Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[N'raac]

I don't play a game with alignment. The notion of "NG" does no work at my table. The PC in question is neither NG nor not-NG, because those descriptions are not part of the framework of my game.

Whether we slap the NG label on the character or simply allow the player to say his character is a decent fellow who does the best that a good person can do, is devoted to helping others and works with legitimate authority but does not feel beholden to them - he believes in doing what is good without bias for or against order, we still have a description which we cannot gainsay. If the player decides his basically decent character decides to take any given action, we must accept that the action is benevolent and decent, since the PC's moral code calls for such and he can never be outside that moral code without player consent.

If the paladin chooses to destroy it, then it was not a treasure parcel for that player, and hence s/he can expect to find something else. If the paladin chooses to keep it, then it was a treasure parcel for that player. Why would the player of a paladin, who thought using poison was dishonourable, choose to cash in his/her treasure parcels in this way?

So if my character wants a very specific item of treasure, can he simply toss away whatever else he finds until the GM gives him what he wants?

In my campaign, there is a morally-laden cosmological question at issue - heavenly order vs primordial chaos. I don't think the alignment mechanics have anything to say to it at all, because the alignment mechanics do not tell me whether law or chaos is more desirable (and I do not see why a LN character should oppose a CN one any more than a peanut-butter eater should oppose a chocolate-eater). That's just one way in which the alignment mechanics do not contribute to my game.

I don't quite grasp how we have an order versus chaos conflict, if the lawfuls and the chaotics get along fine. Conflict implies they don't get along so well.

I reiterate that you have no evidential basis on which to judge that alignment is not an impediment to my enjoyment of those episodes of play. I aslo reiterate that you tend to conceive of "an episode of play" purely in terms of the fictional events that occurred during that episode, whereas I am referring also to the emotional and other experience of the participants. The same fictional events could have been achieved via GM railroad, but that doesn't mean that the presence or absence of GM railroading has no bearing on my enjoyment of the play experience.

Absent the same play with and without alignment, and a comparative study, we have no evidential basis for any specific element adding to, or detracting from, play.

I don't know - I'm not the one who uses alignment.

You seem to frequently switch between having no idea how alignment works, as you don't use it, to being expert in its usage to determine how others would apply it and how that application would detract from your enjoyment of the game. Which is it?

\PCs in 4e are not immune to being persuaded. But the mechanical resolution is different - the player gets to decide (whereas for NPCs the matter is determined via skill checks).

Sorry, but where the player decides, the PC is de facto immune.

As to loss of hp being comparable, we've danced that dance more than enough, I think. Do the hit points just vanish with no mechanics behind their removal, or are they based on actual rolls failed by the player, or succeeded at by his enemies. You have consistently provided rules quotes on the consequences of failure to support the adjudication being simply part of the rules, while steadfastly refusing to indicate what roll the player failed to result in a negative consequences you imposed. As such, my opinion remains unchanged.

But, you the DM, wearing the hat of "cosmological forces" has to make a decision. How can it be good and not good at the same time? That's exactly the problem you accuse me of by not using mechanical alignment in the first place. It's inconsistent.

It can be both "not good" and "not evil", just as it can be neither chaotic nor lawful. It would be inconsistent only if the same action, under the same circumstances, is good sometimes, evil others and neither at other times. It is also inconsistent if the action is categorically Evil for PC 1 and definitively Good for PC 2. To judge that circumstances have no impact on judgement of the action also invites ridiculous results. Is it Good to kill people? In a vacuum, I must say no. But the decision to kill is not made in a vacuum, and the context must impact on the judgment of the action. You seem to want a simplistic check the box "this is good, that is evil" model, and I reject that as being a reasonable implementation of alignment in any form

 

[Hussar]

It can be both "not good" and "not evil", just as it can be neither chaotic nor lawful. It would be inconsistent only if the same action, under the same circumstances, is good sometimes, evil others and neither at other times. It is also inconsistent if the action is categorically Evil for PC 1 and definitively Good for PC 2. To judge that circumstances have no impact on judgement of the action also invites ridiculous results. Is it Good to kill people? In a vacuum, I must say no. But the decision to kill is not made in a vacuum, and the context must impact on the judgment of the action. You seem to want a simplistic check the box "this is good, that is evil" model, and I reject that as being a reasonable implementation of alignment in any form

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page138#ixzz2xb5FXmQn

So murdering babies is morally neutral? Torturing prisoners is morally neutral? Poison use is morally neutral? (although that last one i might actually buy - after all hunters have used poison for hundreds of years, if not thousands)

It's not inconsistent for something to be evli for PC 1 and good for PC 2. It's subjective, true, but not inconsistent. It would only be inconsistent if you insist that good and evil are objective. If alignment is objective, then it must be one or the other, all the time, for all people. That's why its objective.

 

[JamesonCourage]

See, @Jameson Courage, I've been told very, very often in this thread that without mechanical alignment, my games will devolve into chaos with players doing whatever and apparently arguing that players play in good faith to their chosen characters is submitting everyone to a "hive mind" where there is no disagreement. But, as soon as we start talking about the other side of the equation, no one seems to be able to say how their game is improved. There are exceptions all over the place.

True. I think you and other posters are going in circles for no good reason. Just because you don't use alignment doesn't mean you're inconsistent; on the flip side, just because you do, it doesn't mean you can't explore morality. I think both sides have tried arguing how the other side isn't effective (for them), but the lack of more explicit "(for me)"s has really soured the conversation.

There's been far, far too much "I'm going to trap you now to prove a point" and "here's what you're saying, now watch me beat it up" going on for this to be a good discussion (for me).

Alignment is good apparently, until it's not good in which case, the DM, after talking it out with the players, makes a ruling. Me, I just skip to the end. The players tell me if something is good or not.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, I suppose today's L&L article about the new approach to Paladin's Oaths pretty much cuts all discussions like an axe... Frankly, I don't know yet how to wrap my head around it, except for thinking "you should have seen this coming" : http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130401

 

[N'raac]

So murdering babies is morally neutral? Torturing prisoners is morally neutral? Poison use is morally neutral? (although that last one i might actually buy - after all hunters have used poison for hundreds of years, if not thousands)

If you consider any of these actions to be Evil, then have you not also made a decision about morality for your game, mechanical alignment or not? A Paladin carrying out a "clearly evil" action (whatever we consider those actions to be) and remaining in a state of grace seems jarring for the game, lacking in verisimilitude. If a player sincerely believes that this action which you and/or others at the table consider "clearly evil", what is the reaction? Whether "the Paladin falls" or "we take the player aside to chat about it", an effort is being made to direct this player's play. I thought the problem with alignment was that a third party was telling the player how to play his character?

"Whatever the PC does is deemed consistent with his alignment" is, I submit, the other extreme to "Any decision can have only one right choice for any given alignment, and any deviation from the GM's perception of the right choice will result in immediate and irrevocable negative consequences". I doubt many play at either extreme - between them lie many opportunities for good play.

It's not inconsistent for something to be evli for PC 1 and good for PC 2. It's subjective, true, but not inconsistent. It would only be inconsistent if you insist that good and evil are objective. If alignment is objective, then it must be one or the other, all the time, for all people. That's why its objective.

So murdering babies, torturing prisoners an poison use may or may not be evil, or good, actions, depending on the character? This seems the same result as your criticism of taking actions in their context in assessing alignment issues. So we, at the table, accept that killing a baby, for any reason, could be a "not evil" act? Do we accept that there are situations when torture, distasteful and vile as it is viewed in isolation, could be acceptable for the greater good? If we do not, then we classify that as an act of evil which can never be justified by the Greater Good. But then, don't place the characters in scenarios where an unwillingness to compromise the ideals of Good means certain failure, or in situations where no non-evil choice exists, and then wonder why players never want to run a Good character. That's the case whether we define Good in alignment terms, or game outside of any alignment structure - if good and decent behaviour and honourable tactics mean certain defeat, expect players to build characters who are more pragmatic, and therefore have a shot at success.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Sorry, but where the player decides, the PC is de facto immune.

See, this is where I think howandwhy's "D&D is just code-breaking" comes from. The player deciding is *not* de facto immunity. I have chosen, as a player, for some very bad things to happen to my character, up to and including death. If it fit the mood and the story I spoke to the GM and asked for bad stuff to happen. And I play with a fair number of people that would do the same.

 

[Desdichado]

There is something on which I lack a firm grasp, that was raised by [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] at around post 50 or so upthread: in what circumstances does the use of mechanical alignment actually matter, in your game, if all these questions that actually come up in play are not resolved by reference to it?

Posts 90 and 95, to be precise.

 

[Hussar]

N'raac, are you honestly going to continue to argue that there are players out there, numerous enough that it would actually be an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified? What kind of players do you play with?

Again, do you honestly believe that there are enough players out there to make it an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that torture is morally good? That poison use is morally justified?

That's my problem with your examples N'raac - you are picking, to my mind and certainly my experience, bizarre examples that just would not come up. Or would not come up often enough to ever be a problem.

If the player is choosing these things out of expediency, then he's no longer acting in good faith. He doesn't actually believe (or believe that his character believes) in his justifications - he's just trying to "win" D&D.

Again, I cannot really believe that you've met more than one player who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified.

 

[Desdichado]

N'raac, are you honestly going to continue to argue that there are players out there, numerous enough that it would actually be an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified? What kind of players do you play with?

Again, do you honestly believe that there are enough players out there to make it an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that torture is morally good? That poison use is morally justified?

That's my problem with your examples N'raac - you are picking, to my mind and certainly my experience, bizarre examples that just would not come up. Or would not come up often enough to ever be a problem.

If the player is choosing these things out of expediency, then he's no longer acting in good faith. He doesn't actually believe (or believe that his character believes) in his justifications - he's just trying to "win" D&D.

Again, I cannot really believe that you've met more than one player who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified.

Believe. And I specifically link that for the sole purpose of demonstrating that yes, such people do exist, and are, in fact, relatively commonplace in our society. This isn't some kind of out-there hypothetical scenario.

And if you don't believe that it's commonplace, do a Google search for apologia for the comments made in that hearing.

 

[N'raac]

N'raac, are you honestly going to continue to argue that there are players out there, numerous enough that it would actually be an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that murdering babies is morally justified? What kind of players do you play with?[/.quote]

Wow, [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION], thanks for that very depressing link. Compared to that, my "infiltrate the Evil cult the baby will die either way and others will be saved" is starting to look downright LG!

Again, do you honestly believe that there are enough players out there to make it an issue, who would, in good faith, argue that torture is morally good?

"Morally good" in isolation, or "morally justified" in certain circumstances? Were you not among those asserting that two Paladins might reasonably differ on whether it was acceptable to torture the Mad Bomber's sister?

That poison use is morally justified?

"This court sentences the accused to death by lethal injection" According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection, it seems that this was perceive preferable to electrocution (are Lightning Bolts and Shocking Grasps immoral?), hanging (we have asphyxiation spells, I believe), firing squad (missile attacks), gas chamber (oh look - more poison!), and beheading (melee damage). Should use of those other means to defend the innocent also be considered morally unjustifiable?

I'm not sure whether poison use is a question of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos (honourable combat vs surreptitious means)?

That's my problem with your examples N'raac - you are picking, to my mind and certainly my experience, bizarre examples that just would not come up. Or would not come up often enough to ever be a problem.

So what are your examples of alignment calls that were not so readily justified that have detracted from your games? I suspect those of us not seeing the issue would consider them bizarre examples that just would not come up with a reasonable GM, so I doubt they would resolve the issue, but it might be helpful to see where you are coming from.

If the player is choosing these things out of expediency, then he's no longer acting in good faith. He doesn't actually believe (or believe that his character believes) in his justifications - he's just trying to "win" D&D.

Who judges whether the choice is based on expediency or sincerity? Surely not the GM, as your premise seems based on the belief his calls cannot be permitted to have any impact on the player's perception of his, or his character's, morality. Who is qualified to judge the player's sincerity, but not his conception of honour?