Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

Earlier your point was that the mechanical build of the paladin in 4e would make it so that he wouldn't benefit from the use of tactics/items/powers that conflicted with his archetype

No. My point was that the mechanical build of a paladin gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use stealth or backstabs; and that the default approach to treasure awards in 4e gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use items such as poisons.

Why are you assuming the paladin would reject/destroy poison (Say Bloodstinger poison) when there is nothing that says he can't use it?

I'm not assuming that s/he would. I'm saying that s/he has no reason not to - why add poison to your treasure list when you could forego it with the confident expectation that your GM will drop an item that you desire in its place.

Why would he reject a mechanical advantage to increase his damage

<snip>

The player of the paladin chooses to use the poison because it increases his damage output, he has no restrictions around it's use and Bloodstinger poison at least, is relatively inexpensive.

Because it takes a standard action to apply, and so is not well-suited to a defender? Because it affects only one target, and as a defender you're likely to be engaging targets on an "all in" basis rather than being selective about which target to try and pick off? Because for a comparable amount of money you could acquire a viable AoE attack using Alchemist's Fire? Or even acquire Holy Water, which can be thrown as a minor action (still not ideal for a paladin because of their marking requirements, but better on the action economy than the poison).

There are other and better ways to improve your performance as a paladin than spending a standard action to get a chance of doing OG 5 poison on your next attack.

If a player wants to use the poison, go to town! My point is that I don't think the system sets up any particular incentive to do so, given the rules for item acquisition, and the general character of a paladin's mechanics and the way it plays.

we seem to be shifting to a totally different point in which the GM/DM shouldn't offer him poison or anything he could use for a benefit that doesn't reinforce his moral stance... how is this not just a well disguised stick to keep him playing and acting in a particular way by denial of the choice not too?

You seem to have reversed what I said - my point was that if the player doesn't want to play a poison-using paladin, s/he won't be disadvantaged by a GM who is following the default treasure rules, of placing items that the players actually want for their PCs. I don't see how the GM conforming to the player's desire is any sort of stick.

And if alignment is not objective why is it wrong or undesirable for the LG paladin to use poison?

Because the player regards poison as dishonourable and wants to play an honourable warrior? I mean, that's like asking "If tastiness is not objective, then why wouldn't the player eat mud?" Answer: because s/he doesn't like it!

 

[pemerton]

Well, one reference [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] used was "a gift from the Gods", so I suppose he could just find it lying on his bedroll after a blissful dream of his deity's congratulations for serving the faith. Of course, that also seems like reinforcement that what he has done was consistent with his faith, so he has been morally judged. It seems tough for the Dwarf to suggest the Paladin isn't true to his ideals when a Holy Sword materializes at his feet in the night.

This makes no sense. If the player thinks that s/he is playing an honourable warrior true to his/her god's conception of honour; and the player tells the GM that s/he wants a Holy Sword for his/her paladin; and the GM places the treasure as a gift from the gods (and receiving gifts in a dream is hardly out-of-genre - eg The Phoenix on the Sword); how is this the GM making a judgement of the player's play of the PC? Where did any judgement occur? All I can see is reading and implementing a wishlist.

 

[N'raac]

In part because they value different things - they have different conceptions of welfare. And in part because we lack the relevant evidence and methodology to settle the question.

D&D doesn't have room for differing conceptions of welfare, because it is all packaged into the notion of "Good" - so LG and CG characters have the same conception of welfare ("goodness") while disagreeing over . . . (something? - I'm not sure what). And LE characters, who to my mind are most naturally thought of as having a different conception of welfare (eg it seems natural to me that hobgoblins would regard hobbits and elves as overly sentimental), are presented as repudiating welfare as a value at all. It's all very weird to me.

Which enlivens the question - why not just ask the gods for the answers? In the real world, Friedman and Burke have different conceptions of welfare as well as different views about social causation and consequences, but D&D doesn't seem to have room for the former.

And in the D&D world there are LG and CG Deities who also disagree as to which alignment is best. And there are Neutral and Evil deities (with regards to Good/Evil) who have a different conception of welfare. Just as Hobgoblins and Hobbits have different values, so do the Hobgoblin Gods and the Hobbit Gods. So which answer(s) you get depends on which God(s) you ask.

I can read the words but they don't make any sense to me. Why would someone value order as an end in itself? It sounds like a fetish or pathology to me.

So any value hierarchy which differs from your own is a fetish or a pathology? Seems like that would lead to conflict between those various value systems - ie alignments.

When I see LN characters actually presented in scenarios or in play, it turns out that (if they're not just self-disciplined monks, who as I've argued needn't fight with a bard at all) they do in fact value order because of its contribution to welfare - they just object to the LG character's conception of welfare. But in D&D this isn't viable, because a LN character can't contest with a LG character over what genuine altruism or dignity requires - rather, they have to express a level of disregard for those things.

In other words, they value these things less than the LG character does - hence they are LN, and not LG. Those LG folk are OK, I guess, but they are too willing to compromise Order out of maudlin sympathy.

Yet if you look at the MM you'll see that hobbits, elves and dwarves are all good characters because they do roughly this. Are you advocating for alignment as its written, or as you want it to be?

Where does it say that Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves just go to work five days a week, come home at night, and their only contribution to the welfare of others is dropping a few insignificant coins into the Poor Box? For characters who are going to be epic in power and ability, and stand out from the crowd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect their moral standads to be just as "larger than life" as their physical and mystical abilities.

This makes no sense. If the player thinks that s/he is playing an honourable warrior true to his/her god's conception of honour; and the player tells the GM that s/he wants a Holy Sword for his/her paladin; and the GM places the treasure as a gift from the gods (and receiving gifts in a dream is hardly out-of-genre - eg The Phoenix on the Sword); how is this the GM making a judgement of the player's play of the PC? Where did any judgement occur? All I can see is reading and implementing a wishlist.

As the Dwarf who adventures with that Paladin, my character doesn't see the player telling the GM he wants a Holy Sword and the GM checking a rulebook to determine that the PC's level is about right for X% of his treasure for this level to be reflected as a holy sword. He doesn't see "reading and implementing a wishlist". He sees the magical sword being granted from the Deity of Honour and Justice. Seems to indicate the Paladin's actions are recognized as consistent with those precepts, and being rewarded, from where that Dwarf sits. Does the deity of Honour and Righteousness not actually represent those ideals? Does he randomly hand out rewards to just anyone, regardless of whether they serve, sit by, or actively oppose his values?

 

[Imaro]

No. My point was that the mechanical build of a paladin gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use stealth or backstabs; and that the default approach to treasure awards in 4e gives the player of the paladin no incentive to use items such as poisons.

Okay, this appears to be my mistake... I thought earlier you made a general statement about the paladin's build working best when played in a forthright and honorable manner (paraphrasing here), but you've clarified that you were only speaking to the use of the stealth skill and the backstab (power/class ability) specifically... is that correct?

As to the "default" approach to treasure in 4e... again there is nothing specifically about tailoring consumables, gear, alchemical items, gold items, etc. to PC's... there is general advice about treasure being usable by the PC's but as I've said, the poison is usable by every PC so I'm not sure on what basis (unless we've now switched to the PC's get exactly what they want/prefer) it would be excluded?

I'm not assuming that s/he would. I'm saying that s/he has no reason not to - why add poison to your treasure list when you could forego it with the confident expectation that your GM will drop an item that you desire in its place.

Please show me in the DMG where it says this should take place for treasure other than magic items? I was under the impression that this was the area that was totally under the DM's control but I could be mistaken. Also, here is a quote from the PHB that seems to support my view that not all treasures should/will be tailored to PC's in default 4e.

"Treasure comes in a variety of forms, but it falls into two basic categories: magic items you can use and money you can spend to acquire items and services. Money can be coins, gemstones, fine art or magic items you sell instead of use

Seems the PHB sets up the default expectation that you will in fact get items (including magical items) you don't or can't use but can sell.

The Dungeon Master's Book from essentials even goes so far as to say that only common and uncommon magic items should be under the purview of a wishlist and that rare magic items are also within the discretion of the DM. There is nothing concerning any other type of treasure that even hints that it should be tailored to the PC's...

Because it takes a standard action to apply, and so is not well-suited to a defender? Because it affects only one target, and as a defender you're likely to be engaging targets on an "all in" basis rather than being selective about which target to try and pick off? Because for a comparable amount of money you could acquire a viable AoE attack using Alchemist's Fire? Or even acquire Holy Water, which can be thrown as a minor action (still not ideal for a paladin because of their marking requirements, but better on the action economy than the poison).

You can apply the poison before combat, it doesn't have a duration so that's kind of a non-factor.

As to it being well-suited or not to a defender that really depends on the situation... It's still 5 more points of ongoing poison damage than he/she would have done without it on top of weapon damage. You also seem to be discounting situations where he is facing a solo (where everyone of your negatives is moot)? As to Alchemist Fire or Holy Water... does the paladin have a better chance to hit with his melee weapon or a ranged attack? Does an attack with one of these do more damage than one of his melee attack powers + ongoing poison?

There are other and better ways to improve your performance as a paladin than spending a standard action to get a chance of doing OG 5 poison on your next attack.

Again, the poison can be applied before combat commences... what are some of the better ways that work with the paladins weapon attacks and are as cheap as the poison?

If a player wants to use the poison, go to town! My point is that I don't think the system sets up any particular incentive to do so, given the rules for item acquisition, and the general character of a paladin's mechanics and the way it plays.

I'll take ongoing 5 poison on my first hit with my paladin (especially on a solo monster)... that seems like an incentive enough for me... and if I have an alchemist in the party, I'd probably be using it even more frequently.

You seem to have reversed what I said - my point was that if the player doesn't want to play a poison-using paladin, s/he won't be disadvantaged by a GM who is following the default treasure rules, of placing items that the players actually want for their PCs. I don't see how the GM conforming to the player's desire is any sort of stick.

First I disagree that your view of treasure placement in 4e is default. Everything is not supposed to be perfectly tailored for each character in the party. Second, how is not ever offering the paladin the chance to use poison or be tempted by dishonorable tactics not a stick... a meta-game, illusionism-based, stick... at least IMO.

Because the player regards poison as dishonourable and wants to play an honourable warrior? I mean, that's like asking "If tastiness is not objective, then why wouldn't the player eat mud?" Answer: because s/he doesn't like it!

So, if I decide using poison is honourable there is no problem with me as a LG paladin using it... correct?

Also mud is not food so your analogy doesn't make sense (Also I'm sure somewhere out there are people who enjoy eating mud, lol...

 

[Cadence]

Seems relevant (CG, CN, and N vs. the Paladin)
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23

 

[pemerton]

You can apply the poison before combat, it doesn't have a duration so that's kind of a non-factor.

It would wear off after 5 minutes - the default duration in 4e for otherwise unspecified effects. (There is also the question whether you can sheathe a poisoned weapon without wiping off the poison.)

As to the "default" approach to treasure in 4e... again there is nothing specifically about tailoring consumables, gear, alchemical items, gold items, etc. to PC's... there is general advice about treasure being usable by the PC's but as I've said, the poison is usable by every PC so I'm not sure on what basis (unless we've now switched to the PC's get exactly what they want/prefer) it would be excluded?

<snip>

Please show me in the DMG where it says this should take place for treasure other than magic items

<snip>

I disagree that your view of treasure placement in 4e is default. Everything is not supposed to be perfectly tailored for each character in the party.

If a player of a paladin makes it clear that s/he regards poison use as dishonourable, why would a GM drop poison as part of a treasure parcel? It makes no sense, and is contrary to all the advice in the 4e rulebooks.

If the player destroys or ignores the poison, then the treasure hasn't been taken. Why would the GM then, nevertheless, tick it off as a treasure parcel? Treasure parcels aren't a setting-design guideline, they're a player resource delivery guidline. If the players don't treat it as a resource, it wasn't delivered.

And in the D&D world there are LG and CG Deities who also disagree as to which alignment is best. And there are Neutral and Evil deities (with regards to Good/Evil) who have a different conception of welfare.

As to the first sentence, you can assert it but it doesn't make it coherent. I mean, we could stipulate that there are deities with +30 Perception checks who argue over whether the sky is blue or green, but why are they arguing? How can someone with a +30 Perception check be confused about the colour of the sky?

Similarly for sociology. Why can these ultra-intelligent gods not make sense of social causation?

The real issue is that they have different conceptions of welfare. But, contrary to your assertion about evil gods and the like, D&D does not permit this to be the case. Evil is not defined by reference to a different conception of welfare: it is defined as consisting in selfishness and a disregard for welfare, and has been so defined going back to Gygax. Evil gods (and evil people) know what human (and other humanoid) wellbeing consists in, and repudiate that.

 

[Hussar]

It would wear off after 5 minutes - the default duration in 4e for otherwise unspecified effects. (There is also the question whether you can sheathe a poisoned weapon without wiping off the poison.)

Technically, you could apply the poison before combat began, presuming that you knew that a combat was going to happen soon, which is not a terribly unreasonable event. However, it would still only apply to the first hit you made in the combat - which could be very problematic - you could wind up using the poison on something like a minion drawing an Opportunity Attack or some such, which would make applying the poison before combat begins a dicey option at best.

There are certainly a plethora of other consumables that would suit a paladin a heck of a lot more than poison.

Of course, that brings up another point. The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill. You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him. So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way? How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not? After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.

So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword? Where does it stop? Is any magical weapon dishonourable? Why not? Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword? How is it justifiable under the alignment system?

 

[Manbearcat]

Of course, that brings up another point. The reason poison is seen as dishonourable is because it kills without a contest of skill. You didn't beat him through force of arms, you just poisoned him. So would other weapon qualities not also be seen in the same way? How is poisoning a weapon dishonourable but using a Vorpal weapon not? After all, killing someone with a Vorpal sword is not a contest of skill but simply random luck.

So, in a mechanical alignment system, can a paladin use a Vorpal sword? Where does it stop? Is any magical weapon dishonourable? Why not? Why is it forbidden for a 3e paladin to poison his sword, but, it's perfectly acceptable to use a +2 Frost Burst sword? How is it justifiable under the alignment system?

This is an issue that I was just thinking on as well. It has some interesting traction as a micro-issue to the overarching alignment debates.

At its most base functionality, poison efficiently facilitates the expiration of life, same as any other weapon. It can't be the virulence of poison that is the problem. I'm pretty sure your average Holy Avenger bears out a much greater life-snuffing capacity than your average vial of poison. Presumably for a Paladin, within an unwritten protocol of armed conflict, poison would be deemed dishonourable due to its inherent nature of circumventing a (knightly) promise to observe direct, overt, symmetric warfare (its underhanded or asymmetric). One wonders what else would a Paladin (to remain consistent) need to observe and what sort of strategic asymmetry (in warfare) would he need to castigate/outright forbid to retain his honour (not his alignment and powers...simply his honour by his own evaluation) and properly observe those unwritten protocols of armed conflict?

Would he be at odds with Rangers (commandos are asymmetric warfare specialists)? Would wolvesbane or alchemical silver versus lycanthropes be dishonourable? What about ambushes? What about (not the martial contest version) ruses? Fire or acid (magic or mundane) against a troll? What about the threat of fire or acid against a troll to expedite its submission? What about a save or die Arrow of Dragonslaying? What about holy hand grenades (radiant holy water flasks) against undead? What about blessed crossbow bolts versus Rakshasa? What about infiltration, spying, divinations?

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of tactics/means/tropes that may (or may not) straddle the line of observation of overt, symmetric warfare versus underhanded, covert asymmetric warfare. I wonder what people think about on these things. I haven't given it enough thought to assert an opinion but it certainly begs one to align their ducks in a row on the questions above.

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, your bigger point is interesting and I'll post something about that when I have more time.

Technically, you could apply the poison before combat began, presuming that you knew that a combat was going to happen soon, which is not a terribly unreasonable event. However, it would still only apply to the first hit you made in the combat - which could be very problematic - you could wind up using the poison on something like a minion drawing an Opportunity Attack or some such, which would make applying the poison before combat begins a dicey option at best.

There are certainly a plethora of other consumables that would suit a paladin a heck of a lot more than poison.

I agree with all this. For a striker, target selection can be quite important. For a defender, target discrimination is much less a part of what you're trying to do - you're taking all comers! Which makes a single-target buff like poison less attractive.

 

[Hussar]

Which really speaks to Imaro's point that the paladin is gaining advantages by not following his code. In actual fact, poison instead of other more appropriate consumables is actually not more powerful and may well be less effective.

For example, anything with a burst effect would help his marking abilities.