Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[UnholyD]

Yes. Alignments improve gaming experiences. Otherwise everyone would just play Neutrals or Chaotic Neutrals and the only things that would ever happen is the PCs would lie, cheat, and steal everything. By playing the guy who can't/won't break the rules, you encourage good roleplaying. And even playing the evil character requires a bare minimum of forethought and good roleplaying to do right. Neutral is all like, Unless it concerns me or I get something out of it, why bother?"

 

[Manbearcat]

2) I'm certain that GMs apply moral judgements in their games, with or without ethos governance mechanics. Even if the metaphysical world doesn't respond (such as by a mandated cosmological "soul shift" so that new abjurations or evocations affect the party in the physical world), the physical world surely will. Consider the PBP that @pemerton mentioned above. In that game, @Campbell 's long, lost lover turned out to be the antagonist that was destabilizing the kingdom from within. Due to the dark, possessive force of her patron (she "turned to the dark side" at some point in the uncanvassed backstory), the Unseelie Agent delivered unto the world many terrible acts, up to and including assassinating Thurgon's former Lord Commander and recently arranging for a the assassination of the King and Queen by a Night Hag (making it look like natural deaths in their sleep). During play, @LostSoul and Campbell "turned her from the dark side", purifying her spirit and bringing her back into the fold of her former deity (Campbell's current deity). However, make no mistake about it, she would be facing a death penalty by the King's hand. If Lucann (Campbell's character) stood in the way or created conflict, he would immediately be cast an outlaw in defiance of the King's Justice. I would have framed this situation to challenge the old bonds (between elves and men) that Lucann was looking to renew. What would come of this conflict would be relevant to his character and how it would unfold would be decided in play.

I'm certain that none of the PCs at the proverbial table would have protested this "physical" moral judgement. What's more, this is precisely the type of conflict that Lucann's backstory asked for. Its precisely the kind of conflict that Thurgon, as a protector of the realm, should be entrenched in. It would make their lives hard and it would certainly be a moral judgement with repercussions. But they would enjoy the play and I would surmise that they would expect that "physical" moral judgement.

I think I'm going to unpack this a bit more, provide context, and use this as a bridge to further conversation.

First, here is Thurgon's, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s character, Background, Beliefs and respective Gods (both holy men) followed by [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s character, Lucann (spoiling to truncate post size):

Thurgon

[sblock]2. Background:

Thurgon is the descendant of earls (his family's symbol is a bear rampant above a sword dividing a shield), but Auxol, his ancestral estate (1½ days on foot, or about 25 miles, South-east of Adir the nearest large town), fell to the darkness 66 years ago. He has not set foot there now for many years.

Although Auxol is now owned by servants of evil, Thurgon's family continues to manage it. His father is deceased; his mother Xanthippe (now 57 years old) still lives on the estate. So does his older brother Rufus (36 years old). He is the 9th Count of Adir (although for the past 66 years that title has counted for little, having been usurped by others). His 23 year old younger brother, Vuryang, also lives on the estate, with his 18 year old bride Eisette. Thurgon has never met her, but heard news of the wedding some months ago. Xanthippe ensures that the estate serves as a bolthole for refugees. Rufus is sympathetic to their plight, but sees them ultimately as someone else’s problem. His interests are more mundane (it is fairly common knowledge that he has a 3 year old illegitimate son with a middle class townswoman).

Thurgon trained in the Iron Tower, a stronghold of those who serve the Lord of Battle. The symbol of the Tower is crossed battle axes in front of a shield with the sun rising above it. He left the Iron Tower, several years ago now, when the Knight Commander of the order sent him forth into the wilderness. At the time Thrugon did not know why, but more recently he learned that the Iron Tower had fallen to the forces of darkness. In a recent dream sent by the heavens he saw that the former lord of the order is dead, and that he, Thurgon, must now serve as Knight Commander of the Iron Tower. He hopes to recruit new members to the order, and to rally any others that have survived.
​

And some beliefs:

*When the usurpers are overthrown, and the proper succession reestablished, then peace will come to the land.

*When the world is in chaos it is no wonder so many are easily misled - but I can lead them back to righteousness.

*Like all cowards, the dragon feeds on weakness. I will oppose it with strength.
​

Kord
Kord is the storm god and the lord of battle. He revels in strength, battlefield prowess, and thunder. Fighters and athletes revere him. He is a mercurial god, unbridled and wild, who summons storms over land and sea; those who hope for better weather appease him with prayers and spirited toasts. He gives few commands:

* Be strong, but do not use your strength for wanton destruction.
* Be brave and scorn cowardice in any form.
* Prove your might in battle to win glory and renown[/sblock]

Lucann
[sblock]Background
Lucann is a contemplative in the midst of world at conflict. His childhood was spent in a forest commune. Even from a tender young age he could tell he was not like the other children. He took no joy in the hunt. He saw no need for revelry, sparring, or dance. He preferred the serenity of the forest and the solitary music of his flute. Perhaps that is why the dryads who made their home in the woods took to young Lucann and began to teach him what they knew of the forest and how it reflected Sehanine's own beauty.

Like most good time it would not last very long. When the dryads began to disappear from the forest Lucann took note and went off in search of them. He did not find them, but he did find groups of humans, orcs, and others clear cutting the forests he called home. Wherever possible he tried to reason with those who would destroy his home, but it was often to no avail. For several years he engaged in a personal guerilla war against the loggers, until he found a delegation of Sehanine's clergy willing to resist the tide. He led them back to his village and helped to push the loggers out.

However, he no longer felt at home in his woods so he went with the priests and answered the call of Sehanine. After living the cloistered life for nearly decade, he began to wonder if he had done the right thing sanctioning himself off from the wider world so he requested leave to undertake a pilgrimage...

Beliefs

• The world is vibrant and bueatiful. Seek out a place in it. Do not attempt to impose your will on it.
• Seek understanding before taking action.
• Once you have gained my ire there is no escape. I will hunt you to the ends of the earth.

Sehanine
God of the moon and autumn, Sehanine is the patron of trickery and illusions. She has close ties to Corellon and Melora and is a favorite deity among elves and halflings. She is also the god of love, who sends shadows to cloak lovers’ trysts. Scouts and thieves ask for her blessing on their work. Her teachings are simple:

* Follow your goals and seek your own destiny.
* Keep to the shadows, avoiding the blazing light of zealous good and the utter darkness of evil.
* Seek new horizons and new experiences, and let nothing tie you down.[/sblock]

Consider the above scenario that emerged in our PBP. Consider these character's backstories, beliefs and the dictates/portfolio of their respective Gods.

Would play have benefited if I had contracted the possible outcomes of the above conflict with a preordained "right" or "wrong" course of action for Lucann or Thurgon? For instance, would it have made play more enjoyable for any involved party if I would have imposed the correct choice of:

- Sehanine is the goddes of love, especially secret love. Rather than seeking understanding before action and simultaneously forsaking any prospect of renewed alliance with the humans, Lucann must impulsively place his love for the dryad above all other interests. Before she is put to the sword, he must stealthily break her out of any imprisonment under the shadows of the moon and seek new horizons together...all despite her transgressions. If he fails to do so he will face some loss of divine backing (eg powers).

or

- The usurper (the court mage/dryad) has been overthrown and the king's succession has been restored. It is blind justice and the guiding light of Kord's strength, and not wanton destruction, for the court mage to be put to death. Any pardon or lesser punishment is the sort of cowardice, the sort of weakness, that the dragon and his proxies feed upon. They must be opposed with strength and the stern committment to do all that is necessary to restore righteousness and maintain the king's succession. If he fails to assert and maintain that poisition then he will face some loss of divine backing (eg powers).


In my estimation, that level of GM imposition (by way of stick) contracts the potential future narrative and its emergent fallout. Perhaps they have a better idea of how all of this should shake out, while maintaining fealty to their respective characters' portfolio, than I do? Perhaps they have a better idea of (i) the priorities of their respective value systems and (ii) their own 2nd and 3rd order considerations that may pay even greater (long view) homage to the values that I think they are prioritizing lower?

Furthermore, what if one of my primary GMing principles is to "see what happens?" If that is a considerable portion of my fun as a GM then it stands to reason that it is diluted considerably by contracting potential courses of actions, and resultant conflict outputs, with my own mandates.

 

[Grydan]

Yes. Alignments improve gaming experiences. Otherwise everyone would just play Neutrals or Chaotic Neutrals and the only things that would ever happen is the PCs would lie, cheat, and steal everything. By playing the guy who can't/won't break the rules, you encourage good roleplaying. And even playing the evil character requires a bare minimum of forethought and good roleplaying to do right. Neutral is all like, Unless it concerns me or I get something out of it, why bother?"

I can assure you that, despite the fact that neither of the two characters I am playing currently have the word "Good" written on their character sheets, neither is a liar, a cheat, or a thief (despite the fact that one of the two actually has the word "Thief" on his character sheet).

I began playing D&D with 4E, a system in which alignment has little to no mechanical consequence. It's also a system that doesn't use a nine-point grid: it uses a five point spectrum, the middle point not being Neutral (in the sense of being committed to actively pursuing the goals of neutrality), but Unaligned (in the sense of having not made any commitment to any cosmic faction or particular ethos). To the extent that I ever bother to note my character's alignment on my sheet at all, I write Unaligned.

And yet, I'm quite sure that many players and DMs, if they watched the characters in play, would form some opinion of what alignment the characters "really" were. If they feel the need, that's fine by me. But telling me that my character is "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Neutral" neither gives me any information I find useful, not will it shape my decisions for the character going forward.

My character in my current 4E game is, mechanically, an Essentials Rogue (Thief). By profession, he is a mercenary. He doesn't steal, is honest with everyone he meets (unless the nature of the job he has been hired to perform requires him to be otherwise), and while he's proved to be the most lethal member of the party (from the very first session of play he's been compared to the Death Star, after killing an uninjured non-minion enemy with his opening attack), he does not go out of his way to kill (and, along with the other characters, surprised the DM by taking prisoners rather than killing, whenever it was a viable option). His character sheet reads "Unaligned".

My character in my D&D Next campaign is a fighter who, along with the other members of the party has found himself thrust against his will into a leadership position in a tribal society. Bound by his own personal sense of honour, he takes on the responsibility to the best of his abilities. When the tribe came into conflict with a neighboring group, he argued against the all-out conflict that some of the party argued for, while at the same time opposing a purely diplomatic solution (both on the grounds of it being impractical and because I felt that he would believe that the other group's actions deserved a reprisal in kind). At no point would looking at my character sheet for the alignment have shaped his behavior (especially considering the fact that I left the field blank). Yet again, the character is not a liar, a cheat, or a thief. Oddly enough, a player who DID have "Chaotic Good" written on their sheet both engaged in torturing a prisoner that I had captured, and summarily executed them after we were done with them, which prompted a discussion between the DM and the player about what was appropriate for their alignment ...

I simply don't see what benefit I gain from bothering to label my character into one of nine pigeon holes. If it's descriptive, then it's not something I care about, and people can slap whatever label they like on my character. If it's prescriptive, then I don't want it, because I'm going to play my characters the way I want to, regardless (and no, for the most part that doesn't involve baby-killing, throat-ripping, lying, stealing, or cheating ... nor is it usually going to involve any grand commitment to a cosmic faction of any stripe).

 

[Campbell]

I don't think you can point to the resulting fiction from a game session to argue that the presence or lack thereof of alignment is meaningful or meaningless. The issue at play here is what informs a player's choices in the moment of play and how that shapes the feel of a gaming session. A session of Burning Wheel* with its impetus on making players advocate for the beliefs of their characters and of RuneQuest* could result in pretty similar fiction, but I doubt many people would contend that the experience would feel remotely the same. It seems to me that alignment must have some guiding influence on player decisions or else not be a particularly good rule. If it doesn't have an effect on the way players play the game and GMs run the game than its presence or lack would not matter in the slightest.

* Not passing judgment on either game. I really like both games for entirely different reasons.

 

[pemerton]

Alignments improve gaming experiences. Otherwise everyone would just play Neutrals or Chaotic Neutrals and the only things that would ever happen is the PCs would lie, cheat, and steal everything.

On this issue I am in agreement with [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION]. I haven't used alignment in my fantasy RPGing for over 25 years, and I haven't at all found it to be the case the PCs lie, cheat and steal everything.
[MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION], the quotes from the DMG2 are interesting. And a little confusing - for instance, they somewhat contradict the idea that "only the DM knows for sure". If you followed primarily the stuff you bolded, I'm not sure how different you would be from the sort of alignment-free game I'm describing: for instance, the bit about the campaign world belonging to the players also strikes me as similar to my idea that the gods PCs worship aren't under the sole jurisidiction of the GM.

Perhaps if that text were rewritten for greater clarity (eg more explicit reference to the different options matching different playstyles), it could do the job of presenting different approaches to alignment in D&Dnext. It is certainly superior to the 2nd ed PHB, to the Gygaxian text, and (as best I know it) the 3E text.

I don't think you can point to the resulting fiction from a game session to argue that the presence or lack thereof of alignment is meaningful or meaningless. The issue at play here is what informs a player's choices in the moment of play and how that shapes the feel of a gaming session.

I agree with this. The reason I gave my examples upthread is to show the sorts of events I have fond memories of - which I though obviously involved potentially contentious evaluative stakes well above the level of "will or won't I double-knot my shoelace" - which therefore might obviously be experienced differently at the table depending how evaluative issues are being handled in the game.

It seems to me that alignment must have some guiding influence on player decisions or else not be a particularly good rule. If it doesn't have an effect on the way players play the game and GMs run the game than its presence or lack would not matter in the slightest.

I definitely agree with this. That's why I'm puzzled by the frequent reiterations that "alignment is not a straitjacket". Whatever it is or isn't, if it doesn't affect player or GM behaviour than what is it for?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - I'd point something out for your traditions argument. There are about twenty years of DnD which do not have mechanical effects of alignment. Odnd, B/E/C/M/I and 4e all have purely descriptive alignment but not mechanical. So it's not like mechanical alignment is really necessary to play DnD.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro - I'd point something out for your traditions argument. There are about twenty years of DnD which do not have mechanical effects of alignment. Odnd, B/E/C/M/I and 4e all have purely descriptive alignment but not mechanical. So it's not like mechanical alignment is really necessary to play DnD.

My argument isn't based on tradition... it's based on uniqueness. Now if you have a list of other games (outside clones) that use alignment in a mechanical way, I'm all ears but as far as I know D&D is unique in this aspect.

EDIT: Also I'm not so sure BECMI is free of alignment mechanics. Just offhand I remember from the RC that a fighter's advancement options (Paladin/Avenger/Knight) are based on alignment... and a quick gogle search seems to imply that in supplement I thieves could only be neutral or chaotic. I'm not going to do extensive research into alignment as far as these editions go, but I'm not so sure they didn't use alignment as mechanic in any way whatsoever... again I think 4e is the only edition where alignment plays no part in mechanics whatsoever...

 

[Imaro]

Deleted

 

[Hussar]

But there isn't really uniqueness when a significant chunk of the game's history didn't use mechanical alignment.

 

[Imaro]

But there isn't really uniqueness when a significant chunk of the game's history didn't use mechanical alignment.

Again, as highlighted by the two examples I presented... I'm not so sure your claim holds up. Two, what does how many editions something is in have to do with determining if it is unique to a particular game or not.