Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

So, was the familiar in the area to be subjected to damage that affected everyone in the course of the skill challenge (assuming such damage occurred, as it was noted as possible, but never stated whether it happened)? If so, it should not have been able to activate itself to redirect soul energy.

<snip>

I agree that this was an exception outside of "Rules Combat", but it has been justified as the familiar taking at least 1 hp damage, rather than being expressed as an exception outside the normal scope of the rules.

The reason I have expressed it as "the familiar taking at least 1 hp of damage" was because you and Imaro were arguing that it was not possible under the rules.

At the table I didn't express it that way because there was no need to. It was enough to tell the player that his familar was out-of-action.

this was not a consequence of a failure, but a complication resulting from success.

The player made a check to hold back the welling soul energy while his friends escaped from the collapsing Soul Abattoir. The player, at my invitation, then made a further check whereby he noticed what his familiar was doing - sending the souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen.

I then asked him if wanted to redirect them to the Raven Queen, and he said yes. I then indicated, as a consequence, the collapse of his familiar.

The collapse of the familiar was not a complication on a success. It was a "yes, but . . ." scenario: the player did not have to make a check to redirect the souls to the Raven Queen, but choosing to do so had a consequence (ie angering Vecna).

Would a typical skill challenge result be "You succeed, with the consequence that one of your encounter powers, which you did not use in the course of the skill challenge, is unavailable and will recover at some undefined future time that I have not yet decided on"?

Potentially, yes.

You are obsessing over the illegitimacy of a mechanical outcome for a rules mechanic you are, by your own admission, unfamiliar with for a game that you are, by your own admission, largely ignorant of.

One way in which your unfamiliarity manifests is this: you have ignored my earlier remarks that the player could have pushed for another check. But didn't. Why not? Perhaps because he didn't want to jeopardise his success in having the Raven Queen get the souls (another check might fail). Perhaps because he wanted to get the benefit of the dwarven fighter covering his escape. (Without that benefit, he would have failed his own check and hence his PC, already with less than full hp and only one healing surge left, would have taken more damage.)

Would a GM's "light touch" on a PC's familiar typically include the familiar taking actions unrelated to any objective of the PC, or even actively opposing the wishes of the PC to which it belongs?

How is that even relevant? How is what another GM, with another player, relevant to the understanding reached between me an my player?

I have already stated, upthread, that I have other players in my group with whom I would handle things differently, because they have different preferences.

Related to the issue of "light touch" is further dimension to this episode that you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] have ignored, but that is a significant factor in the play at my table, and that feeds into my adjudication. That is the dimension of spotlight time. One consequence of choosing to implant the Eye of Vecna into one's familiar is increased spotlight time at the table. One consequence of having that familiar than try and secretly do Vecna's bidding is spotlight time. One consequence of having Vecna inflict punihsment by shutting down the familiar is spotlight time: time at the table will be spent trying to reactivate the familiar, and/or worry about what to do about Vecna, etc. At least as my RPG play goes, spotlight time is not a punishment.

In short, the player went looking for spotlight time, and he got it. And will almost certainly get more of it.

pemerton has explicitly stated it will NOT return on the next Short Rest, and in fact that he had not decided how long it would be until the familiar is again available to the character.

I have also quoted you the text of a WotC 4e module that has, as a consequence of a skill challenge, encounter powers being unavailable until the end of the adventure. Are you saying that WotC broke its own rules?

I am one of many GMs who puts constraint on extended rests while adventuring (eg no extended rest without success in a skill challenge; or, in the Underdark, no extended rest just be camping out in a cavern). You are the first poster I've seen argue that this is somehow breaking the rules.

I have mentioned disease multiple times, which can result in healing surges not being recovered at the usual rate.

As I have mentioned multiple times already, these sorts of manipulations of recovery rates of resources are core to the 4e consequence mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

So “who is the real god of beauty” is compelling, where “does the god of beauty favour or disfavour scarification” is not? Seems like we’re back to something different GM’s might perceive very differently

And? How is this different from anything I've been saying for 1000-odd posts?

"Who is the real god of beauty?" is a question of value ie both purport to exemplify beauty, but at least one may have misunderstood what beauty requires.

"Does the god of beauty favour or disfavour scarification" is about exploring the backtory - in this case, probably GM-authored backstory. I know [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] likes that sort of thing. I hope I've made it clear that I don't. That's one reason why I don't use mechanical alignment in the way that Bedrockgames does.

The fact that other people find exploration compelling doesn't mean that I have to. And I don't. Hence mechanical alignment is an impediment to my play experience. (For this as well as other reasons.)

So here, it would be wrong to grant a player request for a scene where they interact directly with their deity?

What did I say? I said "I even think it could be done with two conflicting servants of the same god of beauty - at least in my experience it's surprisingly easy for the GM to mangage the backstory and the scene-framing such that, even if the players push for it, the god never gets backed into a corner which requires declaring one rather than the other to be the truer servant of the relevant value."

You push so quickly towards absolutes - "It would be wrong", or "It would be against the rules" - as if there is no room for subtlety, or for deft judgement having regard to all the considerations actually relevant to what is happening at the table. As if there are algorithms for sound GMing.

To repeat what I said: in circumstances where two players, via their PCs, are competing over the meaning of a particular value, and as part of that over the truth about a common deity, I would be reluctant as GM to be drawn into adjudication of that disupte. That is an attempt by a player to get an easy out, via metagaming, rather than to actually have to push for a resolution in play. That can mean not framing scenes, yes: if the PC turns up at his/her god's house, the god can be out for the morning. Or not receiving visitors. Or any other of a dozen pretty well-known GM devices.

I now look forward to learning why I did the wrong thing in framing a scene in which the dead paladin of the Raven Queen got to discuss with his mistress his own doubts about the adequacy of his resolution! Because if such a scene is framed, with the question asked, the deity either has to reject scarification as beauty, or accept the possibility it is beauty, so we cannot frame the scene without answering the question.

It seems like scenes that resolve burning questions are not to be framed, even if the players might wish the framing of such a scene.

Well, if the player say "We can't bear to play out the campaign, just tell us what happens at the end of it", I suppose we could cut to that. It would "resolve" a burning question, for one meaning of "resolve". Seems to somewhat negate the point of play, though.

If both players of the beauty-worshippers can't handle, anymore, the conflict between them, yet neither is able to yield to the other for some reason, would I as GM put them out of their misery by having the god turn up and set them straight? Very hard to answer in the abstract, but my first inclination is that it sounds a bit weak.

 

[N'raac]

The reason I have expressed it as "the familiar taking at least 1 hp of damage" was because you and Imaro were arguing that it was not possible under the rules.

At the table I didn't express it that way because there was no need to. It was enough to tell the player that his familar was out-of-action.

So, basically, it could happen under the action resolution mechanics, so it is OK for the GM to impose it outside the action resolution mechanics.

The player made a check to hold back the welling soul energy while his friends escaped from the collapsing Soul Abattoir. The player, at my invitation, then made a further check whereby he noticed what his familiar was doing - sending the souls to Vecna rather than the Raven Queen.

I then asked him if wanted to redirect them to the Raven Queen, and he said yes. I then indicated, as a consequence, the collapse of his familiar.

So how, in the fiction, did the player redirect the souls? I could see something as simple as "stop that", but it does not explain why the familiar self-activated and started the action in the first place. He took action which he knew, or should have known, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities and, based on your comments about spotlight time, will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all. Sounds like:

The Invoker took action which he knew, or should have known, Vecna, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities, being his familiar and the abilities of the Eye, and will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all.

or

The Paladin (or Cleric) took action which he knew, or should have known, his patron, a deity providing a portion of his abilities, would be displeased with, and as a consequences, he has lost some of his abilities, being Paladin or Clerical) abilities, and will have to somehow regain in the course of play, if he is to retrieve them at all.

Well, I can't imagine how I ever thought the two were even remotely similar now that it's spelled out so very clearly.

You are obsessing over the illegitimacy of a mechanical outcome for a rules mechanic you are, by your own admission, unfamiliar with for a game that you are, by your own admission, largely ignorant of.

Worse, I an obsessing over it despite the fact that whether it was in accordance with the rules or not is tangential, at best, to the discussion. Which begs the question of why you are obsessed with persuading those reading the thread that your actions were perfectly in accordance with the rules. I would not be arguing the point at all, except that a lot of others professing knowledge of the rules, and even my read of your quotes from those rules, contradict your claims.

It seems different people interpret these rules differently. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], does that make them bad rules? It seems the skill challenge rules are pretty central to 4e, so that's a problem if they are bad rules, isn't it?

How is that even relevant? How is what another GM, with another player, relevant to the understanding reached between me an my player?

Your challenge to relevancy might ring truer if it were not in reply to my response to a different poster's comments on the rules. Your statement that the rules would work differently for a different player seems inconsistent with your claims you are precisely following the written rules, by the way.

Related to the issue of "light touch" is further dimension to this episode that you and @Imaro have ignored, but that is a significant factor in the play at my table, and that feeds into my adjudication. That is the dimension of spotlight time. One consequence of choosing to implant the Eye of Vecna into one's familiar is increased spotlight time at the table. One consequence of having that familiar than try and secretly do Vecna's bidding is spotlight time. One consequence of having Vecna inflict punihsment by shutting down the familiar is spotlight time: time at the table will be spent trying to reactivate the familiar, and/or worry about what to do about Vecna, etc. At least as my RPG play goes, spotlight time is not a punishment.

The fact that the player may get spotlight time which he desires, and may be perfectly happy with you running his character resource, does not in any way change the fact that you ARE running his character resource, and have now denied him access to it, nor does it change whether the method utilized is, or is not, in accordance with the rules. Specifically, in no way does it indicate co-opting his familiar is indicative of a "light touch".

I have also quoted you the text of a WotC 4e module that has, as a consequence of a skill challenge, encounter powers being unavailable until the end of the adventure. Are you saying that WotC broke its own rules?

Sure. It would not be the first time. And, as I have said several times already, breaking the rules is not automatically bad gaming. I'm curious, however, whether WoTC's module imposed this lengthy loss of a power because the GM activated it outside the player's control, and the player succeeded on a check. I suspect there are at least as many differences between their approach as there are between the Invoker and Alignment-based losses of abilities.

I am one of many GMs who puts constraint on extended rests while adventuring (eg no extended rest without success in a skill challenge; or, in the Underdark, no extended rest just be camping out in a cavern). You are the first poster I've seen argue that this is somehow breaking the rules.

This is the first reference to a rest other than a "short rest" that I have seen, yet I am somehow arguing about it. I suppose you must have activated my Argue a Rule thread power. Will you be imposing an extended recharge requirement on that as well?

I have mentioned disease multiple times, which can result in healing surges not being recovered at the usual rate.

Basically, another rule you accept which removes character abilities. Am I wrong in believing the player receives a roll to avoid or mitigate the effects of the disease, and that its duration is governed by rules other than "the GM will decide when, how and if it recovers"?

As I have mentioned multiple times already, these sorts of manipulations of recovery rates of resources are core to the 4e consequence mechanics.

And loss of powers over alignment issues are core to most editions' rules related to Paladins. Does that mean they are good rules? Does it mean removing a power of the Paladin because he takes a Chaotic action is within the rules, since he would have lost all of them for taking an Evil action? You dismissed the "undead level loss" analogy pretty quickly, yet we should accept 4e Undead mechanics as proof positive your removal of the familiar is in accordance with the rules?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] thanks you've summed up most of my thoughts to the last couple of posts by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ... I'd XP you if I could.




Wait so the PC's interpretation couldn't validly change over time through play? Now that seems like a straight jacket.

If the PC's interpretation validly changed through play, that would be consistent, no?

But a very nice mischaracterization attempt. Good try.

 

[Hussar]

It seems different people interpret these rules differently. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar
<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, does that make them bad rules? It seems the skill challenge rules are pretty central to 4e, so that's a problem if they are bad rules, isn't it?

Wow. You just really don't get it. I have repeatedly stated that I have zero problems with differing interpretations. None whatsoever.

My beef is when you get opposite and mutually eclusive interpretations that are both equally supported by the vague and poorly written mechanics.

What I see here is someone using the skill challenge mechanics with a pretty thorough understanding of how they work and two people with a very tenuous grasp based on very little actual play experience making nit pickey rules lawyerly criticisms that have already been answered multiple times by multiple people.

 

[Imaro]

But a very nice mischaracterization attempt. Good try.

Wasn't trying to do this at all, I apologize if it came off that way.

If the PC's interpretation validly changed through play, that would be consistent, no?

I'm curious... how do you determine if they change their interpretation "validly"?

 

[D'karr]

Yes and they don't per default 4e...

So what? How is this important, or even relevant? In a game without mechanical alignment it is unnecessary.

Uhm... no... I'm not inferring something from what isn't there, and there is no hyperbole. I'm talking about what is stated in the PHB... that deities cannot strip a paladin or cleric of their divine powers.

Even if I was to take the strictest reading of what you quoted, which I don't. It is still "world thematics", there are no mechanical ramifications because the game does not provide for stripping any character of their class features. Do barbarians that are no longer chaotic become non-barbarians? Do druids that are no longer neutral become non-druids? Do monks that are non-lawful become non-monks? In all instances the answer is no. The game does not bother itself with tracking alignment. And if the god wanted to punish a character it can. If that is wanted it is up to the DM and player to decide how they want to do it. "House rule" it if they want. Removing his mechanical class features is not a thing the game bothers with, and for good reason.

In a game without mechanical alignment this is a non-issue. Therefore, since pemerton is not using mechanical alignment in his game this is a non-issue.

Everything is mutable... if you are arguing house rules/changes/etc. are possible in 4e... I'd say ok, no one is arguing, or has argued that they aren't. But if we are talking about the default deities as defined in 4e... we are talking about how they are defined in the books. You might have a case if the books were unclear or didn't specifically call out that they can in fact not take this power from their followers, but the book goes out of its way to make a point of this in the class descriptions.

Once again, so what? How is this even important or relevant?

This is the "rules lawyering" I've been speaking of. This "rules absolutism" with regards to "world thematics" would be comical, if it wasn't so tiresome. What default deities? The deities are all "world thematics". You will notice in the PHB that the deities appear on the chapter for "Character Creation" specifically under the section called out "Roleplaying". Languages and Alignment appear in the same section. Are the languages exclusive, meaning no other language can exist but the ones outlined there? Are the directions of the "gods" exclusive, meaning no other 'strictures' can be added to what they direct their followers to do?

A DM can use the gods right out of the book as described, change their names and still use them out of the book as described, not use them at all, or change everything about them. There are certain things that clearly fall under the umbrella of the DM to do with as he pleases. The two that have been argued about, deities and artifacts, are the most classic examples of "always under DM jurisdiction". If a player of mine brought up such a ridiculous claim as "it says in the book Pelor can't do X", or the even more egregious "it doesn't say in the book that Pelor can X", I'd actually laugh.

This same "rules absolutism" regarding "world thematics" is what you are displaying when you read the entry for the paladin. In the paladin class writeup, almost the entirety of the section labeled Paladins and Deities is "world thematics". What "mechanical" things exist in that section? If you mention "the paladin must choose the same alignment as his deity" as one, that might be the ONLY thing that might resemble a mechanical thing. But since alignment in 4e is really not mechanical that option is mostly questionable as regards mechanics. In that section it also says, "Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are almost always villains, not player characters". Does that mean that a player cannot choose Evil or Chaotic Evil for his paladin? No. It is "world thematics". The DM and Player decide that. The base recommendation for the game is that the characters are "heroes", not "villains". That does not mean that these things are written in stone. That is like reading the "world thematics" of "paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity" and making it an absolute. Can the rites performed be "indirectly" powered by their deity, their ethos, their church, the taxi-maid in the sky, or even an exarch of the deity? It is all "world thematics". You are getting wrapped around the axle with them and whether they are house-rules or not. In any case, it is unimportant to the discussion as pemerton doesn't use mechanical alignment so stripping a paladin of his class features because of a stray alignment is not something I'd expect to see in his game.

I didn't say the deity couldn't punish a paladin that strays (please don't put words in my mouth and if you are unclear about exactly what I am saying all you have to do is ask.)... I said a 4e deity does not have the power to remove his powers... this is true... unless of course you are speaking of changing or house ruling default 4e.

So are you saying that a deity can punish a paladin that strays?

If a god can punish a paladin that strays, but the game doesn't concern itself with stripping ANY class of their class features. Then it follows that the game is not interested in providing mechanical punishment by removing class features. However, the form of punishment can be anything the DM decides it to be - excommunication from the church, being hunted by the faithful, being scorned by the populace, distrust from the masses. The list can be infinite. Which IMO is better than "the paladin strays, he loses his class features".

In a game that doesn't use mechanical alignment that is not even a relevant or important issue. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], myself and obviously others don't seem to have an issue at all with that. Hint - maybe because our games DON'T use mechanical alignment at all.

You are right, 4e doesn't bother itself with removing class features (mechanical build options) for interpreted "cosmological infractions" (roleplay situations). It leaves mechanical situations to be handled by mechanical means, and roleplay situations to be handled by roleplay means. And it provides a very robust mechanical framework to deal with either if the DM chooses. Skill challenges is only one of the pieces of that mechanical framework that can serve as a way to use mechanical means during roleplay situations. If a DM wants to strip class features (mechanical build options) from a paladin because of perceived straying (roleplay situations) the game provides no "explicit" mechanical means to do so. It also provides no mechanical means for determining what the King of Stalnosmad had for breakfast, or if his lineage is strong, or if he is a fervent follower of Melora. It doesn't care to do so. It is an irrelevant thing because the game doesn't bother to create a nailed down mechanical alignment system. So it doesn't provide "explicit" mechanical means to "punish" alignment "infractions". And IMO, it is better served by it.

But don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the DM can't strip a paladin of his class features if that is what the DM and player want to do. The game simply doesn't provide that as a mechanical solution. The same way the game does not provide a mechanical solution to determine what the weather is in the character's country of origin. Neither are necessary mechanics for the game. Why? Because it is preferable that roleplay events are handled within roleplay. However, the game does provide significant support for multiclassing, hybridizing, retraining, and even just simply picking another class. So the DM still has a robust mechanical arsenal at his disposal if that is what he wants to do.

Gone are the days of detect evil, or detect alignment being the go to 'mechanic' to "derail" things. Now a player has to actually determine, and construct a relevant opinion for his character of whether a creature is actually "evil". They can't just cast a spell and then go to town "rooting out evil".

In one of the games I played recently, the DM had a succubus as an ally to the party, and she traveled with us for quite a while. The paladin PC was constantly making remarks about it. But the succubus never betrayed us and always acted in, what appeared to the characters to be, good faith towards them. So the succubus stayed with us for several parts of a long adventure cycle. The roleplay interaction between the paladin, the avenger, the succubus, and other characters, some of them defending the succubus, was quite fun. This type of play would have been impeded by mechanical alignment. Under some games that use mechanical alignment a "detect evil", or "detect alignment" would have given us "definite proof" of the succubus' alignment. Depending on the DM, in some of those games the paladin would have been "forced" to make a decision as to the fate of the succubus with the party. That would have been a "poorer" game play experience that what we had at our table. This is another reason I don't use mechanical alignment.

On the subject of removing class features, when I ran the adventure "In the Dungeons of the Slavelords", I made certain modifications to the rules to "emulate" all the classes having some limitations during the trek through the dungeons. It worked great and it was a nice change of pace. All the mechanics are there if a DM really wants to get enterprising.

You've totally missed the point of the discussion then... perhaps go re-read the thread for a more clear understanding of what is being discussed.

No thanks, I have read quite enough of it already. I have a very clear picture of what is being discussed. Arguing about alignment mechanics and the "rules" for it, for a game that is not using mechanical alignment is rather ridiculous.

 

[Hussar]

Wasn't trying to do this at all, I apologize if it came off that way.




I'm curious... how do you determine if they change their interpretation "validly"?

Well validly is your idea but I'll bite.

My primary criteria would be the player. Can the player justify these changes? If so then it's good enough for me.

Again, I refuse to police my players anymore.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] -I had a similar experience to your succubus example in an earlier 4e game.

We were holed up in an abandoned fort escorting refugees. There was a large force descending on us. We learned that there was a spy amongst us and then had to root out the spy Ina skill challenge.

It really hit home what removing mechanical alignment meant. Detect evil doesn't work nor do you have a number of plot screwing spells like detect lie and mind reading.

Very interesting scenario that would not have worked under mechanical alignment.

 

[pemerton]

Game theory is, in one sense, amoral. Or, alternatively, one could say that it posits that the only good for an agent is satisfaction of that agent's preferences. The way that you use game theoretic analysis to model moral choice is to posit that an agent's preferences including upholding moral requirements. Once you include morality in the game theoretic model in that way, an agent who knows that an action is evil will not prefer it and hence won't choose it.

Why does introducing moral choice into the matter necessarily require that the agent’s preferences include upholding moral requirements?

I infer from this response that you are not familiar with game theory - the theory of rational choice - or alternatively did not recognise that that was what [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] was referring to upthread.

In a game theoretic model of a decision-situation, a choosing agent won't have regard to moral considerations unless they are built into that agent's preference structure, because it is inherent to a game theoretic model that an agent chooses in accordance with his/her preferences. Game theoretic analysis doesn't have the resources, and doesn't purport to have the resources, to support moral criticism of preferences. But I take for granted that that is an ordinary part of moral evaluation. For instance, the fact that a torturer doesn't see the suffering of the victim as a reason not to torture doesn't mean that the torturer is excused from accusations of wrongdoing; rather, it tells us that the torturer has a deficiency in the way s/he appreciates the reasons that bear upon the decision to torture.