Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

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.

WAITAMINNIT!

The helpless prisoner tied to a chair, and the NG fighter's assertion he should be killed so he does not report back to his master, WAS an example from an actual game, wasn't it?

 

[N'raac]

Yup, it was an example from an actual game...

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.

 

[Dannorn]

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.

And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment? I'll bring up the Neutral Good fighter who wanted to kill the prisoner, he wasn't acting out of alignment intentionally, he figured as adventurers killing is what we do, what makes this any different. Still there were a number of instances before and after that suggested he was playing closer to True Neutral, but he never suggested he wanted to change his alignment and since the way he saw it at the end of the day he was a nice guy who helped people out he wouldn't respond to suggestions he should. In a descriptive system how do you deal with that? And he wasn't disruptive it was just that for every stolen good returned at no charge there was some helpless prisoner run through because the rest of us insisted on questioning someone after the fight.

Though I've never been a fan of player defined alignment because I find most players have an idea of who their character is and how they should act but when the play is actually happening it's all about the game and achieving the goal as quickly as possible with the best odds of success. So the noble warrior who would never attack a defensless opponent will totally bury his sword in the villain who's on his knees begging for his life, he's the villain can't give him a chance to escape.

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.

Then you're lucky cause in every game I've been in with descriptive alignment the only people giving any regard to their alignment at all are the paladins and clerics because alignment is a big part of those classes.

 

[Dannorn]

Additionally, where in this thread have I given a single example of a DM acting in bad faith? 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 what way? How is mechanical alignment any different from say, traps? If players don't think about traps they probably end up setting them off, are traps a stick the GM is holding over the players? Are ambushes a stick? Proficiencies? What is it about alignment that makes it some grave threat being dangled above players heads?

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?

Again how do the mechanics force anything of the sort? If anything it forces the players to consider their actions more if, and only if, they actually care what their specific alignment is.

 

[Hussar]

Though I've never been a fan of player defined alignment because I find most players have an idea of who their character is and how they should act but when the play is actually happening it's all about the game and achieving the goal as quickly as possible with the best odds of success. So the noble warrior who would never attack a defensless opponent will totally bury his sword in the villain who's on his knees begging for his life, he's the villain can't give him a chance to escape.

And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.

So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?

 

[Jacob Marley]

And what's the solution for a player consistently playing their character out of alignment? I'll bring up the Neutral Good fighter who wanted to kill the prisoner, he wasn't acting out of alignment intentionally, he figured as adventurers killing is what we do, what makes this any different. Still there were a number of instances before and after that suggested he was playing closer to True Neutral, but he never suggested he wanted to change his alignment and since the way he saw it at the end of the day he was a nice guy who helped people out he wouldn't respond to suggestions he should. In a descriptive system how do you deal with that? And he wasn't disruptive it was just that for every stolen good returned at no charge there was some helpless prisoner run through because the rest of us insisted on questioning someone after the fight.

Lets start with the notion that alignments in my campaigns are fairly broad, and characters can have tendencies (e.g. Neutral Good (Neutral)) and inconsistencies. In fact, I expect there to be a certain amount of inconsistency in the portrayal - it adds depth to the character! Lets add to that notion the fact that I cannot possibly know the feelings and thought processes that the player, and thus the character, is going through as s/he takes a particular action. Those thoughts and feelings affect a character's alignment. I leave it to the players to indicate when their thoughts and feelings no longer align with their stated alignment.

To answer your questions, I'd let him continue playing the character as Neutral Good. The player isn't being intentional disruptive to the table. Now, if he was being disruptive, or his actions were grossly inconsistent with his stated alignment, then I'd talk to the player about it outside the game. I find talking to my player's about these issues is a much more productive way to handle differences.

Now, to be sure, the campaign milieu will react to his actions. He will earn a reputation, and that reputation will affect how others react to him. But this is separate from me declaring a change in his alignment.

Though I've never been a fan of player defined alignment because I find most players have an idea of who their character is and how they should act but when the play is actually happening it's all about the game and achieving the goal as quickly as possible with the best odds of success. So the noble warrior who would never attack a defensless opponent will totally bury his sword in the villain who's on his knees begging for his life, he's the villain can't give him a chance to escape.

That's fine. My players behave differently.

Then you're lucky cause in every game I've been in with descriptive alignment the only people giving any regard to their alignment at all are the paladins and clerics because alignment is a big part of those classes.

I've never denied that my introduction to, nor my participation in, role-playing games was/is unique. However, I don't believe that it is a matter of luck. I went out and found players who value what I value in gaming.

 

[Hussar]

I think from now on I'll just let [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION] do my talking for me.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think from now on I'll just let @Jacob Marley do my talking for me.

And the people rejoiced!

(Just kidding, of course )

 

[N'raac]

And here is a pretty clear example of alignment as stick. The idea that without mechanical alignment players are incapable of actually playing their characters in a consistent manner. Zero trust of the player.

So Imaro and N'raac. Do you agree with Dannorn that in the absence of mechanical alignment players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character?

Are you aware that there are gradations between "zero" and "automatically"?

No, I do not believe that players will automatically choose the most expedient option over playing in character. Neither do I believe it is automatic that alignment will be used by the GM as a stick to beat players into submission.

I do believe that rationalizations often occur to suggest that what is most expedient is, indeed, playing in character. And if alignments are not cosmological forces that are defined objectively, outside the decisionmaking process of the PC, playing in character may well go against alignment. That's why a single inconsistent act, or even an inconsistent personality trait or two (consistent to the character, but inconsistent with his alignment) does not mean a change of alignment overall. It's also why a character's alignment can change - he's simply not following the precepts of LG because he is following his character.

You seem to reject outright the possibility that a player can "play in character" and, as a result, play inconsistently with his alignment. If we take your approach, then each alignment is defined by how the character claiming it behaves - so get the player to name his own unique alignment. He can be Greedy-Violent, or Pious-StuckUp. Everyone needs their own, since they are deemed to always be perfectly playing to that alignment, so two people can only share one if they share a hive mind.

Alignment as a real, cosmological force means it is external to the character, just like the rest of his environment. The player can't decide the precepts of the alignment, only he extent to which his character, played in character, will adhere to those precepts.

 

[Hussar]

N'raac, why would you think I would disagree with any of that？

Note that the automatic bit is not mine but Dannorns. You need to take that up with him, not me.

My beef as it has always been is that objective alignment is defined by the DM and is unnecessarily restrictive. I have zero problem with the player defining the precepts of alignment and the adhering to his own interpretation.