While reading the Lawful Evil thread, I was reminded of d20 Conan's Code of Honor as an alternative to Alignment. From what I remember, these seem to be a lot more clear cut than Alignment, which as the thread shows, is more flexible.

Which approach do you prefer, and for what type of game?

I was wondering if lawful good  characters like paladins would benefit from a code of honor in lieu or addition to Alignment. Seems to me like a code would fit the concept better, for example.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838837I was wondering if lawful good  characters like paladins would benefit from a code of honor in lieu or addition to Alignment. Seems to me like a code would fit the concept better, for example.

That's the way I've seen them run.

Unless I am playing Stormbringer or Hawkmoon, I'm not fond of alignment. I much prefer behavioral norms and honor codes or other prescriptions for behavior for the devout.

Runequest 2 and 3 had nice cult write-ups that gave a sense of what sorts of behaviors devout worshippers would revere and emulate.
Pendragon used traits and to a lesser extent passions to outline cultural norms giving different virtues to each of the cultures. Cultures might share virtues or might find what one culture deems good the other culture derides. To me that is much more interesting than disputes about the true meaning of lawful good.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838837I was wondering if lawful good  characters like paladins would benefit from a code of honor in lieu or addition to Alignment. Seems to me like a code would fit the concept better, for example.

I see codes of honor as expressions of lawfulness. A more chaotic type can certainly have a code of honor, but may rarely adhere to them, or only when they are likely to be severely punished if they do not.

The more lawful you are, the more likely you will adhere to whatever the code is.

Consider the archetypal bushido type character. There are strict social rules about politeness and hierarchy, and all samurai who desire to be in good standing will adhere to them. But more interpretive social norms I think would be interpreted according to the Good / Neutral / Evil row.

For example, a drunk outcast peasant staggers into a drinking establishment says something insulting about the local lord to a small group of a LG, LN and LE samurai drinking together, then throws up on them. The peasant's friends apologize for him (though technically they are not allowed in the drinking establishment either), but the peasant just will not shut up. All three samurai interpret this as a grave violation of class; they can swick off the guys head on the spot because they all have a code of honor to defend the name of the lord, and everyone knows it.

The LG samurai closely adheres to the tenant of mercy (the peasant was drunk, after all, which is a commonly held "out"), which is a common held value he strongly believes in. He's for telling the peasants to drag off his friend, pay up a ryo to cover their cleaning costs, and apologize to the master of the drinking establishment.

The LN samurai is well aware that the public will judge both his code of honor AND his sense of mercy; but he can be apply more lawfulness to his sense of mercy, too. He mostly agrees with the LG samurai, but then tells them to pay five additional ryo at the local temple and to ask the high priest of the temple for guidance. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.

The LE samurai also knows he will be judged based on his code of honor and his sense of mercy (the publicly held value). His first inclination is to slice off this guy's head. He agrees with what the LN samurai says, but also says that he will check in with the high priest, and if the peasant doesn't appease the priest, the peasant's wife and daughter will be sold and the funds paid to support the local temple and LE samurai will come part the peasant's head from his shoulders. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.

All three are conforming to the same code of honor, and the more flexible publicly held value of mercy; but they all interpret the flexible part accordingly.

Quote from: Lynn;838884Consider the archetypal bushido type character. There are strict social rules about politeness and hierarchy, and all samurai who desire to be in good standing will adhere to them. But more interpretive social norms I think would be interpreted according to the Good / Neutral / Evil row.

That's where I prefer something like Pendragon that doesn't assume a universal virtue to mercy. Especially in an historical context where mercy was not really one of the societal virtues for the warrior class. Mercy was not something that all cultures perceived as good for all people.

I'd rather see a more in culture response.

• Rather than Lawful Good, I'd rather the samurai is a devout Buddhist so he talks about some religious/philosophical reason for being merciful, the illusory nature of the world and that insults are just a manifestation of Maya or illusion. Controlling one's own emotions and behavior is more important than harshly chastising some peasant who has not even begun to tread the path of enlightenment.
• Rather than Lawful Neutral, I'd rather the samurai kicked and beat the rude peasant to chastise him and teach him to behave better in the future, but explained his decision not to kill the peasant either in reference to teaching a harsh lesson. Possibly with a reference to not killing the chicken that lays eggs.
• Rather than Lawful Evil, I'd rather that samurai just cut off the peasants head. Someone has to be the harsh enforcer of proper respect from inferiors or soon the social order will crumble. Maybe the

I really don't think they are comparable.

In most fantasy settings (at least those not written by atheists), gods are not only real, but they take an active role in the world. At best things are like the Cold War, lots of plotting and such going on. At worst, it's an out and out full scale war.

But in any event, Alignment is what side you are on.

A code of honor is more how you act, not so much why you act.

And I never really liked d20 Conan's code of honor. Conan didn't really have one, not like the rules implied. He was a murderer, a rapist, a thief. He had no code of honor, not even a supposed barbarian's one. As he got older, he mellowed out.

Alignment is, IMHO, the most idiotic, most poisonous, most contentious rule with which OD&D saddled this poor hobby.

Codes of honor work just fine.

(And really, "codes of honor" are inherently "lawful?"  Nonsense.  Your average chivalric culture would love to have a code of honor as adhered to and enforced as that of your average street gang.)

Quote from: Ravenswing;839120Alignment is, IMHO, the most idiotic, most poisonous, most contentious rule with which OD&D saddled this poor hobby.

Codes of honor work just fine.

(And really, "codes of honor" are inherently "lawful?"  Nonsense.  Your average chivalric culture would love to have a code of honor as adhered to and enforced as that of your average street gang.)

why can't street gangs be lawful?

A code of honour is a set of rules that you adhere to based on principle. They could be the law of Bushido, the Chivalric Code, the Code of the Cosa Nostra or the Pirates' Code. Some people are more principled and truly believe and uphold the code others stick to it some of the time and a large % use it as a way to defend or justify actions taken for their own benefit. A small number of people reject the code on principle and are opposed to any rules governing their actions (you could quote Crowley here is you like).
They are inherently lawful. Obeying them or not is the measure of how lawful you are.

Quote from: Bren;838892I'd rather see a more in culture response.

That was an in-culture interpretation of alignment. The samurai live in a society that incorporates Shinto and Buddhism; and the example I assumed during a more socially stratified time like during the Edo era where public perception is extremely important.

A lawful evil samurai may enjoy tormenting people (or be a weirdo like the fellow in the story "The Secret History of the Lord of Musashi"), but public perception is more important to him. He can publicly display virtue (not killing the guy and leaving it up to the priest), while decreeing a non-compliance penalty that's extremely harsh but otherwise acceptable to a public that abhors non-compliance to social norms.

Quote from: Ravenswing;839120Alignment is, IMHO, the most idiotic, most poisonous, most contentious rule with which OD&D saddled this poor hobby.

Yes.
Seriously, how does the alignment system in any way or form actually contribute to the game? What is the advantage of having it? The best outcome when using alignments in the D&D I have ever seen were based on more or less complete ignorance of it. Usually, the only thing the alignments ever do is creating stupid arguments and unnecassary interruptions of the game flow.
I'm lukewarm at best when it comes to the code of honour system as far as I remember it but it is far, far superiour to the usual alignment system.

Quote from: Beagle;839163Yes.
Seriously, how does the alignment system in any way or form actually contribute to the game? What is the advantage of having it? The best outcome when using alignments in the D&D I have ever seen were based on more or less complete ignorance of it. Usually, the only thing the alignments ever do is creating stupid arguments and unnecassary interruptions of the game flow.
I'm lukewarm at best when it comes to the code of honour system as far as I remember it but it is far, far superiour to the usual alignment system.

the only interesting aspect I've seen is how it interacts with magic.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838837Which approach do you prefer, and for what type of game?

In FH&W, Law and Chaos do exist as "universal alignments", but mortal creatures (thus the PCs) don't need to choose any. Instead, characters may choose up to three allegiances. This could be allegiance to family, to a guild, to a Church, to code of honor of a certain knighthood order, to Law, to Chaos, etc. This is not required, except for certain classes: clerics to their deity, paladins to Law, Knights to the Code of Chivalry, etc.

I think alignment is really useful.

It gives me a shorthand for the base behaviour of an NPC a monster, a kingdom.
I see it as a really useful tool for that right up there with Traveller Tech and Law Levels

I love alignment and prefer a form of it in my games.

As for alignment v. code of honor, I believe Lynn and JeremyR hit it on the head. It is a difference between "how you act" versus "why you act," an "expression of" intent not the source of intent itself.

A solid game example is how in In Nomine SJG you'd have malakim, the choir of virtues. They share similar choir attitudes, though they naturally differ on focus and intent by whose Word they serve. Focusing on Fire's heavenly vengeance is different than Flower's heavenly nurturing.

But where they shine as individuals is when they flesh out their additional Oaths. By swearing upon the manner how they execute their convictions they become more complex among themselves, even if they serve the same Word. They are layered like all angels from core choir convictions, to Superior's Word, but they get an extra layer of code of honor to differentiate their resonance to particular virtues.

Quote from: Lynn;838884I see codes of honor as expressions of lawfulness. A more chaotic type can certainly have a code of honor, but may rarely adhere to them, or only when they are likely to be severely punished if they do not.

The more lawful you are, the more likely you will adhere to whatever the code is.

Consider the archetypal bushido type character. There are strict social rules about politeness and hierarchy, and all samurai who desire to be in good standing will adhere to them. But more interpretive social norms I think would be interpreted according to the Good / Neutral / Evil row.

For example, a drunk outcast peasant staggers into a drinking establishment says something insulting about the local lord to a small group of a LG, LN and LE samurai drinking together, then throws up on them. The peasant's friends apologize for him (though technically they are not allowed in the drinking establishment either), but the peasant just will not shut up. All three samurai interpret this as a grave violation of class; they can swick off the guys head on the spot because they all have a code of honor to defend the name of the lord, and everyone knows it.

The LG samurai closely adheres to the tenant of mercy (the peasant was drunk, after all, which is a commonly held "out"), which is a common held value he strongly believes in. He's for telling the peasants to drag off his friend, pay up a ryo to cover their cleaning costs, and apologize to the master of the drinking establishment.

The LN samurai is well aware that the public will judge both his code of honor AND his sense of mercy; but he can be apply more lawfulness to his sense of mercy, too. He mostly agrees with the LG samurai, but then tells them to pay five additional ryo at the local temple and to ask the high priest of the temple for guidance. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.

The LE samurai also knows he will be judged based on his code of honor and his sense of mercy (the publicly held value). His first inclination is to slice off this guy's head. He agrees with what the LN samurai says, but also says that he will check in with the high priest, and if the peasant doesn't appease the priest, the peasant's wife and daughter will be sold and the funds paid to support the local temple and LE samurai will come part the peasant's head from his shoulders. He then physically kicks them out of the establishment.

All three are conforming to the same code of honor, and the more flexible publicly held value of mercy; but they all interpret the flexible part accordingly.

Pretty much the same thing here.  Your character's alignment isn't as rigid (in MY games) as a lot of the older set seem to prefer (and I want to stress that's neither a good nor bad thing, it's just how they play.)

Quote from: JeremyR;838937And I never really liked d20 Conan's code of honor. Conan didn't really have one, not like the rules implied. He was a murderer, a rapist, a thief. He had no code of honor, not even a supposed barbarian's one. As he got older, he mellowed out.

He was not a rapist.  Not the REH version of him.  Maybe in Robert Jordan's horrible pastiche crap, but I couldn't stomach his version.

The Frost Giant's Daughter also doesn't really count because she was the classic fantasy succubus, tempting him, with clearly magical influence to his doom.  Unfortunately for her, Conan proved more skilled than her 'Brothers'.  And there's no evidence that it actually happened anyway, he could have been entirely delusional.

In all other writings by Mr. Howard, Conan was (at the start) a typical racist and 1930's Chivalric type, almost always coming to the rescue of some 'innocent' girl, he only assaulted one woman, and she was supernatural anyway (Salome.)