Alignment rant

Often Alignment is just opinion. We are not given hard and fast rules about how to judge someones actions as "Good" vs "Evil" vs "Neither" vs. "Both". We can all pick extreme examples and point to them and say "This PC's actions are XXXXXX! It's against his alignment! I'm going to note it on your chronicle!" but in many cases it's just opinion. The biggest problem occures when opinions differ. When someone (judge or other player) thinks someone is PLAYING WRONG.

I would almost be willing to except this as YMMV and move on, except I am not willing to except YMMV on something that will cost a player his PC.

I have sat with judges who have ruled my Harlot as "Crossing the Line" into evil just for existing... they would have shifted her alignment to Evil (thus "killing her out") over my objections if they felt they could. On an opinion. Mainly because she has profession Courtasaun, and I RP that to the max.

(Sarcasm alert)
Should I as a judge (or even a player) start trackig each PCs actions at the table each game, so I can decide which of them needs to have thier alignment shifted before the final encounter, perhaps to revoke paladin/cleric/oracle abilities before the final fight? ("Sorry guy, I think giving Ice Cream to kids an evil act, you are teaching them bad habits! Corupting the kids! You know what that does to my diet? You are killing people slowly! and you specialize in little kids cones?! Horrible!"). Lawyer, Tax-collector, Harlot, butcher, thief, Con man, slaver, enforcer, pirate, scribe, bartender, baker, bookie, bookkeeper, ... heck, I can likely ban profession: PathFinder, this is after all just my opinion - as is all YMMV. "It was very LAWFUL of your Cleric to stablize all those thugs - and then tie them up to be turned into the city watch. You realize that they are going to become slaves right? And you a cleric of Cayden (C/G)? Opps! there go your cleric ablilities! Acting Lawful!"(end Sarcasm).

(about PC actions that are out of Alignment)
If you (as the judge) really feel the need, mark the chronicle for the PC. Then maybe even check the last few chronicles on that PC for other judges OPINIONS. That way the player knows your opinion, the next few judges know your opinion and if they see it as an issue it can be addressed. Hopefully by the player.

(rant alert about gross PLAYER actions, skip it if you want, nothing much there...)
Now, if the PLAYER is doing something objectionable at my table - I am not going to ask for an atonement from the PC. I'm not going to shift his PC's alignment. I might not even mark his CR. I am going to boot his a** out. And if it's offensive enough I am going to talk to the organizer and get him booted out of the venue. And if that's not enough, I'll come here and speak to the community to bar him from the game for life.

But I am not going to punish him by doing something in game with his PC, when the problem is the PLAYER. This would be like kicking a guys dog, 'cause he stole my parking spot. And it punishes the other players at my table. You know, the ones there to have fun? Problem player? Remove the problem quickly and get on with the game for the other players.
(end rant)
Sorry about that.

I had a bad game with a jerk at my table a while back and needed to get that out of my system.

I have sat with judges who have ruled my Harlot as "Crossing the Line" into evil just for existing... they would have shifted her alignment to Evil (thus "killing her out") over my objections if they felt they could. On an opinion. Mainly because she has profession Courtasaun, and I RP that to the max.

I really hope those GMs get their noses rubbed into copies of Chronicles of the Righteous. If you ever get stuck with them again in a PFS venue, namedrop Lymnieris. >:)

nosig wrote:

I have sat with judges who have ruled my Harlot as "Crossing the Line" into evil just for existing... they would have shifted her alignment to Evil (thus "killing her out") over my objections if they felt they could. On an opinion. Mainly because she has profession Courtasaun, and I RP that to the max.

I really hope those GMs get their noses rubbed into copies of Chronicles of the Righteous. If you ever get stuck with them again in a PFS venue, namedrop Lymnieris. >:)

you know, I'm very non-confrontational (really!) and am more likely to just run a different PC. I don't know why they have a problem with "ladies of the evening" - and am not likely to learn in the 5 hours I'll be at the table with them.

(I have to "tone her down" sometimes anyway, whenever there's younger players at the table. She can be real PG-13 sometimes).

Alignment is still an element to this game. If players are doing things morally questionable, it should be noted on a chronicle sheet and then reported to a venture officer. If it starts to become a problem, something should be said.

Alignment is more than just a sense of morality, it is also a mechanic. Why shouldn't it be something that players can be reprimanded for? Then again, alignment isn't so much a question for some players. But it obviously is for others.

But with PFS being something where role-play isn't always happening.. it's also harder to...enforce this mechanic? (Is that the right word?)

I agree with your perspective here.

It's futile to argue about the "real world" terms when what is needed is a mechanism that defines alignment solely within the context of the game. Such a mechanism would also provide a guideline on the kinds of actions a character with their professed alignment would or wouldn't normally do.

We can even go outside the PFS campaign setting with this, and make it encompass shifts between LE/NE/CE. There are plenty of Pathfinder campaign settings and quite a few homebrews where PCs can have Evil alignments.

I also would like to see the discussion get a clearer concept of the difference between Good vs. Evil and Lawful vs. Chaotic.

@ FanaticRat:

As far as "punishing players for playing the game as designed", a mission objective that requires an action that would conflict with a player's alignment is pretty much the same as finding a trap the hard way, or engaging in combat, its just the character's fantasy world soul is getting whacked instead of his fantsy world body. Or is a TPK, or even a single PCs death, also to be considered punishment for playing the game as it was designed?

But I like your argument style, and even agree with a couple of your points. Tell me more.

@ nosig:

A well-defined alignment system would limit the ability of GMs to interpose their personal definitions of what is Good and what is Evil, whether that is ice cream or flouridation. In your case, I think it should be more of an argument about Lawful vs. Chaotic, but some people get confused about the difference, and try to make Lawful = Good.

A player voluntarily making his character do Evil actions does not necessarily mean he is being a jerk, although it might if what he does creates dissenion in the party. On the other hand, and not to pick on Paladins exclusively, but they do make such good targets... I have played with one or two Pallys who were excessively role-playing their Lawful Good alignment, and were violating the "don't be a jerk" rule while doing it.

Finally, there is no point for PFS to deny characters Evil alignment if they are not going to do something to enforce the existing alignment rules and restrictions. I am not suggesting that any player kicked out of the game or denied the chance to play PFS just because their character "turns" evil. They just have to generate a new character and start over, the same as if their character had died.

Jimbo:
I have been playing RP games for more than 35 years, and I have yet to see "A well-defined alignment system". Or one that even comes close.
.
I am not expecting to see one in the next 35 years... though it would be nice to be proven wrong.

Well, you got me beat by a couple of years. I only go back to '79 as far as RPGs go, but if you want to talk wargames, I can take it back to '72. Or we could push it all the way back to Checkers (and I don't mean Nixon's dog) in '64.

So I guess we're just a couple of grognards farting into the wind and enjoying the smell. Maybe I should shout "Get off my lawn!"

Well, you got me beat by a couple of years. I only go back to '79 as far as RPGs go, but if you want to talk wargames, I can take it back to '72. Or we could push it all the way back to Checkers (and I don't mean Nixon's dog) in '64.

So I guess we're just a couple of grognards farting into the wind and enjoying the smell. Maybe I should shout "Get off my lawn!"

Yeah, I started RPs in 75 (playing two different games), and wargames in 70 - 71 (with SPI), and games... goodness, checkers? maybe '64 with you? I was doing card games in '63, but only so my sisters could beat me.

I forgot about cards games.

First card game "WAR", with my older brother, in '64 or so. Should count as my first "wargame". :)

I would like to try to put together a "workable" house-rule add-on for Alignment with the following basic assumptions:

[list]

The goal here is to come up with just such a mechanic.

Why? Why would you want to measure something completely subjective, based on personal values, experience, and culture, and then impose it on others not because its fun, but because arbitrary rules? The no evil thing is more to keep out disruptive behavior than anything I've always thought. More than anything, imposing alignment strictly just ends up being upsetting and bothersome when someone doesn't entirely agree with you. We do have rules however, to help ensure everyone is fun and there isn't so much disruptive behavior, and make sure there are warnings before alignment infractions.

Jimbo Juggins wrote:

The goal here is to come up with just such a mechanic.

Why? Why would you want to measure something completely subjective, based on personal values, experience, and culture, and then impose it on others not because its fun, but because arbitrary rules? The no evil thing is more to keep out disruptive behavior than anything I've always thought. More than anything, imposing alignment strictly just ends up being upsetting and bothersome when someone doesn't entirely agree with you. We do have rules however, to help ensure everyone is fun and there isn't so much disruptive behavior, and make sure there are warnings before alignment infractions.

You're missing the point. The entire goal of this exercise is to make Alignment relevant in game terms by negating all of the "touchy feely" and personal arbitrariness problems that YOU say you don't like.

• Do you like the existing Alignment rules?
• Do you use the existing Alignment rules?
• Are you happy with previous GM rulings regarding your character's Alignment?

If the answer to any of these questions is "NO", then that is exactly "WHY?"

If the answer to none of these is "NO", then you must like the system enough to implement it as written, up to and including letting GM's decide when characters lose class abilities because of an alignment change, and you don't want anybody to change the system in any way. (Sarcasm Alert!) Why are you in a RANT forum?

That's enough for "WHY?", I want to discuss "HOW?, and more specifically I want to develop an in-game mechanic that I, as a player or GM, can use to measure a character's actions against defined stereotypes.

I don't want to go overboard on this. The end result can't be cumbersome, arbitrary, "unfun" or forced. Help me make sure that it doesn't go there.

As far as the "No evil" rule goes, that is a PFS sanction, and I didn't include PFS as one of the basic assumptions. Mainly because that particular rule would tend to have more "severe" repercussions that Paizo would have to enforce, and I don't even know exactly how to deal with the minor repercussions of the CRB rules as written yet. How about we cross that bridge when we come to it.

Furthermore, any workable system will have to function the same for any Evil characters that your campaign might allow as it does for the non-Evil ones.

In regards to disruptive behavior, the only difference it makes is to put the wolves into sheep's clothing. A disruptive player will be disruptive regardless of his character's alignment.

So do you want to talk about "HOW?", now?

Jimbo, I would wish you luck in your quest... but I fear that whatever you come up with will drive many people (myself most likely) away from the game.
.
Anyway - good luck "Don Quixote" (really, in a non-snarky way).

Jimbo:

I have been playing RP games for more than 35 years, and I have yet to see "A well-defined alignment system". Or one that even comes close.
.

The best home game alignment system I've seen is Karmic in nature - actions had good and bad karma (and/or harmony or disharmony) associated and it was easy to total up gains or losses for a game session. the system tended to focus on big acts not little acts, but one quantify where one was.

I've not seen anything like it in a commercial sense - but in PFS the author could add karmic values to actions - and perhaps the fact that it is being measured will affect the observation of the effects - sort of a gaming Goodhart's Law - but that sounds like what people would want to see.

Starwars D20 had the light/dark side points - but that may have been the home game I was in.
But even that was opinion (with the GMs being the only opinion that counted - as it should be).

OH! and I liked the way RuneQuest did "Alignment" - where they pitched the whole thing out and your actions were judged in the light (or dark) of your culture/religion/cult.

Let's see. Most systems I play force the PC's into heroes of one sort or another, so alignment is both looser (law vs chaos doesn't really matter) and tighter (always good or neutral)

7th Sea: Players are assumed to be heroes. Damage is always non-lethal unless you specifically CDG after the fact. As long as you're being heroic (and in some cases like DK or Rilasciare, that can still be very dark), that's good enough.

Buffy (Unisystem): The party are white-hats or chosen ones who's job it is to put down evil monsters. Not to say the PC's are necisarily good (Like for my Mafia enforcer who wound up fighting demons), but they're always fighting against things that are worse.

Leverage: PC's are crooks of various types, but they're all robin-hood types trying to help people.

Firefly: Alignment doesn't really come up. But how NPC's think of you does, and is rather important.

Shadowrun: There is no alignment. Everyone is a mercenary doing whatever it takes for money. The benefit of not killing everyone is hopefully the cops will use less-lethal methods on you.

Mage: Um, hmm. Ok, this one's all over the place, and alignment doesn't really enter into it. My guy talked to buildings and helped them commit suicide (blow up) if they wanted it. Being a c**psack world, they often did.

Jimbo:

I have been playing RP games for more than 35 years, and I have yet to see "A well-defined alignment system". Or one that even comes close.
.
I am not expecting to see one in the next 35 years... though it would be nice to be proven wrong.

I would not have guessed you were that old.

Jimbo, I would wish you luck in your quest... but I fear that whatever you come up with will drive many people (myself most likely) away from the game.

.
Anyway - good luck "Don Quixote" (really, in a non-snarky way).

Old Persian proverb:

A thief is brought before the Caliph for trying to steal the Caliph's prize stallion.

"Pardon me, oh Prince," pleads the thief.

"Why should I pardon you?" the Caliph replies.

"Because," says the thief, "I can teach your horse to sing."

The Caliph regards him with one-eyebrow raised, "I don't believe you, but I will let you try. If after a year, the horse does not sing, you will surely die."

As he's being escorted to the stables, a guard says to the thief, "You don't really think you can teach that horse to sing, do you?"

The thief replies, "You never know. A lot can happen in a year. The Caliph could die, I could die, and the horse might actually learn to sing."

I have high hopes, low expectations.

Option 1:

Throw Alignment out or ignore it altogether. I'm not in favor of that. It would screw up a lot of stuff, especially character motivation. Why are you killing monsters and bandits? Because they are Evil. Who's in favor of godless Paladin's and Clerics, Druids with no respect for Nature, Inquisitors with no divine guidance, or law-abidng and respectful Barbarians? Let's throw this option off the table right now.

Option 2:

Crib from another game system. Most of them cribbed from this one. There were Alignment rules in D&D before most of those other systems even existed. Besides ... Core Assumption 1: We don't really want to change anything in the CRB. This is an ADD-ON, not a rules change.

Option 3:

Make it so that it only affects certain character classes. If you don't want to deal with Alignment, then don't play a character that gets help from a deity or spirit. Anybody who wants to ignore the system can do so by simply not playing a character class with alignment restrictions. Wait a minute ... I think that's the way the rules ARE written.

So let's discuss option 3:

Preferred discussion procedure:

• Step 1 - Read the rules.
• Step 2 - Do the math.
• Step 3 - What's missing?

What we need is an exhaustive list of the currently available character classes with Alignment restrictions, so that we can see who exactly these rules affect.

I'll start with the Core Classes:

• Barbarian - Not Lawful
• Bard - Any
• Cleric - Must be within one step of deity
• Druid - Any Neutral
• Fighter - Any
• Monk - Any Lawful
• Paladin - Lawful Good
• Ranger - Any (you used to have to be Good to be a Ranger, now they let any riff-raff in)
• Rogue - Any riff-raff :)
• Sorceror - Any
• Wizard - Any

  Doing the math:

  Out of the 11 Core Classes, there are 6 that really don't care what their alignment is, although I think that Rangers, as divine casters probably should. I'm not advocating doing this, just saying.

  Barbarians have a range of 6 possible Alignments: CG,CN,CE,NG,NN,NE. They probably won't get into any serious Alignment issues unless they decide to go cold-turkey on Rages.

  Clerics have a range of between 3 and 5, to keep within one step of their deity. Smaller range when your deity isn't at least part Neutral.

  Druids have a range of 5: NG,LN,NN,CN,NE. They have to balance things to stay out of corner situations.

  Monks have a range of 3 (LG,LN,LE). Like walking a tightrope.

  Paladins have a range of 1 (LG). Straight-jacketed.

  Without a frequency distribution of player Class choices, and by default making the totally bad assumption that players select character classes at random, and the equally false assumption that these are the ONLY classes available, the best we can tell at this point is that about 55% of Classes are totally unaffected by any Alignment rules.

  I would consider the Barbarian to be unaffected as well, unless the player purposefully restrains from going berserk, or gets some kind of curse that permanently changes his Alignment. So that's 64% of Classes pretty much unaffected by Alignment.I can totally see this happening, though. I might even do it myself to get a Barbarian dipped Monk.

  So we're down to about 36% of all Classes that would be affected, and lots of opportunities to play a Class that doesn't give a damn about Alignment, except for story-telling purposes, or character motivation.

  How about some more data on who is really going to be affected:

• More Classes with restrictions?
• Survey says "What's your favorite Class?"

Or maybe we're ready to move on to definitions of terms?

Option 3:

Make it so that it only affects certain character classes. If you don't want to deal with Alignment, then don't play a character that gets help from a deity or spirit. Anybody who wants to ignore the system can do so by simply not playing a character class with alignment restrictions. Wait a minute ... I think that's the way the rules ARE written.

These are the PFS forums. In PFS being non-evil is a requirement regardless of class. You can't just hand wave that away with "Anybody who wants to ignore the system can do so by simply not playing a character class with alignment restrictions"

Option 1:

Throw Alignment out or ignore it altogether. I'm not in favor of that. It would screw up a lot of stuff, especially character motivation. Why are you killing monsters and bandits? Because they are Evil. Who's in favor of godless Paladin's and Clerics, Druids with no respect for Nature, Inquisitors with no divine guidance, or law-abidng and respectful Barbarians? Let's throw this option off the table right now.

Removing alignment doesn't remove good and evil, nor does it screw things up. Alignment has nothing to do with revering nature. Clerics, inquisitors, and paladin's can already be godless outside of PFS. What do you have against respectful barbarians(especially in a tribal setting!)? Even lawful people get angry sometimes, and even urban barbarian who has controlled rage can't be lawful. Inquisitors didn't need divine guidance in real life.

I kill bad guys because they were doing things that directly cause me and others harm. Not because they're evil. You can be an antagonist and not be evil. Chaos and law, and even good can be antagonistic and at odds. I shouldn't need to be told what good and evil is. My characters have their own personal values, as do I as a human being, and everyone else. I think you missed that.

There's a lot wrong with this statement. If anything you want to instate your ideas and values and claim its for everyone else's good.

These usn't a forum, it's a whine tasting contest.

Your whine is bitter dregs, and since you like to complain about things, but don't REALLY want to have a productive discussion about them, I'm outta here.

So much for high hopes.

Since I don't want to complain, and since that's all you DO want to do, it time fo rme to leave you to your misery.

I'm off to tilt at other windmills.

"Beam me up Scotty."

These usn't a forum, it's a whine tasting contest.

Your whine is bitter dregs, and since you like to complain about things, but don't REALLY want to have a productive discussion about them, I'm outta here.

So much for high hopes.

Since I don't want to complain, and since that's all you DO want to do, it time fo rme to leave you to your misery.

I'm off to tilt at other windmills.

"Beam me up Scotty."

Excellent post Mr. Juggins

Jimbo Juggins wrote:

These usn't a forum, it's a whine tasting contest.

Your whine is bitter dregs, and since you like to complain about things, but don't REALLY want to have a productive discussion about them, I'm outta here.

So much for high hopes.

Since I don't want to complain, and since that's all you DO want to do, it time fo rme to leave you to your misery.

I'm off to tilt at other windmills.

"Beam me up Scotty."

Excellent post Mr. Juggins

Dismissing people who don't like what he says as whiney and saying he doesn't want to talk and everyone else is counterproductive is an excellent post?

Correct Mister Mrsin. After 3 pages I think it is a valid. There is a point where everyperson needs to draw the line and stop argueing their side. If you think he should not be allowed to put his opinion of you in his post or have other agree with him, then you have deeper issues than being whiney.

Correct Mister Mrsin. After 3 pages I think it is a valid. There is a point where everyperson needs to draw the line and stop argueing their side. If you think he should not be allowed to put his opinion of you in his post or have other agree with him, then you have deeper issues than being whiney.

I don't think that's what he did. Nor what I said. Calling people whiney is one of the worst ways to handle things imo.

Personally, I'd call for less alignment restrictions. Which is why I commented on how he disliked option one because of arbitrary reasons and personal preference. Lenience and restriction removes a lot of threat and problems for a class, but in a PFS environment I think it should be more of a talk about what's disruptive and what causes a problem. Which is not where this was headed... This is about PFS and about how someone feels people are acting a little too psychopathic for him right? I don't think that's even an alignment problem, but more of a problem with the players, which we do have steps to handle if I remember correctly(Namely, warn them about alignment infractions while judging.)

I agree jerks at the table are the problem not alignment. PFS is a public game so people that are too difficult to play in a home game often are forced to come to PFS as their only option. Alignment issue with them are a problem. Jerk problems are beyond quoting rules. Becuase jerks will find other ways to be jerks.

Honestly I do not care about you being whiney or not. That does not bother me nor do I have an opinion in the sliughtest. I do not think you are, but I enjoy the way Mr. Juggins writes. Also bowing out I think is graceful. I feel he was writing some well thought out things and you picked and chose what was wrong with his point and were not constructive. So it is frustrating, but I do that too.

Plus who cares if anyone calls you whiney.

Thus far the strangest thing I've encountered was a paladin (lawful good, obviously) and the lawful good cleric of a group disagreeing on how to handle a situation. The party had beaten the final encounter of a scenario--almost. The enemy was largely neutralized having been brought to exactly 0 HP. The paladin then demanded the party to halt their attack on the offending individual. Meanwhile, the cleric moved in to drop the person unconscious. We knew the cleric was incapable of dealing sufficient damage to kill them unless they crit, which wasn't likely with how bad everyone's dice were doing that night. So the paladin actually moves to intercept the cleric, stepping between them and the enemy. Now what the party hadn't realized is that the bad guy had regeneration. It was at this time the creature's last remaining cohort re-entered the fray. Being a half-orc, it hadn't gone down despite being below 0 HP. It provided flanking. Meanwhile the bad guy, no longer staggered due to having recovered a bit of HP, five foot steps to be opposite his cohort. It is at this point the paladin eats a full round of sneak attacks and drops unconscious on the spot. He was left at -11 after it was all said and done. By this point the rest of the party is rushing to defeat the still badly injured enemies and save the paladin. Cleric heals paladin. Paladin gets back up, provoking two attacks of opportunity. He is left at 4 HP. And AGAIN steps between the bad guy and individuals wanting to down him. You can guess the rest. The cleric chose only to stabilize the paladin after that, not get them back on their feet.

Now personally, I do not feel that cleric was behaving in a manner inappropriate for his alignment. He was moving in to put down a dangerous foe, first of all. Paladin interrupted, got wrecked. Paladin interrupts again, gets wrecked again. Both times this cleric saved the paladin's life. However, the paladin's player went off on this tirade about how the cleric needs to be given an alignment infraction. Now mind you, I was DMing at this time. I wasn't playing. I denied this, citing the cleric's willingness to save the paladin in spite of its direct interference in the group's performing of their duties. The player of this paladin proceeded to rage quit the table AFTER everything was done based purely on the fact that the cleric was not punished.

Now I'm no genius, nor have I ever claimed to be. But.. can someone explain the logic of this to me? Also, I would note that everyone in the group was perfectly calm despite his character's moderately disruptive behavior. Both in and out of character, there was no rage other than his own. I personally do not feel this cleric was wrong in deciding to deal with his fellow party member by only stabilizing him. It allowed the character to remain playable and permitted the enemies to be taken care of. Oh, and they did ultimately have to kill the bad guys. The paladin's interference resulted in a change of circumstances where one of the heavy hitters had to step in.

can someone explain the logic of this to me?

If it had to guess, it sounds like a frustrating night for the paladin. Sometimes its hard to think straight. That said, I don't think the cleric was a bad guy for killing the npc, though I don't know if he had any tenants against it or what the npc was.

Now I'm no genius, nor have I ever claimed to be. But.. can someone explain the logic of this to me?

The logic is "there is only one way to be lawful good, its what i'm doing. He's not doing it my way, so he's not lawful good"

Not condoning, just explaining.

Jimbo:

I have been playing RP games for more than 35 years, and I have yet to see "A well-defined alignment system". Or one that even comes close.
.
I am not expecting to see one in the next 35 years... though it would be nice to be proven wrong.

Now that Mr. Jiggins has left ...

In all the years I have played this little game of ours, Alignment has been at best a bit of RP flavor. It has at worst been cause for PLAYER conflict. Sometimes between players, sometimes between players and GMs/Judges. Entire campaigns have desolved over it.

When I started there was just Law and Chaos... yep, that was before the Good/Evil axis was invented. Kind of like before Color for movies... I'm not sure if things are any better.

It just seems like Alignment was invented/developed so that one person could tell another person how to run their PC. "Your guy would do THAT! He's XX/YY! and that is a WW/ZZ action!" Yeap, these arguements have always sounded to me like "I know how to run your PC better than you!". Enforcement of alignment, (which is what Mr. Jimbo seemed to be leading to) is at it's core, basicly, "I know how to run your PC better than you, and I'll make you run it the way I think it should be!".

I guess I'm just to Chaotic for that to feel comfortable to me... and why I said before that if he developed "A well-defined alignment system", that I would likely move on to other games...

I have heard that the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. After 35+ years of ongoing alignment arguments and a myriad of attempts to "fix" the basic D&D alignment system, I find it amusing that players continue to propose changes that will magically improve the system and somehow make it universally acceptable. I'm sorry folks, but this is a fool's errand. There never was, is, nor ever will be an alignment system that will be favorable to even a majority of players, let alone the entire community. Fortunately, the game can still be enjoyed despite our differences.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

I have heard that the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. After 35+ years of ongoing alignment arguments and a myriad of attempts to "fix" the basic D&D alignment system, I find it amusing that players continue to propose changes that will magically improve the system and somehow make it universally acceptable. I'm sorry folks, but this is a fool's errand. There never was, is, nor ever will be an alignment system that will be favorable to even a majority of players, let alone the entire community. Fortunately, the game can still be enjoyed despite our differences.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Yep!

The Beard wrote:

can someone explain the logic of this to me?

If it had to guess, it sounds like a frustrating night for the paladin. Sometimes its hard to think straight. That said, I don't think the cleric was a bad guy for killing the npc, though I don't know if he had any tenants against it or what the npc was.

That's just it. The cleric had less than a one in twenty chance of landing a killing blow. Its physical stats were so poor that even on a crit, it might not have killed the target. Hence why this was all confusing.

Now I'm no genius, nor have I ever claimed to be. But.. can someone explain the logic of this to me?

The logic is "there is only one way to be lawful good, its what i'm doing. He's not doing it my way, so he's not lawful good"

Not condoning, just explaining.

Ah, now that is certainty, and it's one of the most disturbing personality traits a person can possess.

In the game, it can often be followed by "My god has seen that I'm such a strong champion of his divine right that he can spend his time answering the prayers of his weaker followers instead."

Ah, now that is certainty, and it's one of the most disturbing personality traits a person can possess.

Its actual quite normal that someone has a different idea of lawful good in my experience. Morality is pretty subjective, and the way people act on it varies. Similarly, another might see "My god has seen I'm such a strong champion..." as completely arrogant, and void of good. YMMV and all that.

When people talk about alignment, it's always good to take ones self out of the situation and try to look at it without any bias if possible.

Of course that easier said than done.

brock, no the other one... wrote:

Ah, now that is certainty, and it's one of the most disturbing personality traits a person can possess.

Its actual quite normal that someone has a different idea of lawful good in my experience. Morality is pretty subjective, and the way people act on it varies. Similarly, another might see "My god has seen I'm such a strong champion..." as completely arrogant, and void of good. YMMV and all that.

Exactly. That is why the character in my example is now trying to rationalise his certainty in his perception of what is good and lawful against the fact that he can no longer cast spells ;)

I'm sure that both the paladin and the cleric in the original example were sure that they were following the tenets of lawful good. I'm also sure that the one that thought most strongly that the other wasn't, was the one most likely to be deviating from their alignment.

When people talk about alignment, it's always good to take ones self out of the situation and try to look at it without any bias if possible.

Morality is a man made construct made of biases. Removing the biases makes everything neutral. If you view it as a neutral it is all neutral.

I'm sure that both the paladin and the cleric in the original example were sure that they were following the tenets of lawful good. I'm also sure that the one that thought most strongly that the other wasn't, was the one most likely to be deviating from their alignment.

MrSin

The thing is they both were. The paladin was demanding (well past the point of reason) that the enemy be captured alive and taken in for trial, and that he be allowed to fight honorably instead of at the obvious disadvantage of being staggered. Its bording on a near pardody of paladin behavior sometimes known as lawful stupid, but its still lawful good.

The cleric probably felt that the enemy had more than enough chance to surrender and was still a threat to the party, which made him fair game for a mace to the head. Assuming he had some good motivations for beating him in the first place, this is still a lawful good position.

Brock, no the other one wrote:

I'm sure that both the paladin and the cleric in the original example were sure that they were following the tenets of lawful good. I'm also sure that the one that thought most strongly that the other wasn't, was the one most likely to be deviating from their alignment.

MrSin

The thing is they both were. The paladin was demanding (well past the point of reason) that the enemy be captured alive and taken in for trial, and that he be allowed to fight honorably instead of at the obvious disadvantage of being staggered. Its bording on a near pardody of paladin behavior sometimes known as lawful stupid, but its still lawful good.

The cleric probably felt that the enemy had more than enough chance to surrender and was still a threat to the party, which made him fair game for a mace to the head. Assuming he had some good motivations for beating him in the first place, this is still a lawful good position.

Near as I could tell the cleric's objective was still to incapacitate. As stated before, it simply did not have the physical stats to do anything beyond dropping the target unconscious. So ultimately, the cleric and paladin had the same goal; take him prisoner and spare his life. The paladin's decisions did lead to both remaining opponents being terminated, however. The party's proper damage deal was forced to deal with matters, lest bad things happen.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Brock, no the other one wrote:

I'm sure that both the paladin and the cleric in the original example were sure that they were following the tenets of lawful good. I'm also sure that the one that thought most strongly that the other wasn't, was the one most likely to be deviating from their alignment.

MrSin

The thing is they both were. The paladin was demanding (well past the point of reason) that the enemy be captured alive and taken in for trial, and that he be allowed to fight honorably instead of at the obvious disadvantage of being staggered. Its bording on a near pardody of paladin behavior sometimes known as lawful stupid, but its still lawful good.

The cleric probably felt that the enemy had more than enough chance to surrender and was still a threat to the party, which made him fair game for a mace to the head. Assuming he had some good motivations for beating him in the first place, this is still a lawful good position.

Near as I could tell the cleric's objective was still to incapacitate. As stated before, it simply did not have the physical stats to do anything beyond dropping the target unconscious. So ultimately, the cleric and paladin had the same goal; take him prisoner and spare his life. The paladin's decisions did lead to both remaining opponents being terminated, however. The party's proper damage deal was forced to deal with matters, lest bad things happen.

In a way, it's a shame it was a PFS game (presumed, from the word scenario). In a home game, the actions of the Paladin resulting in the deaths of the NPCs, and the Clerics actions would be fodder for some great roleplaying, if the players were both up for it (I'd guess the rage-quitter probably wouldn't be).

Oh, it was actually a home game. I'm just used to saying "scenario" or "module" at this point. My apologies. It was a home game in which the players had chosen to adhere to Pathfinder Society's rules and regulations because that's what they were comfortable with. Suffice to say, that paladin did not return for subsequent sessions. I would note that he was not ejected from the table, though I did attempt to discuss his outburst with him. He simply opted not to come back, citing my "poor judgment" with regards to the cleric's actions going unpunished. Consequently, it was a cleric of Torag.

Torag takes no prisoners if I remember right... Wish that could've been talked out a little better.

<snippage>

Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.

Oh, the players have an 'alignment', they just won't cop to it! Sadly they are chock full of rationale of why their actions are 'OK'. Art imitates life in this case ...

Torag takes no prisoners if I remember right... Wish that could've been talked out a little better.

Torag allows the taking of prisoners if it is for the purpose of getting information out of them, which the party needed to do. That being said, had the cleric wanted to kill the person, they would also have been well within their patron deity's favor to do so. But I digress. In the end, I've found it best to compromise with players in matters of alignment. Assuming of course that their possible infraction is minor enough to be questionable, which they generally are.

Some miscellaneous thoughts.

On Chronicles of the Righteous and alignment in regard to 'harlots' etc.: This is a fun one. Over the huge spread of themes the Empyreal Lords cover in this book, one gets the notion Good (or at least Neutral on the Good-Evil axis) is not so much specifically tied to social norms... but rather, a lack of harm. Even Arshea's write-up mentions basically being cool with a fair variety of things that go against social norms so long as all participants consent and are of sound mind to give said consent. And that's just one deity openly endorsing things that go against what 'polite society' thinks is proper or not; I think there are at least one or two others. More if you expand this to include other controversial topics like recreational drug use and so on.

We are thus given very powerful precedent that in regard to Good, Neutral, and Evil... Pathfinder rules apparently ask "Show me the victim." The exception of course is clearly identified Evil effects (such as summoning a demon), but that's another topic entirely.

On cruel PCs: I don't know if this helps, but it's not all doom and gloom. I've actually seen more 'murderhobos' and cruel opportunists outside PFS than I have in it, and was very pleasantly surprised by this! It helps that I mostly play in semi-consistent groups recruited from a recurring pool of players, though. If you can, try branching out into other groups; I like the ones I've hooked up with and hopefully you can find good ones too!

So far the PCs in the groups I've played with are more heroic than not... or at least they're not psychotic takes on Neutral. They've done one or two things where I've been "Now wait just a minute..." about, but the vast majority of the time their actions are fine. I've seen them take combat penalties to do non-lethal damage on NPCs that had sympathetic reasons to be fighting the party. They likewise handled a recent escort mission almost perfectly; there were really minor bits of mistreatment early on (and I stress 'minor') but it was otherwise done in a safe, responsible, and dignified manner. Their concern for innocent bystanders in another adventure almost derailed the session, to the point where players and GM had to say "we've spent enough time roleplaying this*; let's just summarize the solution and get back on track."

*: And to be fair, this was the case. Nearly an hour spent figuring out how to best take care of some bystanders, and the debate wasn't so much "be nice or not?" but "HOW nice, precisely?" The GM rightly insisted we just come up with a vague summary and get back to the core adventure.

At any rate, the key point is there actually are people out there who play Neutral as "not psychotic, not blatantly cruel and opportunist above all other concerns", and people who play Good as "trustworthy hero that you wouldn't run away from at first sight if you met them in real life." This is a fine thing, and I wish there were more PFS-level incentives for this behavior. I haven't run into entire tables full of truly vicious PCs in PFS, but I have done so in other Pathfinder games and it's definitely disappointing when it happens. So I hope you find some of these more positive examples and are able to party up with them soon!

Silh wrote:

Alignment is still an element to this game. If players are doing things morally questionable, it should be noted on a chronicle sheet and then reported to a venture officer. If it starts to become a problem, something should be said.

Alignment is more than just a sense of morality, it is also a mechanic. Why shouldn't it be something that players can be reprimanded for? Then again, alignment isn't so much a question for some players. But it obviously is for others.

But with PFS being something where role-play isn't always happening.. it's also harder to...enforce this mechanic? (Is that the right word?)

I agree with your perspective here.

It's futile to argue about the "real world" terms when what is needed is a mechanism that defines alignment solely within the context of the game. Such a mechanism would also provide a guideline on the kinds of actions a character with their professed alignment would or wouldn't normally do.

We can even go outside the PFS campaign setting with this, and make it encompass shifts between LE/NE/CE. There are plenty of Pathfinder campaign settings and quite a few homebrews where PCs can have Evil alignments.

I also would like to see the discussion get a clearer concept of the difference between Good vs. Evil and Lawful vs. Chaotic.

I've made a push to include descriptions of the alignments in the guide to organized play so as to better help players understand. Maybe it will happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Silh wrote:

When people talk about alignment, it's always good to take ones self out of the situation and try to look at it without any bias if possible.

Morality is a man made construct made of biases. Removing the biases makes everything neutral. If you view it as a neutral it is all neutral.

What we as players view is entirely different from characters. There are still set codes. Actions taken will fall into one moral section or the other, whether or not we want it to or not, at least when playing the game where there are set rules and descriptions. Character actions influence the world in which Pathfinder exists.

Example:
A N/G druid of Shelyn trying to kill fleeing, unarmed creatures then trying to justify it doesn't fully understand the concept of morality. Was this the player or the character declaring that action? (It was for more experience points, according to the player.)

MrSin wrote:

Silh wrote:

When people talk about alignment, it's always good to take ones self out of the situation and try to look at it without any bias if possible.

Morality is a man made construct made of biases. Removing the biases makes everything neutral. If you view it as a neutral it is all neutral.

What we as players view is entirely different from characters. There are still set codes. Actions taken will fall into one moral section or the other, whether or not we want it to or not, at least when playing the game where there are set rules and descriptions. Character actions influence the world in which Pathfinder exists.

Example:
A N/G druid of Shelyn trying to kill fleeing, unarmed creatures then trying to justify it doesn't fully understand the concept of morality. Was this the player or the character declaring that action?

You completely ignored the point of my post. What you want is a set of rules that decide what is evil, and what is good. Deciding ethics and morals for people is usually a bad idea, and doesn't work across cultures. It isn't universal, and even inside a culture there is variance. Worse, absolutes run into problems. Look at threads on paladin's falling, or the problems people run into with their code. People disagree on subjective things, I can't repeat that enough. Clearing your head of opinions and then making choices about morality doesn't work, because its a subjective matter and there isn't a correct answer. If actions could be held to universal truths, this would work, however its not. Cannibalism is respect in one culture, an insult in another, and completely depraved in another.

A druid of Shelyn? Druid's don't require a deity, nor to follow their tenants. Anyways, its both. The player and group in someway decide morality in some manner, and player and character are the ones faced with the choice and decision. The player dictates the characters actions, ideally not based on alignment, but instead upon a personality with alignment working as a guideline(but never a straightjacket!) There's friction however, if the group decides differently or argues over it. One group may decide that its fine, those are just goblins, another might completely freak out. One character might view goblins as a foe of his race(Torag), and another might give them a chance at redemption(Saranrae), and another might just kill them for xps(munchkin). The usual thing I see about this sort of situation is "Turn it into a roleplaying moment!" where you learn why the character acted like that and their reaction. Another is to just talk things out, but PFS tends to be tight on time.

I one time did have this happen in PFS actually. A CN character decided to go ahead and kill someone who'd dropped their weapon. Table flipped out, player didn't see anything wrong with it. That's sort of when the GM has to play arbiter and say something about it, and probably closer to the problem the OP had.