spend to acquire items and services.  Money can be coins, gemstones, fine art or *magic items you sell instead of use*




Seems the PHB sets up the default expectation that you will in fact get items (including magical items) you don't or can't use but can sell.

The Dungeon Master's Book from essentials even goes so far as to say that only common and uncommon magic items should be under the purview of a wishlist and that rare magic items are also within the discretion of the DM.  There is nothing concerning any other type of treasure that even hints that it should be tailored to the PC's... 




pemerton said:


> Because it takes a standard action to apply, and so is not well-suited to a defender? Because it affects only one target, and as a defender you're likely to be engaging targets on an "all in" basis rather than being selective about which target to try and pick off? Because for a comparable amount of money you could acquire a viable AoE attack using Alchemist's Fire? Or even acquire Holy Water, which can be thrown as a minor action (still not ideal for a paladin because of their marking requirements, but better on the action economy than the poison).




You can apply the poison before combat, it doesn't have a duration so that's kind of a non-factor.  

As to it being well-suited or not to a defender that really depends on the situation... It's still 5 more points of ongoing poison damage than he/she would have done without it on top of weapon damage.  You also seem to be discounting situations where he is facing a solo (where everyone of your negatives is moot)?  As to Alchemist Fire or Holy Water... does the paladin have a better chance to hit with his melee weapon or a ranged attack?  Does an attack with one of these do more damage than one of his melee attack powers + ongoing poison?   



pemerton said:


> There are other and better ways to improve your performance as a paladin than spending a standard action to get a chance of doing OG 5 poison on your next attack.




Again, the poison can be applied before combat commences... what are some of the better ways that work with the paladins weapon attacks and are as cheap as the poison?



pemerton said:


> If a player wants to use the poison, go to town! My point is that I don't think the system sets up any particular incentive to do so, given the rules for item acquisition, and the general character of a paladin's mechanics and the way it plays.




I'll take ongoing 5 poison on my first hit with my paladin (especially on a solo monster)... that seems like an incentive enough for me... and if I have an alchemist in the party, I'd probably be using it even more frequently.



pemerton said:


> You seem to have reversed what I said - my point was that if the player doesn't want to play a poison-using paladin, s/he won't be disadvantaged by a GM who is following the default treasure rules, of placing items that the players actually want for their PCs. I don't see how the GM conforming to the player's desire is any sort of stick.




First I disagree that your view of treasure placement in 4e is default.  Everything is not supposed to be perfectly tailored for each character in the party.  Second, how is not ever offering the paladin the chance to use poison or be tempted by dishonorable tactics not a stick... a meta-game, illusionism-based, stick... at least IMO.



pemerton said:


> Because the player regards poison as dishonourable and wants to play an honourable warrior? I mean, that's like asking "If tastiness is not objective, then why wouldn't the player eat mud?" Answer: because s/he doesn't like it!




So, if I decide using poison is honourable there is no problem with me as a LG paladin using it... correct?

Also mud is not food so your analogy doesn't make sense (Also I'm sure somewhere out there are people who enjoy eating mud, lol...


----------



## Cadence

Seems relevant (CG, CN, and N vs. the Paladin)
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> You can apply the poison before combat, it doesn't have a duration so that's kind of a non-factor.



It would wear off after 5 minutes - the default duration in 4e for otherwise unspecified effects. (There is also the question whether you can sheathe a poisoned weapon without wiping off the poison.)



Imaro said:


> As to the "default" approach to treasure in 4e... again there is nothing specifically about tailoring consumables, gear, alchemical items, gold items, etc. to PC's... there is general advice about treasure being usable by the PC's but as I've said, the poison is usable by every PC so I'm not sure on what basis (unless we've now switched to the PC's get exactly what they want/prefer) it would be excluded?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Please show me in the DMG where it says this should take place for treasure other than magic items
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I disagree that your view of treasure placement in 4e is default.  Everything is not supposed to be perfectly tailored for each character in the party.



If a player of a paladin makes it clear that s/he regards poison use as dishonourable, why would a GM drop poison as part of a treasure parcel? It makes no sense, and is contrary to all the advice in the 4e rulebooks.

If the player destroys or ignores the poison, then the treasure hasn't been taken. Why would the GM then, nevertheless, tick it off as a treasure parcel? Treasure parcels aren't a setting-design guideline, they're a player resource delivery guidline. If the players don't treat it as a resource, it wasn't delivered.



N'raac said:


> And in the D&D world there are LG and CG Deities who also disagree as to which alignment is best.  And there are Neutral and Evil deities (with regards to Good/Evil) who have a different conception of welfare.



As to the first sentence, you can assert it but it doesn't make it coherent. I mean, we could stipulate that there are deities with +30 Perception checks who argue over whether the sky is blue or green, but why are they arguing? How can someone with a +30 Perception check be confused about the colour of the sky?

Similarly for sociology. Why can these ultra-intelligent gods not make sense of social causation?

The real issue is that they have different conceptions of welfare. But, contrary to your assertion about evil gods and the like, D&D does not permit this to be the case. Evil is not defined by reference to a different conception of welfare: it is defined as consisting in selfishness and a disregard for welfare, and has been so defined going back to Gygax. Evil gods (and evil people) know what human (and other humanoid) wellbeing consists in, and repudiate that.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> It would wear off after 5 minutes - the default duration in 4e for otherwise unspecified effects. (There is also the question whether you can sheathe a poisoned weapon without wiping off the poison.)




Technically, you could apply the poison before combat began, presuming that you knew that a combat was going to happen soon, which is not a terribly unreasonable event.  However, it would still only apply to the first hit you made in the combat - which could be very problematic - you could wind up using the poison on something like a minion drawing an Opportunity Attack or some such, which would make applying the poison before combat begins a dicey option at best.

There are certainly a plethora of other consumables that would suit a paladin a heck of a lot more than poison.

Of course, that brings up another point.  The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill.  You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him.  So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way?  How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not?  After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.

So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword?  Where does it stop?  Is any magical weapon dishonourable?  Why not?  Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword?  How is it justifiable under the alignment system?


----------



## Manbearcat

Hussar said:


> Of course, that brings up another point.  The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill.  You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him.  So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way?  How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not?  After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.
> 
> So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword?  Where does it stop?  Is any magical weapon dishonourable?  Why not?  Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword?  How is it justifiable under the alignment system?




This is an issue that I was just thinking on as well.  It has some interesting traction as a micro-issue to the overarching alignment debates.  

At its most base functionality, poison efficiently facilitates the expiration of life, same as any other weapon.  It can't be the virulence of poison that is the problem.  I'm pretty sure your average Holy Avenger bears out a much greater life-snuffing capacity than your average vial of poison.  Presumably for a Paladin, within an unwritten protocol of armed conflict, poison would be deemed dishonourable due to its inherent nature of circumventing a (knightly) promise to observe direct, overt, symmetric warfare (its underhanded or asymmetric). One wonders what else would a Paladin (to remain consistent) need to observe and what sort of strategic asymmetry (in warfare) would he need to castigate/outright forbid to retain his honour (not his alignment and powers...simply his honour by his own evaluation) and properly observe those unwritten protocols of armed conflict?

Would he be at odds with Rangers (commandos are asymmetric warfare specialists)?  Would wolvesbane or alchemical silver versus lycanthropes be dishonourable?  What about ambushes?  What about (not the martial contest version) ruses?  Fire or acid (magic or mundane) against a troll?  What about the threat of fire or acid against a troll to expedite its submission?  What about a save or die Arrow of Dragonslaying?  What about holy hand grenades (radiant holy water flasks) against undead?  What about blessed crossbow bolts versus Rakshasa?  What about infiltration, spying, divinations?

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of tactics/means/tropes that may (or may not) straddle the line of observation of overt, symmetric warfare versus underhanded, covert asymmetric warfare.  I wonder what people think about on these things.  I haven't given it enough thought to assert an opinion but it certainly begs one to align their ducks in a row on the questions above.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar, your bigger point is interesting and I'll post something about that when I have more time.



Hussar said:


> Technically, you could apply the poison before combat began, presuming that you knew that a combat was going to happen soon, which is not a terribly unreasonable event.  However, it would still only apply to the first hit you made in the combat - which could be very problematic - you could wind up using the poison on something like a minion drawing an Opportunity Attack or some such, which would make applying the poison before combat begins a dicey option at best.
> 
> There are certainly a plethora of other consumables that would suit a paladin a heck of a lot more than poison.



I agree with all this. For a striker, target selection can be quite important. For a defender, target discrimination is much less a part of what you're trying to do - you're taking all comers! Which makes a single-target buff like poison less attractive.


----------



## Hussar

Which really speaks to Imaro's point that the paladin is gaining advantages by not following his code. In actual fact, poison instead of other more appropriate consumables is actually not more powerful and may well be less effective. 

For example, anything with a burst effect would help his marking abilities.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Which really speaks to Imaro's point that the paladin is gaining advantages by not following his code. In actual fact, poison instead of other more appropriate consumables is actually not more powerful and may well be less effective.
> 
> For example, anything with a burst effect would help his marking abilities.




What other more appropriate consumables within the same level range and price point are better for the paladin?  I'm also curious how those with a burst effect would help his marking abilities since it isn't actually an attack and only targets one creature?  It's all well and good to claim that something could be better suited to the paladin, but if this better item doesn't actually exist, well it's a moot point then, right?

Finally... neither you nor @_*pemerton*_ has shown why the poison would put the paladin at a disadvantage, in the worst situation he gains no advantage from it (when hitting something like a minion, of course the poison works like that for everyone so it's a "disadvantage"shared by all)... in the best of situations he delivers an extra ongoing 5 poison damage that a save ends... mechanically I still haven't seen a reason that I would not want that advantage.

EDIT: And saying, that he could benefit from some hypothetical consumable that is better suited but does not in fact exist at the same price point is not proving anything.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Hussar, your bigger point is interesting and I'll post something about that when I have more time.
> 
> I agree with all this. For a striker, target selection can be quite important. For a defender, target discrimination is much less a part of what you're trying to do - you're taking all comers! Which makes a single-target buff like poison less attractive.




I asked Hussar this, and I'll ask you the same... what other consumables?  I'm also curious... doesn't the (PHB 1)paladin mark a single individual... not a group?  So isn't he in fact taking on a single adversary?


----------



## Mallus

I've been meaning to post something to this thread for a few months. Fortunately, it's never going to end!

Let me start with this: do alignment improve the gaming experience? No. 

At least not necessarily. Alignment is merely one tool for describing characters and framing the consequences of their actions. It's certainly not the only one available. Drama and fiction have gotten by for several millennia now without needing the terms "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil".

Some gamers use alignment to great effect. Others... not so much. Quite a few opt not to use that particular tool at all (I'm more-or-less in that category, despite kinda-sorta using alignment in my AD&D campaign).


----------



## Pickles JG

Mallus said:


> Let me start with this: do alignment improve the gaming experience? No.




I am glad that's settled - I did not want not have to read all 140 pages


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> It would wear off after 5 minutes - the default duration in 4e for otherwise unspecified effects. (There is also the question whether you can sheathe a poisoned weapon without wiping off the poison.)




None of this speaks to the honourable or dishonourable use of poison, though.  It speaks to whether it is, or is  not, tactically advantageous to the Paladin.  Let us posit, then, a treasure of a Scabbard of Poison.  The Paladin need merely sheathe his blade within that scabbard and, when he draws the weapon, it is coated in that 5 ongoing damage poison.  Why would he choose not to use this magic scabbard?  Let us assume he is the only party member whose weapon of choice will fit in this scabbard, so there is no question of a teammate using it to better effect.



pemerton said:


> As to the first sentence, you can assert it but it doesn't make it coherent. I mean, we could stipulate that there are deities with +30 Perception checks who argue over whether the sky is blue or green, but why are they arguing? How can someone with a +30 Perception check be confused about the colour of the sky?
> 
> Similarly for sociology. Why can these ultra-intelligent gods not make sense of social causation?




Do we have dozens of philosophers who, over centuries of writing, have addressed whether the sky is green or blue, yet never come to any form of consensus?  I don't think anyone would apply a statement like "Sure as the sky is  blue" to a concept of sociology.  Disagreement exists because there is no objectively 'right' answer, or at least none that we have been able to determine, despite a lot of brainpower being applied to it over centuries.



pemerton said:


> The real issue is that they have different conceptions of welfare. But, contrary to your assertion about evil gods and the like, D&D does not permit this to be the case. Evil is not defined by reference to a different conception of welfare: it is defined as consisting in selfishness and a disregard for welfare, and has been so defined going back to Gygax. Evil gods (and evil people) know what human (and other humanoid) wellbeing consists in, and repudiate that.




I would say rather that evil beings have a different conception of whose well-being takes priority.  To Good people, the purpose of power is to help everyone, especially those less fortunate.  To Evil people, the purpose of power is to help myself and/or a select group, and possibly even to push some other group down.  While we consider the latter group "evil" in abstract, I don't believe everyone who wants to, say, limit immigration to keep good jobs for "our citizens", or penalize cheap imports to maintain jobs here in "our nation" would consider themselves "evil", or be considered "evil" by modern society.  But their altruism clearly isn't universal.



Hussar said:


> Technically, you could apply the poison before combat began, presuming that you knew that a combat was going to happen soon, which is not a terribly unreasonable event.  However, it would still only apply to the first hit you made in the combat - which could be very problematic - you could wind up using the poison on something like a minion drawing an Opportunity Attack or some such, which would make applying the poison before combat begins a dicey option at best.
> 
> There are certainly a plethora of other consumables that would suit a paladin a heck of a lot more than poison.




What are they, and why are they more suitable?  If the answer to the latter is that they are more effective, that's not really a choice based on honour, but a choice based on expediency.



Hussar said:


> Of course, that brings up another point.  The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill.  You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him.  So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way?  How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not?  After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.
> 
> So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword?  Where does it stop?  Is any magical weapon dishonourable?  Why not?  Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword?  How is it justifiable under the alignment system?




Why does the question restrict itself to mechanical alignment?  Can an honourable warrior use superior equipment to gain an advantage over his foes?  "Sure, Arthur, you're a big shot with Excalibur ensuring you never have to fight a fair fight!"  



pemerton said:


> I agree with all this. For a striker, target selection can be quite important. For a defender, target discrimination is much less a part of what you're trying to do - you're taking all comers! Which makes a single-target buff like poison less attractive.




So, again, the choice of poison use is based on expediency, not on honour at all.  The same logic would apply to all Defenders - fighters, Wardens, Battlemages (I looked that up - doubtless there are other Defender roles).  Are all of these characterized by Honour (and, similarly, all Strikers characterized by being dirty fighters)?  If I accept [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s contention that poison use is discouraged by the mechanics because it is dishonourable, and that the mechanics discourage its use by all defenders, indiscriminately, then it logically follows that the rules are intended to guide all defenders to honourable combat.  I don't believe that is necessarily the case.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> That is why I think D&D does force those within the gameworld to acknowledge the legitimacy of each square, and therefore leads to incoherence. Because a LG person is obliged to acknowledge the full goodness of a CG person, and vice versa.



Someone who is CG values selflessness and freedom, and genuinely believes the synthesis of those two values will be best.  On the other hand, someone who is LG values selflessness and order, and genuinely believes the synthesis of those two values will be best.

There are actually three separate questions to consider here.  One is whether LG is inherently more virtuous than other alignments and will therefore be the alignment to which those who are most dedicated to selflessness with gravitate?  A second is whether the principles of selflessness and freedom are logically inconsistent and therefore doomed to failure when put into practice?  And a third -- the only objectively testable proposition of the lot -- is whether LG governance actually reduces suffering more than CG governance?    

To the true-believer LGer, the answer to these questions is obvious.  Of course LG is inherently more virtuous; of course it is the alignment to which any selfless person with a heart and a mind will gravitate; of course selflessness and freedom are inconsistent; and of course people will suffer more in a libertarian society than they would under a government that gently guides them where they need to go.  But the fact that these answers are "obvious" does not make them objectively correct.  

Because the standard 9-alignment grid makes no assumptions about which square is the "most evil" or the "most good" (forgetting for a moment the occasional 1e nod to LG), it is true that the LG individual is forced to acknowledge the full goodness of a CG person.  But the reason he is forced to do so is that the CG person objectively shares his dedication to helping people.  What the 9-square alignment system _doesn't_ do is force the LG individual to acknowledge that Chaos and Goodness are a sensible combination or that they actually end up helping people.

So it is fine for an LGer to see internal contradictions between selflessness and freedom, and fine for him to think no one who uses their heart and mind would embrace those principles.  It is also perfectly consistent with the PH for him to view the various squares of "Team Good" as markedly different in their practical impact on people's well-being, and to confidently say LG is better at helping people than the other Good alignments.  It is even OK for the LGer to think he has more in common with LE, which at least provides necessary order, than CG, which inadvertently but inevitably harms people more than LE ever could.   The one thing he does have to do, however, is admit that those who show up as CG genuinely embrace Goodness, no matter how misguided or even tragic the application of their ideas may be.

Does integrating this into one's campaign improve the gaming experience?  I think the answer to that question can be different for different gaming tables.  People who like the idea of serious fault-lines within Team Good and a lack of clarity about which alignment is "objectively" best may find that the traditional 9-alignment system enriches their gaming experience.  On the other hand, people who want to implement Team Good's predefined goal of defending PoLs against Team Evil's predefined goal of destroying them may find the 9-alignment system completely nonsensical, because it undermines the very foundation of the game.  Neither approach is "better" than the other, but I've seen many examples of both and think both need to be supported in 5e.

Which brings me to the one thing 5e needs to do above all else: set up a firewall between the alignment rules and the mechanical portions of the game.  As long as that is done, alignments at least won't interfere with the gaming experience anywhere, because gaming tables that don't like them can just drop them without having to worry about unforeseen balance ramifications (such as a class whose balance depends on it being a particular alignment).  At least to me, a flavor-only 9-alignment grid best provides a sense of D&D history without provoking needless arguments around the gaming table (which we should remember could grow quite heated back when the consequences were losing a level or even "falling" from your class entirely).


----------



## Mallus

Pickles JG said:


> I am glad that's settled - I did not want not have to read all 140 pages



Glad to be of service!

Anyhow...

Two things     [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wrote early on in the thread really stood out. The first was the idea a PCs alignment should be determined by _playing through the campaign itself_. This is dead-on. Traditionally, D&D approaches alignment ass-backwards. It asks a player to choose an alignment before play even begins. At the time the player knows the _least_ about the PC. Instead of declaring alignment to be the sum of the characters moral actions over the course their fictional lives, i.e. the campaign.

Personally, I don't really know who my PC is before play begins. I usually have no more than a vague idea, some backstory, and a stupid accent. I treat a campaign as both a (stage) play and the workshop in which the text and performances are honed. It takes time to discover who the PC is, and how they relate to the world, the other characters, and the events they participate in. 

This is especially true since alignment goes way beyond personality. It's a characters objective moral place in the universe. Predetermining that seems, I don't know... really Calvinist. 

I see no point in asking a player to decide their moral relation to the universe prior to the start of play, or in holding them to whatever answer they give. Consistency can come later, when the character is more developed. And let's not forget consistency is overrated. People, including fictional ones, can be fairly surprising. 

Actually, come to think of it. I don't see why, as GM/DM, I need to evaluate/judge a PCs objective moral state at all. During the course of play I'll need to make a lot of judgment calls, as the PCs attempt to affect things in the game universe. But do I need to supply the game universe's judgment of _them_? What practical purpose does this serve? Other than allowing me the pleasure of telling a friend that they're morally wrong, by proxy. 

The other really smart (or is it wise) observation from pen was something like "GMs should trust their players know what of aesthetic experience they want", i.e. if a player really wants to play an honorable or charitable PC, they'll do it on their own, because that's the play experience they're after. And if the player just wants to play an amoral, expedience-favoring fixer-thug, well than that's the experience they want and alignment systems won't change that.

The idea that players will always choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so is really sells the community short. You've never seen gamers playing honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PCs just for the fun of it?


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> Why does the question restrict itself to mechanical alignment? Can an honourable warrior use superior equipment to gain an advantage over his foes? "Sure, Arthur, you're a big shot with Excalibur ensuring you never have to fight a fair fight!"
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page144#ixzz2ySIhF7yd




Because in non-mechanical alignment, the player comes up with the answer.  Maybe he believes that he cannot be honourable and eschews magical weapons (and in 4e, uses Inherent Bonuses - granted by his piety of course).  Maybe he can come to some sort of reconciliation - The gods grant me powers (granted mechanically they don't, but, the character can certainly believe they do) and if it was wrong to do so, the gods would give me a sign.

Either way works and in no way requires any adjudication or judgement from me the DM.  I would use either explanation (or a third one if that comes up) and weave that into the campaign.  Thus, the players actually have direct ownership over the setting.  Which, again, in my mind, is a very good thing.

Maybe we have two different paladins who believe different things.  Who's right?  I dunno.  Don't care either.  That's not my job.  I'll weave both into the setting.  This group eschews magical items in favour of a personal code.  This other group embraces magical items as a sign of favour from their chosen god.  I have no problem having both in a game.

Which I can't do in a mechanical alignment setting because, in mechanical alignment, one of those two HAS to be wrong.  They can't both be right.  Either it's honourable, thus in keeping with alignment adjudication, or it isn't.  There cannot be any ambiguity.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], terrific post that sets out the GM-ing technique ("weaving the players' conception of their PCs into the campaign") really nicely. Sorry no XP for you today!


----------



## Mallus

pemerton said:


> Sorry no XP for you today!



I got you covered.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Which I can't do in a mechanical alignment setting because, in mechanical alignment, one of those two HAS to be wrong.  They can't both be right.  Either it's honourable, thus in keeping with alignment adjudication, or it isn't.  There cannot be any ambiguity.




This is where your logic breaks down for me...

Mechanical alignment has nothing to do with whether one is honorable or not... there is no honorable alignment... there are alignments which place more or less emphasis on traits some would consider honorable (of course what is or isn't honorable is dependent on numerous factors such as culture, one's order or religion, codes or oaths sworn, etc)..  

As far as classes are concerned being honorable is, IMO, is centered mostly around a paladin's code (since in most editions he can loose his powers for not following it) as opposed to alignment and that is something that should be well defined enough (whether by player or DM) that a player and DM know when a character has done a dishonorable deed (per the code).

EDIT: In other words while 3.x gives a baseline code for the paladin... I'm not seeing why a paladin in either a game with mechanical alignment or without cannot decide what is and isn't honorable according to his own code (and I believe that 3.x and 2e do allow for alternate paladin codes)... as opposed to what is or isn't LG?


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Which I can't do in a mechanical alignment setting because, in mechanical alignment, one of those two HAS to be wrong.  They can't both be right.  Either it's honourable, thus in keeping with alignment adjudication, or it isn't.  There cannot be any ambiguity.




Imaro already nailed it.  Two orders with two different conceptions of Honour.  Alignment does not dictate whether you may, or may  not, use magical weapons.  Of course, the fellow that disdains magical equipment (and gets mechanical bonuses instead) can't read the game rules to know that he should not get an equal share of any treasure, so I guess he can invest in a whole bunch of magical items that don't offend his honour.  Perhaps healing magic to aid his friends, for example.  I'm sure we can think of lots of things to buy that help the party without being dishonourable in single combat!


----------



## Abraxas

Mallus said:


> The idea that players will always choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so is really sells the community short. You've never seen gamers playing honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PCs just for the fun of it?



Sure, and alignment didn't inhibit that one bit.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> This is where your logic breaks down for me...
> 
> Mechanical alignment has nothing to do with whether one is honorable or not... there is no honorable alignment... there are alignments which place more or less emphasis on traits some would consider honorable (of course what is or isn't honorable is dependent on numerous factors such as culture, one's order or religion, codes or oaths sworn, etc)..
> 
> As far as classes are concerned being honorable is, IMO, is centered mostly around a paladin's code (since in most editions he can loose his powers for not following it) as opposed to alignment and that is something that should be well defined enough (whether by player or DM) that a player and DM know when a character has done a dishonorable deed (per the code).
> 
> EDIT: In other words while 3.x gives a baseline code for the paladin... I'm not seeing why a paladin in either a game with mechanical alignment or without cannot decide what is and isn't honorable according to his own code (and I believe that 3.x and 2e do allow for alternate paladin codes)... as opposed to what is or isn't LG?




I dunno.  I'd say honourable is certainly a Lawful trait.  I can't really see Chaotics being terribly concerned with concepts of honour since that would require them to submit to a higher authority of some sort.  Having a code of conduct and sticking to that code of conduct is pretty much part and parcel for a Lawful AFAIC.  I mean, the 3.5 SRD does have this to say:



> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
> 
> Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
> 
> ...
> 
> Lawful Good, "Crusader"
> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
> 
> Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it *combines honor and compassion*.




Certainly sounds like honourable is a Lawful Good trait to me.  Thus, doing something which is dishonourable would be out of alignment for a lawful good character.  Granted, poison use is specifically called out in the 3.5 Paladin's code, which is something of a holdover from earlier editions where poison use was specifically evil.  After all, in 1e, good clerics were forbidden from using poison and rangers could only use it if the DM allowed, despite the fact that neither class comes with a code of conduct similar to a paladin's.

But, since poison use isn't actually specifically evil in 3e (the Poison spell lacks the Evil descriptor after all - so if I can inflict a lethal poison on someone with a spell and it's not called out as evil, I'm not sure why stabbing someone with a poison weapon would be), why is it a problem for paladins to use poison?  Yup, it's called out in the Paladin's code, but, why?  It's not evil.  And since you're claiming that no alignment has honour as an element, then why is it being called out?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  I'd say honourable is certainly a Lawful trait.  I can't really see Chaotics being terribly concerned with concepts of honour since that would require them to submit to a higher authority of some sort.  Having a code of conduct and sticking to that code of conduct is pretty much part and parcel for a Lawful AFAIC.  I mean, the 3.5 SRD does have this to say:




I'd say you are wrong since the 3.5 SRD also has this to say...

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and *do what they promise if they feel like it.* 

Emphasis mine, this would imply that an individual aligned with chaos can in fact be honorable... if he feels like it or if his conscience demands it.  So it doesn't seem that honor is intrinsically tied to one's alignment though individuals of a lawful bent are certainly, on the whole, more likely to be honorable... even if it's not what they personally feel like doing...





Hussar said:


> Certainly sounds like honourable is a Lawful Good trait to me.  Thus, doing something which is dishonourable would be out of alignment for a lawful good character.  Granted, poison use is specifically called out in the 3.5 Paladin's code, which is something of a holdover from earlier editions where poison use was specifically evil.  After all, in 1e, good clerics were forbidden from using poison and rangers could only use it if the DM allowed, despite the fact that neither class comes with a code of conduct similar to a paladin's.




Sounds like honor and compassion are traits that are usually associated with those of the LG alignment...  It also seems that individuals who are LG would be willing to decide whether honor or compassion is held in a higher regard, or whether both are considered equally...  though I still don't see how this in any way nullifies those of a different alignment being honorable...  Again there is a flaw here... claws are often associated with cats does not equate to no other animal but cats can ever have claws.

Not sure what your point is as far as whether poison is "evil" or not since we were discussing whether its use was honorable, not whether its use was evil, this feels like we are now switching goalposts or are we turning to a different discussion... 



Hussar said:


> But, since poison use isn't actually specifically evil in 3e (the Poison spell lacks the Evil descriptor after all - so if I can inflict a lethal poison on someone with a spell and it's not called out as evil, I'm not sure why stabbing someone with a poison weapon would be), why is it a problem for paladins to use poison?  Yup, it's called out in the Paladin's code, but, why?  It's not evil.  And since you're claiming that no alignment has honour as an element, then why is it being called out?




Because dishonorable does not equate to evil... and the paladin's code specifically calls this out as separate from him having to behave in a LG manner because, as I stated before, honorable does not (necessarily) equate to LG.


----------



## Mallus

Abraxas said:


> Sure, and alignment didn't inhibit that one bit.



Never mean to suggest it would. Just commenting on how alignment is unnecessary for some groups. 

(and, I suppose, commenting on how toxic an idea it is that players won't play real characters without a stern, paternalistic DM watching over them and making sure they take their PCs seriously enough)


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> The idea that players will always choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so is really sells the community short. You've never seen gamers playing honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PCs just for the fun of it?




Where did someone, anyone in this thread posit the idea that *all* players will *always* choose anything?
Where did anyone say they've never seen a gamer play an honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PC just for the fun of it? 
Quote please... or is this just hyperbole?

On the other hand are you claiming that no players whatsoever choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so and that some players won't play an honorable, self-sacrficing, not-at-all greedy PC just for the fun of it?

Be careful with that broad brush you keep slinging around...


----------



## Hussar

Actually Imaro it's been said numerous times in this thread that mechanical alignment is needed because players will choose expedience over stayin in character. 

And you realize you added that bit about conscience into chaotic don't you?  That what you said isn't actually in the books.


----------



## Abraxas

Mallus said:


> Never mean to suggest it would. Just commenting on how alignment is unnecessary for some groups.
> 
> (and, I suppose, commenting on how toxic an idea it is that players won't play real characters without a stern, paternalistic DM watching over them and making sure they take their PCs seriously enough)



No more toxic than the idea that mechanical alignment is only used by dictatorial DMs to stifle player creativity.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Actually Imaro it's been said numerous times in this thread that mechanical alignment is needed because players will choose expedience over stayin in character




As have numerous other reasons... and that isn't what @_*Mallus*_ actually said... he made a sweeping generalization about all players and their choices which no one, as far as I know made... but again if you have a quote I'd be more than happy to see it.



Hussar said:


> And you realize you added that bit about conscience into chaotic don't you?  That what you said isn't actually in the books.




Wow, really... No I didn't, it's a cut and paste from the 3.5 SRD... It's on pg. 104 of the 3.5 PHB... and I know for a fact it's in the 3.0 PHB as well...

EDIT: In fact the part about their consciences is in the post you quoted...


----------



## Hussar

Huh. Your right. So if my character's conscience tells him to always behave in an honourable fashion, what distinguishes me from lawful good?


----------



## jsaving

Imaro said:


> Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and *do what they promise if they feel like it.*
> Emphasis mine, this would imply that an individual aligned with chaos can in fact be honorable... if he feels like it or if his conscience demands it.  So it doesn't seem that honor is intrinsically tied to one's alignment



I actually think it is saying something rather different.  Lawful characters do what they promise because they promised it, and any given lawful character can be relied upon to keep promises once they are made.  On the other hand, Chaotic characters don't care what they promised, though any given chaotic character might coincidentally _do_ what was promised provided there are reasons other than the promise to do it.

The contrast being presented in the PH is between "following their consciences" (Chaos) and "acting as society directs" (Law) -- or put another way, what you do when your impulses diverge from others expect.  It doesn't mean you can hold any set of beliefs and still be considered chaotic provided you are true to whatever those beliefs happen to be.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> an individual aligned with chaos can in fact be honorable... if he feels like it or if his conscience demands it.



That's not being honourable. Being honourable means doing it even if you don't feel like it or it is contrary to your personal conscience - eg keeping your promise to a prisoner to spare his life even when you find out that he's the one who murdered your family.

Also what [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] said in the post above this one.


----------



## Imaro

jsaving said:


> I actually think it is saying something rather different.  Lawful characters do what they promise because they promised it, and any given lawful character can be relied upon to keep promises once they are made.  On the other hand, Chaotic characters don't care what they promised, though any given chaotic character might coincidentally _do_ what was promised provided there are reasons other than the promise to do it.
> 
> The contrast being presented in the PH is between "following their consciences" (Chaos) and "acting as society directs" (Law) -- or put another way, what you do when your impulses diverge from others expect.  It doesn't mean you can hold any set of beliefs and still be considered chaotic provided you are true to whatever those beliefs happen to be.




You're extrapolating alot from my post since I am not speaking to all the actions a character aligned with chaos can or can't take.... I am speaking to whether he can or cannot act honorably... are you saying he can't act honorably?  

EDIT: A characters motivations for acting honorably are irrelevant to my point, I'm not answering why a chaotic would act honorably or not... only whether it is in his purview to act with honor or does his alignment make it impossible for him to act in an honorable way...  I don't believe it does and you haven't shown me proof that a chaotic character can and will only act dishonorably


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> That's not being honourable. Being honourable means doing it even if you don't feel like it or it is contrary to your personal conscience - eg keeping your promise to a prisoner to spare his life even when you find out that he's the one who murdered your family.




Is this the definition of an "honorable act"??  Does one have to lack the desire to want to enact an action it in order for an act to be honorable?  I don't think that's correct at all.  Let's take a look at the definition for honorable...

[h=2]hon·or·able[/h] _adjective_ \ˈä-nər-(ə-)bəl, ˈän-rə-\: deserving honor and respect
: having or showing honesty and good moral character
: fair and proper : not deserving blame or criticism




[h=2]Full Definition of HONORABLE[/h]*1*
*:*  deserving of honor

*2*
*a* *:*  of great renown *:* illustrious
*b* *:*  entitled to honor —used as a title for the children of certain British noblemen and for various government officials

*3*
*:*  performed or accompanied with marks of honor or respect

*4*
*a* *:*  attesting to creditable conduct
*b* *:*  consistent with an untarnished reputation <an _honorable_withdrawal>

*5*
*:*  characterized by integrity *:*  guided by a high sense of honor and duty


Only one of these definitions, number 5, actually requires that an honorable act be tied to duty but even that doesn't make a distinction about whether it is a duty one desires to do or doesn't... so where are you getting this requirement of honor from?



pemerton said:


> Also what @_*jsaving*_ said in the post above this one.




Yeah, I addressed that above this post, I was speaking strictly to whether a chaotic aligned character could or couldn't act honorably, not making an argument for all the actions he could or couldn't do, so unless either of you can show me why a chaotic alignment would make all of the actions as defined above impossible for a character to act upon I stand by my assertion.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Huh. Your right. So if my character's conscience tells him to always behave in an honourable fashion, what distinguishes me from lawful good?




Acting with honor does not (necessarily) equate to acting in a good manner thus why I earlier made the assertion that honor itself is not intrinsically linked to alignment... for an easy example of why, see Lawful Evil.


----------



## jsaving

For the two-dimensional alignment system to make sense, Good/Evil and Law/Chaos have to be reflecting fundamentally different things (if it were not so then one may as well boil it down to a single dimension).  So you are absolutely right that being honorable doesn't make a character Good within the context of the game.  

It does, however, make him Lawful (which I think is the point Hussar was trying to make).  

_Can_ a Chaotic character take honorable actions from time to time?  Sure.  Just as he doesn't have to automatically and reflexively oppose everything an authority figure says, or automatically and reflexively flout every tradition he can find, he doesn't have to maximize the number of lies he tells or the amount of poison he uses.  But having one's actions sometimes coincide with what an honorable person would do is a far cry from actually _being_ honorable, i.e. living by a code that says you won't lie/cheat/poison even when it would be convenient for you to do so.


----------



## Imaro

jsaving said:


> For the two-dimensional alignment system to make sense, Good/Evil and Law/Chaos have to be reflecting fundamentally different things (if it were not so then one may as well boil it down to a single dimension).  So you are absolutely right that being honorable doesn't make a character Good within the context of the game.




Yes but I do not agree that honor is one of those fundamental things, that is why being honorable in and of itself doesn't make one a particular alignment... But I am glad you at least see why it isn't good...  



jsaving said:


> It does, however, make him Lawful (which I think is the point Hussar was trying to make).




No [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] made the assertion it made him lawful good... not just lawful.  And no I don't agree it makes him lawwful. 



jsaving said:


> _Can_ a Chaotic character take honorable actions from time to time?  Sure.  Just as he doesn't have to automatically and reflexively oppose everything an authority figure says, or automatically and reflexively flout every tradition he can find, he doesn't have to maximize the number of lies he tells or the amount of poison he uses.  But having one's actions sometimes coincide with what an honorable person would do is a far cry from actually _being_ honorable, i.e. *living by a code that says you won't lie/cheat/poison even when it would be convenient for you to do so.*




Emphasis mine: Okay, first off that does not encompass all definitions of honor, since again what is honorable is dependent upon various factors, what you seem to be espousing is the paladin's code of honor which is all fine and good but kind of self-fulfilling since the code was created for a character class that is supposed to be *LAWFUL* good. How about we instead turn to a raider or barbarians code of honor say one that espouses...

Great honor is accorded whoever...
Takes from those who are not our people whatever they are strong enough to claim.
Leaves nothing of the weakling civilizations in our wake but fire and ash.
Attacks their enemy with wild abandon and reckless rage.


Does this "code" make the reaver/barbarian/whatever lawful... does it promote the aims and goals of the cosmic force of law in the world?  I would say no to both of these questions...  In fact it seems to actively serve and create chaos... and yet a warrior who did these things would follow a code and would be considered honorable in his particular society.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Imaro said:


> Great honor is accorded whoever...
> Takes from those who are not our people whatever they are strong enough to claim.
> Leaves nothing of the weakling civilizations in our wake but fire and ash.
> Attacks their enemy with wild abandon and reckless rage.
> 
> 
> Does this "code" make the reaver/barbarian/whatever lawful... does it promote the aims and goals of the cosmic force of law in the world?  I would say no to both of these questions...  In fact it seems to actively serve and create chaos... and yet a warrior who did these things would follow a code and would be considered honorable in his particular society.




In his particular society, yes. But then there are those people most would agree are evil who certainly thought they were good people.

Being honorable within your own code is chaos, IMO, but is not being honorable in the greater sense of the term.


----------



## jsaving

It's certainly true that different people might affix the label of "honor" to different things, but there is only one definition of honor provided in the PH -- "not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc".  It makes no difference whether barbarians in certain parts of the world use the word honor in a different way, or whether an English dictionary has more than one definition on honor.  The only thing that matters for slotting somebody into Law or Chaos is whether they fit the objectively knowable definition provided in the PH.  Indeed, the 3e team likely chose to define "honor" in the D&D context precisely _because_ there are so many alternative definitions that could be used if they hadn't.  

I am also having trouble understanding the argument that Lawfulness doesn't imply honor, mainly because the PH definition of Law says that "Law implies honor."  To be sure, this doesn't mean a less-than-honorable individual would automatically be non-Lawful overall, as he might satisfy the other components of Lawfulness well enough to have an overall placement inside a Lawful alignment square.  But it does mean at a minimum that a less-than-honorable person won't be as lawful as an otherwise identical person who does act with honor whenever possible.


----------



## Mallus

Oops... replied to something I already replied to. So, moving on...

Hey    [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - can you point out where you thought I was (somehow, apparently) making sweeping generalization about all gamers? I honestly don't what you're talking about.

What I said was there are gamers who don't a require DM --armed with alignment rules-- to keep them in line, ie to play fictional characters and not amoral boardgame tokens.


----------



## Imaro

jsaving said:


> It's certainly true that different people might affix the label of "honor" to different things, but there is only one definition of honor provided in the PH -- "not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc".  It makes no difference whether barbarians in certain parts of the world use the word honor in a different way, or whether an English dictionary has more than one definition on honor.  The only thing that matters for slotting somebody into Law or Chaos is whether they fit the objectively knowable definition provided in the PH.  Indeed, the 3e team likely chose to define "honor" in the D&D context precisely _because_ there are so many alternative definitions that could be used if they hadn't.




This definition of honor in the PHB  doesn't preclude anything in the example I gave... I didn't mention lying, poison or cheating... and yet it fosters and supports chaos...  



jsaving said:


> I am also having trouble understanding *the argument that Lawfulness doesn't imply honor*, mainly because the PH definition of Law says that "Law implies honor."  To be sure, this doesn't mean a less-than-honorable individual would automatically be non-Lawful overall, as he might satisfy the other components of Lawfulness well enough to have an overall placement inside a Lawful alignment square.  But it does mean at a minimum that a less-than-honorable person won't be as lawful as an otherwise identical person who does act with honor whenever possible.




Emphasis mine... who argued it didn't imply it?  So if a less-than-honorable individual could be lawful... it would seem to reason that honor is not a fundamental trait of lawfulness... right?


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> Oops... replied to something I already replied to. So, moving on...
> 
> Hey  @_*Imaro*_ - can you point out where you thought I was (somehow, apparently) making sweeping generalization about all gamers? I honestly don't what you're talking about.
> 
> What I said was there are gamers who don't a DM --armed with alignment rules-- to keep them in line, ie to play fictional characters and not amoral boardgame tokens.




That's not what you said... I quoted what you actually said, here it is...



Mallus said:


> The idea that players will always choose the expedient option unless penalized for doing so is really sells the community short. You've never seen gamers playing honorable, self-sacrificing, not-at-all greedy PCs just for the fun of it?




And yeah, it's a generalization.  But as long as you are now saying you were admitting that there are gamers on both sides of the coin, I have no issue with your statement.

EDIT Oh, and here's another...



Mallus said:


> (and, I suppose, commenting on how toxic an idea it is that players won't play real characters without a stern, paternalistic DM watching over them and making sure they take their PCs seriously enough)





All it would take would be a qualifier, something like... "for some posters in this thread"...or..."for some players".... that type  of thing.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> But as long as you are now saying you were admitting that there are gamers on both sides of the coin, I have no issue with your statement.



Aha. You misread what I wrote. Because neither of those sentences is a generalization. 

The first says: "The idea that players won't stay in character or play good characters without a DM forcing them to using alignment mechanics is a bad one." This is simply a criticism of conceiving of alignment as a stick the DM uses to beat better characterization out of their players.

The second says: "Some gamers do non-expedient things simply because they enjoy playing their PCs like that".

Perhaps I could have been clearer?


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> All it would take would be a qualifier, something like... "for some posters in this thread"...or..."for some players".... that type  of thing.



As a general rule, I'm allergic to weasel words and excessive qualifier-prefixing.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> As a general rule, I'm allergic to weasel words and excessive qualifier-prefixing.




I don't think one or two qualifiers for the sake of clarity is excessive... and I always think of "weasel words" as lacking in clarity... but it's cool you cleared it up.  Thanks.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Acting with honor does not (necessarily) equate to acting in a good manner thus why I earlier made the assertion that honor itself is not intrinsically linked to alignment... for an easy example of why, see Lawful Evil.




Sorry, my bad for linking that to good.  I did mean Lawful.  



Imaro said:


> /snip
> Emphasis mine: Okay, first off that does not encompass all definitions of honor, since again what is honorable is dependent upon various factors, what you seem to be espousing is the paladin's code of honor which is all fine and good but kind of self-fulfilling since the code was created for a character class that is supposed to be *LAWFUL* good. How about we instead turn to a raider or barbarians code of honor say one that espouses...
> 
> Great honor is accorded whoever...
> Takes from those who are not our people whatever they are strong enough to claim.
> Leaves nothing of the weakling civilizations in our wake but fire and ash.
> Attacks their enemy with wild abandon and reckless rage.
> 
> 
> Does this "code" make the reaver/barbarian/whatever lawful... does it promote the aims and goals of the cosmic force of law in the world?  I would say no to both of these questions...  In fact it seems to actively serve and create chaos... and yet a warrior who did these things would follow a code and would be considered honorable in his particular society.




Can my paladin from a barbarian tribe have this as a code?  Or, conversely, can this particular tribe have paladins?


----------



## pemerton

"Honourable", as used in the context of paladins, samurai etc doesn't simply mean "recipient of honour bestowed by friends/family/clansfolk/etc". It characterises a particular set of dispositions and commitments that can be somewhat generalised over a whole range of non-liberal cultures. A good discussion can be found in M I Finley's The World of Odysseus. The same sorts of idea can be found in Icelandic law codes, which define "murder" more as we would tend to define "assassination" ie killing someone in their sleep, in a dark alley at night, with poison, etc. Killing someone in open combat wasn't murder. (Even in the 19th century a range of North American and European societies had practical difficulty bringing duelling within the scope of the law of murder - the change in this respect can be seen as a triumph of enlightenment liberal values over the value of honour.)

To be honourable, in this context, is to recognise the standing and esteem of others, to evince in one's own action a due self-regard as well as other-regard (eg not being snivelling, not being a coward etc), keeping one's words, offering wine to one's guests, etc, etc.

If honour has to be put into the 9-point framework (not a completely trivial matter) it fairly obviously, to my mind, correlates with law. Besides the obvious textual point in 3E (that [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] pointed out), there is the fact that paladins, samurai, monks etc have always had to be lawful, and that feckless types like barbarians and bards are often prohibited from being lawful.

To reiterate a theme of mine in this thread, I think there are tensions between defining law in terms of honour (which is a pre-liberal notion) and then defining good in terms of well-being, dignity etc (which is a liberal, enlightenment, human rights-y notion). It puts pressure on paladins to be played as a combination of Lancelot and Amnesty International, a pretty unstable combination (and the cause of many a paladin debate for more than 40 years!).


----------



## Campbell

Much of my distaste for alignment comes down to my objection to absolute understanding of moral issues. I don't like it when there are correct answers to right and wrong. What I valued most in manbearcat's PHB is the distinction between permerton's play of Thurgon and my play of Lucann. Both were individuals who cared a great deal about what was right and what was wrong, but they both saw the world in dramatically different ways. Lucann's interpretation was pretty close to classical liberal arguments about the role coercion and diplomacy plays in society where Thurgon embraced a more historical world view and I appreciated this clash in light of neither being particularly wrong or right.


----------



## Hussar

I think the whole "honourable" thing actually speaks volumes to the point of the thread.  If this thread has a point anymore.  

We have two camps, one saying that honourable is a lawful trait and other saying that honourable is alignment agnostic.  Both camps can make pretty solid arguments either way.  Both are supported by the text of the game.  

Now, let's move forward though.  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] is playing a 3.5e Barbarian at my table.  He has a code exactly the same as he's posted above.  He claims that his barbarian is honourable by the code of his tribe.  Ok.  Fair enough.  Because I believe that honourable is a lawful trait, his Barbarian just became Lawful, which means he may no longer advance levels in Barbarian.  

 [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] are you happy at my table?  Has your gaming experience been improved?  Note, you've said that it is absolutely my right as the DM to dictate alignment and adjudicate alignment in my game and you will abide by that adjudication.  So, I have made my adjudication and you are now stuck as a 3rd level (or whatever level) barbarian and you may never again take barbarian levels and may no longer Rage.  

In order to regain your class abilities and advance again as a Barbarian, you must now act in a manner that is dishonourable to you code that you have created.

Are you a happy player?


----------



## Dannorn

Campbell said:


> Much of my distaste for alignment comes down to my objection to absolute understanding of moral issues. I don't like it when there are correct answers to right and wrong.




There aren't though.  There are correct answers to Good and Evil but that is very different.  An action can be the correct action to take and still be Evil.  For example a group of good aligned characters has taken the Big Bad prisoner, do they take him in to face justice knowing he may well escape, or do they execute him here and now knowing the act of killing a helpless opponent in cold blood is an Evil one?  Alignment has nothing to do with what's "right" unless the GM decides that Good is always right and Evil is always wrong.  Showing mercy and letting someone live might be the right thing to do, the players and characters have no way of knowing for sure until they see the results of their actions, but it is the Good thing to do.

Alignment is only as restrictive as the GM and players make it.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar;6287817We have two camps said:
			
		

> *Imaro*[/I] is playing a 3.5e Barbarian at my table.  He has a code exactly the same as he's posted above.  He claims that his barbarian is honourable by the code of his tribe.  Ok.  Fair enough.  Because I believe that honourable is a lawful trait, his Barbarian just became Lawful, which means he may no longer advance levels in Barbarian.
> 
> @_*Imaro*_ are you happy at my table?  Has your gaming experience been improved?  Note, you've said that it is absolutely my right as the DM to dictate alignment and adjudicate alignment in my game and you will abide by that adjudication.  So, I have made my adjudication and you are now stuck as a 3rd level (or whatever level) barbarian and you may never again take barbarian levels and may no longer Rage.
> 
> In order to regain your class abilities and advance again as a Barbarian, you must now act in a manner that is dishonourable to you code that you have created.
> 
> Are you a happy player?






Dannorn said:


> There aren't though.  There are correct answers to Good and Evil but that is very different.  An action can be the correct action to take and still be Evil.  For example a group of good aligned characters has taken the Big Bad prisoner, do they take him in to face justice knowing he may well escape, or do they execute him here and now knowing the act of killing a helpless opponent in cold blood is an Evil one?  Alignment has nothing to do with what's "right" unless the GM decides that Good is always right and Evil is always wrong.  Showing mercy and letting someone live might be the right thing to do, the players and characters have no way of knowing for sure until they see the results of their actions, but it is the Good thing to do.
> 
> Alignment is only as restrictive as the GM and players make it.




Two posts that sum up the positions.  

It's really too bad [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] could not discuss their respective views on alignment and come to a solution for this game, at this table.  How unfortunate that the Barbarian must be Lawful if he has a single trait [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] perceives as Lawful.  Of course, no character could ever be Chaotic with even a single non-chaotic trait, and the big "+" between the LC, CG, LE and CE boxes?  That doesn't exist - that Barbarian cannot possibly be Neutral - he's either 100% Lawful or 100% Chaotic.  His alignment will potentially change with each isolated action he takes, all read out of context.  If that's the way you view your alignment (which it seems to be from your posts), then I agree you should not use it.  But this isn't D&D alignment, it's some warped dictatorial vision of alignment rules which comes from parts unknown.

And, of course, whatever decision is reached on a single issue, at a single table, for a single game, must apply forevermore, in all past, present and future games, at all tables.  [Hussar seems the epitome of Lawful, don't you think?]

In Dannorn's game, we take matters in context.  We recognize that "absolute good" and "perfect law" will rarely, if ever, be achievable.  Is executing the Big Bad Good?  Well, it does not altruistically spare his life, so how can it be?  Well, what about taking him back to face justice, knowing that his power is such that he will almost inevitably escape, and kill innocents, violating the requirement of Good that we protect the innocent.  So...

In [MENTION=6762594]Dannorn[/MENTION]'s game, our characters role play their decision.  Which aspects of Good must take precedence here?  Perhaps our views are tempered by our views on Law or Chaos.  Maybe some characters are pretty compromising (neither G nor E, but N).  We have a moral dilemma (Hussar is bored because he doesn't expect to get any xp for this aspect of play, but that's another thread entirely).  Our characters are motivated by concerns of Good, but no perfect Good solution exists.  They come to a decision, and the GM assesses that there were no "perfect good" choices, and the PC's made their decision based on reasonable precepts of conflicting aspect of Good, so their alignments are perfectly safe.

In [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s we cannot take a Good action, so we all now all Evil.  Well, it was a good run - we stayed Good for three whole encounters this time.  But not to worry - as soon as we help a little old lady cross the street, he will shriek that we have taken a single Good action, and are all Good again.

Did I get that right?


----------



## jsaving

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] is playing a 3.5e Barbarian at my table.  He has a code exactly the same as he's posted above.  He claims that his barbarian is honourable by the code of his tribe.  Ok.  Fair enough.  Because I believe that honourable is a lawful trait, his Barbarian just became Lawful, which means he may no longer advance levels in Barbarian.
> 
> [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] are you happy at my table?  Has your gaming experience been improved?



This nicely summarizes two thoughts on which most, though not all, of us would probably agree.  One is that "honor" can't simultaneously be part of Law's definition and mean whatever any character at any moment in time wishes it meant.  Otherwise you end up in Hussar's example where players and DMs are guaranteed to clash.  The other is that alignment needs to be separated from class mechanics, so to the extent there is ambiguity in the alignment write-ups, players don't suffer numerical punishments because of it.


----------



## Dannorn

jsaving said:


> This nicely summarizes two thoughts on which most, though not all, of us would probably agree.  One is that "honor" can't simultaneously be part of Law's definition and mean whatever any character at any moment in time wishes it meant.  Otherwise you end up in Hussar's example where players and DMs are guaranteed to clash.  The other is that *alignment needs to be separated from class mechanics, so to the extent there is ambiguity in the alignment write-ups, players don't suffer numerical punishments because of it.*




Only if you declare a player Lawful, or even Neutral, for having a single Lawful trait.  If you're holding players to the restriction that no Chaotic character can have any traits or take any actions that don't qualify as Chaotic or vice versa I assure you nobody is going to have fun at that table.  If on the other hand you have a gradient scale a single Lawful trait is something to be noted, but doesn't warrant a shift.  Now if a player gives their Chaotic character a few Lawful traits, and regularly takes Lawful actions, then you consider a shift, but you warn the player first, and work with them to either avoid the shift or make it as painless as possible.


----------



## Bluenose

Dannorn said:


> Only if you declare a player Lawful, or even Neutral, for having a single Lawful trait.  If you're holding players to the restriction that no Chaotic character can have any traits or take any actions that don't qualify as Chaotic or vice versa I assure you nobody is going to have fun at that table.  If on the other hand you have a gradient scale a single Lawful trait is something to be noted, but doesn't warrant a shift.  Now if a player gives their Chaotic character a few Lawful traits, and regularly takes Lawful actions, then you consider a shift, but you warn the player first, and work with them to either avoid the shift or make it as painless as possible.




So what is alignment used for again? If people have a mix of traits of a variety of alignments, then it is probably rather hard to judge from the alignment alone how they'll behave. Or are NPCs supposed to live down to every cliche of their alignment?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Now, let's move forward though.  @_*Imaro*_ is playing a 3.5e Barbarian at my table.  He has a code exactly the same as he's posted above.  He claims that his barbarian is honourable by the code of his tribe.  Ok.  Fair enough.  Because I believe that honourable is a lawful trait, his Barbarian just became Lawful, which means he may no longer advance levels in Barbarian.



Again: [sarcasm]Why do you always have to interpret things in the worst possible way that always screws the players? [/sarcasm]


----------



## Hussar

JamesonCourage said:


> Again: [sarcasm]Why do you always have to interpret things in the worst possible way that always screws the players? [/sarcasm]




Heh. 

I'm just playing by the rules that have been given to me. A DM had the absolute authority to determine alignment. But now when I use that authority, I'm wrong. 

I have to admit to some confusion here. Can I as DM determine alignment for my game or not?  To me, a character that is self described as honourable and follows a code if conduct is lawful. 

I'm actually surprised that this is contentious.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Heh.
> 
> I'm just playing by the rules that have been given to me. A DM had the absolute authority to determine alignment. But now when I use that authority, I'm wrong.



I guess if you use it unwisely, you might be accused of doing it wrong. ("Unwisely" in the sense that you don't know how to use the authority to positively affect the experience for everyone.)


Hussar said:


> I have to admit to some confusion here. Can I as DM determine alignment for my game or not?  To me, a character that is self described as honourable and follows a code if conduct is lawful.
> 
> I'm actually surprised that this is contentious.



I'll just say I'm not surprised by the "confusion", but I'm not going to debate whether or not / how Hussar should implement alignment. Because Hussar shouldn't.


----------



## Hussar

JamesonCourage said:


> I guess if you use it unwisely, you might be accused of doing it wrong. ("Unwisely" in the sense that you don't know how to use the authority to positively affect the experience for everyone.)
> 
> I'll just say I'm not surprised by the "confusion", but I'm not going to debate whether or not / how Hussar should implement alignment. Because Hussar shouldn't.




But there's the point though. Being honourable and having some sort of code of conduct is pretty easily supportable as a lawful trait. Just about every single example from deities to NPC's to cultures to magic items- anything described as honourable is lawfully aligned in DnD. 

Imaro claims that being honourable is alignment agnostic. I disagree. But now I should let the players determine alignment?  When that was so strongly argued against?  

So are we now at the point where DM's should only determine alignment when it happens to agree with what the players want?


----------



## Dannorn

Bluenose said:


> So what is alignment used for again? If people have a mix of traits of a variety of alignments, then it is probably rather hard to judge from the alignment alone how they'll behave. Or are NPCs supposed to live down to every cliche of their alignment?





Alignment is a net indicator of behaviour.  A character who's largely Chaotic but has one or two Lawful traits (being honourable, keeping to their word) is still Chaotic, they just aren't at the extreme of Chaotic behaviour.  I use a numeric scale -15 to +15 for Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, a character declares their alignment at creation and from there their actions and traits are measured and added or subtracted.  A Chaotic Neutral Barbarian starts at -15, 0 giving the character a code of honour they adhere to bumps them closer to Law depending on how rigid it is (no more than +3 in my experience).  The character isn't in danger of an alignment shift until they hit -6, but over the course of play they'll probably bounce around within a 5 point spread (Lawful actions and Chaotic actions).  Once a player who's supposedly playing Chaotic looks to be in danger of crossing over to Neutral I discuss with them, out of game, what actions they're regularly taking that are largely Lawful, and discuss if they want to change to Neutral or adjust their play to be more Chaotic.  If you're curious I've had this conversation with players twice in over a decade of gaming, most players keep alignment in mind when they know the GM is doing the same.



Hussar said:


> Heh.
> 
> I'm just playing by the rules that have been given to me. A DM had the absolute authority to determine alignment. But now when I use that authority, I'm wrong.




Not wrong, just extreme.  If you're going to hold Lawful and Chaotic characters to such a rigid line that any action or trait not in line with their alignment will shift it to the polar opposite that's your choice, but I doubt you'll have many Chaotic or Lawful characters having fun in that game.  I've had a seat at that table, it ruins it for everyone, the GM included.



Hussar said:


> I have to admit to some confusion here. Can I as DM determine alignment for my game or not?  To me, a character that is self described as honourable and follows a code if conduct is lawful.
> 
> I'm actually surprised that this is contentious.




You can it's just a matter of degree what your players find acceptable.  Again if a group is happy playing with rigid adherence to alignment that's great, more power to them, but not everyone does.

As for adhering to a code of conduct and honour being Lawful, you're right, but you're focusing on that single trait in a vacuum outside the character's other traits and actions.  A character who believes they should be allowed to do as they please because they can, and despises attempts of outside authourity to restrict his behaviour is still Chaotic (in my mind) even if he has a personal code of honour he adheres to.


----------



## jsaving

Hussar said:


> To me, a character that is self described as honourable and follows a code if conduct is lawful.
> 
> I'm actually surprised that this is contentious.



A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes.  But being _self described_ as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.


----------



## Hussar

Dannorn said:


> /snip
> 
> As for adhering to a code of conduct and honour being Lawful, you're right, but you're focusing on that single trait in a vacuum outside the character's other traits and actions.  A character who believes they should be allowed to do as they please because they can, and despises attempts of outside authourity to restrict his behaviour is still Chaotic (in my mind) even if he has a personal code of honour he adheres to.




Hang on though.  Alignment has nothing to do with what's in the player's head.  It is 100% determined by actions.  The mechanics are very clear on that.  Thinking good thoughts does not make you good.  You actually have to perform good acts to be good.

If the character follows his code, his feelings about such are largely immaterial.  They don't matter, as far as determining alignment goes.  The fact that he is following this code makes him honourable and thus, lawful.



jsaving said:


> A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes.  But being _self described_ as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.




True.  But, I'm also presuming here that the character is actually following the code.  That is Imaro's argument after all - that a character can follow a code but not be lawful.  To me, once you've set out a codified set of behaviour, and you follow that code, you just became a lawful character.

But, again, this is all besides the point.  In this example, I'm the DM.  It is my absolute right to determine alignment in my game.  That has been repeated over and over and over again.  But, apparently now, I'm only supposed to determine alignment if the player agrees?  Isn't that how I've been advocating alignment since the beginning?  Let the players determine their own alignment?

You can argue that I'm wrong until the cows come home, but, it doesn't matter.  Players are supposed to be exploring my interpretation of alignment according to some alignment advocates in this thread.  Their interpretations are not what we're looking at, only mine.

But, suddenly, because someone doesn't actually agree with an interpretation, that's out the window?  Can you not understand why i'm having problems following the train of thought here?  I have made an interpretation of alignment - having a code of conduct and following that code is a strongly lawful trait and thus characters who follow these codes are honourable and Lawful in alignment.  Again, this is a pretty easily supportable position within D&D.  There's a plethora of examples from every edition where having a code is equated with Lawful alignment, so it's not like I'm pulling this out of my posterior.

So, why am I now not supposed to enforce my interpretation?  Isn't that the whole point of mechanical alignment to have a codified, singular view of alignment in the game that everyone follows?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> But there's the point though. Being honourable and having some sort of code of conduct is pretty easily supportable as a lawful trait. Just about every single example from deities to NPC's to cultures to magic items- anything described as honourable is lawfully aligned in DnD.
> 
> Imaro claims that being honourable is alignment agnostic. I disagree. But now I should let the players determine alignment?  When that was so strongly argued against?
> 
> So are we now at the point where DM's should only determine alignment when it happens to agree with what the players want?



I'm not going to say it again after this, man:


JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not going to debate whether or not / how Hussar should implement alignment. Because Hussar shouldn't.


----------



## Hussar

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not going to say it again after this, man:




Oh, so, mechanical alignment only works for those who truly understand it and I don't have the secret decoder ring, so, I shouldn't use it?  Is that what you're trying to say?

Nice.  "Mechanical alignment improves the gaming experience, but only for those of us who are elite enough to use it properly."

I think you've nicely proven my point.  Thanks.


----------



## Hussar

jsaving said:


> A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes.  But being _self described_ as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.




A later thought occurs.

Sorry for the confusion.  I meant self described by the _player_ not the character.  If the player comes to me and tells me that his character is honourable and follows a code, then I would assume that he is, in fact, honourable and follows a code and the player is not mistaken about his own character.

Which, in my mind anyway, makes the character lawful.  I certainly would never expect a player to come up with a character and say, "Yes, my character is an honourable barbarian from the northern tribes who follows the strictures and taboos of his people and he's Chaotic".

Having a code and adhering to that code makes a character lawful in my interpretation of alignment.


----------



## jsaving

On your broader issue of who determines alignment, it seems to me that it is the DM's job to be the ultimate arbiter of fact in his campaign, including but not limited to alignment determination.  I tend to give players substantial deference in my own campaign, as it sounds like you do (characters much less so, because for RP reasons they may well not be telling the truth).  But at the end of the day, they don't get to unilaterally "decree" their alignment except at character creation.  

As to what alignment does, I think it is supposed to be a universally understood shorthand for character behavior that gives any D&D player in any campaign a sense of how any character behaves.  I would argue it actually does a pretty good job of that overall, despite its many flaws.  But where there is disagreement, alignment should at least provide a shorthand for character behavior that is understood by everybody around a _particular_ gaming table.  And this can't happen without DM involvement.

In fairness, though, I think at least part of the problem stems from the multi-pronged definition of Law.  Whereas Good gives only one unique fundamental principle -- helping others -- Law is a mishmash that includes being honorable, having a code, respecting authority, following tradition, valuing social order, disliking change, lacking creativity, etc.  Some of these things imply that you want to freeze society in amber and fight anything that would make things different.  Some of them imply that you take orders from whatever source rather than acting on your own impulses.  Some of them imply that you want to uphold universal behavior principles like not lying or using poison.  And some of them imply that you want a highly structured and regulated society where everybody sticks to their proper place.   

In my judgment, "fighting to keep things the way they are" and "taking orders" just don't work as summaries of a character's ethos, because they don't tell me the values for which a character is willing to suffer (at least not without a supplementary listing of exactly which sources of authority the character accepts and which he rejects, which nullifies alignment's value as a shorthand description of character outlook).  On the other hand, valuing social structure and believing everyone has their proper place in that structure is a readily understandable foundational principle that can be used in much the same way "altruism" can to provide a sense of what a character will do in a particular situation.  Neither altruism nor order provide cookie-cutter solutions to every problem, of course, and fervent partisans on either issue can strongly disagree on how best to bring them about.  But they at least provide objective principles that aren't dependent on whoever happens to be in power at the time, or what society happens to be like at a particular point in time.  So I tend to focus on Law-is-order in my campaign, though YMMV.    

I wonder to what extent some of the disagreements in this thread have been caused by people just genuinely seeing different pieces of the Law writeup as being the foundational aspect of Law?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Oh, so, mechanical alignment only works for those who truly understand it and I don't have the secret decoder ring, so, I shouldn't use it?  Is that what you're trying to say?



First, you're the one that said you're confused.

Second, see my sig for my thoughts on why you shouldn't use it. But don't come in accusing me, of all posters, of badwrongfunning again. Because then I'm done with you.


----------



## Bluenose

Dannorn said:


> Alignment is a net indicator of behaviour.  A character who's largely Chaotic but has one or two Lawful traits (being honourable, keeping to their word) is still Chaotic, they just aren't at the extreme of Chaotic behaviour.  I use a numeric scale -15 to +15 for Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, a character declares their alignment at creation and from there their actions and traits are measured and added or subtracted.  A Chaotic Neutral Barbarian starts at -15, 0 giving the character a code of honour they adhere to bumps them closer to Law depending on how rigid it is (no more than +3 in my experience).  The character isn't in danger of an alignment shift until they hit -6, but over the course of play they'll probably bounce around within a 5 point spread (Lawful actions and Chaotic actions).  Once a player who's supposedly playing Chaotic looks to be in danger of crossing over to Neutral I discuss with them, out of game, what actions they're regularly taking that are largely Lawful, and discuss if they want to change to Neutral or adjust their play to be more Chaotic.  If you're curious I've had this conversation with players twice in over a decade of gaming, most players keep alignment in mind when they know the GM is doing the same.




What you're describing doesn't make alignment useful for predicting how people will behave. The various personality traits may add up to a particular alignment for PCs, but not for NPCs. How does a GM tell how a CN Barbarian is going to act if they've got a random selection of personality traits? Either the particular behaviour traits of this barbarian are expressed (and if so, the alignment description is superfluous) or they're not (in which case it's fairly clear that they don't matter at all and this NPC is another stereotype). Writing, "Reckless, Rude, Honest" may take more space than writing "CN", but it's also far more likely to get across the personality of a character (PC or NPC). Which presumably is part of the point of a role-playing game.


----------



## pemerton

Dannorn said:


> An action can be the correct action to take and still be Evil.  For example a group of good aligned characters has taken the Big Bad prisoner, do they take him in to face justice knowing he may well escape, or do they execute him here and now knowing the act of killing a helpless opponent in cold blood is an Evil one?



This is where I have a fundamental problem. As a piece of English, "This action is Evil but is nevertheless morally correct" is contradictory in nearly all cases.

If, in fact, for whatever reason, it is morally permissible to kill the prisoner, then doing so is per se not evil. If it is morally obligatory to do so, then doing so is good. That's what the words "good" and "evil" mean!

To tie this back to the 3.5 SRD definitions:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. 

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.​
Nothing there tells us, without interpretation and application, that killing the prisoner is evil (it is not motivated by a lack of compassion, nor sheer convenience, nor sport; and D&D has never taken the pacifistic view that all deadly violence is evil as such). To reach that conclusion we have to reach the conclusion that doing so shows a lack of respect for life and a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings. 

I assume that the reason for killing the prisoner here and now is that the balance of interests in respect of life favour killing him/her now rather than taking him prisoner, and risking escape and therefore the lives of those the escaped prisoner might take.

There are of course well-known arguments against such a process of weighing up the interests in play and deciding what is the right thing to do (see, for instance, any criticism of strictly consequentialist moral theory) - but those argument are arguments that it is _not correct_ to kill the prisoner, that to do so would be _evil_. Rebutting those arguments _is_ rebutting the claim that to do so is evil. What counts as proper respect for life and dignity is precisely what is at stake in the debate between the consequentialist and his/her opponent.



Dannorn said:


> Alignment has nothing to do with what's "right" unless the GM decides that Good is always right and Evil is always wrong.



This is like saying that 2 x 2 <> 4 unless the GM decides that it is. At a certain point the logic of ordinary usage has to be given priority or the game terminology becomes unworkable. "Good" and "evil" are defined using other evaluative notions like "respect", "dignity", "altruism" etc. You can't just ignore these words and suppose that it is up to the GM to decide whether or not it is a good thing to be good. Of course it's a good thing! It's practically tautologous that this should be so!



Dannorn said:


> A character who's largely Chaotic but has one or two Lawful traits (being honourable, keeping to their word) is still Chaotic, they just aren't at the extreme of Chaotic behaviour.



I am somewhat curious what's left of the largely "Chaotic" character who is an honourable promise-keeper.

Per the 3.5 SRD:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. ]

<snip>

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.​
A person who is honourable, trustworthy and a promise-keeper is also going to be reliable (that's a consequence of being honourable and keeping your word) and also probably obedient to authority (at least once that authority is acknowledged, perhaps by way of promise). Where is the adaptability and flexibility? The irresponsibility?



jsaving said:


> Whereas Good gives only one unique fundamental principle -- helping others -- Law is a mishmash that includes being honorable, having a code, respecting authority, following tradition, valuing social order, disliking change, lacking creativity, etc.



I personally don't see them as a mish-mash at all. They capture the classic conservative value of respect for tradition. Whereas chaos is (among other things) transformative.

My problems with law and chaos are not that they are hard to pin down, but that (i) they aren't really oppositional at the individual level (as I've said, the monk and the bard can generally get along fine), whereas D&D wants them to be, and (ii) in real-world moral argument they are not orthogonal to good and evil, but rather candidates for being labelled good or evil depending upon broader moral perspective (eg JS Mill, together with the other classical utilitarians, clearly thinks that D&D-style "law" - respecting tradition, valuing social order, disliking change, etc - is a social evil which impedes progress).


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I asked Hussar this, and I'll ask you the same... what other consumables?



I noted some in my post upthread. Alchemical fire (to gain an area burst attack). Holy water (works well against paradigmatic paladin targets, and gives a minor action attack).



Hussar said:


> Of course, that brings up another point.  The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill.  You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him.  So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way?  How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not?  After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.
> 
> So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword?  Where does it stop?  Is any magical weapon dishonourable?  Why not?  Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword?  How is it justifiable under the alignment system?





Manbearcat said:


> At its most base functionality, poison efficiently facilitates the expiration of life, same as any other weapon.  It can't be the virulence of poison that is the problem.  I'm pretty sure your average Holy Avenger bears out a much greater life-snuffing capacity than your average vial of poison.  Presumably for a Paladin, within an unwritten protocol of armed conflict, poison would be deemed dishonourable due to its inherent nature of circumventing a (knightly) promise to observe direct, overt, symmetric warfare (its underhanded or asymmetric). One wonders what else would a Paladin (to remain consistent) need to observe and what sort of strategic asymmetry (in warfare) would he need to castigate/outright forbid to retain his honour (not his alignment and powers...simply his honour by his own evaluation) and properly observe those unwritten protocols of armed conflict?



These are interesting questions.

In the classical literature, a knight is not "cheating" if the divinity is on his/her side. That is part and parcel of being a pure warrior. Hence any magic item that expresses that divine connection is OK, I think. Whereas a simple weapon +2 is rather "cheaty" unless the enemy has one too.

In 4e this is fairly easy, because bonuses that the system flags as magic items can be worked out in the fiction in a variety of ways eg inherent bonuses, or (in my own campaign) divine blessings to weapons and armour. In classic D&D it's a bigger issue, though the expectation is probably that a higher level paladin is mostly fighting ogres, giants, demons etc who have the advantage of sinews and magic that means the paladin using a +2 sword isn't cheating.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> This is where I have a fundamental problem. As a piece of English, "This action is Evil but is nevertheless morally correct" is contradictory in nearly all cases.




Are you saying that every judge or jury which has imposed the death penalty, and every person in the justice system who had a part in carrying it out believes taking a life to be morally correct?  How about every soldier or police officer who has ever fired a weapon?  I suggest, rather, that they are taking an action which, in isolation, is not morally correct ("Thou shalt not kill") in a context in which it is considered morally correct (defense or protection of the innocent, for example).



pemerton said:


> If, in fact, for whatever reason, it is morally permissible to kill the prisoner, then doing so is per se not evil. If it is morally obligatory to do so, then doing so is good. That's what the words "good" and "evil" mean!




Now we are getting to specific contexts.  And here we can have one character who considers the risk to the innocent is outweighed by the right of the prisoner to live, and another who considers the opposite is true.  Both making their decisions based on Good reasons, and weighing the various aspects of Good to come to a conclusion.  It doesn't make either, or both, "evil", or "non-good" because they must choose a compromise when all ideals of Good cannot simultaneously be met.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> These are interesting questions.
> 
> In the classical literature, a knight is not "cheating" if the divinity is on his/her side. That is part and parcel of being a pure warrior. Hence any magic item that expresses that divine connection is OK, I think. Whereas a simple weapon +2 is rather "cheaty" unless the enemy has one too.
> 
> In 4e this is fairly easy, because bonuses that the system flags as magic items can be worked out in the fiction in a variety of ways eg inherent bonuses, or (in my own campaign) divine blessings to weapons and armour. In classic D&D it's a bigger issue, though the expectation is probably that a higher level paladin is mostly fighting ogres, giants, demons etc who have the advantage of sinews and magic that means the paladin using a +2 sword isn't cheating.




I think what is mostly interesting is how a Paladin himself (and the player) might orient themselves toward a Ranger companion.  Consider the exchange up in the Eyrie where Bronn defeats the knight.  Bronn is a classic Ranger/Rogue and does not fight with honour.  He uses asymmetrical warfare to derive conquest and was indicted for it in this conflict ("you do not fight with honour"), but he couldn't care less ("nope...he did").  That is pretty standard for the Ranger trope of commando.  

I'm trying to think back on the number of times in my campaigns I've had a chaotic good (commando) Ranger and a lawful good Paladin and what, if any, conflicts ensued due to that question regarding the ethics/protocols of warfare.  Maybe once?  

I think that might be an enlightening angle for the conversation to take: the asymmetric warfare of the Ranger versus that of the poison and why a Ranger may be a divine ally, justifying his position in the Paladin's company/arsenal, while a poison may not.  I certainly accept this as coherently informing the genre fiction we are emulating when we play, but I'm not sure if its a visceral acceptance or a cerebral one.


----------



## Dannorn

Hussar said:


> Hang on though.  Alignment has nothing to do with what's in the player's head.  It is 100% determined by actions.  The mechanics are very clear on that.  Thinking good thoughts does not make you good.  You actually have to perform good acts to be good.
> 
> If the character follows his code, his feelings about such are largely immaterial.  They don't matter, as far as determining alignment goes.  The fact that he is following this code makes him honourable and thus, lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But, I'm also presuming here that the character is actually following the code.  That is Imaro's argument after all - that a character can follow a code but not be lawful.  To me, once you've set out a codified set of behaviour, and you follow that code, you just became a lawful character.
> 
> But, again, this is all besides the point.  In this example, I'm the DM.  It is my absolute right to determine alignment in my game.  That has been repeated over and over and over again.  But, apparently now, I'm only supposed to determine alignment if the player agrees?  Isn't that how I've been advocating alignment since the beginning?  Let the players determine their own alignment?
> 
> You can argue that I'm wrong until the cows come home, but, it doesn't matter.  Players are supposed to be exploring my interpretation of alignment according to some alignment advocates in this thread.  Their interpretations are not what we're looking at, only mine.
> 
> But, suddenly, because someone doesn't actually agree with an interpretation, that's out the window?  Can you not understand why i'm having problems following the train of thought here?  I have made an interpretation of alignment - having a code of conduct and following that code is a strongly lawful trait and thus characters who follow these codes are honourable and Lawful in alignment.  Again, this is a pretty easily supportable position within D&D.  There's a plethora of examples from every edition where having a code is equated with Lawful alignment, so it's not like I'm pulling this out of my posterior.
> 
> So, why am I now not supposed to enforce my interpretation?  Isn't that the whole point of mechanical alignment to have a codified, singular view of alignment in the game that everyone follows?




Addressing your response to me you're right, a character's thoughts and feelings don't matter with regards to alignment (at least until the GM asks about them). However like you I'm presuming the character exhibits these feelings through play.

To the rest of your posts you're right that as GM you can choose to run the game as you wish and if that is how you and your players want to play more power to you. However the way you present your example gives the impression you're trying to discredit the use of mechanical alignment by taking it to its most ridiculous extreme.


----------



## jsaving

Manbearcat said:


> I'm trying to think back on the number of times in my campaigns I've had a chaotic good (commando) Ranger and a lawful good Paladin and what, if any, conflicts ensued due to that question regarding the ethics/protocols of warfare.  Maybe once?



Same here -- the battlefield implications just aren't that great.  On the other hand, when the conflict is over and the paladin begins to build the regulatory superstate that will slot everyone into their proper position in society, you may perhaps begin to see more significant conflicts emerge, even as both insist their diametrically opposed positions best serve the good of all.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> I'm trying to think back on the number of times in my campaigns I've had a chaotic good (commando) Ranger and a lawful good Paladin and what, if any, conflicts ensued due to that question regarding the ethics/protocols of warfare.  Maybe once?
> 
> I think that might be an enlightening angle for the conversation to take: the asymmetric warfare of the Ranger versus that of the poison and why a Ranger may be a divine ally, justifying his position in the Paladin's company/arsenal, while a poison may not.



The paladin doesn't deploy the ranger - the ranger is an independent free-willed responsible agent - whereas the paladin does deploy the poison.

I also think that there are different forms of "asymmetric" warfare. It's one thing for the ranger to sneak around and thereby take the fight to the enemy; it's another thing for the ranger to attack from behind or shoot from cover like an assassin.

In LotR, when Faramir's rangers attack the Easterlings do they make themselves known at the same time as unleashing arrows from cover? I will have a look tonight when I get home.


----------



## Dannorn

pemerton said:


> This is where I have a fundamental problem. As a piece of English, "This action is Evil but is nevertheless morally correct" is contradictory in nearly all cases.




I think you've missed my point.  My entire point is that an action need not be morally correct to be right.  For example in the Dark Knight, Batman creates a system that allows him to spy on the entire city and it's expressed that neither he nor Lucius Fox find this action to be morally correct, but it's still the right course of action to take.



pemerton said:


> If, in fact, for whatever reason, it is morally permissible to kill the prisoner, then doing so is per se not evil. If it is morally obligatory to do so, then doing so is good. That's what the words "good" and "evil" mean!




An evil act doesn't stop being evil because you've got a good reason for doing it, especially not in a world where Evil is itself a tangible force.  It may be justified, but it's never good.  It's right in the practical rather than moral sense of the word.



pemerton said:


> I am somewhat curious what's left of the largely "Chaotic" character who is an honourable promise-keeper.
> 
> Per the 3.5 SRD:"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. ]
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.​
> A person who is honourable, trustworthy and a promise-keeper is also going to be reliable (that's a consequence of being honourable and keeping your word) and also probably obedient to authority (at least once that authority is acknowledged, perhaps by way of promise). Where is the adaptability and flexibility? The irresponsibility?




Given that the code of honour presented was rather vague (and more a code of prestige than anything), there's plenty of room for flexibility and adaptability.  There's also a matter of how strictly they adhere to the code.  As for irresponsibility they could always resort to violence as a first resort, or rush into battle while the party face is trying to negotiate.


----------



## pemerton

Dannorn said:


> I think you've missed my point.  My entire point is that an action need not be morally correct to be right.



Perhaps you've missed my point. The notion that an action is immoral but right is verging on contradictory. (There are arguments to the contrary: say, dirty hands arguments; or the sorts of arguments that Raymond Geuss runs in Outside Ethics; but you are not running such arguments.)



Dannorn said:


> An evil act doesn't stop being evil because you've got a good reason for doing it



What do you mean by "good reason"?

And for that matter, what do you mean by "evil act"?

Of course anyone agrees that the world would be a better place if no one ever had to kill in self-defence. In that sense, killing in self-defence is a necessary evil. But that doesn't mean that a soldier (or, in D&D, a paladin) is doing something evil when s/he kills in self-defence. On standard, non-pacifistic analyses of defensive violence, s/he does something justifiable - the balance of reasons favours killing, because the perpetrator of the threat has forfeited his/her right not to be killed.

In the standard terminology of criminal law, self-defence is a justification, not a mere excuse, for perpetrating violence. There is no evidence at all that D&D departs from this standard approach at all, given how central defensive violence is to the standard tropes of fantasy fiction (and genre fiction more generally).


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> What do you mean by "good reason"?
> 
> And for that matter, what do you mean by "evil act"?
> 
> Of course anyone agrees that the world would be a better place if no one ever had to kill in self-defence. In that sense, killing in self-defence is a *necessary evil*. But that doesn't mean that a soldier (or, in D&D, a paladin) is doing something evil when s/he kills in self-defence. On standard, non-pacifistic analyses of defensive violence, s/he does something justifiable - the balance of reasons favours killing, because the perpetrator of the threat has forfeited his/her right not to be killed.




Emphasis added.  You are the one placing significant weight on the word "good" as "morally right" and evil as "morally wrong".  If someone is committing an *evil*, however *necessary*, is it not still an *evil*?  The fact that it is *justifiable* does not change the nature of the act, does it?  Now, in my parlance, that otherwise *evil* (when taken in isolation) act is *justifiable* because it supports other tenets of Good.  That moves the action up the spectrum - it is  no longer an "evil act" as it blends elements of both good and evil.  It is potentially a neutral act on the spectrum of good and evil (not sufficient, in and of itself to cause the Paladin to fall, and possibly not even sufficient to nudge him closer to neutral alignment himself) and, depending on the weighting of other Good aspects of the act, taken in context and as a whole, may even be a Good act.



pemerton said:


> In the standard terminology of criminal law, self-defence is a *justification*, not a mere *excuse*, for perpetrating violence. There is no evidence at all that D&D departs from this standard approach at all, given how central defensive violence is to the standard tropes of fantasy fiction (and genre fiction more generally).




Thank you for this discussion, as I think it adds better terminology.  The Paladin took a life justifiably, not simply because it was an easier course of action but because the balance of other Good tenets demanded he do so.  Justification versus excuse is a nice (albeit still far from objective) measure.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> The paladin doesn't deploy the ranger - the ranger is an independent free-willed responsible agent - whereas the paladin does deploy the poison.
> 
> I also think that there are different forms of "asymmetric" warfare. It's one thing for the ranger to sneak around and thereby take the fight to the enemy; it's another thing for the ranger to attack from behind or shoot from cover like an assassin.
> 
> In LotR, when Faramir's rangers attack the Easterlings do they make themselves known at the same time as unleashing arrows from cover? I will have a look tonight when I get home.




The battalion of Haradrim that they decimate in the second book?  I want to say that the ambush volley was simultaneous.

They were notorious for their ability to slaughter entire companies at unawares.

One thing that got me thinking was Gentlemen Warfare and the disdain that the British Regulars had for the "Yankee Scoundrels" (Minutemen) at Lexington when they "slithered on their bellies" (and fired from behind trees, walls, general cover, etc) rather than amassing in an infantry line to exchange volleys until one line broke.  The American forces were not professional soldiers and struggled to observe the Gentlemen Warfare protocols/code.  Their militia especially (tantamount to Rangers) ignored it, fighting a guerrilla war against the British forces during their marches; ambushing from cover, targeting officers etc.  They were widely reviled by the Regulars and their officers/commanders as scoundrels and worse.

Then there were the deviant forces inside of the British military that used brutal counterinsurgency tactics (targeting of civilians and property, using ambushes, giving no quarter for example) to crush the rebels, which were denounced by other field commanders (and General "Gentleman" John Burgoyne) because they were trying to observe the code and "win the hearts and minds" of the colonists, hoping that a gentle hand in the swift routing would quell the rebellion.  The two tactics and strategies were obviously utterly incoherent and worked against one another.

In some ways, we're talking about Paladin knightly/gentlemen ethics in warfare vs Ranger guerrilla ethics in warfare and the tension that fealty to code creates (within the scope of warfare itself and within the ranks observing the code).


----------



## Manbearcat

jsaving said:


> Same here -- the battlefield implications just aren't that great.  On the other hand, when the conflict is over and the paladin begins to build the regulatory superstate that will slot everyone into their proper position in society, you may perhaps begin to see more significant conflicts emerge, even as both insist their diametrically opposed positions best serve the good of all.




Yeah.  It doesn't seem to be the case that my players historically have felt like it was a relevant thematic conflict worth engaging.  I certainly haven't made it central too many times that I can recall.

However, the above being said, I was setting the stage for some diametric opposition on some grounds relevant to this thread (and somewhat relevant to what is being discussed above in the quoted text).  It would have had no cosmological fallout for the characters in question (as of course 4e doesn't have the mechanical alignment we have been discussing in this thread), but  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] were playing two holy men of very different ethoi, backgrounds, and interests.  They were going to be placed at odds against one another when the state (of which Thurgon supported its king) mandated the execution of Lucann's lost, now reclaimed, lover who turned out to be a villain.  The kingdom would likely need the support of the Eladrin of the Feywild for the coming battle.  Lucann would have been central to that.  Whats more, there was evidence that the villain's seduction to the dark side _may _have been, at least in part, compulsory by a dark power.  In the end, she broke free of it.

Regardless, the charges against her were grievous enough such that, in a typical D&D game with mechanical alignment, cosmological fallout for the characters would have to be in play (or the system would mean nothing).  I would have hated for such a rich situation, that may have been provacative and interesting for both players and their characters, to basically have been a fait accompli because Thurgon would have had to have supported the death sentence (at least as I see it) to maintain his LG status.


----------



## Dannorn

pemerton said:


> Perhaps you've missed my point. The notion that an action is immoral but right is verging on contradictory. (There are arguments to the contrary: say, dirty hands arguments; or the sorts of arguments that Raymond Geuss runs in Outside Ethics; but you are not running such arguments.)
> 
> What do you mean by "good reason"?
> 
> And for that matter, what do you mean by "evil act"?




Evil Act - Any act which, in isolation, would be considered immoral, ex. killing someone in cold-blood, intentionally inflicting excessive harm on another person.

Good Reason - Any rationale that the good being achieved justifies committing an Evil Act.

This is part of what I'm talking about when I say an Evil action can be right, the action being taken is evil but it's for good reasons.  The other part is where the action may not be morally justified but is none-the-less correct.  For example if a group of characters has taken an enemy prisoner who's bothered them for some time and decides that if they take him in he'll just escape and come back to pester them again, so they just kill him.



pemerton said:


> Of course anyone agrees that the world would be a better place if no one ever had to kill in self-defence. In that sense, killing in self-defence is a necessary evil. But that doesn't mean that a soldier (or, in D&D, a paladin) is doing something evil when s/he kills in self-defence. On standard, non-pacifistic analyses of defensive violence, s/he does something justifiable - the balance of reasons favours killing, because the perpetrator of the threat has forfeited his/her right not to be killed.
> 
> In the standard terminology of criminal law, self-defence is a justification, not a mere excuse, for perpetrating violence. There is no evidence at all that D&D departs from this standard approach at all, given how central defensive violence is to the standard tropes of fantasy fiction (and genre fiction more generally).




When have I ever suggested that killing in self defense, or even in combat, is evil.  Every example I've given of evil kills have been a character, after calm deliberation, choosing to kill a bound and helpless prisoner.


----------



## jsaving

Dannorn said:


> Evil Act - Any act which, in isolation, would be considered immoral, ex. killing someone in cold-blood, intentionally inflicting excessive harm on another person.
> 
> Good Reason - Any rationale that the good being achieved justifies committing an Evil Act.



According to your definitions, I can see how someone who is good could do something evil for a good reason.  But you might consider using words other than "good" and "evil," because people are liable to confuse your terms with the definitions given in the PH.  

Let me explain what I mean by that.  In the PH, selflessness and altruism define Good while selfishness and predation define Evil.  There is no division between motivations and actions, or between good and bad justifications for those reasons -- either one acts out of genuine selflessness or one does not, end of story.  If the former then one is Good, if not then one is Neutral (or Evil if one takes it a step further and actually preys on the innocent).

That said, there _is_ ambiguity over exactly how to translate altruism into actions.  In your example where a villain is captured and made helpless, and there is reason to believe he will threaten the party or other innocents in the future, different Good-aligned members of the party may reach different conclusions about the proper course of action.  Some may believe it is their role to pronounce final judgment in the name of protecting the innocent, while others may see hints of repentance and wish to release the villain, while still others may agree that recidivism is likely yet be uncomfortable taking on the mantle of executioner.  All three are valid expressions of Goodness as (A)D&D defines the term provided all party members are coming from a place of genuine altruism in making their determinations.

(Which is not to say each evaluation of what the future would hold is equally likely to be correct -- but that is about something other than alignment.)


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> The battalion of Haradrim that they decimate in the second book?  I want to say that the ambush volley was simultaneous.



I had a look. From Tolkien's narration one can't tell - there is a ring of steel on steel and volleys of arrows described simultaneously. But it certainly does seem to have guerrilla dimensions too it.

The Raven Queen paladin in my 4e game would certainly disavow "cowardly" tactics, but in practice it doesn't come up that often - there is an archer-ranger, but he rarely uses stealth as a tactic, preferring his orbital battle station (sorry, that should read flying carpet!).



Manbearcat said:


> I would have hated for such a rich situation, that may have been provacative and interesting for both players and their characters, to basically have been a fait accompli because Thurgon would have had to have supported the death sentence (at least as I see it) to maintain his LG status.



My only correction to this would be that Thurgon, if forced to be labelled in alignment terms, would be LN. The possible arc to LG or NG would be part of the scope of play, though as you know I personally don't see the benefit of framing a character arc in mechanical alignment terms.


----------



## pemerton

Dannorn said:


> Evil Act - Any act which, in isolation, would be considered immoral, ex. killing someone in cold-blood, intentionally inflicting excessive harm on another person.



The issue here is you "in isolation". In effect you are saying that the killing of the helpless prisoner is prima facie evil. Then you are going on to consider whether there are further reasons that push the other way.



Dannorn said:


> Good Reason - Any rationale that the good being achieved justifies committing an Evil Act.



They justify it by showing that, while perhaps prima facie evil, it is in the circumstances not evil.



Dannorn said:


> When have I ever suggested that killing in self defense, or even in combat, is evil.  Every example I've given of evil kills have been a character, after calm deliberation, choosing to kill a bound and helpless prisoner.



But the analysis of defensive violence plays out the same way. Killing is prima facie evil, but when done in self defence is in fact justifiable and hence not evil. In D&D killing in self-defence is probably neutral, but killing in defence of others is good.



N'raac said:


> If someone is committing an *evil*, however *necessary*, is it not still an *evil*?  The fact that it is *justifiable* does not change the nature of the act, does it?



It depends. Is killing pro tanto evil - so evil even when done with justification - or is killing prima facie evil - so evil, everything else being equal, but not evil at least in certain circumstances of justification? Standard analyses of defensive violence (and the criminal law treatment also) take the second view.

A related matter: in killing someone in defence of self or others, does one wrong that person? Standard treatments of self-defence answer "no" - the aggressor has forfeited his/her claim not be attacked, and hence in attacking him/her you do no wrong. So killing in self-defence is different, on such accounts, from breaking a promise out of pressing need (eg I can't keep my promise to meet you for lunch because I had to rescue people from a burning house). In the latter case my breaking of the promise, on standard accounts, is still a wrong to you, and the fact that I will have to break my promise to rescue the people from the house counts as a reason not to rescue them (though a reason that is easily outweighed). So it seems to me that the standard D&D paladin who kills an orc in defence of others has done nothing wrong and need not do penance; but a paladin who breaks a promise out of need, even if having obviously done the right thing, nevertheless should do penance for having broken the promise.

(The paladin I described upthread, who regarded killing even in self-defence as morally wrong, was in the same sort of situation as the promise-breaking paladin: he accepted that his killing by way of defensive violence was, on balance, the right thing to have done, as otherwise he could not have complied with the overall balance of reasons that was binding upon him, but he nevertheless had, in his view at least, committed a grave wrong and so had to undertake penance.)

A further complication, perhaps related to the point made by [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] a post or two above this one, is that "evil" can refer to an outcome and an action. An outcome is an _evil_ one if the world would be better without it. In that sense, all killings are probably evils. But an action that engenders an evil need not itself be evil, if morally permissible. Defensive violence again provides a standard example.



Dannorn said:


> For example if a group of characters has taken an enemy prisoner who's bothered them for some time and decides that if they take him in he'll just escape and come back to pester them again, so they just kill him.



To me that looks like they are not considering a good reason. So it looks to me like it is, in D&D terms, evil both prima facie and on the overall balance of reasons.


----------



## Campbell

While he is not strictly a paladin in the D&D sense of the word, my current Scion PC - Reinhardt (son of Baldur, brawler, metal singer) definitely shares some conceptual similarities to D&D paladins. He definitely views the other PCs as cowards, but doesn't make a big deal of it. For him, the journey to Valhalla is a personal. At the end of the day the other PCs are his friends and if they wish to live a lesser existence it's up to them. 

It's not lost to him that his boisterous symmetric warfare often provide opportunities for the other PCs to engage in asymmetric warfare. He did have words with the son of Loki played by my real life best friend when he dropped a malotov cocktail on Reinhardt while he was engaged in a fight against several enemies (all human cultists). For Reinhardt it was more about him missing the opportunity to prove himself in battle and less about the Scion of Loki's cowardice.

On the other hand it's fairly easy for Reinhardt to judge others because he is really good at symmetric warfare. There have only been a couple times where he seriously sweated when face to face with his enemies (both times involved the offspring of  Fenrir). Between his ability to shutdown his enemies by calling on his command of the sun and the way he utilizes Epic Appearance to dazzle his enemies while he pummels them fair fights aren't really that fair. He struggles primarily in situations where being straight forward cannot win the day. Sometimes being likable, good looking, and amazing in a fight does you no good. Luckily his friends are among the most duplicitous, double crossing, lateral thinking people to ever walk this earth. They mean well  for the most part though - he thinks. Impending end of the world and all that jazz.


----------



## Pickles JG

Campbell that's much more interesting than alignments.

The fact this thread is 150 pages long is illustrative of why IME alignments diminish my gaming experience.  This sort of debate over honour or paladins codes or what is evil crop up at the table  & do not in anyway enhance the experience, especially as we are retreading the same ground we were covering 30 years ago.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I had a look. From Tolkien's narration one can't tell - there is a ring of steel on steel and volleys of arrows described simultaneously. But it certainly does seem to have guerrilla dimensions too it.
> 
> The Raven Queen paladin in my 4e game would certainly disavow "cowardly" tactics, but in practice it doesn't come up that often - there is an archer-ranger, but he rarely uses stealth as a tactic, preferring his orbital battle station (sorry, that should read flying carpet!).




I suspect hardly any of us have any real anecdotes of our player's Paladin's quarreling with our player's Rangers over their guerrilla tactics.  I suppose the Gentlemen Warfare theme isn't terribly relevant to most (all?) of us.



pemerton said:


> My only correction to this would be that Thurgon, if forced to be labelled in alignment terms, would be LN. The possible arc to LG or NG would be part of the scope of play, though as you know I personally don't see the benefit of framing a character arc in mechanical alignment terms.




Yup.  Same as Kord.  I was just momentarily stealing Thurgon away into the realm of pre 4e D&D in order to place his upcoming decision under those alignment constraints and fallout (and resent that prospect as GM).


----------



## Imaro

Pickles JG said:


> Campbell that's much more interesting than alignments.
> 
> The fact this thread is 150 pages long is illustrative of why IME alignments diminish my gaming experience.  This sort of debate over honour or paladins codes or what is evil crop up at the table  & do not in anyway enhance the experience, especially as we are retreading the same ground we were covering 30 years ago.





It's funny because I don't take this thread as illustrative of anything that happens at the actual table.  In other words I spend more time by magnitudes arguing with people on the internet about alignment than I ever have at the actual table...  YMMV of course.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> It's funny because I don't take this thread as illustrative of anything that happens at the actual table.  In other words I spend more time by magnitudes arguing with people on the internet about alignment than I ever have at the actual table...  YMMV of course.




Well, of course you have Imaro.  Presumably you play with people who agree with your play style.  So, it becomes pretty easy to not have these arguments.  In groups where these arguments do crop up, it's generally because of incompatible play styles and the group doesn't last long enough.  Someone walks.

Try regularly changing groups - say one completely new group every year for the next ten years, and then get back to us about how alignment is used in games.

I've been gaming for a smidgeon over thirty years.  The longest any group I've ever gamed with has stuck together is my current one at about three years.  And even then, it's three of us that have gamed together that long.  The other three in the group are more recent additions.  And, for me, that's always been the way.  One, maybe two year groups.  Over and over and over again.

So, yeah, when you start playing with a lot more players and a lot more DM's, you really get to see just how much fun alignment can really be.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Well, of course you have Imaro.  Presumably you play with people who agree with your play style.  So, it becomes pretty easy to not have these arguments.  In groups where these arguments do crop up, it's generally because of incompatible play styles and the group doesn't last long enough.  Someone walks.




Incompatible play styles seems like a much bigger and broader issue than liking or disliking alignment.  



Hussar said:


> Try regularly changing groups - say one completely new group every year for the next ten years, and then get back to us about how alignment is used in games.




So is it that I play in groups that suit my play style (Which is something I think everyone is striving to do)... or that you're assuming I haven't played with multiple groups?  Not sure where you've gotten the assumption that I've only ever played with my current group but it is incorrect.  I have played in organized play games, meetup games and with a few different regular groups when I was younger and had more time to devote to the hobby... and again, we never had these blow out, all encompassing arguments about alignment and it's arbitration by the DM... But then from your posting history, I also haven't had the type of experiences with bad DM's that seem to shape alot of your views... 



Hussar said:


> I've been gaming for a smidgeon over thirty years.  The longest any group I've ever gamed with has stuck together is my current one at about three years.  And even then, it's three of us that have gamed together that long.  The other three in the group are more recent additions.  And, for me, that's always been the way.  One, maybe two year groups.  Over and over and over again.
> 
> So, yeah, when you start playing with a lot more players and a lot more DM's, you really get to see just how much fun alignment can really be.




Ok, not sure how your experiences in any way have any bearing on mine, but I get it you don't play with a regular group on average more than a year or two... I have to ask though, if these groups don't stay together (especially with modern technology like skype, virtual tabletops, and google hangout)... could there be deeper issues than alignment at play here?

And again, where is this assumption that I've only ever played with the same group since I entered the hobby coming from?  I've never made such a statement.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> Ok, not sure how your experiences in any way have any bearing on mine, but I get it you don't play with a regular group on average more than a year or two... I have to ask though, if these groups don't stay together (especially with modern technology like skype, virtual tabletops, and google hangout)... could there be deeper issues than alignment at play here?
> 
> And again, where is this assumption that I've only ever played with the same group since I entered the hobby coming from? I've never made such a statement.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page151#ixzz2zJZf8cfs




Heh, I'll ignore the implications here.

For one, remember the timeline I'm talking about.  Remote gaming has only been around or the past ten years or so.  The previous twenty years, that hasn't really been an option.  By the time remote gaming was around, I'd moved at least eleven times and three continents.  

Once I settled down here in Japan, remote gaming is my only way of gaming.  But, again, there's been all sorts of players come through the games.  Welcome to remote gaming.

To put it another way, in college, I belonged to five distinct long term groups, each lasting more than a year.  That would be about forty to fifty different players in four years.

I never said you played with the same group.  But, I suspect, that your groups have been a LOT more stable than mine, simply because most people's groups have been more stable than mine.  

I look at my current group, which is about the longest surviving group I've played with.  In the past two years, we've lost two players and gained three more.  Our current DM and his wife, who also plays, is about to have a baby in a few months, which will likely see a serious change in the group, yet again.  So, over a three year period, it's entirely likely that my entire group will have changed at least once.  

I'm always jealous of groups that manage to stay together so long.  It's such a rarity IME.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Heh, I'll ignore the implications here.
> 
> For one, remember the timeline I'm talking about.  Remote gaming has only been around or the past ten years or so.  The previous twenty years, that hasn't really been an option.  By the time remote gaming was around, I'd moved at least eleven times and three continents.
> 
> Once I settled down here in Japan, remote gaming is my only way of gaming.  But, again, there's been all sorts of players come through the games.  Welcome to remote gaming.
> 
> To put it another way, in college, I belonged to five distinct long term groups, each lasting more than a year.  That would be about forty to fifty different players in four years.
> 
> I never said you played with the same group.  But, I suspect, that your groups have been a LOT more stable than mine, simply because most people's groups have been more stable than mine.
> 
> I look at my current group, which is about the longest surviving group I've played with.  In the past two years, we've lost two players and gained three more.  Our current DM and his wife, who also plays, is about to have a baby in a few months, which will likely see a serious change in the group, yet again.  So, over a three year period, it's entirely likely that my entire group will have changed at least once.
> 
> I'm always jealous of groups that manage to stay together so long.  It's such a rarity IME.




At the end of the day your experiences with alignment are your experiences with alignment, but unlike you I'm not questioning whether you're opinions from said experiences are valid due to number of people, group consistency or whatever... you decided to question mine.  Again, like I said earlier IME, the types of blow-out, game-breaking,  group ending arguments about alignment that I am assuming you and [MENTION=61501]Pickles JG[/MENTION] experience don't happen with the various people I have played with, at most I've seen a discussion take place that is usually resolved pretty quickly.  Maybe it's a regional thing or something, I don't know but all I can do (like you) is state my experiences.


----------



## N'raac

Pickles JG said:


> The fact this thread is 150 pages long is illustrative of why IME alignments diminish my gaming experience.  This sort of debate over honour or paladins codes or what is evil crop up at the table  & do not in anyway enhance the experience, especially as we are retreading the same ground we were covering 30 years ago.




The length of the thread seems equally indicative that many gamers have found these issues do not crop up at the table and detract from the gaming experience to the extent that many of us find it beneficial to eliminate alignment either.  If there were some consensus to be reached, either that alignments are beneficial or detrimental on the whole, it would have been reached well before 30 year or 150 pages had passed.



Imaro said:


> It's funny because I don't take this thread as illustrative of anything that happens at the actual table.  In other words I spend more time by magnitudes arguing with people on the internet about alignment than I ever have at the actual table...  YMMV of course.




My experience as well, but then if our experience was that alignment causes disruption, stress and heartache at the table, we'd likely view it differently.



Hussar said:


> Well, of course you have Imaro.  Presumably you play with people who agree with your play style.  So, it becomes pretty easy to not have these arguments.  In groups where these arguments do crop up, it's generally because of incompatible play styles and the group doesn't last long enough.  Someone walks.




That's hardly restricted to matters of alignment.  Seems to me you've commented on several issues in other threads which would cause you to walk, or consider walking, which had nothing to do with alignment.  That may well be more indicative of how easy it is to get incompatible playstyles when one's group is not stable, and from your comments, your gaming groups have been highly unstable over the years.  Alignment is far from the only possible incompatibility.  I'm pretty sure you hypothetically walked from my table plenty of times in prior threads with no mention of alignment.



Imaro said:


> Incompatible play styles seems like a much bigger and broader issue than liking or disliking alignment.




Agreed above.



Imaro said:


> But then from your posting history, I also haven't had the type of experiences with bad DM's that seem to shape alot of your views...




I'd like to rephrase that "GMs with playstyles incompatible with yours".  Otherwise I agree, but given how easily one call [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] disagrees with becomes "always taking the interpretation that screws the players the most", I'm reluctant to believe all those GM's he's gamed with were as consistently horrible as they are presented in these threads.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac it's hardly one call though. From our conversations I've disagreed with virtually every example you've put forward because our playstyles are so different.  You and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] believe in a much, much more DM driven game than I do.


----------



## N'raac

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]  Sure - I would say alignment one aspect of that ("the GM will adjudicate my character's consistency with his stated alignment"), and not a separate rules issue.  I think alignment is an issue where you are likely to have a confrontation with a GM who does not necessarily rule in your favour, not the cause of your confrontations with a GM who believes in "a more GM-driven game", to use your terminology.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]  Sure - I would say alignment one aspect of that ("the GM will adjudicate my character's consistency with his stated alignment"), and not a separate rules issue.  I think alignment is an issue where you are likely to have a confrontation with a GM who does not necessarily rule in your favour, not the cause of your confrontations with a GM who believes in "a more GM-driven game", to use your terminology.




Sigh. You do realize that I've almost exclusively DM'd for years right?  That most of the alignment issues I've seen were either the other way around (me using alignment as a means of governing player behaviour) or in the cases where I was a player, seeing problems as a third party. 

I learned my lesson early. In games where the DM views alignment as a corrective tool, I just avoid alignment based characters. Solves the problem. As a DM I learned that alignment causes far more problems than it solves and thus for years I've largely ignored it. 

Funnily enough, doing so has resulted in being able to play very successful evil campaigns, which has been a lot of fun. Anti heroes is something that I could never get to work under alignment rules.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Sigh. You do realize that I've almost exclusively DM'd for years right?  That most of the alignment issues I've seen were either the other way around (me using alignment as a means of governing player behaviour) or in the cases where I was a player, seeing problems as a third party.
> 
> I learned my lesson early. In games where the DM views alignment as a corrective tool, I just avoid alignment based characters. Solves the problem. As a DM I learned that alignment causes far more problems than it solves and thus for years I've largely ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will suggest, rather, that, as a DM you learned that alignment as you ran it (which, from your comments, seems to be "a big stick with which to dogmatically whack the players") causes far more problems than it solves and thus for years you've largely ignored it.  I would agree that, if alignment could be run only as you have described your vision of how it must be run, it would be bad for the game and best removed.  Where I do not agree is that it can only be run your way, or ever should.
Click to expand...


----------



## jsaving

I've been in two campaigns where alignment became a problem.  In one, the DM would routinely move PCs to an evil alignment for even the tiniest selfish act, best encapsulated by a particularly memorable moment in which the entire adventuring party was unexpectedly blinded/deafened by their own cleric's holy word (cast to deal with invading bandits who had overrun their camp).  In the other, the DM saw Chaos as a sinister/selfish adjunct to Evil and made it his personal mission to punish PCs who professed a Chaotic Good alignment, which he saw as a logical impossibility.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of campaigns where the traditional two-dimensional alignment system has enriched rather than detracted from the role-playing experience.  A particularly memorable arc featured an uneasy alliance between LEs and LGs attempting to prop up a highly centralized state while simultaneously fighting amongst themselves about how much compassion its laws should show.  Arrayed against them was a CE/CG alliance whose members feared each other almost as much as the LE/LG state they were seeking to overthrow, with various back-channels between LG/CG and LE/CE operating throughout the conflict.  We spent more time talking than fighting in that campaign, but a good time was had by all.


----------



## S'mon

jsaving said:


> On the other hand, I've seen plenty of campaigns where the traditional two-dimensional alignment system has enriched rather than detracted from the role-playing experience.  A particularly memorable arc featured an uneasy alliance between LEs and LGs attempting to prop up a highly centralized state while simultaneously fighting amongst themselves about how much compassion its laws should show.  Arrayed against them was a CE/CG alliance whose members feared each other almost as much as the LE/LG state they were seeking to overthrow, with various back-channels between LG/CG and LE/CE operating throughout the conflict.  We spent more time talking than fighting in that campaign, but a good time was had by all.




I would think this would have worked much better with a one dimensional L-N-C axis. 
With 2-axis, "How much compassion should the laws show?" is already answered for you 
by the Alignment system - the system tells you that whatever the LG say (presumably 'lots of compassion') is morally right; whatever the LE say is morally wrong. 
This kind of debate is only interesting if both sides have strong moral claims, rather than 
slapping an Evil alignment on Dirty Harry because he wants to blow away the bad guys - 
presumably the 'other' bad guys (CE vs his LE).


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> With 2-axis, "How much compassion should the laws show?" is already answered for you by the Alignment system - the system tells you that whatever the LG say (presumably 'lots of compassion') is morally right; whatever the LE say is morally wrong.



Yes. This has been part of my point for most of this thread.


----------



## Imaro

S'mon said:


> I would think this would have worked much better with a one dimensional L-N-C axis.
> With 2-axis, "How much compassion should the laws show?" is already answered for you
> by the Alignment system - the system tells you that whatever the LG say (presumably 'lots of compassion') is morally right; whatever the LE say is morally wrong.
> This kind of debate is only interesting if both sides have strong moral claims, rather than
> slapping an Evil alignment on Dirty Harry because he wants to blow away the bad guys -
> presumably the 'other' bad guys (CE vs his LE).




"Morally" right does not equate to the correct choice when the rubber hits the pavement.  A LG person might want no death penalty since that's the ultimate expression of compassion... but is that the right choice in the case of a murderer, how about one who is released and murders again?  A traitor or spy who feeds information to enemies of the settlement?  A thief who has stolen food from the granary to feed his family but has shorted the militia protecting the settlement on food for the winter...

I'm not seeing how knowing what the lawful good answer to this is makes it any easier in deciding since we're not talking about some idealized settlement in an idealized state where everything is perfect and can be judged outside of context.  In other words it's not strong because of the moral claims to "good"...  it's strong because those idealized moral claims can rarely be successful in the "real world" of the game without certain compromises... the interesting part is what and how does one compromise without going to far.


----------



## Hussar

Because Imaro, if I'm playing in a mechanical alignment world then deliberately choosing the nonLG option is breaking character. 

Why would I choose to do something deliberately that violates my stated alignment?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Because Imaro, if I'm playing in a mechanical alignment world then deliberately choosing the nonLG option is breaking character.
> 
> Why would I choose to do something deliberately that violates my stated alignment?




A character is not defined in totality by his alignment...  It is not a straight jacket... not sure how many times this has to be repeated in this thread.


----------



## jsaving

S'mon said:


> I would think this would have worked much better with a one dimensional L-N-C axis.
> With 2-axis, "How much compassion should the laws show?" is already answered for you
> by the Alignment system - the system tells you that whatever the LG say (presumably 'lots of compassion') is morally right; whatever the LE say is morally wrong.
> This kind of debate is only interesting if both sides have strong moral claims, rather than
> slapping an Evil alignment on Dirty Harry because he wants to blow away the bad guys -
> presumably the 'other' bad guys (CE vs his LE).



If you had a one-dimensional L-N-C alignment system, you'd still have divisions between "compassionate lawfuls" and "selfish Lawfuls" -- you just wouldn't have a shorthand for summarizing why they tend to make different choices.  Being able to put more precise labels on outlooks doesn't affect, as far as I can tell, how "interesting" the interplay between those outlooks might be.

I do agree that both sides need to have strong arguments for their point of view, but I don't follow why both sides need to be able to claim to be virtuous.  Of *course* a selfish Lawful is less virtuous in his orientation than a compassionate Lawful, for example, but it isn't a LE label that makes him so -- it's the fact that he is selfish.  The selfish Lawful wouldn't somehow develop a more powerful moral claim just because you drop the label and pretend there is some sort of equivalence between the selfish Lawful and the compassionate Lawful.

That said, if I were participating in the kind of campaign you are envisioning, where the DM puts an Evil label on anybody with whom he has a political disagreement, I would agree with you that alignment is being used to stifle debate rather than enrich the campaign.  Good means making sacrifices for other people, not necessarily making the objectively correct choice that will best result in people being helped by those sacrifices.  Choosing to disregard due process of law in order to protect the innocent, as a number of "anti-heroes" like Dirty Harry do, doesn't make one Evil in a D&D context even though it is something about which many LGs would strongly disagree.

And I think that's the real point of this thread (to the extent it still has a point after 150+ pages).  Alignment can greatly enrich campaigns, but can also be a real albatross when used to stifle debate and/or enforce the DMs own agenda by him decreeing that only certain expressions of sacrifice/altruism will be considered "validly" Good.  As I think I mentioned a while back, I once participated in a campaign whose DM saw disrespect for the legal system as inherently selfish and "knew" that everyone who claimed to be CG was just using notions of freedom as a way to cloak their self-centeredness.  That would be an example of what you seem to dislike about alignment, and I'd agree that in that context a campaign is better off not using alignment at all.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> A character is not defined in totality by his alignment...  It is not a straight jacket... not sure how many times this has to be repeated in this thread.




True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?




Who said something about an out and out contradictory action??


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?




If you've picked a moral outlook for your character, even in game without a mechanical alignment system, wouldn't this still be the case? If I want to play a character who's chivalrous and kind, burning down the local orphanage after locking everyone inside is still going to be out and out contradictory and out of character.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> If you've picked a moral outlook for your character, even in game without a mechanical alignment system, wouldn't this still be the case? If I want to play a character who's chivalrous and kind, burning down the local orphanage after locking everyone inside is still going to be out and out contradictory and out of character.




I agree. 

But what if your DM declares that a good act?  Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities. 

So again, why would I act out of alignment?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> I agree.
> 
> But what if your DM declares that a good act?  Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.
> 
> So again, why would I act out of alignment?




You can engage in non-good acts just fine without taking a hit to your powers. I would expect them to do so quite often - eating lunch, taking a crap, taking a nap, etc. I would argue that any GM who rules performing lawful executions an always evil act is really a GM incompatible with the typical fantasy setting, the standard tropes of D&D adventuring, and needs to recognize that and discuss it with his players before surprising a paladin with a fall.

And even if performing a particular lawful execution would be ruled evil by the GM, the paladin would just have to decline from being the executioner. Bring them to justice those who deserve it, but leave it to the state and its professional executioner to do the dirty deed.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I agree.
> 
> But what if your DM declares that a good act?  Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.
> 
> So again, why would I act out of alignment?




I didn't declare it an evil act, and as long as it's not evil you will not loose any powers...


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> You can engage in non-good acts just fine without taking a hit to your powers. I would expect them to do so quite often - eating lunch, taking a crap, taking a nap, etc. I would argue that any GM who rules performing lawful executions an always evil act is really a GM incompatible with the typical fantasy setting, the standard tropes of D&D adventuring, and needs to recognize that and discuss it with his players before surprising a paladin with a fall.
> 
> And even if performing a particular lawful execution would be ruled evil by the GM, the paladin would just have to decline from being the executioner. Bring them to justice those who deserve it, but leave it to the state and its professional executioner to do the dirty deed.




So we're back to the paladin stepping outside for a moment so the party can torture or kill the prisoner. 

I'd have a very big problem with a character whose player decided that X was evil but it was ok to assist.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> So we're back to the paladin stepping outside for a moment so the party can torture or kill the prisoner.
> 
> I'd have a very big problem with a character whose player decided that X was evil but it was ok to assist.




No, we're not there but thanks for jumping to that conclusion and putting words in my mouth. I was beginning to forget how pointless participation in this thread is.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Because Imaro, if I'm playing in a mechanical alignment world then deliberately choosing the nonLG option is breaking character.
> 
> Why would I choose to do something deliberately that violates my stated alignment?




If you have stated that your character believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society, how does he deal with a man who has stolen from a bakery to feed his starving family?  The Law says he should be executed.  Compassion does not.  Is  it Justice?  This is the same dilemma you are telling me the character can have only one LG option, and must choose that or break character.  How is it different when we have a character whose moral views come into conflict and aren't labeled with the Alignment terms?

Now, the GM could say  "The only right choice is compassion and if you do not spare him, you are breaking character." or that "The only right choice is the law and if you spare him, you are breaking character.", or even "Since you cannot both spare him for compassion and execute him for justice you have no choice but to break character and are stripped of your Paladin powers".  That seems to be the game you envision.  In that game, the GM is a certain part of the anatomy which I prefer not to discuss.

In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation.  If the GM is going to take the stance that there are only nine possible personalities, then the game will have problems whether they are named LG, etc. or not.  The problem is the gamers, not the game.

If, when you ran games with alignment, you interpreted alignment as you suggest it should and must be interpreted on this thread, then I suggest you were a crap GM in that regard, and I am glad you stopped ABusing alignment in your games as it could only improve them.  That seems inconsistent with your overall statements of how you GM, here and on other threads, but we all grow over time.



Imaro said:


> A character is not defined in totality by his alignment...  It is not a straight jacket... not sure how many times this has to be repeated in this thread.




For those who understand, no explanation is needed.  For those who do not, no explanation is possible.  I wonder whether there is some reluctance to acknowledge that, perhaps, when a GM made the game poor with alignment, that was bad GMing rather than a bad rules set.



Hussar said:


> True. But if I choose a given alignment then my character should behave in a certain manner. If I know that x is not following my alignment then doing x is acting somewhat out of character. Now there might be good reasons for straying a bit out of alignment. Sure. But doing something out and out contradictory?




So is it OK for your character who believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society to nail the doors of the orphanage shut and roast marshmallows in the flames while listening to the cries of the children, or is that just as out of character for someone outside an alignment system as within it?  It seems to me that, whenever someone has suggested an action that is out and out contradictory, the anti-alignment posters have suggested that can only happen if the players are unreasonable.  What out and out contradictory actions are you thinking are, in fact, in character, whether the character is LG or simply believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society in a game with no alignments?



Imaro said:


> Who said something about an out and out contradictory action??




As far as I can see, Hussar thinks the GM will rule anything he wants to do "out and out contradictory" to his alignment, but really it will be perfectly in character.  Because all GM's are sadistic jerks, with him being the sole enlightened exception.  At least that is the image I receive from his posts here and on other threads.



Hussar said:


> But what if your DM declares that a good act?  Imaro has declared capital punishment an evil one after all. Or at the very least non good. You cannot play a good cleric or paladin in his game and exercise capital punishment as doing so would strip you of class abilities.




To clarify, you are asking "What if your GM declares burning down the orphanage and roasting marshmallows in the flames while serenaded by the shrieks of dying children to be a good act"?  Then he is just as unreasonable as a player who asserts this is a good act.  I think we have established many pages ago that not playing with such unreasonable players is a pretty decent idea, so why would we not apply the same solution to a GM who is this crappy.  Or one who thinks that everyone of a given alignment can have only one possible response to any given situation and deviating from that One True Way causes immediate alignment shift and loss of all alignment-based abilities?  Why is the solution different for a lousy GM than it would be for a lousy player?



billd91 said:


> You can engage in non-good acts just fine without taking a hit to your powers. I would expect them to do so quite often - eating lunch, taking a crap, taking a nap, etc. I would argue that any GM who rules performing lawful executions an always evil act is really a GM incompatible with the typical fantasy setting, the standard tropes of D&D adventuring, and needs to recognize that and discuss it with his players before surprising a paladin with a fall.
> 
> And even if performing a particular lawful execution would be ruled evil by the GM, the paladin would just have to decline from being the executioner. Bring them to justice those who deserve it, but leave it to the state and its professional executioner to do the dirty deed.




It seems like Lawful executions being Evil would indicate the State itself is non-Good (neutral or even evil) itself, setting the stage for role playing within the game to change or overthrow the system.


----------



## Luce

I do not thing Law and Good have to be mutually exclusive. In the case of the man stealing to feed his family: find him a job, then garnish some of his pay as compensation to the baker. After all one of the goals of Law (as I see it) is to prevent re-offending. And I think even fantasy churches may have something similar to a community outreach programs (those associated with gods of Good, Civilization, Healing, Trades, Redemption etc).
Also the alignment is not always used as a straight jacket by RAW, but as a general baseline. For example, 2e DMG chapter 4 _Limits of NPC alignment_:
"...Just because a merchant is LG does not mean that he will not haggle for the best price or even take advantage of some gullible adventurers who are just passing through. Merchants live by making money and there is nothing evil in charging as much as a character is willing to pay."

The way I use alignment in my games is just that- a shorthand to give me a starting point about the character on which to build on as necessary. Fully fleshed out characters, that is the important NPCs and the PC can and will have a lot more nuances. In that I say to OP -"Yes, alignment descriptor statistic being in the game helps improve my experience."

Now I also see that mechanic as part as host of others things that need to be discuses amongst the group before starting a new campaign (or at least before bringing a new character heavy based on a given thing) as a way to create acceptance. So we are all on the same page.
For example, a dwarf paladin from the Underdark(or other  scarcity enviroment) who while will not go hunt sentient creature, or kill prisoners of war; see nothing wrong with eating things that tried to eat him first. Such as purple worms of mind flayers. As long as this is brought up beforehand, the group is usually accepting such things a little quirks that become just one of the distinguishing characteristics that define a given PC.

A DM who is looking for a ways to make a players violate his alignment* will eventually succeed. For example, "The elders of the village who the PCs  save invite them to celebratory dinner. The paladin partakes and does not ask what is on the menu. He has just eaten balut (may be even a harpy's balut, it is a fantasy setting after all). DM rules the paladin has loosen the status thereof. If it wrong to kill children, then the unborn should count. I am no interested in participating in those kind of games.


* Now I have nothing against moral dilemmas, as long as everyone is on board.


----------



## jsaving

N'raac said:


> In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation.  If the GM is going to take the stance that there are only nine possible personalities, then the game will have problems whether they are named LG, etc. or not.  The problem is the gamers, not the game.



Perfectly stated!  All Lawful Good characters would agree that order and compassion should be the underlying principles behind the decisions they make, but this doesn't mean they'll always agree on the best way to apply those principles in any given situation.


----------



## Oldehouserules

I'd say they _provide_ a game play experience and have certain benefits...


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> If you had a one-dimensional L-N-C alignment system, you'd still have divisions between "compassionate lawfuls" and "selfish Lawfuls" -- you just wouldn't have a shorthand for summarizing why they tend to make different choices.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do agree that both sides need to have strong arguments for their point of view, but I don't follow why both sides need to be able to claim to be virtuous.  Of *course* a selfish Lawful is less virtuous in his orientation than a compassionate Lawful, for example, but it isn't a LE label that makes him so -- it's the fact that he is selfish.



Perhaps I misunderstood  [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s point. What I took him to be saying is that "good" and "evil" aren't simply labels for personality traits. They are evaluations - of approval, and condemnation, respectively.

Even your framing of it as "compassionate" vs "selfish" reveals this. If the selfish character _concedes_ that s/he is selfish rather than compassionate, then how can s/he nevertheless claim to be doing the right thing? In the real world, defenders of economic and political systems based on self-interest (i) don't treat self-interest as equivalent to selfishness, and (ii) include other-regarding desires (including compassion) among the potential components of a person's self-interest.

If you look at actual, real-life attempts to understand matters like balancing compassion with community protection, you don't see anything like D&D-style LE vs LG. You find essays like Max Weber's famous "Politics as a Vocation", or Michael Walzer's work on "dirty hands", or Isiah Berlin's defence of Machiavelli as a virtue theorist: that is, various attempts to explain why certain approaches to compassion or similar values are in fact naïve and dangerous. You don't find mere assertions of selfishness or ego-privilege.



N'raac said:


> If you have stated that your character believes in Justice and Compassion and the Ordered Rule of Society, how does he deal with a man who has stolen from a bakery to feed his starving family?  The Law says he should be executed.  Compassion does not.  Is  it Justice?  This is the same dilemma you are telling me the character can have only one LG option, and must choose that or break character.  How is it different when we have a character whose moral views come into conflict and aren't labeled with the Alignment terms?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In a good game, there would be recognition that moral and ethical beliefs can come into conflict, and it would be reasonable, even expected, that lawful Good characters might differ in their views to this situation.



I have two responses to this.

First, actual real-world attempts to resolve these sorts of conflicts of morality and value are far more enlightening than Gygax, who was not himself trying to solve them, and did not provide us a very good framework for thinking about them.

Second, in the sort of "good game" you describe, _how is alignment improving the game experience_? It seems to be irrelevant to it.



Luce said:


> 2e DMG chapter 4 _Limits of NPC alignment_:
> "...Just because a merchant is LG does not mean that he will not haggle for the best price or even take advantage of some gullible adventurers who are just passing through. Merchants live by making money and there is nothing evil in charging as much as a character is willing to pay."



That quote from the 2nd ed books is so obviously wrong (perhaps naive is a better word) that all it tells us is that the author has not read much philosophy, nor much serious fiction, nor much history, nor much economics.

For instance: a character whose children are starving will probably pay anything to obtain food for them, even selling him-/herself into slavery or servitude. Is a merchant who will charge such a parent as much as s/he is willing to pay evil? You need to tell me something else pretty special about the situation to stop me answering "Yes, absolutely!"

EDIT:

It's obvious why the 2nd ed rulebook contains that passage. It's intended to block a potential move by the players along the lines of "We're LG, and so is the merchant, so we should get all the stuff we need for free (or at least at a discount)." In other words, a worthless comment about the morality of trade is put into the book as a cure for a problem that wouldn't arise if the game didn't have a mechanical alignment system in the first place!

Hardly an advertisement for alignment - especially in the 3x3 version - improving the game experience!


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood  [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s point. What I took him to be saying is that "good" and "evil" aren't simply labels for personality traits. They are evaluations - of approval, and condemnation, respectively.




You understood correctly, of course. Labelling a viewpoint Evil is the same as labelling 
that viewpoint Bad, or Wrong. If we accept that one view is Bad and one Good, there is no 
possibility of any interesting debate as to which viewpoint is better!

You can have an interesting debate on the relative merits of eg compassion vs community 
protection, but only if you first accept that both ends are good and that the people 
seeking them are seeking the Good as they see it. If the Compassionate get an LG label and the Protectors get an LE label then you've already got your answer which is Good, and which is 
Bad. As Gygax said, "there is no Evil Good" - Evil ends can't be Good. If you want a moral debate,
 make both Dirty Harry and his Bleeding Heart Liberal boss Good, make the boss less of a straw man 
than in the movie, and go from there.


----------



## S'mon

Luce said:


> "...Just because a merchant is LG does not mean that he will not haggle for the best price or even take advantage of some gullible adventurers who are just passing through. Merchants live by making money and there is nothing evil in charging as much as a character is willing to pay."




I could see a LG merchant driving a hard bargain, but not misrepresenting the quality of 
goods. It will depend on cultural norms, but eg naming a high price and taking that if the 
adventurers cough up would not be un-LG in my book. Claiming the wand had 50 charges when it had 3 would be un-LG though. Reliability & trustworthiness even to strangers would be features 
of LG IMC. (I have dealt with 'LG' merchants like this IRL, eg when buying jewelry - the difference between them and the knaves who sold us our second-hand car pretty clear!)


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> For instance: a character whose children are starving will probably pay anything to obtain food for them, even selling him-/herself into slavery or servitude. Is a merchant who will charge such a parent as much as s/he is willing to pay evil? You need to tell me something else pretty special about the situation to stop me answering "Yes, absolutely!"




Well they could be Neutral IMC. The Evil merchant would enslave the parent and connive to let the children starve anyway!  The LG merchant probably wouldn't charge above his standard 
asking rate, the NG merchant might give a discount, and CG merchant might give away the 
good for free. I don't think CG merchants would be in business very long, though. 

Edit: AIR Gygaxian Evil is very Evil indeed, while it's not hard to be Gygaxian-Good, and you 
can be as murderous as REH-Conan and be Neutral. This got changed a fair bit in 2e & 3e, in 
2e Evil became Selfishness rather than an active desire to cause harm. And of course there's 
pretty well no concept of in-group vs out-group in post-Gygax D&D morality; the normal RL approach of treating others differently according to their relation to you is at most an indicator of likely N 
alignment. In Gygaxian alignment it seems to be fine to be nasty to the out-group, hence killing the goblin babies is an entirely post-Gygaxian conundrum.


----------



## S'mon

I'm kinda back in this thread despite ENW's terrible comments box 

(with the smileys that overlap over the writing area and the lines that
 go outside the visible text area, needing frequent carriage returns to see what I'm writing)

because I've found this to be an issue in my current Pathfinder campaign. 
The Hellknight organisation in Golarion uses harsh means to fight against worse evils. 
Are they justified? Are they 'Good'? 'Computer says no' per the Alignment system, 
since the game pegs them LN/LE. I find this is getting in the way of a lot of 
otherwise-interesting moral questions.

Edit: I play the Hellknights as Judge Dredd types - or Dirty Harry types... 
They're LN/LE, which means the moral pre-answer is that they're better than the NE factions, 
but worse than the CG factions.


----------



## S'mon

jsaving said:


> That said, if I were participating in the kind of campaign you are envisioning, where the DM puts an Evil label on anybody with whom he has a political disagreement, I would agree with you that alignment is being used to stifle debate rather than enrich the campaign.  Good means making sacrifices for other people, not necessarily making the objectively correct choice that will best result in people being helped by those sacrifices.  Choosing to disregard due process of law in order to protect the innocent, as a number of "anti-heroes" like Dirty Harry do, doesn't make one Evil in a D&D context even though it is something about which many LGs would strongly disagree.




I was discussing an actual campaign another poster mentioned, where LG and LE factions 
were working together against Chaos, and the LE were distinguished from the LG by their lack of compassion. Since Dirty Harry represents a reaction against the emphasis on compassion 
of the US justice system in the late '60s and early '70s, I used him as an example of 
uncompassionate policing. In the movies Harry is the protagonist and his political 
opposition are straw men - if you were doing Dirty Harry in D&D 'straight' you'd probably want to ggive him a G alignment, his political opponents an N, and the criminals CE. 
IRL there's an interesting debate to be had about the limits of compassion - but the Alignment system just gets in the way. It pre-decides the answer: if Harry is G and his boss N, we know Harry's POV is right (or that the author thinks he's right). If Harry is N or E and his political foes are G (as in 'rogue cop as antagonist' shows like _Between the Lines_) then we know Harry is wrong.

Nobody says "Harry has an Evil alighment, and he's right. His boss is Good, but wrong". 
Do they?


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> Well they could be Neutral IMC. The Evil merchant would enslave the parent and connive to let the children starve anyway!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> AIR Gygaxian Evil is very Evil indeed, while it's not hard to be Gygaxian-Good, and you can be as murderous as REH-Conan and be Neutral. This got changed a fair bit in 2e & 3e, in 2e Evil became Selfishness rather than an active desire to cause harm.



I think this is a reasonable point about changes in D&D alignment over time; although other things that Gygax says suggest that Good is stricter, with references to "human/creature rights".

But in a Hyperobrian campaign - or a bleaker Roman-style one - then I agree with you about the N merchant insisting on slavery/servitude as a payment. You could say that some of my own judgements/prejudices informed my earlier post!


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> If you look at actual, real-life attempts to understand matters like balancing compassion with community protection, you don't see anything like D&D-style LE vs LG. You find essays like Max Weber's famous "Politics as a Vocation", or Michael Walzer's work on "dirty hands", or Isiah Berlin's defence of Machiavelli as a virtue theorist: that is, various attempts to explain why certain approaches to compassion or similar values are in fact naïve and dangerous. You don't find mere assertions of selfishness or ego-privilege.




And we're back to needing a degree in ethical philosophy to play the game.  No thanks.



pemerton said:


> First, actual real-world attempts to resolve these sorts of conflicts of morality and value are far more enlightening than Gygax, who was not himself trying to solve them, and did not provide us a very good framework for thinking about them.
> 
> Second, in the sort of "good game" you describe, _how is alignment improving the game experience_? It seems to be irrelevant to it.




As indicated numerous times, I am not saying alignment automatically improves the game.  I am saying it does not automatically detract from it either, and both you and Hussar have repeatedly said alignment does, or would, make your games worse.



pemerton said:


> That quote from the 2nd ed books is so obviously wrong (perhaps naive is a better word) that all it tells us is that the author has not read much philosophy, nor much serious fiction, nor much history, nor much economics.




An, again, I do not need my fantasy world to reflect real world ethical philosophy any more than it needs to reflect real world history, sociology, economics (compare price to wage; where is the tax system?), legal theory, geography, climatology, etc. etc. etc.  Its a game, not a Ph.D. thesis.



pemerton said:


> For instance: a character whose children are starving will probably pay anything to obtain food for them, even selling him-/herself into slavery or servitude. Is a merchant who will charge such a parent as much as s/he is willing to pay evil? You need to tell me something else pretty special about the situation to stop me answering "Yes, absolutely!"




Again, you pick an extreme situation which is not the one I believe the book is trying to represent.  Need the merchant be evil, or is he Neutral ("I don't care if those children ie - I can sell my food/clothing/medicines for a higher profit over there")?


----------



## billd91

S'mon said:


> I was discussing an actual campaign another poster mentioned, where LG and LE factions
> were working together against Chaos, and the LE were distinguished from the LG by their lack of compassion. Since Dirty Harry represents a reaction against the emphasis on compassion
> of the US justice system in the late '60s and early '70s, I used him as an example of
> uncompassionate policing. In the movies Harry is the protagonist and his political
> opposition are straw men - if you were doing Dirty Harry in D&D 'straight' you'd probably want to ggive him a G alignment, his political opponents an N, and the criminals CE.
> IRL there's an interesting debate to be had about the limits of compassion - but the Alignment system just gets in the way. It pre-decides the answer: if Harry is G and his boss N, we know Harry's POV is right (or that the author thinks he's right). If Harry is N or E and his political foes are G (as in 'rogue cop as antagonist' shows like _Between the Lines_) then we know Harry is wrong.
> 
> Nobody says "Harry has an Evil alighment, and he's right. His boss is Good, but wrong".
> Do they?




I haven't seen a Dirty Harry movie in a long time, but is there a reason Harry and his opponents can't both be good or both be neutral? The argument that the alignment system pre-decides the issue depends on too many assumptions. It assumes that someone of a good alignment can't be mistaken in their moral judgment. It also seems to assume that people of the same basic alignment can't disagree or that moral disagreement must come from a conflict of essential alignments. Please take off the straight jacket.


----------



## jsaving

S'mon said:


> IRL there's an interesting debate to be had about the limits of compassion - but the Alignment system just gets in the way. It pre-decides the answer: if Harry is G and his boss N, we know Harry's POV is right (or that the author thinks he's right). If Harry is N or E and his political foes are G (as in 'rogue cop as antagonist' shows like _Between the Lines_) then we know Harry is wrong.



If Harry is G and his boss N (or E), we know that Harry values compassion more than his boss does -- but that is because Harry has more compassion than his boss does.  The labels G and N are only shorthand labels for those values, correctly achieving their goal of telling you which character is more compassionate without "dictating" or "pre-deciding" this themselves.

It almost sounds like you're saying something else, though -- that if a player or the DM writes the letter 'G' on a character sheet, then that character should be deemed "right" no matter what the character actually does during play.  If _this_ is what you mean, then I would completely agree that alignment is "getting in the way" because it is being used in a way that inaccurately describes the core values of its characters.  I've seen this in a couple of campaigns, when the DM is either a very strong liberal/conservative ideologue and thinks the other side is objectively uncompassionate or when the DM's relative/friend is in the game and gets special leeway to be selfish without "falling" to N or E.

In short, alignment is useful when and only when it accurately reflects the underlying values of the characters in the game.  If it does this, then it isn't dictating anything; but misused, it can dictate everything and do more harm than good.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> It almost sounds like you're saying something else, though -- that if a player or the DM writes the letter 'G' on a character sheet, then that character should be deemed "right" no matter what the character actually does during play.



Of course [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] can speak for himself. But as I happen to agree with him, I'll also reply to this.

I am saying that if a player or GM uses the label "good" to describe one outlook, emotion or set of behaviours, then they are endorsing that. And if the label "evil" is used to describe a different (and conflicting) outlook, emotion or set of behaviours, then they are condemning the latter. (The endorsement or condemnation may be in the real world - I think Gygax certainly had aspects of that in mind- or may be simply imagined, within the scope of the shared fiction of play.)

What makes no sense is for (say) a cleric to cast Know Alignement or Detect Evil and say "I know that action/person is evil but I don't know whether or not it is right/virtuous."


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I am not saying alignment automatically improves the game.



But presumably you think it sometimes improves the game. It just seems to me that every example you give of alignment improving the game is in fact an example of alignment not getting in the way of the game. I haven't really seen in what way it actually _improves_ it, other than the occasional hint - swiftly repudiated - that it provides outer boundaries for GM enforcement of acceptable player action declaration.



N'raac said:


> And we're back to needing a degree in ethical philosophy to play the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not need my fantasy world to reflect real world ethical philosophy any more than it needs to reflect real world history, sociology, economics (compare price to wage; where is the tax system?), legal theory, geography, climatology, etc. etc. etc.  Its a game, not a Ph.D. thesis.



I think you misunderstand me.

Of course the game isn't a PhD thesis. No one needs a degree in ethics, or anything else, to play the game. But if the game sets out to describe morality, then I am going to hold it to reasonable standards. Why would I take Gygax seriously on the conflict between "compassion" and "social order" when I can read Weber instead? How would dumbing down my game to some half-baked, implausible moral scheme which has no basis in real life, nor in ordinary lived experience, nor in the best writing in the field, improve my game?

It's like suggesting that the Gord the Rogue novels shed more light on the human condition than Graham Greene, or the war poets, or Wagner, or Tolkien, or - for that matter - REH. Whatever my personal view on REH's thesis about the relationship between humanity, civilisation and barbarism, it's more interesting and better thought through (eg via his Conan and Kull storie) than anything Gygax or Zeb Cook has to say on the topic.

TLDR: you seem to be implying that alignment is some tenable approximation for those who don't want to write a PhD thesis in moral philosophy. My point is that alignment is distorting, unworkable and (hence) hopeless. All analogies are invidious, but it is one thing to simplify the rules for character's falling, another thing completely to say that when you fall into a pit you hang suspended in the air. The latter isn't a simplification; it's a distortion. Alignment is like that.


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> But presumably you think it sometimes improves the game. It just seems to me that every example you give of alignment improving the game is in fact an example of alignment not getting in the way of the game. I haven't really seen in what way it actually _improves_ it, other than the occasional hint - swiftly repudiated - that it provides outer boundaries for GM enforcement of acceptable player action declaration.




I find alignment provides a convenient shorthand, and an indication of a heroic motivation, or a villainous outlook, quiet consistent with fantasy source material.  I do not need to agonize over real world ethical philosophy to play the game. 



pemerton said:


> Of course the game isn't a PhD thesis. No one needs a degree in ethics, or anything else, to play the game. But if the game sets out to describe morality, then I am going to hold it to reasonable standards. Why would I take Gygax seriously on the conflict between "compassion" and "social order" when I can read Weber instead? How would dumbing down my game to some half-baked, implausible moral scheme which has no basis in real life, nor in ordinary lived experience, nor in the best writing in the field, improve my game?
> 
> It's like suggesting that the Gord the Rogue novels shed more light on the human condition than Graham Greene, or the war poets, or Wagner, or Tolkien, or - for that matter - REH. Whatever my personal view on REH's thesis about the relationship between humanity, civilisation and barbarism, it's more interesting and better thought through (eg via his Conan and Kull storie) than anything Gygax or Zeb Cook has to say on the topic.




Why take Gygax seriously on how to set a fantasy game in play at all?  Use the works of REH, Tolkein, Leiber, Moorcock, decamp, Wagner or whatever floats your boat.  However, I would note that D&D alignment has not been in Gygax's control for a very long time.  Many other game writers saw fit to maintain the 3x3 grid while stripping quite a few other elements away.  Your view that it is unworkable flies in the face of the experience many gamers who have found it works just fine in their games.  Or are we all playing "unworkable games" and just haven't figured it out yet?


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> I am saying that if a player or GM uses the label "good" to describe one outlook, emotion or set of behaviours, then they are endorsing that. And if the label "evil" is used to describe a different (and conflicting) outlook, emotion or set of behaviours, then they are condemning the latter.



You seem to think D&D's alignment system is unworkable unless it includes an objective standard for classifying every outlook, emotion, or set of behaviors.  I very much disagree with this.  All alignment does -- all it is supposed to do -- is provide a shorthand description of how much characters value order and compassion.  That's it.  

Yes, the label "good" means compassionate/selfless/altruistic in D&D, and those are qualities that many players and GMs would endorse.  And yes, the label "evil" means hurting/oppressing others in D&D, and those are qualities that many players and GMs would condemn.  But there is nothing inherent in the alignment rules that says good is to be praised and evil condemned -- that value judgment would come from the players/DMs themselves.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> No one needs a degree in ethics, or anything else, to play the game. But if the game sets out to describe morality, then I am going to hold it to reasonable standards. Why would I take Gygax seriously on the conflict between "compassion" and "social order" when I can read Weber instead?



I don't think anyone is proposing you should, because the D&D alignment system has never set out to describe morality in a comprehensive way.  All it has done is provide shorthand descriptors for two attributes: the degree to which one is compassionate and the degree to which they value order.  Those who find those attributes useful will find D&D's alignment rules similarly useful, and those who don't, won't. 

If somebody wants to understand the frontiers of moral philosophy, of *course* they should close their PHs and look to Kant, Mill, Hegel, Weber, and countless other thinkers who offer comprehensive moral paradigms through which to view the world.  But the D&D alignment system can fail to meet this standard and still be a useful shorthand description for a character's overall outlook.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> the label "good" means compassionate/selfless/altruistic in D&D, and those are qualities that many players and GMs would endorse.  And yes, the label "evil" means hurting/oppressing others in D&D, and those are qualities that many players and GMs would condemn.  But there is nothing inherent in the alignment rules that says good is to be praised and evil condemned -- that value judgment would come from the players/DMs themselves.



But no one in the real world condemns compassion. Nor does anyone in the real world embrace hurting or oppressing others.

For instance, to use an example which hopefully won't get me in too much trouble, the Soviet government didn't frame its policies by reference to "hurting" or "oppressing". They framed them by reference to compassion and other-regard: communism was intended as, or at least characterised by its proponents as, a mode of human liberation and a cause of human welfare.

Likewise when it comes to killing the dangerous prisoner. It's not that the executioners don't have compassion. They claim that they feel compassion towards future victims; and that the "do gooders" who can't take the hard decision and who let the villain go are naïve and self-indulgent, even precious about their so-called "compassion" that is actually a cloak for a type of moral vanity. (And in case you think such arguments aren't run in the real world - the newspapers and radio commentary in my country, Australia, are full of them, although not in relation to the death penalty.)



jsaving said:


> the D&D alignment system has never set out to describe morality in a comprehensive way.  All it has done is provide shorthand descriptors for two attributes: the degree to which one is compassionate and the degree to which they value order.  Those who find those attributes useful will find D&D's alignment rules similarly useful, and those who don't, won't.



Are the authors of the US Constitution, who took the view that the best way to preserve individual liberty was by way of a robust rule-of-law framework, lawful or chaotic? Did they value order over freedom or vice versa?

Even within the limits that you set, I don't find alignment a very helpful tool.



N'raac said:


> I find alignment provides a convenient shorthand, and an indication of a heroic motivation, or a villainous outlook, quiet consistent with fantasy source material.  I do not need to agonize over real world ethical philosophy to play the game.



Thank you. That is a clear statement of how you see alignment improving the gaming experience. (It looks to me like "descriptive" rather than mechanical alignment, at least when put to this particular use.)

Needless to say that I don't find the shorthand at all convenient. Nor does this have anything to do with having a PhD in moral philosophy. My dim view of alignment dates back to when I was a high school student and read "For King and Country" in Dragon 101. It accurately diagnosed a range of problems I had been experiencing in my game, and I have never had reason to doubt the proffered solution - namely, abandoning alignment and going for ordinary conceptions of motivations, value and the like in describing characters (both PCs and NPCs).


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> But no one in the real world condemns compassion. Nor does anyone in the real world embrace hurting or oppressing others.




Really?  You've never heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" applied to those who favour a stronger social safety net?  The US has not, in fact, had huge debates over ObamaCare providing better medical coverage for less wealthy members of society, rather than forcing them to do without medical treatment or drive themselves into bankruptcy?  People do not argue for stiffer sentences for criminals, rather than compassionate reform?  No one will argue that "Compassion in and of itself is bad" or "Hurting and oppressing others is great" in isolation.  But look at the real world - at some point, compassion is replaced with pragmatism, and people are oppressed, hurt and even killed, and this becomes acceptable.



pemerton said:


> For instance, to use an example which hopefully won't get me in too much trouble, the Soviet government didn't frame its policies by reference to "hurting" or "oppressing". They framed them by reference to compassion and other-regard: communism was intended as, or at least characterised by its proponents as, a mode of human liberation and a cause of human welfare.




How they frame the terms is semantics, not reality.  If one actually reads Marxist communism, it has never actually been adopted.  It is based on a premise that everyone will contribute to the best of their ability and take enough for their needs rather than their greeds.  Once that comes up against basic human nature...forget it!



pemerton said:


> Likewise when it comes to killing the dangerous prisoner. It's not that the executioners don't have compassion. They claim that they feel compassion towards future victims; and that the "do gooders" who can't take the hard decision and who let the villain go are naïve and self-indulgent, even precious about their so-called "compassion" that is actually a cloak for a type of moral vanity. (And in case you think such arguments aren't run in the real world - the newspapers and radio commentary in my country, Australia, are full of them, although not in relation to the death penalty.)




And here we see a willingness to compromise compassion in the face of harsh reality.  



pemerton said:


> Are the authors of the US Constitution, who took the view that the best way to preserve individual liberty was by way of a robust rule-of-law framework, lawful or chaotic? Did they value order over freedom or vice versa?




"robust rule of law" says it all.  We want individual liberty to the extent we can achieve it within an ordered, structured society.  Some would assert the income tax system is oppressive.  It forces people of good conscience to, in one example, fund the military machine that oppresses, hurts and kills others.  Is that Good?  Does it promote freedom?  At its very basic, "My right to seeing my fist ends where my neighbour's nose begins" is an example of compromise of freedom and liberty for compassion, is it not?  



pemerton said:


> namely, abandoning alignment and going for ordinary conceptions of motivations, value and the like in describing characters (both PCs and NPCs).




I find setting out those motivations, values and the like provides me a good sense of who my character is, which then allows me to assess which of the alignments best suits his nature.  For grey areas, a discussion with the GM works quite well.  If I am looking at this character and thinking "he promotes liberty and freedom through a strong social order and governance structure; now is that Law or Chaos", it strikes me that I have found a character who may be Neutral with respect to the two.  So let's see what the GM thinks.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> But no one in the real world condemns compassion. Nor does anyone in the real world embrace hurting or oppressing others.
> 
> For instance, to use an example which hopefully won't get me in too much trouble, the Soviet government didn't frame its policies by reference to "hurting" or "oppressing". They framed them by reference to compassion and other-regard: communism was intended as, or at least characterised by its proponents as, a mode of human liberation and a cause of human welfare.



But this is precisely the point -- people with the same alignment are _expected_ to reach different value judgments about whether specific ways to implement their values will work effectively.  Of *course* compassionate people can disagree about the relative merits of the Soviet system or any other while remaining Good; that is a feature rather than a bug of the D&D alignment writeup.  If it were otherwise, then alignment really would be the personality straitjacket that some in this thread have (in my view wrongly) accused it of being.

You keep trying to say alignment is a failure unless it can assign objectively verifiable labels to specific policy regimes like the Soviet system, and I agree with you that it is grossly inadequate for that purpose.  What it can do, though, is provide a shorthand for understanding _why_ individuals would support or oppose such a system.

Let me explain what I mean by that in the context of your example.  People have innumerably different takes on the degree to which the Soviet system fulfills its stated goals of liberation and compassion, and those differing evaluations of empirical evidence will lead people with similar values to reach different conclusions about the system.  Those who decide the Soviet system helps the weak will support the system if they are Good but oppose it if they are Evil.  Those who decide the Soviet system oppresses the weak will support the system if they are Evil but oppose it if they are Good.   In this way, different people who are equally compassionate could wind up on opposite sides of the Soviet debate, with each accusing the other of making naive or even dangerous assessments about just how benevolent/oppressive the Soviet system actually is.   

I see that as adding richness to my campaigns; I rather suspect you see it as exposing inadequacies that render alignment useless for yours.



pemerton said:


> Likewise when it comes to killing the dangerous prisoner. It's not that the executioners don't have compassion. They claim that they feel compassion towards future victims; and that the "do gooders" who can't take the hard decision and who let the villain go are naïve and self-indulgent, even precious about their so-called "compassion" that is actually a cloak for a type of moral vanity.



Yes, people of the same alignment can reach different verdicts based on differing perceptions of how dangerous the prisoner may be, how many future victims could be saved, or even how many people might be inspired to carry on the prisoner's work if he is (not) spared.  But I would again see this as adding richness to the game rather than exposing deep failings.  



pemerton said:


> Needless to say that I don't find the shorthand at all convenient. Nor does this have anything to do with having a PhD in moral philosophy. My dim view of alignment dates back to when I was a high school student and read "For King and Country" in Dragon 101. It accurately diagnosed a range of problems I had been experiencing in my game, and I have never had reason to doubt the proffered solution - namely, abandoning alignment and going for ordinary conceptions of motivations, value and the like in describing characters (both PCs and NPCs).



I too feel that the focus needs to be on ordinary conceptions of motivations, values, and the like in describing characters -- I just find Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil labels to be more useful than you do in summarizing those motivations and values.  But as long as alignment has no mechanical consequences whatsoever, either as a balancing tool or to determine when characters "fall," then I think Next can comfortably encompass both of our playstyles.


----------



## Hussar

JSavings said:
			
		

> But this is precisely the point -- people with the same alignment are expected to reach different value judgments about whether specific ways to implement their values will work effectively.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page156#ixzz30ykAOcaA




Totally agreed.  But, how is that possible when the DM is telling you that X is good/not good?  Which is, to me, the heart of this discussion.  After all, it's been argued multiple times that both cannot be good.  That you cannot actually have different value judgments while still holding to the same alignment.

After all, one of the primary values of mechanical alignment is exploring the DM's interpretation of alignment, at least according to many in this thread.  So, if two different value judgements are in play, the DM has to rule one of them good and the other not-good.  So, again, why would someone choose the not-good option, knowing that it was not good?


----------



## jsaving

Your question contains its own answer (though I suspect you designed it that way).

Of *course* you can have people with the same alignment making different value judgments when they have different understandings of the "facts on the ground," not because one is less compassionate than the other but because they disagree over how best to promote the core principles they both share.  And it is neither necessary nor appropriate for a DM to rule one chain of reasoning Good and the other Evil.

Doing so goes light-years beyond the uses for which D&D alignment was intended.  And when the DM does it anyway, you end up in exactly the situation you are hinting at, with the DM constantly decreeing which actions/beliefs are Good and the players then forced to follow the DM's decrees lest they "fall".  And it's those kinds of campaigns that give the D&D alignment system a bad name.


----------



## Hussar

Hang on though. I've pointed out multiple times that alignment interpretations can be mutually exclusive and contradictory. I was told that it is the DM's job to insure that all interpretations are resolved. 

Thus it is absolutely necessary for the DM to rule one more or less good that the other. After all, they can't both be true if they are mutually exclusive. 

Is it good or evil to execute a prisoner?  The DM must make a ruling. I don't think we can say that it is amoral and thus neutral. 

And, once the DM has ruled, the player's choices become pretty clear on way or the other. There can be no ambiguity. 

Which is what I want in the game - moral ambiguity.


----------



## jsaving

All I can say is that I disagree with whoever is telling you that is how alignment has to be.


----------



## Hussar

Well, take it a step further then.

The party catches the evil doer red handed.  The bad guy is standing over the bloody corpse, screaming, "I did it and I'll do it again!"  There's no doubt here.  So, a fight ensues, the party captures the bad guy.  The paladin throws a rope over the nearest tree branch and announces he's going to execute the prisoner on the spot.

Now, according to Imaro, there is no "aha gotcha" moments.  The Dm is obligated to tell the player if the DM thinks the player is out of line.  So, the DM announces, "Hey, that's an evil act - you can't execute prisoners.  You have to take them back to face justice".  Not a unreasonable interpretation of alignment at all.  It's perfectly reasonable.  The paladin player argues for a bit, but, the DM stands firm.

Now, what choice does the paladin player have here?  He can execute the prisoner, which he feels is the good and just course of action, knowing the whole time that he's going to become a fighter afterwards, or he can drag the prisoner back to civilisation.

I don't know what that player will decide, but I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that group will never take prisoners again.


----------



## jsaving

People keep insisting that every action, philosophical system, and government be categorizable as either Good or Evil, with some going so far as to say the PH contains the guidance necessary to make these determinations.  But no book in the universe could contain such information, and even if it did, no DM in the universe would have the wisdom to apply it.  Nor does the PH ever claim this is what the alignment system is *supposed* to do.

What it does -- _all _it does -- is provide a shorthand for labeling how much individual people value compassion and order.  That's it.  There is no such thing as an action that is objectively "Good" or "Evil" regardless of circumstances -- it always depends on the motivation of those undertaking it.  If a Good-aligned person inadvertently hurts innocents through an action he believed would help them, the action was compassionate and therefore Good for him to take.  But give that same person the foreknowledge that the action will hurt people, and it becomes uncompassionate and therefor Evil for him to take.  This simple example illustrates why it is both pointless and counterproductive to insist that the alignment system be able to categorize things like "killing a prisoner" or "loving the Soviet system" as inherently Good or Evil regardless of the context in which those actions/feelings occur.  

It's hard for me to even *imagine* playing the type of game some people seem to be envisioning, where the DM weighs the arguments of party members who are for and against the execution of a prisoner and then decrees Good the side he perceives to be the most compassionate.  I completely understand your antipathy for such a campaign and would have no desire whatsoever to be a part of it.


----------



## Hussar

jsaving said:


> People keep insisting that every action, philosophical system, and government be categorizable as either Good or Evil, with some going so far as to say the PH contains the guidance necessary to make these determinations.  But no book in the universe could contain such information, and even if it did, no DM in the universe would have the wisdom to apply it.  Nor does the PH ever claim this is what the alignment system is *supposed* to do.
> 
> What it does -- _all _it does -- is provide a shorthand for labeling how much individual people value compassion and order.  That's it.  There is no such thing as an action that is objectively "Good" or "Evil" regardless of circumstances -- it always depends on the motivation of those undertaking it.  If a Good-aligned person inadvertently hurts innocents through an action he believed would help them, the action was compassionate and therefore Good for him to take.  But give that same person the foreknowledge that the action will hurt people, and it becomes uncompassionate and therefor Evil for him to take.  This simple example illustrates why it is both pointless and counterproductive to insist that the alignment system be able to categorize things like "killing a prisoner" or "loving the Soviet system" as inherently Good or Evil regardless of the context in which those actions/feelings occur.
> 
> It's hard for me to even *imagine* playing the type of game some people seem to be envisioning, where the DM weighs the arguments of party members who are for and against the execution of a prisoner and then decrees Good the side he perceives to be the most compassionate.  I completely understand your antipathy for such a campaign and would have no desire whatsoever to be a part of it.




Hey, you don'T have to convince me.  Like I said, I don't mind alignment as a handy short hand description.  But, as an actual mechanic with mechanical impact?  No thanks.  Completely unnecessary and actively hinders the kinds of games I want to play.  I have a sneaky suspicion that the primary impetus behind this defence of mechanical alignment has more to do with edition than with actual game play.  I never heard anyone talk about how the lack of mechanical alignment harmed game play in any other system, nor in systems prior to 3e like B/E D&D.

I have, on the other hand, seen umpteen thousand threads talking about how mechanical alignment has brought nothing but problems to the table.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> people with the same alignment are _expected_ to reach different value judgments about whether specific ways to implement their values will work effectively.  Of *course* compassionate people can disagree about the relative merits of the Soviet system or any other while remaining Good; that is a feature rather than a bug of the D&D alignment writeup.  If it were otherwise, then alignment really would be the personality straitjacket that some in this thread have (in my view wrongly) accused it of being.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> People have innumerably different takes on the degree to which the Soviet system fulfills its stated goals of liberation and compassion, and those differing evaluations of empirical evidence will lead people with similar values to reach different conclusions about the system.  Those who decide the Soviet system helps the weak will support the system if they are Good but oppose it if they are Evil.  Those who decide the Soviet system oppresses the weak will support the system if they are Evil but oppose it if they are Good.



On this take on alignment, I guess I don't understand who comes out as evil. The number of people who actively oppose helping the weak and actively support oppressing the weak is vanishingly small. (Depending on your political views you might think that many people _in fact_ do this: see eg Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights; or Scott Veitch, Law and Irresponsibility. But very few people actively set out to do this.)

For instance, your criterion seems to make Stalin or Mao come out as Good, assuming he's sincere. That strike me as an odd outcome. Not because I think Stalin or Mao should necessarily come out as Evil - I don't use alignment, and don't think Stalin or Mao should come out as anything. What strikes me as weird is that, in a game that _did/I] use alignment, it seems that the priest of Tritherion would have to concede that Stalin is Good - both pursue individual welfare, after all, they just disagree over the empirical underpinnings of its realisation.

In other words, if a sincere commitment to human welfare is enough to count as Good, I don't see where the Evil villains are going to come from.

Anyway, for what it's worth I don't agree that D&D alignment is intended to capture, as Good, a sincere commitment to human welfare. I think it is aiming for a much more specific theory of what human welfare consists in, although it has a lot of trouble articulating it because it wants to hold to the inconsistent possibility that a theory of human welfare can be divorced from questions about the nature and desirability of human organisation.



N'raac said:



			You've never heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" applied to those who favour a stronger social safety net?
		
Click to expand...


Of course I have. But critics of "do gooders" and "bleeding hearts" don't hate compassion. They think that those they criticise aren't really serving the welfare interests they claim to be eg because they are unfairly taking from the entitled to give to the unentitled (and hence hypocritically deny compassionate treatment to hard workers, property owners etc), or because they are fostering "cycles of dependency".

The number of individuals in the world who actually put forward disregard for the welfare of others as a criterion for social organisation or for judging the morality of actions is pretty small.



N'raac said:



			People do not argue for stiffer sentences for criminals, rather than compassionate reform?

<snip>

And here we see a willingness to compromise compassion in the face of harsh reality.
		
Click to expand...


Those who argue for stiffer sentences almost always frame it in terms of welfare. They either run consequentialist arguments, that more lenient sentences don't deter crime and hence undermine the welfare of future victims of crime; or they run "sympathy to victims" arguments, along the lines of compassion for the victims requiring harsh treatment of the perpetrators; or they run retributivist-type arguments, that proper regard to the criminal's interests requires punishment. (This may not be compassionate in the strictest sense, but then the definition of "good" in D&D doesn't talk about compassion but rather other-regard and a concern for dignity. For strict retributivists, punishing the perpetrator is part of respecting their dignity and autonomy.)



N'raac said:



			"robust rule of law" says it all.
		
Click to expand...


Which one does it say? Lawful, or chaotic?_


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> On this take on alignment, I guess I don't understand who comes out as evil. The number of people who actively oppose helping the weak and actively support oppressing the weak is vanishingly small.



I'd completely disagree on this point -- a large chunk of people "look out for #1," which is selfish and therefore evil in a D&D context.  And I don't at all follow why past world leaders who sought to gain personal power by subjugating and ultimately eliminating groups toward whom they felt a personal animus could be considered Good simply because they occasionally claimed to be.     

But I do agree that _if_ alignment were determined by the claims people make, then almost nobody would be Evil.  After all, even the truly selfish and oppressive recognize they can gain more converts/friends with honey than with vinegar, at least to a point.  This is precisely why spells like "know alignment" and "detect evil" are in the game, because compassionate statements so often conceal selfish motives.  (It also happens to be why I took those spells out of my campaign, because I think it enriches the game to have PCs struggle to pin down people's motives during gameplay rather than having those motives infallibly handed to them on a silver platter through the simple casting of a low-level spell.)


----------



## S'mon

jsaving said:


> If Harry is G and his boss N (or E), we know that Harry values compassion more than his boss does -- but that is because Harry has more compassion than his boss does.  The labels G and N are only shorthand labels for those values, correctly achieving their goal of telling you which character is more compassionate without "dictating" or "pre-deciding" this themselves.




Compassion as the only measure of Good seems a very particular moral stance to me. 
Some GMs might take that approach; it doesn't seem to resemble Gygaxian Good but 
maybe WotC-Good says something like that (I haven't paid much attention recently). 
AIR the argument in Dirty Harry, Death Wish and other films of the era was that too much 
Compassion for the bad people by the State/System was a positive Evil - it let them free 
to harm again. If you are GMing a Dirty Harry game in accord with the POV of the movies, 
then the most compassionate-for-the-criminals characters may think they're Good, but really they're 
misguided; their excessive compassion harms others - innocent others - and is really selfish; they're 
probably Neutral. And even if Harry has a low opinion of himself, he's really a good guy doing the right thing; he's probably Good-aligned.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> What makes no sense is for (say) a cleric to cast Know Alignement or Detect Evil and say "I know that action/person is evil but I don't know whether or not it is right/virtuous."




Right. The GM does not peg behaviour (PC or NPC) as Evil, and say "In this situation the 
virtuous stance is the Evil one." He almost certainly does not say "The Good Aligned characters are wrong, and the Evil characters are right" - because IRL two groups may differ about what is the greater good (eg compassion vs justice), but D&D-Evil characters aren't supposed to be seeking the Good in the first place.


----------



## billd91

S'mon said:


> Right. The GM does not peg behaviour (PC or NPC) as Evil, and say "In this situation the
> virtuous stance is the Evil one." He almost certainly does not say "The Good Aligned characters are wrong, and the Evil characters are right" - because IRL two groups may differ about what is the greater good (eg compassion vs justice), but D&D-Evil characters aren't supposed to be seeking the Good in the first place.




Putting them back in the straightjacket again, I see. Evil guys can't  help little old ladies across the street? Maybe they won't in general, but what if it's his grandmother?

They're not supposed to be making doing good *their life's work* but that doesn't mean they can't chip in a few silvers for the orphans from time to time.


----------



## S'mon

billd91 said:


> Putting them back in the straightjacket again, I see. Evil guys can't  help little old ladies across the street? Maybe they won't in general, but what if it's his grandmother?
> 
> They're not supposed to be making doing good *their life's work* but that doesn't mean they can't chip in a few silvers for the orphans from time to time.




According to Gygax in 1e DMG, Neutral Evils want maximum Evilness for everyone; Chaotic Evils want disorder and Woe, Lawful Evils want regimented tyranny with themselves on top.
Helping granny across the street sounds like Neutral, or at least strong N tendencies. Likewise chipping in for the orphans, if done without ulterior motive.

Edit: Not that your comment was relevant to my point, AFAICT.


----------



## Campbell

Let's try to bring some focus  back to this thread: When playing the game how should alignment shape player decisions? What are the consequences on the shape of play and resulting fiction? Actual play examples would be helpful. I'm sincerely interested in what play techniques and GMing principles are in use.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> Compassion as the only measure of Good seems a very particular moral stance to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it doesn't seem to resemble Gygaxian Good but maybe WotC-Good says something like that (I haven't paid much attention recently).



Here is WotC-3.5-SRD-Good:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.​
"Compassionate" might be a passable summary of all that, but I think it downplays the "dignity" aspect, especially for Dirty Harry types who think that treating people with dignity includes holding them accountable for their autonomously-performed actions.

And here is WotC-3.5-SRD-Evil-&-Neutral:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. 

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.​
To me, this suggests that  [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]'s person who helps his/her grandmother across the road is Neutral - "committed to others by personal relationships". It sets a fairly high bar for evil - it is not simply selfishness, but "hurting, oppressing and killing others", due either to a lack of moral scruples or an active love of inflicting suffering. (The bit about "duty to some evil deity or master" seems redundant - why would anyone subordinate him-/herself to such a being unless s/he either lacked scruples or enjoyed inflicting suffering?)

Also, the bit about neutrals "having compunctions against killing the innocent" seems to imply that good people may not have compunctions against killing the non-innocent. Which is consistent with warriors like paladins being good. Whether "non-innocent" here is understood in the context of defensive violence, or also punitive violence, isn't elaborated upon and presumably is left as a matter for the game participants to sort out!



jsaving said:


> I'd completely disagree on this point -- a large chunk of people "look out for #1," which is selfish and therefore evil in a D&D context.



I'm not sure which D&D context you have in mind. In 3E, as per the above quotes, looking out for #1 doesn't make a person evil unless it gets to the point that s/he has no scruples at all. Most of those looking out for #1 have compunctions against killing the innocent - they just lack the commitment to be good.



jsaving said:


> I don't at all follow why past world leaders who sought to gain personal power by subjugating and ultimately eliminating groups toward whom they felt a personal animus could be considered Good simply because they occasionally claimed to be.



Well this is where I don't really understand how 2-dimensional alignment is meant to work. Obviously some Communist leaders were just thugs, but some were sincere. If you don't like Stalin or Mao in that role, stick in Lenin or Trotsky instead. They had a genuine concern for the dignity of all sentient beings - the pursuit of universal emancipation is what drove them! They weren't selfish, and endured great hardship in the pursuit and accomplishment of revolution. They made personal sacrifices to help others, at least as they understood what such help required them to do.

So if we are nevertheless to say that they are Evil rather than Good, it seems that we have to form a view not just of their commitments, but of what they actually did and achieved/failed to achieve. But at that point how can we be neutral in relation to questions of social organisation that are ostensibly, in the D&D framework, orthogonal to Good and Evil and compatible with both? For instance, how can anyone deny that they were compassionate people - despite their subjective mental state of wanting to achieve universal emancipation - without taking a view on what forms of social organisation do and don't genuinely give effect to compassion?



jsaving said:


> even the truly selfish and oppressive recognize they can gain more converts/friends with honey than with vinegar, at least to a point.  This is precisely why spells like "know alignment" and "detect evil" are in the game, because compassionate statements so often conceal selfish motives.



I'm not worried about hypocrites. The cases that I'm interested in are those of sincere moral and political disagreement.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> When playing the game how should alignment shape player decisions? What are the consequences on the shape of play and resulting fiction? Actual play examples would be helpful. I'm sincerely interested in what play techniques and GMing principles are in use.



Most of Gygax's discussion of GMing alignment is about tracking PC alignment on the alignment graph (eg from p 24 of his DMG, "It is important to keep track of player character behaviour with respect to their professed alignment. Actions do speak far more eloquently than professions . . . [D]rift should be noted by you, and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment").

He also says (p 24) that "It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behaviour with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments, those who are paladins, those with evil familiars, and so on. Part of the role they have accepted requires a set behaviour mode, and its benefits are balanced by this. Therefore, failure to demand strict adherence to alignment behaviour is to allow a game abuse."

Gygax's DMG also has a rule that, I assume, was little-used in actual play but is quite interesting. It is part of the training rules on p 86.

The training rules for AD&D require the GM to allocate each PC, as played by his/her player, a rating of 1 through 4 for each adventure. 1 is Excellent; 4 is Poor.

The questions the GM has to ask, in assigning the rating, include:

* Did s/he perform basically in the character of his/her class? (Examples are given of _poor_ behaviour: clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity; fighters who hang back from combat, attempt to steal or fail to boldly lead; magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore the use of magic items in crucial situations; thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or who refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity arises. Presumably excellence is the converse of all these.)

* Was the character a "cautious" character who did not pull his/her own weight? (If the answer is "yes", that merits a rating of 4.)

* Were the character's actions in keeping with his/her professed alignment?​
When it comes time to gain a level, the average rating across adventures (with equal weight across adventures regardless of the number of XP earned on each) is averaged. This tells us the number of weeks of training required to gain a level (decimals are retained: each 0.145 equals an additional day of training required).

Extra training has two sorts of resource costs: extra gold must be paid (because costs are per week); and the PC loses game time, which in Gygax's conception of play (based on flexible and changing groups adventuring in a many-player shared world) is itself a cost, because it limits the adventures and other activities that the PC can engage in.

This all suggests to me that sticking to one's alignment is intended to be a challenge for players, particularly when those alignment requirements are very strict. What the _source_ of the challenge is, though, isn't really spelled out.

As best I can tell, the challenge for players of good PCs (and perhaps lawfuls too?) is that very often advantage in combat and in looting (which are the two sources of XPs) can be gained by being underhanded. I'm less sure on the challenge for players of evil PCs (with their imps and quasits), but perhaps the challenge arises from the fact that evil is fundamentally anti-social, and hence if played consistently makes it hard for a PC to find fellow characters to adventure with. (On p 24 Gygax gives as an example of a poorly played PC "a professed lawful evil character [who] is consistently seeking to be helpful and is respecting the lesser creatures".) If you change the XP rules, and/or change the Gygaxian assumptions about how parties are formed (loose alliances of PCs plus NPCs hired in accordance with the rather arcane loyalty rules) then alignment will likely cease to be a source of challenge in these ways.

I don't see any sign that Gygax thinks that alignment should be a source of challenge for the _character_. For instance, the idea that a player might play his/her character wrestling with a moral dilemma, and that alignment might somehow feed into this, seems to be completely absent.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> The party catches the evil doer red handed.  The bad guy is standing over the bloody corpse, screaming, "I did it and I'll do it again!"  There's no doubt here.  So, a fight ensues, the party captures the bad guy.  The paladin throws a rope over the nearest tree branch and announces he's going to execute the prisoner on the spot.
> 
> Now, according to Imaro, there is no "aha gotcha" moments.  The Dm is obligated to tell the player if the DM thinks the player is out of line.  So, the DM announces, "Hey, that's an evil act - you can't execute prisoners.  You have to take them back to face justice".  Not a unreasonable interpretation of alignment at all.  It's perfectly reasonable.  The paladin player argues for a bit, but, the DM stands firm.
> 
> Now, what choice does the paladin player have here?  He can execute the prisoner, which he feels is the good and just course of action, knowing the whole time that he's going to become a fighter afterwards, or he can drag the prisoner back to civilisation.
> 
> I don't know what that player will decide, but I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that group will never take prisoners again.




I would question why it is acceptable to kill the enemy in combat and acceptable for capital punishment to be meted out, but not acceptable for the Paladin to mete out that punishment.  However, I can also see the GM's reasoning.  It should then be consistent with the game world - executing prisoners on the spot is known to be an evil act, and it marks those who do so as evil.  This is recognized  by the world at large which, presuming it is, strives to be, or even professes to be, Good in general should mean positive consequences for the characters who do, in fact, bring the villain in to face justice and negative consequences for those who choose to kill them on the spot, kill unconscious prisoners, reject surrender or even use excessive force in combat.

If the GM is using "you can't execute prisoners" as a bludgeon with which to beat the PC's for being Good, while nothing but negative consequences arise from Good behaviour, then the fact the players refuse to play Good characters, take prisoners, etc. rests on the shoulders of the GM, not the alignment rules.  

BTW, who cares whether they will ever take prisoners if they simply kill them shortly thereafter?  What's the gameplay benefit of "we string him up after taking him prisoner in combat" and "we kill him in combat"?



pemerton said:


> On this take on alignment, I guess I don't understand who comes out as evil. The number of people who actively oppose helping the weak and actively support oppressing the weak is vanishingly small. (Depending on your political views you might think that many people _in fact_ do this: see eg Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights; or Scott Veitch, Law and Irresponsibility. But very few people actively set out to do this.)
> 
> For instance, your criterion seems to make Stalin or Mao come out as Good, *assuming he's sincere*.




And do you believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people?  Perhaps this is why Good and Evil are judged by actions, not simply words.



pemerton said:


> In other words, if a sincere commitment to human welfare is enough to count as Good, I don't see where the Evil villains are going to come from.




From those whose commitment to human welfare is not sincere?  Of course, a character who is sincerely pursuing human welfare and truly believes it is best for 90%+ of the population to be killed off seems like he is Neutral, at best.  Must every opponent be Evil to be credible?



pemerton said:


> Of course I have. But critics of "do gooders" and "bleeding hearts" don't hate compassion. They think that those they criticise aren't _really_ serving the welfare interests they claim to be eg because they are unfairly taking from the entitled to give to the unentitled (and hence hypocritically deny compassionate treatment to hard workers, property owners etc), or because they are fostering "cycles of dependency".




They also seem to think those issues are more important than compassion for the unfortunate.  If a few thousand of them die in my factories because of lax safety standards, well that's what's needed for business to be profitable and the survivors to remain employed - provided they avoid being maimed, in which case they have a promising second career as a beggar, asking for handouts from those who do have compassion.



pemerton said:


> The number of individuals in the world who actually put forward disregard for the welfare of others as a criterion for social organisation or for judging the morality of actions is pretty small.




How about the number who profess to have high regard for the welfare of others but are, in fact, deceiving others and possibly even themselves?



pemerton said:


> Which one does it say? Lawful, or chaotic?




To me, a strong societal order says "Law" while a focus on individual freedoms says "Chaotic".  A balance between the two says "neither" and thus neutral with respect to Law and Chaos.


----------



## S'mon

N'raac said:


> And do you believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people?




Well, yeah. Hitler, Che Guevara & Castro, Stalin, Mao - I'd say they all had sincere beliefs, as well as a desire for personal power (and in Mao's case a harem and other fittings of a traditional Chinese emperor). I'll peg them all as Evil if I have to use Alignment, but that 
doesn't mean I don't think they believed what they professed to believe. All of them 
pursued the Good as they saw it, none thought "Hm, how do I achieve Maximum Evilness?"


----------



## S'mon

N'raac said:


> How about the number who profess to have high regard for the welfare of others but are, in fact, deceiving others and possibly even themselves?




That's often how people handle NPC Alignment, I think - the NPC thinks he's  
a great fellow, but really he's Evil and doesn't know it. But I think this is an example of Alignment getting in the way, as Pemerton argues; Know Alignment/Detect Evil spells makes most sorts of real world bad guys unlikely: "OK Hitler, I accept you sincerely believe that your sincere concern for the welfare of the German People makes you Lawful Good. However _Know Alignment_ says..."


----------



## S'mon

billd91 said:


> Putting them back in the straightjacket again, I see. Evil guys can't  help little old ladies across the street? Maybe they won't in general, but what if it's his grandmother?




Personally I'd peg Tony Soprano as LE(N) or in 4e E(N), and I'm sure he'd help his granny
 cross the street. I don't claim to be using D&D Alignment RAW, though.


----------



## Imaro

N'raac said:


> BTW, who cares whether they will ever take prisoners if they simply kill them shortly thereafter?  What's the gameplay benefit of "we string him up after taking him prisoner in combat" and "we kill him in combat"?



 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... This was very similar to my first thought upon reading your example... especially given the fact that in 3.x edition you have to make an active choice to subdue someone and take penalties in trying to do so... why would a paladin do this in order to capture someone so he can then murder them after the battle?  IMO, it's much more likely that the paladin would end the villains life in honorable combat as opposed to knocking him out and then murdering him...


----------



## Imaro

S'mon said:


> That's often how people handle NPC Alignment, I think - the NPC thinks he's
> a great fellow, but really he's Evil and doesn't know it. But I think this is an example of Alignment getting in the way, as Pemerton argues; Know Alignment/Detect Evil spells makes most sorts of real world bad guys unlikely: "OK Hitler, I accept you sincerely believe that your sincere concern for the welfare of the German People makes you Lawful Good. However _Know Alignment_ says..."




I disagree... I think most NPC's in this situation believe the ends justify the means but don't necessarily look at themselves as good... in fact some may even feel as if they have to take on the burden of doing evil to achieve what they think is a greater good.  To these sorts registering evil is ok, because they accept what they are doing may not be considered good and that no matter the ends they are being tainted by these actions... but feel it must be done anyway.  

The other question I often ponder when these spells are brought up is why should anyone take the word of someone else that they are "evil", if they don't think they are?  Any guy can walk up light some incense, mumble, wave his hands and declare something as "evil" it even happened in the real world...  which is actually kind of interesting, could fake clerics, holy men, inquisitors, etc. just declare that they have cast detect or know alignment and declare people "evil"?


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> Well this is where I don't really understand how 2-dimensional alignment is meant to work. Obviously some Communist leaders were just thugs, but some were sincere. If you don't like Stalin or Mao in that role, stick in Lenin or Trotsky instead. They had a genuine concern for the dignity of all sentient beings - the pursuit of universal emancipation is what drove them! They weren't selfish, and endured great hardship in the pursuit and accomplishment of revolution.



This is where I disagree.  Being "sincere" in your convictions is one thing, and I'd certainly grant that any of the leaders you mentioned were sincere in the sense of being true to their core beliefs.  But I wouldn't at all agree that the pursuit of universal emancipation drove any of them, or that any of them had a genuine concern for the dignity of sentient beings.  Thus, if those individuals were in my campaign, deciding whether they're Good or Evil wouldn't be among the tougher challenges I've experienced as DM.

If you as a DM are more inclined to take these leaders' selfless/compassionate claims at face value, however, I can see why you'd find the system unsatisfactory.  And I'd suggest that what you already seem to have concluded is correct -- that alignment is a hindrance rather than a help to your DMing style, and that for you, the best course of action is to drop it from your campaigns.


----------



## Olfan

So this thread is definitely TLDR for me, but simply responding to the initial post; I feel that D&D and it's ilk easily support and improve the game experience when the game is conducted in the manner originally conceived.

Ok, so obviously I'm talking pure opinion here cause I have no idea what Gary was thinking when he made the game, but I imagine it was with the players playing heroes and being do-gooders and punching the bad guys right in the face in mind. So in this fantasy I've made up about Gary's intentions, I see the players kind of like silver age comic book heroes. There is no gray, only Superman and Captain America and the like. Very much a good vs evil fight.

In this view of alignment, some characters can deviate from the LG and CE mold by altering their allegiance to law and chaos or good and evil. In this simple view of the world, alignment is mostly an early comic book styled constraint, nothing complex, the paladin's choice is always easy. It may be hard for him to do, but he knows WHAT to do. Bad guys are always bad, not misunderstood.

It's my opinion that games that take a more realistic or gray approach to morality don't serve the purpose of alignment well. The definition of each term has to be analyzed and it breaks apart, just like in real life. If a paladin has to ask "what is good?" he's not a paladin. A paladin knows what good is. So the answer to the question for me is that it depends on the agreed upon view of morality that the gaming group comes to.

I followed a too long thread with a too long post.

TLDR: alignments improve morally simplistic games, not morally complex games.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... This was very similar to my first thought upon reading your example... especially given the fact that in 3.x edition you have to make an active choice to subdue someone and take penalties in trying to do so... why would a paladin do this in order to capture someone so he can then murder them after the battle?  IMO, it's much more likely that the paladin would end the villains life in honorable combat as opposed to knocking him out and then murdering him...




Nice dodge.

So, because of mechanical alignment, the entire group becomes murder hobos.  An enemy can never surrender in your world?  Who cares if the party ever takes prisoners after all, we don't need all that pesky role playing stuff.  It's better just to kill every opponent outright.  Saves on all that unimportant stuff like talking and whatnot.  Why bother giving players the choice?

The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that I can never, ever execute a prisoner.  Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.  

You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> do you believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people?





jsaving said:


> Being "sincere" in your convictions is one thing, and I'd certainly grant that any of the leaders you mentioned were sincere in the sense of being true to their core beliefs.  But I wouldn't at all agree that the pursuit of universal emancipation drove any of them, or that any of them had a genuine concern for the dignity of sentient beings.



Not every wrongdoer is a hypocrite. If you won't except Lenin or Trotsky, what about (to pick someone who is less likely to trigger immediate accusations of hypocrisy) LBJ?

Or to come at it in another way: if you think it obvious that none of these people was genuinely compassionate, then the alignment debate has simply moved from "what's good?" to "what's compassionate?" or "what counts as respecting the dignity of a sentient being?" Which doesn't really strike me as a major breakthrough.



N'raac said:


> Perhaps this is why Good and Evil are judged by actions, not simply words.



The thing is, how can you judge whether a political compromise is good or evil - compassionate or not - without taking a view about social order, the permissibility and desirability of sacrifices and tradeoffs, etc - which are ostensibly elements of the orthogonal dimension of Law/Chaos?



Imaro said:


> The other question I often ponder when these spells are brought up is why should anyone take the word of someone else that they are "evil", if they don't think they are?  Any guy can walk up light some incense, mumble, wave his hands and declare something as "evil" it even happened in the real world...  which is actually kind of interesting, could fake clerics, holy men, inquisitors, etc. just declare that they have cast detect or know alignment and declare people "evil"?



It is comparatively trivial for the person in question to cast the spell him-/herself, eg from a magic item. A king who was worried that s/he was doing the wrong thing would simply test 1x/day with his/her intelligent sword +1.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> So, because of mechanical alignment, the entire group becomes murder hobos.  An enemy can never surrender in your world?  Who cares if the party ever takes prisoners after all, *we don't need all that pesky role playing stuff*.  It's better just to kill every opponent outright.  Saves on all that unimportant stuff like talking and whatnot.  Why bother giving players the choice?
> 
> The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that *I can never, ever execute a prisoner.  Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.
> *
> You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.




This seems much less like an alignment issue and much more like a role playing issue.  The player wants to be able to kill helpless prisoners on a whim, and does not want anything precluding him from doing so.  Like that pesky role playing of someone who actually respects life and considers slitting the prisoners' throats to be a morally repugnant act.  I just bwant my character to do whatever is most tactically effective and/or practically expedient at any given time.

Sorry, but, to me, "whatever is best or easiest for me, regardless of the impact on others" is neither heroic nor Good.



pemerton said:


> Not every wrongdoer is a hypocrite. If you won't except Lenin or Trotsky, what about (to pick someone who is less likely to trigger immediate accusations of hypocrisy) LBJ?




Who said we don't accept that Lenin or Trotsky might sincerely wish the best for the people as a whole?  We accept that a Paladin who goes to war against an uncaring monarch is Good, which seems much like a freedom fighter who goes to war against a government which does not act in the interests of the people.  Bringing real world history into it colours the issues, undoubtedly.  Are you suggesting that other world leaders of the time who vilified the Communist regime out of concern for protecting their own positions of power and privilege also had the best interests of the people at heart?



pemerton said:


> The thing is, how can you judge whether a political compromise is good or evil - compassionate or not - without taking a view about social order, the permissibility and desirability of sacrifices and tradeoffs, etc - which are ostensibly elements of the orthogonal dimension of Law/Chaos?




"Compromise" implies neither 100% one thing nor 100% the other.  The possibility that a choice could be nether good nor evil (or neither lawful nor chaotic), having elements of both, seems to completely escape your framework.  



pemerton said:


> It is comparatively trivial for the person in question to cast the spell him-/herself, eg from a magic item. A king who was worried that s/he was doing the wrong thing would simply test 1x/day with his/her intelligent sword +1.




Does he believe that intelligent sword (which, being intelligent, has motives of its own)?  Does it matter?  If he has taken matters to the point that his alignment has already changed, he's already done quite a bit of "the wrong thing", hasn't he?  He may very well be looking at the overall picture and deciding that he knows what is best for his people, and if the people of a neighbouring land must suffer for the benefit of his people, then that is an acceptable sacrifice.  It's well and good for these philosophers or higher beings to look down from their lofty towers, but he is right here in the thick of matters, and must deal with reality, not ethical philosophical theory.  And so he can rationalize his actions, just as we can rationalize ours.

Does it matter how sincerely he believes that genocide is the morally right action to pursue, or is the pursuit of genocide in itself evil?


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> This seems much less like an alignment issue and much more like a role playing issue. The player wants to be able to kill helpless prisoners on a whim, and does not want anything precluding him from doing so. Like that pesky role playing of someone who actually respects life and considers slitting the prisoners' throats to be a morally repugnant act. I just bwant my character to do whatever is most tactically effective and/or practically expedient at any given time.
> 
> Sorry, but, to me, "whatever is best or easiest for me, regardless of the impact on others" is neither heroic nor Good.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page158#ixzz31E9tuveq




And we're back to players can never be honest in their interpretations.  Players will only do whatever is expedient and it's up to the DM to force them to recognise the morality of their actions.

Yeah, for someone who keeps telling me that the DM is deserving of trust, your first interpretation is always to show that the player is the one who cannot be trusted at the table.  

Never mind that you can certainly make a pretty strong argument that executing a punishment is viable under Lawful and Good.  That doesn't matter.  The player cannot be trusted to act morally, so, we must make sure to bring in those alignment mechanics to keep them on the straight and narrow.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Nice dodge.




Let me understand this... a paladin in 4e who uses poison or dirty tactics is something that would never happen in a "real" game... but a paladin who goes through the necessary penalties to subdue an enemy then kills him afterwards is a realistic situation.  I don't see a dodge I see a situation that makes no sense anyway you look at it. You want to revise the situation you created, fine... but don't call it a dodge because I call you out on it. 



Hussar said:


> So, because of mechanical alignment, the entire group becomes murder hobos.  An enemy can never surrender in your world?  Who cares if the party ever takes prisoners after all, we don't need all that pesky role playing stuff.  It's better just to kill every opponent outright.  Saves on all that unimportant stuff like talking and whatnot.  Why bother giving players the choice?




Where did you mention a prisoner surrendering?  That's a different situation than what you presented



Hussar said:


> The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that I can never, ever execute a prisoner.  Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.




These leaps of Hussar logic grow tiring.  Here is the defintion of murder...

_noun_



*1*.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

_verb_


*1*.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.


Now exactly how does what you described not fall under one of these definitions?  The paladin subdued an enemy then later thought about it and killed him without being sanctioned to do so by the law of the land... Again, how is it not murder?  Now whether that murder was justified or even a good act depends on the situation... but you've created a definition for murder that somehow categorizes it as having to be "evil"...  I think this is untrue in the D&D milieu...



Hussar said:


> You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.




Well I am glad one of us got the point of your post because I really didn't understand what you were arguing...


----------



## Hussar

Umm Imaro, I said they captured the bad guy. Where did I say they dealt subdual damage?  If someone surrenders, isn't that capturing?  Or heck, beat him into negative hp and bind his wounds. 

Why would it be different anyway?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Umm Imaro, I said they captured the bad guy. Where did I say they dealt subdual damage?  If someone surrenders, isn't that capturing?  Or heck, beat him into negative hp and bind his wounds.




Or they could deal subdual damage since they don't want to accidentally kill him... Of course then why kill him afterwards... In other words your "example" is so vague as to be kind  of worthless without context...  



Hussar said:


> Why would it be different anyway?




Just one reason off the top of my head is that if the prisoner formally surrendered and the paladin formally accepted his/her surrender then it may be a question of good vs. evil but there is also the fact that the paladin broke his word and murdered the guy.  So yeah it does kind of matter how the situation went down.


----------



## JamesonCourage

S'mon said:


> That's often how people handle NPC Alignment, I think - the NPC thinks he's
> a great fellow, but really he's Evil and doesn't know it. But I think this is an example of Alignment getting in the way, as Pemerton argues; Know Alignment/Detect Evil spells makes most sorts of real world bad guys unlikely: "OK Hitler, I accept you sincerely believe that your sincere concern for the welfare of the German People makes you Lawful Good. However _Know Alignment_ says..."





Imaro said:


> I disagree... I think most NPC's in this situation believe the ends justify the means but don't necessarily look at themselves as good... in fact some may even feel as if they have to take on the burden of doing evil to achieve what they think is a greater good. To these sorts registering evil is ok, because they accept what they are doing may not be considered good and that no matter the ends they are being tainted by these actions... but feel it must be done anyway.



I gave a couple examples a while ago of NPCs in my game.

One was an Evil Monk. He certainly didn't think of himself as Evil, and he explicitly rejected any magical interpretation that identified him as Evil (an exceptionally trusted NPC Paladin identified him as Evil in front of the party when they first encountered the Monk). The Monk went well out of his way to only attack "evil" people, beating, torturing, or brutally murdering them. He'd only torture and murder the worst out there (the rapists, murderers, etc.), but he'd break bones and beat down the con artists, swindlers, thieves, etc. His methods and mindset certainly fell into Lawful Evil as I saw it on the alignment scale, but this NPC would never accept that he was actually Evil; after all, he's only going after the bad guys. Screw any magic that can't tell right from wrong.

On the other hand, I also mentioned my take on Asmodeus (as of high epic level play). He was consciously Evil, and knew that he had to be. He honestly found enjoyment in killing people, psychologically torturing them, etc. On the other hand, he was only Evil, and leader of the Nine Hells, in order to keep Evil in line, and continue the everlasting was of balance between Good and Evil (as commanded to him by Ahriman, who was voluntarily sealed away to prevent the multiverse from ripping apart). Asmodeus consciously chose to be Evil for "the greater good", purposefully keeping the lesser devil lords in line, continuing to fight the Blood War, never invading the heavens or attempting to overthrow Good, etc.

So, I can see it going both ways, honestly. And I have more examples from actual play experiences. Cilten would fit into the "Evil for the greater good" category. Herades would reject that he was Evil, despite two separate Evil auras emanating from him. Gateon would admit he's Evil (as of a certain point, as his alignment changed a number of times), but would claim that it didn't matter as he was basically only targeting Vecna and his followers. I can expand more if necessary.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> And we're back to players can never be honest in their interpretations.  Players will only do whatever is expedient and it's up to the DM to force them to recognise the morality of their actions.




I find that equally likely to GM's who use everything in their arsenal, alignment in the examples on this thread, as a bludgeon to ruin the game for the players.  However, I also find your example bizarre, as Imaro has already  noted.  They either took special steps to keep the prisoner alive (attacking to subdue, binding his wounds, whatever) or accepted his surrender.  Then they decide "Nahh, let's kill him instead".  Perhaps after getting what they wanted from keeping him alive.

You're referred to the players learning that taking prisoners is just another good way to let the GM screw them over (and let's not kid ourselves - the GM needs no extra tools if he is out to screw the players over).  Once word gets out that the PC's kill their prisoners, why would any  NPC ever surrender again?  Why would any prisoner co-operate knowing he's just going to die?  For that matter, since your read of alignment is that there can be only one acceptable answer, then if killing the prisoner is the right action for an LG character, then it should be pretty well known to the opponents that they will be killed anyway if taken alive, so there's no benefit to surrender or co-operation as a prisoner.

Whether it is Lawful and Good to execute a punishment again depends on the facts.  Is the Paladin a lawful representative of the powers of the land, entitled to render a verdict, impose a sentence and carry that sentence out?  If so, then he has the Lawful right, and perhaps duty (again, depending on the setting) to do so.  Or is he more like a civilian making a citizen's arrest, or a police officer, with the villain having a right to a fair trial, rather than summary execution by his captors?  

Then we get into the question of Good.  Is it Good to kill him because of what he might do? Or is a pre-emptive strike a less than good act?  

I wonder how the players would react if their characters were defeated/surrendered and the NPC's summarily executed them, maybe after some interrogation.  Or do the rules of warfare apply to the NPC's, but not the PC's?

You referred to murderhobos - the actions you describe sounds a lot like we've reached that point in the game in question.


----------



## Hussar

I could think of a dozen different ways they could take this guy prisoner without beating on him.  He surrenders.  Charm Person spell.  Hold Person spell.  Power Word Sleep.  Pretty much any Charm type spell.  Single human vs party=monkey pile grapple attack.  Good grief, there are any number of ways.  

And, let's not forget, in the example, he's caught red handed.  He's got his hands inside the victim's chest cavity and has just murdered the victim.  Guilt is pretty clear here.  And, he really is guilty.

But summary justice isn't an option in your games.  Which is perfectly fine.  It just means that your players will almost never take prisoners.  This is hardly a rare case.  Most parties i've seen won't take prisoners for exactly this reason.  

I find it funny though, that the paladin cannot dispense summary justice, even knowing that he is 100% in the right to do so, but, he can deliver up the prisoner to someone else who is going to execute the prisoner based on the Paladin's testimony.  IOW, the paladin just has to leave the room and let other people do the evil stuff, and that's ok.  Why is it justified that the magistrate can hang the prisoner but the paladin can't?  

Actually, strike that question.  I'll ask another.  Why is it okay that your interpretation must automatically over rule mine?  Can you honestly not see that both interpretations are valid?  If it's not okay for the paladin to execute the prisoner, then how can the paladin hand someone over for execution?


----------



## pickin_grinnin

I have never liked the alignment systems in RPGs.  The only time I enforce them is when the player is running a character who is a member of a class that gets benefits from sticking to a particular alignment.

im more concerned with the player keeping the characters sense of ethics mostly consistent.  Ethics and morality don't fall into a neatly defined 9 variant system, particularly because the actions taken can be situationally dependent, and few people can agree on exactly what is "good" or "evil" in a particular circumstance.

i have never seen the need to turn everything into a trait or rollable attribute.


----------



## Dannorn

Hussar said:


> I could think of a dozen different ways they could take this guy prisoner without beating on him.  He surrenders.  Charm Person spell.  Hold Person spell.  Power Word Sleep.  Pretty much any Charm type spell.  Single human vs party=monkey pile grapple attack.  Good grief, there are any number of ways.
> 
> And, let's not forget, in the example, he's caught red handed.  He's got his hands inside the victim's chest cavity and has just murdered the victim.  Guilt is pretty clear here.  And, he really is guilty.
> 
> *But summary justice isn't an option in your games.*  Which is perfectly fine.  It just means that your players will almost never take prisoners.  This is hardly a rare case.  Most parties i've seen won't take prisoners for exactly this reason.
> 
> *I find it funny though, that the paladin cannot dispense summary justice*, even knowing that he is 100% in the right to do so, but, he can deliver up the prisoner to someone else who is going to execute the prisoner based on the Paladin's testimony.  IOW, the paladin just has to leave the room and let other people do the evil stuff, and that's ok.  Why is it justified that the magistrate can hang the prisoner but the paladin can't?




Depending on the circumstance.  If the Paladin is just some guy walking the street, with no official authourity, it is unlawful for him to apprehend and execute the criminal (no matter how just it might be).  He does however have a duty to stop this man because of his code, and he either A) attempts to take him alive and submit him to the proper authourities which is both Lawful and Good, or B) decide his obligation to Good supersedes his obligation to Law and engages the criminal in a fight to the death.

He'd take a hit to Law but likely wouldn't result in an alignment shift and might (should the GM decide) lose some or all of his Paladin powers for a time.  Depending on the values of his deity (as described in the books) I'd rule he loses his powers for the rest of the day or spends 4 hours in prayer. 

Now if the Paladin has been granted authourity to dispense summary justice then he's perfectly in line to kill the criminal he's caught in the act of murder.

The issue with killing prisoners is mainly this, unless a character is dead set on performing certain last rites before executing the prisoner, or going through some other process ("By the authourity of Bob you have been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.") what is the point of taking them prisoner if you're just planning on killing them?  Now if the character's goal is to question him before carrying out sentence for the crime he's committed that's one thing, but if they're just killing him because he's of no further use, or they don't want him interfering later, that's another.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> Who said we don't accept that Lenin or Trotsky might sincerely wish the best for the people as a whole?



Well,   [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] said this above. And you implied it, I thought, in post 1570, in which you asked me whether I "believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people".



N'raac said:


> "Compromise" implies neither 100% one thing nor 100% the other.  The possibility that a choice could be nether good nor evil (or neither lawful nor chaotic), having elements of both, seems to completely escape your framework.



I've lost track of what your reply is to me.

Are you saying that the American Revolutionaries were in fact Neutral, and neither Lawful (despite their admiration for the rule of law) nor Chaotic (despite their obvious moral and political individualism)?

If everyone interesting ends up Neutral, then I am again left with the question, how is alignment improving the game experience? How is it contributing to the framing of moral conflicts and debates? 



N'raac said:


> Does he believe that intelligent sword (which, being intelligent, has motives of its own)?  Does it matter?  If he has taken matters to the point that his alignment has already changed, he's already done quite a bit of "the wrong thing", hasn't he?  He may very well be looking at the overall picture and deciding that he knows what is best for his people, and if the people of a neighbouring land must suffer for the benefit of his people, then that is an acceptable sacrifice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Does it matter how sincerely he believes that genocide is the morally right action to pursue, or is the pursuit of genocide in itself evil?



I've lost you.

Let's agree to put to one side the idea that the ruler can't know his/her own alignment. In AD&D, for instance, s/he automatically knows in virtue of alignment language fluency. In other versions of nine-point alignment, s/he can cast a spell or use an item. The knowledge is not that hard to acquire.

The real issue is, should a character care that s/he is evil? Well, in the real world nearly everyone does. Very few wrongdoers defend their actions on the basis that they were wrong but justified. They argue that they were right. If we have to radical change moral psychology to make alignment work, why are we bothering? Why not work with a common-sense moral psychology (in which most people, rightly or wrongly, think of themselves as more-or-less good) and drop the alignment rules that cause the problem?



Imaro said:


> Here is the defintion of murder...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now exactly how does what you described not fall under one of these definitions?  The paladin subdued an enemy then later thought about it and killed him without being sanctioned to do so by the law of the land



I don't follow. In the situations   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is describing the paladin is acting as a justiciar, and hence the killing is lawful.

Also, your definitions of "murder" are too narrow. You're missing out those which refer to killing "inhumanly, barbarously or brutally". And the paladin, in Hussar's scenario, is setting out not to kill in such a fashion, but rather to kill in a formal way giving effect to a duty of retribution. The paladin (at least as conceived of by the player) is not killing inhumanly, barbarously or brutally.



N'raac said:


> They either took special steps to keep the prisoner alive (attacking to subdue, binding his wounds, whatever) or accepted his surrender.  Then they decide "Nahh, let's kill him instead".  Perhaps after getting what they wanted from keeping him alive.



It's not very strange to me. The PCs in question wanted to punish the prisoner for wrongdoing. So they capture him (using one of the many means that the game provides for such things), pronounce a verdict and then kill him.

This is how the real world often works as well.



Dannorn said:


> Depending on the circumstance.  If the Paladin is just some guy walking the street, with no official authourity, it is unlawful for him to apprehend and execute the criminal (no matter how just it might be).





N'raac said:


> Is the Paladin a lawful representative of the powers of the land, entitled to render a verdict, impose a sentence and carry that sentence out?



This is strange to me, though. The paladin serves the divinity. S/he does not depend upon temporal authority to exercise the power to dispense justice - that power is granted by a higher authority!

You both seem to be putting forward a very Lutheran (in the literal sense, as in espoused by Martin Luther) conception of the relationship between spiritual and temporal authority - which is fine, but seems to leave the paladin archetype somewhat stranded.

Compare LotR - when Denethor asks Gandalf whether or not he (Denethor) has the power to command his servants, Gandalf rebukes him by saying that he does, but he has a duty to give proper commands. The lawfulness of his orders is not self-justifying - it is grounded in their conformity to higher law. Likewise for the paladin: it is the higher, divine law that is determinative.



JamesonCourage said:


> I also mentioned my take on Asmodeus (as of high epic level play). He was consciously Evil, and knew that he had to be. He honestly found enjoyment in killing people, psychologically torturing them, etc.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Asmodeus consciously chose to be Evil for "the greater good", purposefully keeping the lesser devil lords in line, continuing to fight the Blood War, never invading the heavens or attempting to overthrow Good, etc.



Asmodeus, Satan etc are difficult cases (consider Milton's Satan's "Evil, be thou my good"). What you describe in the second para I've quoted is close to a "dirty hands" style justification. This is an interesting phenomenon, but in my personal view is not one that D&D alignment is very well placed to grapple with.

It also gives rise to genre problems. For instance, if dirty hands scenarios are really justified, then in my view it follows that paladins (and others who believe in providence) are fundamentally mistaken. Conversely, if they are not mistaken then Asmodeus is, in the end, self-deluded and not justified at all. I think it is very hard if not impossible for a fantasy RPG to walk both sides of this street (and that is why modernist fantasy like eg REH does not have paladins and clerics as characters, only wizards and warlocks of various stripes). Conversely, Tolkien - who is obviously a very strong believer in providence - treats all those who plead dirty hands as self-deluded and self-serving (see eg Saruman, Denethor and Boromir, though the latter redeemed himself in the end when the presence of the halflings provided a providential opportunity to do so).


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> I could think of a dozen different ways they could take this guy prisoner without beating on him.  He surrenders.  Charm Person spell.  Hold Person spell.  Power Word Sleep.  Pretty much any Charm type spell.  Single human vs party=monkey pile grapple attack.  Good grief, there are any number of ways.
> 
> And, let's not forget, in the example, he's caught red handed.  He's got his hands inside the victim's chest cavity and has just murdered the victim.  Guilt is pretty clear here.  And, he really is guilty.
> 
> But summary justice isn't an option in your games.  Which is perfectly fine.  It just means that your players will almost never take prisoners.  This is hardly a rare case.  Most parties i've seen won't take prisoners for exactly this reason.




Why do you assume every game I might play or run to be identical?  The question here is whether the Paladin (or the Lawful Good party, etc.) has the Lawful right to convict, sentence and execute a criminal.  In some games, they may have that right by virtue of the game's premise (they are representatives of a legal system within the game world).  In others, they may actively pursue and perhaps attain this status.  In still others, they may be typical adventurers with no special relationship to the legal system.  Where they stand in regards to their legal right to dispense justice determines the appropriateness of their actions.
 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] regularly describes a situation in his game where the characters interrogated a prisoner before turning him over for lawful justice.  The argument was whether, and to what extent, they would use their influence to mitigate the sentence likely to be handed down.  At no point do I recall them ever considering just killing the prisoner and having done with it.  That sounds like a much more interesting scenario than "well, we've got all the info we're going to get - "Prisoner, the verdict is guilty, the sentence is death, cut his throat and go through his pockets."



Hussar said:


> I find it funny though, that the paladin cannot dispense summary justice, even knowing that he is 100% in the right to do so, but, he can deliver up the prisoner to someone else who is going to execute the prisoner based on the Paladin's testimony.  IOW, the paladin just has to leave the room and let other people do the evil stuff, and that's ok.  Why is it justified that the magistrate can hang the prisoner but the paladin can't?




Funny...that is precisely how our justice system works.  The police can gather evidence that is 100% proof positive, know that this vile scum deserves the death penalty under the law of their jurisdiction, but they must turn him over to the justice system, where their testimony will be used to convict and sentence the criminal.  If they just kill him outright, they will be facing a trail themselves.  The Rule of Law is why it's OK for a court to sentence someone to death, but not acceptable for a civilian, a police officer or a mob to do so on their own initiative.



Hussar said:


> Actually, strike that question.  I'll ask another.  Why is it okay that your interpretation must automatically over rule mine?  Can you honestly not see that both interpretations are valid?  If it's not okay for the paladin to execute the prisoner, then how can the paladin hand someone over for execution?




I can see that either can be valid.  I cannot see both being valid simultaneously.  The game will require a decision.  Your characters may choose to pursue recognition and authority within the system and obtain the right to carry out summary justice.  We may discuss the campaign beforehand and decide that the players want their characters to have that right, so we build the campaign around that.  Or they may lack that right in this setting at this time.  You seem to chafe whenever there is a ruling you don't like at that specific moment, so it hardly surprises me you don't like the idea that someone else gets to decide any detail of the setting whatsoever.

We come back, as we have many times before, to the lack of consistency when each player gets 100% freedom to define "lawful" or "good".  Your character can carry out a summary execution.  The  question is whether taking the law into his own hands and taking the life of a helpless prisoner is considered Lawful and/or Good in this setting.  Your character does not get to make that decision, any more than I decide it is OK to imprison my neighbour in my garage for three days because he ran his lawnmower at 7 AM on Sunday morning.



Dannorn said:


> Now if the Paladin has been granted authourity to dispense summary justice then he's perfectly in line to kill the criminal he's caught in the act of murder.




And there we have it - depends on the setting.  No hard and fast rule.  We could even have a setting where it is _expected_ that the PC's bring their enemies back alive to face justice, so having captured them, they are not allowed to cut their throats.  Perhaps they are cast in the role of police officers, and their use of force subject to careful review.



Dannorn said:


> The issue with killing prisoners is mainly this, unless a character is dead set on performing certain last rites before executing the prisoner, or going through some other process ("By the authourity of Bob you have been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.") *what is the point of taking them prisoner if you're just planning on killing them? * Now if the character's goal is to question him before carrying out sentence for the crime he's committed that's one thing, but if they're just killing him because he's of no further use, or they don't want him interfering later, that's another.




A echo the question.  What is the point?  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] comments on the group "never taking prisoners".  If the fate of prisoners is execution shortly thereafter, then I suggest the group does not actually "take prisoners", they just delay the final hit of the combat before killing their opponents and moving on.



pemerton said:


> Well,   @_*jsaving*_ said this above. And you implied it, I thought, in post 1570, in which you asked me whether I "believe that the dictators who purge their enemies and pursue genocide are sincere in their benevolence and professed love of the people".




So do you believe a dictator who ruthlessly purges his enemies and pursues genocide is a sincere, benevolent person who wants only what is good and right for everyone?



pemerton said:


> Are you saying that the American Revolutionaries were in fact Neutral, and neither Lawful (despite their admiration for the rule of law) nor Chaotic (despite their obvious moral and political individualism)?




I am saying I am not writing a thesis for my Ph.d. in gaming morality, and do  not have an intention or a need to classify everything in the real world into game terms.  I am also saying that a balance of Lawful and Chaotic means and values generally means Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos.  Pure chaos is anarchy.  Pure law is totalitarian.  Some chaotic traits may still be Lawful if Law predominates, and vice versa.  I'm not running a game of American Revolutionaries, so I have no need to assess the situation.  For a *game* in a *fantasy* setting, I will likely not look for real world historical accuracy anyway.



pemerton said:


> The real issue is, should a character care that s/he is evil? Well, in the real world nearly everyone does. Very few wrongdoers defend their actions on the basis that they were wrong but justified. They argue that they were right. If we have to radical change moral psychology to make alignment work, why are we bothering? Why not work with a common-sense moral psychology (in which most people, rightly or wrongly, think of themselves as more-or-less good) and drop the alignment rules that cause the problem?




Do they care about *being* evil?  If so, why would they actively pursue evil acts?  Or do they care about being *perceived* as evil, which leads to the acts being committed and rationalized away?



pemerton said:


> I don't follow. In the situations   @_*Hussar*_ is describing the paladin is acting as a justiciar, and hence the killing is lawful.




Only if the Paladin has the lawful authority to act in that capacity.  Lacking that legal backing, he is a vigilante, and the killing is not lawful.



pemerton said:


> It's not very strange to me. The PCs in question wanted to punish the prisoner for wrongdoing. So they capture him (using one of the many means that the game provides for such things), pronounce a verdict and then kill him.




Since you are so set on real world examples, show me how that works in the real world.  I, and a few buddies, decide that the accused need not wait for a trial, so instead of calling the police to deal with the guy we caught red-handed (assumed for the sake of discussion), we string him up in the back yard.  Are we Lawful because we say that was the right thing to do?

Assume we're not just gamer buddies,  but police officers.  Now is it OK?  Or have we violated, rather than upheld, the law?



pemerton said:


> This is strange to me, though. The paladin serves the divinity. S/he does not depend upon temporal authority to exercise the power to dispense justice - that power is granted by a higher authority!




In which case we have a setting where dispensation of summary justice is acceptable.  But this requires the higher authority grant that power.  Perhaps that power is not granted in this setting.



pemerton said:


> Compare LotR - when Denethor asks Gandalf whether or not he (Denethor) has the power to command his servants, Gandalf rebukes him by saying that he does, but he has a duty to give proper commands. The lawfulness of his orders is not self-justifying - it is *grounded in their conformity to higher law*. Likewise for the paladin: it is the higher, divine law that is determinative.




The Paladin is not himself that higher authority, at least in my games.  In yours, it seems he can decide that it is divinely vested in him to execute jaywalkers and litterbugs and since it's his character, he gets to unilaterally make that call.  Maybe my character has it divinely vested in him to slaughter all those who Fate decreed should die but Fortune spared their lives, or to destroy those who dispense Justice based on Church rather than State, so it's OK for me to kill at random for the former, and kill the Paladin for the latter.



pemerton said:


> It also gives rise to genre problems. For instance, if dirty hands scenarios are really justified, then in my view it follows that paladins (and others who believe in providence) are fundamentally mistaken. Conversely, if they are not mistaken then Asmodeus is, in the end, self-deluded and not justified at all. I think it is very hard if not impossible for a fantasy RPG to walk both sides of this street (and that is why modernist fantasy like eg REH does not have paladins and clerics as characters, only wizards and warlocks of various stripes). Conversely, Tolkien - who is obviously a very strong believer in providence - treats all those who plead dirty hands as self-deluded and self-serving (see eg Saruman, Denethor and Boromir, though the latter redeemed himself in the end when the presence of the halflings provided a providential opportunity to do so).




Which genre?  Are you assuming we are playing an REH and Tolkein game, or selecting between an REH and a Tolkein game?  These two aspects of the genre do not appear reconcilable.  Conan is a poor fit on Middle Earth, and Frodo would not fit well in Hyperborea.  The setting will dictate some of these decisions, and the player must operate within the setting.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that the American Revolutionaries were in fact Neutral, and neither Lawful (despite their admiration for the rule of law) nor Chaotic (despite their obvious moral and political individualism)?



In the case of the Founding Fathers, I don't think it's especially tough to do the analysis here.  The Federalists were by and large Lawful, seeing Order as the main objective and government as the way to achieve that objective.  The Anti-Federalists were by and large Chaotic, seeing Freedom as the main objective and minimalist government as the way to achieve that objective.  Both compromised as the document was written and ended up with something that sees a legitimate role for both Order and Freedom.   And isn't that what being Neutral is all about?



pemerton said:


> If everyone interesting ends up Neutral, then I am again left with the question, how is alignment improving the game experience? How is it contributing to the framing of moral conflicts and debates?



OK, I am now slightly confused, because some of us were arguing a few pages ago that most historical tyrants are as Evil as they are commonly believed to be, and you were arguing the contrary.  Who is it that is saying everyone ends up Neutral?



pemerton said:


> The real issue is, should a character care that s/he is evil? Well, in the real world nearly everyone does.



This is an assertion, and one I personally think is mistaken.  (They care about being _perceived_ as evil, but that's a different issue.)

It doesn't make sense in an alignment context to say that someone is Evil but regrets it, because the Evil label isn't something that is randomly placed on people.  Rather, it is a description of the underlying compassion/altruism the person possesses.  If someone wishes to hurt people, then they will receive an Evil label because they wish to hurt people, and will only care about the label to extent it makes potential victims warier of their motives.  And if someone wishes to help people, then they won't merit an Evil label and hence won't be placed in the situation you describe.



pemerton said:


> Very few wrongdoers defend their actions on the basis that they were wrong but justified. They argue that they were right.



Of course when people are called upon to explain their actions, often because they face sanctions of one type or another, they will feign altruism or at least ineptitude to avoid their true motives being discovered.  What I have trouble understanding is why this has any bearing on their alignment.



pemerton said:


> If we have to radical change moral psychology to make alignment work, why are we bothering? Why not work with a common-sense moral psychology (in which most people, rightly or wrongly, think of themselves as more-or-less good) and drop the alignment rules that cause the problem?



I think this lies at the heart of our disagreement here.  You see a situation where philosophers, rulers, and ordinary people claim to be benevolent because they genuinely believe themselves to be, and you find uninteresting a world where lots of people who think of themselves as more-or-less Good would receive alignment labels with which they would disagree.  I see a world where people of all alignments routinely claim to be benevolent because it gets them what they want, and find interesting a world where lots of people who claim to be more-or-less Good would receive alignment labels with which they would publicly disagree but privately know to be correct.  

There's no point debating which world-view is "right" but I certainly think D&D's alignment rules are more useful to the latter than the former...


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> Asmodeus, Satan etc are difficult cases (consider Milton's Satan's "Evil, be thou my good"). What you describe in the second para I've quoted is close to a "dirty hands" style justification. This is an interesting phenomenon, but in my personal view is not one that D&D alignment is very well placed to grapple with.



I'm don't think I'd say that alignment isn't really good or bad at getting in the way of grappling with moral problems in general. I could see it limiting debates if people use it that way, but that wasn't my experience.


pemerton said:


> It also gives rise to genre problems. For instance, if dirty hands scenarios are really justified, then in my view it follows that paladins (and others who believe in providence) are fundamentally mistaken. Conversely, if they are not mistaken then Asmodeus is, in the end, self-deluded and not justified at all. I think it is very hard if not impossible for a fantasy RPG to walk both sides of this street



Well, that's where the debate of "right versus wrong" trumped "Good versus Evil" came in at my table. Is this the right thing? The "moral" laws of the multiverse seemed to say no, but those laws did not in any way hinder exploring morality in my campaign. In fact, it often spurred it such discussions. By no means is mechanical alignment necessary for this, of course (again, I didn't include any morality-focused mechanics in my RPG), but I don't think it inherently hurts such discussion, either (though it might very well for a good many groups).

I don't have much investment in this discussion, but I thought I'd throw in some real play examples to show what things were like at my table.


----------



## Manbearcat

jsaving said:


> In the case of the Founding Fathers, I don't think it's especially tough to do the analysis here.  The Federalists were by and large Lawful, seeing Order as the main objective and government as the way to achieve that objective.  The Anti-Federalists were by and large Chaotic, seeing Freedom as the main objective and minimalist government as the way to achieve that objective.  Both compromised as the document was written and ended up with something that sees a legitimate role for both Order and Freedom.   And isn't that what being Neutral is all about?




I don't want to get too enmeshed in this conversation as I'm not seeing the needle moved in any direction that intrigues me (eg moves me from my position or captures my interest enough to illicit a post).  However, I think something here is apropos to some of the annoyances that some folks may have with mechanical alignment; a nuanced view or a nuanced portfolio of actions inevitably leads toward the white flag of True Neutrality being raised (without anything interesting happening except possible mechanical fallout if you shift away from Law/Chaos or Good).  I don't like that at all.

For instance, take John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  During the American Revolution, both of them espoused the classical liberal revolutionary ideals of freedom from tyranny.  However, during their presidential tenures, Adams (reluctantly and later, ashamedly) signed into law The Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson seized unprecedented executive power (of which he routinely argued against) when he (basically) unilaterally undertook The First Barbary War.  These would be egregious (alignment altering) offenses in an alignment system that adjudicates their ethos (and then determines fallout).  Lincoln has similar earmarks of his pre-power and post-power political career.

Stuff happens.  Situations on the ground change.  The disparate paradigm of easy (philosophical) luxuries inherent to being a revolutionary versus actually being in power/ruling (and all the responsibility that comes with it) polarize.  People change.  Then they change back.  Or they soften.  Or they reconfirm in the crucible of revolution or rule.  This is the natural course of things with extraordinarily thoughtful people placed in the impossible pressure cooker of being head of a vast, human social system.  That shouldn't make them True Neutral, less (or more) classically liberal, hypocrites, or failed philosophers.  Only if life existed in a vacuum or as a controlled thought experiment would this be true (and then the guiding principles of philosophy would be never-changing; and ultimately useless).

TLDR; capturing and adjudicating the profound depth, nuance, and human experience of men like Adams, Jefferson, and Lincoln is a task massively beyond the functionality of the D&D alignment system.  If I'm playing a "Greatest American Revolutionaries" game, I'm using something much more akin to BW's Beliefs or DitV conflict resolution (internal and external conflict and its fallout) or MHRP's Distinctions and Milestones to get something that reasonably hews to the organic evolution of ethos (and the feedback/fallout on the ruler and his people/nation) when moving from revolutionary to rulership.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> You see a situation where philosophers, rulers, and ordinary people claim to be benevolent because they genuinely believe themselves to be, and you find uninteresting a world where lots of people who think of themselves as more-or-less Good would receive alignment labels with which they would disagree.



I don't that I find it uninteresting so much as incoherent. "Good" is the generic English word of commendation. People, absent weakness of will, pursue what they take to be good (= commendable).

If someone could just cast Know Alignment on Lenin and prove him to be (say) LE, I think that would bring popular support for the Russian Revolution to a grinding halt. As it is, there are still dozens of well-meaning people right in my own city who think that the Revolution (together with its offshoots in other places) was a thing of great value that still needs defending against various sorts of betrayal and counter-revolution. (That's not to express a view on the Revolution itself. I'm just using it as placeholder. The American or French Revolutions could equally stand in its place. Or the colonisation of Australia or the Americas. Or any of hundreds of other world-historical political events.)

Furthermore, because what is commendable depends upon social considerations, I don't see how goodness can be divorced from the ostensible subject matter of law/chaos. (And I agree with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s comment, that is rather unsatisfactory to see all the real-world conflicts blend 

And I also don't see why the GM's view of all this should trump a player's view, when it comes to that player's own character. This is a largely separate reason from the above two (which are reasons to favour a Law-Chaos system along the lines of pre-AD&D or 4e), but tends to run the same way.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> pemerton regularly describes a situation in his game where the characters interrogated a prisoner before turning him over for lawful justice.  The argument was whether, and to what extent, they would use their influence to mitigate the sentence likely to be handed down.  At no point do I recall them ever considering just killing the prisoner and having done with it.



Then you need to re-read it. At least two, probably three of the PCs - the drow, the wizard and the paladin of the Raven Queen - would have favoured immediate execution, at least in part to conceal the somewhat duplicitous means whereby information was extracted. This outcome was precluded, however, by the other "paladin" in whose name assurances had (perhaps, or by implication) been given, turning up on the scene and hence being bound by those assurances. Though he would rather that she had been killed as (at least some of) the others had planned.



N'raac said:


> So do you believe a dictator who ruthlessly purges his enemies and pursues genocide is a sincere, benevolent person who wants only what is good and right for everyone?



I believe that Lenin and Trotsky were basically sincere, yes. (In this I am influenced by the leading Australian critic of Marxism and Communism, Martin Krygier.) The essence of Marxism is realising the inherent dignity of all human beings, and this is also the measure of "good" in 3E (Gygax's AD&D uses slightly different, but roughly comparable, formulations). The violence they engaged in they regarded as a form of necessary violence to achieve that goal - in some ways, not unlike the violence that "good" PCs routinely perpetrate in D&D play. Gygax, discussing LG, frames it as "whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest" - Lenin and Trotsky did not regard counter-revolutionaries as decent, and hence did not regard them as entitled to anything but the least woe - which in some cases might nevertheless be death. In 3E, "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." Lenin and Trotsky punished those guilty of counter-revolution.

I can easily imagine a D&D game in which the question of what is permissible in the interests of upholding and furthering ideal government is a focus of play - because I have in fact run two such campaigns (my present 4e game, and my previous RM game). Deciding how much suffering it is permissible to overlook, or even engender, in the pursuit of the ideal is an important aspect of such play. I don't see how alignment helps me with this - if it is possible to frame Lenin and Trotsky as LG, then how are the alignment rules contributing to resolution of the moral question whether or not to support their social vision? And if the alignment rules, through some other interpretation that hasn't really been spelled out by either you or [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION], paints them as Evil, then I already know they are not worthy of support.



N'raac said:


> Do they care about *being* evil?  If so, why would they actively pursue evil acts?  Or do they care about being *perceived* as evil, which leads to the acts being committed and rationalized away?



I don't know - you tell me. (Are your questions purely rhetorical?)

I think most people care about doing the wrong thing, as they conceive of it. Hence the reason that political actors try to persuade people that things are good or bad.



N'raac said:


> For a *game* in a *fantasy* setting, I will likely not look for real world historical accuracy anyway.



I want accuracy to my own experience. I have described actual games I have or am GMing. And the questions they throw up. If alignment cannot address those questions, how is it improving my game experience?



N'raac said:


> Only if the Paladin has the lawful authority to act in that capacity.  Lacking that legal backing, he is a vigilante, and the killing is not lawful.



Where does this come from? No part of "lawful", in any version of the game, precludes vigilantism. In 3E, for instance,  lawful characters "respect authority . . . and judge those who fall short of their duties." When authorities fall short of their duties, for instance by acting unjustly (and LG characters "speak out against injustice"), then they may need to be judged. And even opposed. In such circumstances a LG character could be a vigilante, seeking to establish a just social order and restore a legitimate ruler.



N'raac said:


> Since you are so set on real world examples, show me how that works in the real world.



I don't think real-world policing and judicial norms have much application in a game whose social structures are typically pre-modern, and informed by the reality of divine beings and (for you, at least) "cosmological forces" of good and evil.

In some ways the Lockean state of nature is a better model, and in the state of nature (says Locke) each has a natural right to apprehend and punish wrongdoers. The right of the state to do so, if lawfully constituted, is a purely conventional right, and not a natural one.



N'raac said:


> The Paladin is not himself that higher authority, at least in my games.  In yours, it seems he can decide that it is divinely vested in him to execute jaywalkers and litterbugs and since it's his character, he gets to unilaterally make that call.



What have jaywalkers got to do with anything? I thought we were discussing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s example, which was about mala in se, not mala prohibita.

Also, your comment makes no sense - the paladin is not the paladin's character. The paladin is the paladin. The paladin is also the paladin's player's character. The higher authority in the gameworld is not the paladin, nor the player (who is not part of the gameworld but rather of the gameworld). The higher authority is the divinity.

Seriously, if you're going to be snide then try not to produce incoherence in the same paragraph.



N'raac said:


> Which genre?  Are you assuming we are playing an REH and Tolkein game, or selecting between an REH and a Tolkein game?  These two aspects of the genre do not appear reconcilable.]



No, they're not. That's why I asserted that they're not. Your explanation of the alignment system presupposes an REH world, in which sometimes it is "right" to do "evil". That is a world in which clerics and paladins make no sense. (Hence they are not found in REH's writings.)

In wanting to use both alignment as you describe it _and_ clerics and paladins you are trying to combine REH and Tolkien. Which as you have noted doesn't work.

  Conan is a poor fit on Middle Earth, and Frodo would not fit well in Hyperborea.  The setting will dictate some of these decisions, and the player must operate within the setting.[/QUOTE]


----------



## N'raac

pemerton said:


> I can easily imagine a D&D game in which the question of what is permissible in the interests of upholding and furthering ideal government is a focus of play - because I have in fact run two such campaigns (my present 4e game, and my previous RM game). Deciding how much suffering it is permissible to overlook, or even engender, in the pursuit of the ideal is an important aspect of such play. I don't see how alignment helps me with this - if it is possible to frame Lenin and Trotsky as LG, then how are the alignment rules contributing to resolution of the moral question whether or not to support their social vision? And if the alignment rules, through some other interpretation that hasn't really been spelled out by either you or @_*jsaving*_, paints them as Evil, then I already know they are not worthy of support.




I don't see the alignment riles answering every decision point, as you seem to insist it must.  That would remove any purpose of play.  The debate between, say, Marx and Adams becomes one of the best means of bringing the greatest good to the greatest number.  Adams felt that was the enlightened self-interest of capitalism.  Many years later, Marx (with the benefit of seeing the unbridled excesses of capitalism, in large part possible because the assumptions inherent in capitalist theory do not perfectly materialize in reality) developed a different theory of the best means of bringing the greatest good to the greatest number.  No truly communist society (as Marx envisioned it) has ever, to my knowledge existed on a large scale, or for an extended period.  Human nature tends not to accept "contribute to the maximum of my ability and take the minimum required for my needs".



pemerton said:


> I think most people care about doing the wrong thing, as they conceive of it. Hence the reason that political actors try to persuade people that things are good or bad.




I think people have to balance various aspects of "right" and "wrong" to make decisions, some of which they may later regret and some of which they may later rationalize.  Few condemned criminals believe they truly deserve the sentence passed down on them.  Many convicted criminals believe they were firmly in the right.  It does not mean they are correct.  



pemerton said:


> I want accuracy to my own experience. I have described actual games I have or am GMing. And the questions they throw up. If alignment cannot address those questions, how is it improving my game experience?




If I cannot resolve every issue by rolling a d20, does this mean the d20 system is a failure as a gaming tool, or that no one tool answers every question and resolves every issue?  If the standard you require is that alignment be the foundation of the game, and decide each and every issue within it, then I do not believe there is any game rule, or even game system, which can approach the standard you have set.  And, once again, I am not arguing for the premise that alignment would improve your gaming experience, but against your assertion that alignment can only serve to detract from it.



pemerton said:


> Where does this come from? No part of "lawful", in any version of the game, precludes vigilantism. In 3E, for instance,  lawful characters "respect authority . . . and judge those who fall short of their duties." When authorities fall short of their duties, for instance by acting unjustly (and LG characters "speak out against injustice"), then they may need to be judged. And even opposed. In such circumstances a LG character could be a vigilante, seeking to establish a just social order and restore a legitimate ruler.




You are here assuming a corrupt social order.  The Lawful character would seem more likely to seek to modify or replace the existing authority where the Chaotic one will be happy tearing it own and leaving no structure in its place.  



pemerton said:


> I don't think real-world policing and judicial norms have much application in a game whose social structures are typically pre-modern, and informed by the reality of divine beings and (for you, at least) "cosmological forces" of good and evil.




Fair enough - I have applied the same logic to your constant use of real-world moral philosophy and real-world politics.  Do we agree that neither are overly relevant to a pre-modern fantasy setting informed by the reality of divine beings and, possibly, cosmological forces of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos?  To me, we again come to setting structure - the social structure of the specific game will dictate the extent to which those real-world norms are relevant.  Zietgeist, for example, presumes a Constabulary which has rules for law enforcement, which differs from many D&D settings.



pemerton said:


> In some ways the Lockean state of nature is a better model, and in the state of nature (says Locke) each has a natural right to apprehend and punish wrongdoers. The right of the state to do so, if lawfully constituted, is a purely conventional right, and not a natural one.




Individual rights or societal order - which takes precedence?  I suppose that would depend on whether one is Chaotic or Lawful, wouldn't it?



pemerton said:


> Also, your comment makes no sense - the paladin is not the paladin's character. The paladin is the paladin. The paladin is also the paladin's player's character. The higher authority in the gameworld is not the paladin, nor the player (who is not part of the gameworld but rather of the gameworld). The higher authority is the divinity.




Deftly dodged.  The player decides that it is the Paladin's divine right to take what he will in the service of his deity, slay those who oppose or offend him and let none gainsay his divine right on penalty of death.  The player has spoken, so this is the definition of LG.  In my games, the player does not get to dictate what "LG" means, he gets to dictate the morals and values of his character.



pemerton said:


> No, they're not. That's why I asserted that they're not. Your explanation of the alignment system presupposes an REH world, in which sometimes it is "right" to do "evil". That is a world in which clerics and paladins make no sense. (Hence they are not found in REH's writings.)




I find the Cleric and Paladin are much less common in fantasy literature than the Wizard, Warrior and Rogue, actually.  Religious fantasy characters?  Leaving aside Tolkein, I suppose Solomon Kane springs to mind,  but does he succeed through his own strength and ability, through divine providence (working in mysterious ways) or through some combination of the two?  Unknown.


----------



## Hussar

DnD clerics I'll give you. But paladins?  Holy warriors charged by some sort of divine power to bring good and justice to the world?  

You need to read more fantasy if you think that's not common.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> if it is possible to frame Lenin and Trotsky as LG, then how are the alignment rules contributing to resolution of the moral question whether or not to support their social vision? And if the alignment rules, through some other interpretation that hasn't really been spelled out by either you or @_*jsaving*_, paints them as Evil, then I already know they are not worthy of support.



The alignment rules aren't designed to say whether any particular person's social vision is worthy of support.  All they are designed to do is say whether the person promulgating the vision is motivated by a desire to help/harm people or free/order them -- that's it.  Multiple people with the same alignment can have conflicting visions of how to achieve their objectives, some of which may have unanticipated side-effects that cause the vision to inadvertently achieve the opposite of its intended effect. Having these differences emerge without an "answer" from the alignment system is a feature rather than a bug, so the game will not devolve into the DM decreeing at every decision point which action the PCs must take if they are to do the right thing.  

If you do not accept this premise of the system because you want the alignment writeup to help you discern whether Lenin or Trotsky or anyone else laid out a moral "vision" worthy of "support", then you need something no alignment system could provide and you are best served by dropping it from your game. This is not to say your goals aren't legitimate or interesting, because they are -- only that the alignment system can't help you resolve them.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that the American Revolutionaries were in fact Neutral, and neither Lawful (despite their admiration for the rule of law) nor Chaotic (despite their obvious moral and political individualism)?




There are no 9-point alignments in real life.  Real world morals and ethics are much too complex for that.


----------



## Hussar

jsaving said:


> The alignment rules aren't designed to say whether any particular person's social vision is worthy of support.  All they are designed to do is say whether the person promulgating the vision is motivated by a desire to help/harm people or free/order them -- that's it.  Multiple people with the same alignment can have conflicting visions of how to achieve their objectives, some of which may have unanticipated side-effects that cause the vision to inadvertently achieve the opposite of its intended effect. Having these differences emerge without an "answer" from the alignment system is a feature rather than a bug, so the game will not devolve into the DM decreeing at every decision point which action the PCs must take if they are to do the right thing.
> 
> If you do not accept this premise of the system because you want the alignment writeup to help you discern whether Lenin or Trotsky or anyone else laid out a moral "vision" worthy of "support", then you need something no alignment system could provide and you are best served by dropping it from your game. This is not to say your goals aren't legitimate or interesting, because they are -- only that the alignment system can't help you resolve them.




But therein lies the problem.  If I decide that my character thinks that X is good, and the DM disagrees, then I'm SOL.  There can be no conflicting vision because the DM has to make a determination.  If I cast Know Alignment on Trotsky, the DM can't tell me he's one or another alignment without deciding that Trotsky actually IS that alignment or not.  

There really can't be different visions.  Or, rather, I don't see how there could be.  There are just too many ways in D&D to actually verify one vision or the other.  And if I am playing a class which is dependent on alignment mechanics, which, in 3e, is virtually every single class, then the DM has to decree every decision point.  Otherwise, if he doesn't, it's an aha gotcha moment because the player is acting in a way that the DM decides is not in keeping with a given alignment.

Which, IME, leads to players never really straying from a very comfortable path once they've gotten to know a given DM.  If they know that the DM thinks Trotsky is evil, then they aren't going to play a Socialist Paladin.  Clerics of Heironeous will not take a "To each as needed" point of view.  They know that the DM has decided X, and will play to that, instead of playing to try to expand or explore a concept.  I really do find it very liberating to play in systems which do not have alignment mechanics.


----------



## jsaving

I agree that there cannot be two correct answers in the same campaign for whether Trotsky is Good or Evil.  Just as is true with every finding of fact in the campaign, the DM is ultimately responsible for making that determination, and players have to live with what he says (or else find another campaign).  

But I'm not so sure this logic applies to you and your DM disagreeing about whether action X is Good or Evil.  The reason is that action X _cannot_ itself be inherently Good or Evil -- only the motivations of the participants can be.  So if you favor the death penalty for a captive to protect future innocents from his wrath, and another party member agrees with you because it will let him indulge his sadism on the prisoner, then administering the penalty cements you as Good and him as Evil, even though you are both _doing_ the same thing.  

If your DM were to nevertheless assign an alignment to this action, you're right that this would place party members in a pickle.  Just for the sake of the example, let's say the DM is "progressive" in his thinking and "knows" no truly benevolent person could favor execution, so he says in advance of the execution that any party member who follows through with it will become Evil.  Suddenly, even though your desire to execute the captive is based solely on altruism and is therefore Good in a D&D context, you are forced to do what the DM says or else lose whatever in-game benefits are based on you remaining Good.

Faced with situations like this, it's no wonder that some people come away with a negative view of the alignment rules.  I know I wouldn't be able to tolerate remaining in a campaign where the DM is going to decree my level of compassion/altruism and enact in-game punishments based on his verdict!  But there are two things to keep in mind here.  One is that the example represents an abuse of the alignment system rather than its proper implementation -- the DM had no business setting aside his mantle as objective-arbiter and indulging his personal ideology, and even less business browbeating players into acting out that ideology on pain of "falling".  The other is that even this abusive example would lose much of its sting if alignment were divorced from mechanics and used solely for flavor, as many of us on both sides of the debate think it should be.


----------



## Hussar

I disagree that this is abusive though. &Imaro and N'raac have both clearly stated that executing the prisoner is evil. Are they abusing the system?

And, in an objective alignment system, motive is irrelavent. Believing that X is good doesn't make it so.


----------



## pemerton

pickin_grinnin said:


> There are no 9-point alignments in real life.  Real world morals and ethics are much too complex for that.



Well quite.

To me, that shows they won't improve my gaming experience. If my game can't produce episodes that is at least somewhat comparable in complexity to real life - which even mediocre novels and films can sometimes achieve- then it's not in a position to deliver the experience I'm looking for.

That's one reason why I don't use alignment.



jsaving said:


> The alignment rules aren't designed to say whether any particular person's social vision is worthy of support.  All they are designed to do is say whether the person promulgating the vision is motivated by a desire to help/harm people or free/order them -- that's it.



I'll leave to one side that the free/order contrast doesn't tell me how to label anyone who thinks that freedom depends upon certain patterns of order (which is practically all modern liberal thinkers ranging from the American founders to Hayek to Rawls).

Turning to help/harm, the d20srd says that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." That doesn't seem consistent with your claim, because it links goodness and evil to _innocence_, which does not figure in your definition (you refer only to help/harm). Furthermore, that definition makes it clear that good people are worthy of support, and evil people are not - it is self-evident that "debasing and/or destroying innocent life for fun and/or profit" is not worthy of support.



			
				jsaving;6300189action X [I said:
			
		

> cannot[/I] itself be inherently Good or Evil -- only the motivations of the participants can be.



I don't believe this claim has any textual support in the D&D rules. For instance, Gygax on p 24 of his DMG says "It is of importance to keep track of player character behaviour with respect to their professed alignment. Actions do speak far more eloquently than professions, and each activity of a player character should reflect his or her alignment."

In a similar vein, the 3E paladin description follows earlier editions and uses the notion of "an evil act", with no indication that this means a wrongly motivated act. For instance, the fact that the rules text distinguishes evil acts in general from "wilful" evil acts shows that evil-ness, as a status, is not dependent upon will. The AD&D PHB (p 22) used similar language when it referred to a paladin "knowingly" committing a chaotic act or an evil act. This allows that evil acts can be committed inadvertently, and hence enjoy their status as evil independently of the paladin's mental states.



jsaving said:


> Faced with situations like this, it's no wonder that some people come away with a negative view of the alignment rules.  I know I wouldn't be able to tolerate remaining in a campaign where the DM is going to decree my level of compassion/altruism and enact in-game punishments based on his verdict!



If you read Gygax's DMG, or the paladin rules in the 3E rulebooks, I think you'll find that that is exactly what the game intends. Hence, for instance, Roger E Moore's discussion in his Dragon article on paladins whether or not a paladin should lose paladinhood for punching a dryad (a Chaotic Good creature) in the nose. (He concluded that the paladin should not lose paladinhood for this.)



N'raac said:


> I don't see the alignment riles answering every decision point, as you seem to insist it must.  That would remove any purpose of play.



I'm still waiting to be provided with a single instance where you think they do answer a decision point that has actually arisen in play. ( [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] has given actual play examples of using alignment, but I don't think they involved alignment answering a decision point. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though.)



N'raac said:


> The player decides that it is the Paladin's divine right to take what he will in the service of his deity, slay those who oppose or offend him and let none gainsay his divine right on penalty of death. The player has spoken, so this is the definition of LG.



I don't understand this claim. I don't use alignment in my game, so you can't describe a process that might take place in my game, and then add on an alignment characterisation of it.

If the player decides that that is what his/her paladin's god demands or permits, then yes, the player is playing that character. I take it you think that I should tell the player to play another character?



N'raac said:


> I find the Cleric and Paladin are much less common in fantasy literature than the Wizard, Warrior and Rogue, actually.



The heavily-armoured, providentially-inspired and directed warrior, who exercise saintly powers (especially of healing with a touch), is pretty much a mainstay of the fictitious/legendary part of European history (eg St Edward the Confessor), of Arthurian and Carolignian romance and of fantasy literature that draws upon that tradition (eg Tolkien, Dragonlance).

Obviously such characters are absent from REH. As I've explained at some length, that is not a coincidence. The materialist, Neitzschean worldview of the Conan stories has no room for such characters.

Hence D&D has to make a choice. It includes such characters, and leaves it open whether they are right or wrong. Or it has mechanics - such as alignment mechanics that leave it open that evil might be right - which rule out such characters from the get go. It can't walk both sides of this street without losing coherence.



N'raac said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No part of "lawful", in any version of the game, precludes vigilantism. In 3E, for instance, lawful characters "respect authority . . . and judge those who fall short of their duties." When authorities fall short of their duties, for instance by acting unjustly (and LG characters "speak out against injustice"), then they may need to be judged. And even opposed. In such circumstances a LG character could be a vigilante, seeking to establish a just social order and restore a legitimate ruler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are here assuming a corrupt social order.
Click to expand...


Yes. You asserted that vigilantism is not lawful. I provided a counterexample, namely, one in which the social order is corrupt. So I take it that you are agreeing with me that vigilantism sometimes can be consistent with lawfulness.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I disagree that this is abusive though. &Imaro and N'raac have both clearly stated that executing the prisoner is evil. Are they abusing the system?




Please stop putting words in my mouth... I've clearly asked for more context concerning the situation you presented not declared it evil.


----------



## Hussar

Well N'raac pretty clearly stated that it was just a player who wanted to take the easy route and not bother role playing and I missed you disagreeing with him between consistently agreeing with everything he's said. 

If context matters then all alignment is relative which is pretty counter to your position throughout this thread.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I'm still waiting to be provided with a single instance where you think they do answer a decision point that has actually arisen in play. ( @_*JamesonCourage*_ has given actual play examples of using alignment, but I don't think they involved alignment answering a decision point. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though.)



From a "moral" perspective, all alignment did was say "this guy is Good" or "this guy is Evil", but the choice of what to do, and what was right or wrong, was still up to the players.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about as far as "decision points" go. I haven't been following your conversation, but whatever it is sounds like something that I'd label "not applicable." I kind of wonder how you got there, but in all honesty, I don't really care.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Well N'raac pretty clearly stated that it was just a player who wanted to take the easy route and not bother role playing and I missed you disagreeing with him between consistently agreeing with everything he's said.
> 
> If context matters then all alignment is relative which is pretty counter to your position throughout this thread.




If you can show me where I defined it objectively as evil... then do it, otherwise, again, don't put words in my mouth.

OAN: Taking the easy route does not equate to evil...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> OAN: Taking the easy route does not equate to evil...




Technically, no, but traditionally there's a pretty strong association between taking the easy route and evil, throughout world religions and philosophies, probably for the fairly logical reason that if you just do whatever is easiest in the short term for you in situations involving humans, you can often end up hurting people.


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> Technically, no, but traditionally there's a pretty strong association between taking the easy route and evil, throughout world religions and philosophies, probably for the fairly logical reason that if you just do whatever is easiest in the short term for you in situations involving humans, you can often end up hurting people.




And in D&D taking the easy route is just as likely to be neutral as it is evil...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> And in D&D taking the easy route is just as likely to be neutral as it is evil...




I think that's impossible to quantify, myself.

EDIT - That said, in actual D&D practice you very often have a choice between the good, decent, but hard work option, and the expedient option, and the latter often involves killing people who you could keep alive but it would be a hassle, or in other cases leaving other people in severe peril, and the former definitely isn't "neutral" and the second could go either way.


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think that's impossible to quantify, myself.




But it's not impossible to quantify the same thing for evil?  Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> But it's not impossible to quantify the same thing for evil?  Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?




I mean about "just as likely".


----------



## Imaro

Ruin Explorer said:


> EDIT - That said, in actual D&D practice you very often have a choice between the good, decent, but hard work option, and the expedient option, and the latter often involves killing people who you could keep alive but it would be a hassle, or in other cases leaving other people in severe peril, and the former definitely isn't "neutral" and the second could go either way.




If killing people who you could keep alive was automatically evil... every character in D&D would be evil... since they always have the option to try and subdue someone, so I disagree with your blanket statement.

Edit: Again why context is important...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Imaro said:


> If killing people who you could keep alive was automatically evil... every character in D&D would be evil... since they always have the option to try and subdue someone, so I disagree with your blanket statement.
> 
> Edit: Again why context is important...




That's not what I'm implying, D&D's subdual rules are so risky that they're usually not worth using, because it's a huge risk, and thus killing is okay (and so un-risky in 4E that they have to be kind of ignored lest it become so G-rated things get silly). I'm talking about enemies who have already been captured or surrendered. Killing them is frequently expedient, and that is usually evil.


----------



## jsaving

pemerton said:


> I don't believe this claim has any textual support in the D&D rules. For instance, Gygax on p 24 of his DMG says "It is of importance to keep track of player character behaviour with respect to their professed alignment. Actions do speak far more eloquently than professions, and each activity of a player character should reflect his or her alignment."



Sure, actions speak far more eloquently _to PC motivations_ than professions -- no argument there.  That the DM would track actions, gauge intent, and render judgments about the morality of those actions is no surprise, but it hardly implies the actions themselves had an alignment independent of the context in which they were undertaken.



pemerton said:


> In a similar vein, the 3E paladin description follows earlier editions and uses the notion of "an evil act", with no indication that this means a wrongly motivated act. For instance, the fact that the rules text distinguishes evil acts in general from "wilful" evil acts shows that evil-ness, as a status, is not dependent upon will. The AD&D PHB (p 22) used similar language when it referred to a paladin "knowingly" committing a chaotic act or an evil act. This allows that evil acts can be committed inadvertently, and hence enjoy their status as evil independently of the paladin's mental states.



This is quite the red herring, as legal systems have long distinguished between what one knew/understood and what one _should_ have known/understood.  Only the former is considered "willful", but this hardly means the latter is "inadvertent," only less malevolent and hence less "bad" according to EGG's view of nobility as articulated in the traditional paladin code. 

More broadly, for an "evil act" to be defined in the game as an action undertaken with evil intent, the core books would need to include a definition of what it means for a character to be evil, which they do.  But for an "evil act" to instead mean taking an action that is inherently classified as evil regardless of context or motivation, as you suggest, the core books would need to include a definition separate from these factors that explains what it means for an action to be evil, which they don't.  I suppose it is possible that past design teams intended your definition to be used but kept forgetting to include the rules necessary to implement it.  But the content present in the core books doesn't allow one to adjudicate an "evil act" unless it means an action undertaken with evil intent, which leads me to the conclusion this is what the designers intended.

Which doesn't mean there is no such thing as an "evil act," only that there is no such thing as an inherently evil act regardless of context or motivation.

It doesn't sound like we're likely to agree on this, though, and that's fine.  In some ways this disagreement encapsulates the original theme of this thread 150+ pages ago, that there is a significant chunk of the playerbase that just doesn't get anything out of the traditional D&D alignment framework and in many ways finds it a half-baked hindrance rather than an intriguing help.  This doesn't lead me to the conclusion that alignment should be scrapped, because there are plenty of people who do find it helpful, but it does reinforce (in my view at least) that alignment should not be a mechanical cudgel with which to pummel one's players.  Roleplaying has to be about more than gauging the DM's values and then acting accordingly, or else the "game" has become much more unpleasant than a game ought to be...


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> for an "evil act" to be defined in the game as an action undertaken with evil intent, the core books would need to include a definition of what it means for a character to be evil, which they do.  But for an "evil act" to instead mean taking an action that is inherently classified as evil regardless of context or motivation, as you suggest, the core books would need to include a definition separate from these factors that explains what it means for an action to be evil, which they don't.



They do define an evil act. I quoted the d20 definition upthread: an evil act is one which debases or destroys the innocent.

Gygax defines evil in this way:

[T]he tenets of good are human rights . . . each creatur is entitled to lie, relative freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.​
Hence an evil act is one which is rights-violating, or otherwise inflicts suffering when suffering was not warranted.

The two definitions are probably not strictly equivalent - for instance, the d20 definition seems to suggest that it is never evil to inflict suffering on a non-innocent party (so eg cruelty towards the wicked might be permissible in some cases), whereas Gygax suggests that even when suffering is not rights-violating it can still amount to evil. But they are near enough for practical purposes.



jsaving said:


> legal systems have long distinguished between what one knew/understood and what one _should_ have known/understood.  Only the former is considered "willful", but this hardly means the latter is "inadvertent," only less malevolent and hence less "bad" according to EGG's view of nobility as articulated in the traditional paladin code.



Are you a US lawyer? In which case you have identified something about US law that I didn't know.

I had always assumed that negligence in US law has the same meaning as in Anglo-Australian law - where it means something to which a person was inadvertent, but ought not to have been. Negligence is not a species of malevolence, in the sense of subjective malicious intent - it is an objective standard to which non-malevolent conduct is held.

In private law, knowledge is generally defined so as to include certain sorts of imputed knowledge (eg a party is deemed to know X if s/he knows facts that would alert an honest and reasonable person to X, or would put an honest and reasonable person on inquiry as to X.) However, knowledge in this imputed sense goes beyond wilfulness, and so this cannot be the sort of knowledge that is meant in the paladin context.

In criminal law, between knowledge/intention (which in English law tend to be the same thing, but are not always the same thing in Australian law, depending on jurisdiction) and negligence there is recklessness. This can be defined as "knowledge of a risk which ought not to be taken". So recklessness, which is a species of malevolence, is also a species of wilfullness.

A paladin who acts recklessly - ie who runs an unjustifiable risk of debasing or destroying the innocent - loses paladinhood. (Whether that counts as _motivation_ is itself a debatable question - in some systems knowledge of an outcome is equated with intending that outcome (so-called oblique intention) but in others (eg the criminal law of the state of Victoria in Australia) it is not.)

A paladin who inadvertently - ie not wilfully - brings about an evil result need not forfeit paladinhood. This shows that evil _cannot_ be solely about motivation. For instance, a paladin who kills an innocent person while honestly and reasonably believing that person to be a succubus or doppelganger in disguise has done an evil thing. But given that it was neither knowing nor wilfull, the paladin will not forfeit paladinhood. (Though I imagine many GMs might require Atonement, which has as one of its function absolution from evil deeds committed unknowingly or unwillingly - which would inclue evil deeds done out of good motivations.)

EDIT: This also shows that there can be "moral luck" in D&D. If the paladin honstely and reasonably, though mistakenly, believes that a person is succubus in disguise, and kills him/her, then the paladin may have done an evil thing (though without it being knowingly and wilfully done). But if, unbeknownst to the paladin, the victim of the mistaken killing is in fact a _doppelganger_ in disguise, then the paladin has not done an evil thing - but rather has done a different non-evil thing from the one s/he intended.


----------



## pemerton

jsaving said:


> This doesn't lead me to the conclusion that alignment should be scrapped



I have never said it should be scrapped. Nor (that I recall) have I said that it _should_ be retained, though I have probably said that I expect it to be retained.


----------



## Hussar

Just to add to Pemerton's last point. I have never said that those who use alignment mechanics are in the wrong or having badwrongfun. What I have said is that I don't enjoy those mechanics and I hope that they are more optional in 5e than they are in say 3e. 

They certainly do not improve my gaming experience. But much of this thread has been people telling me that the reason I don't like mechanical alignment is because I'm doing it wrong.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Just to add to Pemerton's last point. I have never said that those who use alignment mechanics are in the wrong or having badwrongfun. What I have said is that I don't enjoy those mechanics and I hope that they are more optional in 5e than they are in say 3e.




You can choose not to use the paladin, alignment issues for clerics, and alignment spells from 3e. How is that somehow not optional? I really don't get the idea that everything from 3e's rules *has* to be considered in every individual campaign. Frankly, I'd consider it pretty easy to play D&D without alignments at all. I just happen to enjoy using them most of the time.



Hussar said:


> They certainly do not improve my gaming experience. But much of this thread has been people telling me that the reason I don't like mechanical alignment is because I'm doing it wrong.




Well, you and others have been spinning the negative aspects of how people can use or have used the alignment mechanics in your arguments. Of course people are going to respond by suggesting better ways of using them. If you bend down to pick up something heavy and complain about your back hurting, people are going to tell you to lift with your legs, not your back.


----------



## Hussar

Yup, because it couldn't possibly be that the thing is just to heavy. I must be incompetent if I can't pick it up. 

Just like this thread. I don't have the secret decoder ring, so I'm just too incompetent to understand the brilliance that is alignment. 

Funny how you only picked two classes in 3rd considering that there are what, three classes that DON'T have alignment restrictions.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Yup, because it couldn't possibly be that the thing is just to heavy. I must be incompetent if I can't pick it up.




Hey, technique matters. You might be.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I have never said that those who use alignment mechanics are in the wrong or having badwrongfun. What I have said is that I don't enjoy those mechanics and I hope that they are more optional in 5e than they are in say 3e.





billd91 said:


> You can choose not to use the paladin



Hussar can of course speak for himself, but for my part one of the points I have been consistently trying to make in this thread is that I _want_ to use the paladin - I like GMing them, and when I play I like playing them - and AD&D/3E-style alignment mechanics are an impediment to that.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Hussar can of course speak for himself, but for my part one of the points I have been consistently trying to make in this thread is that I _want_ to use the paladin - I like GMing them, and when I play I like playing them - and AD&D/3E-style alignment mechanics are an impediment to that.




The question is do you like playing the D&D paladin... we've debated this before but I still stand by the assertion that what you want to play is a divinely powered mercenary or warrior... not a paladin in the pre-4e D&D sense.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The question is do you like playing the D&D paladin... we've debated this before but I still stand by the assertion that what you want to play is a divinely powered mercenary or warrior... not a paladin in the pre-4e D&D sense.



D&D didn't invent the paladin archetype. Romantic authors of the high middle ages did, and it has been reinforced and perhaps in some ways developed over time since then.

When I play a paladin I have zero interest in playing a divinely powered mercenary. In fact that is the interpretation I place on the sort of paladin you and others have described upthread, one who receives divine power only provided that s/he sticks to a code that is, from the point of view of the universe, arbitrary - arbitrary because, from the point of view of the universe, there is no reason to be LG rather than (say) CE.

When I play a paladin I play a character who believes in the reality of providence, and hence disavows all dishonourable and unjust conduct. Claims that evil must be done so that good can ultimately triumph are, for the character I am interested in playing, flawed for two reasons: first, they are empirically false; second, they are betrayals of faith in that divine providence which ensures that those who act morally will not be betrayed.

In modern fantasy literature the best-known exponent of this world view is Tolkien (through Aragorn and Gandalf as his mouthpieces). Aragorn is a quintessential paladin. Obviously so are many of the knights of the Round Table (eg Galahad, Percival, Lancelot before his fall) and knights of the Carolignian romances also.

These are the sorts of characters I want to play. The D&D paladin captures them very well mechanically - a warrior who is divinely bless, can heal with a touch and smite his/her enemies - except that the alignment mechanics get in the way, by either ruling out from the get-go the cosmological world view that underpins the class, or (on a different approach to them) turning the character more-or-less into the GM's puppet.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Well N'raac pretty clearly stated that it was just a player who wanted to take the easy route and not bother role playing and I missed you disagreeing with him between consistently agreeing with everything he's said.
> 
> If context matters then all alignment is relative which is pretty counter to your position throughout this thread.




I said your comment that role playing is reduced because the players cannot simply kill prisoners on a whim struck me as ludicrous. They don't want to role play the issues of taking prisoners? Kill all the prisoners.  I also said I see no game improvement between "kill the enemy in combat" and "kill any survivors/prisoners".

I have never said killing the prisoner is always evil, and my concerns have run more to law/chaos (is the character actually empowered to dispense justice) than good/evil (under what circumstances is taking a life an acceptable compromise of Good ethics).  Please stop putting words in our mouths.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:


> I said your comment that role playing is reduced because the players cannot simply kill prisoners on a whim struck me as ludicrous. They don't want to role play the issues of taking prisoners? Kill all the prisoners.  I also said I see no game improvement between "kill the enemy in combat" and "kill any survivors/prisoners".
> 
> I have never said killing the prisoner is always evil, and my concerns have run more to law/chaos (is the character actually empowered to dispense justice) than good/evil (under what circumstances is taking a life an acceptable compromise of Good ethics).  Please stop putting words in our mouths.




The irony between these two paragraphs is striking. Complaining that I put words in your mouth while at the same time claiming that I find killing prisoners in a whim to be in keeping with alignment. 

Nice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The D&D paladin captures them very well mechanically - a warrior who is divinely bless, can heal with a touch and smite his/her enemies - *except that the alignment mechanics get in the way, by either ruling out from the get-go the cosmological world view that underpins the class, or (on a different approach to them) turning the character more-or-less into the GM's puppet.*




(Emphasis mine.)

In 30+ years of D&D gaming, I have literally never felt this way as a player.  In fact, I feel the exact  opposite- that the alignment rules support the Paladin (and to a certain degree, Clerics), and in many ways, the game would almost not need the Alignment rules were Paladins not part of the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Wow, i left for like two months and this conversation is still happening. What did I miss?


----------



## Nagol

Bedrockgames said:


> Wow, i left for like two months and this conversation is still happening. What did I miss?




Very little.


----------



## Dannorn

pemerton said:


> D&D didn't invent the paladin archetype. Romantic authors of the high middle ages did, and it has been reinforced and perhaps in some ways developed over time since then.
> 
> When I play a paladin I have zero interest in playing a divinely powered mercenary. In fact that is the interpretation I place on the sort of paladin you and others have described upthread, one who receives divine power only provided that s/he sticks to a code that is, from the point of view of the universe, arbitrary - arbitrary because, from the point of view of the universe, there is no reason to be LG rather than (say) CE.
> 
> When I play a paladin I play a character who believes in the reality of providence, and hence disavows all dishonourable and unjust conduct. Claims that evil must be done so that good can ultimately triumph are, for the character I am interested in playing, flawed for two reasons: first, they are empirically false; second, they are betrayals of faith in that divine providence which ensures that those who act morally will not be betrayed.




In what way are these ideas different?  Is it because one has a hard written list of rules they must abide by (The Paladin's Code) while the other presumably does not?  Yes the code is arbitrary but so are all codes of conduct, they all draw lines at particular points for various reasons.  The Paladin subscribes to a code of conduct and is blessed by divine providence for it, however there are also Blackguards and Evil Clerics who are also blessed by divine providence for their behaviour.

Unless you're running a game where only Good gods exist, or at least only they bestow blessings on their faithful, the Paladin must accept that he lives in a world where Evil has power, where there are rewards for being dishonourable and cruel, and he must stand by his code in spite of that.

This is where mechanical alignment makes Paladins and Clerics more interesting (to me) because there is now the possibility for temptation, corruption, and ultimately a fall from grace.  This can't happen in a descriptive alignment system because either A) the player never accepts that their character is acting out of alignment and refuses to change, or B) it's a scripted event and loses any kind of tension or drama.

In mechanical alignment you can force a player to weigh the benefits of holding to their alignment against practical concerns.  Do we poison the duke to end a battle before it starts or do we meet them honourably on the field?  Do I grant mercy to my enemy knowing he might go on to do evil again or do I take it upon myself to be judge, jury, and executioner*?  You can't give these decisions any weight in a descriptive system because the players is never in any danger of losing anything from acting out of alignment.

*This assumes the enemy has stopped fighting and pleaded for mercy.



pemerton said:


> These are the sorts of characters I want to play. The D&D paladin captures them very well mechanically - a warrior who is divinely bless, can heal with a touch and smite his/her enemies - except that the alignment mechanics get in the way, by either ruling out from the get-go the cosmological world view that underpins the class, or (on a different approach to them) turning the character more-or-less into the GM's puppet.




In what way does it rule out the cosmological world view?  As for turning a character into a GM's puppet, the GM has much better tools than alignment if that's what they're going for.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> The irony between these two paragraphs is striking. Complaining that I put words in your mouth while at the same time claiming that I find killing prisoners in a whim to be in keeping with alignment.




I'd have to say you don't find killing prisoners in a whim to be in keeping with alignment.  From your comments, you demand the right to kill prisoners on a whim and you take great umbrage at alignment because it could impose negative consequences for such a decision.  For example:



Hussar said:


> So, a fight ensues, the party captures the bad guy.  The paladin throws a rope over the nearest tree branch and announces he's going to execute the prisoner on the spot.
> 
> Now, according to Imaro, there is no "aha gotcha" moments.  The Dm is obligated to tell the player if the DM thinks the player is out of line.  So, the DM announces, "Hey, that's an evil act - you can't execute prisoners.  You have to take them back to face justice".  Not a unreasonable interpretation of alignment at all.  It's perfectly reasonable.  The paladin player argues for a bit, but, the DM stands firm.




I think most of the opposition has been that it is an Unlawful act, rather than an Evil act.  But I can certainly see an argument that killing a prisoner in cold blood is an Evil act.  That is the sentiment which leads many people to oppose capital punishment.  Lack of respect for the prisoner's life certainly has Evil overtones.

You chafe at the GM making the decision that it is an Evil action, but I note there is no criticism of the player for imposing his vision of Good and Evil on the rest of the table by insisting it is a Good (or a "not Evil") action.  If there is a disagreement over whether your Paladin is acting in a manner consistent with a Good alignment, your position seems to be that this disagreement must either be resolved in the player's favour or not resolved at all.  If we have two Paladins, both claiming to be Good, one insisting the only appropriate action is to execute the prisoner and the other opposing that as Evil, how is the matter to be resolved?

They cannot both be right.  That there can be no resolution can only mean that True Good to which both aspire, or claim to aspire, does not actually exist.



Hussar said:


> I don't know what that player will decide, but I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that group will never take prisoners again.




and



Hussar said:


> The fact that you have flat out stated that the paladin executing a prisoner is murder, tells me, the player, that I can never, ever execute a prisoner.  Which means that I will never take prisoners because it will become nothing but a huge PITA.




In other words, I want to be able to kill the prisoners in the interests of simple expediency because it's "nothing but a huge PITA to actually role play issues related to taking prisoners.  At least that is the way I read it - perhaps you have some other explanation why killing the prisoners because dealing with them otherwise is a "huge PITA" is something other than letting expediency override morality.



Hussar said:


> You've pretty much precisely outlined exactly why I don't like mechanical alignment.




Have I got those right?  Some or all of: 

 -There are actual standards to which the behavior of a self-claimed Paragon of Justice and Righteousness will be held?

 - Being granted powers for adherence to a strict moral code actually requires adherence to that code to keep the powers?

 -Role playing will sometimes trump tactical expedience?

 - Someone other than Hussar gets to adjudicate the game, or at least have their viewpoints influence the adjudication, on occasion?

That's what I'm seeing from your posts, but you (or anyone else who sees something different) can feel free to clarify.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Nagol said:


> Bedrockgames said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, i left for like two months and this conversation is still happening. What did I miss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little.
Click to expand...



Yeah, more than 1600 posts between my first & second ones in this thread, and it's gone pretty much as expected.


----------



## Hussar

N'raac said:
			
		

> Have I got those right? Some or all of:
> 
> -There are actual standards to which the behavior of a self-claimed Paragon of Justice and Righteousness will be held?
> 
> - Being granted powers for adherence to a strict moral code actually requires adherence to that code to keep the powers?
> 
> -Role playing will sometimes trump tactical expedience?
> 
> - Someone other than Hussar gets to adjudicate the game, or at least have their viewpoints influence the adjudication, on occasion?
> 
> That's what I'm seeing from your posts, but you (or anyone else who sees something different) can feel free to clarify.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ove-the-gaming-experience/page164#ixzz326wbFj




Umm, did you miss the part where I said the DM was perfectly reasonable?  I'm not sure how you missed it since you went back and quoted it again, so, I'm not really sure where the "great umbrage" and whatnot is coming from.  

These "actual standards" that you talk about.  Are they only possible if they come from the DM?  Can the players not have actual standards?  Are "actual standards" only valid if they originate from the DM and/or have the DM's seal of approval?

Now, as to the second point, yup, got no problems with adhering to a code.  That's what being a paladin is all about.

As to the last two ad hominem attacks, well, that's enough of that don't you think?  If that's what you're taking from me saying that it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to interpret alignment, then, well, I don't know what more I can say.

Just because I play differently than you do, doesn't mean that I'm wrong.  Just that I play differently than you do.  I've posted numerous examples of where alignment gets in the way of play.  Where alignment is detrimental for *my* play experience.  The only thing I've recalled you doing in this thread Nagol is repeatedly telling anyone who disagrees with you is that they're just doing it wrong, and if we were just better gamers, we'd be able to appreciate the beauty of alignment.

Then again, that's generally how all these kinds of threads go.  It cannot possibly be a problem with the mechanic itself.  It must be user error.  Problems with LFQW?  Learn to play better.  Problems with HP?  Learn to play better.  Problems with alignment?  Learn to play better.

I'm perfectly content in my self imposed mediocrity thanks.


----------



## Umbran

1600+ posts later....

I see folks are being snippy.  The questions you need to ask yourself are: Do we need to give this topic a little rest?  Are we in the situation where folks are continuing to post because they just can't let a statement go uncountered?  If so, I can close this, and we can let it go for a while.  Because rehashing basically the same points a thousand posts later isn't constructive. 

Please consider that we'll be thinking along those lines as we watch the thread from this point on.  Thanks.


----------



## Nagol

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] -- I didn't write what you quoted.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] -- I didn't write what you quoted.




I know. N'raac did. Did I out your name in there somewhere?  If I did, sorry. Stupid autocorrect.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc0V_o-IzME&noredirect=1


----------



## Hussar

Lol.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> I said your comment that role playing is reduced because the players cannot simply kill prisoners on a whim struck me as ludicrous.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I see no game improvement between "kill the enemy in combat" and "kill any survivors/prisoners".
> 
> I have never said killing the prisoner is always evil, and my concerns have run more to law/chaos



There are a few things here.

First, I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ever talked about players killing prisoners. He talked about the players declaring that their PCs kill the PCs' prisoners.

Second, Hussar didn't talk about killing prisoners on a whim. He talked about killing the prisoners by way of doing justice upon them.

Third, the category of Good/Evil seems to me absolutely relevant here. The d20 SRD says that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." If executing the prisoners is debasing innocent life, then it is evil. If it is a proper response to the harm they have inflicted upon other innocents, then it may be Good and certainly is not Evil. Hence the moral status of the prisoner - as innocent or not - and the retribution to which this justly exposes them, absolutely is at play in the scenario Hussar has described.

I personally think play is more interesting if the players are able to meaningfully debate whether retributive killing is good or evil, without the gamerules or the GM's application of the gamerules already deciding the matter. (And this is a case in which saying "it is all a dispute within the boundaries of good" won't work. Those who oppose capital punishment typically oppose it on the grounds that it is a great evil.)

Fourth and finally, in the real world there is a big difference between killing in combat, which is typically a species of defensive violence, and executing someone in the name of justice, which typically has a quasi-ritual element and aims at declaring and enforcing norms of just punishment. This difference has played an important role from time-to-time in my RPGing, and I don't see why the same difference couldn't make an RPG more interesting for others. Including, perhaps, Hussar.

That you don't find it interesting tells me something about what you are looking for in RPGing, though to get a fuller picture I would need to know why you think it would add nothing to your game.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:


> When I play a paladin I play a character who believes in the reality of providence, and hence disavows all dishonourable and unjust conduct. Claims that evil must be done so that good can ultimately triumph are, for the character I am interested in playing, flawed for two reasons: first, they are empirically false; second, they are betrayals of faith in that divine providence which ensures that those who act morally will not be betrayed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> These are the sorts of characters I want to play. The D&D paladin captures them very well mechanically - a warrior who is divinely bless, can heal with a touch and smite his/her enemies - except that the alignment mechanics get in the way, by either ruling out from the get-go the cosmological world view that underpins the class, or (on a different approach to them) turning the character more-or-less into the GM's puppet.





Dannorn said:


> In what way does it rule out the cosmological world view?  As for turning a character into a GM's puppet, the GM has much better tools than alignment if that's what they're going for.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> I feel the exact  opposite- that the alignment rules support the Paladin (and to a certain degree, Clerics), and in many ways, the game would almost not need the Alignment rules were Paladins not part of the game.



Between reading the rules in two editions of AD&D rulebooks and the 3E SRD, and reading all the posts on this thread, I have come up with two pictures of how alignment works.

The one that seems to be run most strongly on this thread - eg by      [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and      [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and I think also      [MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION] - is that alignment is a series of labels for sets of things that might be valued. Those who value authority and innocent life are LG. Those who value freedom and lack compassion are CE. And so on.

On this picture, it makes sense for a character to decide that the right thing to do is something which is labelled evil - for instance, the right thing to do is to kill an innocent person, thereby "debasing or destroying an innocent life" - because the character decides that, on balance and in these circumstances, there are other things more important than valuing compassion.

And from the point of view of the universe, on this approach, there is no answer to whether or not that character has done the right thing. Of course if s/he is a paladin s/he will fall, for knowingly and wilfully committing an evil act, but that might just show that his/her god is mistaken, and needlessly fetishes compassion for the innocent over other, potentially more important, things. (There is a puzzle, on this approach, as to only why authority-and-compassion fetishists bestow their warriors with divine power, but we'll let that pass.)

This cosmological approach makes the paladin archetype impossible as soon as it becomes known, because on this approach the universe itself is essentially uncaring. There is no providence. There is no reason, ultimately, to be LG rather than CE.

An alternative approach to understanding alignment is my default understanding.      [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and, at least as I have read him,      [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have articulated similar views in this thread. On this approach, it is taken for granted that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil, and hence that the Evil are doing the wrong thing. This is also the worldview of the paladin, although (i) the archetypal paladin has a different sense of what is good from the typical modern person (eg more militarist, and less democratic) and (ii) the paladin also has providential convictions which are probably less common among modern people than they once were.

The problem that alignment mechanics pose for playing a paladin, on this approach, is that they put the GM in charge of deciding what is Good. So the player of the paladin can't know what his/her PC has a reason to do until s/he asks the GM what would count as Good or Evil in a particular situation. Hence putting the GM in ultimate control of the PC's actions.

As I've already stated upthread, my way of dealing with this issue is to dispense with alignment, and to let the player of the paladin decide what counts as meeting the moral demands that the universe lays down. (And I've also talked about various techniques that can be used to help this work - eg don't systematically frame the game in such a way that the player will have a mechanically easier time of it by having his/her PC depart from the convictions that s/he has laid down for it. A simple example I've given upthread is this: if the players decide to have their PCs take prisoners, whom they then release on parole, as a GM have the prisoners keep their promise.)



Dannorn said:


> In what way are these ideas different?  Is it because one has a hard written list of rules they must abide by (The Paladin's Code) while the other presumably does not?



The difference, as I see it, is that in a world in which there is no inherent reason to be Good rather than Evil - these are just two approaches to valuing order and compassion for the innocent, which one picks and chooses between as seems right - then the code is essentially a contract: the paladin promises to do X and refrain from Y in return for power.

Whereas the true paladin archetype, as I see it, answers a providential call, and thereby honours those values which are the only true values, departure from which simply betrays a misunderstanding of the demands of honour and duty, and of the ways of providence.



Dannorn said:


> Yes the code is arbitrary but so are all codes of conduct



I don't agree with this. I don't see the code as arbitrary. I have a fondness for the treatment of this in the Dragonlance trilogy: the Knights of Solamnia had come to treat their code as if it were arbitrary, but Sturm Brightblade showed, by his actions, that this itself was a type of fall from grace, and that the code existed for a reason and had to be understood and complied with in the spirit of that underlying reason.



Dannorn said:


> The Paladin subscribes to a code of conduct and is blessed by divine providence for it, however there are also Blackguards and Evil Clerics who are also blessed by divine providence for their behaviour.



On the worldview of the paladin, as I understand it, anti-clerics and anti-paladins (to use the original game terms) are not blessed at all. They are cursed. Fallen. Guilty of fundamental error.

You characterisation of Blackguards and Evil Clerics treats them as basically symmetrical with the paladin, in cosmological terms. In my view, once the game overtly affirms such a cosmology, it has ruled out the paladin archetype as I understand it. For instance, if the correct way to think of a Blackguard is as blessed, like a paladin, but just by a different god, then the paladin's conviction that providence is on his/her side is revealed as objectively mistaken. S/he is simply playing for a different team.



Dannorn said:


> Unless you're running a game where only Good gods exist, or at least only they bestow blessings on their faithful, the Paladin must accept that he lives in a world where Evil has power, where there are rewards for being dishonourable and cruel, and he must stand by his code in spite of that.



Of course the paladin has to accept that the Evil wield power. But s/he does not have to accept that they are being rewarded. In fact, s/he denies that. It only _looks_ like they are being rewarded, because the workings of providence have not been factored in. Hence the error I described, in thinking that it is necessary to do Evil in order to realise good things: this thought is both false (because it disregards that providence will ensure justice) and a great sin (because it is a betrayal of faith in the workings of providence).

I think you are both right and wrong to talk about "only Good gods existing". On my preferred approach, _alignment is not used_. Hence, it is up to each player, in the course of playing his/her PC, to decide who is on the side of providence - and hence genuinely good and (if you like) genuinely a god - and who is simply a devil or demon or at best a flawed exemplar of divinity.

I can give some examples of what I mean by reference to my current 4e game. The fighter/cleric of Moradin - who is for functional purposes a paladin - regards the Raven Queen as simply a jumped-up usurper of divine power, and not as a genuine god. The chaos sorcerer is an Adept of the primordial Chan, who describes herself as the Queen of Good Air Elementals. This character regards Chan as on the side of providence. But another PC - who is an invoker serving a range of gods including Erathis, Ioun, Pelor, Bane, Levistus, the Raven Queen and Vecna - regards Chan as first and foremost a primordial, and hence an enemy of the gods and of the divine plan. The fact that Chan has some friends among the gods, such as Corellon, just proves that those gods aren't properly on board with the plan, and are potentially dangerous backsliders!

In the playing of this game there is no metaframework to answer such questions as Who is really good?, or Which "gods" are really worth serving?, or Are the primordials really all evil? Disagreements about these questions, among the PCs as played by their players, is what gives the game most of its energy and forward momentum.



Dannorn said:


> This is where mechanical alignment makes Paladins and Clerics more interesting (to me) because there is now the possibility for temptation, corruption, and ultimately a fall from grace.  This can't happen in a descriptive alignment system because either A) the player never accepts that their character is acting out of alignment and refuses to change, or B) it's a scripted event and loses any kind of tension or drama.
> 
> In mechanical alignment you can force a player to weigh the benefits of holding to their alignment against practical concerns.



I don't fully understand where temptation comes from in a mechanical alignment system. Most of the examples I see tend to work around issues of expedience, rather than conflicts of value: for instance, to go back to the prisoner example, the player believe that sparing the PC would be the Good thing and that killing the prisoner would be Evil; but the player also believes that if the prisoner is spared then the GM will use the prisoner as a game element to make life harder for the PCs and thereby the players; hence, the player is tempted to declare that his/her PC kills the prisoner.

If that is a fair model of how the temptation works, then it rests on a number of assumptions about how play works that I don't share, particularly about how the GM will act and also the connection between "hard for the PCs" and "hard for the players". But as I said I don't fully understand the issue and am interested in what others have to say about it.

It is my experience that in a system without alignment that temptation generally arises in the form of conflicts of value: for instance, the invoker in my game had to choose, in a session earlier this year, whether to serve Vecna or the Raven Queen. He chose the Raven Queen, and therefore suffered retribution from Vecna. Another example happened a while ago now: the "paladin" of Moradin had to choose between a prisoner meeting the death that (in his view) she deserved, or honouring a promise that the other PCs had given in his name to have her spared, in return for information. (The other PCs had planned to kill her after manipulating her in this way to reveal the information. But the paladin came back into the interrogation room before they could bring this plan to fruition.) He chose to honour the promise, even though he hated the fact that the prisoner was spared.

On this sort of approach you are not going to have a PC fall unless that is what the player wants, but it doesn't follow that the fall has to be scripted (and hence non-dramatic). There is no reason why it couldn't be very spontaneous, just as the outcomes in the two examples I just gave were spontaneous.



Dannorn said:


> Do we poison the duke to end a battle before it starts or do we meet them honourably on the field?  Do I grant mercy to my enemy knowing he might go on to do evil again or do I take it upon myself to be judge, jury, and executioner*?  You can't give these decisions any weight in a descriptive system because the players is never in any danger of losing anything from acting out of alignment.



These decisions have weight because of the values at stake. You can't both honour your promise to spare the prisoner, and execute her. You can't both honour your pledge to fight the duke honourably, and poison him. These are questions of value, not of expedience.

A view that I hold very strongly is that the game should be fun and interesting to play whatever choices the players make in the course of playing their PCs. Hence whether a player choose to have his/her player act expediently, or not, the game should be fun. Hence, from the _player's_ point of view, there is nothing expedient about having his/her PC act expediently. (The 4e DMG 2 makes a point in a similar vein when it notes that, on p 87, that although the PCs "probably don't like being attacked by drow assassins in the middle of the night, but the players will probably have fun playing out the encounter.")

This is why I think that the meaningful choices for players are generally choices about value (including "Do I want to play a PC who sacrifices value to expedience?") rather than literal instances of temptation of the sort that they might experience if actually, in the real world, asked to weigh up adherence to values against acting expediently.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The problem that alignment mechanics pose for playing a paladin, on this approach, is that they put the GM in charge of deciding what is Good. So the player of the paladin can't know what his/her PC has a reason to do until s/he asks the GM what would count as Good or Evil in a particular situation. Hence putting the GM in ultimate control of the PC's actions.




False.

Simply knowing what counts as good or evil within a certain reality does not reduce the beings within it to mere GM puppets.  The player is still free to choose the actions of his PC, he merely knows the consequences for acting one way or another.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> False.
> 
> Simply knowing what counts as good or evil within a certain reality does not reduce the beings within it to mere GM puppets.  The player is still free to choose the actions of his PC, he merely knows the consequences for acting one way or another.




But the consequence of doing something that the DM views as evil, regardless of my views, is I will lose my character. 

IME players will far more often simply accept the DM's wishes and bow to them rather than losing their character. 

This is an extremely strong pressure to put on the player. Do what I say or lose your character isn't a choice in my view.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Simply knowing what counts as good or evil within a certain reality does not reduce the beings within it to mere GM puppets.  The player is still free to choose the actions of his PC, he merely knows the consequences for acting one way or another.



You are ignoring my other premise:



pemerton said:


> An alternative approach to understanding alignment is my default understanding.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> On this approach, it is taken for granted that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil, and hence that the Evil are doing the wrong thing.



If a player accepts as a premise for the play of his/her character that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil; and if it is true that only the GM can determine what counts as Good or Evil; then the player is dependent upon the GM to know what actions his/her PC has a reason to perform.

You may think that there are few players for whom my premise is true. Perhaps there are. But in that case I think my other reason is in play: that the cosmological framework leaves it open whether or not it is right to do Good, which - while perhaps perfectly sensible for an REH-ish world - rules out the paladin archetype ab initio.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> I know. N'raac did. Did I out your name in there somewhere?  If I did, sorry. Stupid autocorrect.




Twice.


"Quote Originally Posted by Nagol"

and 

"The only thing I've recalled you doing in this thread Nagol is repeatedly telling anyone who disagrees with you is that they're just doing it wrong, and if we were just better gamers, we'd be able to appreciate the beauty of alignment."

Please fix the it.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> But the consequence of doing something that the DM views as evil, regardless of my views, is I will lose my character.




And?  Did you not have the conversation with the GM, to see if what the GM viewed as evil was going to be suitable for your play?

If not, well, that's your problem.  Has nothing to do with alignment.  It has to do with a mismatched set of expectations as to what you, as a player, are entitled to at the table.  If you did, and you didn't like the answer, why on this green Earth did you choose to play a paladin?  

In either case, there is only so far we can go to save you from yourself. 



> IME players will far more often simply accept the DM's wishes and bow to them rather than losing their character.




And?  You say this as if it is a problem.  As if, in a cooperative play environment, it isn't known that folks occasionally need to compromise?



> Do what I say or lose your character isn't a choice in my view.




That's a fine argument for you, Hussar, to not play in certain types of games.


----------



## N'raac

Hussar said:


> Umm, did you miss the part where I said the DM was perfectly reasonable?




You say the GM is perfectly reasonable. Then you tell us he will destroy your character if you don’t play in the precise manner he wishes, and make the game completely no fun for you.  To me, the latter is possible only if the former is true.

Btw, I second Nagol’s request that you edit your post for proper attribution.  He doesn’t want to be credited with my statements.



Hussar said:


> I'm not sure how you missed it since you went back and quoted it again, so, I'm not really sure where the "great umbrage" and whatnot is coming from.




The entire tone of your recent posts suggests your great dislike for anyone else being able to judge your character’s adherence to his moral standards.



Hussar said:


> These "actual standards" that you talk about. Are they only possible if they come from the DM? Can the players not have actual standards? Are "actual standards" only valid if they originate from the DM and/or have the DM's seal of approval?




They must be standards beyond “whatever I say is in compliance with my character’s moral code, it is, even if it contradicts established standards of the setting, his deity, his religion or my prior statements about his code.”  For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision.  That is part of the GM’s role.  A Paragon of Virtue must live up to virtuous ideals that he does not unilaterally set.



Hussar said:


> Now, as to the second point, yup, got no problems with adhering to a code. That's what being a paladin is all about.




So what is that code?  “Whatever I decide is appropriate fits with the code and none may question me” does not cut it in my books.



Hussar said:


> As to the last two ad hominem attacks, well, that's enough of that don't you think? If that's what you're taking from me saying that it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to interpret alignment, then, well, I don't know what more I can say.




I set out what I see and I stand by it. You have basically stated “If the players can’t kill prisoners at their discretion, with no repercussions, then they will never take prisoners”.  That, to me, screams that role playing cannot be required to trump tactical expediency.

You have asked why the GM is the only person who can approve adherence to a code.  I have seen no suggestion in your posts that anyone but the specific player should have any say in the adjudication of the Code. So, for your PC, it seems clear that you must be the sole adjudicator and no one else can have any influence on the standards of Good and Righteousness that your character subscribes to.



Hussar said:


> Just because I play differently than you do, doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Just that I play differently than you do. I've posted numerous examples of where alignment gets in the way of play. Where alignment is detrimental for *my* play experience.




All of which lead to my summary conclusions.  I also note that you are implying here that a game where tactical expediency trumps role playing, or where the player is the sole arbiter of his character’s adherence to his standards, is “wrong”.  



pemerton said:


> Second, Hussar didn't talk about killing prisoners on a whim. He talked about killing the prisoners by way of doing justice upon them.




He clearly stated that the first time the players are told they do not have carte blanche to kill off prisoners at their discretion without negative repercussions will be the last time anyone in that game ever takes a prisoner. 



pemerton said:


> Third, the category of Good/Evil seems to me absolutely relevant here. The d20 SRD says that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." If executing the prisoners is debasing innocent life, then it is evil. If it is a proper response to the harm they have inflicted upon other innocents, then it may be Good and certainly is not Evil. Hence the moral status of the prisoner - as innocent or not - and the retribution to which this justly exposes them, absolutely is at play in the scenario Hussar has described.




Therein lies the debate – balancing the rights of victims (including surviving friends/loved ones) to revenge, and of potential future victims to greater protection override the rights of the criminal to life, freedom, etc., and to what extent?  Good motivations exist on both sides.  What if we decide we also want the criminal to die a slow, agonizing death as an example to others, and for the protection of future victims. Have we crossed a line there?  Or has the criminal forfeited all rights to dignity as a person?



pemerton said:


> I personally think play is more interesting if the players are able to meaningfully debate whether retributive killing is good or evil, without the gamerules or the GM's application of the gamerules already deciding the matter. (And this is a case in which saying "it is all a dispute within the boundaries of good" won't work. Those who oppose capital punishment typically oppose it on the grounds that it is a great evil.)




Supporters of capital punishment believe protection of the innocent outweighs the criminal’s right to life, and that capital punishment itself is undertaken for Good purposes.  Therein lies the moral debate. Whether the Paladin executing the prisoner is undertaking an Evil act is very questionable. However, if he lacks authority to judge, sentence and carry out sentence on the criminal, then lynching the criminal is most definitely a non-lawful act.

Hence my position that good/evil has shades of grey and law/chaos is the clearer axis rebutting the appropriateness of the Paladin’s actions, presuming he lacks that authority in the game setting.



pemerton said:


> Fourth and finally, in the real world there is a big difference between killing in combat, which is typically a species of defensive violence, and executing someone in the name of justice, which typically has a quasi-ritual element and aims at declaring and enforcing norms of just punishment. This difference has played an important role from time-to-time in my RPGing, and I don't see why the same difference couldn't make an RPG more interesting for others. Including, perhaps, Hussar.




Certainly could, and given the violence expected of all characters in game, Good included, there is no reason the characters should not be able to play such a debate out. In my view, a GM who simply declares “Nope – killing prisoner is always Evil” is not a “reasonable GM”.  But the player who decides his Paladin is a paragon of all that is Lawful and Good by leading lynch mobs also lacks my sympathy.




Hussar said:


> But the consequence of doing something that the DM views as evil, regardless of my views, is I will lose my character.




It seems like the consequence is that your character will lose certain powers, and perhaps status, within the campaign. If the GM wants you to lose your character, that can easily be achieved without alignment rules.



Umbran said:


> And? Did you not have the conversation with the GM, to see if what the GM viewed as evil was going to be suitable for your play?
> 
> If not, well, that's your problem. Has nothing to do with alignment. It has to do with a mismatched set of expectations as to what you, as a player, are entitled to at the table. If you did, and you didn't like the answer, why on this green Earth did you choose to play a paladin?
> 
> In either case, there is only so far we can go to save you from yourself.
> 
> And? You say this as if it is a problem. As if, in a cooperative play environment, it isn't known that folks occasionally need to compromise?




Quoted for truth. What I see from this thread, and several others, is a “my way or the highway” attitude.  Should you get a say in the interpretation of alignment, moral code, etc., especially for your character?  Absolutely. But everyone around the table is also entitled to their say.  And if the opinions conflict, as they often will, then a decision must be made. The ultimate arbiter is the GM. “In my campaign, execution of helpless prisoners is always Evil” may not be the choice I would make, or even prefer, but ultimately, if that is the way things work in this campaign, then it is the way things work.  As a dedicated champion of Good and Righteousness, my character will work to bring his opponents back alive to face justice (much like modern day law enforcement is expected to do). If I cannot live with that campaign tone, I can play someone not dependent on standards of Good, or I can find a game that better suits me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Umbran said:


> And?  Did you not have the conversation with the GM, to see if what the GM viewed as evil was going to be suitable for your play?
> 
> If not, well, that's your problem.  Has nothing to do with alignment.  It has to do with a mismatched set of expectations as to what you, as a player, are entitled to at the table.  If you did, and you didn't like the answer, why on this green Earth did you choose to play a paladin?




I'd personally argue that, in practice, it does have a lot to do with alignment.

Alignment being part of the rules, as opposed to merely an RP thing opens up the situation to occur. Had it happened in another game, it'd be a difference of opinion, and up to the player to RP the consequences or the like (and the DM via NPCs and so on). As it's actually a matter of "Not LG = lose your powers", in the rules then the issue of who is right is far more important, and despite your "compromise" argument, there is no room for compromise on the player's part, only the DM - either the DM doesn't compromise, and makes the player lose his powers, or the DM compromises on the definition of LG.

Further, the actuality of how alignment is described in many editions, which is to say, inconsistently, vaguely and highly subjectively, and differently in different places (2E Paladin's handbook has a rather different take on LG than many other 2E sources, fr'ex) can lead to two people playing the same game quite reasonably having wildly different views on what is LG, and I do mean wildly.

So alignment does matter in two real ways:

1) It's integrated into the rules, allowing the situation to occur at all (it couldn't occur otherwise).

and

2) It's extremely inconsistently described and the interpretation very subjective in 1E/2E/3E (and to a lesser extent 4E), meaning that disagreements are far more likely than they would be in a game which was less vague and inconsistent in it's morality (Vampire, for example, is far less vague in Humanity and Paths - perhaps just as problematic in some ways, but far less vague).


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'd personally argue that, in practice, it does have a lot to do with alignment.
> 
> Alignment being part of the rules, as opposed to merely an RP thing opens up the situation to occur. Had it happened in another game, it'd be a difference of opinion, and up to the player to RP the consequences or the like (and the DM via NPCs and so on). As it's actually a matter of "Not LG = lose your powers"...




The issue at hand is having character abilities linked to RP.  It will happen in any game in which they are tied together.  It can happen frequently, for example, in FATE, where interpretation of character Aspects is required to figure out if they apply in a given situation.  In FATE, it can happen for *any and all* characters. For D&D, it only comes up with characters who get powers of alignment or behavior restrictions.

In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate.  I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> But the consequence of doing something that the DM views as evil, regardless of my views, is I will lose my character.




You don't "lose" your character- your character will function differently, but you can still play it.  Your character gets killed, captured or utterly brainwashed?  THEN you lose your character.  We're just talking about a change.

Besides, you're playing a Paladin- an archetype that, along with the Cleric and a few others (like Samurais)- are defined by deriving some of their nature/power in the campaign world from being subservient & beholden to the rules of another.  There is no guarantee that your will and the will of your boss are going to be congruent 100% of the time.

Where they diverge is a source of tension and drama, and therein could lie a great story.


> IME players will far more often simply accept the DM's wishes and bow to them rather than losing their character.



So?

I've lost characters because they got captured and the party couldn't rescue them.  I've lost PCs to combats when the party bit off more than they could chew and death resulted.  I've lost PCs due to extremely unfortunate rolls of the dice.  In each case, leading up to those situations, I made decisions that put my PC in harm's way.

This is no different.

Wait...no it IS- you don't have to roll up a new PC because, in this case, the character is still around.

"It's not heroic!" is a common counter-assertion here.

How is it not?  It is the struggle between good & evil internalized.  In many stories, that internal struggle lays the groundwork for how heroes rise and fall...and rise again.  Or fall forever.



> This is an extremely strong pressure to put on the player. Do what I say or lose your character isn't a choice in my view.



This kind of choice happens all the time in rpgs, but most people don't notice because the choice is between entering or avoiding a difficult combat.  (See above.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate.  I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.




Been doing this for 25+ years, in what I call my "Old Testament/New Testament" discussion.

If you're playing a PC with mechanics tied to RP like a Paladin, I ask the player if their "G vs E" concept for the PC is like you'd see in the Old Testament, namely talion law and acting as the Divine's judge, jury & executioner, or if they're going to embody the more modern ethical constructs that place a higher emphasis on mercy, rehabilitation, etc...and how OTHERS in the csmpaign world might react to that.

Usually, but not always, I have organizations and institutions PCs can be members of that support either view.  It depends on the campaign.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> You are ignoring my other premise:




Yes.  Yes I am.



> If a player accepts as a premise for the play of his/her character that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil; and if it is true that only the GM can determine what counts as Good or Evil; then the player is dependent upon the GM to know what actions his/her PC has a reason to perform.




IOW, within the game, it is functionally no different than the other formulation, to whit: the GM tells the player the consequences for acting one way or the other; the player decides the course of action his or her PC will take.

The GM (along with some help from the game designers) has already decided where the gameworld's continents are, where the waters flow, when volcanoes blow, which species dominate the world and why...but setting up the guidelines for the setting's ethical compass is a problem?


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes.  Yes I am.



OK then. I'm not sure what the point is, though, of telling me that A does not entail C, when I have not asserted that A entails C, but rather that the conjunction of A and B entails C.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, within the game, it is functionally no different than the other formulation, to whit: the GM tells the player the consequences for acting one way or the other; the player decides the course of action his or her PC will take.



The difference is that if the player has decided to play a character dedicated to Good, and the GM decies what Good is, the player's choices are anchored to the GM's decision.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> The GM (along with some help from the game designers) has already decided where the gameworld's continents are, where the waters flow, when volcanoes blow, which species dominate the world and why...but setting up the guidelines for the setting's ethical compass is a problem?



As far as I know there is no character class in D&D defined as "Never departing from the bank of a stream is meat and drink to the [whatever class this would be]." Whereas the PHB (p 22) tells us that "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins".

If there were a class which had, as a defining feature, never departing from the bank of a watercourse, then I would have the same issue, yes. Though I think the GM defining what counts as Good and Evil raises additional issues, because these are more intimately tied to character and personality than external geographic matters.

Oriental Adventures did have bamboo and river spirits, but they were allowed to depart from their groves/streams, and I also would assume that the player as well as GM would have some say over the location of the geographical feature to which the PC is inherently tied.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> there is only so far we can go to save you from yourself.



I don't need to go any further than not using alignment rules. The problem that  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes won't arise in (for instance) Runequest, Rolemaster, or AD&D played without mechanical alignment.

Which is basically what [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION] said.

I don't think the comparison to FATE is all that strong. In FATE it is in the interests of all participants for aspects to be pushed to the hilt, therefore driving play. "Fail forward" is a further component of this.

Whereas in a game with mechanical alignment, the player of the paladin simultaneously wants morality to be foregrounded (why else would you play a paladin?) ands wants it to be subordinated (so that the GM doesn't have to judge whether or not the player loses his/her PC - no fail forward for alignment violations!). The latter is a recipe for conflict and instability which FATE's design deliberately avoids.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> I don't need to go any further than not using alignment rules. The problem that  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes won't arise in (for instance) Runequest, Rolemaster, or AD&D played without mechanical alignment.




Yes.  So, if it is so simple to get, why 160 pages on it?



> I don't think the comparison to FATE is all that strong. In FATE it is in the interests of all participants for aspects to be pushed to the hilt, therefore driving play.




Not quite.  If that were the case, you'd just always say, "Every aspect *always* applies," and not worry about the details.  But that turns out to be boring, and doesn't generate interesting play.

FATE requires that use of Aspects _makes sense within the narrative_.  Their applicability must be bounded, but they are written in natural language, not game-mechanic jargon.  That means sometimes there will be disagreements as to whether they apply.  I've seen this in play myself, and if you check the text of the FATE-based games, they explicitly bring up the point that sometimes player and GM will have to negotiate.  So I have exactly zero doubts that it happens.  



> Whereas in a game with mechanical alignment, the player of the paladin simultaneously wants morality to be foregrounded (why else would you play a paladin?)




Stop right there.  There's a reason to play a Paladin without wanting morality foregrounded:  power.  Traditionally, Paladins have a habit of being pretty darned potent.  If you're playing with a GM that you expect to use lots of antagonists that are evil-aligned, those interested in mechanical performance (or, colloquially, kicking butt and taking names), might be interested in playing a paladin, but having the moral issues overlooked - so they can have all that mechanical performance without restrictions.


----------



## Dannorn

pemerton said:


> Between reading the rules in two editions of AD&D rulebooks and the 3E SRD, and reading all the posts on this thread, I have come up with two pictures of how alignment works.
> 
> The one that seems to be run most strongly on this thread - eg by @_*N'raac*_ and @_*Imaro*_ and I think also@[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16726"]jsaving[/URL][/U][/B][/I] - is that alignment is a series of labels for sets of things that might be valued. Those who value authority and innocent life are LG. Those who value freedom and lack compassion are CE. And so on.
> 
> On this picture, it makes sense for a character to decide that the right thing to do is something which is labelled evil - for instance, the right thing to do is to kill an innocent person, thereby "debasing or destroying an innocent life" - because the character decides that, on balance and in these circumstances, there are other things more important than valuing compassion.
> 
> *1*And from the point of view of the universe, on this approach, there is no answer to whether or not that character has done the right thing. Of course if s/he is a paladin s/he will fall, for knowingly and wilfully committing an evil act, but that might just show that his/her god is mistaken, and needlessly fetishes compassion for the innocent over other, potentially more important, things. *2*(There is a puzzle, on this approach, as to only why authority-and-compassion fetishists bestow their warriors with divine power, but we'll let that pass.)
> 
> *3*This cosmological approach makes the paladin archetype impossible as soon as it becomes known, because on this approach the universe itself is essentially uncaring. There is no providence. There is no reason, ultimately, to be LG rather than CE.




1: I agree and this is the basis for interesting character moments.  Conflict, doubt, crises of faith are all the roots of interesting stories for the character.  A Paladin kills a man in cold blood to prevent him from committing further crimes, and finds herself stripped of her powers.  She then attempts to win back the favour of her deity through good works to make amends, or seek out an atonement spell, or instead turn her back on her fickle master and declare that she will continue to fight for what she believes in with or without a deity's blessing, or seek out the favour of some other deity.

2: There is no puzzle because they don't.  Evil deities have clerics, blackguards, and others they bestow their dark power on.

3: I'd disagree.  The Paladin doesn't need providence on their side, they don't need to know that the universe has got their back (I'd argue the character is all the more impressive in a world where it doesn't) all they need is their sword, their god, and the courage to stand against evil til their last breath.  You mentioned modern fiction and the character I feel best reflects what a Paladin is, to me, is Lan Mandragoran from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time.  Here is a man who has lost everything to the spread of Evil; his nation consumed, his family killed, and his people divided.  No one has more reason than him to believe providence does not exist, that the Creator either can't or won't intercede on behalf of the people of his world against the Dark One and his Shadowspawn but still he stands, and he fights, and he is pledged to continue fighting until the forces of the Shadow have ground him to dust, because that is his duty as the Last King of Malkier.

"To stand against the Shadow as long as iron is hard and stone abides.  To defend the Malkieri while one drop of blood remains.  To avenge what cannot be defended."

That is a Paladin I want to play, a warrior who knows, full well, that the universe doesn't give a damn, that the balance of the universe is not tilted in their favour, but stands and fights anyway because they believe it is the right thing to do.



pemerton said:


> An alternative approach to understanding alignment is my default understanding.@_*S'mon*_ and, at least as I have read him, @_*Hussar*_ have articulated similar views in this thread. On this approach, it is taken for granted that there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil, and hence that the Evil are doing the wrong thing. This is also the worldview of the paladin, although (i) the archetypal paladin has a different sense of what is good from the typical modern person (eg more militarist, and less democratic) and (ii) the paladin also has providential convictions which are probably less common among modern people than they once were.




Here's my problem with this outlook.  If there is always a reason to be Good rather than Evil then any non-good characters in your world _must_ be insane or mentally handicapped in some fashion.  If there is always a reason to be Good than Good is ultimately, objectively, right in all cases, and no rational person consciously does the wrong thing.  Example, no rational person walks up to a door that says push and genuinely thinks to themselves, "I'm going to pull that door."  Because that's the level of integration you're talking about when you say, there is always a reason to be Good, someone who sees push and either genuinely interprets it as pull, or makes a conscious decision to pull knowing full well it won't open that door.



pemerton said:


> The difference, as I see it, is that in a world in which there is no inherent reason to be Good rather than Evil - these are just two approaches to valuing order and compassion for the innocent, which one picks and chooses between as seems right - then the code is essentially a contract: the paladin promises to do X and refrain from Y in return for power.
> 
> Whereas the true paladin archetype, as I see it, answers a providential call, and thereby honours those values which are the only true values, departure from which simply betrays a misunderstanding of the demands of honour and duty, and of the ways of providence.




Fair enough, though it is important to remember that in a game with mechanical alignment it is a reflection of behaviour not a dictator.  A character doesn't hold to a code of honour and ethics because they're Lawful Good; they're Lawful Good because they hold to that code.  This, in my opinion anyway, eliminates that kind of mercantile approach to the class.  The character was Lawful Good before they were a Paladin, their actions in life up to the point of character creation has made them Lawful Good, so it is more in line, to me, to consider it as, because the character has adhered to values X and refrained from actions Y they are being blessed and rewarded by being granted the powers of a Paladin, for as long as they remain worthy of them.



pemerton said:


> You characterisation of Blackguards and Evil Clerics treats them as basically symmetrical with the paladin, in cosmological terms. In my view, once the game overtly affirms such a cosmology, it has ruled out the paladin archetype as I understand it. For instance, if the correct way to think of a Blackguard is as blessed, like a paladin, but just by a different god, then the paladin's conviction that providence is on his/her side is revealed as objectively mistaken. S/he is simply playing for a different team.




Ok but that's not _my_ characterization, it's the _game's _characterization.  An Evil Cleric functions no different from a Good Cleric or even a Neutral Cleric except for the use of negative vs positive energy, similarly a Blackguard is presented as essentially an Evil Paladin (to the point I question why it was a Prestige Class in 3e.



pemerton said:


> I don't fully understand where temptation comes from in a mechanical alignment system.




Temptation -> the player and character are given the option, and an incentive, to act outside the confines of their alignment; this can be for expedience, out of conflicting values a character holds, personal interests, etc. sky's the limit.  The point is that if the character does choose to act against their ideals it leads to...

Corruption -> the small alignment adjustments, leading the character towards an alignment shift, with only regular violations leading to...

Fall from Grace -> the player has acted out of alignment repeatedly and consistently enough to warrant an alignment shift.  For many characters this is not a major issue but for those it is they're now faced with an option, strive to regain their alignment (not particularly difficult immediately after a shift, they're at the borderline between alignments) or press on with their new alignment and either find a new source for their existing abilities or choosing to walk a different path (level in a different class).


----------



## Ratskinner

Umbran said:


> The issue at hand is having character abilities linked to RP.  It will happen in any game in which they are tied together.  It can happen frequently, for example, in FATE, where interpretation of character Aspects is required to figure out if they apply in a given situation.  In FATE, it can happen for *any and all* characters. For D&D, it only comes up with characters who get powers of alignment or behavior restrictions.
> 
> In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate.  I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.




I think there are three factors in play:

 First and foremost are the stakes in play. That is, in Fate your character isn't crippled when you and the GM disagree, but in D&D you can get de-paladinized or de-clericized. In Fate, you're dickering (sometimes literally) over how much an aspect means to you, not universal truths about right and wrong. That makes the argument part of the story-authoring part of Fate, rather than the "I went to a D&D game and a philosophy class broke out" gamestopper that alignment disputes can turn into.

Secondly, D&D has historically presented it as a "gotcha" opportunity for the DM in his role as adversary/arbiter, rather than a negotiation. D&D's Gamist origins work against it here.* The alignment restrictions on paladins, for instance, are clearly meant as a behavioral "balance" for his abilities. Since Fate is much more open about its group-storytelling agenda and doesn't share a gamist antagonism between GM and players, its also much more open about the idea that the player/GM are in a position to negotiate things like compels and invokes.

Thirdly, Fate aspects are generally/usually more specific and use less charged words than D&D alignments. That is, if you have _Devoted Crusader of Pelor_ as one of your aspects, then we are clearly going to be asking ourselves the question "What would Pelor Do?" rather than "Is doing that good/evil or other?" or "Are you being Lawfully Good enough?"

Anyway, that's how I see it, IME.

*Or don't, depending on your preferences.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The difference is that if the player has decided to play a character dedicated to Good, and the GM decies what Good is, the player's choices are anchored to the GM's decision.




The GM also decided which gods/faiths are present.  Deciding the campaign world's treatment of ethical issues is just part of worldbuilding, IMHO.

So the GM decides how Good & Evil are defined, and Paladin players have to choose one set of options consistently or lose power...*so what?*

Like the Paladin, my profession has a code of conduct.  I didn't create it, someone else did, but I accepted it when I entered the field.  My say in its nature is minimal- unless I am part of the committees that revises and redrafts the rules, I have almost no say at all beyond voicing ways I think it could be improved.  Ultimately, I have to abide by the rules, or I lose my (legal) powers.  That loss can be temporary or permanent.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Umbran said:


> In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate. I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.




I think the issue is that no edition of D&D (that I am aware of) suggests that, so people have to come up with it independently - indeed, on the contrary, various D&D writers have attempted to "lay down the law" on what LG (for example) is, or go with "the DM is the law", which isn't highly compatible with a negotiated approach.

EDIT - Also Ratskinner's points re: "gotcha!" and power-stripping are well-made. FATE doesn't have you becoming an inferior character, and indeed, iirc, it actually pays you off (I forget how, despite owning so much FATE stuff!) when your aspect is invoked. Further, as Ratskinner says, virtually all pre-3E sources all-but-encourage the DM to treat the Paladin's power as something to be taken for the slightest deviance, and encourage him to keep an eye on that. That's a really problematic situation and encourages adversarial attitudes from both people.



Umbran said:


> Stop right there.  There's a reason to play a Paladin without wanting morality foregrounded:  power.  Traditionally, Paladins have a habit of being pretty darned potent.  If you're playing with a GM that you expect to use lots of antagonists that are evil-aligned, those interested in mechanical performance (or, colloquially, kicking butt and taking names), might be interested in playing a paladin, but having the moral issues overlooked - so they can have all that mechanical performance without restrictions.




I think this is a losing argument, Umbran. Very rarely are D&D Paladins actually powerful, mechanically, certainly not MORE powerful than PCs without moral restrictions. I'd like to see solid evidence otherwise if you disagree, because from 2E onwards, I see a mid-range character, power-wise, not high. Even low in some cases.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The GM also decided which gods/faiths are present.  Deciding the campaign world's treatment of ethical issues is just part of worldbuilding, IMHO.
> 
> So the GM decides how Good & Evil are defined, and Paladin players have to choose one set of options consistently or lose power...*so what?*
> 
> Like the Paladin, my profession has a code of conduct.  I didn't create it, someone else did, but I accepted it when I entered the field.  My say in its nature is minimal- unless I am part of the committees that revises and redrafts the rules, I have almost no say at all beyond voicing ways I think it could be improved.  Ultimately, I have to abide by the rules, or I lose my (legal) powers.  That loss can be temporary or permanent.




This is only true in groups where world building is the sole realm of the DM/GM.  

I am not interested in playing games where that is true.  

Unlike your professional code of conduct, you paladin has a player outside of reality who can (and IMO, should) come up with codes of conduct that make for interesting games.  

Again, just to be absolutely clear, this is a play style issue.  I'm simply not interested in games where the DM rules from on high on ethical issues and expects the players to act in accordance to that singular view.  It's simply not to my taste.  It don't want to DM that way.  I want players who are far more engaged in the campaign world than passively accepting whatever interpretations I put forward.  I want players who challenge my views and are empowered to do so without me holding a sword of Damocles over their heads to strip their character away from them whenever I feel it's appropriate.

That others feel that this is a good way to play is obviously true.


----------



## Umbran

Ratskinner said:


> Secondly, D&D has historically presented it as a "gotcha" opportunity for the DM in his role as adversary/arbiter, rather than a negotiation. D&D's Gamist origins work against it here.*
> 
> *Or don't, depending on your preferences.




And, in the footnote, you hit an important point.  You should not relegate it to minor consideration.



> Since Fate is much more open about its group-storytelling agenda and doesn't share a gamist antagonism between GM and players




I think antagonism is not an aspect of rules, but of players.

Now, the original authors of D&D expressed some desire for antagonism in the explanatory text that accompanied rules.  I also think that was decades ago, and the stuff from 3rd edition on has been markedly cleaner in that regard.  Do you want to argue that the real problem is that players are incapable of shedding their old habits, and therefore we must get rid of systems that engage those old tendencies?  If so, I repeat that there's only so much we can do to save people from themselves, and I'm not going to support ditching a subsystem due to some folks havign bad habits.



> its also much more open about the idea that the player/GM are in a position to negotiate things like compels and invokes.




Yes, but that's not the rules, but presentation of the rules, that is the issue.  Change the explanatory text, and the issue largely dissolves.



> Thirdly, Fate aspects are generally/usually more specific and use less charged words than D&D alignments.




Heh.  You say this to a guy who plays a character with the aspect "Karmic Enforcer".  Aspects can have some very charged words in them


----------



## Bluenose

*A*



Umbran said:


> Heh.  You say this to a guy who plays a character with the aspect "Karmic Enforcer".  Aspects can have some very charged words in them




Which like most well-though-out aspects, has both positive and negative parts. And is noticeably something that matters mechanically more to your character than writing LG does to a Fighter, but far less than writing not-LG-any-more would for a (ex-)Paladin.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> This is only true in groups where world building is the sole realm of the DM/GM.




Even if worldbuilding were a group effort, it is entirely possible that this issue would arise.

Assume, arguendo, that a gaming group decided a D&D campaign's ethical compass before play, and Player A decided to play a Paladin.  Months down the road, a classic Paladin's dilemma comes up.  The GM notes that the action Player A wants to take would be a code violation; Player A disagrees.

Now, leaving aside the mechanics the group uses to resolve which is right- group vote, GM gets final say, roll of the dice, whatever- the game situation is the same: if player A's Paladin violates his code, he loses his powers.


----------



## Ratskinner

Umbran said:


> And, in the footnote, you hit an important point.  You should not relegate it to minor consideration.




I don't. To be clear, I stated in my first post on this thread that Alignment (from my observations) _does _serve a purpose, but its not the purpose that most of its proponents would wish (judging from their posts). I was just responding to your stated befuddlement as to why D&D Alignment doesn't operate with the same sort of adult discussion that Fate aspects do. I think that, taken together, all the reasons I cited make the environment very different between Fate and D&D.




Umbran said:


> I think antagonism is not an aspect of rules, but of players.
> 
> Now, the original authors of D&D expressed some desire for antagonism in the explanatory text that accompanied rules.  I also think that was decades ago, and the stuff from 3rd edition on has been markedly cleaner in that regard.  Do you want to argue that the real problem is that players are incapable of shedding their old habits, and therefore we must get rid of systems that engage those old tendencies?  If so, I repeat that there's only so much we can do to save people from themselves, and I'm not going to support ditching a subsystem due to some folks havign bad habits.




Having dropped the antagonistic language, do you feel that it has been replaced with cooperative language similar to what you see in Fate? I don't (although I don't have the oft-touted 4e DMG2, so..). Also, as the Simulation vs Game thread (for one) makes clear, the gamist/antagonistic section of this peanut gallery is alive and well. Does that mean that they are incapable of shedding their old habits?  I can't say, because they haven't been asked to do so.

As far as ditching a subsystem...I'm not one to stand on tradition. I take the length of this thread (and I can't guess how many other arguments online and off) as strong evidence that the alignment system is at least questionable, if not profoundly flawed. To my way of thinking, the incapability of the audience to shed their old habits is why we still have the mechanic to debate rather than ditching it years ago. I don't see a point in keeping an old broken down subsystem due to some folks having bad habits. 



Umbran said:


> Yes, but that's not the rules, but presentation of the rules, that is the issue.  Change the explanatory text, and the issue largely dissolves.




It might (and I am by no means convinced of that). However, I don't think that the rest of D&D's mechanics provide the necessary negotiation platform. That is, there is no alignment analog for the Fate point earned through a compel. The DM doesn't have any carrots, only a big stick. Even for lesser uses of alignment (spells, etc.) there really isn't anything to negotiate _with_, no currency, nothing to trade. Also, I suspect that you would hear (online anyway) a great hew and cry from many about how "Forgie", "Hippy-Dippy", or "weaksauce" D&D has gotten...and that its all Mike Mearls' fault for ruining D&D. We have already heard such objections to the relatively timid motivation mechanics posited a few weeks ago.



Umbran said:


> Heh.  You say this to a guy who plays a character with the aspect "Karmic Enforcer".  Aspects can have some very charged words in them




I would, and happily....preferably while holding up a Fate point . I would do so, because of my "stakes are smaller" point. Since the stakes are smaller (and the rest of Fate's mechanics), the negotiation and even evolution of what _Karmic Enforcer_ means at any given moment can happen as a part of play, rather than an interruption to it.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> FATE requires that use of Aspects _makes sense within the narrative_.  Their applicability must be bounded, but they are written in natural language, not game-mechanic jargon.  That means sometimes there will be disagreements as to whether they apply.  I've seen this in play myself, and if you check the text of the FATE-based games, they explicitly bring up the point that sometimes player and GM will have to negotiate.  So I have exactly zero doubts that it happens.



Sure, but as I said (i) everyone is ultimately heading in the same direction (Aspects driving play), and (ii) fail forward is a buffer (a related buffer is the fact that the consequences of any single Aspect adjudication are most likely modest relative to the overall course of play).

Adjudicating mechanical alignment in D&D doesn't have either of these properties.



Umbran said:


> There's a reason to play a Paladin without wanting morality foregrounded:  power.  Traditionally, Paladins have a habit of being pretty darned potent.



Sure, though I think this is more true pre-3E (I gather the 3E paladin is fairly weak; the 4e paladin is not weak, but is certainly not the most obviously powerful defender).

But I was taking as a premise that, after 160 pages in which no one but me around 155 pages upthread (and now you) has talked about alignment as a balancing factor for the paladin, that I could put that to one side, and take it for granted that alignment is serving a type of morality/characterisation function.


----------



## N'raac

Umbran said:


> The issue at hand is having character abilities linked to RP.  It will happen in any game in which they are tied together.  It can happen frequently, for example, in FATE, where interpretation of character Aspects is required to figure out if they apply in a given situation.  In FATE, it can happen for *any and all* characters. For D&D, it only comes up with characters who get powers of alignment or behavior restrictions.
> 
> In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate.  I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.




Hero Games has similar issues with psychological limitations (Complications in the latest edition).  There are regular debates over what a certain trait, at a certain level, mean in game.  What is a "Code against killing"?  I agree that antagonism is not a question of mechanics, but of players and playstyle.  A generally co-operative and consensus-building group will not suddenly become a GM lead dictatorship because we add alignment rules, nor will a group that plays a very Player vs GM style suddenly have no arguments at the table because we remove alignment from the rules.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even if worldbuilding were a group effort, it is entirely possible that this issue would arise.
> 
> Assume, arguendo, that a gaming group decided a D&D campaign's ethical compass before play, and Player A decided to play a Paladin.  Months down the road, a classic Paladin's dilemma comes up.  The GM notes that the action Player A wants to take would be a code violation; Player A disagrees.
> 
> Now, leaving aside the mechanics the group uses to resolve which is right- group vote, GM gets final say, roll of the dice, whatever- the game situation is the same: if player A's Paladin violates his code, he loses his powers.




This is the question which has never been answered - Who makes these decisions, and how, in the [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] model.  As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code.  To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat.  And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down"  "no, you missed")


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The GM also decided which gods/faiths are present.  Deciding the campaign world's treatment of ethical issues is just part of worldbuilding, IMHO.
> 
> So the GM decides how Good & Evil are defined, and Paladin players have to choose one set of options consistently or lose power...*so what?*
> 
> Like the Paladin, my profession has a code of conduct.  I didn't create it, someone else did, but I accepted it when I entered the field.  My say in its nature is minimal- unless I am part of the committees that revises and redrafts the rules, I have almost no say at all beyond voicing ways I think it could be improved.  Ultimately, I have to abide by the rules, or I lose my (legal) powers.  That loss can be temporary or permanent.




For some of us this is important to enjoyment of the game. I want to be in a believable and consistent world. I am totally fine with others wanting something different, but it really did hurt my enjoyment of play when a lot oft his "players as co-gm/storyteller", "say yes" stuff started emerging, because suddenly the world we inhabited was in flux and did not have solid internal logic (there was a maguic guild in town because player A wanted there to be one, there was a +1 sunblade of vampirism because the player who made the half vampire templar of the sun put it on his wishlist, etc. In a world where players get their powers from powerful entities or forces, to me it makes more sense to have the GM handle that aspect of the setting (because to me it is a setting element).

Again of people like another approach I am totally fine with that. However I thini what I take issue with is the attitude I sometimes encounter toward my approach, that it is somehow outdated or inferior (not saying that is present here, just that I do encounter it). That is no longer how rpgs should be designed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

N'raac said:


> A generally co-operative and consensus-building group will not suddenly become a GM lead dictatorship because we add alignment rules, nor will a group that plays a very Player vs GM style suddenly have no arguments at the table because we remove alignment from the rules.




Sure, but that's not the issue. Long personal experience tells me that, with the same players, a game that has alignment with D&D-levels of vagueness actually integrated into actual game rules will have far more arguments and conflict than one that does not. The vast majority of arguments in my early gaming groups revolved around Paladins and interpretations of LG. CN, the next worst problem alignment, in my experience, was responsible for approximately 10% of the BS Paladins were, and it wasn't because LG was bad - we had tons of LG non-Paladins who were fine - it was because of the huge penalty if you didn't agree with the DM's version of LG (I once saw a Paladin stripped of his powers for REFUSING to kill orc babies - literally babies! No lie, no exaggeration, happened in front of me! DM said it could be G but wasn't L because the Paladin "knew" they would grow up to be Evil and dangerous, so...).



N'raac said:


> As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code. To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat.  And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down"  "no, you missed")




That's not remotely accurate comparison, so it's mystifying as to why you'd think that.

The dice determine whether he hits or misses. If you, as the DM, overrule the dice, you're using DM fiat, and in quite a serious way. The player usually rolls the dice.

This isn't a dice-determined situation. This is about role-playing, and different perspectives on complex moral issues. Comparing the two is fruitless at best, and actively disingenuous at worst.


----------



## Manbearcat

N'raac said:


> I agree that antagonism is not a question of mechanics, but of players and playstyle.  A generally co-operative and consensus-building group will not suddenly become a GM lead dictatorship because we add alignment rules, nor will a group that plays a very Player vs GM style suddenly have no arguments at the table because we remove alignment from the rules.
> 
> 
> This is the question which has never been answered - Who makes these decisions, and how, in the @_*Hussar*_ model.  As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code.  To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat.  And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down"  "no, you missed")




On the first paragraph:

I think there is a bit of a false dilemma at work there. Adding or removing alignment isn't going to outright invert the aesthetics of a table experience nor the dynamics of a system. However, component parts of any system, specifically if they push toward or work against a certain model, are going to perturb the baseline one way or another. What feedback effects that may have is up for grabs.

For instance, consider the implications on the micro-culture of a table when initially exposed to classic Gygaxian arms race, adversarial GMing (I certainly remember initiating players into the play dynamic.). When players deploy their divination/perception effect (mundane or supernatural), and I counter with something unforeseen (ear worm, trapper, stun jelly, anti scry or teleport  zone, etc), the operant conditioning towards arms race and rock-paper-scissors is inevitable. In fact, it's intended and is the point of play as outlined by the GMing principles and the embedded system mechanics that play into it. Great bit of fun but it produces a strong impetus toward a specific play experience. The GMing principles and embedded system components inherent to classic d&d alignment push toward a specific play experience and table aesthetic.

On the second paragraph:

I'll examine the second part (which will tie into my response above) by pulling out the nature of alignment in Dungeon World and what kind of play that promotes.

In DW, a character has an ethos statement to pick out which is tied to class. It delineates a very specific task to work toward or a focused, specific behavior to become manifest in play (similar to 4e quests and MHRP Milestones).  At the end of a session (an actual game move and part of play - postmortem eval of the session by all players - GM is one of the players), everyone discerns the impact of play. This includes what XP is earned which involves the resolution of bonds and alignment statements, and other component parts.  Alignment may shift or the focus of a character may deviate from that initial alignment statement to another within the extended alignment portfolio (to be resolved in upcoming sessions). These mechanics and table aesthetics create a very different one from classic D&D alignment. But they certainly help to produce rich, morally clear (yet potentially deep or nuanced) characters and grand adventure.  I've GMed the system a fair amount, but I've yet to see a slippery slope of "two competing determinations of what happens" emerge as a result.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> r grabs.
> 
> For instance, consider the implications on the micro-culture of a table when initially exposed to classic Gygaxian arms race, adversarial GMing (I certainly remember initiating players into the play dynamic.). When players deploy their divination/perception effect (mundane or supernatural), and I counter with something unforeseen (ear worm, trapper, stun jelly, anti scry or teleport  zone, etc), the operant conditioning towards arms race and rock-paper-scissors is inevitable. In fact, it's intended and is the point of play as outlined by the GMing principles and the embedded system mechanics that play into it. Great bit of fun but it produces a strong impetus toward a specific play experience. The GMing principles and embedded system components inherent to classic d&d alignment push toward a specific play experience and table aesthetic.
> .




I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.


----------



## Jacob Marley

N'raac said:


> This is the question which has never been answered - Who makes these decisions, and how, in the  @_*Hussar*_  model.  As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code.  To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat.  And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down"  "no, you missed")




The general rule at my table is:
Authority rests with the player; a player may cede authority to the DM.​
I assume that a player who creates a Lawful Good Paladin of Heironeous does so because the player is interested in:


Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (Good) 
Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. (Law) 
Respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor, helping those in need, and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. (Paladin) 
Duty to the People, Duty to the Arch-Paladin, and Duty to a Lady. (Heironeous) 
 I assume that a player who creates the above character is making an honest attempt to play those tenets. However, because those tenets can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context of the situation, I prefer to let the player make the final determination. The player knows what the character is thinking, his motivations, goals, and values. Should the character take an action that gives me pause I can always ask the player why.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Jacob Marley said:


> The general rule at my table is:
> Authority rests with the player; a player may cede authority to the DM.​




I really think a lot of the disagreement turns on this issue and how differently people approach it. I can see this having appeal to some, and if it works for you by all means this is a fine rule. For myself, I prefer the GM to have authority over setting details and judgments like this rather than players.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.




It's not too far off though either.  At least as far as Gygaxian D&D goes.  Gygax wasn't exactly shy about advocating a very adversarial table.  A read through of the 1e DMG as well as 1e Gygax module introductions, and Dragon magazine articles by Gygax certainly paints a picture of a very adversarial table.  



Jacob Marley said:


> The general rule at my table is:
> Authority rests with the player; a player may cede authority to the DM.​
> I assume that a player who creates a Lawful Good Paladin of Heironeous does so because the player is interested in:
> 
> 
> Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (Good)
> Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. (Law)
> Respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor, helping those in need, and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. (Paladin)
> Duty to the People, Duty to the Arch-Paladin, and Duty to a Lady. (Heironeous)
> I assume that a player who creates the above character is making an honest attempt to play those tenets. However, because those tenets can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context of the situation, I prefer to let the player make the final determination. The player knows what the character is thinking, his motivations, goals, and values. Should the character take an action that gives me pause I can always ask the player why.




QFT.  This is precisely what I've been trying to say.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I want to be in a believable and consistent world.



So do I. I've personally encountered no evidence that letting players decide what paladinhood requires of their PCs will undermine this goal.


----------



## Bedrockgames

> So do I. I've personally encountered no evidence that letting players decide what paladinhood requires of their PCs will undermine this goal.




i am sure for many players it does nothing to undermine this goal, for me it very much does..


----------



## Hussar

I just wanted to chime in that BRG has been refreshingly open about the fact that he only speaking for himself and his own preferences. 

Well done you sir.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.




At his table, perhaps not. Similarly, traditional D&D wasn't always, that's very clear.

However, Gary literally wrote the book on adversarial DMing:

http://www.amazon.com/Role-Playing-...TF8&qid=1400752339&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+gygax

I read this at 14 or so, and even then, I could see it was completely appalling, very explicitly setting the DM against the players in a very unhelpful way (that does not match well with accounts of Gary's actual games).

So it's forgivable to conflate them I'd say.


----------



## pemerton

N'raac said:


> They must be standards beyond “whatever I say is in compliance with my character’s moral code



Why?

Tolkien did not have someone standing over him to decide what counted as consistent or inconsistent with Aragorn's, or Gandalf's, or Frodo's, or Elrond's moral code. Why does a D&D player?



N'raac said:


> For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision.  That is part of the GM’s role.



This is mere assertion. What evidence is there to think that the GM will do a better job of producing a consistent account of a particular god, or religion, or chivalric order, than a player will?

Players give their PCs consistent personalities without (at most tables) the GM having any authority to step in and override a player's conception of his/her PC. Likewise, at many tables, for cohorts and henchmen. Why are moral codes, and divinities, in a special category?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.



From Gygax's DMG, p 97:

Assume that your players are continually wasting time (thus making the so-called adventure drag out into a boring session of dice rolling and delay) if they are endlessly checking for traps and listening at every door. If this persists, despite the obvious displeasure you express, the requirement that helmets be doffed and mail coifs removedto listen at a door, and then be carefully replaced, the warnings about ear seekers, and frequent checking for wandering monsters . . . then you will have to take a more direct part in things. Mocking their over-cautious behaviour as near cowardice, rolling huge handfuls of dice and then telling them the results are negative, and statements to the effect that: "You detect nothing, and nothing has detected YOU so far ---", might suffice. If the problem should continue, then rooms full with silent monsters will turn the tide, but that is the stuff of later adventures.​
Other examples could be given, I think, but one is enough to start with. One might think it is good advice; one might think that it is bad advice. But whether one thinks it good or bad, how is that passage not advocacy for adversarial GMing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> how is that passage not advocacy for adversarial GMing?




The first sentence to me is important.



> Assume that your players are continually wasting time (thus making the so-called adventure drag out into a boring session of dice rolling and delay) if they are endlessly checking for traps and listening at every door.




Gygax is addressing a situation that is already dysfunctiona on both sides of the equation.  If the players are (to use 3.X terminology) taking 20 every step they take, it is probably not just the GM getting bored, other players likely are as well.  This playstyle only happens if the players have been trained by gaming with one GM (or another) that if they DON'T act that way, then the GM will see that as a "gotcha" moment, at which point, he springs nastiness upon them.

So he's telling the GM to telegraph that there's nothing in broad mocking ways when they're being unheroically overcautious.  But he's also, with that first sentence, telling the GM that he shouldn't be designing or running campaigns in ways that would make players behave like that.*






* Those modules that were explicitly written as one big gotcha- like Tomb of Horrors- are an exception.


----------



## Dannorn

pemerton said:


> Players give their PCs consistent personalities without (at most tables) the GM having any authority to step in and override a player's conception of his/her PC. Likewise, at many tables, for cohorts and henchmen. *Why are moral codes, and divinities, in a special category?*




Because they're part of the world/setting which are represented by the GM.  As I've said before alignment is not a condition on individual PCs and NPCs.  It is, as far as D&D goes, part of the fundamental forces of the universe; Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.  If a character's behaviour is Chaotic (from the perspective of the universe) then the character is Chaotic no matter how much they consider themselves Lawful.

A player is free to assign any moral code they wish to a character, but where that code falls in terms of alignment is the province of the GM.  Players can provide input and justification for why a particular action should be one or the other but the final call is made by the GM.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Pemerton, the problem i have is with the term itself (but that particular passage is one i always regarded as hyperbole for comedic effect). My understanding of the term Adversarial GMing is that it refers to the GM acting to challenge the players, not necessarily being a jerk about it or taunting the players, so i wasnt even thinking of the issues your passage raises. My gripe with it is its a highly loaded term, like magic tea party, and it essentializes and reduces old school play to one element. I am not saying challenging the player didmt exist in that style, but calling it Adversarial already paints it in a negative light as a problematic approach in need of a solution. And like I said. It wasnt the only thing going on in old school or gygaxian games.


----------



## pemerton

Dannorn said:


> Because they're part of the world/setting which are represented by the GM.  .



This does not answer the question I asked.

The post to which I replied stated that "For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision." But no reason was given why that cannot be the player of the character.

The GM doesn't represent all of the setting. For instance, s/he doesn't represent the PCs, who are part of the setting. At many table s/he doesn't represent henchmen, cohorts etc who are part of the setting. There is nothing inherent about moral codes that makes them be different.

There may be a D&D tradition in respect of these, but obviously those who are not using mechanical alignment are not part of that tradition.


----------



## Hussar

And, in addition to what Pemerton is bringing up here, I'd point out that some groups also allow players to create their own backstories.  True, often it is subject to DM approval, which is fine, but, by and large, player in these types of groups can write their own backstories, including NPC's and various other elements, with the presumption that the DM will approve of whatever they bring to the table, so long as genre conventions are upheld.

IOW, if I decide that my character is part of a merchant house, and I hand the DM the family tree, back history and whatnot of that family house, IME, DM's will appreciate the effort and will go to some lengths to incorporate my ideas into the setting.  So, it's not like setting is solely the job of the DM.

I'd also point out that there are many games out there where this is explicit.  FATE comes immediately to mind where character generation is a mini-game in and of itself and the setting is expected to be drawn in some part at least, from chargen.  In Dresden, this goes even further where the entire campaign's setting is generated along with the characters.  Even going back into older games, games like Classic Traveler had random life path generation as part of chargen where all sorts of character resources were generated and backstory filled in during chargen and the GM was presumed to not interfere too much with that, so, it's not like this is some new fangled, hippy dippy, pass the story stick type gaming idea.


----------



## Odhanan

Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton, the problem i have is with the term itself (but that particular passage is one i always regarded as hyperbole for comedic effect). My understanding of the term Adversarial GMing is that it refers to the GM acting to challenge the players, not necessarily being a jerk about it or taunting the players, so i wasnt even thinking of the issues your passage raises. My gripe with it is its a highly loaded term, like magic tea party, and it essentializes and reduces old school play to one element. I am not saying challenging the player didmt exist in that style, but calling it Adversarial already paints it in a negative light as a problematic approach in need of a solution. And like I said. It wasnt the only thing going on in old school or gygaxian games.




The "antagonistic DM" is a caricature that is a compound of a bad selected reading of DMG advice and horror stories gathered around the hobby store campfires before the internet became "a thing". 

Anyone who believes Gary Gygax was an "antagonistic DM" as depicted here is factually wrong. He wasn't like this, didn't run games like this, and the advice here is not proof in any way, shape or form of an "antagonistic" type of DMing when you put it in context, as a reaction to a type of behavior that might be deleterious to the game as a whole and stop it to a crawl. Basically what it advocates is the refereeing of the game in order to move things forward and make it interesting to the players. 

There was a lot of humor, and back-and-forths between players and DM taunting each other, joking with each other while playing the game. Rob Kuntz (co-DM of the original Greyhawk campaign, co-author of Supplement I Greyhawk, Gods Demi-Gods and Heroes, Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, The Bottle City, City of Brass, etc) actually wrote a column about this entitled "Humor in the original campaign" which you can read here: http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.ca/2009/03/up-on-tree-stump-2.html

It tangentially addresses the misconception I am talking about here: 



> Facet One, Disarming the Opponent: One must remember that EGG's grounding was in table-top and miniature wargames. Imagine a gathering of us nere-do-wells in his basement, squared off against each other on separate sides of a 6 x 10 sand table. Now imagine the interchanges as we, the generals of one side of the table, quipped with the other side's commanders. Provocation? Most definitely! It may well have been the same thing that the Scots and Edwardian Englishmen could have traded squared off as they were, awaiting the outcome of an upcoming battle. A summoning of courage? Most certainly! The superior force responds on all levels of emotional output, and this was no different in our games, whether staged or instinctual, or where-ever such "harmless" chiding bore from. As the battle wore on, as the field changed hands, and as the final victory was in view, the other side crushed and in rout, well, you can imagine that we didn't just sit there wringing our hands and noting it in a perfunctory manner. And although some were calmer in their expressions, EGG was most expressive in victory (especially if it had been a very hard-fought battle hinging on last minute shifts and on the fly changes), so it is not to say that he didn't sound like a Confederate soldier on occasion, perhaps imagining himself pursuing the blue-bellies amidst howls and hoots after the Union's rout at the First Battle of Bull Run!
> 
> Now transfer this particular part of his mindset into the D&D game with him as DM. His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand...




I actually asked Rob directly about antagonistic DMing, whether Gary was an a-hole DM basically, knowing that this myth would resurface on some forum or other, sooner or later, and the question actually totally flabbergasted him:



> Does Facet One mean that Gary had a "DM versus Players" competitive mentality? I'm asking as a sort of preemptive strike against quotes from people who would then conclude that he "had to be an abusive DMs and that's why the old editions suck".






> The actual thought that someone might summarize my commentary as suggesting that either EGG or myself were abusive DMing actually made me laugh real hard, thanks!
> 
> This is where the true division lies between what people perceive through rules and by implementing them on different levels and at different times.
> 
> The condensed version is stated:
> 
> "His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."
> 
> This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.
> 
> So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table




The exchange continues thus, with me: 



> I'm sure the criticism will show up sooner or later on some board. Back at the end of the 80's, when I started playing the game and visited my first local game stores, I remember that there was this attitude that considering the Tomb of Horros as some sort of epitomy of DMing to keep "these pesky players in their place" was something of a "cool" factor, like some inside joke that proved that you were a "real DM".
> 
> I never understood that mentality, personally.
> 
> I sure wanted to play the Tomb of Horrors (and never did), but I'd have expected the DM to show the kind of challenging qualities you speak of when talking about Lake Geneva, not some kind of ego-trip gone awry.




Then Rob Kuntz goes on and concludes:



> I don't "get" (as Ghanian's say)adversarial DMs, either. Heck. You have all sorts of chances to battle and win and lose as a DM through the advent of endless encounters, no need to make the odds uneven. I guess it has to do with ego, or perhaps insecurity, who knows?
> 
> I've experienced flawed DMing in that style and thereafter never again played in that gaming environment; and I suppose that is the best advice, and to let the DM, and other players if there are any, know exactly why you're quitting the game. I must add that many of these "cheated" players have, in my recollection, gone on to be very good, if not only fair-minded, DMs; so there can always be a silver lining to a dark-DM's tale.




So no, Gary wasn't an antagonistic DM in the sense depicted in this thread, nor was this specific advice attempting to encourage that type of DMing either. The DMG is a strange beast really, a book that was written from DM to DM, in a conversational tone that makes the reader the true master of his own game. I find that it is much more productive to one's own DMing to read the book in context, throughout, to make sense of it all to one's own self, rather than cherry-pick soundbites to fit the agenda of the day.


----------



## Hussar

Since when does adversarial mean that the DM is an a-hole or is cheating?  Kuntz' description here is exactly what I consider to be adversarial roles. The DM is trying to defeat the players. To me, that's adversarial. 

I'm never trying to defeat the players. Not in many years anyway. I'm trying to be as fair and impartial as I can be while ensuring that everyone at the table has a good time. 

I certainly don't envision my players as opponents. I play a cooperative game, not competitive. 

Ohanan, I'm not sure how you define antagonistic DM, but, to me, the above epitomizes it.


----------



## Odhanan

Hussar said:


> Ohanan, I'm not sure how you define antagonistic DM, but, to me, the above epitomizes it.




Then you and I do not live in the same reality, because Gary Gygax was not an antagonistic DM, far from it. If you refuse to see that, and redefine words in order to fit your version of reality, I can't say I want a part in it. Facts are facts, and the fact is that to someone like Rob Kuntz, who was co-DM of the Greyhawk campaign with Gary Gygax, the notion that what was explained above in my previous post would constitute some sort of "epitome of antagonistic DMing" is a laughable idea. 

Take that as you will.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION]

Your quote of yourself in your post upthread indicates that you started playing D&D in the late 80s. I started playing D&D in the early 80s. At the time, and over the 30+ years since, I read and have read a wide variety of discussions of GMing techniques, playstyles etc. I have also experienced a wide variety of playing and GMing styles.

Your own quotes frame the GM as the opponent of the players. A synonym for "opponent" is "adversary" - hence, in the literal sense, adversarial GMing. But "adversarial GMing" as I am using the term refers to a particular style of opposition between players and GM, which arises primarily from the GM using the ingame fiction, rather than metagame discussions and rules structures, as a way of resolving conflicts with the players over how the game should proceed.

In early D&D it manifested itself primarily through "gotcha" style arms races - eg listening at doors entails ear seekers entails ear trumpets with wire mesh; looting corpses entails rot grubs; the complexity of pit traps grows and grows; etc. You can see it, also, in the passage from the DMG that I quoted. Any player who read Gygax's advice in his PHB would think that listening at doors and checking for traps is skilled play; but then Gygax in his DMG complains about the (well-known) adverse effects of such play upon pace and excitement. But instead of suggesting either a gentlemen's agreement ("I, as GM, promise not to place traps on the doors if you, as players, promise not to have your PCs search them") or an overarching rules solution, the situation is to be resolved by the GM manipulating the ingame situation so as to thwart the PCs and hence the players (culminating in rooms full of silent monsters).

There have been 40 years since D&D was invented to come up with better solutions. Does anyone know how Torchbearer handles the issue?


----------



## Hussar

Odhanan said:


> Then you and I do not live in the same reality, because Gary Gygax was not an antagonistic DM, far from it. If you refuse to see that, and redefine words in order to fit your version of reality, I can't say I want a part in it. Facts are facts, and the fact is that to someone like Rob Kuntz, who was co-DM of the Greyhawk campaign with Gary Gygax, the notion that what was explained above in my previous post would constitute some sort of "epitome of antagonistic DMing" is a laughable idea.
> 
> Take that as you will.




I'll ask again, how do you define antagonistic DM?  As I said, what you quoted sure sounds like antagonistic play. 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Since when does adversarial mean that the DM is an a-hole or is cheating?  Kuntz' description here is exactly what I consider to be adversarial roles. The DM is trying to defeat the players. To me, that's adversarial.
> 
> .




It is the choice of words. It feels like there is an agenda at work. Adversarial has connotations that go beyond just trying to challenge the players (and people who speak of Adversarial GMs usually do so in a light that that is highly unfavorable). It is like the term Magic Tea Party, it is condescending and insulting to people who like RP heavy interaction in games. It is dismissive. And like I said, it reduces a style of play to a single thing, when it is so much more than that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I'll ask again, how do you define antagonistic DM?  As I said, what you quoted sure sounds like antagonistic play.
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...




I don't see this at all. I think much of the traditional style of play Gary promoted certainly promoted the fun of players being challenged by the GM, and there being a clear line between what a player's role is and what the Refs role is, but I don't think you can use the laid back conversational tone of the first DMG as evidence Gary was belligerent and antagonistic towards players, especially when people who knew him and played in his games say otherwise. You are basically leap frogging from him accepting the "game" aspect of RPG as part of the full package to saying it was all about antagonizing the players. I think that is quite misleading. And when I see people throw around the term adversarial GM it seems like there is an agenda at work where folks are trying to say there is something inherently flawed about traditional styles of play (that the game itself is built around the Gm being a jerk). Again a lot of this boils down to language. You guys are choosing terms that are by their nature insulting to people who play differently from you (much like Magic Tea Party is used).


----------



## Bedrockgames

[D][/D]







pemerton said:


> There have been 40 years since D&D was invented to come up with better solutions. Does anyone know how Torchbearer handles the issue?




Is that what this really about pemerton?

i don't know, to me it feels like you are drawing on an exagerated caricature of early D&D to promote a game like torchbearer and its approach over a more traditional style of play. Adversarial is not a neutral word. It is not a mere synonym in this case.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> Why?
> 
> Tolkien did not have someone standing over him to decide what counted as consistent or inconsistent with Aragorn's, or Gandalf's, or Frodo's, or Elrond's moral code. Why does a D&D player?




Because, for one thing, the D&D PC player does not sit in anything resembling the same position as Tolkien.  The RPG player in the closest analogous position to the author's is the GM.

JRRT constructed everything- the world, the divinities, the magic system, the civilizations, the races and even personalities- the way the world works' from top to bottom.

The GM does all of this excepting the process of deciding the background, internal motivations, etc. of player characters, which, by design, is reserved to the players.



pemerton said:


> This is mere assertion. What evidence is there to think that the GM will do a better job of producing a consistent account of a particular god, or religion, or chivalric order, than a player will?




The GM is a fallable human, no doubt, but at least he has all of the campaign design notes to guide him, for one.  



pemerton said:


> Dannorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Players give their PCs consistent personalities without (at most tables) the GM having any authority to step in and override a player's conception of his/her PC. Likewise, at many tables, for cohorts and henchmen. Why are moral codes, and divinities, in a special category?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're part of the world/setting which are represented by the GM.  As I've said before alignment is not a condition on individual PCs and NPCs.  It is, as far as D&D goes, part of the fundamental forces of the universe; Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.  If a character's behaviour is Chaotic (from the perspective of the universe) then the character is Chaotic no matter how much they consider themselves Lawful.
> 
> A player is free to assign any moral code they wish to a character, but where that code falls in terms of alignment is the province of the GM.  Players can provide input and justification for why a particular action should be one or the other but the final call is made by the GM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This does not answer the question I asked.
> 
> The post to which I replied stated that "For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision." But no reason was given why that cannot be the player of the character.
> 
> The GM doesn't represent all of the setting. For instance, s/he doesn't represent the PCs, who are part of the setting. At many table s/he doesn't represent henchmen, cohorts etc who are part of the setting. There is nothing inherent about moral codes that makes them be different.
> 
> There may be a D&D tradition in respect of these, but obviously those who are not using mechanical alignment are not part of that tradition.
Click to expand...


I believe Dannorn's response is right on target.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I think much of the traditional style of play Gary promoted certainly promoted the fun of players being challenged by the GM, and there being a clear line between what a player's role is and what the Refs role is



I think that is clear, and as far as I can tell not in dispute.



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think you can use the laid back conversational tone of the first DMG as evidence Gary was belligerent and antagonistic towards players



I don't see anyone in this thread making assertions about how Gygax ran his games (other than you and  [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION]). I am talking about elements of his GMing advice.

My best guess is that, in fact, at Gygax's table various sorts of "gentlemen's agreements" were arrived at, organically, through play. But nowhere does his DMG discuss this as a possibility, nor how it might be achieved systematically.

More broadly, I would say that the whole presentation of AD&D suffers from putting forward particular results of play (achieved by Gygax and his friends) as procedures for play by others. It almost has a cargo-cultish dimension, as if by aping Gygax's outcomes you'll get the same play experience, even if the actual procedures that Gygax used are not adopted. A very simple example is all the verbiage in the AD&D PHB about fireball, and what it does and doesn't melt and so on. Contrast this with original D&D or Moldvay Basic, which clearly leaves this as a matter of GM adjudication. (It also fits rather uncomfortably with the Item Saving Throw table - which personally I think is a better procedure than the fireball spell text, if only because it brings into play the overall strengths of saving throws as a mechanica.)

The issue of arms race escalation in dungeoneering - pit traps! 10' poles! pit traps which trigger only when you poke the floor 10' or so in front of them! - is a well-known phenomenon. The passage that I quoted is an expression of it. However exactly it was solved at Gygax's table, I doubt that it was solved using the crappy procedure that he recommends in his DMG. (As I have already said, I am guessing that the solution was some form of gentlemen's agreement.)



Bedrockgames said:


> when I see people throw around the term adversarial GM it seems like there is an agenda at work where folks are trying to say there is something inherently flawed about traditional styles of play



Perhaps you are needlessly projecting. I am talking about a particular passage from Gygax's DMG, and the GMing style that they advocate. (There are others I could also produce if you want.)

If you think this is good GMing advice, by all means explain why - perhaps with examples of how it has worked for you. If you think that Gygax didn't really mean it and didn't follow it himself, then it seems that you are agreeing with me that it is not good advice.

If you are trying to tell me, though, that _no one_ ever followed it, I can tell you from personal experience that that is not true.



Bedrockgames said:


> i don't know, to me it feels like you are drawing on an exagerated caricature of early D&D to promote a game like torchbearer and its approach over a more traditional style of play. Adversarial is not a neutral word. It is not a mere synonym in this case.



I explained in my post how "adversarial" goes beyond being a synonym for "GM as opponent" - in particular, it refers to a particular way of using the ingame fiction to try and discipline the players for their choices.

As for Torchbearer, I'm not trying to promote it. I don't own it, have never read it and currently don't intend ever to play it. (I gather encumbrance rules are very central to it.) But I am guessing that it deals with the listening-at-doors issue, and I am guessing it has beter advice than the advice that Gygax gives.

As I said, either Gygax's advice is good or not. If you think it's good, explain how. If you agree that it's not - which is the impression I'm getting - then why are you objecting to me taking the same view? And if you think that it's not good advice, why do you think that? I think it's not good advice because - in actual application - I think it sets no boundaries on what the GM will do to block player information-gathering options. (After the rooms full of silent enemies, what happens when the PCs gain access to X-Ray vision? ESP at will?)

The real issue is that the game play encourages the players to take steps to gather information - and Gygax expressly encourages them to do so in his PHB - but that the procedures for resolving that tend to make the game unfun. The obvious solution to this issue is to change the incentives - in which case you move away from old-style play, which probably isn't desirable in this case - or change the procedures. The most obvious way to change the procedures is some form of rationing. The only rationing device that Gygax puts forward is wandering monsters - which make ingame time itself a commodity for the players - but he is clearly aware that this on its own may not, even will not, do the job. I'm sure other and better rationing options could be thought of by those who like this sort of play.

Or have I misunderstood you, and you really are defending rooms full of silent monsters, and other gotcha techniques, as the best way to deal with the issue that Gygax is talking about?


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> It is the choice of words. It feels like there is an agenda at work. Adversarial has connotations that go beyond just trying to challenge the players (and people who speak of Adversarial GMs usually do so in a light that that is highly unfavorable). It is like the term Magic Tea Party, it is condescending and insulting to people who like RP heavy interaction in games. It is dismissive. And like I said, it reduces a style of play to a single thing, when it is so much more than that.




Again, the dismissive part is mostly on the listener.  It's dismissive in the sense that it's not something I want to play.  I have no interest anymore in this style of play where the DM sees the players as opponents.  But, then again, considering the dismissive and condescending tones that are directed to anyone who doesn't like traditional D&D, I'm thinking that I don't really care that much.  

To me, the RBDM is adversarial.  Again, it's not something I want to play at all.  I do not enjoy it and I find it very detrimental to gaming.  It advocates a style of play where players are forced to constantly play paranoid because any mistake will result in death or serious consequences for the character.  When I get new players at the table from these types of tables, it takes forever to deprogram them into a much looser style where mistakes are considered a good thing.

Additionally, there is the constant battle to try to add in mechanics which support my style of gaming from those who are completely dismissive of any mechanics that don't fit in with their play styles.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> the D&D PC player does not sit in anything resembling the same position as Tolkien.  The RPG player in the closest analogous position to the author's is the GM.
> 
> JRRT constructed everything- the world, the divinities, the magic system, the civilizations, the races and even personalities- the way the world works' from top to bottom.
> 
> The GM does all of this excepting the process of deciding the background, internal motivations, etc. of player characters, which, by design, is reserved to the players.
> 
> The GM is a fallable human, no doubt, but at least he has all of the campaign design notes to guide him, for one.



The thing is, none of this is necessary to an RPG. Nor is it even necessary to D&D.

Which is the point that I (and I think also [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am making. The game will not suddenly collapse into incoherenece, or inconsistency, because the players get to decide what the requirements are for their PCs' gods and codes and everything else, and the GM does not exercise power over those particular elements of the game's backstory.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Pemerton, please do not twist my words to make it sound like I am agreeing with you when iit should be clear as day I am not. And please do not twist my words to ascribe positions to me that i have never taken. I am saying you are pulling that one quote out of context to condemn  all the advice in the DMG. Personally I think the 1E DMG has tons of great advice, and the reason is simple: when I have gone back and re-read, each time it adds to my game. A lot of it draws on obvious hyperbole for dealing with extreme situations (like the passage you posted) much of it is more practical advice. I happen to really like the 1E dmg. If you hasnt worked for you, or some of your GMs have used it in a way that didn't work at your table, that isn't my concern. For me it has worked. It is far from perfect but definitely the best DMG so far in my opinion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> The thing is, none of this is necessary to an RPG. Nor is it even necessary to D&D.
> 
> Which is the point that I (and I think also @_*Hussar*_) am making. The game will not suddenly collapse into incoherenece, or inconsistency, because the players get to decide what the requirements are for their PCs' gods and codes and everything else, and the GM does not exercise power over those particular elements of the game's backstory.




I find that there is an unavoidable conflict of interest when one party decides his PC will adhere to a code of subservience/adherence to another being or ethical philosophy- as in a cleric or paladin to his faith & code- in exchange for powers within the campaign world AND is given the ability to adjudicate whether his PC has successfully met the terms of that pact.

(That is not to say that it is impossible to do so, just that there is an inherent quandary.)

Any other player or group of players is in a better position to make that decision.

And the GM, whose role is essentially (and ideally) that of neutral adjudicator, is the best position to make that assessment.

As I mentioned before, I am subject to an externally imposed ethical code as a condition of being granted all kinds of powers.  While I might be a good person in the eyes of many, at no point will I be allowed to decide whether I have violated that code.  Others will _always _have that authority over me.

And those who have that authority over me will never have the ability to adjudicate the quality of their own adherence to the code- someone else of like qualification will be given that job.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I am saying you are pulling that one quote out of context to condemn all the advice in the DMG.



In that case you are saying something false. I have not asserted anything about all the advice in Gygax's DMG. And in fact, if you have followed my posts on other threads on these board over the years, you would see that I am a strong defender of Gygax's advice on the narration of hit point loss and saving throw success.

Furthermore, the only poster in this thread to set out the coherence of alignment within Ggyaxian D&D play has been me. (Somewhere in the neighbourhood of post 50 upthread, I believe.)

As I said in my earlier post, perhaps you are projecting, or in some other way seeing things that are not there.

Also, you have not answered my question - do you think the advice on how to deal with listen checks at doors is good advice, or not? I had assumed that you didn't, but given that you have said you disagree with me then perhaps you do. You could clear up the uncertainty by answering the question.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In that case you are saying something false. I have not asserted anything about all the advice in Gygax's
> 
> Also, you have not answered my question - do you think the advice on how to deal with listen checks at doors is good advice, or not? I had assumed that you didn't, but given that you have said you disagree with me then perhaps you do. You could clear up the uncertainty by answering the question.




I already answered that and explained my take in that passage. I think my position on it is pretty clear.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I find that there is an unavoidable conflict of interest when one party decides his PC will adhere to a code of subservience/adherence to another being or ethical philosophy- as in a cleric or paladin to his faith & code- in exchange for powers within the campaign world AND is given the ability to adjudicate whether his PC has successfully met the terms of that pact.



As I've indicated upthread, I don't regard it as a pact.

Also, I don't run a game in which the players get any advantage by violating their code. For instance, the game doesn't become more fun, or the players field of action (via his/he PC) become any larger, by violating the code. (This is not true in all D&D styles. For instance, it is not true in Gygaxian "skilled" play. But I don't run a Gygaxian game.)

Hence, there is no conflict of interest in my game.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I am subject to an externally imposed ethical code as a condition of being granted all kinds of powers.



The situation is in my view not really comparable. You have powers that you could abuse, and a standing temptation to steal from the client trust account.

But as I already noted, the player has no advantage to gain by having his/her PC break the code. (At least, not in the sort of game that I run.)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Again, the dismissive part is mostly on the listener.  It's dismissive in the sense that it's not something I want to play.  I have no interest anymore in this style of play where the DM sees the players as opponents.  But, then again, considering the dismissive and condescending tones that are directed to anyone who doesn't like traditional D&D, I'm thinking that I don't really care that much.
> 
> To me, the RBDM is adversarial.  Again, it's not something I want to play at all.  I do not enjoy it and I find it very detrimental to gaming.  It advocates a style of play where players are forced to constantly play paranoid because any mistake will result in death or serious consequences for the character.  When I get new players at the table from these types of tables, it takes forever to deprogram them into a much looser style where mistakes are considered a good thing.
> 
> Additionally, there is the constant battle to try to add in mechanics which support my style of gaming from those who are completely dismissive of any mechanics that don't fit in with their play styles.




I see dismissive ness coming from both camps, I do not think it is productive in either case. If you are going to characterize peoples prefered styles of play as 'adversarial', given the negative associations that word has, it is going to generate a strong response. Especially if it is being done in a way that presents the opposite approach as better, more evolved, better designed, etc. to me it is a misleading way to describe tradition rpg play.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I already answered that and explained my take in that passage. I think my position on it is pretty clear.



It's not remotely clear to me.

As I said, I got the initial impression that you thought it was not good advice. But then, when you said you disagreed with me, I thought you thought it _was _good advice. Is there a reason you can't explain which?

Also, thanks for the apology for misrepresenting what I said about Gygax's DMG! It's big of you to apologise, and I accept.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Pemerton I am done if you are going to continue in this way. Have a nice day. And no I do not think it is bad advice because it is hyperbole like I said before.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> As I've indicated upthread, I don't regard it as a pact.
> 
> Also, I don't run a game in which the players get any advantage by violating their code. For instance, the game doesn't become more fun, or the players field of action (via his/he PC) become any larger, by violating the code. (This is not true in all D&D styles. For instance, it is not true in Gygaxian "skilled" play. But I don't run a Gygaxian game.)
> 
> Hence, there is no conflict of interest in my game.




Who decides if the PC has violated his Code (which you don't consider a pact)?  If it is the player, the conflict exists.



> The situation is in my view not really comparable. You have powers that you could abuse, and a standing temptation to steal from the client trust account.
> 
> But as I already noted, the player has no advantage to gain by having his/her PC break the code. (At least, not in the sort of game that I run.)




The paladin has abusable powers as well.  Detect Evil, for instance.  One need not look too deeply into history to see how people who _claimed_ to have that power have abused it.  When it is a verifiable fact of a fiction verse that some people known as Paladins actually can detect evil, the ability to abuse it becomes riskier.

A corrupted Paladin may well find the increase of material power and wealth he gains as be he becomes "Witchfinder General" to be worth the loss of his divinely granted gifts...

A similar scam could be run with the Turn Undead power, or he could withhold its use until a ransom is paid.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Who decides if the PC has violated his Code (which you don't consider a pact)?  If it is the player, the conflict exists.
> 
> 
> 
> The paladin has abusable powers as well.  Detect Evil, for instance.  One need not look too deeply into history to see how people who _claimed_ to have that power have abused it.  When it is a verifiable fact of a fiction verse that some people known as Paladins actually can detect evil, the ability to abuse it becomes riskier.
> 
> A corrupted Paladin may well find the increase of material power and wealth he gains as be he becomes "Witchfinder General" to be worth the loss of his divinely granted gifts...
> 
> A similar scam could be run with the Turn Undead power, or he could withhold its use until a ransom is paid.




So, it comes around full circle.

Players cannot be trusted to play their characters without a conflict of interest, therefore, the DM must step in to make sure that the players are playing their characters correctly, because only the DM can be objective.

Yeah, no thanks.  I don't need alignment mechanics to bludgeon my players into playing how I feel they should be playing.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> So, it comes around full circle.
> 
> Players cannot be trusted to play their characters without a conflict of interest, therefore, the DM must step in to make sure that the players are playing their characters correctly, because only the DM can be objective.
> 
> Yeah, no thanks.  I don't need alignment mechanics to bludgeon my players into playing how I feel they should be playing.




And again, as I'm sure has been said before, you're mischaracterizing it. It's not a question of playing correctly - it's a question of whether or not the PC's code has been violated. Playing correctly doesn't come into it except in the cases in which there is an actual misconception of the code/alignment. Then, you correct that misconception and move on and if the code remains violated - you put the consequences into effect.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> And again, as I'm sure has been said before, you're mischaracterizing it. It's not a question of playing correctly - it's a question of whether or not the PC's code has been violated. Playing correctly doesn't come into it except in the cases in which there is an actual misconception of the code/alignment. Then, you correct that misconception and move on and if the code remains violated - you put the consequences into effect.[/QUOTE
> 
> But, the person determining the violation is the DM, not the player whose character is being directly affected by the DM's determination.  The player is being told that no, you don't really know what your code means, I, the DM, know better than you, so, now you have to either do what I say, or I'll take your character away.
> 
> Your presumption here is that the DM can never be wrong, or, even more, the player cannot be responsible for playing his own character "correctly".  The player will always have some misconception of his code or alignment that the DM must step in to correct.
> 
> I prefer to put all this in the hands of the player because I find that it results in better play at my table.  I refuse to play policeman for the behaviour of players.


----------



## Umbran

I asked some time ago if this thread was going to go anywhere, if anyone was going to learn much.

And all we still see is repetition over repetition of the same old positions.  Nobody gives an inch.  I will remove the need for anyone to concede, by closing the thread.

Please, folks, double check to see if your energies are being used *constructively*.  Consider how much cool, interesting, creative stuff you cold have done with the time you spent hovering over thousands of these posts, dug in and refusing to yield.


----------

