Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

Hey, back to Fate Aspects.

An example for someone familiar to comment on. The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.

Player: "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"

GM: "whoa there, cowboy. What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes? You should be cowering back in that cave. Compel. Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."

Player: "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"

GM: "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."

We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated. And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?

 

[Cadence]

Both of you are making what you feel to be accurate assessments of alignment. Neither of you is being unreasonable. Yet, depending on who is DM, one of you is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Now, do you feel comfortable sitting down at <insert DM>'s table knowing that your interpretations of alignment, at that table will be wrong? Will this help you play the game? Will it enhance your enjoyment of this game?

"Seriously, have you met a dictiona... no, no, it's fine. Chaotic Neutral it is."

And then I go on playing the Zen Bugbear like I would describe as lawful neutral. As long as he's ok with me always keeping my word and following the laws unless they seem wrong then there isn't a problem. (Well, I would likely have to resist the urge to continually put myself in situations that show how non-chaotic I am, but I think I could resist... sometimes...).

If he tries to tell me I can't act that way since I'm CN, I'll redescribe my character and let him tell me what words I need on the paper.

If I end up having the Lord's of Order not like me because it says CN, that seems the same as some of the problem's I've had with some settings theologies before. (I had a gnome who was devestated to find out some of the things the benevolent creator deity had in that wold. Definitely made me decide against trying to convert into a Paladin though).

Both of those situations would take a bit more mental readjustment on my part if I were already playing the Paladin and I might have to decide whether the Paladin would abandon his calling or if I'd frustratedly ask to make up another character.

In my own game I tend to take a view like several others have described of letting the players help flesh things out. In the case of the character who follows his own code of honor but wanted to call that CN, I think all of the NPCs would react to him the same way as if I had labeled him LN. I'd have to think on how the spells and such would recognize him.

How has alignment improved your gaming experiences?

The line on the character sheet can lead me to think about issues in ways I hadn't before. Maybe it would benefit from an * with *=If no alignment really fits then choose the "closest" and a pithy phrase describing your world view. Mostly, it just adds those outsiders and some spells.

 

[Imaro]

Hey, back to Fate Aspects.

An example for someone familiar to comment on. The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.

Player: "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"

GM: "whoa there, cowboy. What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes? You should be cowering back in that cave. Compel. Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."

Player: "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"

GM: "Well I guess you will have one after you finish cowering and the Serpent finishes his snack."

We now have an unhappy player whose conception of his Defender of the Innocent character has been violated. And, if the player felt is fear of snakes should override, we could play out the same scene in reverse, with the GM compelling his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect.

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?

You're not missing anything and it's definitely a plausible scenario, but...

Cue the...

"This is theoretical, it would never happen in a real game, a player wouldn't play like that, so it doesn't matter??" statement that seems to have become the universal auto-magical non-answer to any problems brought up in this thread surrounding Fate's aspects....

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but it certainly helps new DMs to have a guideline.

I don't really see how. What problem does a new GM face that alignment will help with?

To give a somewhat concrete (but hypothetical) example: I learn from a friend that a new, simpler version of D&D is available online for free. Curious about this game I've never played but have heard a bit about, I download the D&Dnext rules, plus the rewrite of Keep on the Borderlands.

I get some friends over and they make some characters - say, a cleric, a fighter, a rogue and a paladin. We play through the arrival at the keep. They then head out to the Caves. They have a chat with the mad hermit then invade the kobold lair.

What problems might I have as a new GM that alignment would help with? The most obvious issue I can see here is that the player of the rogue is likely to want to sneak into the lair, whereas the player of the paladin might want to stand at the entrance and challenge the kobold champion to single combat. (Or some similar difference of approach between thief and knight.)

I can see how that would be an issue, both for the players - how do they resolve disagreement among players in a game based around party play? - and for the GM - what am I meant to do if there is a collision between a PC trope (noble knight) and the framing of my adventure (less than fully overt commando mission)? But I don't see how alignment would help resolve it.

I don't recall Star Wars's Dark or Light side capturing that level of detail either[/quote]That's part of my point, though. They're genre tropes, or literary devices for expressing and reflecting on certain culturally significant phenomena. Likewise the idea of the holy warrior. But they're obviously ripe for differeing, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations.

As long as the player is familiar with the trope/device, s/he should be able to interpret it as well as the GM.

So the question/s I pose is: Can the player ever do the wrong thing in your mind?

What do you mean "do the wrong thing?" Yes, s/he can be rude to other people at the table. S/he can get angry at a die roll and storm off in a huff. But these aren't things that I need game rules to deal with - the rules of chess don't tell me what to do when my oppoenent gets angry and tips the board over, either!

If you mean, can the player do the wrong thing in playing his/her PC, then the answer is no. Playing your PC isn't something you do right or wrong. Of course it's something that can be done more or less interestingly, or with more or less engagement with the game. But as long as you're not pissing other people off, your PC is yours to play. (And if you are pissing other people off, once again that's not an issue I need game rules to solve. That's a social issue that I handle like any other social issue.)

There is an implicit idea in at least some of the posts on this thread - and maybe in yours, though I'm not sure - that the player has an incentive to write (say) LG on his/her PC sheet, but then to get the "benefits" of playing CE. And hence that the GM has to police that. My response upthread to that idea, which I now reiterate, is that I don't see how playing an honourable PC is a disadvantage, or playing CE is a benefit. So I don't see how the player has any incentive to do these things. So I don't see the need for GMing policing.

An exception to the above would be if the game is a classic Gygaxian dungeon game, where the players' only motivatin, within the game, is to maximise treasure gained and monsters killed. In that sort of game being LG is a disadvantage of sorts (it puts constraints on your killing and looting), and in that sort of game - as I said upthread - I can see the function of GM policing of a paladin or cleric's alignment. But I don't run that sort of game, and haven't for nearly 30 years.

Mostly, it just adds those outsiders and some spells.

This was the conclusion that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] (and maybe someone else) reached upthread.

It's actually never ocurred to me that someone would think these aspects of mechanical alignment are what alignment is good for - especially becasue some of them, like the full spectrum of alignment spells, only exist in 3E (in classic D&D it's mostly about swords, isn't it?). They've always struck me as downstream bells and whistles added to a pre-existing mechanic, rather than the raison d'etre of the mechanic. But if others see them differently, good luck to them! As long as alignment is not built into the game from the ground up (which it's not in AD&D or in 4e, at least) it doesn't worry me if others are using it.

 

[Imaro]

It's actually never ocurred to me that someone would think these aspects of mechanical alignment are what alignment is good for - especially becasue some of them, like the full spectrum of alignment spells, only exist in 3E (in classic D&D it's mostly about swords, isn't it?). They've always struck me as downstream bells and whistles added to a pre-existing mechanic, rather than the raison d'etre of the mechanic. But if others see them differently, good luck to them! As long as alignment is not built into the game from the ground up (which it's not in AD&D or in 4e, at least) it doesn't worry me if others are using it.

Wait, are you saying spells like Protection from Evil/Good, Detect Evil/Good, know alignment... alignment languages, etc. didn't exist in AD&D? Could someone with experience with older editions confirm this because I thought these types of spells and interactions with alignment have always existed....

EDIT: Another example is the cleric and how his/her alignment affected how they interacted with undead... was this in AD&D or is this also a 3.x only thing?

 

[pemerton]

The character has two aspects relevant to this scene, Defender of the Innocent and Why Did It Have to be Snakes? The rest don't play in. The scene was addressed before - a mother and child are threatened by a huge creature - but not a giant in this case. Instead, we tweak the scene to play on the character's aspects and it's a Giant Serpent.

Player: "I, the Defender of the Innocent, charge forth to save these good folk from the depredations of the Serpent!"

GM: "whoa there, cowboy. What happened to Why Did It Have to be Snakes? You should be cowering back in that cave. Compel. Spend a fate point if you want to approach the Serpent."

Player: "Well, I spent all my Fate points!"

<snip>

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?

You're not missing anything and it's definitely a plausible scenario

I don't understand why the player is out of Fate points, given that the GM just compelled him/her.

I also found this in the Spirit of the Century SRD:

It’s important to note that an aspect may dictate the type of action, but it usually shouldn’t dictate the precise action, which is always the player’s decision. In this way, the compel highlights the difficulty of the choices at hand by placing limits on those choices.​

That suggests that the GM can compel that the PC not approach the snake, but can't compel that the PC cower and do nothing. At which point the PC could use his/her newly-acquired Fate Point, plus other abilities (including his/her "Defend the Innocent" aspect? I'm not sure in Fate exactly how a player makes his/her aspects work for him/her) to do something back to the snake.

Cue the...

"This is theoretical

Well it is theoretical. It's not an actual play example, nor even based remotely in an actual play experience. I therefore personally regard it as having basically no value as a model of Fate play. Particularly because less than five minutes of looking through the SRD for a game I don't even play showed me both the text I quoted above, and also this:

Occasionally a character’s aspects will be in head to head conflict with one another. This should not be seen as a problem — rather, it’s an opportunity for high drama! When two aspects are in conflict with one another, they are both subject to a compel. If the player can’t see a way to act in accordance with both aspects, he must buy off at least one of them. In a number of cases, this can lead to a “zero sum”, where one compel is accepted, gaining a fate point, and the other is refused, spending that fate point. If the player can see clear to acting in accordance with both – fantastic! He’s just gotten himself two fate points (and a world of trouble).

The GM needn’t always press the issue in this fashion. Nothing says she has to compel both aspects. But occasionally it’s more interesting if she does.​

Which, apart from anything else it tells us about the general approach to GMing against conflicting aspects, also makes clear that the point earned from the compel can be used for other purposes in the same scene (such as buying off a second compel or, as I suggested, taking some sort of action against the snake).

Whereas those in this thread pointing out their reasons for not using alignment aren't talking about theoretical problems. They're talking about actual play experiences which make them not like alignment, and in my case are presenting actual play experiences that have arisen in the context of alignment-free play.

 

[pemerton]

Wait, are you saying spells like Protection from Evil/Good, Detect Evil/Good, know alignment... alignment languages, etc. didn't exist in AD&D?

As I said, B/X and 1st ed AD&D don't have the full spectrum of alignment spells. And to the best of my knowledge nor does 2nd ed AD&D.

There is know alignment and alignment languages. They are discrete game elements which can be dropped without changing antyhing else. Didn't 2nd ed AD&D drop alignment languages, and 3E drop know alignment?

There is detect evil, which at least in B/X is not an alignment-based ability (from Moldvay Basic, p B17):

This spell can be used to detect evil intentins, or evilly enchanted objects . . . The exact definition of "evil" is left to each referee, and players should discuss this point so that all are in agreement . . .​

In AD&D at least there is no Detect Law or Detect Chaos.

There is Protection from Evil, but no Protection from Law/Chaos; there is Dispel Evil and Holy Word, but no Dispel Chaos, or Dictum, or any of the "Hammer of Chaos" lline of spells. And there are no alignment subtypes which interact with the general damage reduction rules (which I think is how 3.5 works).

Another example is the cleric and how his/her alignment affected how they interacted with undead

What's the tail and what's the dog? I can have an anti-cleric who commands rather than turns undead, and who casts cause wounds spells rather than cure wounds spellls, without needing the alignment rules as window dressing.

 

[Imaro]

As I said, B/X and 1st ed AD&D don't have the full spectrum of alignment spells. And to the best of my knowledge nor does 2nd ed AD&D.

You also said...

"As long as alignment is not built into the game from the ground up (which it's not in AD&D or in 4e, at least)..."

Yet it seems that alignment is built into AD&D since you still need alignment for these spells and the languages and the cleric differentiation and the paladin class, and so on... to work. So I'd say Alignment is a part of AD&D... now 4e I won't argue with, nothing really interacts with alignment in 4e...

There is know alignment and alignment languages. They are discrete game elements which can be dropped without changing antyhing else. Didn't 2nd ed AD&D drop alignment languages, and 3E drop know alignment?

If this is your criteria for whether alignment is built in or not, then you can do the same thing for 3.x as well... just drop everything that uses it... what in 3.x can't be excised that uses alignment?

There is detect evil, which at least in B/X is not an alignment-based ability (from Moldvay Basic, p B17):

This spell can be used to detect evil intentins, or evilly enchanted objects . . . The exact definition of "evil" is left to each referee, and players should discuss this point so that all are in agreement . . .​

In AD&D at least there is no Detect Law or Detect Chaos.

There is Protection from Evil, but no Protection from Law/Chaos; there is Dispel Evil and Holy Word, but no Dispel Chaos, or Dictum, or any of the "Hammer of Chaos" lline of spells. And there are no alignment subtypes which interact with the general damage reduction rules (which I think is how 3.5 works).

But these spells still affect those of a specific alignment and thus it may not be formalized into a "keyword" but the description of how the spell works clearly draws on alignment.... either good or evil, rather lawful, neutral or chaotic are affected by the Protection from good/evil spell. So is your argument there are less spells, classes, etc. that interact with alignment in AD&D than in 3.x, because that's different from claiming AD&D didn't have alignment built into it's rules... and if that is your point I would say 3.x has alot more of everything in general than AD&D did... more classes, more spells, more races, etc.

What's the tail and what's the dog? I can have an anti-cleric who commands rather than turns undead, and who casts cause wounds spells rather than cure wounds spellls, without needing the alignment rules as window dressing.

I'm not trying to answer this question, what I was doing in bringing up the differences in the way cleric's of differing alignments interact with undead was show another area in AD&D where alignment is integrated into the mechanics...

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am not going to comb through the phb just to find examples here, but off the top of my head in 2E the spell Forbiddance interacts with both the Law/Chaos axis of alignment and the Good/Evil axis.

 

[Umbran]

I don't understand why the player is out of Fate points, given that the GM just compelled him/her.

The description here has an order of operations issue.

Let's say the player has one fate point left.

The Player Says "I try to attack the snake."

The GM now decides whether to compel or not.

If the GM does compel, he says, "Hey, I know you don't like snakes! I compel you to stay back!" And offers a Fate point. The player either accepts (and now has two Fate Points, but will have to change what they intend to do) or declines (and pays his or her last point for that, and can go ahead and attack.)

If the GM does not compel, the player rolls the dice, and then after seeing the die result, can pay a Fate Point to invoke "Defender of the Innocent".

The problem is that in practice, the player will often announce their intention to invoke their own aspect along with their intent to act - "I spend a fate point to invoke 'Defender of the Innocent' to attack!" If you unravel it into the official order of operations, though, there's no issue.

I also found this in the Spirit of the Century SRD:

It’s important to note that an aspect may dictate the type of action, but it usually shouldn’t dictate the precise action, whote

Yep. The GM probably shouldn't say, "You cower in the corner." Perhaps better would be, "You can't approach within melee striking range," or something similar.

I'm not sure in Fate exactly how a player makes his/her aspects work for him/her) to do something back to the snake.

In invoking their own aspects, a player generally rolls the dice, sees the result, and spends a Fate point to either get a bonus of +2 on the die roll, or a reroll of all the dice.

What am I missing in the Fate mechanics, or is this a plausible scenario?

See above, about the order of operations.

The thing is that there is no order of precedence among Aspects. You are both a "defender of the Innocent" and "Afraid of snakes", and the player doesn't get to demand that only one applies, except through spending fate points. If the player is running low on fate points, then in the fiction, we can say the characters running low on willpower - and maybe his fears overrides his honor. If he didn't want that to happen, he shouldn't have chosen that aspect.

Mind you, I'd also say that the "Snakes, why'd it have to be snakes" isn't a great Aspect to have chosen. It is very difficult to invoke positively. Aspects are more useful if they are written as two-edged swords. "Defender of the Innocent" is better - the player can invoke it for a bonus when defending the innocent, and the GM can compel it to force the PC into a confrontation they may not want to get into,.