Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Ratskinner]

In practical terms, can I just chose no aspects if I do not want my character to be encumbered by these rules? It seems I cannot. Is a difference of opinion over what an aspect means impossible, or even unlikely? I suspect it occurs, but I have no experience with the system.

You can certainly choose your slate of 5 aspects such that no (or very few) moral/ethical concerns are relevant. Aspects in Fate cover much more ground than alignments do in D&D, including some parts of what D&D does with class and the like. To implement them as a replacement for alignment while preserving the rest of D&D's mechanics would be necessary, and I couldn't guess right off how that would look.

IME, it is rare for players to reject their chosen alignment, especially without having made the conscious decision that the character is changing alignment. How easy is it to change aspects in Fate (again, I have no experience with the system)?

Changing aspects is a regular part of character development in Fate. It can happen more often under certain circumstances within the game.

Sounds like GM judgment of my play, whether consistent or inconsistent with my stated moral philosophy, results in access to, or denial of, my character abilities.

See my other response, but it doesn't end up working that way.

It seems like I can choose a D&D character who is not very much affected by alignment, but I get the sense an aspect-less Fate character is not viable. In that sense, my mechanics are even more linked to the GM’s assessment of my play within the parameters I set out.

As I noted above, aspect-less would be...well you'd be playing Fudge instead of Fate. However, you can certainly choose a set of aspects that generally ignore morality/ethics. Also, as I pointed out to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], you get to specify the aspects much more precisely than you do alignments. Compels are not generally "assessments" of your play, but attempts to offer hooks for further play direction based on your aspects.

It’s interesting that wrapping the same mechanical issues in different terminology results in a completely different view from at least some players, but that seems to be the reality.

I note that its hard to convey such things without actual play experience, but I hope I've done a bit (mostly in response to Imaro) to indicate how they are actually quite different.

 

[Imaro]

First, those sorts of things (genre) are usually decided before you're writing aspects. Second, strictly speaking, they don't have to be. A Fate GM comes (or can come) to the table with a lot less control over the specifics of the setting than a D&D GM. Many Fate GMs come to the game with no prep whatsoever, allowing play to define the world.

The fact that you are playing D&D (with alignment) is decided beforehand as well... And while it's possible to run Fate without any setting the multitude of games that smack a setting on it from Legends of Anglerre and Spirit of the Century to Dresden Files and the two Fate World books released for core I would'nt consider running with absolutely no setting in mind the norm or even a majority. In fact here are some relevant quotes from the Fate Core book...

"The first step in setting up your Fate game is to decide what sort of people
the protagonists are and what sort of world surrounds them..."

"Decide what the world that surrounds the protagonists is like.
You’re probably already familiar with the idea of a setting, but in short, it’s
everything that the characters interact with, such as people, organizations
and institutions, technology, strange phenomena, and mysteries (crime,
intrigue, and cosmic or historical legend)..."

"If you’re using a setting that already exists, from a movie, novel, or other
game book, then many of these ideas are ready for you to use."

"If you’re inventing a setting, you have more work cut out for you. It’s
beyond the scope of this chapter to tell you how to make a setting; we’re
assuming you already know how to do that if that’s what you’re choosing to
do. "

Now while they do give advice about not defining everything (which I think is impossible in creating your own setting any way, it seems pretty clear from the advice in the book that the assumption is that there will be a setting...

To an extent, I actually agree with you here. The big problem with alignment in this regard is that it is (obviously, just look at the history of alignment threads) not very clear or specific enough what those choices actually entail. That is, you effectively aren't bound by a specific set of moral rules, you're bound by a line that the DM circumscribes for your alignment, and which you very well may not know what that is. In the editions where stepping over that line is like blowing a fuse...this becomes a trap.

Aspects aren't very clear or specific either, here are just a couple threads from Rpg.net where the breadth of aspects and/or how to adjudicate them is called into question by people trying to play Fate, and there are plenty more if you look for them...

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?393808-Fate-Breadth-of-aspects

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?672688-FATE-Aspects-Question-Opinions

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?601989-FATE-Aspects-amp-Potential-Abuse

I'd make a distinction between characters who have powers based on alignment (which might include simply using spells) and characters whose powers are subject to significant disempowerment through alignment violation. That is, if a caster finds that Know Alignment isn't working quite like he wishes, that's hardly the same thing as the paladin or cleric suddenly discovering that he's been acting out-of-bounds and discovering that he's effectively a second or third string fighter now. More to the point, though, the DM doesn't have any mechanical means of pushing your alignment.

Sure he does, items, spells, certain creatures, magical effects, etc. that are tied to alignment... The thing is it's up to the DM how common or uncommon these mechanical pushes are (perhaps every magic item has an alignment necessary for its use, perhaps none do)... unless a player signals (by playing a character who is based upon the alignment system as part of their class) that he or she wants to be pushed by alignment as part of regular play...

That is, you often hear people say "The powers of the paladin are a reward for his following the strict code." Which not only encourages the DM to be strict with the paladin player in a way that they are often not for say bards or monks, but leaves you with no mechanism to effect such a reward relationship between the paladin and his code. That is, Paladin A helped 50 orphans and Paladin B didn't do anything but kill a few orcs and take their stuff....yet they receive the same benefits. You are not empowered by your behavior, only risking disempowerment. There is no method or incentive for the DM to do anything to "push" your code, only for him to set up traps where you play "guess what the DM thinks is Lawful Good." (Some DMs, I will note, allow things like religion checks to discern this.)

Experience points... I believe 2e, (though I could be wrong) has rules for ad hoc XP and I know 3.x does, holy weapons and armor, etc, so yes you do have a way of rewarding the paladin who helped 50 orphans... more xp, magical armaments, etc.

This is patently not the case with aspects.

Yes aspects also work on a reward/punishment system, I already said this and commented on how similar to alignment they are, IMO...

In systems like Fate, where mechanics are strongly tied to fictional positioning, its not the mechanical effects that matter, but when and how they can be used. In this case, you can have two "paladinic" character that are otherwise identical on the sheet, but one has Defender of the innocent and the other has I am the swordarm of Pelor for aspects. Those aspects will not only trigger in different circumstances and be used in different ways, but through compels will push the story in different directions from the start (when the GM is looking for compels.) There is nothing about alignment mechanics in D&D that gives players a similar influence on play.

I never claimed alignment did... but since the aspect "Paladin of Pelor" is in effect my class and deity in D&D, I think a more fair comparison is does the class paladin in D&D provide me with just as much influence or more in play... I would say yes.

Not so. Your aspects are always true. So if your sheet says "paladin" then that's true about the character. The GM cannot change that (directly anyway). You may not be able to invoke it right now, and that may or may not be because of this aspect and compels, but you are still a paladin and other parts of the game and fictional positioning do not change because of a lack of Fate points. That is, if NPCs know of it, they still react as if you are a paladin; if you get different trappings for skills by being a paladin, they are still in effect; etc.

Yes and if a fallen paladin continues to dress and act like a paladin even though he has lost his powers... fiction wise no one would know the difference... He still can't use the mechanical abilities of a paladin, and without fate points neither can your Fate paladin... he has effectively fallen until he gets more Fate points,

Except that you, the player, get to define what it means for you when you write the aspect(s) down. They are distinctly not "up to the judgement of the GM." You don't need to leave much room for the GM to "wiggle". Now, if you want (as you suggest some players do) to have that experience, then just write "paladin" for an aspect and go, presumably the GM will be aware of what you mean by that and later give you that. However, if you really want to play a saintly character...writing Defender of the Innocent down doesn't really give as wiggle room, does it? The GM can only really compel that by setting up innocents in trouble, using it like an adventure hook. If you say you want to play a Defender of the Innocent and right off the bat decline to defend innocents three times in a row...that's on you, not the GM. He's just listening to your signals...which were apparently not in sync with what you wanted. Unlike D&D, you are not suddenly de-paladinized. You have, however, severely limited your ability to impact the future story.

Well I would argue that you aren't de-palanized because "Defender of the Innocent" isn't an aspect that corresponds to being a D&D paladin. Any class in D&D could characterize itself as a "Defender of the Innocent" and if you pick one without alignment underpinnings... well then you aren't beholden to any type of code except the one you set for yourself.

As far as wiggle room goes... what entails an innocent, someone with no sins, someone who has never committed an evil act(how do we determine if it was or wasn't an evil act??), someone who hasn't committed an evil act you are aware of, even mistakenly... or are all common people innocents?

Also defend against what exactly? Everything??

I would also point out that Fate includes "modules" called extras, some of which would definitely help a group play out a "fall and redemption" story, if they wanted such a thing. However, extras can have a wide variety of impacts on play.

Yes, and 3.x has a ton of alternate, well... everything that would definitely help a group play out a "fall and redemption" story... or even use something other than alignment but I thought we were discussing the main rules, not add-ons

Just to repeat, its the player not the GM who gets to decide their aspects (although you should really listen if your table mates express confusion about them.) If a player puts down Paladin on their sheet, I'm immediately going to ask for more specification or what they want out of it. This is not a special case, I'd do the same for Wizard or Thief or Chaotic, one-word aspects are not very helpful. In practice, it is very much not the same thing for a would-be paladin in D&D.

Yes and some/many/most people would do the same with alignment... Not seeing why missing clarity can be sought through discussion in one game... but for some reason not the other.

 

[Desdichado]

Not necessarily without alignments, but under the [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] model that the player is the sole arbiter of morality for his character, and that all determinations of "objective" morality and/or the moral code of all entities other than player characters are determined through play, never through preconceived notions. However, as indicated above, it doesn't seem that this espoused preference is actually implemented as strictly as it is described.

It seems to me that there's an inherent assumption or subtext behind your model that players are assumed to be bad, and the GM needs tools with which to control them.

Where you see pemerton's model as "not strictly implemented", I see it as "about what I'd expect, assuming that you play with reasonable people."

As is frequently the case, it often seems that bad mechanics are designed to inhibit presumed people/behavior problems. If you can make the assumption that people/behavior problems aren't likely to exist, or that if they do, mature and reasonable players can resolve tham in a mature and reasonable manner, then the mechanics are merely bad.

To hear your (and many others) description of why alignment is so necessary, and how it contributes to the gaming experience, all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "players are bad, and need to be controlled, or else their bad behavior will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn."

 

[Imaro]

It seems to me that there's an inherent assumption or subtext behind your model that players are assumed to be bad, and the GM needs tools with which to control them.

Hmmm, I would say this is no more of an inherent assumption by those who like alignment than the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation) need tools to counteract GM control...

To hear your (and many others) description of why alignment is so necessary, and how it contributes to the gaming experience, all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "players are bad, and need to be controlled, or else their bad behavior will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn."

And in the same vein I could claim all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "GM's can't be trusted or relied upon to fairly adjudicate the cosmological forces they created for their world and need to be dis-empowered or else their unchecked creative control over the setting will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn...

Of course in reality I think the positions have much more nuance to them than either of us is presenting in these posts...

 

[Imaro]

Assuming 1-2 and the already considerable overhead (mental, clerical, administrative) inherent to 3 are indeed indisputable facts for a given group, of what use is standard D&D alignment?

I'll just quote Umbran in answer to this question...

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

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

 

[Desdichado]

Hmmm, I would say this is no more of an inherent assumption by those who like alignment than the assumption of the opposite side is that all GM's are assumed to be bad and the players (who all altruistically put aside their own self interest in every situation) need tools to counteract GM control...

No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess. That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good. The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.

And in the same vein I could claim all I hear (and I admit to be paraphrasing in a very generalist way) is "GM's can't be trusted or relied upon to fairly adjudicate the cosmological forces they created for their world and need to be dis-empowered or else their unchecked creative control over the setting will inevitably cause every game to crash and burn...

You could claim that, but I'd challenge you to back that up with some specifics, because I think that's completely false. Rather, it's a question of whether or not such "cosmic forces" amount to an unreasonable amount of control in the GM's hands of what has traditionally been a bastion of player responsibility. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the player trusts his GM, and everything to do with the philosophical approach to the game, and the implict social contract between "this is my area of responsibility, and this is yours." Alignment, particularly as it applies to classes like the paladin and certain clerics, straddle that line, and therefore are a constant source of conflict and disagreement. I can barely remember a time in almost fifteen years of being a member on these forums, where there wasn't some form of alignment debate ongoing on the boards. Right now, there's two threads featuring it on the first page of this subforum.

Of course in reality I think the positions have much more nuance to them than either of us is presenting in these posts...

No doubt. But sometimes nuance ends up being camouflage for the big picture.

 

[Desdichado]

All that said, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], reasonable people can certainly reach a point where the discussion is not furthered and we simply agree to disagree. My opinion is based on my experience with alignment, and my experience with many, many discussions on alignment. The discussion in this thread has, so far, confirmed my position, at least to me. But my experience is, ultimately, my experience and not anyone else's. If my conclusions don't speak to your experience, then that's fine. We don't need to end up on the same page here, after all.

 

[Imaro]

No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess. That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good. The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.

Wrong, we've been asked why the DM is a better arbitrator for alignment than an individual player... we've given examples (some extreme) for why that is... but it wasn't the crux of why those of us who like alignment do, I think both @Umbran and @Bedrockgames have given the reasons (at least for me) that I enjoy a game with alignment... but then I guess those don't count for some reason.

You could claim that, but I'd challenge you to back that up with some specifics, because I think that's completely false. Rather, it's a question of whether or not such "cosmic forces" amount to an unreasonable amount of control in the GM's hands of what has traditionally been a bastion of player responsibility. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the player trusts his GM, and everything to do with the philosophical approach to the game, and the implict social contract between "this is my area of responsibility, and this is yours." Alignment, particularly as it applies to classes like the paladin and certain clerics, straddle that line, and therefore are a constant source of conflict and disagreement. I can barely remember a time in almost fifteen years of being a member on these forums, where there wasn't some form of alignment debate ongoing on the boards. Right now, there's two threads featuring it on the first page of this subforum.

Yet you have people telling you that they play games perfectly fine with alignment as it stands so it's not a universal problem... As to whether alignment straddles the line or not, I don't think it does, there are numerous examples where characters have to interact with GM created fiction in order to perform the duties of their class... IMO, your argument is similar to claiming the creation of weapon shops shouldn't be under DM control because without them a rogue and fighter can't fight... or where spell components can be located and retrieved from should be under the control of the wizard's player because without them he can't cast spells... i disagree, the rules of the game are clear about who decides these things, even though they affect players... and it's the DM.

No doubt. But sometimes nuance ends up being camouflage for the big picture.

Ah, so are you starting from the position that those who like alignment are being dishonest about why... or that we are somehow ignorant of whyt we really enjoy it... great way to facilitate communication.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, it's quite clearly stated by many of the "I like alignment" camp--it's ability to curb player excess. That's been the crux of most of the examples given for why it's good. The throat-slitting paladin has been a fixture of this thread already.
.

This is not at all why I like alignment. I am fine with ruthless characters and am not in the business of telling PCs they can't be evil, do questionable things or even live a life of crime (some of my best campaigns have been around the thieves guilds).

 

[Desdichado]

Wrong, we've been asked why the DM is a better arbitrator for alignment than an individual player... we've given examples (some extreme) for why that is... but it wasn't the crux of why those of us who like alignment do, I think both @Umbran and @Bedrockgames have given the reasons (at least for me) that I enjoy a game with alignment... but then I guess those don't count for some reason.

See, what is all this? Of course they count. But did you miss where I pointed out that my opinion is based on years of Alignment Wars stories? There are other reasons why alignment can be used in the game other than to preemptive curb (or post-emptively punish) player character behavior. Sure, I never claimed otherwise. Celebrim did a good job of giving us a few examples of such (although pemerton gave a good counter example of how alignment isn't necessary for any of those.)

And yet, you feel somehow that those handful of examples from two or three people are going to cause my opinion, based on many years of many alignment stories from many, many gamers, to suddenly turn on a dime?

If you think so, you clearly haven't been paying attention to what I actually said, nor are you exhibiting any respect for my opinion. The underlying implication being that the only reason I could possibly think as I do is if I simply don't know as much about alignment and the game as you do. I certainly believe that the vast majority of gamers who use alignment use it to curb player behavior. In fact, I believe that it's existed in the game as long as it has specifically for that reason. And I believe that most--a word specifically chosen to leave wiggle room for exceptions, such as those self-professed here in this thread--gamers who like alignment like it specifically for that reason; because they don't trust other player characters to not burn the game down with excessive crazy player behavior.

I've seen that pattern repeated online (and in person) over, and over, and over again. A handful of hypothetical counter examples from three or four pro-alignment posters is hardly going to change that. And frankly, the subtext of much of this thread has, in my opinion, supported my position anyway.

Yet you have people telling you that they play games perfectly fine with alignment as it stands so it's not a universal problem... As to whether alignment straddles the line or not, I don't think it does, there are numerous examples where characters have to interact with GM created fiction in order to perform the duties of their class... IMO, your argument is similar to claiming the creation of weapon shops shouldn't be under DM control because without them a rogue and fighter can't fight... or where spell components can be located and retrieved from should be under the control of the wizard's player because without them he can't cast spells... i disagree, the rules of the game are clear about who decides these things, even though they affect players... and it's the DM.

I never claimed the problem was universal. For those who problematic player behavior has been a problem in the past, a tool to curb it is not a problem at all; it's welcomed. And certainly there are differences of opinion in terms of "what is the player's job" and "what is the GM's job." If there were not, the whole railroad vs. sandbox discussion wouldn't have any currency.

I'm making no claims of universality here. I'm talking about my preference and my taste and my playstyle. And I never claimed otherwise.

Although do I believe that my preferences, tastes and playstyle are unique and totally without precedent in the greater gaming community? No, of course not. I believe that in many respects--in this respect in particular, not only are they fairly representative, but that many people are firmly even further into the separation of player and GM responsibilities. I think the notion of players taking on directorial stance is downright radical, for instance, and I'm even more or less on that page with regards to players developing setting elements as well. And yet, lots of GMs and games are specifically geared toward allowing those specific things.

Ah, so are you starting from the position that those who like alignment are being dishonest about why... or that we are somehow ignorant of whyt we really enjoy it... great way to facilitate communication.

See, that's complete nonsense. I made no such claim, or even anything close to it.

Nuance is to trees as big picture is to forest. That's not intellectual dishonesty; that's just getting lost in the details and missing the big picture, and therefore coming to conclusions that I believe to be mistaken.