Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

I also don't see why "inflict 1 hp of damage on a familiar" (which is all that is required to shut a familiar down) is being described as "strip him of some of his power". For me, at least, that's a counter-intuitive formulation. "Stripping of power" suggests a degree of permanence, apart from anything else.

He previously had the familiar available to him. Now he does not. He has been stripped of that measure of his powers. Previously, it seemed you were asserting that you did not wish to be placed in a position requiring you to assess whether a character did, or did not, get to retain his mechanical effectiveness. You have asserted many times that no character’s ability to influence the shared fiction should be impaired by the GM’s judgments.

Now, it appears you are no longer asserting an absolute philosophy, but rather assessing its implementation – the extent and/or duration of the reduction in ability to influence the fiction.

To be clear, this is not a criticism of your GMing. It is a comparison of your stated philosophy and your actual actions in game, which where I (and others, it seems) perceive an inconsistency with how you are phrasing your philosophy and how it is expressed in your actual play.

As I have said upthread, for me that is utterly incompatible with the paladin archetype. The divine may move in mysterious ways, but it does not err.

Which Divine? The LG Divine empowering the Paladin, the CE Divine empowering the Anti-Paladin, the Raven Queen empowering your 4e player’s Paladin, the Divine Right of the King deeming he can never be incorrect, the Divine powers gifted to the Paladin ensuring he can never err? The Judeo-Christian analogies do not translate well to the polytheistic D&D realm.

I quoted you in the post to which you're replying. When I said that alignment requires judging whether a player's action declared for his/her PC is good or evil, you denied this in post 654, saying "No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil".

The Paladin is judged by the standards of LG, not just G. Which Good is infallible, LG or CG? BY definition, neither can be, as neither is set as “the most good” by the game rules. I would suggest NG is the purest Good as neither Law nor Chaos tempers its pursuit of Good.

In both cases it depends a lot on context.

For instance, the paladin of the Raven Queen died in a session towards the end of last year. This meant that - prior to his resurrection - he got to have an up close and personal chat with his god. During that conversation - which he and I played out in his car as he was driving me home from the session - he sought advice on what he should do (in particular, on how hard he should push towards the Soul Abattoir - he is a Questing Knight, and destroying the Soul Abattoir was his quest). Playing the role of the Raven Queen, I told him to push hard - that he had dithered long enough, and more than indulged the distracting whims of his companions. (Who at this point were in any event ready to tackle the Soul Abattoir, having followed up the other matters they were interested in - primarily the fate of Mal Arundak.)

That sounds a lot like a negative evaluation of the Paladin’s past performance by the Raven Queen. If the Paladin’s actions were perfectly in step, I would expect something more like “now is the fated time – you have dealt with other matters first, as was fated. Now is the time to press on” – that is, all his decisions to date have been 100% correct, because he is always fully in step with the power he serves. In my games? Maybe the RG is not pleased with the delays, and will make that known. But that is evaluating the quality of the Paladin’s service to that Power.

This is the context in which I don't find it that outrageous to inflict a consequence which the player has more-or-less set up for himself.

Neither do I. I do find it to be the reduction of the character’s mechanical abilities as a consequence of the extent to which his conduct has been in accordance with serving an entity to which he is beholden. That is what you have previously indicated you find inappropriate for your games, and why you dislike mechanical alignment.

This seems rather incomplete, at best. The archetypal adventuring paladin is a paragon of virtue who seeks out threats to smite ... they literally go out of their way to cause harm to others that they believe deserve it. A conception of "good" that doesn't at least include the idea that some forms of intentionally causing others harm are acceptable is difficult to reconcile with the genre conceits of heroic warriors (not that all characters must be heroic warriors, but it's certainly an archetype the game has always purported to include).

To me, it reflects a clash of “protection of the innocent” and “respect for life”.

No I'm not. I don't think that allegiance has changed from its prior ambiguous status. I'm judging that the PC has pissed Vecna off. That's what the player intended to do. The player didn't think that his PC was somehow furthering Vecna's cause or values by stopping him getting the soul energy.

First you state you are not judging the character’s allegiance. You immediately follow that with your judgment on the status of his allegiance. Which is it?

Why not? He pledged service to the vampire Kas, for example.

So is that consistent with the Paragon of the implacable foe of the Undead, or is it a fellow who takes whatever road is most convenient? Can he also raise an undead army, and pledge fealty to Orcus, who as Demon Lord of the Undead, presumably has some influence over an undead vampire?

Does St Cuthbert punish the paladin? The impression I get from you and @Imaro, in your reference to various powers' and divinities' conceptions of what is good, is that this question is to be answered by asking what St Cuthbert believes lawful goodness required on that occasion. My preference is to answer by asking what did lawful goodness require and/or permit on that occasion. And when the player is sincere in his/her view about the permissibility of what s/he did, I am not going to second guess. And once the idea of second guessing is off the table, mechanical alignment then turns out to be redundant for my purposes.

First off, I think we are also assessing “was the action taken a reasonable one” not “the best one” in the circumstances. Second, you are now caveating your “no judgment” philosophy – who is judging whether the player is sincere? How does the model differ if you decide he is not?

 

[Hussar]

Are you speaking to your particular group here... or is this a general statement?

Well considering his statement was a general one that stated alignment was always needed for enforcing player behaviour then I would think you need to take that up with him.

My group has no need for this because my players have no problem maintaining their character's integrity and would see compromising that as no fun.

IOW my players do not need policing. See S'mon's posts for exactly how my group works.

 

[Hussar]

From what I've read so far, the response is going to be along the lines of
1) all that would have been hashed out at character creation.
2) that they don't have such players in their games and wouldn't play with them if they discovered they had such notions of play.
3) if alignment is used it forces them to micro manage the players so that even less extreme situations would require telling the players what to do.

Pretty much spot on.

Now, how is this a mistaken view of alignment?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - in your dwarf example (which would be a blast to see at a table btw cool idea) I have a couple of questions. Is everyone a PC or is the estranged son an NPC?

 

[Sadras]

@Sadras - in your dwarf example (which would be a blast to see at a table btw cool idea) I have a couple of questions. Is everyone a PC or is the estranged son an NPC?

Thanks. For the example I made them both PCs. But your question does bring up an interesting point - NPC Paladins who violate their code, I imagine its ok to to judge those using alignment/paladin code, due to no-player participation.

I have sadly run only one adventure where I purposefully created an experience (it was less of an adventure and more a situation in a foreign town) to examine their roleplaying ability vs gamist tendencies. The experience/adventure had all the PCs arguing with each other and were at opposite ends - it was quite a test on their roleplaying skills and it was a wonder the party remained intact at the end of it. In fact the characters were escorted out of the foreign town (banned) and it might have seemed like they failed but in truth they did not as there was no defined ending to the adventure. It definitely strained character relationships, tested their ethical/moral standards, identified their loyalties and personal vices.
It was made better because of the party composition which included a Paladin, and that player had the hardest time of all, worrying what his party members were up to behind his back - if any of them were involved with the crazy occurrences around town.

 

[Sadras]

2) that they don't have such players in their games and wouldn't play with them if they discovered they had such notions of play.

Pretty much spot on. Now, how is this a mistaken view of alignment?

In response to this, how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players? I mean I understand most of us are fortunate to have long established gaming circles, so we do not worry about using the alignment 'stick', myself included, but certainly I can see the value of alignment as a learning tool which deters inconsistent play by newbies and remember it wont be just sprung up on them in a useless terrible fashion "You did many bad acts, you are evil now" it will be a constant discussion during sessions between DM and players, players and players, examining the roleplaying of ones character. I can certainly see the value of alignment for learning purposes which also integrates with the setting.

 

[pemerton]

And to us on the alignment side, the specific values a paladin defends and promotes (ones consistent with LG) make all the difference between a paladin and a paid enforcer.

That's not really addressing the point I raised, though.

Upthread, I was told that the question for a paladin is not "Did I violate the tenets of lawful good?" but rather "Did I piss off the lawful good god St Cuthbert?" This, I was told, is why judging the actions of a paladin player does not involves judging whether those actions were good and evil - rather, I was told I only have to judge if they did or didn't enjoy St Cuthbert's approval.

But if you're now saying it is about the values, then you seem to be agreeing with me that to judge whether or not a paladin player's PC falls requires judging the moral character of the actions that player declares for his/her PC.

What if the player put a decidedly Melnibonean slant on beauty such as a choir of singers all tortured and mutilated to be able to produce one note each? Would you second guess that and decide that wasn't a very Corellonesque version of beauty? That the player clearly didn't understand the setting and what sort of deity Corellon was?

What if you turn up to play a game that you've been told is "Default 4e setting" and then the GM springs this sort of Elvish society and Corellon worship on you?

Options that occur to me range from getting irritated at the GM for tricking you, through to playing along with it to see what happens. Whatever you would do in such a situation, it can probably work, mutatis mutandis, for the player you describe. You might get irritated at the player for not falling your instructions to build a PC within the framework of the default 4e setting (assuming that you had given such an instruction, as I did). You might play along with it to see what happens. Or something else that seems approriate.

And out of curiosity, how does mechanical alignment help deal with this situation?

how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players?

I haven't seen this problem. The last new player that I introduced - admittedly some time ago now - played a samurai as his first PC. How did he "stick to" the samurai's code? By playing his samurai as he thought a samurai would act.

I don't see why a new player is likely to play his samurai as something else, unless the game very specifically rewards players for playing cheating, lying, sneaking, thieving types. But that is not a particular feature of my game - at least, not for PCs whose strengths lie in heavy arms and armour, leadership and the like, rather than in stealth, bluff and the like.

If the actions from characters of non cynical or sincere players had no consequences what exactly would such players be doing - just enjoy rolling dice?

Who is denying that declared actions have consequences? What is being discussed is whether those consequences should be determined by the GM's evaluative opinion about those choices: were they proper or improper?

That is a very specific way of determining consequences. As [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has mentioned upthread, almost no non-D&D RPG uses such a method. But I've never heard it suggestesd that those RPGs offer nthing to non-cynical or sincere players but the rolling of dice.

Roghar (a PC) assassinates the High Priest as instructed by Baern to save his wife and unborn child? What do you do as DM with regards to his powers. I believe we can all agree assassination is an evil act in terms of the paladin code.

Baern (a PC) slays the pregnant wife of Roghar because Roghar disobeyed him and in his mind will be causing further harm by keeping the policies of the old High Priest alive? What do you do as DM with regards to is divine powers. I believe we can all agree murdering an innocent and the unborn child in cold blood is an evil act.

IMO, you could not fault either for roleplaying out of his character no matter what the decision, so they would both most definitely be allowed

A couple of questions.

First, if Roghar carried out Baern's instructions why did Baern kill Roghar's wife? Or are those meant to be alternative possiblities?

Second, is this an actual play example, or is it a hypothetical? If it's actual play, how did you handle it? Or are you asking for advice on how to handle it? If it's a hypothetical, and you're asking me how I would handle it, then I don't have an answer. This is the sort of conflict between characters that actual play resolves.

Truthfully, if I was a player at that table, and the DM did nothing while all this madness took place, that would break my immersion. Earnestly, how can it not affect you?

What are you expecting the GM to do?

I have no idea about what has happened to take this to this point. Why is one paladin acting as a kidnapper and forcing another to act as an assassin? Why is he not challenging the other to a duel, for instance? Why is he not denouncing his father in pubic, and perhaps raising an army to depose him? It sounds to me like the story you describe is at the 11th hour, and without any information on what happend in the preceding 10 hours and 59 minutes you're asking me to decide how it should resolve.

 

[Hussar]

In response to this, how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players? I mean I understand most of us are fortunate to have long established gaming circles, so we do not worry about using the alignment 'stick', myself included, but certainly I can see the value of alignment as a learning tool which deters inconsistent play by newbies and remember it wont be just sprung up on them in a useless terrible fashion "You did many bad acts, you are evil now" it will be a constant discussion during sessions between DM and players, players and players, examining the roleplaying of ones character. I can certainly see the value of alignment for learning purposes which also integrates with the setting.

I've generally found its much less of a problem than people might think. I've seen very experienced gamers who behave badly and for whom alignment rules and in game morality aren't a consideration. And I've seen brand new players who get it right off.

I mean it's generally not too much of a stretch to point at archetypes and let it be known that it's a good idea to stay in character.

Lead by example generally works.

Now I have had a stable group for the last few years or so but it wasn't always like that. And like anything you have to start slow. I'm not going to get all morally heavy on a brand new group that doesn't know each other. But I wouldn't do that regardless of mechanical alignment or not.

 

[pemerton]

It is a comparison of your stated philosophy and your actual actions in game, which where I (and others, it seems) perceive an inconsistency with how you are phrasing your philosophy and how it is expressed in your actual play.

I have repeatedly stressed the difference between deciding that Vecna is pissed off, and forming an evaluative judgement of the player's declared action for his PC.

I have also stressed the location of the relevant consequence within the bog-standard framework of action resolution. In the same skill challenge, the player of the fighter spent an encounter power to aid with an earlier check. As a result, he did not have that power available in the combat that occurred between the 7th and 8th successes. The treatment of the imp is no different.

He previously had the familiar available to him. Now he does not.

This is what happens when actions are resolved. In the same skill challenge, several players spent action points. They previously had them available, but after expenditure did not. In the same skill challenge, two or three PCs tood damage. They previously had hit points available, but had to dedcut them (and ultimately the healing surge required to replenish them).

Here are some comments in the 4e rules on how to adjudicate skill challenges, and impose consequences for choices made and actions declared:

DMG pp 74, 76
What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure.

Beyond those fundamental rewards, the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward. . .

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat — experience and perhaps treasure.

DMG2 p 86
Here are some options you might want to account for in desiging a skill challenge: . . .

* Voluntarily taking damage . . . or sacrificing a healing surge.​

In this particular case, the player voluntarily chose to take a penalty - 1 hp of damage to his PC's familiar - in return for achieving an outcome, namely, stopping Vecna getting access to the soul energy.

It has nothing in common, to my eye, with inflicting a penalty on a player because the GM forms the view that the player's choice of action did not meet an evaluative standard.

Next you'll be saying I'm inconsistent because, in combats with Orcus's demons, I have them attack the paladin of the Raven Queen first - Oh no, I'm depriving him of his hit points by judging him to be an enemy of Orcus! This is the first time I've ever encountered the suggestion that a paladin becoming a mere fighter forever more is no different from taking some hit point damage in a fight.

First you state you are not judging the character’s allegiance. You immediately follow that with your judgment on the status of his allegiance. Which is it?

In forming the opinion that the invoke's allegiance to Vecna is ambiguous, I am not adjudicating any action as part of my role as referee. I am simply describing the state of the game fiction, as I understand it based to a significant extent on discussions with the player of the PC in question. I don't understand how this has any bearing on whether or not mechanical alignment is an impediment to my play experience.

that is evaluating the quality of the Paladin’s service to that Power.

See, this is not an evaluative judgement in the sense that I have characterised and used that phrase. It is judging whether or not the PC's conduct satisfies the desirs of another. Whereas I am talking about judging whether or not a PC's conduct expresses or promotes a value.

That sounds a lot like a negative evaluation of the Paladin’s past performance by the Raven Queen. If the Paladin’s actions were perfectly in step, I would expect something more like “now is the fated time – you have dealt with other matters first, as was fated. Now is the time to press on” – that is, all his decisions to date have been 100% correct, because he is always fully in step with the power he serves.

The scene has already been played, so I'm not sure how relevant it is that other options were open, or that you might have done it differently. But if a player lets me know that his PC has doubts that he is living up to his requirements, and then tells me that he want to discuss the matter with his god, I don't feel any obligation to tell him that his doubts were misplaced.

This is a fairly banal example that shows why my experience is not in accordance with you and other posters who seem to assume that the absence of mechanical alignment means that, for the character in question, anything goes. This PC, as played by this player, had doubts about his resolution. I, playing his mistress to whom he put the matter, urged him to be more resolute.

Which Divine?

The one who inspired Aragorn, Arthur, Lancelot, Roland et al.

The Judeo-Christian analogies do not translate well to the polytheistic D&D realm.

I've never had any trouble playing and GMing paladins - who in my view are inherently located within an ethic of this sort, in particular one in which the divine speaks unerringly on questions of value - once mechanical alignment is put to one side.

So is that consistent with the Paragon of the implacable foe of the Undead, or is it a fellow who takes whatever road is most convenient? Can he also raise an undead army, and pledge fealty to Orcus, who as Demon Lord of the Undead, presumably has some influence over an undead vampire?

Where is the actual play?

This is like [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]'s example upthread - as far as I can tell these are mere hypotheses. They are not examples from your actual play. Nor are they examples from my actual play. As best as I can tell, they are not example from any play that any poster on these boards has expeienced or heard of. So what is their relevance?

If it actually happens in my game, then I'll get back to you on how it unfolded.

you are now caveating your “no judgment” philosophy – who is judging whether the player is sincere? How does the model differ if you decide he is not?

Here is some quotes from posts upthread (454, 545 and 549 - the latter two were replies to you, and the lattermost referred you to the earlier one):

Imagine an activity for which an important goal - perhaps the main goal - is to evoke an evaluative and/or expressive response on the part of a participant, which that participant shares with the other participants, in turn evoking similar responses from them - and a good part of the pleasure of the activity is in enjoying the dynamic interaction of these responses. And part of this dynamic is that individual participants evaluate along different dimensions of value (aesthetic, personal morality, politics, etiquette etc), and express their own conceptions of what is salient about a given element within their activity, both in their original responses an in their interactions with other participants. And all these responses in turn generate new content which can itself be the object of further expression and evaluation.

<snip>

Sincere discussion about works of art, or political ideas, can have this sort of character too - I say "sincere" to contrast with discussion in which people hold back, and censor their own views, out of some felt need to conform to received opinion that they don't themselves share.

<snip>

an alignment judgement is also different from a mere in-fiction negative consequence. An in-fiction negative consequence is, for instance, that an NPC doesn't like what you did, and thinks it was wrong. That does not impinge upon the player's own evaluative and expressive responses, though it does provide more material for the player to work with.

Nor is an alignment judgement simply a negative mechanical consequence.

<snip>

this does not impinge upon the player's evaluative and expressive responses

<snip>

an alignment judgement isn't just saying "Now these NPCs don't like you, because they think you betrayed your ideals" or "Now this artefact is withholding power from you, because it thinks you're flouting moral precepts." An alignment judgement involves the GM saying "You did betray your ideals", or "You did flout moral precepts." And that is the feature of alignment that is an obstacle to my play experience, because an obstacle to the player playing his/her PC in accordance with his/her conception of it, in the sense of that phrase I have explained above.

If the character is "writing him-/herself" then the author is not answering to some challenge of keeping within certain pre-given descriptors. S/he is making choices driven by the immediacy of the situation (again, notions from aesthetic theory such as "spontaneity" and "authenticity" seem apposite here).

This relates to the pre-eminence of play, also. Actual play can take us to places with a character that matter, and have meaning, in a way that the same place as a stipulated starting point would lack. I am not much of an aesthetic theorist, but notions like "history", "accretion", "unfolding", "revelation" and so on seem to be in play in one case but not the other.

<snip>

Of course my game is not a work of art in any meaningful sense - it's of aesthetic interest only to those who actually participate in it. But the basic dynamic of creation is still the same. I am not interested in making my players answerable to my judgement as part of the process of playing their PCs: naturally I have opinions as an audience member, but they're not part of my role as referee.

If the point of play - as I posted in reply to Umbran some way upthread (post 454) - is to evoke an evaluative and/or expressive response on the part of a participant, then classifying actions in the way you advocate as part of the process of play is an impediment. It is antithetical to the point of play.

You can see from those posts that I am not "caveating" anything - and that notions in the neighbourhood of "sincerity", "spontaneity" and "authenticity" have been at the heart of my concerns from the get-go.

As to what happens if I decide a player is not sincere - as in, not interested in playing sincerely - I do the same thing that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] does. I find someone else to play with.

Fortunately, at least in my experience, few people set out to engage in a creative endeavour while having no genuine desire to create.

 

[Hussar]

I think there is a point that gets lost in all of this. For myself, and I believe a number of others on this side of the fence, alignment in the game is fine. It's a nice little shorthand and it helps to give players a handle on the motivations of their character. As far as that goes, that's fine.

My personal beef is mechanical alignment. Where "violating" alignment carries mechanical penalties.

Every version of D&D has had alignment, but the degree to which that has carried mechanical elements varies greatly. On one end you've got 4e and Basic/Expert D&D, and really OD&D, which have alignment, but, very, very few mechanics tied to that. Yes, there are mechanics, such as the OD&D paladin, but, not a whole lot more than that.

On the other end, you've got 3e/3.5 D&D where virtually every class has alignment restrictions (which ones don't? Fighter, wizard, sorcerer and rogue. That's what 4 out of 11 base classes that don't have alignment restrictions). Where you have aligned spells all over the place and aligned effects built into magic items being very common.

Yet, funnily enough, no one ever talks about how that barbarian isn't following his alignment. After all, the penalties are almost as strict as for a divine class. What higher power is taking away his ability to rage? Bards who become lawful can no longer progress as Bards. So on and so forth.

My feeling is that these sorts of alignment restrictions are virtually always ignored. The only time it might come up is if there is some magical effect changing alignment. Yet, for some reason, we feel the need to enforce player behaviour for divine classes but not these other ones.

But, in any case, it's not like not having mechanical alignment means that morality no longer applies.