Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

You covered more or less interesting actions/pissing others off, but what about inconsistency in roleplaying one's character? Are you saying it doesn't happen?

Sure, though I'm not sure it happens more than inconsistency in being onself in real life - or to put it another way, I think strict consistency in characterisation can be taken too far in a non-verisimilitudinous direction. Or to put it yet another way, the play of the PC reflects the desires of a single continuing player, so unless the player's desires in relation to the character and the game change radically, there's no reason to expect any problematic inconsistency.

In earlier editions of the game - the Fighter was very bare in terms of class features, while the Paladin had many benefits. Playing a dishonourable Paladin, allowed one to benefit from all the class features without having any of the social/ethical restrictions. That right there is an advantage.

This depends on how much of a power-up you think a paladin is.

In 4e not at all. My understanding is that, in 3E, a paladin is generally weaker than a fighter. (I could be misinformed on that, though.) In AD&D a paladin already has taken a big hit in having to put 17 in CHA, plus potentially having to put a second decent score in WIS rather than CON. I'm not sure that the ethical restrictions factor in as a further balancing factor. Also, at least in my style of gaming, it's not a disadvantage to be an honourable warrior. And hence there is no incentive for the player to be insincere in his/her approach to playing a paladin as a paladin.

Fair enough. Are you saying players have changed over the years and min/maxing does not occur anymore so DM's are not required to police PC's motivations anymore?

I'm not talking about players in general. I'm talking about my players and my game.

But the min-maxing thing is interesting. Why is it min-maxing to write down LG but have your PC act dishonourably? What is the advantage gained by being dishonourable? In my game there is no advantage gained in that way and hence there is no min-maxing of behaviour. And hence no need to police.

 

[Imaro]

As @N'raac described the scenario, the giant snake is about to eat some innocent NPCs whom the PC in question is trying to rescue. There's your complication right there - and as @Ratskinner has pointed out, it operates on both aspects: the presence of the snake complicates the Defence of the Innocent; and the presence of the innocent NPCs complicates Why Does It Have To Be Snakes.

Here's the situation as it was presented...

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.

The Snake is threatening the mother and child... but again that is not a compel on the character (the fact that the snake is there threatening them does not in any way force the character to act a certain way the GM is not stipulating he do anything), at this point he could just walk away if he wanted to...

Now, in that situation the GM could compel "Defender of the Innocent" to force him into the fight with the snake (and he would get a FP for it) or the GM could compel "Why'd it have to be Snakes" to make him flee from the snake (and he'd get a FP for it). What you don't get is a FP for just playing the game or even for just playing your character (though if this is what is happening it could explain why FP's are so abundant in some GM's games and not others)... it's when the aspect(s) of your character are used by the GM to create a specific situation that you must accept and which you agree to play along with that you get a FP. Again what you are noting is the set up... especially since the character was not trying to defend these people against say a group of bandits and then all of a sudden a giant snake bursts out of the woods to attack the character and complicates the situation (that would be a compel)... the snake already being there and the player being free to determine what he does about it is not a compel... it's just the situation.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps a lack of understanding of the two axis model could be a reason one would not like alignment?

<snip>

To the real world, consider "nanny states" and "libertarians". Heirachical models versus independent action. A leader or a team of equals.

You may have missed my point.

When (say) libertarians and liberals argue, that don't hold one axis constant - good vs evil - and debate the other one - law vs chaos. They simply present reasons for thinking that the other's account of what is good or bad is in fact wrong. (Eg Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia argues that Rawls's claims about what justice requires are flawed.)

Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon. Applying the two axes in D&D produces the relativism that was evident in your earlier post: namely, that it is meant to be true at one and the same time that A and B both agree on what is good, yet disagree on what behaviour is proper. As a sentence in ordinary English, that makes no sense.

And D&D does not provide a "definition" of good that alleviates the problem because it's "definition" of good simply appeals to further terms that exhibit the same phenomenon: for instance, it is meant to be true that A and B both agree that certain behaviour is altruistic (because both agree it is good) yet they disagree on whether that behaviour is proper (because one is LG and the other CG). That makes no sense. In the real world, such people are disagreeing over what counts as altruism, and hence over whether the other is really acting altruistically, because they have differenct accounts of what sorts of interests people have. (As, for instance, Rawls and Nozick do.)

You provided a quote saying "this is the relevant passage". I read that passage and made my interpretations. Then you come back and say "Oh, that's a huge change to my backstory". I thought you were opposed to "hidden backstory".

First, you did not come up with an interpretatin in discussion with me, or anyone else, about playing the game. You confected an interpretation to try and score a point on an internet message board.

Secondly, the backstory in question is hardly hidden. It's completely out in the open! If this were actually a discussion about a character pitch, we're discussing the backstory as part of the pitch. Where's the concealment?

So was your extensive discussion some time back about a character whose belief was that he was rightful heir to the throne (fact of parentage and background) not consistent with BW?

You are confusing an interpretation that you and [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] imputed to me with what I said at the time. As I said at the time, the belief "I am the rightful ruler of this land" was not intended as a factual belief about bloodlines. It was intended as a moral conviction about entitlement. (Which may or may not be backed up by some backstory about bloodlines - is the PC playing Aragorn or a peasant rebel? Burning Wheel has mechanical and story scope for either.) When I say that we will find out in play whether or not its true that you are the rightful ruler, I'm not talking about genealogy. I'm talking about Conan proving he's the rightful king of Aquilonia by treading the thrones of the earth beneath his sandalled feat!

A comparable example belief in the Revised Character Burner is "I shall rule this town from the Black Wizard's tower." The player doesn't have to discover, in play, whether or not that tower exists: it is established as part of the backstory. Nor is the belief a prediction (like a meteorological forecast). It is a statement of intent and desire.

So I'm back to months and levels of play before we discover that the character who claims to derive all of his abilities from his devotion to a specific moral code, being rewarded with these abilities by the deity which supports that code, is not actually following that deity's code.

I don't understand this. Your character is a paladin of the Raven Queen. His/her power comes from the Raven Queen. Where is the doubt?

I've lost track of your purpose. Are you curious as to how I run my game? Are you trying to prove that my game would be better if I used mechanical alignment? Are you trying to prove that I am mistaken in thinking that I don't use mechanical alignment?

Do you think it's relevant to understanding my game that the player of one of the paladins (the fighter/priest who serves Moradin) regards the Raven Queen devotees in the party as a necessary evil? Or that the paladin of the Raven Queen regards that dwarf as a simpleton who doesn't understand the real significance of life and death, and therefore is good for nothing but pointing at foes that need to be defeated? For me, these interactions between players (and their PCs) on the basis of such judgements are at the heart of play. They can take place without any overlay of alignment judgements. And alignment judgements would impede them. (For instance, at least one of the characters would turn out not to be acting and judging well, though each believes that he is. So the debate, and concomitant dramatic tension, would be shut down rather than further developed.)

 

[pemerton]

The Snake is threatening the mother and child

<snip>

especially since the character was not trying to defend these people against say a group of bandits and then all of a sudden a giant snake bursts out of the woods to attack the character and complicates the situation (that would be a compel)

The character is trying to rescue the innocents, but finds them threatened by a giant snake! I don't see how it matters whether or not there were bandits already in the scene - the presence of the snake is still a complicating factor for their rescue.

that is not a compel on the character (the fact that the snake is there threatening them does not in any way force the character to act a certain way the GM is not stipulating he do anything), at this point he could just walk away if he wanted to...

To frame it using [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s formulation:

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake between you and them would happen to you. Damn your luck.​

I gather that this is what is labelled an "event compel" rather than a "decision compel".

 

[Imaro]

The character is trying to rescue the innocents, but finds them threatened by a giant snake! I don't see how it matters whether or not there were bandits already in the scene - the presence of the snake is still a complicating factor for their rescue.

Trying to rescue them from what?? Hint: If your answer is the giant snake... well that's not a complication that is the situation as it stands.

Now within the situation the character can be compelled by the GM to attack the snake using his "Defender of the Innocent" aspect and the player would receive a FP for that compel)... He could also be compelled to flee in fear using his "Why'd it have to be Snakes" aspect, which is what happened in our example ( and he would get a FP for that). What he doesn't get a Fate point for is just playing the game or playing his character. Him being in a situation with snakes isn't a compel because he is not being forced to do anything or act a certain way. In the above scenario, if the GM doesn't compel the character he is free to do whatever he wants... including walk away from the innocents and suffers no repercussions for doing so... however once the GM compels him, it creates a complication because he must do something, or something must happen.

To frame it using @Ratskinner's formulation:

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake between you and them would happen to you. Damn your luck.​

I gather that this is what is labelled an "event compel" rather than a "decision compel".

Yes and if he was rescuing the NPC's from something else this compel would make sense... since the snake showing up is then an actual complication.... him rescuing them from the snake isn't a complication... it's a situation... that's why I included the bandits in my previous example because then the situation is that the character is trying to rescue them. Key Point Here: From what? Bandits...then things get complicated when I as GM say hey, you're near a swamp wouldn't a great complication of this situation (actual rescuing of the NPC's from something) be the appearance of a giant snake?? the player then says "yeah it would" (and gets a FP) or says..."No, I don't think it would be" (and pays the GM a fate point to cancel it out).

In other words...

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs from some bandits in a swamp, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake would suddenly burst forth from the muck and get between you and them. Damn your luck.

 

[Celebrim]

You may have missed my point.

When (say) libertarians and liberals argue, that don't hold one axis constant - good vs evil - and debate the other one - law vs chaos. They simply present reasons for thinking that the other's account of what is good or bad is in fact wrong. (Eg Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia argues that Rawls's claims about what justice requires are flawed.)

Real life moral debate does not exhibit the "two axis" phenomenon.

I didn't and don't miss the point, though I consider your point somewhat irrelevant. After all, what people do does not necessarily imply what they ought to do. Perhaps when liberals and libertarians argue, they would profit from understanding that the are arguing over something other than good and evil, and that disagreement didn't necessarily imply evil or even stupidity on the other's part. After all, I think most people understand that there is a difference between being 'wrong' and being 'evil'. Perhaps a two axis system would increase the nuance of their thoughts. Perhaps the reason that people argue in such a way is that there language is impoverished. But perhaps the reason they don't argue in this way is that law and chaos aren't meaningful concepts. Whatever the case about the real world, it need not apply to our fantasy one

After all, there Applying the two axes in D&D produces the relativism that was evident in your earlier post: namely, that it is meant to be true at one and the same time that A and B both agree on what is good, yet disagree on what behaviour is proper. As a sentence in ordinary English, that makes no sense.

I don't agree with that at all. A good example is the concept of pacifism. Pacifism often carries great weight as a mode of behavior in certain religions and is often held by certain groups as being a laudable moral standard. Equally though, the chivalrous warrior can be held as a standard of virtue. Now it wouldn't be hard to think of religions that had both the chivalrous warrior model and the pacifist as standards of virtue. Within that religion there could (and to be frank does) exist people who admire both modes of behavior and the bravery and piety implied by rigorously adhering to such a code of conduct. This is true even when they don't in fact agree with the code of conduct. The chivalrous warrior could greatly esteem with the pacifist and his reasoning and intentions, and yet obviously disagree - yet it would not follow that the believes the pacifist is not good. And conversely, those that have taken pacifist oaths may esteem the chivalrous warrior without believing such a calling is proper. Particularly within faiths, there can be a belief that there is a single highest truth, but that for humanity in its weakness this highest truth can be difficult to ascertain and a dispute arise over methodology without in the slightest believing that the other person is not good. This used to be called tolerance, before that word was robbed of any real meaning.

And D&D does not provide a "definition" of good that alleviates the problem because it's "definition" of good simply appeals to further terms that exhibit the same phenomenon: for instance, it is meant to be true that A and B both agree that certain behaviour is altruistic (because both agree it is good) yet they disagree on whether that behaviour is proper (because one is LG and the other CG). That makes no sense.

What??? That's entirely common. In the real world I've literally had this conversation recently, and yes, it did involve arguing over what constituted charity but there certainly had to be an appeal to some further value that the term 'charity' didn't encompass on its own. At no point do I think that either person had the sense that the other wasn't motivated by charity. In D&D terms, we were arguing over 'law' versus 'chaos' and through which could good be best implemented. Each believed the other detracted from rather than enhanced good, but neither was questioning the others commitment to goodness.

Somewhat tongue and cheek, I would say real world people when they argue Good/Evil argue a spectrum of good and evil (each saying that they are good), but when they argue Chaos/Law they substitute a spectrum of wise and unwise (each saying that they are wise).

 

[Ratskinner]

If there is already supposed to be a monster there, making it a snake, in and of itself, is not a complication. The character could attack the other monster, or the snake. Having the snake-phobic aspect does not restrict character action by its mere existence. It is only when the GM *further* compels the PC (to stay back from fear) that the character's life gets more difficult. So, putting the snake is not a compel, on its own.

Thus my distinction:

If you make it a snake, you're just setting up.

If you make it a snake, and *with* that you stipulate that the character cannot get close, it is a compel.

If you make it a snake, and the player volunteers, "Crap, I'm a melee character, but I'm scared of snakes, so I have to stand back and find another way to help those innocents," you make it a retroactive compel.

I used to very much agree with you, and I still there's room for interpretational differences amongst Fate players, with the game still functioning very well in either case. I think it depends on the playstyle your group is using or shooting for. My personal feelings on this have changed over the course of Fate's development. The primary change in my thinking comes from playing Fate "freeform" or without very much prep at all under the Fate Core rules. Doing so makes scene and plot framing much more of a collaborative effort, where FP are often exhanged before action actually starts. I can imagine a GM looking at his FP-less PC and offering FP to make the enemy a giant snake just as easily as I can see the later compel to flee. Additionally, I think some of it depends on the context of the scenario in question (are the innocents in question previously established as a goal, how has the aspect previously been established, etc. The monster's identity, for instance, appears to be indeterminate as the scenario starts)...There must be some reason why abandoning the innocents is complicating for the character, or the flee compel doesn't work out of context, either.

To further illustrate our difference of opinion : I'm not sure I actually like the idea of a compel for "you can't get close to it" (however you wish to phrase it) because that, to me, sounds much more like a situational aspect than the results of a compel. To establish that in the fiction, I would (instead of a compel) make a Create an Advantage attempt (Snake's Intimidate vs Character's Will...or similar) then put a "keeping my distance" aspect on the scene/character. (This would also net the player a FP for invoking his aspect against him.) If the player wants to establish that, then he his also free to make a roll and establish free invokes on that aspect. (Probably by using whatever combat skill he has.) Compel results need to be things that either happen or don't, IMO. Having a compel result linger in an easily overturned way is a recipe for trouble, IME. I'm not sure there's actually a rule for that, though.

The more I think about the example as proposed, the more I think the solution is that when the GM offers the "flee" compel, the player counter-offers the "charge in" self-compel (via Defender of Innocents) and uses that to pay-off the flee compel....if he wanted to. Who knows, he may be injured or something and want to flee anyway.

 

[Ratskinner]

Trying to rescue them from what?? Hint: If your answer is the giant snake... well that's not a complication that is the situation as it stands.

The most recent incarnations of Fate don't make much distinction between scene-framing and play. Determining the nature of the critter is part of play (or at least can be), consider the advice on p. 239 Fate Core (emphasis added):

Asking the players to contribute something to the beginning of your first scene is
a great way to help get them invested in what’s going on right off the bat. If there’s
anything that’s flexible about your opening prompt, ask your players to fill in the
blanks for you when you start the scene. Clever players may try to use it as an
opportunity to push for a compel and get extra fate points right off the bat—we
like to call this sort of play “awesome.”

It would be perfectly legit for a FP-less player to happen upon the situation with an Ogre guarding/theatening the innocents and suggest a compel for it to be a snake: "Are you sure it isn't a giant snake?" or better yet "Since I have Why did it have to be snakes?, are you sure that it isn't a big snake?"

Yes and if he was rescuing the NPC's from something else this compel would make sense... since the snake showing up is then an actual complication.... him rescuing them from the snake isn't a complication... it's a situation... that's why I included the bandits in my previous example because then the situation is that the character is trying to rescue them.

It is true that context is critical here. I would say though, that having the additional aspect Defender of Innocents is plenty for me to conclude that the character's interest will lie in rescuing the victims (aspects are always true). The discovery of innocents to defend and the character taking up the challenge is the thing that happens narratively to earn the FP. That could happen as the character rounds the corner and spies them there with the snake, or it could have happened back in town when the character heard about these two getting nabbed by the bandits.

You have Why did it have to be snakes as an aspect and are rescuing some NPCs from some bandits in a swamp, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, a giant snake would suddenly burst forth from the muck and get between you and them. Damn your luck.

That would be legit, IMO, and functionally no different from the scenario presented.

 

[Ratskinner]

In Pathfinder, which already has systems of points (such as Ki for Monks, Ninjas, etc) it would make sense. In 3x it's a little different. But yeah, I was thinking "Faith" points to power Lay on Hands, Divine Channeling, Smites, etc. It's certainly one direction it could go. In this case the Paladin would be earning points for acting with the code and simply gaining nothing by not acting in code. I think some people want a punishment aspect rather than a not gaining aspect. I don't know.

If you wanted to add in the "punishment" aspect, then the simplest method is to have them "buy off" opportunities to act according to code. However, that doesn't handle "sins" that aren't simply sins of code omission. To do that, you'd need to list some "sins" and have them cost points. I think, as you seem to, that whether that's a good idea or not would be a group decision.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a little confused about the Fate example above.

The character comes across an ogre threatening a mother and child.

Is there any reason the player would not invoke the Defender of Innocents aspect? Even if the DM didn't compel the action, why wouldn't the player step up here?