Quote from: Black Vulmea;609522Hey, Pundit, this should be the site's masthead.

Concur.


And in this case: Please don't impose your judea-christian values on my possible-worlds paladin. Especially in a game where wizards can shoot fireballs from their asses.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;609524Especially in a game where wizards can shoot fireballs from their asses.

I never thought of the somatic component in quite that way, but I suppose it works . . .

Quote from: Benoist;609519I'm going to be blunt, and I apologize in advance.

There's no apology needed for being blunt.  But perhaps you should apologize for being obtuse.  I'm not getting your message in the below.  But let me break it out.

Quote from: Benoist;609519There are some messages which, after trying to deliver them a good dozen times on a variety of topics ranging from players charming Giants to setting up your Dragon's lair to ditching the XP system to bitching about how wizards suck to alignment, you need I think to bring together and into sharp forcus for everyone to see. Sometimes, that means kicking the door and dropping the niceties.

I have a lot of opinions on what makes a game fun.  I enjoy discussing gaming, and that's why I'm here.  On some issues, I seem to be in a distressingly small minority, but that's okay.  In some issues I'm on the side of the majority.  Either way, there's value in discussing these differences.  The threads that say 'what do you like' that turn into a simple list with no discussion - talk about innane.  So, in general, I think it's more productive to discuss areas where we are not in agreement - and why.  In this thread, I explained that I enjoy 'dark shades of gray'.  Removing alignment helps facilitate that.  In my games, killing orc babies is bad.  Why?  Orcs aren't 'evil' because there is no alignment.  'Good' characters then have an obligation to judge orcs based on their actions.  Other people have said that 'good' characters face that burden.  I find it easier to encourage that behavior when we remove the labels.  

Orcs are dangerous, orcs are uncivilized, orcs are likely to kill even defenseless humans - but they're more complex than simply being evil in my games.  They exist on marginal lands (forced from more fertile areas by better organized races [ie, humans]) and disdain farm work.  Their society encourages bravery and the 'warrior cult'.  Orcs that seek to advance within their society must bring wealth, food, and prestige to their tribe.  This forces them into conflict with wealthy farmers.  Now, the players don't have to care why the conflicts exist - they can kill the bad orcs that burned a farmstead, and that's fine.  Or they can explore the pathos of the orc point of view - living in hungry squalor, despised if they try to travel among 'civilized' peoples.  American frontiersmen never bothered to ask if maybe they were in the wrong to displace a hunter/gatherer society, and they were quick to point out that Native Americans were wrong to raid and pillage.  I think there is blame to go around, and the game is richer with complex motivations.  In this thread, I'm trying to explain why.  And if you don't agree, that's fine.  We don't have to agree. But this...?

Quote from: Benoist;609519SO. I'm sorry. I know you've made it a habit of blaming the game for your own inadequacies as a player and DM, but that doesn't make it a fact or objective "problem" everyone experiences, or must deal with for you.

My posts are here for everyone to look at, but if you've taken it that I'm 'blaming the game' for my 'inadequacies as a player and a DM', you're sadly mistaken.  Firstly, as others have said here many times, 'play the game, not the rules'.  The 'game' isn't broken, but sometimes the rules are.  And if everyone 'changes the rules' in the same place or under the same conditions, that'd be a pretty compelling argument that the rules themselves are broken.  So, if you don't play RAW, you're really already agreeing that the rules as written don't work at least in some times and some places.  If you are playing RAW, then we should discuss whether you have similar issues as I do when I play RAW.  

So, if you want to summarize my position, I think this would do:
In an ideal world, the rules as written would support the wide variety of game-styles that exist with no modification.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519It's really your problem at your game table if you interpret Good and Evil in those terms, and if just slaughtering Evil at every turn in every single circumstance is clearly the Good Thing To Do for a character, with no negative consequences whatsoever ever arising from such choices during the game and campaign, no choices in the balance, no Greater Good to consider when making a decision about a particular individual, no complications ever coming into the picture ever, and that slaughtering mindlessly is itself somehow a Good act "because team jersey". (note that some people play alignment like this and don't have a problem with it whatsoever, which is totally cool for them, but that's not your case apparently, since you bitch about it now)

Again, that's not my problem.  I don't interpret good and evil that way.  I was pointing out that the 3.x PHB and DMG DO interpret evil that way.  I hate it because you could arbitrarily flip good and evil and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  If you're going to bother with alignment, you have to have a good reason why 'good' people don't make a habit of torturing 'evil' people.  3.x justifies murder-hoboism by explaining that the people you're killing (even if they haven't done anything bad) deserve it because they're objectively evil.  Personally, I find that a cop-out, and would love to explore whether anyone actually uses the alignment rules as presented in 3.x and whether that did cause any problems...  The LG paladin might be able to justify the suffering of an objectively evil creature if greater good will come of it - but I like to hold my paladins to a higher standard.  Rather than an 'alignment' or a 'cosmic jersey', if I have a player that's interested in that type of character, we'll work out what, exactly, that means.  A 'code of conduct' grounded in the character's faith becomes a much more interesting role-play tool than the shorthand of 'LG'.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519It's a problem with your and your players interpretation of alignment, and not a problem with alignment itself.

Again, since I really want to stress this - I'm using the interpretation in the PHB and DMG 3.x edition.  This is not my interpretation of alignment.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519Stop blaming the game for your inadequacies, for your laziness or lack of imagination and adaptability to the game's assumptions,

I enjoy playing RPGs.  I am not lazy.  I have no lack of imagination.  I have fun, so I must be doing it right.  I'm happy to talk about what I do differently to make it even more fun.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519and please. Pretty please. Stop wanting the game's designers change it just because they ought to catter to those same inadequacies.

So, what?  I'm supposed to let you tell the designers of 5th edition how they should make it so they can cater to your inadequacies?  I just don't understand why it's a problem to try to tell a producer of a product what you'd really like.  Especially when and if they ask for feedback.  But this forum isn't really about talking to the 'game's designers'.  This is about having conversation with gaming enthusiasts about the games we're enthusiastic about.  And if I bring up something that another enthusiast hadn't really thought about, but it creates a positive change in their game, how is that a bad thing?  And if I bring up a suggested change that would be a negative change in their game, how am I obligating them to adapt it?  

It doesn't, by the way.  

Here's what I think.  There are people that disagree with me.  They disagree on such a fundamental level that they lose all sense of reason or perspective when I bring up a point.  Instead of engaging in a friendly discussion, they're forced to stay awake at night trying to figure out how to 'put me in my place'.  If that's the case, that's their problem, not mine.  I'm content to disagree and try to establish my perspective online.  That's what everyone else is doing, and it's okay if we don't agree.  I try to explain why I think differently than others, and I'm happy to have those reasons evaluated while I evalute the reasons of the opposing side.  It's even possible that the opposing side's reason are perfectly valid for them.  You know, valuing different aspects of the game differently.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519It's like the nerfing of Teleport because you can't deal or plan around the consequences of a party able to Teleport here and there.

Again, it seems like you're mischaracterizing me.  Black Vulmea has an issue with DMs that nerf EVERYTHING.  I agree with him.  That's the sign of a bad DM.  I don't think I've ever nerfed teleport in a game I've run.  Not once.  Not one single time.  As a player, I've played in games where teleport works differently, and I prefer that version.  I don't care much for 'scry and die', and changing teleport makes that a less viable tactic.  Since it's important for me to do what my character would do (and often that means choosing to be effective), I prefer having options taken off the table that are effective but less fun than more 'traditional' aspects.  It's really a problem of having too much creativity and proble-solving ability.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519Try to learn and become a better DM, and play along with the game's assumptions instead of nerfing them at every turn, for God's sakes. Sometimes, a lot of times, when you work with a set of conditions instead of fighting endlessly against them, you learn, you become better, because you deal with these elements and become thereby more adaptable, and competent in the end. Come on, try it. It could do you some good.

And you're going to point out at least one thing that I said that I nerf in my games?  If anything, I try to go the other way, and make things more effective.  But you don't have to take my word for it here - you can look at my 3.x houserules posted more than 5 months ago here:

http://dndarchive.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=5&id=30455&Itemid=50

Quote from: Benoist;609519I know. I'm blunt. I just hope against all previous experiences that you'll think about it seriously at some point.

I think about everything that's posted here, especially if I disagree with it.  Unlike some people here, I never put anyone on 'ignore'.  I like to consider opinions that are different from mine, even when they seem spurious or drawn from an incorrect premise.  

I don't really want to have a discussion in an 'echo chamber'.  What's the fun of that?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;609524Concur.


And in this case: Please don't impose your judea-christian values on my possible-worlds paladin. Especially in a game where wizards can shoot fireballs from their asses.

I have no particular affection for judeo christian anything.

I figure each gm should decide what Paladins are like in their game world.





Fire Assball Wizards exising or not, would have no effect on how I handle Paladins.

I hate alignment, because people don't act that way. So I ignore it, change cosmology on the fly, and I don't play 3E+ so I don't have to deal with "Protection vs Law" type spells.

How I handle this in my current campaign world:

a. Almost everyone is a total douchebag.  My players have never bothered trying to "detect evil".  Possibly because some of their characters would light up the place like 100 watt bulbs.

b. The job of clerics and paladins is to obey the gods, whatever stupid cruel petty and thoughtless act they command.  Outside of that, the gods don't care what a character does (and as an aside, there's enough petty rivalries between the gods that disobedience just means a rival deity starts doing business with a PC)

c. When it gets to villains, they are cartoonishly evil.  They all want to conquer or destroy the world.  It's probably something in the water.  A person's evil may often be measured by sheer physical grotesqueness - extra eyes, arms, turning into a giant floating head, etc

I understand a ton of people dig alignment and play with it, but it's definitely not my bag.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609531I have fun, so I must be doing it right.  I'm happy to talk about what I do differently to make it even more fun.  

Of course you're doing it right. For yourself and your table. And there are thousands of role playing games that don't have alignment that do their things right too. And numerous DMs at their own game tables who houserule the shit out of it and just take it as their responsibility to fit the game to their own expectations. Which is great. It's not a question of telling you that you're doing it wrong for yourself, and you can and indeed must do whatever you feel fits your game style and players.

BUT.

And that's an important but. It's one thing to say "hey I don't use alignments in my game and I have a lot of fun that way" versus "alignments are a PROBLEM with the game", "that's why alignments are problematic" and so on.

You are stepping from one thing, which is to tailor your game to your and your players expectations to get the most out of it, which by all means you are required to do as the true referee at the game table (as opposed to the rules or game designers or some dude on forums or whoever else), to another, which is to say that the game does it wrong, that people who play with the game and enjoy it how it is are somehow wrong, that alignment is objectively "problematic" and "needs fixing". That's where you are stepping over the line.

And THAT's where I'm telling you: stop projecting. Look at your own GMing. If you have more fun the way you do it and it's awesome then... where the fuck is the problem, here? IF however you bitch about alignments and say "they're problematic", then that means that somewhere somehow you're not satisfied with some thing, and there I tell you: try to work with the game's assumptions. Flex that muscle inside your head that controls your imagination and use the game's assumptions to come up with cool games and campaigns and situations. You'll become more adaptable. You'll become better, and in the end, you'll have a lot more fun with the game, rather than feeling frustrated, nerfing and axing stuff just to create other problems you did not anticipate, and bitching about them on forums like these experiences speak for everyone that plays the game you're actually not playing by your own choice. They don't.

All of this failing, if you still feel frustrated after trying to work with the assumptions of this particular role playing game in a way that makes your GMing a chore, it might be time to either select a different game system to run your game with (and game systems in same broad fantasy genre that do not use alignment are legion, including d20 variants using most of the other rules of the D&D game, I might add), or to create your own role playing game system the way Lord Vreeg and others have done here.

It STILL doesn't mean that the designers of the D&D game must somehow bend over backwards, wreck thousands of perfectly fine campaigns out there with a game change that invalidates whatever they do at their own game tables, split the fanbase ever further into oblivion and nuke alignment for everyone because of your own inadequacies using them. This also goes for Wizard versus Fighter, for Experience Points, and for the shitloads of other things we've talked about in the past.

Quote from: PatW;609544I hate alignment, because people don't act that way.

This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

Well said. Alignment is a result of ones intent and actions.

That is how I see alignment anyway.

Alignments are bullshit and always have been.

Thats why I prefer a system where an 'alignment' isn't built into things. The character has choices to do Good or Evil.

I thought Pundit's question and thread title was about 'Evil', not alignments.


- Ed C.

Alignments are just one of the many ways in which role playing games can bake the notions of "objective/cosmic Good and Evil" into the physics of the world. Given the importance of the D&D game and its popularity, it's natural that, when the question pops up in a general way about role playing games, it comes back to the game that started it all, somewhere, somehow, sooner or later.

Quote from: Koltar;609558Alignments are bullshit and always have been.

Thats why I prefer a system where an 'alignment' isn't built into things. The character has choices to do Good or Evil.

I thought Pundit's question and thread title was about 'Evil', not alignments.


- Ed C.

The thread did drift a bit.

Back to Objectivity of Evil?


I prefer shades of Grey, but pure evil has its place as well. For me, Pure evil would mostly be some planar entities.

 


50 Shades of Grey is the best evil

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

Absolutely right.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609521And you have a better fundamental grasp of morality than 3.x designers.  But they do have a point.  In an objective system of morality, the 'cosmic jersey' version, eliminating anyone on the other teams would represent a 'victory' for your side.  And if Gods actually receive power from their worshippers, killing the worshippers of evil gods would legitimately cripple the deities they serve.  Thus, killing evil creatures can become something distasteful but considered 'necessary'.  An evil orc would be akin to a rabid wolf - it's not your fault that they need to be put down, but someone has to do it.  

Anyways, the way 'real alignments' can influence setting logic and justify that type of behavior is what I really object to.  Removing alignments means that there are no 'sides'.  Everyone can stake out a position that might appear somewhat inconsistent, even hypocritical - and that's okay.  That's like the real world.  It's okay that some people profess that they should 'remove the plank from their own eye before the sliver from their neighbor's eye' and still harass women entering a family planning clinic.

And while several people have avoided conflict at the table regarding alignment, I think it's pretty clear that just about any...personality... can be justified by any alignment.  Others have pointed out that in the 3.x Player's Handbook the description for the monk (lawful) and the wizard (chaotic) are virtually the same regarding their dedication to their craft.  If the labels mean nothing, they're unnecesary.  If the labels do mean something, but it makes the game more interesting to remove them, they're unnecessary.

I would argue it would only be "objective" if were actually real. Since these are merely games, and further games based on ideas and conditions which do not exist, they can mean, and function, any way we want them to when playing the game. this means that when I post about this stuff, it is and should be a given that everything I'm posting is IMO only. I always assumed in games I have both played in, and ran, that alignment being a "team jersey" is only and strictly in a meta-game/game-aid sense and should not be taken as more than that. In that spirit, alignment detection would function perfectly in the ways described in this thread and in the earlier editions rules, and at least in the games in which I've both played and run, alignment should not be used to "justify" anything because the characters themselves, whether "god" or "mortal" would not ever think in terms of "CE" or "LG". They would think only of their goals, principles, spheres (in the case of gods and their followers) of influence/power, and beliefs. The alignments were and are tools for the players used to provide a very general guide to how the characters will act/react and what their goals might be. This means that whether they are seen as "team jerseys" or not, my characters, both PC and NPC, think more in terms of what the alignments describe than in alignments themselves. Frex, my paladin was both lawful, and good. He valued the sanctity of life and the justice and safety of order above all else. He championed those values for all beings, even the ones others might consider undeserving of his efforts. His concern was to "save" others, in both a temporal and spiritual sense, so any being capable of change in his opinion deserved all the chance they could get to be allowed to do so. Only if the being willfully and directly threatened the life or safety of another being would he use direct and deadly force, and even then would be heart-broken about it. To me (the operative phrase IMO), this best represented both his own values and the values of the deity of peace, healing, and renewal that he championed. The way I read the D&D alignments, a more "Judge Dredd" style of champion would be better modelled (which is all alignments are meant to do) by the LN alignment. I have never witnessed it at the actual table, but the stories I read online about these avenging paladins that smite first and ask questions later are run by players that are forgetting or ignoring that the LG alignment has two components, both lawful and good. All, this, of course, is just IMO and if anyone likes to play the Dredd style of paladin, then rock on.

This is basically how I see even "team jersey" alignments then. It's a tool for the players... basically a short-hand for the complex components of a real person's morality, just like all other rules and mechanics in a RPG. It's meant to be abstract and meta-game only, just like AC, HPs, levels and attributes. Don't like it? By all means, toss it, and rock on. Like it? Then don that team jersey and rock on. Hope that helps clarify my position.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

If that were the case, then I would agree that alignment reflects what you do. As it stands in most editions of D&d, it does not reflect what you do and the rules clearly imply that it is a model for behaviour than the other way around.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

I actually played, once upon a time, in a game where the players did not choose their alignments at all. The Dm assigned the character an alignment in his notes about the character based on how the character was played, and alignments in general were never mentioned even when using detect alignment spells. The DM would just describe what the target was thinking/feeling and their "alignment" (in other words their values/beliefs/goals) would be interpreted and evaluated from that. The alignments were reserved in that game for the DM's use only as a short-hand for different character's general behavior and who/what hey might or might not get along or agree with.