Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

... 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]

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]

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).