Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[sheadunne]

While in theory I don't disagree this is possible, I first want to point out that you are again insisting on a) the primacy of the truth that no one judges oneself better than oneself ("It's not important or necessary for the GM to impose restrictions based on their understanding when it might be in conflict with my own...the player who better understands the morality of the character himself") and b) the primacy of getting what you want and think you deserve ("resolving them based on how I feel the story should progress when handling them"). I'm not going to quibble over the truth of those statements, we can for these purposes except them as valid, but I do want to highlight again the primacy you are putting on your volition and judgment and note that this is again at right angles to how the majority of people who live lives of service, duty, and devotion to a code see the world.

And secondly, while I agree that there are people who can turn the mirror on themselves quite well, I find in practice this is a pretty rare skill. Seeing truth clearly is hard. Self-evaluation is really hard, and I'm not sure that 'this is my character' is sufficient distance from 'this is me' that for most people it's easy. As I said earlier in the thread, I find that 90% of people can only role play themselves. Maybe you are really good it. And maybe you are just an incredibly good role-player. Maybe you have the same stance toward your PC's that good DMs manage toward NPCs. But, regardless, I find it strange to think that you expect to simulate duty by a system that means you are never subject to any constraint but the ones you place on yourself. That's a really low standard of obligation.

I guess the problem seems to be that I'm not judging myself in any way. I'm judging a fictional character as part of a story. I am not my character. There is no "mirror." There is no "self-evaluation."

Any constraints should be built into the rules of the game and not DM fiat. I suggested several ways up thread on how to handle that. Neither of which is in conflict with the way I prefer things to be handled in a RPG. If "duty" is a game rule than to resolve that rule there needs to be mechanics for arbitration (such as a religion check to determine if the action caused a lapse of duty). If it is purely narrative in function than there needs to be ownership of the narrative (which for me is the player) and consequences (which for me is the DM), neither of which are mechanic in nature (the character don't lose character abilities).

 

[Celebrim]

Bingo, well said. This is exactly my take on why the "classic" view of alignment as a "stick" is so counter to the game I want to play, or run.

Sometimes perception is at least as important as anything else.

Classic Gygaxian D&D does tend to run with the 'stick' approach to mechanics - either play well or your toys will be taken from you.

Would you object to having something like a classic approach to alignment, if the stick was taken away and replaced by a carrot? That is to say instead of punishing you for not living up to your table contract, the system instead rewarded you mechanically with extra benefits for doing so?

 

[Imaro]

The only issue here is that I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions).

IME... I've found the ability to be totally impartial towards one's character a very rare trait in players...

I find satisfaction in creating characters that find themselves in situations that test their moral fortitude and then resolving them based on how I feel the story should progress when handling them. It's not important or necessary for the GM to impose restrictions based on their understanding when it might be in conflict with my own story development.

Ok emphasis mine... this seems more in tune with the players I've run into. These sentences definitely don't imply impartiality... they seem to imply that you've already got a "story" that you want to tell and the GM shouldn't be able to interfere with that at all.... I guess i would say if you've already got the story in your head maybe it would be better to write it down as opposed to wanting to play it out with other people, and a GM.

Nothing for me is more immersion breaking than a GM imposing himself on my character. He should present challenges that put the character's morality and ethics to the test, but the internal results of those challenges, when it comes to the character, should be left to the player who better understands the morality of the character himself, at least that's my preference.

But being a paladin, cleric, etc. is about accepting the moral tenets of something or someone else and following them... In the same way you claim that as a player you know your character's morality better... wouldn't the DM know the morality of something or someone in the campaign setting better than you yourself would as a player?

This isn't to say that I'm against mechanical implications of failed oaths, I just don't think they should be subjective.

how can they not be subjective... I'm hard pressed to think of many, if any, roleplaying games that have mechanical moral ramifications and there isn't a moderate to large dose of subjectivity and judgement involved... can you?

 

[Celebrim]

I guess the problem seems to be that I'm not judging myself in any way. I'm judging a fictional character as part of a story. I am not my character. There is no "mirror." There is no "self-evaluation."

Again, I don't disagree that this is possible in theory. However, I do think that it is a bit much to suggest that you as a player have no emotional investment in outcomes regarding your character and that this could not possibly bias how you judge a situation that effects your character. I find it incredible that you think you can put that much distance between yourself and your character, especially in the light of the fact that you are insisting that no one else be allowed to set outcomes for your character other than yourself!

Any constraints should be built into the rules of the game and not DM fiat.

That's not possible.

I suggested several ways up thread on how to handle that.

You suggested ways that disguised the role of DM fiat, or set more structured expectations about exactly how DM fiat would enter into the game. I'm not necessarily opposed to the sort of suggestions you made, and in fact earlier in the thread a different set of suggestions got me thinking hard about designing tighter coupling of alignment and mechanics for my own game, but I don't expect to be able to do away with DM fiat. Instead, the benefit is greater structure to the expectations about DM fiat - the player gains the benefit of better foreknowledge of how the DM is likely to rule and what the consequences will be. I find a lot of people who say they don't like DM fiat, mostly mean that they want a better handle on what is at stake, what the odds are, and so forth so that they can make more informed choices.

 

[sheadunne]

IME... I've found the ability to be totally impartial towards one's character a very rare trait in players...

I have found it to be the norm. But perhaps your definition is much more strict than mine.

Ok emphasis mine... this seems more in tune with the players I've run into. These sentences definitely don't imply impartiality... they seem to imply that you've already got a "story" that you want to tell and the GM shouldn't be able to interfere with that at all.... I guess i would say if you've already got the story in your head maybe it would be better to write it down as opposed to wanting to play it out with other people, and a GM.

I am under the assumption that anyone who makes a character has a story they want to tell. They want to tell the story of X. How that story progresses is why I (and I assume others) play the game. The GM sets up challenges and based on the type of story the players want to tell, they interact with them. I assumed this was the normal way people played RPGs, it's certainly been my experience. I fight the ogres because I want a gritty action packed story. I hide from the ogres because I want a story of a coward who rises to glory later on in the game. I talk to the ogres because I want a story of different types of creatures learning to get along. Etc.

wouldn't the DM know the morality of something or someone in the campaign setting better than you yourself would as a player?

That hasn't been my experience.

how can they not be subjective... I'm hard pressed to think of many, if any, roleplaying games that have mechanical moral ramifications and there isn't a moderate to large dose of subjectivity and judgement involved... can you?

Plenty of examples. Think of sanity points from CoC as an example. It's not like it would be that difficult to set up a chart of actions that require a loss of "honor points" or that require a Religion skill check (failure resulting in a lose of ability or HP or something else). It's not my preferred system, but it would work better than the DM telling you that X action makes you lose all your abilities when in your mind and with your intention, the action wouldn't be against deity X's code. As a DM I don't find it meaningful or valuable. My preferred method is entirely narrative.

 

[sheadunne]

Again, I don't disagree that this is possible in theory. However, I do think that it is a bit much to suggest that you as a player have no emotional investment in outcomes regarding your character and that this could not possibly bias how you judge a situation that effects your character. I find it incredible that you think you can put that much distance between yourself and your character, especially in the light of the fact that you are insisting that no one else be allowed to set outcomes for your character other than yourself!

I'm not sure what you mean by outcomes. The DM can certainly set consequences. A paladin slaughtering a village is going to have some pretty harsh consequences by the local authority and the religious institution itself, even if his actions were morally justified as defined by the player. Those are narrative consequences, not mechanical ones. If the game introduces mechanical consequences, than there needs to be a resolution mechanic for handling them. I am not fond of mechanical consequences for narrative actions.

That's not possible.

Of course it is.

You suggested ways that disguised the role of DM fiat, or set more structured expectations about exactly how DM fiat would enter into the game. I'm not necessarily opposed to the sort of suggestions you made, and in fact earlier in the thread a different set of suggestions got me thinking hard about designing tighter coupling of alignment and mechanics for my own game, but I don't expect to be able to do away with DM fiat. Instead, the benefit is greater structure to the expectations about DM fiat - the player gains the benefit of better foreknowledge of how the DM is likely to rule and what the consequences will be. I find a lot of people who say they don't like DM fiat, mostly mean that they want a better handle on what is at stake, what the odds are, and so forth so that they can make more informed choices.

I suggested ways to make the narrative/mechanic work in a unified way as opposed to a narrative action causing a mechanical outcome without means of a resolution mechanic.

Situations where the DM needs to make rulings only tend to happen in situations where there is an issue between mechanics and narrative (such as with the paladin) or the mechanics are unclear in their resolution (poorly written, ambiguous, etc). In games I play the DM does not have the narrative authority to override a character, everything else, yes, but not the character. If the DM wants to impact the character, resolution mechanics need to be deployed. The problem with D&D is there tends not to be resolution mechanics for things like alignment. Either there should be or there shouldn't be mechanical implications.

 

[Celebrim]

Plenty of examples. Think of sanity points from CoC as an example.

It's funny, but I was going to bring up sanity points as well as an example of something that it seemed like didn't involve DM fiat, but actually did.

While sanity points are really crunchy, it's pretty much entirely up to the GM whether or not an event requires a SAN check and how much sanity is staked on the outcome. The GM is given some broad guidelines and the players some broad expectations, there is no way that those guidelines can ever be comprehensive and even those are subject to some interpretation.

the DM telling you that X action makes you lose all your abilities when in your mind and with your intention, the action wouldn't be against deity X's code.

I have never once in my 30 years DMing imposed on a player permanent ability loss so it's not like I would particularly enjoy only having that as the sole tool in my tool bag, but strictly speaking shouldn't the deity be the judge of whether or not you've violated his code? Just because you firmly believe something in your mind and in your intention, does that make it true?

But I notice we are getting side tracked into the particular mechanical implementation of how alignment interacts with the rules which is a rather different thing than whether it should exist at all. Are we saying alignment can exist it's just the particular rules you don't like, or that it shouldnt' exist at all?

As a DM I don't find it meaningful or valuable. My preferred method is entirely narrative.

You are going to have to explain that one to me better because to me that sounds entirely like DM pure and unlimited DM fiat. Are you saying, "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin abilities, but I would have his deity smite him with a big blue lightning bolt!" or "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin's abilities, but I would arrange so that now he's going to be in the suck because Hera hates his character now!" Narrative force is the strongest and most intrinsic application of DM fiat that there is.

 

[Imaro]

I have found it to be the norm. But perhaps your definition is much more strict than mine.

You're either impartial or your not... I don't think there's a more strict and less strict impartial. But we can just chalk this up to vastly different experiences...

I am under the assumption that anyone who makes a character has a story they want to tell. They want to tell the story of X. How that story progresses is why I (and I assume others) play the game. The GM sets up challenges and based on the type of story the players want to tell, they interact with them. I assumed this was the normal way people played RPGs, it's certainly been my experience. I fight the ogres because I want a gritty action packed story. I hide from the ogres because I want a story of a coward who rises to glory later on in the game. I talk to the ogres because I want a story of different types of creatures learning to get along. Etc.

Do you decide the outcome of talking with the ogres? Do you decide the result of a fight with the ogres? Do you decide whether hiding from the ogres was successful or not...

Yet if a player is in charge of deciding what his code is (the obstacle) and whether he overcomes a moral quandary or not (the outcome)... isn't he deciding he beat the ogre/quandary?

That hasn't been my experience.

Wait what? How about instead of a pithy one liner you elaborate a little on that because it seems like you're claiming that you as a player know your character's morality better then the DM (without any chance of this being incorrect) but a DM doesn't know an NPC or monsters morality better than you do?? Please explain how that works...

Plenty of examples. Think of sanity points from CoC as an example.

The GM would still decide what creatures cause sanity loss... and how much sanity loss a particular creature would cause... subjective.

It's not like it would be that difficult to set up a chart of actions that require a loss of "honor points" or that require a Religion skill check (failure resulting in a lose of ability or HP or something else). It's not my preferred system, but it would work better than the DM telling you that X action makes you lose all your abilities when in your mind and with your intention, the action wouldn't be against deity X's code. As a DM I don't find it meaningful or valuable. My preferred method is entirely narrative.

There would still be gray areas, holes, etc. in the chart since all actions that could conceivably cause a check couldn't be covered without the chart becoming ridiculous... thus certain actions would have to be subjectively judged. It's not about whether in your mind or with your intentions if the action is against deity X's code... it's the fact that you are not deity X and thus you don't dictate what his code means...

I mean if I'm playing a paladin of Bahamut, and I decide that killing baby chromatic dragons is a good act, but Bahamut doesn't think so (because secretly in the GM's campaign setting chromatic baby dragons can transform into metallics if they choose to do good) and I'm told by the GM, either through Bahamut somehow or straight out that killing those baby dragons is an evil act in Bahamut's eyes... who am I to say it isn't evil and is good if I've sworn to follow Bahamut?

 

[Celebrim]

I am not fond of mechanical consequences for narrative actions.

I have no idea what this means.

If I narrate, "I swing my sword at the orc, hoping to chop off its head.", or really anything else I propose for my character to do, I generally expect my proposition to have mechanical as well as narrative consequences. If I narrate, "I jump off the cliff, hoping to miss the rocks in the rapids below", I expect that to have mechanical as well as narrative consequences.

So if I narrate, "I swing my sword at the infant, hoping to chop off its head." or if I narrate, "I take Sheila into my arms and break my oath of chastity", why should I expect that to not have mechanical as well as narrative consequences?

Situations where the DM needs to make rulings only tend to happen in situations where there is an issue between mechanics and narrative (such as with the paladin) or the mechanics are unclear in their resolution (poorly written, ambiguous, etc).

Really???

In games I play the DM does not have the narrative authority to override a character, everything else, yes, but not the character. If the DM wants to impact the character, resolution mechanics need to be deployed.

You might not like the mechanical resolution, and we might both agree its a pretty blunt instrument but, "If you knowingly violate the tenants of your alignment or code of conduct, you permanently lose all class abilities", is very much a resolution mechanic.

Either there should be or there shouldn't be mechanical implications.

Well, I guess we'll be happy with anything then.

 

[sheadunne]

It's funny, but I was going to bring up sanity points as well as an example of something that it seemed like didn't involve DM fiat, but actually did.

While sanity points are really crunchy, it's pretty much entirely up to the GM whether or not an event requires a SAN check and how much sanity is staked on the outcome. The GM is given some broad guidelines and the players some broad expectations, there is no way that those guidelines can ever be comprehensive and even those are subject to some interpretation.

I have no issue with the GM calling for a sanity check. Nor would I have any issue with the DM calling for an alignment check. Resolution mechanics are deployed. All is well. I do have a problem with the DM changing a characters sanity or alignment without employing resolution mechanics (which there aren't any alignment mechanics to employ, which is where my issue is and why I brought up sanity in CoC since it does have resolution mechanics that impact a non-health (HP) aspect of the character.

I have never once in my 30 years DMing imposed on a player permanent ability loss so it's not like I would particularly enjoy only having that as the sole tool in my tool bag, but strictly speaking shouldn't the deity be the judge of whether or not you've violated his code? Just because you firmly believe something in your mind and in your intention, does that make it true?

For me, in a game of fiction, yes it makes it true.

But I notice we are getting side tracked into the particular mechanical implementation of how alignment interacts with the rules which is a rather different thing than whether it should exist at all. Are we saying alignment can exist it's just the particular rules you don't like, or that it shouldnt' exist at all?

I would like it to exist as either a mechanic element of the game or a narrative element of the game, not in-between. I have no real issue with the alignment descriptions. I have never had trouble fitting a character into one of the alignments (although I have had issues with either the player or DM not using the same definition of the alignment). I lean toward not having alignment as a mechanical element of the game and in my own 3x/PF games alignment only matters for purposes of spells/abilities that impact alignment and then only when a creature hails from an aligned plane or has an aura (such as a paladin or cleric). Detect evil doesn't reveal anything when used on a human rogue, but does on a human cleric (if he's evil). I don't think alignment offers much in terms of roleplaying, at least in my games, once the character is created and is usually ignored (aside from the above spells etc) during play (at least by the DM. The players may use it to remind themselves of their initial intention during character creation).

You are going to have to explain that one to me better because to me that sounds entirely like DM pure and unlimited DM fiat. Are you saying, "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin abilities, but I would have his deity smite him with a big blue lightning bolt!" or "Well, I wouldn't take away the PC's paladin's abilities, but I would arrange so that now he's going to be in the suck because Hera hates his character now!" Narrative force is the strongest and most intrinsic application of DM fiat that there is.

I think here lies the confusion. I don't involve the deities directly, nor do they have any direct influence on the game itself. When I run games I don't "play the deity." Deities do not control spell use (which I take from the cleric being able to use cleric spells without having a deity). I tend not to engage in high level play (epic level etc) and haven't since the 80s. When I say a purely narrative approach I'm talking about the ramifications in the fiction, NPC reactions, rumors spread about the failures of the paladin, etc. Narrative action do not take away anything from the character, they only present additional challenges for the PC to overcome. How does the lose of faith by the paladin resolve itself when the village he once called home now looks down upon him as a failure? These are the sorts of narrative consequences I like in the game.

DM Fiat to me is the DM taking action against a character without using the action resolution mechanics (whether there are any or not). A DM changing a characters alignment is Fiat. The DM presenting the character with a challenge based on his previous failure to live up to his code, is not. D&D 3x expects this and it bugs me, when there are better ways to handle it in my option (see above). It's entirely possible that I'm using the term incorrectly and if so, I apologize for any confusion.