Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[S'mon]

I just can't for the life of me imagine a DM of my age - turning to the player and just saying "okay for your action, change your alignment to evil." as if that was the extent of it. I mean that is just badwrongunfun!

It might be badwrongfun, but that's what Alignment tracking means - the GM decides what Alignment the PCs are, based on their actions. He evaluates them.

 

[Bluenose]

Okay, for clarity purposes if the deity oversees Strength, Sun and Beauty domains/spheres - you find it is easier to evaluate a character's alignment with those tenets rather than with Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic?

I certainly would find the former easier to work with than the latter. It suggests something about the culture of the people who worship a god like that, which is not the case with Chaotic Good, say. While I won't evaluate their alignment as such (I found it rather a useless concept) I can judge how well they adhere to those principles.

 

[Sadras]

It might be badwrongfun, but that's what Alignment tracking means - the GM decides what Alignment the PCs are, based on their actions. He evaluates them.

Tracking and implementation are different.

 

[Sadras]

While I won't evaluate their alignment as such (I found it rather a useless concept) I can judge how well they adhere to those principles.

Those principles being good, evil, lawful or chaotic (or in whatever manner you define them)?

 

[Bluenose]

Those principles being good, evil, lawful or chaotic (or in whatever manner you define them)?

No, Strength, Sun, and Beauty. You give me those as the principles of the deity, and I've already got ideas for how that god will view a variety of things - probably different ones to someone else who sees those, but still - whereas if you give my Chaotic Good I don't have anything more than a starting point - is that Chaotic in terms of individual freedom in an ordered society, anarchy, and what does this particular society consider good?

 

[N'raac]

My George Lucas/ep III analogy reflects my actual game experience. Back ca 2001 running 3.0 I had two Monk players with Lawful Neutral on their character sheets. Their behaviour was sometimes Evil. Eventually I told them that their Alignment had shifted to LE. This then caused them to go Full Evil, much more Evil than before, much more Evil than if I had not told them about the shift.

So, was there any prior discussion with the players that the activities they were undertaking seemed much more frequently Evil than Good, and perhaps their alignments were shifting, or at risk of shifting? Or did you just spring it on them one day, without their having had any warning? The former seems reasonable. The latter seems like the kind of “gotcha” play that the anti-alignment faction considers intrinsic to any use of alignment, and the pro-alignment faction attributes to inappropriate use of alignment by the GM.

Oh, and the fact the players choose to respond by foregoing actual role playing of their characters in favour of “oh yeah? Well see how you like THIS, then” indicates, to me, a player maturity issue more than a rules system flaw.

I’d like to present the above more tactfully – we all have moments as we learn the game, and no one is immune to mistakes but at the end of the day, I find a lot of alignment criticisms to be blaming the alignment system rather than the use of that system by players and GMs.

Edit: If I GM d6 Star Wars I will of course track Dark Side points and tell a player if they've gone over to the Dark Side. But it can lead to silly results. Eg in one of the last d6 SW games I ran, a captured Jedi PC used the Dark Side to break out of jail and Samson-smash the Imperial starbase where he was held, wreaking a lot of havoc before his inevitable death. The local Imperial fleet was badly weakened, causing it to be defeated in a later battle with the Rebel Alliance. The PC behaved as a classic altruistic Hero, giving his life for the greater good, but the rules said he died a bad guy because he, being unarmed, had used the Dark Side to fight the Imperials. If he had cut them up with a lightsaber he'd have been fine.

To me, this suggests that the mechanistic application of the rules, as prescribed in the SW system, has poor results. The D&D system places more judgment in the hands of the GM (and through him, one would hope, the group) and is criticized because different GM’s might make different judgments. To me, this is no different from criticizing a game for being “videogamey” because only prescribed actions may be taken, then complaining about a more open game because the GM can make a call the player doesn’t agree with, and there should be rules for every action which could be taken.

You can’t possibly document everything that may crop up, so either we codify the rules, or we leave room for judgment in game.

On value
I took it as obvious that undeath and mindless destruction are not values. I have to confess it never occurred to me that someone would think otherwise.

It is what the entity in question values. Some people value freedom of information, and think it’s OK for the papparazzi to peak into people’s windows, put microphones or cameras in their homes and hotel rooms and root through their garbage. Others place a sufficient value on privacy as to consider that wrong.

Some people value respect for life to the point they feel taking a life as a criminal punishment is wrong. Others value respect for life to the point where they feel a person who grossly violates that right held by others sacrifices his own such right, and the only just penalty is taking the perpetrator’s life.

Money is valuable, but it is antithetical to the values of someone who has taken a vow of poverty.

Now, Undeath and Destruction are pretty easy, but let’s look at something a little tougher. Is athleticism valuable, or is knowledge? Apply one or the other choice of which is the greater value to a high school. Do we value peace, or military strength?

Values are valuable.

Black is black, too. But what is valuable? Money? Hard work? Leisure time? Family time? I doubt anyone would argue any of these are valueless. But the relative value people place on them varies widely. An evil person also has things they value, and they may cross over a lot with what good people value. Say, Peace and Security. I think that’s a value most people have. How do we get there? By compromise, negotiation and good relations with our neighbours? Or by nuking our neighbours until they glow so they can’t threaten our peace and security?

On mechanical consequences
As I've already posted, multiple times (at least twice) in reply to you, I don't regard level-draining undead as a good mechanic either. Hence I don't use them. Their presence in the game certainly doesn't make me more relaxed about XP loss from changing alignment.

Yet you continue to defend your actions in a game based on the fact the rules permit them, rather than on an underlying philosophy of what the rules/mechanics should, and should not, permit.

You are way off base, and apparently have no understanding of the action resolution mechanics of D&D 4e. I didn't "arbitrarily remove the familiar without an action resolution."

For the third time, I will post the relevant action resolution mechanics from the DMG's description of the Eye of Vecna (pp 165, 168):
When an artifact decides to leave, it moves on in whatever manner is appropriate to the artifact, its current attitude, and the story of your campaign. . .

A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment . . .

The Eye of Vecna consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust.

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has already noted the rules say nothing about implanting the Eye in a familiar to get the advantages and reduce the drawbacks. Who is “the owner”? The familiar or the invoker? Whose “inopportune moment” are we discussing? What is an opportune moment to be consumed, body and mind? And, finally, you are citing a rule that says the familiar (or the invoker – who is the “owner”) should die instantly and his body crumble to dust. Clearly, you have already decided that the mechanic is, to some degree, bad, but you are OK with a “less bad” application.

To summarize, your claim that you are using the mechanics as written is not, in my view, accurate. Further, your claim has not been that people were using the alignment mechanics wrong, but that using them right can only have detrimental results, so I am unsure how your now feel justified defending your own decisions based on the mechanics.
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has already pointed out your inconsistent use of the mechanics, which left the familiar safeguarded against any damage when he was in passive mode, then suddenly left it taking damage despite the player not having changed his resource into active mode. You, the GM, removed the resource contrary to the manner in which the action resolution mechanics would so permit.

You did so exercising judgment that this was consistent with the story, brought on by the choices of the player/character and would make for a better game, which is quite consistent with

And I will post more relevant text, I believe for the first time, from the DMG p 42:
Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them. . .

Nevertheless, you departed from the action resolution mechanics (despite your vehement protests to the contrary), which I will detail for the second time, as this seems to be your wish:

And for the second time I will post the relevant action resolution mechanics from the rules for skill challenges:
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.

So what was his reward for succeeding in the skill challenge? He gets to have the familiar back at some undefined future time, which you have indicated will likely not follow the regular rules for recovery of this resource, nor will it follow the rule for the Eye of Vecna which ostensibly caused the loss of the resource? And you present this as evidence that you are following the action resolution mechanics?

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.

The notion that a consequence of a skill challenge cannot include a familiar taking damage is something that you and @Imaro have dreamed up. It has no foundation in any 4e rules text - as anyone can see from the passages I've just posted.

Emphasis added. The player “knew he might be placing the familiar at risk” is as close as we have gotten to any voluntary sacrifice on his part. Had he said “I want to rechannel the energy – can I sacrifice the Eye of Vecna permanently, and lose access to the familiar temporarily to make that a possibility and/or get a bonus to the roll?” or had you asked the player “Do you want to rechannel the souls to the Raven Queen? This will likely result in loss of the Eye, and perhaps even the Familiar, for some period of time, or even permanently?”, that would seem to fit the phrasing of the mechanic. Now, I find the actual play, including the uncertainty, more engaging. But that does not change the fact it departed from the mechanic, nor does it change the fact that the player’s/character’s value choice – which deity is it more right and proper to support – resulted in your decision to deny the player access to a resource, reducing his ability to influence the fiction.

That’s consistent with my view that the character’s choices can and should have such an impact. It’s consistent with the alignment rules imposing consequences on the value choices made by characters. It is not consistent with your prior expression of distaste for mechanics that change a player’s ability to influence the fiction based on the moral choices made by his character.

You are correct that it was an off-the-cuff decision. Many GMs make off-the-cuff decisions. The 4e DMG has a whole page - page 42 - devoted to adjudicating off-the-cuff decisions by both players and GMs.

I suggest that denial of a Paladin’s powers for an action he has just taken, or concluding alignment has changed due to an accumulation of PC actions, is also an off-the-cuff GM decision. Such decisions are a necessary part of the game, for many of the reasons you have stated.

It does not change the fact that your off the cuff decision was to depart from the “passive familiars are immune to damage” rules, nor that it imposed a consequence of the character’s moral choice which reduced his ability to impact the fiction for a period of time. I am not arguing you somehow “broke the rules”. I am stating that I find the actions taken in this matter to be the removal of a character resource as a consequence of a character’s moral decision. As such, I conclude that your objection to similar mechanics for Paladins, or for the alignment system, are not a hard and fast philosophy, but a question of degree, in that you are OK with a sufficiently limited reduction in PC resources for an appropriate duration (both of the latter set by you).

Yet you cannot envision anyone using the alignment rules exercising judgment to set the consequences to an appropriate severity and duration. That one aspect of the rules seems to be the only one where you cannot envision this. And that blind spot is what puzzles me.

Furthermore, you - an avowed non-4e player - are telling me that I misapplied the mechanics for a skill challenge because, in the course of play, I departed from my preparatory notes!

You yourself have cited the rules that said the familiar was exempt from damage as it was in passive mode, yet have defended loss of the familiar on the basis it took damage, notwithstanding such exemption. I’m no 4e expert, but having read the statements of the one I am familiar with – yourself – I still see an inconsistency. I would be interested in the comments of a more impartial 4e expert.

How did the player lose access to a class feature? Do you even know what the class features are for an invoker in 4e?

Is his familiar not a class feature? If not, what is it? It is, most certainly, something he can use to influence the fiction – he did so by implanting the Eye in it, so even if that was the sole impact it had, it was a resource to influence the fiction. Are you saying it was not?

Do you even know how it is that the player comes to have a familiar, or what the mechanics are that govern familiars?

The answers, whether consistent with my assumptions or not, would not change the fact it was a resource of the player to influence the fiction, which you removed on an off the cuff call.

Do you know how long the familiar will take to recover?

The duration of the loss is a matter of degree, not an indicator of a philosophy that the player/character’s moral choices should not reduce their ability to influence the fiction, so this is not relevant either. In any case, you have stated that no one knows, because you do not intend to follow the usual rules in this regard, which also seems unsupportive of your claim that you are adhering to the mechanics.

Do you know the rules for curses and diseases in 4e?

Was there a curse or disease involved? If so, you have not mentioned it. If not, then it is irrelevant.

Do you know the mechanics for encounter balancing in 4e? Do you know what effect it has on the mechanical effectiveness of a 4e PC to have an encounter power placed onto the daily recovery cycle by some adverse effect?

Again, this is a question of the severity of the reduction in the player’s ability to influence the fiction, and not an indicator of a philosophy that the player/character’s moral choices should not reduce their ability to influence the fiction, so this is not relevant either.

You have yet to answer the simple question of whether we are discussing “philosophy” or “degree”. Since you’ve lost track of what we are debating here, THAT IS A BIG PART OF IT if not the entirety.

My best guess is that you know basically none of these things. On what basis, then, are you lecturing me about my conformity or non-conformity to 4e's action resolution mechanics?

See above.

But putting the issue of class features to one side, how do you propose to put anything at stake in an RPG, except via the behavioural choices - otherwise known as actions - performed by a PC?

A fine question – yet your distaste for alignment rules was stated to be predicated that the character’s moral decisions should not mechanically impact him. So I am not the one who is asserting there should be nothing at stake for such choices.

I don't know of any other way. Which then allows for two possibilities: either, when I said upthread that I am not interesting in judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses as part of refereeing the game, I meant (i) that I don't want any stakes or consequences in my game, or (ii) by "judging my players' evaluative and expressive responses" I meant something different from "figuring out the ingame consequences of their actions".

An alignment change or loss of Paladin abilities is an “ingame consequence of their actions”. I am refusing, consciously, to use the term “evaluative and expressive responses", as it has remained completely undefined, you have expressly stated that the ordinary English meaning is not the meaning you ascribe to it, and you have told us you cannot actually define it without violating the Board rules. With that in mind, I can only conclude it is “those actions or decisions which Pemerton does not wish to adjudicate in a manner which would have an impact on the player’s influence over the in-game fiction”.


I’ve parsed out your quote below for ease of reference. I have not changed or rearranged the words, other than that bullet pointing:

This has no bearing on whether I am going to judge that a player who sets out to have his PC thwart Vecna angers Vecna. That's not about judging an evaluative or expressive response. That's about

1. playing Vecna
2. in accordance with the stakes that have been set up by the player
3. escalated by me
4. and then pushed to crunch time by the player's choice to have his PC thwart Vecna.

Which, to me, is pretty similar to:

1. playing the entity which the Paladin is supposed to be an exemplar of
2. in accordance with the stakes that have been set up by the player, which include his Paladin abilities, by the rules written for the class (pre-4e)
3. escalated by me, by placing moral choices in his path
4. and then pushed to crunch time by the player's choice

So I still see this as quite comparable. You clearly don’t, because it falls into the “pemerton does not like this” no man’s land referred to as “evaluative and expressive responses".

Where is the line drawn? How many angels can stand on a head of a pin?

That a line needs to be drawn indicates we are addressing a matter of degree, not an absolute philosophy.

I haven't worked out, in advance, and for all time, the scope of mechanical consequences in 4e. Nor have the designers, except in the prosaic sense that they've stopped designing for it:

Kind of like every action’s alignment status has not been worked out, in advance, and for all time?

I have explained what I mean by evaluative judgement. If you want a dictionary reference, I point you to this, from the Collins English Dictionary: expressing an attitude or value judgment.

You keep imputing to me views that I haven't expressed.

The invoker expressed a value judgment – whether the souls should flow to Vecna, or to the Raven Queen. He then acted on it. I am unaware of any assertion that the player’s value judgment, without being acted on, would have an alignment implication.

This is becoming comical. Can you please quote the passage from the 4e rulebooks that states that a GM is not permitted to frame a scene in which a dead PC talks to the Raven Queen?

Cite the line that says the GM cannot penalize a character who becomes, or ceases to be, unaligned. If you want to claim you are applying the action resolution mechanics and rules of the game, then the mechanic or rule needs to be printed, not be cited as being absent.

But in fact, the player can fail at Stealth checks yet not have his/her conception of his/her PC as "a shadow in the night" negated, and the warrior be defeated yet the player's conception of his/her PC as a great warrior not be negated - that is part of the point of fortune-in-the-middle mechanics, which particularly abound in the version of D&D that I play.

Are you familiar with the term “Worfed”? A character whose stealth routinely fails does not play out as a “shadow in the night”, nor does one who is often beaten down in combat feel like a great warrior.

 

[N'raac]

Even by the standards of this thread, this seemed a little tangential:

High praise indeed!

What makes you think I'm denying that? The ranger not only echoes Tolkien in the class name and some of the level titles (eg Strider, Ranger) but rangers are (like Aragorn) expert trackers who, when they become lords, can wield Palantiri.

But how does that have any bearing on my contention upthread, which you appeared to deny, that Tolkien's depiction of Aragorn is based on the trope of divinely ordained kingship, which includes the notion that "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer" - and also the idea that the king will be a greater leader (17+ CHA)?

This actually alludes to an issue I was considering. The trope that many of the alleged “Paladin examples” conjure is the Divine Right of Kings, but nothing in Paladinhood indicates that this is part of the concept. Arthur and Aragorn both reflect this trope. I don’t believe any class does. Aragorn demonstrated healing abilities – once – in accordance with a prophecy that linked such skills to right of rulership in a manner unique to that story. Arthur drew the Sword from the Stone not due to righteousness or justice, but because he was the Rightful King of England.

This is a completely different trope from anything applied to the Paladin, who has no link to Nobility or Rulership, other than the evolved “noble” term which no longer refers to a birthright of rulership.

 

[N'raac]

Ignoring for a minute the fact that the rules for implanting the Eye of Vecna into a familiar are made up whole cloth by you any way since the rules for the artifact don't address this... Now I asked if the familiar was in passive mode further back in the thread but never received an answer but you finally did say...

Well if it was in passive mode and familiars don't take damage while in passive mode... I'm curious how did the Eye of Vecna damage it since in passive mode it can't be damaged by any effect? Was the player informed that the Eye of Vecna could damage his familiar while it was in passive mode beforehand? Or is there something else about the scenario that will be revealed now that wasn't mentioned beforehand?

Honestly I'm not seeing why it's so hard for you to admit that you weren't following the rules or using the resolution mechanics as outlined by the books when you punished the character?

In fairness, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is following “the rules” in that the GM must adjudicate issues that may not fit squarely into the rules, and should sometimes modify the rules in the interests of the fun and the game.

But he seems quite defensive when anyone suggests his claims to be following the mechanics precisely are challenged. I’m not sure why, when the thread’s impetus is whether a mechanic from the edition(s) where they are mechanics is questioned, and he suggests it should be discarded, it upsets him that we suggest he is not blindly following other mechanics. Yet, for some reason, it appears to.

Generally a familiar comes back after any rest. In this particular case, a short rest may not be enough.

So, again, we depart from the rules as written in the interests of the game.

And to satisfy @N'raac and @Imaro , who are the self-appointed 4e police, I quote from p 57 of module H2 (authors Richard Baker and Mike Mearls):
This skill challenge involves the adventurers and a spectral manifestation of Vecna. . .

Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power and one daily power for the rest of the adventure. . .

Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power for the rest of the adventure. . .

Each PC loses one healing surge for the rest of the adventure.

I'm not sure why a precdent would be needed, but here we have one for consequences of a skill challenge involving Vecna in which those consequences include changing the normal recharge rate for a resource or ability.

Without going looking, I suspect there are modules that classify certain actions as Evil Acts. Why does the module writer overriding the mechanics indicate that it is good GMing to override the mechanics, but a module writer setting out the application of the alignment rules does not get afforded equal deference? Again, I am uncertain why you are so hung up on the suggestion you are not following the mechanics. Do you perceive “not following the mechanics” to be a negative? I don’t.

I was answering N'raac's question about taking damage. At the moment when the familiar was doing Vecna's bidding and diverting the souls to him, I think it was rather active. Certainly active enough to suffer consequences from Vecna via the Eye!

Yet it was in no way active previously? Who, by the rules, would decide whether a familiar is active or not? It seems like that would be the player, but as you note, my 4e knowledge is limited.

Of course, it also seems odd to have the suggestion alignment is a poor mechanic argued solely from the viewpoint of an edition where it is not a mechanic. It also seems odd that someone who discarded alignment long ago, as I understand your comments, feels qualified to tell the rest of us how alignment mechanics work. It’s a funny thread…

 

[Imaro]

Generally a familiar comes back after any rest. In this particular case, a short rest may not be enough.

So it's not a mistake on N'raac 's part... you're just not following the rules for familiars... got it.

And to satisfy @N'raac and @Imaro, who are the self-appointed 4e police

No one forced you to post up a play example... but once you decided to you should expect it to be examined and discussed (and not respond with childish name calling)...

FYI, that's not being the "4e police" that's the point of a forum discussion...

I quote from p 57 of module H2 (authors Richard Baker and Mike Mearls):

This skill challenge involves the adventurers and a spectral manifestation of Vecna. . .

Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power and one daily power for the rest of the adventure. . .

Each PC loses two healing surges and the use of one encounter power for the rest of the adventure. . .

Each PC loses one healing surge for the rest of the adventure.​

I'm not sure why a precdent would be needed, but here we have one for consequences of a skill challenge involving Vecna in which those consequences include changing the normal recharge rate for a resource or ability.

So did your skill challenge have as one of it's "rewards" (and remember you wrote it out earlier) that the DM could activate a player's familiar (without his consent), strip him of it (through said activation, DM fiat of the artifact rules and without the players consent) and change the recharge rate of said resource as a "reward" or "goal" of a "successful" skill challenge???

Or maybe instead of just admitting you DM'd fiat'd that interaction BIG TIME based on the decision the character made... you are now trying (IMO, unsuccessfully)to retroactively mechanically justify the actions you took against said player for his decision not to support Vecna...

It's weird being told I'm wrong in my 4e framing and adjduciation by one poster who, by his own admission, doesn't know the 4e mecahnics, and by another poster who is one of the most prominent ENworld critics of that edition.

What does whether I criticize the edition or not have to do with anything? I've played 4th edition, ran 4th edition (and probably will again at some point in the future) and nothing I am saying about your supposed use of the resolution mechanics has been wrong. So why exactly do you find it weird?

This would be like me saying I find it weird that the two other proponents of 4e I recognize in this thread @Hussar and @S'mon haven't told you how you're wrong about your 4e framing and adjudication... In other words what does one have to do with the other if the points are valid?

So now my player is a bad player too, for having his PC implant the Eye into his imp rather than himself? We 4e players like to think outside the box like that - none of this videogamey drop-down menu approach to play for us!

I didn't make an evaluative judgement, I stated a fact, that fact being there are no rules to cover the implanting of the Eye of Vecna into a familiar as opposed to a character... is this statement incorrect? I didn't comment on whether it was good or bad (if they worked for you who am I to judge), I'm just asking for honesty in our discussion.

In fact, not only did my player have the idea, but he made up the rules too, including that he lost an eye corresponding to that of his familiar.

So the rules were made up whole cloth... thanks.

I was answering N'raac's question about taking damage. At the moment when the familiar was doing Vecna's bidding and diverting the souls to him, I think it was rather active. Certainly active enough to suffer consequences from Vecna via the Eye!

Wait so the player activated his familiar? Or did you take control of his resource, activate it so it could take damage and then arbitrarily take it away because he chose not to funnel souls to Vecna... If so, wow... you not only arbitrarily stripped him of the resource, you also took over control of the resource in order to strip it away without his consent...

 

[Cadence]

Another interruption of things I stumbled across while checking the books to reply to another thread...

I remember from one of these threads recently that OD&D only had L/N/G and I knew first hand it was true for B/X. But I had forgotten that Moldvay explicitly ended the descriptions with:

Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "good".
Chaotic behavior is usuall the same as behavior that could be called "evil".

Did OD&D leave those out? What about the other versions of Basic?