Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Jacob Marley]

This is the question which has never been answered - Who makes these decisions, and how, in the @Hussar model. As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code. To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat. And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down" "no, you missed")

The general rule at my table is:

Authority rests with the player; a player may cede authority to the DM.​

I assume that a player who creates a Lawful Good Paladin of Heironeous does so because the player is interested in:

• Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (Good)
• Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. (Law)
• Respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor, helping those in need, and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. (Paladin)
• Duty to the People, Duty to the Arch-Paladin, and Duty to a Lady. (Heironeous)

I assume that a player who creates the above character is making an honest attempt to play those tenets. However, because those tenets can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context of the situation, I prefer to let the player make the final determination. The player knows what the character is thinking, his motivations, goals, and values. Should the character take an action that gives me pause I can always ask the player why.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The general rule at my table is:

Authority rests with the player; a player may cede authority to the DM.​

I really think a lot of the disagreement turns on this issue and how differently people approach it. I can see this having appeal to some, and if it works for you by all means this is a fine rule. For myself, I prefer the GM to have authority over setting details and judgments like this rather than players.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.

It's not too far off though either. At least as far as Gygaxian D&D goes. Gygax wasn't exactly shy about advocating a very adversarial table. A read through of the 1e DMG as well as 1e Gygax module introductions, and Dragon magazine articles by Gygax certainly paints a picture of a very adversarial table.

The general rule at my table is:

Authority rests with the player; a player may cede authority to the DM.​

I assume that a player who creates a Lawful Good Paladin of Heironeous does so because the player is interested in:

• Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (Good)
• Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. (Law)
• Respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor, helping those in need, and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. (Paladin)
• Duty to the People, Duty to the Arch-Paladin, and Duty to a Lady. (Heironeous)

I assume that a player who creates the above character is making an honest attempt to play those tenets. However, because those tenets can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context of the situation, I prefer to let the player make the final determination. The player knows what the character is thinking, his motivations, goals, and values. Should the character take an action that gives me pause I can always ask the player why.

QFT. This is precisely what I've been trying to say.

 

[pemerton]

I want to be in a believable and consistent world.

So do I. I've personally encountered no evidence that letting players decide what paladinhood requires of their PCs will undermine this goal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So do I. I've personally encountered no evidence that letting players decide what paladinhood requires of their PCs will undermine this goal.

i am sure for many players it does nothing to undermine this goal, for me it very much does..

 

[Hussar]

I just wanted to chime in that BRG has been refreshingly open about the fact that he only speaking for himself and his own preferences.

Well done you sir.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.

At his table, perhaps not. Similarly, traditional D&D wasn't always, that's very clear.

However, Gary literally wrote the book on adversarial DMing:

http://www.amazon.com/Role-Playing-...TF8&qid=1400752339&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+gygax

I read this at 14 or so, and even then, I could see it was completely appalling, very explicitly setting the DM against the players in a very unhelpful way (that does not match well with accounts of Gary's actual games).

So it's forgivable to conflate them I'd say.

 

[pemerton]

They must be standards beyond “whatever I say is in compliance with my character’s moral code

Why?

Tolkien did not have someone standing over him to decide what counted as consistent or inconsistent with Aragorn's, or Gandalf's, or Frodo's, or Elrond's moral code. Why does a D&D player?

For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision. That is part of the GM’s role.

This is mere assertion. What evidence is there to think that the GM will do a better job of producing a consistent account of a particular god, or religion, or chivalric order, than a player will?

Players give their PCs consistent personalities without (at most tables) the GM having any authority to step in and override a player's conception of his/her PC. Likewise, at many tables, for cohorts and henchmen. Why are moral codes, and divinities, in a special category?

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.

From Gygax's DMG, p 97:

Assume that your players are continually wasting time (thus making the so-called adventure drag out into a boring session of dice rolling and delay) if they are endlessly checking for traps and listening at every door. If this persists, despite the obvious displeasure you express, the requirement that helmets be doffed and mail coifs removedto listen at a door, and then be carefully replaced, the warnings about ear seekers, and frequent checking for wandering monsters . . . then you will have to take a more direct part in things. Mocking their over-cautious behaviour as near cowardice, rolling huge handfuls of dice and then telling them the results are negative, and statements to the effect that: "You detect nothing, and nothing has detected YOU so far ---", might suffice. If the problem should continue, then rooms full with silent monsters will turn the tide, but that is the stuff of later adventures.​

Other examples could be given, I think, but one is enough to start with. One might think it is good advice; one might think that it is bad advice. But whether one thinks it good or bad, how is that passage not advocacy for adversarial GMing?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

how is that passage not advocacy for adversarial GMing?

The first sentence to me is important.

Assume that your players are continually wasting time (thus making the so-called adventure drag out into a boring session of dice rolling and delay) if they are endlessly checking for traps and listening at every door.

Gygax is addressing a situation that is already dysfunctiona on both sides of the equation. If the players are (to use 3.X terminology) taking 20 every step they take, it is probably not just the GM getting bored, other players likely are as well. This playstyle only happens if the players have been trained by gaming with one GM (or another) that if they DON'T act that way, then the GM will see that as a "gotcha" moment, at which point, he springs nastiness upon them.

So he's telling the GM to telegraph that there's nothing in broad mocking ways when they're being unheroically overcautious. But he's also, with that first sentence, telling the GM that he shouldn't be designing or running campaigns in ways that would make players behave like that.*






* Those modules that were explicitly written as one big gotcha- like Tomb of Horrors- are an exception.