Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.

So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?

Again, as I stated earlier, this is painting with a wide (IMO too wide) brush. In fact I would be reluctant to claim players (in a general sense) will do anything automatically, they are individuals and thus will respond to different things in different ways. Do I think some players will choose the most expedient option over playing in character (though as I stated before many/most nearly all things can be justified when there is no objective view of alignment)... yes absolutely. Have I seen it in actual games... yes. Would you claim there isn't a player who would ever do this? If not just because you haven't experienced it (or actively avoid it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Now do I think that is the only reason for mechanical alignment... NO!! I just want that to be very clear because it seems you have been intent on ascribing this view to me throughout this conversation.

Let me turn this around a bit...What I don't get is with consistent players who always act in accordance with their alignment... how mechanical alignment becomes a problem. It seems this would eliminate the need for a DM to track, police or whatever the alignment of the characters (since they are always in accordance with their chosen alignment) and the characters are always considered (when interacting with spells, class mechanics, etc.) whatever they stated their alignment is at all times... so how does mechanical alignment, in this case, actively detract from a game? It seems that in this perfect scenario it would fade into the background and require little to no interaction on the part of the DM...

 

[Imaro]

I have zero problem with the player defining the precepts of alignment and the adhering to his own interpretation.

I'm curious... what would your actions be as DM if the player started to play his character inconsistently with the precepts said player set out?

 

[Jacob Marley]

I think from now on I'll just let @Jacob Marley do my talking for me.

You may come to regret that!

 

[Savage Wombat]

Now, to be sure, the campaign milieu will react to his actions. He will earn a reputation, and that reputation will affect how others react to him. But this is separate from me declaring a change in his alignment.

Not that I disagree with this - but I have had players in my group who would think that this "actions have consequences" style is just as much a "stick" - to use Hussar's term - as taking away paladin abilities. So if Jacob Marley were DMing a game with one of these players, they'd give him the same "why won't you let me play my character the way I want?" arguments. Especially if said "consequences" were subject to the DM's ruling as opposed to a book rule.

I understand where Hussar is coming from, but I remain baffled that he's never had a player that needed set boundaries.

 

[Dannorn]

And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.

So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?

Small correction, again apologies if I was unclear, I trust players to play their characters and do so consistently, I do not however trust them to accurately and honestly describe their alignments. The player of the NG fighter I mentioned never stopped thinking of his character as good, at no point did he look at his character and say, "You know I've just killed 4 out of the 5 helpless people we had bound for questioning, I don't think I'm Neutral Good anymore."

Mechanical alignment allows someone to watch the players from the outside (the GM) and reflect how the universe reacts to their actions, it also gives players a reason to actually think about their alignments beyond picking one that fits the idea of the character they want to play.

Now, to be sure, the campaign milieu will react to his actions. He will earn a reputation, and that reputation will affect how others react to him. But this is separate from me declaring a change in his alignment.

Ok, so characters will react to his actions, but 4 of the fundamental forces of the universe won't? I think the main problem is two very different ways of looking at alignment. You view alignment as shorthand for describing a character's personality, where as I, on top of that, view it as how the character stands out to the energies of the universe. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are tangible, measurable forces in D&D, like background radiation, and alignment is how your character shows up. It's basically what energies you give off, and that's how the Detect, Protection, and Magic Circle spells work, because your alignment isn't just how you behave it's how you resonate with the world at your very core.

 

[Hussar]

I understand where Hussar is coming from, but I remain baffled that he's never had a player that needed set boundaries.

Not for a long time. I find that if you are clear at the outset that you will not police the characters and it's the player's responsibility to act in accordance with his own character, players are far more strict and unforgiving of themselves than I would ever be.

Then again I've found the same approach works great for evil campaigns. When you place the blame for a game going pear shaped squarely in the player's laps they become very invested in making sure the game runs it's course.

 

[Hussar]

Small correction, again apologies if I was unclear, I trust players to play their characters and do so consistently, I do not however trust them to accurately and honestly describe their alignments.

Whereas I do trust the players to know their characters better than I do.

 

[Hussar]

I'm curious... what would your actions be as DM if the player started to play his character inconsistently with the precepts said player set out?

Then it's time to have an out of character conversation to find out what's going on. Trying to bludgeon the player back into line with alignment mechanics works poorly IMO.

 

[pemerton]

without mechanical reinforcement alignment ceases to be a consideration, rather than players will actively act against alignment for giggles.

Why? My experience in this respect is like [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION]'s posted above: I haven't seen it.

With the prisoner stripped of equipment and bound the Neutral Good fighter says we should kill him, just in case he tries to warn the guy. He wasn't aiming to be disruptive or acting out of alignment for shock, he just didn't consider that a good aligned character probably wouldn't kill a guy tied to a chair who'd done us no wrong.

To me this is down to the player's expectations of the GM. If the players have their PCs parole the prisoner instead, what will the GM do? If the GM has all paroled prisoners break their word to the PCs, then no wonder the players stop playing their PCs as decent people!

if the player is free to determine whether his actions are LG or not... we can say he is acting out of character for a LG paladin? in order to do this we need an objective LG, right?

No. Not many people think that the tastiness of food is objective, yet I can still talk meaninfully to my friends about whether or not a meal was delicious.

Does a paladin who tricks his opponent into imbuing a poison that makes him dazed, blinded or immobilized gain a benefit in combat effectiveness against said opponent over a paladin that fights his opponent in an honorable duel?

<snip>

This isn't dependent upon a particular play style or edition.

4e is set up with multiple barriers to your poison scenario, including the rarity of poisons, and their magic-item style cost. The player of a paladin who wants to immobilise a target, instead of spending 250 gp on a 5th level poison, can spend that on some other item that will enhance an attack.

The only way I can see this poison issue coming up in any regular way is a paladin being in play alongside an executioner assassin. If a group have worked out how to make that viable for them - along the lines of a superman-batman team-up - then go for it. It shouldn't be any more overpowered than the paladin teaming up with a fighter, so it's not as if the player of the paladin has a reason to angle for a poison-using buddy rather than someone else.

In other words, the systems in 4e that regulate access to poisons - which I would characterise as reflecting a particular play style and/or edition - absolutely do make a difference to whether the player of a paladin is motivated to use poisons in the way you describe.

 

[pemerton]

Why can’t the player believe that the Paladin honestly believes that the use of poison to facilitate the defeat of an evil opponent is an acceptable and justifiable tactic?

No, he cited an example where the use of a less than honourable tactic by a 4e Paladin would provide him with a mechanical advantage.

Which is it?

If the player sincerely believes that the action declared is honourable, then who is deciding that in fact it is "less than honouable"? And why is that other person's decision authoritative?

And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment?

Who is judging that the character is out of alignment? If the player makes that judgement, then s/he can rewrite the character sheet appropriately. If the GM would play the character differently, OK - the GM can remember that next time s/he is a player in the game. In the meantime, let the player play his/her PC.

ACharacter actions are not forbidden under mechanical alignment - they simply have consequences.

What is forbidden is the player playing his/her PC as s/he conceives of it - for instance, what is forbidden is a paladin exhibiting the player's rather than the GM's conception of honour, where those do conceptions differ.

And who decides whether the player is acting in good faith?

we do not police the players in game. We police them at the metagame level – only those players who share the hive mind are permitted to join the game.

I commented on this upthread (about 60-odd posts) but got no reply.

How do you decide someone is acting in good faith? The same way you decide someone is not cheating or lying! And how does not wanting to play with cheats or liars suddenly turn into playing with "only those who share the hive mind"? What hive mind? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has expressly disavowed imposing his view on a player's action declaration.

(See also [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION]'s post upthread at 1336 - both about the difference between disruptive and sincere players, and about playing with players who value the same things in a game - which has little or nothing to do with being a "hive mind" about the meaning of honour or goodness).

I have had players in my group who would think that this "actions have consequences" style is just as much a "stick" - to use Hussar's term - as taking away paladin abilities.

This notion of consequences was discussed a long way upthread - [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] talked about "physical consequences" to contrast with "moral judgement" consequences.

Adjudicating physical consequence fairly and so as to drive play forward, rather than stifle it, is (in my view, at least) at the heart of GMing once you move away from Gygaxian "skilled" play. This is true in framing a combat encounter - what is at stake if the PCs lose? - or in framing a non-combat challenge - what happens if the PCs don't extinguish the fire in the first 10 minutes of fighting it?

If the player sincerely thinks his/her PC is honourable, and the GM wants to introduce NPCs who disagree, that has to be done with thought and care, just like framing any other situation. The GM also has to be open to the PC persuading the NPCs that s/he is right and their adverse judgement was mistaken. (This is where social resolution mechanics can be helpful.)