You're confused. I haven't imposed my vision on anyone. No one has tried to create a character for my game since 2010 unless you count the rebuild of the invoker/wizard in 2012 - and on no occasion did I "impose my vision". I talked to the player about the character and where it fitted into the existing backstory. The most challenging of these was in fact the rebuild, because (i) there was a lot more established backstory by then and (ii) it was an elaborate character with an elaborate backstory.
I’m afraid that some hypotheticals are needed to advance the discussion. You have said that it is “player’s choice” when it comes to their PC’s beliefs, and that their veracity should be determined only of Fate on behalf of the RQ in ending people’s lives. That is, you have pre-decided that the character is wrong from the start in his belief that he is cutting off those threads at precisely the fated time in his service to the Raven Queen, and instead the player should accept a patron more clearly aligned with evil forces. I would have thought that you would be open to that character being played, and we can determine in play whether he is truly the Hand of Fate, acting on behalf of the Raven Queen, rather than the murdering lunatic you have pre-judged him to be.
Just in case there is any doubt: you are not proposing a PC for my campaign. You have not asked to join my campaign, and I am not inviting you to do so. (I think you're on the wrong continent, before we get to any other relevant considerations.)
I do not believe we can discuss the issue in a vacuum, which leads to a need to assess the manner in which you would approach such a character proposal. For all your protests, you seem to have made it very clear how such a character proposal would be addressed in your game. The character does not match your vision of a reasonable devotee of the Raven Queen, and as such you would reject such a character. If, in my game, I had a similar view of such a deity, I would reject the character as well. However, this seems inconsistent of your mantra of the GM not judging the rightness or wrongness of the character’s beliefs, but rather allowing their truth to emerge through play.
You assert this stuff as if you know me, but you're just making it up! You have no idea what sort of PC you, or anyone else, might play in my game, because we haven't talked about what the possibilities are. All I've done is point out the received view of the Raven Queen derived by my group from the default 4e material.
Why would a challenge to that received view be so unacceptable to you in play? You have stated that my character concept would be steered away from the Raven Queen, yet it seems like a divergent view of the Raven Queen would place further pressure on the beliefs of her other devotees in your game. It’s OK for a Vampire to be accepted as her servant when you assert she detests undeath – that’s just expedient. Why isn’t a Hand of Fate who ensures each thread is cut at its proper time beyond belief?
I'm not sure what the "still" is doing here.
Take a look at the length of the thread!
Yes, I am assessing the coherence of your proposed PC with the received backstory: for instance, is it consistent with the received backstory for the Raven Queen that someone might show their devotion to her by murdering random people in her name?
As I said, he is cutting the threads at their appointed time. As the Chosen of the Raven Queen, he can perceive which lives must be cut short in accordance with the dictates of Fate. These are not “random people”, but those who Fate has decreed should die at this time, and in this manner. Stand not between the Right Hand of the Raven Queen and his appointed duty! Why is the question of whether he is a true Chosen Servant of Fate (and the RQ) or a murderous psychopath to be decided by nixing the character concept before it is even slightly developed, rather than being answered in play? I submit it is because you do, indeed, judge the characters. You simply do not judge them through the lens of alignment.
I don't see what that has to do with judging your PC. You seem to think that random murder is evil. It would be evil, then, wouldn't it, whether you did it in the name of the Raven Queen or in the name of Demogorgon. If you personally judge a certain sort of behaviour (say, wanton murder) as evil; and if you want to play a PC who is devoted to such behaviour; but want to refrain from judging your PC evil - I am curious as to why? It sounds like a request for a type of exoneration - a pardon granted by the GM and/or the game system - but I don't really get it.
What I also don't understand, and what you've not explained, is how and why this wanton murder would be a mode of honouring the Raven Queen, as she is described in the default 4e campaign world.
Often, Fate is seen as evil. Why does that mother die in childbirth, or that small child perish in his first year? My character conception is simply meting out the Fates that have been decreed, in the name of the Goddess of Fate. And, if you do not judge characters, why does the word “evil” appear so frequently in your discussion of the character’s morality? Why does it matter whether either you as the GM or I as the player think he is “evil”? If he is, in fact, meting out the Fates in the name of the Raven Queen (which seems like something we should be establishing in play), then he is neither Good nor Evil, just as the Raven Queen is neither Good nor Evil. Or he is holy and righteous and Good – just as the Raven Queen is Good. Or he is a ruthless, evil enforcer of Fate – just as the Raven Queen herself is. If there is no alignment, then why are we asserting such judgement is so easily undertaken?
Because I value coherence and consistency in backstory? I mean, you could suggest as your PC a bookish nerd who can barely see even when wearing glasses, who honours Kord by sneezing in even the gentlest breeze. I don't see how that PC fits into the gameworld, though.
D&D is a game that is often played by bookish nerds who pretend to be Conan in our universe; I am not sure why it is difficult to envision that character existing in a fictional universe. Maybe the player is interested in playing a pre-Super-Soldier serum Steve Rogers? Maybe the player is interested in the zero-to-hero journey?
We seem to be getting at the crux of the issue. The question is whether the PC meets your vision of what fits into your gameworld. That is, as GM, you are judging the morals and beliefs of your gameworld, contrary to your consistent and repetitive claims that you do not judge the appropriateness of the players’ play of their own PC’s. You claim some huge difference between your approach and that of a GM using alignment, but you are passing judgment on the consistency of the concept of each PC with your own game world the same as any other GM addressing alignment.
You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is using an alignment mechanic!
You seem to assume only a GM who frames his judgment in terms of an alignment mechanic judges the appropriateness of PC morals and beliefs.
Of course most NPCs in the gameworld are going to have a dim view of the demon princes such as Orcus and Demogorgon. But then most NPCs in the gameworld are going to have a dim view of a person - such as the PC you propose - who honours his/her patron via murder and the animation of the dead. But on its own that doesn't settle the evaluative question - that's the whole point of what I've been saying.
Yet you are stating the evaluative question is settled – that the character is not a viable one in your game world as a devotee of the Raven Queen.
Whether those inclinations make them evil isn't something I need to judge to run the game; whether your PC being devoted to them makes him/her evil likewise isn't something I need to judge to run the game. If you have a conception of your PC which explains how, in fact, in behaving in these ways s/he is doing the right thing, then maybe the same can be said for Demogorgon or Orcus.
But not, it seems, of the Raven Queen. And, once again, you ARE evaluating these actions as evil, despite your ongoing protests to the contrary. I’m curious if anyone else is still reading our exchanges, and whether they perceive your comments as being indicative of your “not judging” the “evaluative question” in advance of any play.
Now if you think that the Raven Queen, as described in the 4e PHB, would be honoured by the sacrifice to her of random murder victims and their animation as undead, explain away. But I'm not seeing it in the description of her (p 22):
She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.
"Guarding the departed from the curse of undeath" does not generally entail that you are an
inflictor of undeath. Being a "marker of the end of lives" does not generally entail that you are a
bringer of the end of those lives.
It is the mourners, not the Raven Queen, who are cited as viewing undeath as a curse. And, again, why is my devotee ensuring that each mortal meets his death at the Fated time, in the Fated manner, not a devoted follower of the Goddess of Fate? Sorry, but when I read the descriptions you cite from the PHB over and over again, I see her no more as a benevolent force than I did the first time. If you choose to make her a benevolent force in your game, rather than let the question be decided in play, then that is your prerogative – but it is a judgment you have made.
If you want to serve a god rather than a demon, here are some other possibilities that strike me as better suited than the Raven Queen (PHB p 23):
* Gruumsh . . . exhorts his followers to slaughter and pillage.
* Vecna is . . . god of undead, necromancy, and secrets. He rules that which is not meant to be known and that which people wish to keep secret.
* Zehir is . . . god of darkness, poison, and assassins.
And, once again, we discover this by GM imposition, and not by discovery through play. Why? You are quite insistent that all of these forces, all of whom I agree are much more clearly and explicitly linked to evil and darkness than the Raven Queen, are more appropriate for my character than the Raven Queen. Her description is much more neutral – neither good nor evil – as I read it.
But why? I suggest it is because you have judged my character, judged these deities and judged the Raven Queen in advance of any play, contrary to your expressed desire to avoid any such evaluation by the GM.
What you believe is your business. But I do think there may be more to the heaven and earth of RPGing than is dreamed of in your philosophy! For example, it seems to me that you underestimate the importance of actual play and the context that it provides for (nearly? - I'm not sure that I need the qualifier) every element of the fiction.
Better keep “nearly”, since you clearly don’t believe the morality of the Raven Queen is an element of the fiction which will be discovered through play, rather than set by the GM. That can’t be the only element which would fall into that category.
My goal is to show what I said I was showing - episodes of play to which alignment would be an impediment. The impediment, as I have repeatedly stated, would consist in me having to judge the moral character of the choices made by my players in the course of playing their PCs.
I don't know - I'm the one who doesn't use alignment, remember! I'm aware, however, of multiple editions of the Monster Manual that label ogres as evil. What is the point of that labelling if I'm meant to ignore it? Is there a passage I missed in the 3E PHB that explains how otherwise evil people who play dice suddenly cease to be evil?
Someone else cited the fact that the MM provides a general inclination. Perhaps, in your play of these Ogres, you have made them “not evil”. Did the Samurai have to ignore their depredations? Was he, in fact, looking the other way from that heap of childrens’ skulls? Or was the only evidence that the Ogres were vile and evil the tales he has heard – myths and rumours – and he was open minded enough to discover for himself that the Ogres are not the evil monsters they have been painted as?
Did the Samurai face a true moral dilemma, or would we have been adding labels, rather than setting alignments consistent with the in-game behaviour of the creatures themselves? Truly Evil ogres would presumably have had that pile of skulls, perhaps offered their new gaming companion some of their feast, or maybe have been dicing with him long enough for him to fall asleep and become fodder for the stewpot himself. But they don’t appear to have taken any actual Evil actions.
NOTE: Detection of alignment is not a hallmark of all D&D settings – Ravenloft removes it, for example – so if it is simple eae of detection that concerns you, remove those spells. Other posters have.
Of course. But the PC can plead his case, and try to make the angel change her mind from an initial judgement. As happened here. If someone casts Know Alignment and you ping as CN, I don't think there's going to be much pleading and persuading. The spell already processes all the arguments and reaches the true conclusion, doesn't it?
It registers the character’s true alignment, assuming we accept it as such. That knowledge may well render the Angel resistant to persuasion. How does it make the Angel any less willing to listen to arguments that the instructions it has been given are wrong? Just as it can detect alignment, can it not detect Truth and assess whether this servant of Chaos does, at least in this one instance, speak the truth?
You seem to have mistaken me for someone who uses alignment. This angel is who she is. The module describes her personality - I can't remember the details, but it includes the standard stuff about resolute guardian etc etc. The point of the episode of play, as I experienced it, was that a player gave an impassioned argument, in character and drawing upon much of what had hitherto unfolded in the game, that the values to which the angel herself was committed required her to change her mind and let him kill her. And using the action resolution mechanics of the system in question (Rolemaster), he persuaded her.
How is it any more difficult to interpret “Resolute Guardian” as “will not deviate from her orders” than to interpret “Lawful Good” as having the same meaning? In my view, then impassioned argument drawing on what has unfolded already is no more, or less, likely to persuade the “Resolute Guardian Angel” than to persuade an Angel which is “Lawful Good”.
If you would, in fact, interpret alignment as such a straightjacket on play, then I agree you are right to remove it from your games. But not because it could add nothing, but because your interpretation of alignment clearly cannot move beyond “straightjacket”.
It is not only orthogonal to that play and it's point to spend even a moment's thought on whether the angel is really CN (or has been persuaded to change her alignment by the PC), it is actively antithetical, because it shifts attention and effort from what matters - this moving moment at the table that produces this amazing event in the fiction - to something that is utterly pointless and irrelevant as far as I am concerned - namely, which of some bundle of judgemental labels is now the best one to stick on this NPC.
Nor do I think anyone suggests the Angel must change its alignment to be persuaded in this instance. Did the Angel cease to be a “resolute guardian”, or did it assess the arguments placed before it and conclude that the Greater Good required it deviate from its instructions, in this instance, even at the sacrifice of its own life (personal sacrifice for the greater good – gee, what alignment does that sound like?)
Given that I play a game with a whole PC race dedicated to addressing this question - namely, the tieflings - and given that I have a tiefling PC in my game, the answer is that of course devil worship raises moral issues. I even indicated some in the post to which you are replying: namely, that the tiefling expressed the view that the fall of the duergar was foretold, much as it was for the duergar the moment they made a pact with such treacherous beings.
Are all the references to “duergar” correct? Your statement doesn’t parse out. You have, it appears, judged devils as evil, and as such their worship as evil, contrary to your claim you do not pass such judgments in your game.
You seem to be insisting that an answer be worked out in advance. I am trying to explain that I would regard that as defeating the main purpose of play.
An answer to what? Whether devil worship is wrong, whether it is possible to redeem the devil worshippers, or whether the more moral action is to hasten their downfall or to aid in their redemption? Did the PC’s approach the situation with an objective, unbiased eye to determine whether they too should become devil worshippers?
The very word “devil” carries connotations of evil. Perhaps we should return to the less loaded “Baatazu”.
Sure, if the player rejects the compel the player hands the GM a token.
How was the compel determined to be valid? If it is not a valid compel, or there is no need to make that determination, then the system is merely a bidding war, as the player can be compelled to spend Fate points to avoid actions he considers inconsistent with his aspects.
Actually, the dice didn't fall. The GM compelled a scene resolution before the player could even engage the scene via his/her PC.
The dice fell in some manner to leave the player bereft of Fate points as he entered the scene, which prevented him paying one to avoid the Compel.
There may well be reasons why I find Fate unsatisfactory, but I doubt that your scenario ist one of them. A GM compelling a scene resolution the moment the scene is framed strikes me as a mistake by a bad or a rookie GM, made in disregard of the book's advice that a scene involves "the players try[ing] to achieve a goal." In what you described the player had no opportunity to try.
He has no resources to try, as I see it. That seems to mean he used up too much of his resources against earlier challenges to his success. The game is a series of scenes, and those scenes impact one upon another to create a narrative.
OK. I don't know anyone - poster or game designer - who disagrees with you. That seems irrelevant to compelling the end of a scene, though, which has no bearing on fail forward. "Fail forward" is a technique for adjudicating action declarations which result in mechanical failure. In the scene you described there has been no action declaration by the player, hence no adjudication, hence no fail forward.
The player has, I assume, declared several actions to date which resulted in the utilization of all of his Fate points. The consequence of that use of all of his Fate points is the lack of any resource to resist his fear of snakes at this critical juncture, and as such his failure to protect these innocents.
An aspect is a statement of a point on which a player wishes to be challenged. You are implying here that it is bad play for a player to buy off a compel and therefore act contrary to what an aspect might otherwise dictate. That is contrary to the whole spirit of a game like Fate, where choosing whether or not to accept the compel is the prerogative of the player.
To me, playing a character consistent to his Aspects would mandate following the Compel, except where there are competing Aspects which would mandate a departure from this specific aspect. In my example, if he just came across an enormous snake, flight seems the appropriate response. However, the Innocents placed two aspects in conflict. Much like a LG Angel might find compliance with its orders to conflict with bringing the greatest good to the greatest number.
Burning Wheel, in its design, actively encourages players to seek out and/or create situations in which they cannot honour all their beliefs at once, so they can earn higher-grade fate points for roleplaying out the agony of choosing which belief to honour.
If all that means is a series of angsty “Woe betide me” speeches at the table, let the wheel burn, as I have no interest in such play.
