Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Hussar]

Let me try explaining this in 4e terms... Does a paladin who tricks his opponent into imbuing a poison that makes him dazed, blinded or immobilized gain a benefit in combat effectiveness against said opponent over a paladin that fights his opponent in an honorable duel? None of the paladins powers are reduced in effectiveness because he poisoned his opponent so then why wouldn't he?

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

But, at this point, presuming we had an honourable LG 4e paladin, doing this would be very out of character would it not?

So why is he doing it? If the player cares so little about playing in character in the first place, alignment isn't going to fix the problem.

Again we're back to policing the players. If we don't hold that stick over them then of course the will ignore their character. I mean it was said so pretty clearly a few posts above this. Alignment is apparently required to make players play in character.

Why not trust that the players will actually be capable of playing in character?

 

[Imaro]

But, at this point, presuming we had an honourable LG 4e paladin, doing this would be very out of character would it not?

Yes and no since there is no objective LG in this play style... unless of course he believes defeating this opponent with the use of poison and deceit is justifiable because it is helping him defeat a greater evil than the one he is performing... so maybe not. I'm unclear on how... if the player is free to determine whether his actions are LG or not... we can say he is acting out of character for a LG paladin? in order to do this we need an objective LG, right?

So why is he doing it? If the player cares so little about playing in character in the first place, alignment isn't going to fix the problem.

To survive against a superior or even an unknown (power wise) opponent?? Because in the end the defeat of evil justifies evil actions... it justifies killing doesn't it? Who knows, why do his motivations matter if there is no objective LG to measure them against.

To your second point who said he makes a regular occurrence of it? Perhaps he only does it when he thinks a foe is superior in combat prowess... does that matter?

Not sure what problem (since we are speaking to games that don't use alignment) you are speaking of. I was asked why a player would act in a certain way in a non-Gygaxian "skilled play" game... my answer (unless we are now talking about games where death is totally off the table and all encounters are tailored so that PC's will always win) because they want to survive... so I'm not sure what "problem" you are speaking to.

Again we're back to policing the players. If we don't hold that stick over them then of course the will ignore their character. I mean it was said so pretty clearly a few posts above this. Alignment is apparently required to make players play in character.

This is your assertion, not mine. I don't profess to know how all players will play with or without alignment... i'd say painting with a broad brush, means you're bound to run into those who don't fit your pre-conceptions though.

Why not trust that the players will actually be capable of playing in character?

Because a player is advocating for his character in the "game". If by not staying strictly in character there is an advantage to be had... I think (in the same way there are players who purposefully exploit "broken" builds, feats, powers, etc.) there will be players who will exploit the inherent advantage in not always being a paragon of virtue. Assuming every player has the same definition of fun (staying in character) or reasons for playing the game (staying in character) or motivation (staying in character) seems a little naive and dismissive of the wide array of player types even the 4e books acknowledge.

 

[Dannorn]

Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly asked for arguments or examples that make out this claim.

What advantage does a player get by (for instance) having his/her PC break a code of honour while purporting not to?

I understand that a character might get an advantage from lying or cheating. But what advantage does a player get from having his/her paladin PC lie or cheat? For instance, how does that make the game more fun?

Apologies if I wasn't clear my point was that without mechanical reinforcement alignment ceases to be a consideration, rather than players will actively act against alignment for giggles.

It's like traps, if you tell your group that you don't use traps how often are they going to take the time to search for traps as opposed to just rushing down the hallway?

Example from an old group: we'd captured someone spying on us, he didn't raise a hand against us and answered all questions, it was abundantly clear he was just a guy who'd been offered money to watch us and he wasn't willing to stick his neck out for his employer. With the prisoner stripped of equipment and bound the Neutral Good fighter says we should kill him, just in case he tries to warn the guy. He wasn't aiming to be disruptive or acting out of alignment for shock, he just didn't consider that a good aligned character probably wouldn't kill a guy tied to a chair who'd done us no wrong.

 

[Hussar]

Note that is not my assertion Imaro. @Grannon specifically states that "Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment."

The brush is not mine. I'm not painting with it. And this is hardly the first time this has been stated in this thread.

For me assuming that a player in a role playing game actually wants to role play and not abuse the system seems a pretty healthy assumption. I would rather assume good faith on the part of the players. Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics as you yourself say.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I am a fan of alignment. It is a useful shorthand (in combination with race, class, prestige class, region and deity) of signalling to the DM the type of character that the player is interested in, and thus the types of challenges the player is interested in facing. When a player says s/he is interested in playing a Neutral Good Half-Elf Cleric Seeker of the Misty Isle from the Wild Coast who worships Ehlonna, that gives me a pretty clear indication of how to frame encounters to engage the player. Those two words, Neutral Good, convey a lot of information in a very efficient manner.

In my nearly twenty-five years of playing D&D, I cannot say that I have ever tracked alignment - I see no point. If a character were to change alignment it would come about via the player signalling through play that s/he is interested in pursuing a different direction. The Neutral Good Half-Elf Cleric Seeker of the Misty Isle from the Wild Coast who worships Ehlonna begins studying the teachings of Vecna, and is intrigued. The player drives the change.

I don't buy the argument that without mechanical alignment a player has no reason to hold to their alignment. My Swords & Wizardry (OD&D retroclone) campaign has no mechanical alignment system (only a descriptive alignment); the players still hold to their alignment. My 3.x campaign does have a mechanical alignment system, and the players hold to their alignment. I don't think mechanical alignment presents a very strong incentive structure.

 

[N'raac]

For me assuming that a player in a role playing game actually wants to role play and not abuse the system seems a pretty healthy assumption. I would rather assume good faith on the part of the players. Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics as you yourself say.

So, again, presume good faith on the part of the players (and no similar presumption for the GM), the mantra I have come to associated with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. And yet...

But, at this point, presuming we had an honourable LG 4e paladin, doing this would be very out of character would it not?

Why are you presuming bad faith on the part of this hypothetical player? Can he not have concluded that, in the interests of Good, this compromise to his principles must be made? That it is, in fact, more honourable in serving the greater good - the benefit of all those this villain will go on to harm (in the same manner he has harmed so many already) by sacrificing his own principles than it would be to place his own prestige as "an honourable warrior" in priority to the best interests of all those people? Seriously, does the Paladin consider it more important that he look good in the history books, or that the people be freed from this tyrant?

So why is he doing it? If the player cares so little about playing in character in the first place, alignment isn't going to fix the problem.

In my example, I suggest the Paladin is playing perfectly in character. You seem to presuming that no one sincerely playing their character in character could possibly play that character differently than how you envision him being played. I don't agree that the Paladin cannot deviate from the precepts of LG and still be played "in character". What this scene establishes, in a game where alignment is used, is that this character's viewpoint may not perfectly coincide with the ideals of "LG", and that he will follow his principles, even if that means risk of loss of his status, his powers, etc. That seems to me to carry the potential for a stronger game than one where:

(a) The player says "Code of honour says no, so no poison".

(b) Hussar says "Poison? What happened to your Code of Honour"? so the player abandons that idea, because other wise he will be perceived to have violated your perception of how he should play his character.

(c) The player says "Using this poison is consistent with the ideals of Honour" and thus it is deemed that his use of poison is consistent with the ideals of Honour, and great songs and epic tales are woven of Perry the Poisonous Paladin and his unshakeable honour in poisoning the tyrant king.

You can sub "LG" for "Code of honour" in any of the above and it's not a great result either, frankly. But it doesn't matter whether it's mechanical alignment or some other presumption of the need for the player to stay "in character" as you view staying in character.

And how do we know that 4e Paladin is LG, much less what the precepts of LG are, if we are not using alignment. I don't think the Paladin [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] refers to in his 4e game is LG anyway, is he?

Again we're back to policing the players. If we don't hold that stick over them then of course the will ignore their character. I mean it was said so pretty clearly a few posts above this. Alignment is apparently required to make players play in character.

Why not trust that the players will actually be capable of playing in character?

So, then, it is OK for the NG character to slash the throat of the fellow tied to the chair, and he is still virtuous and holy, perhaps even more so, after taking that action. And the Paladin may choose to use that poison without compromise to his honour - or even enhancing his honour. Is that correct? Or is there some "stick"* that you would apply in your game should such an event occur? That you interpret any possible "out of alignment" action suggested as "an insincere player playing out of character" suggests to me that you do not, in fact, have the trust you suggest we apply above.

Which actually makes more sense - "players are sincere and GM's are not" is a tough one for me to wrap my head around. "I am sincere but I have little confidence in the rest of you" seems much more consistent, at least.

* Funny...any penalty related to alignment is a "stick", but any other negative consequence to a character arising from the rules of the game are just part of the game, and natural consequences of the characters interacting with the world. In larger than life fantasy, where Good and Evil are not just abstract concepts, but actual forces of the universe, it seems to me that consequences of interacting with the world can easily include consequences related to those real forces.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I find myself wondering if Hussar has ever read "Knights of the Dinner Table". A stereotype has to exist before it can be satirized, after all.

 

[Hussar]

Note the shift in the example. It's very interesting. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] brought up the idea of the paladin player choosing to ignore his code of ethics and use poison as a way of gaming the system to gain more power in game. He could overcome a foe using poison by ignoring his code. That was Imaro's example.

Now, the goalposts sprout wheels and suddenly the example is completely different. The paladin player is no longer trying to gain extra power in game (which is Imaro's example) but is playing to character and honestly believing in his actions.

Let's be absolutely clear here. Imaro's example, which I was responding to, was an example of a player acting in bad faith. So suddenly trying to claim inconsistency by claiming that the player is acting in good faith, is a misreading of the conversation.

Additionally, where in this thread have I given a single example of a DM acting in bad faith [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]? Can you show one? I've repeatedly, REPEATEDLY stated that the DM, acting in good faith, is still holding a stick over the players.

So, one more time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAD DM PUNISHING PLAYERS. I AM TALKING ABOUT HOW THE MECHANICS FORCE THE DM TO POLICE THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE PLAYERS AND JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS IN A MANNER I FIND DETRIMENTAL TO THE GAME.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Imaro]

Note that is not my assertion Imaro. @Grannon specifically states that "Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment."

Yes well, I wasn't addressing @Grannon's point... I believe he uses it for that but I was answering a specific question asked by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].

The brush is not mine. I'm not painting with it. And this is hardly the first time this has been stated in this thread.

Again, you are the one who addressed the point to me in reply to an answer to a totally different question, so I feel it is you who (in the context of our interaction) are using the brush and painting broadly with it.

For me assuming that a player in a role playing game actually wants to role play and not abuse the system seems a pretty healthy assumption.

Well the problem is that you are assuming that no other priorities supersede playing in character (which IMO is only a part of "roleplaying" since their are roleplaying games where one does not stay "in character".) for any one or more particular players... again 4e has a list of player types by motivation and I believe only one (maybe two) types actually have playing in character as their primary reason for participation.

As to your point about abuse of the system... Character Op boards(as well as the need for errata, balance, etc.)... at least of the last 2 editions would seem to argue against your presumption...

I would rather assume good faith on the part of the players. Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics as you yourself say.

Where did I say this... show me where I said... "Presuming bad faith is the entire premise behind alignment mechanics.". If you can't show where I actually made this statement then please stop putting words in my mouth and/or assigning an argument to me I didn't make.

 

[Imaro]

Note the shift in the example. It's very interesting. @Imaro brought up the idea of the paladin player choosing to ignore his code of ethics and use poison as a way of gaming the system to gain more power in game. He could overcome a foe using poison by ignoring his code. That was Imaro's example.

Now, the goalposts sprout wheels and suddenly the example is completely different. The paladin player is no longer trying to gain extra power in game (which is Imaro's example) but is playing to character and honestly believing in his actions.

First, what code of ethics? We are talking about a game where alignment isn't objectively defined correct? SO there is no code of ethics to follow. Does 4e have a paladin code?

As to your second point... why can't he do both??

Let's be absolutely clear here. Imaro's example, which I was responding to, was an example of a player acting in bad faith. So suddenly trying to claim inconsistency by claiming that the player is acting in good faith, is a misreading of the conversation.

No it's really not.