Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[nijineko]

i have removed all alignment based effects from my games. instead i use a contract system. people enter into contracts to gain powers outside the normal limits. some abilities can detect with whom you've entered into a contract or contracts.

i do have moral and ethical laws in my games. players are made aware that they exist and generally what it is, if not exactly what they are, and in-game, characters may or may not believe in them, and can learn from the different claims of whomever they encounter. players are encouraged to play as they believe and to disagree with whomever they feel like in-game.

i think it is a great guideline for both new and old players - it is handy to have a niche or pigeon hole in which to describe to others the general sorts of behaviors to be expected from a given character. as the OP stated, alignment systems are a guideline, not a law. another reason i use the contract system - gives certain players the opportunity to work in all the twisty wording they like, and see if they can sneak it past me (or the reverse), and other players the assurance of knowing exactly what to expect out of a given association with a being of power or organization.

 

[Nagol]

4e paladins, in my experience, are the most genre-expressing version of the class. Because of the mechanical build of the class, the only way to play an effective paladin is to play a selfless warrior who valiant hurls him-/herself between his/her friends and the enemy.

There is no need for genre expectations, because the natural play of the class delivers. (Much like we don't need genre expectations or alignment enforcement to keep an AD&D wizard out of melee - the natural play of the class delivers that result for us.)

So why do you need alignment restrictions to refrain from declaring such actions for your PC, then?

Because of the other half of the play group, perhaps?

In the real world, the torturer believes that things will be better if s/he extracts the information by way of torture. But what is the corresponding belief in a player of an RPG that makes him/her declare that her PC tortures the suspect, if s/he believes that that would ruin the narrative?

Because the PC believes it will make things better in-world?

[/QUOTE]That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. It is key to the whole contention (by [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and now, I think, you) that departing from alignment generates some sort of advantage for the player. I haven't yet been shown what that advantage is, unless I am playing a game within a rather Gygaxian "skilled player, gold-as-XP" framework.

Unless I am misundertanding, you are taking quite a bit of what I regard as play and either (i) making it pre-play, or (ii) substituting GM (or perhaps majority participant?) decision-making?

If the person who is diametrically opposed to your conception of certain ideals, and so would play the torturing paladin, is able to have his/her mind changed by stipulatig that that is evil, I personally don't really see why you can't just tell them "By the way, I don't want your paladin to be a torturer". I'm not really seeing how intermediating the construct of alignment changes the basic dynamic here, which is that those who think the torturing paladin is bad for the game are shutting down the preferences of those who disagree.[/QUOTE]

I have a quick 2-3 minute spiel on how alignment works in my campaign pre-play. It covers the axes at a very high level.

The player's mind may not be changed -- he may try the same tactic in other games looking for the "correct" answer. The fact that it is considered an evil act in the current campaign simply means there are consequences for the PC created to be limited to pursuing those options. [/QUOTE]

Torture, poisoning, killing friendly allies, indiscriminate killing of neutral townsfolk, killing all the hostages in order to catch/kill the hostage-takers, the list is so long and so little of it is tested by a single player! It's easier to point out individual exceptions when they occur.

How so?

I can have every story presented Hussar through having two LG Fighters in place of two Paladins. The fighters can argue the same ideologies and face the different choices inherent to play as I described earlier and the result is the same as two paladins at Hussar's table. Whereas my table can also have stories related temptation resisted of not, atonement, sacrifice of ideal, and pathos of loss of grace that are much more likely to occur and organically develop because the mechanics enforce the stakes rather than relying on player initiative.

 

[Nagol]

Why? Why are players less consistent in their depiction of setting elements (such as PCs, gods, family members, etc) than GMs?

Because there are N players all with ideas that haven't incorporated all the ideas of the others at the table and the players typically less information about back-story and hidden elements than the DM.

 

[howandwhy99]

You do realise that this is hardly a widely accepted concept don't you? And that you are presenting your theory as fact rather than a possibility. I'd say that you are positing a theory of gaming that is very contentious and needs a very large bucket of proof before it can even remotely be accepted as fact.

You are essentially arguing that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a better role playing game than something like Fate and that an entire play style - i.e. those of us who believe that storytelling and gaming are perfectly compatible, are 100% wrong.

In the future that may be something you're going to have to learn to live with. And it's not a niche belief. Games as group storytelling is a niche belief.

 

[N'raac]

Why would someone agree to join a group, agree to play in (say) a 4e game based around the core books, and then break that agreement? You are positing a player who is basically a liar. If not wanting to play with liars is your threshold for selectivity, then I'm happy to say that yes, I'm on the other side of it!

Perhaps he thinks that you are breaking the agreement when you, say, activate his familiar without his consent, then have it take actions opposing him, then refuse to have it recover in the manner the rules say it recovers. I don't think either you or he would be insincere, but that possibility certainly seems quite reasonable.

The player who feels torture is unacceptable to the Good PC and the one who feels it is required of him in the current circumstances can both be perfectly sincere.

I suggest that this is nonsense. If I start a jazz quartet, do you think I'm not going to care about who I play with? But that doesn't mean I'm dictating how they play their improvisations.

Unless, of course, you dislike their improvisations and find them a poor fit for the group.

If I start a book club, do you think I'm not going to care about who I read with? (Just to give one example, I am not going to sit down to read The Human Factor with a white supremacist.) It doesn't follow from that that I am dictating how my fellow readers respond to the books we read.

Yet your own example suggests that you would refrain from inviting someone because of the manner in which you anticipate he will respond.

 

[Cadence]

In the future that may be something you're going to have to learn to live with. And it's not a niche belief. Games as group storytelling is a niche belief.

Of course we're not generally talking about game playing in general. In RPGs, the idea that a story is being created is hardly a niche idea. If it were you wouldn't have to tell people ad-nauseam that they've been spending 30+ years deluding themselves about what they're doing.

But per the English language, saying what an imaginary person is currently doing may well be telling a story. (I'm not saying that it has to be, but it's certainly a good candidate.)


And this is what RPGing, at its base, involves.

 

[Hussar]

In the future that may be something you're going to have to learn to live with. And it's not a niche belief. Games as group storytelling is a niche belief.

Just to add to Cadence's point, you have argued your points at some length and have yet to gain any traction with them. Why do you think that is?

The Intimidate rules indicate the target is considered friendly, but only while it remains intimidated, after which it changes. It does not state what information will be shared – much like alignment, “friendly” is a GM interpretation. Changing another’s behaviour requires a minute of interaction, but torture doesn’t seem like a 60 second process.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page126#ixzz2wHQ0SPR0

Wow, so not getting back into this rules wank with you. You and I interpret rules very, very differently. I know that you would interpret "friendly" in the most restrictive means possible. Thus, even if the player succeeded, you would simply interpret the rules so that they failed instead. You have repeatedly demonstrated that this is how you DM.

But, please, this is a play style thing. Do not presume that all DM's interpret the rules the way that you do. The fact that you are incapable of extrapolating the mechanics to include torture does not mean that it cannot be done. It apparently cannot be done at your table, but, then, I'm not playing at your table. Take it as a given that some of us interpret things differently.

 

[howandwhy99]

Just to add to Cadence's point, you have argued your points at some length and have yet to gain any traction with them. Why do you think that is?

Well, that's not true at all. But I understand for you it is. Why do a small group of individuals dogpile those who disagree with their pet philosophy? I don't know, maybe people don't accept change easily?

The fact is, games and puzzles have been designed as codes since games and puzzles have existed. You might disagree, but a single philosophy doesn't disprove hundreds of years of practice. The same goes with the thousands of games in our hobby which are balanced to be games for players to succeed at. Many might be called incoherent, but that's only for a lack of understanding for several years. And look at what even that wrought: D20 is still one of the most popular systems in gaming.

I'd really wish you and Cadence didn't try and close off other people's ideas when they disagree your own. It's possible you might actually be able to learn something about games and game design.

 

[pemerton]

The player who feels torture is unacceptable to the Good PC and the one who feels it is required of him in the current circumstances can both be perfectly sincere.

In which case, why is there the need to shut one down? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already indicated that he would enjoy having this situation unfold, at the table, between two sincere players.

Unless, of course, you dislike their improvisations and find them a poor fit for the group.

Telling someone I don't want to play with them is not telling them how to play. Telling someone I don't want to go to the movies with them is not telling them what movie to watch. The equivalences that you are drawing are spurious, almost comically so.

Musical groups break up because of "creative differences" all the time. That is not a sign of one party telling the other what to do. It is a consequence of neither being able to tell the other what to do.

If I start a book club, do you think I'm not going to care about who I read with? (Just to give one example, I am not going to sit down to read The Human Factor with a white supremacist.) It doesn't follow from that that I am dictating how my fellow readers respond to the books we read.

Yet your own example suggests that you would refrain from inviting someone because of the manner in which you anticipate he will respond.

You are correct that I have no interest in hanging out with racists, or talking to them about their racist views, or hearing them explain how apartheid South Africa was a bastion against communism in sub-Sarahan Africa.

Not wanting to spend time with someone, and having little or no interest in what they have to contribute to the world, has very little in common with telling them what to do or say. It's a big world. Their are plenty of other people in it besides me. They can find someone else to rant too.

In other words, the equivalences that you are drawing are spurious. By your measure, every time you decline an invitation from someone to do something, or decline to invite someone to join you in some activity, you are dictating to them. The proposition only has to be stated for its absurdity to be obvious.

Why would someone agree to join a group, agree to play in (say) a 4e game based around the core books, and then break that agreement? You are positing a player who is basically a liar.

Perhaps he thinks that you are breaking the agreement when you, say, activate his familiar without his consent, then have it take actions opposing him, then refuse to have it recover in the manner the rules say it recovers.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I said, other than that you are once again positing that you know me, my friends and my game better than I do. Are you suggesting that my friend is a liar? Are you suggesting that I'm a liar?

My friend lurks on this site from time-to-time, and at our last session commented that he had looked at this thread and seen you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] white-knighting on his behalf. He found it quite amusing. He also made the point to me, that I had already made on this thread and thought was obvious, that part of the reason that he put the Eye in his imp rather than himself was so that he was free to conflict with Vecna without suffering personal blowback, and that - had he had the Eye in himself - he would not have crossed Vecna.

Gee, who would have thought that I would know my player and my game better than some random guy on the internet?

 

[Grydan]

Like I said, I am not going to debate GNS again, but I do not feel simulationist as a label offers any insight into my play style. I certainly don't find it useful for myself as a category.

What I like about this statement is how succinctly it sums up how I feel about the traditional alignments:

I do not feel Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil as labels offer any insight into my or my players' characters. I do not find them useful as categories.