Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] please stop adding to, embellishing and/or mis-representing what I am saying. I haven't spoken to alignment being some quintessential D&D element... I have (for the second or third time directed towards clarifying what you interpret me saying) merely said it is unique to D&D. Nothing more and nothing less.




Show me where I ever argued this???



Wait, earlier you claimed mechanical alignment wasn't in the first 20 years of D&D (Which I and others have disproved)... now you're nit-picking the specifics of the type of alignment and/or how much mechanical alignment was a part of any particular edition... can we stick to one point please?

No. I said that mechanical alignment wasn't part of DnD for about twenty years total. Not first.

What mechanical effect is there of your alignment in
Odnd?

 

[Imaro]

No. I said that mechanical alignment wasn't part of DnD for about twenty years total. Not first.

What mechanical effect is there of your alignment in
Odnd?

It determines what classes are playable for you and which aren't...

In other words the entire paladin class (and thus its mechanics) are based on alignment.

 

[pemerton]

I would expect any player's decisions to be guided by alignment where it exists, and any other personality traits, aspects, beliefs, or whatever description the game, or the player, uses. That does not mean there is commonly only one right answer.

My concern is not about "only one right answer". It is with the GM's power, and indeed obligation, to identify certain choices as wrong answers.

Much of the best role playing occurs where no clear-cut answer exists, and we are faced with which of our morals and beliefs must be compromised to serve the others.

It puzzles me that you can't see that, by abandoning mechanical alignment, you can increase this space for roleplaying. It also puzzles me that you can make this remark, yet not realise why I would regard having to judge when my players have chosen wrong answers as an impediment to my play experience.

Please show me in the various cited passages any statement that suggests a single action that seems (or even blatantly is) inconsistent with the stated alignment results in an immediate alignment change and loss of a level.

I don't know see how that is relevant. Whether it takes one wrong answer (as with the paladin) or ten wrong answers (or how ever many the GM decides are required to bring about an alignment change), the point is that the player is playing their PC under the Damocles's Sword of the GM's opinion about what answers count as wrong answers.

2e moderated this to only occurring when it was not good for the game

What if the player doesn't agree with the GM about "what is good for the game"? Why is the GM the arbiter of the players' choices?

I again come back to the belief that playing in character will only happen if it is rewarded. So the character loses a level? As has been noted above, that often happens if he fights Undead creatures. He's still viable and playable.

<snip>

I have no desire to join your game where an honourable man is only honourable because the game mechanics favour his honour.

First, how does "not losing a level" equate to "being rewarded". Is every absence of a penalty now a reward?

Furthermore, if it makes no difference to the playability of the game that a level is lost, then why inflict the level loss? I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it? Why should the game become less playable for a player because a GM thinks that s/he came up with the wrong answer half-a-dozen times?

If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game. In D&D, the main measure of this is the numbers on those parts of my PC sheet that engage with action resolution. Also, I want the game to have the space for the choice to play an honourable man be meaningful. I don't see how it serves my aim of playing an honourable man to have my ability to meaningfully affect the fiction reduced because the GM decides I gave the wrong answer to a question about what honour requires.

In Manbearcat's examples of what could have dictated the characters' decisions, do you think it would be better play if those beliefs were simply ignored?

As the player of the PC, I get to decide what they require. If [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] thinks I've squibbed, I'm sure he's more than capable of turning on the pressure by framing new ingame situations (the "physical moral consequences" he referred to in his post). He doesn't need to tell me I'm playing my PC wrongly on the basis of some stipulative definition of his own.

 

[pemerton]

(This is partially cross-posted from the current "XP are illusory" thread.)

Here is an episode of play from my 4e session yesterday:

The PCs broke the hold that the Underdark god Torog has over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. They did this by destroying the metaphysical machinery of Torog's "Soul Abattoir".

At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game - the machinery had been destroyed, the cavern was collapsing, and the PCs were escaping as one of their number tried to hold the onrushing tide of soul energy at bay long enough for that escape to take place.

I invited the player of that PC to make an Insight check. He did, and succeeded. The PC therefore noticed that his imp familiar - which has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - was channelling power from Vecna to try to direct the newly freed flow of souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen (who is the more orthodox god of the dead).

I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen. The player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen". (If he had chosen otherwise he would have felt the wrath of at least two other party members, perhaps all of them!) That was fine, and he then made the Athletics check to try and run out of the collapsing cavern behind his friends, being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter. (Whose player had made a successful check at a high enough DC that he could confer an "aid another" bonus.) But I also told the player who had chosen the Raven Queen over Vecna, something to the effect of Vecna being angry, and hence his imp being - at least for the moment - non-functional, as Vecna lashes out through his Eye. (There may also have been some damage there - I can't remember now.)​

Here is a case of a player, playing his PC, having to choose whether to allow the flow of souls to go to the Raven Queen, or instead to Vecna as part of Vecna's desire to power himself up relative to the other gods (especially the Raven Queen). The player made that choice by reflecting on the content and implications of the various options with the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to those matters.

The choice reflects the player's conception of his PC, including his conception of his PC's relationship to various gods and to the other PCs. It also reflects the player's conception of the broader fictional situation, including what is at stake in the fiction for the other players.

I don't see how it would improve this episode of play to add: the Raven Queen is unaligned, and Vecna is evil. The player (and PC) have a lot of knowledge about both gods from backstory and events in the campaign. What does the evaluative shorthand add? How does it help the player to sum up the relevant implications to add a stipulative shorthand that largely floats free from the detailed events actually played through in the campaign?

And moreso I don't see how it would improve this episode of play for me to be tracking the possible implications, for the PC's own moral status, of choosing one way or another. Whether or not the player made the right choice is something that can come out in play.

 

[Imaro]

(This is partially cross-posted from the current "XP are illusory" thread.)

Here is an episode of play from my 4e session yesterday:

The PCs broke the hold that the Underdark god Torog has over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. They did this by destroying the metaphysical machinery of Torog's "Soul Abattoir".

At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game - the machinery had been destroyed, the cavern was collapsing, and the PCs were escaping as one of their number tried to hold the onrushing tide of soul energy at bay long enough for that escape to take place.

I invited the player of that PC to make an Insight check. He did, and succeeded. The PC therefore noticed that his imp familiar - which has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - was channelling power from Vecna to try to direct the newly freed flow of souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen (who is the more orthodox god of the dead).

I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen. The player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen". (If he had chosen otherwise he would have felt the wrath of at least two other party members, perhaps all of them!) That was fine, and he then made the Athletics check to try and run out of the collapsing cavern behind his friends, being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter. (Whose player had made a successful check at a high enough DC that he could confer an "aid another" bonus.) But I also told the player who had chosen the Raven Queen over Vecna, something to the effect of Vecna being angry, and hence his imp being - at least for the moment - non-functional, as Vecna lashes out through his Eye. (There may also have been some damage there - I can't remember now.)​

Here is a case of a player, playing his PC, having to choose whether to allow the flow of souls to go to the Raven Queen, or instead to Vecna as part of Vecna's desire to power himself up relative to the other gods (especially the Raven Queen). The player made that choice by reflecting on the content and implications of the various options with the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to those matters.

The choice reflects the player's conception of his PC, including his conception of his PC's relationship to various gods and to the other PCs. It also reflects the player's conception of the broader fictional situation, including what is at stake in the fiction for the other players.

I don't see how it would improve this episode of play to add: the Raven Queen is unaligned, and Vecna is evil. The player (and PC) have a lot of knowledge about both gods from backstory and events in the campaign. What does the evaluative shorthand add? How does it help the player to sum up the relevant implications to add a stipulative shorthand that largely floats free from the detailed events actually played through in the campaign?

And moreso I don't see how it would improve this episode of play for me to be tracking the possible implications, for the PC's own moral status, of choosing one way or another. Whether or not the player made the right choice is something that can come out in play.

I find it interesting that you took away the imp's power (and thus the players power) that it was receiving from Vecna, when the player decided to oppose Vecna... if the player had made the opposite choice would the Raven Queen have instead taken a measure or all of the power he gains through her from the PC? If so isn't that making an evaluative call on the action of the PC? I'm not seeing how his actions weren't judged by the deity Vecna (the GM) and then an appropriate punishment laid upon him because Vecna (the GM) had judged his actions contrary to Vecna's desires... why didn't the player decide if Vecna was mad enough to punish him?

As to what the "evaluative shorthand" of alignment could do to improve this episode (and note this is a purely subjective thing) is to communicate that these actions have a greater cosmological influence than just what is happening in the hear and now... that your actions have much more far reaching implications as even the tiniest of choices can tilt the world more or less towards one of the cosmological states that are represented by the forces of alignment... IMO, it's more Moorcockian and even Tolkien-esque than Howardian as far as the type of setting it speaks to, stories it produces and, implications that naturally arise. Will this improve your particularly play... I doubt it as you've made it clear there really is no answer concerning alignment that will give it a favorable view in your eyes.

 

[Cadence]

I think I'm good with the other things you say in the post, but...

What if the player doesn't agree with the GM about "what is good for the game"? Why is the GM the arbiter of the players' choices?

It's not that the GM is the final arbiter of the "players' choices", but that they're the final arbiter of the game and the outcomes of the players' choices. Why? RAW in 1e, 2e, 3/3.5, and PF have always had it that way (although later editions have done a lot to soften the verbiage around 1e's dictatorial standing)? Because someone needs to have the authority to break a tie and be the final enforcer of the rules, and by RAW that's the GM?

The GM (or playing group all together before things go) is welcome to delegate that authority around, just like they can house-rule anything else in RAW. At your table, what's the tie-breaker if things are split 50-50 over something?

EDIT: Removed tangential hypothetical situation about whether the Raven Queen created undead.

 

[pemerton]

I find it interesting that you took away the imp's power (and thus the players power) that it was receiving from Vecna, when the player decided to oppose Vecna... if the player had made the opposite choice would the Raven Queen have instead taken a measure or all of the power he gains through her from the PC?

You really think shutting down one feat for an encounter or so (the full duration hasn't been specified, but the minimum of an encounter has been flagged) is the equivalent of draining a level or stripping a paladin of paladinhood? Within the 4e framework it's not as severe as many diseases (which can weaken until the next extended rest, for instance).

If so isn't that making an evaluative call on the action of the PC?

No. It's forming a view about Vecna's behaviour and attitude. The player is not obliged to form the view that his PC erred.

I'm not seeing how his actions weren't judged by the deity Vecna (the GM) and then an appropriate punishment laid upon him because Vecna (the GM) had judged his actions contrary to Vecna's desires... why didn't the player decide if Vecna was mad enough to punish him?

The player has deliberately cultivated his PC's service to about half-a-dozen gods, several of who are oppposed (Vecna/Ioun; Vecna/Raven Queen). And he deliberabely chose to implant the Eye of Vecna into his imp. He's been expecting something like this for some time, and more or less asking for it! At the moment of the crunch, he very strongly suspected that his choice would have a mechanical consequence.

He has benefits to, at a minimum in the fictional positioning in relation to the Raven Queen, which I'm sure he (and the rest of the players) will take advantage of in due course.

 

[Manbearcat]

My concern is not about "only one right answer". It is with the GM's power, and indeed obligation, to identify certain choices as wrong answers.

<snip>

I don't know see how that is relevant. Whether it takes one wrong answer (as with the paladin) or ten wrong answers (or how ever many the GM decides are required to bring about an alignment change), the point is that the player is playing their PC under the Damocles's Sword of the GM's opinion about what answers count as wrong answers.

Precisely. It might even be more apt to describe the obligation (which requires a requisite amount of mental overhead and introspection on my own conflicts of interest in adjudication...neither of which I'm interested in partaking in) as identifying the continuum of less right answers through outright wrong answers (with respect to alignment shift implications) and quantifying the spectrum. For a short period of time, before I just chucked the whole thing and we adlibbed it as a table, I actually considered developping and using a simple algorithm, then tabling the quantification of the ethos decisions along a numerical spectrum (C <=> L), so the transition from one state to the next was deterministic and reduced my own forboding sense of conflict of interest. Then I realized just how crazy that was...for a game...that way lied madness.

I had a Paladin in my second 3e (3.5) game (circa 2004). I very much appreciate the archetype (both aesthetically and as a means to fascillitate the sort of Arthurian Romance genre conceits that you value it for) but I have to say that dealing with At-Will Detect Evil (and all of the knock on effects required to deal with such a cumbersome, GM mental overhead producing Divination), and being obliged to consistently evaluate the continuum of less right answers through outright wrong answers to deal with all PC shifts generally (alignment is steeped in the supernatural effect system of 3.x which is rife in play itself), and Paladin shifts (primarily away from Lawful) specifically, was maddening. By that point I didn't want to GM the system anymore and was moving to other play experiences (outside of OtE, this was the beginning of my Indie excursion). DitV showed me an absolutely wonderful way of dealing with the Paladin/Avenger archetype and handling the internal, physical, and metaphysical conflicts (and their fallout) that was both genre appropriate, engaging (and transparent) to the players, and required less mental overhead of myself. Sorceror did the same to an extent but Dogs was the primary factor. After that epiphany, I don't see how I can mentally go back.

If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game. In D&D, the main measure of this is the numbers on those parts of my PC sheet that engage with action resolution. Also, I want the game to have the space for the choice to play an honourable man be meaningful. I don't see how it serves my aim of playing an honourable man to have my ability to meaningfully affect the fiction reduced because the GM decides I gave the wrong answer to a question about what honour requires.

Or even the less right answers.

As an addendum here, I don't consider it bad GMing to be attempting to quantify the spectrum of less right answers <=> wrong answer and then applying those quantifications toward an immediate or latent alignment shift. I consider it proper GMing (in the system)...and mandatory. An obligation. Given how rife it is in the system, it made me nauseous when I started handwaving it and adlibbing it. When I tried to jettison it outright, I realized just how much cutting, and 2nd order effect evaluation, it would require.

As the player of the PC, I get to decide what they require. If @Manbearcat thinks I've squibbed, I'm sure he's more than capable of turning on the pressure by framing new ingame situations (the "physical moral consequences" he referred to in his post). He doesn't need to tell me I'm playing my PC wrongly on the basis of some stipulative definition of his own.

Precisely. Instead of making a metaphysical evaluation and saying "that action is much more C than L" or "the totality of this action appears to me to be a be a - 3 on the C <=> L spectrum (- 1 to - 5 being C and + 1 to + 5 being L) and that means n latent Chaors" (or some comparable iteration), what if I just put tangible/physical, perhaps symbolic, moral pressure on your PC to juxtapose the implications of C vs L.

For instance, let us say that it all shook out such that (a) the law says that the King's Justice be administered, (b) the tangible evidence that Thurgon is exposed to reveals that while the Dryad's anger made her susceptible to The Queen of Air and Darkness, she cannot be held fully accountable for the possession and the outright falling into darkness, (c) this execution would mean the loss of Lucann and his elven/eladrin allies in the coming battle (perhaps even a Cold War), (d) the turned dryad could be a staunch ally and great asset to the Iron Tower in defense of the Realm and (e) there is a greater power that needs to be confronted here - something far beyond the dragon...perhaps something that enslaves its will.

Thurgon invokes his right to vassalize the Dryad in order to solve many of the problems but, in turn, it creates a rift between he and the King, and perhaps a different kind of Cold War, ultimate splitting of alliances in the stead of c above, and a resultant weakening of the Realm.

What if the guilt of all of those vengeance-thirsty souls goes unrequited and it haunts Thurgon (at the PCs discretion). Sating those restless spirits could be a quest, it could be the point of play down the road. Perhaps this theme yields a change in Paragon Path or some nuance of PC build. Perhaps some sort of fitting, item-budget-driven Boon makes its way into play. What if a newly possessed Quinn ultimately turns against the party, and must be exorcised or die in the end, thus proving Thurgon's hypothesis and putting his haunted mind to rest.

All sorts of non-punitive, physical feedback play could stem from those decisions where the GM shows the player the difficult side of their PC's decisions...engaging and challenging their Beliefs (perhaps changing them)...haunting an honorable man...and then providing him an opportunity for reprieve and closure. Those principles and techniques can open up play to conflict and expanded narrative rather than contract them (while reducing GM mental overhead on fuzzy/convoluted/complex evalutions - including their own conflict of interest evaluation - and potential fallout when there is player:GM disagreement on ethos evaluation)

<snip example of play>

And moreso I don't see how it would improve this episode of play for me to be tracking the possible implications, for the PC's own moral status, of choosing one way or another. Whether or not the player made the right choice is something that can come out in play.

1) Great example of play. I really like that angle to your game and your continuing presentation of it has down well to show how 4e compels such play.

2) As to the formally quoted bit, this is central for me. As much as anything else I want from a system at this point it is a contraction of mental overhead of "stuff I don't want to keep track of". At this point I have found that "stuff" can be categorized as system components that either outright inhibit/contract thematic play, are redundant/superfluous, or be opaque/convoluted enough that they require a requisite amount of mental overhead or table handling time that is not commensurate to the payout.

 

[N'raac]

It has nothing to do with good or poor GMing. It is about the notion of the GM being authorised to insist that there was a "true, clear, better choice": as you yourself do in the third paragraph that I have quoted.

In that paragraph, I suggest two mutually exclusive choices as being equally valid. These were the two that the player was considering, and that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was suggesting had to be judged. I do not believe we need to split this down to the fine algorithm [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] suggests. Rather, I find it sufficient to look to these choices, assess that they fit within the bounds of reasonableness for the alignment in question, and move on.

If one believes that the player will also see that the "true, better choice" is clearly that, then GM enforcement of it - and hence mechanical alignment - becomes redundant. But if the player doesn't regard it as clearly true and better, then the GM enforcing alignment is exactly the sort of imposition that @Manbearcat describes.

So what if we change the facts a bit – we make the Dryad a willing, even eager, servant of her evil master. Lucann can’t see beyond his emotions, but Thurgon is more dispassionate. We remove, in other words, the tension of Law versus Good from Thurgon’s decision. Is it OK for him to decide that, while both honour and righteousness demand the King’s Justice be carried out, it would be inconvenient for me to have to deal with Lucann afterwards, so I’ll take the politicially expedient choice instead? Screw honour.

BTW, I like the analysis of Thurgon undertaken by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] earlier. To me, this is the means to express alignment. These are the values and beliefs of the character. To me, that makes him LG (whether clearly or on balance). The GM can now assess whether his views are consistent (maybe the character straddles LG and LN, so we discuss that, clarify the values and beliefs of the character and agree where he fits on the continuum). Having done so, provided the character is played consistent with those values and beliefs, his alignment should be pretty clear. And he should have a pretty good idea that chucking honour for expediency may create an issue.

It puzzles me that you can't see that, by abandoning mechanical alignment, you can increase this space for roleplaying.

I have never seen alignment constrain role playing when applied in our games. I am puzzled that you cannot see scope for role playing because you cannot get beyond the straightjacket view.

What if the player doesn't agree with the GM about "what is good for the game"? Why is the GM the arbiter of the players' choices?

What if the player does not agree whether a certain feat, spell, class, magic item or race is good for the game? Is the GM obligated to permit anything and everything a player may find in a published source, or homebrew himself? A player not invited to the game (or invited to remove himself) may disagree with whether that was good for the game too. You seem to feel that a character who murders because he is delivering victims to their proper fate, as ordained by the Raven Queen, would not be good for the game either.

You also seem to assume the GM will unilaterally exert his own will, ignoring the others at the table. I can’t imagine a GM call which would say “The character has changed alignment/fallen from Paladinhood” that would meet full disagreement from all the players at the table. However, presuming same, I would expect a discussion of the issue, not “I’m the GM and what I say goes”. Ultimately, as [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] notes, if the table is divided, someone must make a call. Who makes that call, if not the GM? Note that even “nothing happens now, and we will see where play leads us” is a decision.

First, how does "not losing a level" equate to "being rewarded". Is every absence of a penalty now a reward?

Why does a character with a stat of 9 have a penalty, and one with a stat of 12 have a bonus/reward? We could just as easily establish a score of 0-1 being no bonus, 2-3 is +1, and so on. A penalty and a bonus are two sides of the coin.

Furthermore, if it makes no difference to the playability of the game that a level is lost, then why inflict the level loss? I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it? Why should the game become less playable for a player because a GM thinks that s/he came up with the wrong answer half-a-dozen times?

Isn’t loss of the goodwill of the King also a loss? The character has less resources to draw on. I mean, either it doesn't matter - in which case why do it - or it does matter, in which case what is the justification for doing it? Well, it is because the character made one or more choices which the GM thinks the King will view as the wrong answer. So why does substituting “deity” or “philosophy” somehow make this so much different a judgement of the GM?

If I am going to play an honourable man in an RPG, I want to be able to have as meaningful effect on the fiction as any other player of the game. In D&D, the main measure of this is the numbers on those parts of my PC sheet that engage with action resolution. Also, I want the game to have the space for the choice to play an honourable man be meaningful. I don't see how it serves my aim of playing an honourable man to have my ability to meaningfully affect the fiction reduced because the GM decides I gave the wrong answer to a question about what honour requires.

“Meaningful” is not a synonym for “desirable”. Thurgon’s honour seems to place him in a very unenviable place in the scene set out. “Honour” may demand actually following the orders the PC is given, even when the PC does not wish to do so. You rant and rave against “mechanical alignment”, but you want every other aspect of the player’s personality to reflect in the numbers on the character sheet. I find that puzzling as well.

As the player of the PC, I get to decide what they require. If @Manbearcat thinks I've squibbed, I'm sure he's more than capable of turning on the pressure by framing new ingame situations (the "physical moral consequences" he referred to in his post). He doesn't need to tell me I'm playing my PC wrongly on the basis of some stipulative definition of his own.

If the cosmic forces are real, palpable things in game (the 3e alignment extract hits this nicely), then they are “physical moral consequences”. And, again, how is taking away a resource whose special effect is secular rather than religious less a penalty to the character, or the player? Either way, he has lost influence over the fiction.

(This is partially cross-posted from the current "XP are illusory" thread.)

Here is an episode of play from my 4e session yesterday:

The PCs broke the hold that the Underdark god Torog has over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. They did this by destroying the metaphysical machinery of Torog's "Soul Abattoir".

At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game - the machinery had been destroyed, the cavern was collapsing, and the PCs were escaping as one of their number tried to hold the onrushing tide of soul energy at bay long enough for that escape to take place.

I invited the player of that PC to make an Insight check. He did, and succeeded. The PC therefore noticed that his imp familiar - which has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - was channelling power from Vecna to try to direct the newly freed flow of souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen (who is the more orthodox god of the dead).

I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen. The player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen". (If he had chosen otherwise he would have felt the wrath of at least two other party members, perhaps all of them!) That was fine, and he then made the Athletics check to try and run out of the collapsing cavern behind his friends, being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter. (Whose player had made a successful check at a high enough DC that he could confer an "aid another" bonus.) But I also told the player who had chosen the Raven Queen over Vecna, something to the effect of Vecna being angry, and hence his imp being - at least for the moment - non-functional, as Vecna lashes out through his Eye. (There may also have been some damage there - I can't remember now.)​

Here is a case of a player, playing his PC, having to choose whether to allow the flow of souls to go to the Raven Queen, or instead to Vecna as part of Vecna's desire to power himself up relative to the other gods (especially the Raven Queen). The player made that choice by reflecting on the content and implications of the various options with the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to those matters.

Emphasis added – I’m seeing a suggestion the player was influenced by the evaluative judgment of other players (although they apparently look the other way about existing service to Vecna). I’m not seeing how the other PC’s knew where the flow of soul energy was going when the guy directing the activity, in closest proximity to the creature also directing it, and (I assume) the greatest knowledge of the activity in question, had to make a roll to know what was happening. Given I don’t see how they would even know about the flow of souls. They know about the Eye, don’t they, and have done nothing, so I’m unsure why this would clearly attract their wrath anyway.

In any case, you have now made the judgement that Vecna is not pleased. How is that so different from the judgement that the Paladin’s source of power is not pleased?

I don't see how it would improve this episode of play to add: the Raven Queen is unaligned, and Vecna is evil. The player (and PC) have a lot of knowledge about both gods from backstory and events in the campaign.

Was that not known to all parties anyway? Or do they wonder whether the Unaligned Raven Queen might really be Good or Evil, or whether Vecna is really a patron of Righteousness? Not beating them over the head with information they already know does not mean that knowledge was not there.

I find it interesting that you took away the imp's power (and thus the players power) that it was receiving from Vecna, when the player decided to oppose Vecna... if the player had made the opposite choice would the Raven Queen have instead taken a measure or all of the power he gains through her from the PC? If so isn't that making an evaluative call on the action of the PC? I'm not seeing how his actions weren't judged by the deity Vecna (the GM) and then an appropriate punishment laid upon him because Vecna (the GM) had judged his actions contrary to Vecna's desires... why didn't the player decide if Vecna was mad enough to punish him?

All good questions which I am disappointed [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] simply sidesteps below. Why could the player not decide that Vecna places great value on this servant, and as such will bestow even greater powers, since what he has given to date has not sufficiently tempted him to put a greater priority on service to Vecna?

You really think shutting down one feat for an encounter or so (the full duration hasn't been specified, but the minimum of an encounter has been flagged) is the equivalent of draining a level or stripping a paladin of paladinhood? Within the 4e framework it's not as severe as many diseases (which can weaken until the next extended rest, for instance).

So we’re no longer discussing the philosophy of whether the GM’s judgments should, or should not, be permitted to alter the abilities of the PC’s. We are now only discussing the degree to which the GM should be able to apply a penalty to the PC.

I find it interesting that you now compare the penalty you determined to the effects of a disease, but comparing the effect of a loss of level from alignment change to the same result of an attack by an undead creature was completely irrelevant upthread.

I think you are sidestepping the issue. Here, you clearly evaluated the player’s actions through the lens of the deity, Vecna’s, perspective and applied a penalty on the character as a consequence. This is what you have ranted and raved against for over 600 posts on this thread as completely destroying your ability to enjoy the game.

Why was it not left to the player to assess whether Vecna was angered, the actions Vecna would take due to that anger, whether the Raven Queen was pleased and blocked any rebuke by Vecna, or even provided the character with a greater reward than the penalty Vecna imposed (to say nothing of what, four other deities the character is aligned with who may have had their own views on whether the souls should have gone to Vecna or the Raven Queen)?

No. It's forming a view about Vecna's behaviour and attitude. The player is not obliged to form the view that his PC erred.

Nor is a player choosing a path different from that of his LG patron and being penalized for it obliging the player to form the view that his PC erred. It's forming a view about the patron’s (deity or cosmological force) behaviour and attitude. We have said as much, repeatedly, upthread.

The player has deliberately cultivated his PC's service to about half-a-dozen gods, several of who are oppposed (Vecna/Ioun; Vecna/Raven Queen). And he deliberabely chose to implant the Eye of Vecna into his imp. He's been expecting something like this for some time, and more or less asking for it! At the moment of the crunch, he very strongly suspected that his choice would have a mechanical consequence.

A Paladin cultivates service to an LG patron. He, too, makes choices. If he is not aware that certain actions he has trended towards create the risk of a mechanical consequence, then either he is not very astute, or his GM is playing “gotcha”, or both. I don’t recall it making any difference to your evaluation of “mechanical alignment” that the player would be warned by the GM that his choice could, or even WOULD, have a mechanical consequence. Why does it matter here?

He has benefits to, at a minimum in the fictional positioning in relation to the Raven Queen, which I'm sure he (and the rest of the players) will take advantage of in due course.

I would expect that Paladin who falls from grace also gains advantages in some form or another. They may or may not be greater than the advantages he lost (although, if that’s his basis for choosing, I expect they are), and they are still different from those the character had before, so his concept has changed.

For instance, let us say that it all shook out such that (a) the law says that the King's Justice be administered, (b) the tangible evidence that Thurgon is exposed to reveals that while the Dryad's anger made her susceptible to The Queen of Air and Darkness, she cannot be held fully accountable for the possession and the outright falling into darkness, (c) this execution would mean the loss of Lucann and his elven/eladrin allies in the coming battle (perhaps even a Cold War), (d) the turned dryad could be a staunch ally and great asset to the Iron Tower in defense of the Realm and (e) there is a greater power that needs to be confronted here - something far beyond the dragon...perhaps something that enslaves its will.

Thurgon invokes his right to vassalize the Dryad in order to solve many of the problems but, in turn, it creates a rift between he and the King, and perhaps a different kind of Cold War, ultimate splitting of alliances in the stead of c above, and a resultant weakening of the Realm.

What if the guilt of all of those vengeance-thirsty souls goes unrequited and it haunts Thurgon (at the PCs discretion).

Why does the rift with the King, a different kind of Cold War, a splitting of alliances and a weakening of the Realm occur without the player’s consent, but those souls can haunt him only at the player’s discretion? [I’m using Player as I suspect Thurgon himself does not wish to be haunted in this manner.]

What if a newly possessed Quinn ultimately turns against the party, and must be exorcised or die in the end, thus proving Thurgon's hypothesis and putting his haunted mind to rest.

All sorts of non-punitive, physical feedback play could stem from those decisions where the GM shows the player the difficult side of their PC's decisions

So you don’t find that example in any way punitive to Quinn, or his player? Let’s see, first we deny him control of his character by possession, then we put him in a “they have to succeed or your character is dead” situation. And this is a clearly superior option to Thurgon’s alignment being challenged, or being haunted? Why is it OK to victimize Quinn, but not Thurgon?

 

[Manbearcat]

Why does the rift with the King, a different kind of Cold War, a splitting of alliances and a weakening of the Realm occur without the player’s consent, but those souls can haunt him only at the player’s discretion? [I’m using Player as I suspect Thurgon himself does not wish to be haunted in this manner.]

1) The venue for a player being haunted (emotional fallout which may or may not be from a legitimate paranormal manifestation) is an internally located (with respect to locus of control) aspect. I may make the offer or they may make the suggestion (either typically in the form of a Quest - Major or Minor contingent upon the stakes) but the actually formalizing of it is at their discretion. I don't get to decide if something is actually haunting to their character, the player does. I could certainly cue them with a paranormal event but its theirs to determine the significance and if they are hooked.

2) The conflict fallout with the King and those related alliances is primarily an external locus of control issue. If the player had PC build resources that insured them against this sort of fallout, then the locus would be internally located and I would steer clear of it (GMing principles) *. As Thurgon was contrived (backstory, ethos, PC build), this was not the case. As such, conflict fallout in this scenario is the GM's means (and their job) to evolve the narrative in a way that provides coherent, thematic adversity that is observant of the stakes and the material that the PC(s) wish to engage in (as cued by their backstories, ethoi, builds, Quests, and in-play actions).

* I should also note that a short-term (1 action <=> 1 scene), extremely anomalous perturbation of a resource that is internally located (insured against tampering with PC purchase), specifically when the PC has just made an informed decision which inevitably and clearly perturbs it (basically flagging that they want the situation to become manifest), is very, very different from outright, long term denial by GM imposition. I am disinclined against this almost uniformly, but on occasion (specifically when cued by the player that the takeover is welcome or expected) it is a reasonable technique.

So you don’t find that example in any way punitive to Quinn, or his player? Let’s see, first we deny him control of his character by possession, then we put him in a “they have to succeed or your character is dead” situation. And this is a clearly superior option to Thurgon’s alignment being challenged, or being haunted? Why is it OK to victimize Quinn, but not Thurgon?

My apologies here. I was not clear. This is thematic material that @LostSoul talked about wanting to explore in the PBP when he specifically took actions to that end. I would never (not ever) perform a PC takeover by imposition such as the above. LostSoul's Quinn was something of a listless, nihilistic drifter. A "beguiling gun for hire." Much of the challenge of GMing him would be (and was) presenting material that would either further his descent into disbelief, despair and the illusion of meaningful actions or inspiring him into belief and reinvestment in cause. @Campbell 's Lucann had a large role to play in exorcising the Dryad in the climactic finish. However, Quinn's role was no less significant; he secretly made a (successful) deal with the patron (presumably the Queen of Air and Darkness) to be a willing host, thus freeing the Dryad from servitude. He actually initiated the prospect of "falling into darkness" and becoming the primary antagonist down the line.