Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Hussar]

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.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page132#ixzz2xGcC0G00

Show me an example during an actual game where this actually happens and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you're just building strawmen. I dunno. I don't play with sociopathic people who would honestly, in good faith, argue that what you are proposing is consistent with good or with any sort of code of honor.

That's the problem with hypotheticals. You can construct any hypothetical you like. But, do you honestly see this happening at any table, regardless of whether or not it has mechanical alignment? Would you honestly believe that the player is acting in good faith in these cases? Would you not be absolutely terrified of that player if he or she actually was arguing in good faith?

But, hey, if that's the kind of players you are used to dealing with, then, by all means, use mechanical alignment.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Here,

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.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page132#ixzz2xGfL7Abc (Bold Mine)

How is that not specifically stating that the player is acting in bad faith? He is "exploiting" the game. One doesn't exploit something in good faith. What do you mean by this if it isn't players acting in bad faith - they are advocating a belief for their character that they know the character would not actually have. Thus the exploitation.

And, again, how is this not policing your players? If you trusted your players to act in good faith, then you wouldn't be concerned that they were going to exploit their characters wouldn't you?

 

[Imaro]

Here,
How is that not specifically stating that the player is acting in bad faith? He is "exploiting" the game. One doesn't exploit something in good faith. What do you mean by this if it isn't players acting in bad faith - they are advocating a belief for their character that they know the character would not actually have. Thus the exploitation.

How does exploiting an advantage in a game equal playing in bad faith? In poker if I exploit the fact that one of the other players has a tell, am I playing in bad faith? I don't think so.

To your second point, the player is not advocating a belief for their character that they know the character would not actually have. A paladin more concerned with good than law (whatever these things mean when they aren't objectively defined) could easily see poison as a necessary evil (like killing) when facing the Giant chieftain whose forces will ravage the country side if the paladin fails to stop him in one on one combat. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. The funny thing is that you automatically assume the use of poison can't fit into a LG alignment... but there is nothing objectively stating that in 4e.

And, again, how is this not policing your players? If you trusted your players to act in good faith, then you wouldn't be concerned that they were going to exploit their characters wouldn't you?

It's not about policing my players, it's about my campaign having objective definitions of cosmological forces in game... When you depend on those cosmological forces for your power and you forsake their causes/taboos/ethos/etc. that power may be stripped from you. It's the same way my players loose the ability to attack with a weapon if it's taken away or access to spells if a spell book is stolen. It's not about policing anymore that making sure a wizard actually has access and components for the spells he casts if the warrior actually has the weapon/feat/etc. he claims to attack with. If those are also considered policing then I guess it's policing.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

How does exploiting an advantage in a game equal playing in bad faith? In poker if I exploit the fact that one of the other players has a tell, am I playing in bad faith? I don't think so.

I shouldn't get involved in this, but I think what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is trying to say is that there are 2 levels to D&D: The in-world level and the metagame level. Exploiting the game at a metagame level in order to gain benefits in-world could be argued as playing in bad faith.

To use your poker analogy, that game is also technically played on 2 levels(probably on more than 2 levels, but that's a discussion for another time). There's the tournament rules and there's the rules of poker itself. The tournament rules might tell you that if you are a certain amount late to show up for the game you automatically forfeit or receive some penalty. If you were to hire someone to delay your opponent so they couldn't make it to the game on time, you are exploiting an advantage in the metagame in order to receive an advantage in the game itself. Which sounds like you aren't playing in good faith.

Just as the same way, exploiting broken builds or exploiting the benefit of not being a paragon of virtue are similar situations. There are rules(or lack of rules in the case of non-mechanical alignment) that affect the game but aren't necessarily part of the game. It is saying "Great, since there is no rule that prevents my character from poisoning the monster, I'm going to do it. There's nothing the DM can do to stop me and this suddenly becomes so much easier for my character than fighting the monster fairly."

Which is something you don't have to worry about if the player in question is making decisions entirely from in-world. It's likely that he'd instead say "I'm a Paladin, and Paladins don't use the quick and easy way if it is dishonourable or evil. I guess I have to fight the monster fairly." However, since you need to worry about the player completely disregarding his character's personality and morals in order to gain a benefit, you need to restrain them with rules.

 

[Imaro]

Just as the same way, exploiting broken builds or exploiting the benefit of not being a paragon of virtue are similar situations. There are rules(or lack of rules in the case of non-mechanical alignment) that affect the game but aren't necessarily part of the game. It is saying "Great, since there is no rule that prevents my character from poisoning the monster, I'm going to do it. There's nothing the DM can do to stop me and this suddenly becomes so much easier for my character than fighting the monster fairly."

Which is something you don't have to worry about if the player in question is making decisions entirely from in-world. It's likely that he'd instead say "I'm a Paladin, and Paladins don't use the quick and easy way if it is dishonourable or evil. I guess I have to fight the monster fairly." However, since you need to worry about the player completely disregarding his character's personality and morals in order to gain a benefit, you need to restrain them with rules.

Yes but if there is no objective definition of "Lawful Good" how does one violate it or even determine what it does or doesn't mean to be a LG paladin? I've given in character reasons for why a paladin might resort to the use of poison (Good means putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few... even the needs of myself) so I'm not seeing how that is an issue and I've done this to show that I'm not speaking to the player disregarding his character's personality.

The problem I'm seeing is that you can't say that LG is wholly open to the player's interpretation and then claim every exact player will somehow share a hive mind wherein LG is defined and represented the exact same by each and every one of them. Some will not find the use of poison in certain situations to be outside their concept of LG... Is it LG to use the poison in this situation or not?

 

[Hussar]

Imaro poison being evil is the base assumption of your point. You're saying that the paladin is doing morally questionable things to gain more power in the game. That was your original example.

Which has now shifted to a case where it isn't about exploiting the rules to gain more power in game but a situation similar to the torture one above where there are real in game justifications for his actions.

Sorry but that's not exploiting system. That's just playing the game. Exploiting means to gain unfair advantage by gaming the system for personal gain.

IOW Majoru has the right of it.

 

[Imaro]

First your definition of exploit doesn't align with my understanding of the word and I think that's causing issues...

ex·ploit
verb
ikˈsploit/

• 1.
  make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).

There is nothing in that definition that forces one to act in "bad faith".

Imaro poison being evil is the base assumption of your point. You're saying that the paladin is doing morally questionable things to gain more power in the game. That was your original example.

Poison isn't evil in my example, "questionable" for a LG paladin to use... well IMO it is... but again we are speaking to 4e where that is not a given. My point was to show a situation where a paladin would use a questionable as opposed to honorable tactic to gain a tangible benefit, since it was claimed his build actively makes doing such things a sub-optimal choice. You brought objective good and evil into it not me.

Which has now shifted to a case where it isn't about exploiting the rules to gain more power in game but a situation similar to the torture one above where there are real in game justifications for his actions.

Nothing has "shifted" my point was never about "rules" being used in bad faith (which again is not the same as exploiting something), it was about whether the paladin could in fact gain an advantage by not playing to what most would consider the traditional restrictions on behavior. If any character can buy and use poison... how is it using the rules in "bad faith"? The only thing it even comes close to using in bad faith are the subjective morality of 4e, but even then it can be justified within a LG framework if the good it accomplishes is worth it. You don't seem to have a complete grasp of the discussion this example stemmed from.

Sorry but that's not exploiting system. That's just playing the game. Exploiting means to gain unfair advantage by gaming the system for personal gain.

I never claimed it was a usage of the rules in bad faith... I agree it's just playing the game but I've also shown that even in 4e the paladin can gain a tangible advantage by taking questionable actions... even when the play style is not Gygaxian "skilled-play". That was the original point.

 

[Hussar]

Ahh. I see now. Exploit certainly has some pretty negative connotations so you might see my confusion.

I guess it comes down to motivation. Is the player making the choice simply out of expediency or out of a good faith interpretation of his character's ethics?

To me, the latter is hallmark of good play. Certainly it might sometimes allow characters to do things that would be forbidden under mechanical alignment but that's a feature not a bug.

 

[N'raac]

@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.

No, he cited an example where the use of a less than honourable tactic by a 4e Paladin would provide him with a mechanical advantage.

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.

Why can’t the player believe that the Paladin honestly believes that the use of poison to facilitate the defeat of an evil opponent is an acceptable and justifiable tactic? Would you object if he also used rat poison to keep rats out of his castle’s food supplies?

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 @N'raac ? Can you show one? I've repeatedly, REPEATEDLY stated that the DM, acting in good faith, is still holding a stick over the players.

In my view, the simple assumption that the GM will use alignment as a stick is itself an assumption of bad faith on the part of the GM. He cannot be “acting in good faith” while “holding a stick over the players”. Capitalization does not make your views any more persuasive.

That's the problem with hypotheticals. You can construct any hypothetical you like. But, do you honestly see this happening at any table, regardless of whether or not it has mechanical alignment? Would you honestly believe that the player is acting in good faith in these cases? Would you not be absolutely terrified of that player if he or she actually was arguing in good faith?

OK, first, can you point me to your non-hypothetical examples of the bad things that happen when alignment is applied reasonably and in good faith, in a game where all parties are, in fact, acting in good faith?

Second, what should be more terrifying – that a person would believe killing his way to success and profit is itself the activity of a moral and good person, or that he would consider it appropriate to do so in the most effective manner possible? Many states adopted lethal injection to administer the death penalty. Were they barbaric compared to a state that hacks their criminals to bits or has them drawn and quartered?

Just as the same way, exploiting broken builds or exploiting the benefit of not being a paragon of virtue are similar situations. There are rules(or lack of rules in the case of non-mechanical alignment) that affect the game but aren't necessarily part of the game. It is saying "Great, since there is no rule that prevents my character from poisoning the monster, I'm going to do it. There's nothing the DM can do to stop me and this suddenly becomes so much easier for my character than fighting the monster fairly."

Which is something you don't have to worry about if the player in question is making decisions entirely from in-world. It's likely that he'd instead say "I'm a Paladin, and Paladins don't use the quick and easy way if it is dishonourable or evil. I guess I have to fight the monster fairly." However, since you need to worry about the player completely disregarding his character's personality and morals in order to gain a benefit, you need to restrain them with rules.

You are imposing the view that use of poison is immoral on the player. Perhaps he believes, instead, that having reached the heart-wrenching decision that violence – LETHAL violence – is the only means of delivering the greatest good to the greatest number, he also believes that this decision should be implemented as quickly and as effectively as possible. Frankly, that does not seem unreasonable, especially once we accept that the decision that lethal force is for the greater good is not a significant compromise of morality or ethics.

The problem I'm seeing is that you can't say that LG is wholly open to the player's interpretation and then claim every exact player will somehow share a hive mind wherein LG is defined and represented the exact same by each and every one of them. Some will not find the use of poison in certain situations to be outside their concept of LG... Is it LG to use the poison in this situation or not?

Sure you can. Similar to Majoru’s point, we do not police the players in game. We police them at the metagame level – only those players who share the hive mind are permitted to join the game.

 

[N'raac]

I guess it comes down to motivation. Is the player making the choice simply out of expediency or out of a good faith interpretation of his character's ethics?

To me, the latter is hallmark of good play. Certainly it might sometimes allow characters to do things that would be forbidden under mechanical alignment but that's a feature not a bug.

And who decides whether the player is acting in good faith? Your immediate reaction was to assume he was not, since he was not acting the way you envision a Paladin acting.

Character actions are not forbidden under mechanical alignment - they simply have consequences. In a game where Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are supposed to be actual forces, not just philosophical concepts, that is also a feature, not a bug.

This also flashes back to a much earlier aspect of the discussion that the player has a motivation to assess that his character's choice of expediency is indeed a good faith interpretation of his character's ethics. Unconscious exercise of bias is far from unusual. I doubt any of us have not been biased at some point in this discussion alone, assuming aspects to a post which were not in the poster's mind.