Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

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:

<snip>

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.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this.

In the first case, the player deliberately set out to have his PC thwart Vecna. The player chose to oppose a god, in order to pursue some other value/loyalty that his PC cared about.

In the second case, my concern is with those situations in which the player believes that his/her PC is pursuing and upholding the code/value to which his/her PC is dedicated, and the GM steps in to correct that belief. That is the sort of evaluative judgement that I do not want to have to undertake as part of GMing.

The two situations are not at all alike in the respects that concern me.

You certainly judged whether Vecna believed the PC did the right thing. Why can’t the Raven Queen judge whether her Paladin does the right thing, or Moradin judge whether his cleric did the right thing?

I did not have to judge whether or not Vecna believed the PC did the right thing. The player set out, deliberately, to have his/her PC thwart Vecna. All I had to do was to give effect to the player's desire.

That is completely different from the GM correcting a player.

The player also deliberately acted in the RQ’s interests. Why was her reaction not adjudicated as having any consequences?

It was adjudicated. She didn't reward him. I didn't realise that I'm obliged to play the gods in my campaign like the handlers of Pavlovian dogs, handing out rewards and punishments on cue.

The Raven Queen judged that two of the PC’s did the right thing, and rewarded them. By extension, she did not reward the Invoker – does that indicate she judged he did not do the right thing often enough to merit a reward?

The players know why that particular PC did not get an item upgrade - because his relevant item is the Rod of 7 Parts, and he hasn't found a further part yet. Within the fiction, the question hasn't come up, but I've already suggested one possible reason: the Raven Queen rewards her true servants ahead of a backsliding sometime-devotee.

Your most recent comments leave me unclear whether you have retained or dismissed the 4e alignment system

I hoped that I had made it sufficiently clear that I do not use mechanical alignment.

The point of not using mecanical alignment is to extend the approach to play that you adopt within those "shades of grey" to the whole game.

If everything is shades of grey, how was my example of a Paladin placed in a nasty situation, who ripped the throat out of a newborn, so clearly an inappropriate character

I have reproduced my sentence to which you replied. I did not say "everything is shades of grey". I said that "The point of not using mechanical alignment is to extent the approach to play that you adopt within those "shades of grey" to the whole game." Within those shades of grey, you yourself have said that you don't impose GM judgement because alignment is not a straitjacket. That is the approach that I referred to. Playing without mechanical alignment means adopting that approach to the whole game: refraining from GM judgement and letting the players make their choices.

That doesn't mean that everything is "shades of grey". It may be clear to a player of a paladin, for instance, and perhaps to everyone else at the table, that there is no reconciling tearing out a baby's throat with a commitment to honour and decency.

So, he concludes, if he refuses, the child dies anyway, and for nothing. If he does, then all his work to infiltrate the cult is in vain, he will fail in his task of destroying the cult, and many more will share this poor child’s fate. So he proceeds, promising in his heart that this atrocity shall be avenged, and the child's sacrifice remembered.

And the player looks across the table at the GM, declaring the above, and taking his action, which the player sincerely believes to be necessary to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number. The needs of the cult’s many future victims regretfully outweigh the need to avoid this immediate atrocity.

If the player is the sole arbiter of his code, I think he must be taken to be roleplaying his Paladin’s devotion to Valour, Honour and Righteousness appropriately. This is the only way that the player gets to judge what it means to live up to the PC's professed values.

Unless I'm badly confused, the above is all hypothetical: that is, you are positing that a player of a paladin believes that the action you describe is consistent with honour and decency. You have not actually encountered this in play.

For what it's worth, my initial response is that the player is confused about what honour requires: the consequentialist reasoning the player engages in belongs to a system in which honour has no place (hence Weber deriding utilitarianism as a morality for shopkeepers); and the player is not engaging in the agent-centred reasoning that is crucial to reasoning with ideals such as honour (ie the key thing is not just that the baby suffers, but that the baby suffers at my hands). But because I have never met this player, or had this player declare the action above in my game, I don't need to decide how I would respond in play, and (if so) how my own view about the player's confusion might manifest in play (if at all). If I am wrong, and you have encountered and adjudicated this, please share.

There are, of course, other avenues that an enterprising player might take. For instance, there are theological ideas around the idea of the saviour as a scapegoat that might be brought to bear here. If the player was able to introduce some backstory about the special significance of the baby to be sacrificed, and so make it not an atrocity (your word) at all, but rather an episode in some providential plan, that could make a big difference. It would also have the virtue of being more genre-consistent, by reflecting an evaluation that expresses the pre-modern elements of the paladin archetype (providence, honour, etc) rather than verisimilitude-testing modern ideas (such as consequentialist moral reasoning).

removal of villains comes with the removal of “the struggle of Good versus Evil”.

I don't share your opinion here. Two of the best books I know about the struggle of good versus evil are The Quiet American and The Human Factor.

Or, going much more four-colour, I think the X-Men provides one of the better treatments of moral struggle in the fantasy/superhero genre. And Magneto is not a pre-ordained villain. Nor Mystique.

If the players want to play heroes, I'm happy to present them with characters to oppose, who pursue goals at odds with those of the PCs. But the players are going to have to make their own case for heroism. I'm not going to build into the basic framework of play the soundness of their choices. [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] points in the same sort of direction with the succubus example.

 

[pemerton]

If you think having a PC take damage from being hit is much the same as permanently rewriting the PC's class, or removing a feat from a PC, and differs only in degree, then I think you have a very different conception from me and most other D&D playes as to what it at stake in each of those cases.

He did not take damage.

No, his familiar did. I think the player is probably quite glad about that, because the PC can keep going without the familiar, but would be badly hurt if he took a standard level's worth of damage (33 hp).

He still has his feat - which is the character build resource in question. Which was my point. You are the first person I can recall who has equated the taking of damage with the removal of a character build resource, or the unilateral rewriting of a PC's class.

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.

Are we back at the point where you are, once again, denying that the skill challenge mechanics are an element of action resolution?

What I said is that "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."

At the table, it is taken as obvious that the familiar, while acting as a conduit for Vecna to suck up soul energy, is also vulnerable to being damaged by Vecna (probably psychic or necrotic damage, although the type doesn't matter that much as the familiar will drop to 0 hp if it takes 1 hp of any damage type). The fact that this can be re-expressed in mechanical terms - that the familiar was active and hence vulnerable to damage - is not surprising, as the function of the rules in 4e is to support the fiction, but it is not the foremost thing in our minds at the time.

That doesn't mean that what was happening was happening outside the action resolution mechanics. It just means that some parts of those mechanics don't need to be expressly referenced in order to resolve the situation at hand.

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?

Why not? I haven't disputed that undead level loss is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it. I haven't disputed that rewriting paladins as fighters is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it.

Conversely, I have no issues with surge-draining undead in 4e. Nor do I have issues with mechanics that manipulate resource recovery times (obviously! otherwise I wouldn't use them). They are all live in the same functional space as taking damage has since the beginning of D&D.

I stand by my “GM Fiat” assessment

<SNIP>

your insistence you were playing by the book is not accurate.

I'm sure the Flat Earth Society stands by its assessment that the earth is flat, too. Your assessment has about the same degree of credibility, though. What part of the skill challenge rules have I not complied with? What part of the rules for imposing mechanical consequences for choices have I not followed? What do you think are the limits on imposing consequences that I have not complied with - and what part of "the book" do you think they are stated in?

The rules text you cited referred to the characters taking damage not voluntary) or voluntarily giving up/sacrificing a resource (such as an encounter power or a healing surge).

They are illustrative possibilities, and obviously intended as such. If direct evidence were needed, it is provided by the example I already cited of a WotC-published skill challenge which has as a consequence the non-voluntary loss of an encounter power for the duration of the encounter.

And I just found this on p 80 of the DMG2:

Consequences

. . . Penalties for failure in a skill challenge might include the loss of healing surges or some other lingering penalty . . .​

Also this on p 87:

e sure to distinguish between what the characters find desirable and what the players enjoy. the characters probably don't like being attacked by drow assassins in the middle of the night, but the playrs will probably have fun playing out the encounter. . .

Consider these options as consequences for failure in a skill challenge:

. . .

* Impose a lingering effect, such as a disease or a curse that works like one, that hinders the characters for some time.​

Nor do the rules preclude such consequences flowing for choices made that do not themselves lead to failure. For instance, here is an example from p 101 of the DMG2 (and the relevant example was authored by Mearls, much like the earlier example skill challenge I mentioned):

A group of slaves tries to escape. The character can try to help them with a group Stealth check (DC 19) to avoid detection, help capture them with a group Athletics check (DC 19), or do nothing. . . If the characters capture the slaves, they gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks involving guard patrols if they succeed but take a -5 penalty to all checks involving slaves and those sympathetic to them whether they succeed or fail.​

This is a clear example of a mechanical consequences flowing even from a successful skill check, based on the logic of the fictional positioning of the PCs (ie try to recapture slaves, and other slaves won't like you). My example of play is functionally identical (ie thwart Vecna, and he will punish you).

The relevant GMing skill is settling on a mechanically appropriate consequence - both appropriate in terms of the fictional positioning, and appropriate in terms of being neither to light to be noticeable nor too severe to be fair to the player. Luckily 4e is designed to be very robust in this respect - it is hard to go wrong in terms of severity, because the game gives so many cues about options that are meaningful but fair (eg healing surges, powers, action points, temporary situational penalties, etc).

I infer from your statements that damage will occur only from the action resolution mechanics within the game, not simply be imposed arbitrarily (eg.” Vecna is angered – you take damage”), and that the pickpocket is subject to all of the same rules applicable to any pickpocket, including the chance to be noticed in the act.

To me, this just reiterates that you are unfamiliar with the action resolution mechanics of 4e. The consequence to the invoker player was not imposed "arbitrarily". It was imposed within the action resolution mechanics - that is, as a mechanical consequence of a choice made within the resolution of a skill challenge.

I also infer you would not consider it equitable to have an “unwinnable challenge” (eg. the pickpocket is so good he cannot fail, and the PC could never notice him), but I infer this from your reaction to the Chamberlain against whom the PC’s could not possibly succeed in persuading t grant them an audience with the King.

I don't see the point in framing the players into situations in which the outcome is foreordained, no. That is why the outcome in the Soul Abattoir was not fore-ordained. It was not fore-ordained that they would successfully destroy it (although they did). Nor was it fore-ordained that Vecna would get the soul (he didn't). Nor was it fore-ordained that the imp would be zapped by Vecna (though it was). Nor was it fore-ordained that the invoker could not both thwart Vecna and keep his imp alive (though the invoker didn't try to achieve this particular outcome).

So how, in the fiction, did the player redirect the souls?

By asserting his will and exercising his magical prowess. He was already containing their power so that it didn't overwhelm him and his friends; he then escalated his control, so as to send them to the Raven Queen rather than to Vecna. As a 25th level deva invoker/divine philosopher/sage of ages, with Arcana and Religion skill bonuses in the neighbourhood of +40, he is one of the most magically puissant immortals around. This is the sort of feat that is his specialty.

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.

Why would it explain that? The PC didn't activate his familiar; Vecna did. Or, stepping out of the fiction and into the metagame, I as GM decided that Vecna would use the familiar to steal the souls.

Your “light touch” seems quite heavy from where I sit.

And how is that relevant? Are you the player in question? I've already stated that, for different players in my group, who want different things out of having a familiar, I would do things differently. This particular player has framed his familiar in the way that he has, and I am working with that. (His earlier familiar, a dragonling called "Fatso", used to live in the party's Basket of Everlasting Provision and eat 1d4-2 person's worth of food per day.)

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.

I never made such a statement: once again you are very careless in your reading, or else are projecting your own sense of what matters and what doesn't onto me.

What I said is that I wouldn't do the same sort of thing with other players' familiars (or henchmen or whatever). What is "light touch" for one player may not be for another. I thought it was GMing 101 that different players approach the game somewhat differently, and a good GM responds to that in framing situations and adjudicating them.

So what negotiation occurred? You have been asked, repeatedly, whether the player explicitly relinquished full or partial control of his character resource, and the fact you have never provided a straight answer to this question has been highlighted several times.

I have provided a straight answer. I have asserted, multiple times, that the player consented. I have also pointed out that you have absolutely no evidentiary basis on which to question that assertion, having no other epistemic access to the player's state of mind.

When did the negotiation take place? I've linked upthread already to an actual play post from around 2 years ago in which the PC returned to life with a "watcher" familiar. I've linked also to the thread in which I described his decision to implant the Eye of Vecna in his familiar. I've also mentioned, multiple times, that the imp acted independently of its master in a recent session, stealing a ring from an NPC and giving it to its master. (The ring was used during the encounter, too: both its bonus to Intimidate checks, and its ability to survive an attack by gaining temporary hit points at interrupt speed.)

I've just now also mentioned the previous familiar of this PC, who (at the player's instigation) lived in an elfin picnic basket and ate the party's food.

I've also mentioned that I have been friends with this person, and RPGed with him, for 20-odd years. Some of the relevant negotiations therefore began some time ago!

So the fact that the player did not complain the first time you co-opted his resource means it’s yours now to do with as you please?

You have a habit of reading someone's words, and then imputing to them views that they did not assert and did not imply either. Do you think I would have the familiar try to murder the PC in his sleep, and then argue online that the player has consented to that? If you don't understand what is driving the logic of my GMing, then all you have to do is ask.

The earlier episode involved a confrontation between the PCs and servants of Levistus. They were demanding the return of the imp - which, they asserted, is the property of Levistus - but it became clear that what they really wanted was the Eye of Vecna. The PCs negotiated with them, and persuaded them - partially through reason, partially through intimidation - that they should let the invoker keep the imp for the time being. It was during the course of that episode that the familiar stole a ring from the NPC and gave it to his master - the Ring of Levistus.

The imp has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it. The player did this, deliberately, knowing that the Eye is intimately connected to Vecna, and knowing that he was putting his imp into a "balance of powers" situation. In those circumstances, the player is inviting me to do something interesting and Vecna-related with the imp. I did so.

Perhaps in the game system that you play the GM can only frame interesting conflicts and complications by breaking the rules. (I know from my own experience that that can be an issue with some simulationist-leaning systems, for instance.) Part of the reason that I play the system that I do is that it does not have this problem: rather than emphasising mechanical limits upon the framing of complications, it emphasises mechanical engagement and flexibility in resolving them. (I mention this again below.)

Did the player, at any time in the entire scene, get to use his familiar

What do you mean by "get to use his familiar"?

If you are asking "Did he activate his familiar" my memory is no, he didn't. He typically doesn't, unless he needs it to call down hellfire and brimstone on his enemies - which in this encounter I don't think he did.

If you are asking "Did he benefit from the fire resistance and bonus to Arcana checks provided by his familiar?", then of course. If you mean "Did he benefit from the bonus to Arcana, Perception and Insight checks resulting from having the Eye of Vecna implanted in his familiar", then of course.

Ultimately, I don't really understand what you are trying to establish by asking this question.

As is its recover after a short rest, where you have imposed an indefinite period of loss (one which you last noted you had not even decided the duration of).

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"?

Once again you misdescribe. What makes you think that it is the GM who will decide when, how and if the familiar recovers? And why is it a shocking thing that I don't know the duration of the loss? When PC take damage, I don't decide how long that will last either: I just tell the players how many hp to knock off. The players get to use their resources to heal their PCs back up: that's their problem, not mine.

It may be that in whatever game you play the players have no options for recovery other than those explicitly set out for them in the rulebook. Happily for me, I play a system which is more flexible than that. And if, as GM, I only framed situations or imposed consequences to which I already knew the solution, then the game would be pretty boring! As I mentioned above, the system that I GM emphasises mechanics as a flexible tool for resolving complications, rather than as a straitjacket on the GM's introduction of and framing of complications. Rather than encouraging players to say "Hang on, that can't happen, it's against the rules", the system encourages the players to say "Whoah, did that thing happen? In that case, here's what we do in response!"

In this particular case, the player has plenty of resources, and is also a resourceful player. I'm sure he'll think of something, and I'm looking forward to learning what it is!

 

[Sadras]

That is easy. If alignment would have forced me (with nebulous, hand-wavey values statements - that are often internally in conflict) to take account of the conflict fallout and enforce my position on the value questions of Civilized Overseer vs Untamed Natural Order, it would have made for an objectively worse game for all parties. And a more predictable one. The standard bearer is that the Druid should be a champion of the Untamed Natural Order. If my takeaway from each conflict was that she was a poor steward and thus the primal spirits should turn on her (and then I made that happen), she wouldn't have been happy (to be sure), and the game would have just produced the same, nuance-neutral, druid tropes of beating back civilization with a stick (pun intended).

Is it fair to say the druid already had this backstory regarding the internal struggle between civilization and the Natural Order before roleplaying, therefore the PC and DM were very much aware of the stakes and the type of challenges that would/should arise for the character through the game?
In my honest opinion, for my table, alignment would not have been an issue for what you have described above. Remember we are talking about good,evil, chaotic & lawful actions. I do not view a druid turning back the tide of the primal spirits which are about to destroy a village as evil or chaotic just because the druid "defended/preserved" civilisation. Its unreasonable for a DM to insist that anything against Nature is evil just because one is a druid.

If a cleric of the Deity of Beauty fended off his flock from attacking persons because they had tattoos, piercings and the like because scarring of ones body was against their beliefs, that wouldn't make him/her evil.

Let me give you an example in our group of something even more boundary pushing:
In Mystara: Glantrian Wizards hate Dwarves. Dwarves hate Glantrian Wizards. I'm not going to get into the setting backstory too much, just to mention that it has been a violent history between the two peoples, with the wizards at one time experimenting on dwarves. Current politics being that any dwarf found in Glantri is captured & experimented on or killed.

It came to pass that a group of dwarves captured a Glantrian wizard well outside her country's borders. The PC dwarf cleric was brought in on the kidnapping and interrogation of the female wizard. The female wizard was not evil in any way. However due to racial & cultural backstory through the setting, there was an expectation that the Glantrian wizard was to be executed. In fact the PC was certain the NPC dwarves were going to do this with or without him. The PC cleric decided to take the responsibility of execution upon himself and so did, although took no delight in the act, but understood its necessity.

Evil act? Sure, this can be argued it is. Did I strip him of his powers? No, for two reasons.
(i) He did not do this out of enjoyment purposes, it was more a sense of duty born from the racial/cultural backstory of the setting.
(ii) Kagyar (Mystara's equivalent of Moradin), given the setting's source material of him, would not IMO, condemn such an act.

Furthermore, I didn't straight-jacket the character either - if he had spared the female wizard he too would have not been judged by Kagyar. He might have been judged by the other dwarves present with him though.

 

[N'raac]

It was adjudicated. She didn't reward him. I didn't realise that I'm obliged to play the gods in my campaign like the handlers of Pavlovian dogs, handing out rewards and punishments on cue.

The players know why that particular PC did not get an item upgrade - because his relevant item is the Rod of 7 Parts, and he hasn't found a further part yet. Within the fiction, the question hasn't come up, but I've already suggested one possible reason: the Raven Queen rewards her true servants ahead of a backsliding sometime-devotee.

So classifying the character as a"backsliding sometimes-devotee" does not judge his actions? In thwarting Vecna, he served the interests of the Raven Queen. Vecna judged the action as meriting punishment. RQ judged the action as not meriting a reward. Two NPC deities judged that character, and one of them judged two others as meriting a reward. So the deities do, it seems, judge their followers.

I hoped that I had made it sufficiently clear that I do not use mechanical alignment.

I suspect the thrust of my question was unclear. It stems more from my own uncertainty whether (you consider) the 4e system to include mechanical alignment. Some other posters opposing 3e and prior alignment seem quite pleased with the 4e model. I am unclear of your position in that regard. That also leaves me unclear as to whether Vecna is "an evil god" (which is suggested by your comments his value of secrecy is corrupted) or is not classified (which would seem more consistent with the comments on Devils, and on it being up to play to make that determination).

Unless I'm badly confused, the above is all hypothetical: that is, you are positing that a player of a paladin believes that the action you describe is consistent with honour and decency. You have not actually encountered this in play.

It occurs to me that most of the objections cited to alignment have also presented hypotheticals, largely on the line of "what if" the GM considers an act evil and I don't.

No, his familiar did. I think the player is probably quite glad about that, because the PC can keep going without the familiar, but would be badly hurt if he took a standard level's worth of damage (33 hp).

He still has his feat - which is the character build resource in question. Which was my point. You are the first person I can recall who has equated the taking of damage with the removal of a character build resource, or the unilateral rewriting of a PC's class.

Are we back at the point where you are, once again, denying that the skill challenge mechanics are an element of action resolution?

What I said is that "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."

We have not left the point where you keep waffling back and forth from "the familiar took damage as a result of the skill challenge", until presented with rules cites which indicate the familiar either was not active to take damage, or should have taken damage when the rest of the group took damage. But I am fine leaving that for someone versed in the 4e rules to address. In any case, I remain unclear whether the familiar is consider to have "taken 1 hp damage" or "was removed from the player's control". I lean t the latter, as that seems to have been your intent, and as the recovery rule for it taking 1 hp damage is not in play.

At the table, it is taken as obvious that the familiar, while acting as a conduit for Vecna to suck up soul energy, is also vulnerable to being damaged by Vecna (probably psychic or necrotic damage, although the type doesn't matter that much as the familiar will drop to 0 hp if it takes 1 hp of any damage type). The fact that this can be re-expressed in mechanical terms - that the familiar was active and hence vulnerable to damage - is not surprising, as the function of the rules in 4e is to support the fiction, but it is not the foremost thing in our minds at the time.

That doesn't mean that what was happening was happening outside the action resolution mechanics. It just means that some parts of those mechanics don't need to be expressly referenced in order to resolve the situation at hand.

Did an actual roll within the game cause damage to the familiar? I do not believe it did. Do the rules provide for the GM to activate a component of the PC build unilaterally? I believe one must depart from the rules to do so. Do the rules provide for a PC's power or feat to take action, unilaterally, to oppose him? I rather suspect not. Again, I think it makes for a great game, and I think it's beneficial to depart from the rules to make a great game. I remain uncertain why you feel it so important we believe you acted within the mechanics of the rules, however.

Why not? I haven't disputed that undead level loss is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it. I haven't disputed that rewriting paladins as fighters is part of classic D&D rules. All I've said is that I don't like it.

Conversely, I have no issues with surge-draining undead in 4e. Nor do I have issues with mechanics that manipulate resource recovery times (obviously! otherwise I wouldn't use them).

Well and good. What I see is that there is some line of demarcation between "removal of a PC's abilities that Pemerton likes" and "removal of a PC's abilities that Pemerton dislikes", not that Pemerton has an absolute dislike for rules allowing removal of a PC's abilities. So, a matter of degree rather than an absolute. [And you think you find yourself asking "how many times must I say the same thing..."]

What "functional space" they occupy, and what mechanics they share that space with, is a matter of pure opinion.

a WotC-published skill challenge which has as a consequence the non-voluntary loss of an encounter power for the duration of the encounter.

First, I a unclear whether this loss was a consequence of success. Second, the scenario painted is not loss for the duration of an encounter, but for an indefinite period. This leaves them far from identical. Still a matter of degree - very short term loss; temporary loss of indefinite duration permanent loss (and is anything really permanent in a game where characters regularly return from the grave?).

And I just found this on p 80 of the DMG2:

Here we go again...

Consequences

. . . Penalties for failure in a skill challenge might include the loss of healing surges or some other lingering penalty . . .​

Pretty sure I asked last time you cited this whether the player failed. You have since clearly stated he did not. As such, I don't see a penalty for failure rule being relevant.

Consider these options as consequences for failure in a skill challenge:

. . .

* Impose a lingering effect, such as a disease or a curse that works like one, that hinders the characters for some time.[/INDENT]

Again, "for failure". I thought he succeeded. You confirmed he succeeded.

Nor do the rules preclude such consequences flowing for choices made that do not themselves lead to failure. For instance, here is an example from p 101 of the DMG2 (and the relevant example was authored by Mearls, much like the earlier example skill challenge I mentioned):

A group of slaves tries to escape. The character can try to help them with a group Stealth check (DC 19) to avoid detection, help capture them with a group Athletics check (DC 19), or do nothing. . . If the characters capture the slaves, they gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks involving guard patrols if they succeed but take a -5 penalty to all checks involving slaves and those sympathetic to them whether they succeed or fail.​

So a process simulation bonus or penalty based on the actions the characters selected (and on their moral choice to capture the slaves, rather than aid them or ignore them, no less).

This is a clear example of a mechanical consequences flowing even from a successful skill check, based on the logic of the fictional positioning of the PCs (ie try to recapture slaves, and other slaves won't like you). My example of play is functionally identical (ie thwart Vecna, and he will punish you).

It's very similar in that one group is displeased, resulting in a penalty (the slaves dislike you/Vecna toasts your familiar) and another group is pleased (the slavers/Raven Queen) and the character gets a benefit from them (a bonus to rolls with the slavers/oh, wait, maybe they aren't so identical after all...).

To me, this just reiterates that you are unfamiliar with the action resolution mechanics of 4e. The consequence to the invoker player was not imposed "arbitrarily". It was imposed within the action resolution mechanics - that is, as a mechanical consequence of a choice made within the resolution of a skill challenge.

There was no mechanic. Everything was by fiat. "Do you want to redirect the souls that your character resource decided, without your direction, consent or even knowledge, to direct to Vecna?" "sure" "No roll required - ZAP your familiar is incapacitated."

Why would it explain that? The PC didn't activate his familiar; Vecna did. Or, stepping out of the fiction and into the metagame, I as GM decided that Vecna would use the familiar to steal the souls.

So Vecna can activate the PC's familiar, but the Paladin's deity cannot cause him to recall the lessons of his training?

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.

I never made such a statement:

I have already stated, upthread, that I have other players in my group with whom I would handle things differently

'nuff said

I have provided a straight answer. I have asserted, multiple times, that the player consented. I have also pointed out that you have absolutely no evidentiary basis on which to question that assertion, having no other epistemic access to the player's state of mind.

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has repeatedly requested a simple yes or no answer. You have repeatedly responded with some variant on "lack of push back equals consent".

Do you think I would have the familiar try to murder the PC in his sleep, and then argue online that the player has consented to that?

Why not? It's Levistus' imp, and he ticked off Levistus, right? The Eye of Vecna grants Vecna the ability to co-opt the imp as he sees fit, and Vecna is ticked off with the character, right? Again, not a question of absolutes, but of degree.

Ultimately, I don't really understand what you are trying to establish by asking this question.

You oppose removal of a character resource from the character sheet. I find transfer of that resource to an NPC to oppose the PC does not enjoy higher moral ground.

Once again you misdescribe. What makes you think that it is the GM who will decide when, how and if the familiar recovers? And why is it a shocking thing that I don't know the duration of the loss? When PC take damage, I don't decide how long that will last either: I just tell the players how many hp to knock off. The players get to use their resources to heal their PCs back up: that's their problem, not mine.

You decided the normal recovery period does not apply. You will decide how any attempt to recover the familiar will be adjudicated, whether it has any possibility of success and what the probability of such success will be. That's close enough to deciding how long it will last for me. And if he gets it back, will it actually be HIS familiar, or will it again be subject to the GM activating it for someone else's purposes?

 

[Imaro]

Well validly is your idea but I'll bite.

Yes originally I used the word but you continued to use it in your answer as shown below...

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

But a very nice mischaracterization attempt. Good try.

It seems that you chose to continue using the word "validly" so I guess it is my "idea"... how is this relevant though since you continued using the word?

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.

So you would decide whether the change was justifiable (by the player) or not... correct? If so what is the criteria you would use to determine whether the change is or isn't justifiable??

 

[Imaro]

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

It was brought up in the discussion of DM (by proxy of deities/cosmological forces in the game) ability to punish characters through denial of their build resources such as the punishments allowed on Paladins in previous editions... of course if you had actually read what the discussion was about you'd know why it was relevant as well as how it came up.

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.

PLEASE go back and get an understanding of what the issue is that relates to what you are trying (unsuccessfully) to discuss here. If a poster states they have a problem with a DM being able to deny part of a character's impact on the fiction through taking away his build resources (as a part of his larger issue with mechanical alignment)... but then posts an example where they arbitrarily do exactly this, though on a smaller scale (and at this point it has been repeatedly asked is this just an issue of scale with no definitive answer)... people are going to ask you to explain yourself... that is what is happening here. All the stuff above you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the debate being had. It's like you're having some imaginary side debate or something.

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.

Huh? Uhm... ok. what is your point as it pertains to what is being discussed through this line of the thread?

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

If you decide to enter a thread and post comments... it kind of falls on you to take the responsibility of reading and comprehending what it is you are posting about. If you're not sure what a debate revolves around... perhaps it is best not to comment until you do have a better understanding of it. It's not my job to fill you in, the one above was a freebie but I'm not going to keep summarizing the arguments or issues being discussed for you... especially when both I and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have told you that you don't seem to have a grasp on what is being discussed.

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?

In a default game these are the things that exist... if you claim you are following the rules expect the rules to be brought up if some feel you aren't actually doing that. Again this shows that you don't seem to understand the argument that is taking place or why certain things are being brought up for discussion.

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.

No one argued against the fact that a DM couldn't do as he pleases with anything... who or what are you arguing against exactly? No one made this point in the entire thread. I know I'm sounding like a broken record but perhaps you should go back and actually read the discussion and then you can probably make a more meaningful point in your posts. right now it's like you're having your own seperate discussion over issues no one is arguing.

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 see so even though the books state that a paladin must choose the same alignment as his deity... it really means choose whatever you want. And "almost always" (instead of... well using the word always) suddenly means always?? What it means is that this is how the default 4e game operates. no other assertion pertaining to this has been made by anyone but you. Again you're debating points that no one has made, lol... Seriously.

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

Sure, in default 4e that would be handled in indirect ways...

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".

You're entitled to your opinion, not everyone sees it that way but again, not sure what this has to do with why it was brought up in the first place??

In a game that doesn't use mechanical alignment that is not even a relevant or important issue. @pemerton, @Manbearcat, @Hussar, 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.

That's funny because [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] claimed he took over and temporarily suspended the mechanical build resources of one of his players who displeased a deity with mechanics that were purely by the book... but you're claiming 4e doesn''t provide this whatsoever... interesting.

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.

See my previous post

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".

Perhaps... but then neither of us has seen the final form of the latest edition of the game, so pronouncing the days of detect evil "gone" might be just a tad premature.

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.

But as you expressed above, if you play where the DM isn't beholden to rules or thematics or anything else in the game... why couldn't the DM have just changed this particular succubus's alignment to neutral, in a game with mechanical alignment, and played out the same scenario with even more paranoia since then the players would be wondering why she didn't register as evil?? Or is there some reason everything else can be house ruled to fit except alignment mechanics?

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.

Again this isn't what the discussion was about but great commentary on whatever it is you are arguing for... against... not really sure.

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.

If you feel you have a clear picture of what is being discussed... well who am I too argue against that, just don't expect me to engage with any more of your posts if you're not actually discussing what everyone else is. Because I can assure you the discussion isn't about alignment mechanics and the rules for it... in a game that has no mechanical alignment... and yes if this is what we were discussing I agree it would be silly.

 

[Sadras]

This is nonsense. I am not trying to prove that mechanical alignment hurts your game.

Pemerton I never said you were. If you believe I did, please quote me where I said so.

I am explaining how it hurts mine. Hence, @N'raac's view that it is not a problem for him is of no relevance, because N'raac is not me.

I believe you might be confusing the preposition 'their' and think I attributed to N'raac's games when it was meant for the non-alignment crowd's games.

If a player chooses to serve a god who is the exemplarof avalue, then in my game there is no "vision of that deity"separate from the player's conception of the value in question.

Are you saying in all your settings, the player's vision of that value defines the deity's vision of same value for the setting which is also aligned to the view of most of the followers of that deity? So in essence the player through his character is defining the view of the deity and its followers for the game?

My view is that, if the players already know at the start of play what their PCs' belies require, and how they will utimately answer the demands to which they are called, then what is the point of play?

You're presuming that in my type of campaigns the PCs beliefs cannot be challenged by the DM framing situations to challenge those beliefs which is ridiculous because such a thing happens everyday in real life. Beliefs on setting earth have been preset, yet everyday people's beliefs are challenged.

If the GM is informing the player what is required to live up to his/her desired archetype, what is the player doing? It seems like the player is basically dancing to the GM's script - or else has to abandon his/her desired archetype.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the players do not create the religion/beliefs of the setting. That has all been pre-established. The characters are certainly the protagonists in the story but they are not protagonists of the world. That's a little too much Descartes for me with his anthropocentric philosophy.

I did not judge the PC's actions.

Yes, you did through the eyes of the deity which is perfectly fine.

I did not judge the PC to have done the right thing or the wrong thing.

Once again, yes you did, through the eyes of the deity. Through the eyes of the deity he did the wrong thing.

What I did do is force the player to choose between the Raven Queen and Vecna. That is an example of "putting the player's conception of values, and of his/her PC, to the test."

No one is disputing this.

I didn't just decide that Vecna was dissatisfied with his "servant". The player deliberately set out to thwart Vecna, and I adjudicated the consequence of Vecna's wrath.

So your primary issue seems to be whether an action is deliberate or not deliberate. So if someone thwarts their deity by accident, said Deity should not become dissatisfied and consequences cannot be adjudicated.
But going back to how players have supreme power over the view of their deities (always one and the same), a character (and interchangeably player) can never make a mistake which could thwart their Deity and therefore the Deity can never become dissatisfied and therefore no consequences to be adjudicated. IMO this is called a consequence-free environment.

That bears no resemblance to a player declaring an action believing it to be compliant with his/her PC's code and obligations, and the GM advising him/her otherwise. Which is what you and @N'raac are saying makes for good play.

I can't speak for @N'raac but I can say this for my group, they do not believe their PCs are infallible. Errors are made accidentally too, PCs are not all knowing, players are not all knowing. If consequences can only happen due to deliberate actions, I would say that is a D&D light game.

Where is the evaluative judgement? Where have I told the player that he did or did not make the right choice?

Unless you are an abusive DM, or Veca an abusive deity - punishment is usually a consequence of a wrong choice been made.

I'm personally not interested in: of exploring the GM's ideas about possible relationships between various values, rather than actually exploring those values.

You keep repeating this sentiment as if, it appears to me, they cannot simultaneously be done within a game.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the players do not create the religion/beliefs of the setting. That has all been pre-established. The characters are certainly the protagonists in the story but they are not protagonists of the world. That's a little too much Descartes for me with his anthropocentric philosophy.

I think there is a middle ground between two extremes.

I tend to put way too much work into building pantheons and cultures and stuff like that for the games I'm DMing - and I've always assumed (both as a player and as a DM) that the DM is the final arbiter in the Gygaxian sense (although too heavy of a hand is a game killer). But as someone who's played clerics more than anything else, I'll often propose deities or belief systems for my characters to DMs who are less interested in filling all that out in advance. And I expect the DM to have full editorial control over whatever idea I've suggested. That strikes me as a totally different issue from the characters being the protagonists of the world - it seems like it's the players providing help/suggestions to a DM who can't possibly always have worked out everything in advance.

In actual play, don't the clerics have to make decisions for their characters based on how they picture their characters deities policies? I've always assumed and played that the DM can over-ride that, but neither the player or DM has spent decades immersed in that faith. If the player inserts something into play that I hadn't thought about and I don't think is crazy on the face of it, then I'm not going to pause the game and mull over what the deity really thinks... I'm just going to run with it. It seems similar to things that might come up with a character's family, past exploits, and even things like what common foods are usually available in inns. On the other hand, if it is something I've already mulled over or seems insane, then I could nuke it and over-ride the characters attempted narration. I don't actually remember any in play incidences of that, so maybe my player's have never pushed anything I thought was crazy, or maybe it wasn't a big deal at the time.

 

[N'raac]

But as you expressed above, if you play where the DM isn't beholden to rules or thematics or anything else in the game... why couldn't the DM have just changed this particular succubus's alignment to neutral, in a game with mechanical alignment, and played out the same scenario with even more paranoia since then the players would be wondering why she didn't register as evil?? Or is there some reason everything else can be house ruled to fit except alignment mechanics?

More to the point, is the Succubus actually Evil if she never takes any Evil actions? In any case, if I were concerned about this, my concern would be more with divination spells in general than mechanical alignment. If I can detect she is lying when she says she means us no harm, or cast an Augury that determines working with her will end badly, or read her thoughts, these will also remove the mystery.

 

[N'raac]

If a poster states they have a problem with a DM being able to deny part of a character's impact on the fiction through taking away his build resources (as a part of his larger issue with mechanical alignment)... but then posts an example where they arbitrarily do exactly this, though on a smaller scale (and at this point it has been repeatedly asked is this just an issue of scale with no definitive answer)... people are going to ask you to explain yourself... that is what is happening here. All the stuff above you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the debate being had. It's like you're having some imaginary side debate or something.

In fairness, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has indicated that, at least to him, it is not simply a matter of scale. He perceives some bright line that I, at least, do not in two respects

- that the reduction of access to PC resources by their temporary removal, with some indefinite recovery time, at some point crosses a philosophical line. Here, I cannot grasp why this is not simply a matter of scale.

- that the motivation behind the removal of those resources differentiates the matter. Here, I think I better see his point in that he does not perceive alignment-based judgment the same as an NPC making a judgment. It's OK for Vecna to judge the character, but only if the player feels such a judgment is appropriate (ie the player does not feel that the character has done nothing for which the deity would reasonably make a negative judgment against him). To some extent, I liken this to a common problem, that the player has imbued the character with some of his own beliefs, and takes great offense at any suggestion the character, and through it the player, is not 100% Good (in a plain English sense) as opposed to not following the Tenets of Good as expressed in D&D.

I'm pretty sure that, if I pulled out a broadsword and hacked into a mugger "because he was accosting an innocent person", our modern standards would not look kindly on an act that would be accepted of any Paladin in any D&D setting I have ever run across.