Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Umbran]

Secondly, D&D has historically presented it as a "gotcha" opportunity for the DM in his role as adversary/arbiter, rather than a negotiation. D&D's Gamist origins work against it here.*

*Or don't, depending on your preferences.

And, in the footnote, you hit an important point. You should not relegate it to minor consideration.

Since Fate is much more open about its group-storytelling agenda and doesn't share a gamist antagonism between GM and players

I think antagonism is not an aspect of rules, but of players.

Now, the original authors of D&D expressed some desire for antagonism in the explanatory text that accompanied rules. I also think that was decades ago, and the stuff from 3rd edition on has been markedly cleaner in that regard. Do you want to argue that the real problem is that players are incapable of shedding their old habits, and therefore we must get rid of systems that engage those old tendencies? If so, I repeat that there's only so much we can do to save people from themselves, and I'm not going to support ditching a subsystem due to some folks havign bad habits.

its also much more open about the idea that the player/GM are in a position to negotiate things like compels and invokes.

Yes, but that's not the rules, but presentation of the rules, that is the issue. Change the explanatory text, and the issue largely dissolves.

Thirdly, Fate aspects are generally/usually more specific and use less charged words than D&D alignments.

Heh. You say this to a guy who plays a character with the aspect "Karmic Enforcer". Aspects can have some very charged words in them

 

[Bluenose]

A

Heh. You say this to a guy who plays a character with the aspect "Karmic Enforcer". Aspects can have some very charged words in them

Which like most well-though-out aspects, has both positive and negative parts. And is noticeably something that matters mechanically more to your character than writing LG does to a Fighter, but far less than writing not-LG-any-more would for a (ex-)Paladin.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is only true in groups where world building is the sole realm of the DM/GM.

Even if worldbuilding were a group effort, it is entirely possible that this issue would arise.

Assume, arguendo, that a gaming group decided a D&D campaign's ethical compass before play, and Player A decided to play a Paladin. Months down the road, a classic Paladin's dilemma comes up. The GM notes that the action Player A wants to take would be a code violation; Player A disagrees.

Now, leaving aside the mechanics the group uses to resolve which is right- group vote, GM gets final say, roll of the dice, whatever- the game situation is the same: if player A's Paladin violates his code, he loses his powers.

 

[Ratskinner]

And, in the footnote, you hit an important point. You should not relegate it to minor consideration.

I don't. To be clear, I stated in my first post on this thread that Alignment (from my observations) does serve a purpose, but its not the purpose that most of its proponents would wish (judging from their posts). I was just responding to your stated befuddlement as to why D&D Alignment doesn't operate with the same sort of adult discussion that Fate aspects do. I think that, taken together, all the reasons I cited make the environment very different between Fate and D&D.

I think antagonism is not an aspect of rules, but of players.

Now, the original authors of D&D expressed some desire for antagonism in the explanatory text that accompanied rules. I also think that was decades ago, and the stuff from 3rd edition on has been markedly cleaner in that regard. Do you want to argue that the real problem is that players are incapable of shedding their old habits, and therefore we must get rid of systems that engage those old tendencies? If so, I repeat that there's only so much we can do to save people from themselves, and I'm not going to support ditching a subsystem due to some folks havign bad habits.

Having dropped the antagonistic language, do you feel that it has been replaced with cooperative language similar to what you see in Fate? I don't (although I don't have the oft-touted 4e DMG2, so..). Also, as the Simulation vs Game thread (for one) makes clear, the gamist/antagonistic section of this peanut gallery is alive and well. Does that mean that they are incapable of shedding their old habits? I can't say, because they haven't been asked to do so.

As far as ditching a subsystem...I'm not one to stand on tradition. I take the length of this thread (and I can't guess how many other arguments online and off) as strong evidence that the alignment system is at least questionable, if not profoundly flawed. To my way of thinking, the incapability of the audience to shed their old habits is why we still have the mechanic to debate rather than ditching it years ago. I don't see a point in keeping an old broken down subsystem due to some folks having bad habits.

Yes, but that's not the rules, but presentation of the rules, that is the issue. Change the explanatory text, and the issue largely dissolves.

It might (and I am by no means convinced of that). However, I don't think that the rest of D&D's mechanics provide the necessary negotiation platform. That is, there is no alignment analog for the Fate point earned through a compel. The DM doesn't have any carrots, only a big stick. Even for lesser uses of alignment (spells, etc.) there really isn't anything to negotiate with, no currency, nothing to trade. Also, I suspect that you would hear (online anyway) a great hew and cry from many about how "Forgie", "Hippy-Dippy", or "weaksauce" D&D has gotten...and that its all Mike Mearls' fault for ruining D&D. We have already heard such objections to the relatively timid motivation mechanics posited a few weeks ago.

Heh. You say this to a guy who plays a character with the aspect "Karmic Enforcer". Aspects can have some very charged words in them

I would, and happily....preferably while holding up a Fate point . I would do so, because of my "stakes are smaller" point. Since the stakes are smaller (and the rest of Fate's mechanics), the negotiation and even evolution of what Karmic Enforcer means at any given moment can happen as a part of play, rather than an interruption to it.

 

[pemerton]

FATE requires that use of Aspects makes sense within the narrative. Their applicability must be bounded, but they are written in natural language, not game-mechanic jargon. That means sometimes there will be disagreements as to whether they apply. I've seen this in play myself, and if you check the text of the FATE-based games, they explicitly bring up the point that sometimes player and GM will have to negotiate. So I have exactly zero doubts that it happens.

Sure, but as I said (i) everyone is ultimately heading in the same direction (Aspects driving play), and (ii) fail forward is a buffer (a related buffer is the fact that the consequences of any single Aspect adjudication are most likely modest relative to the overall course of play).

Adjudicating mechanical alignment in D&D doesn't have either of these properties.

There's a reason to play a Paladin without wanting morality foregrounded: power. Traditionally, Paladins have a habit of being pretty darned potent.

Sure, though I think this is more true pre-3E (I gather the 3E paladin is fairly weak; the 4e paladin is not weak, but is certainly not the most obviously powerful defender).

But I was taking as a premise that, after 160 pages in which no one but me around 155 pages upthread (and now you) has talked about alignment as a balancing factor for the paladin, that I could put that to one side, and take it for granted that alignment is serving a type of morality/characterisation function.

 

[N'raac]

The issue at hand is having character abilities linked to RP. It will happen in any game in which they are tied together. It can happen frequently, for example, in FATE, where interpretation of character Aspects is required to figure out if they apply in a given situation. In FATE, it can happen for *any and all* characters. For D&D, it only comes up with characters who get powers of alignment or behavior restrictions.

In FATE, they recognize this, and it is put forth that the player and GM should talk about it like mature adults, and negotiate. I fail to see why this cannot be applied to D&D.

Hero Games has similar issues with psychological limitations (Complications in the latest edition). There are regular debates over what a certain trait, at a certain level, mean in game. What is a "Code against killing"? I agree that antagonism is not a question of mechanics, but of players and playstyle. A generally co-operative and consensus-building group will not suddenly become a GM lead dictatorship because we add alignment rules, nor will a group that plays a very Player vs GM style suddenly have no arguments at the table because we remove alignment from the rules.

Even if worldbuilding were a group effort, it is entirely possible that this issue would arise.

Assume, arguendo, that a gaming group decided a D&D campaign's ethical compass before play, and Player A decided to play a Paladin. Months down the road, a classic Paladin's dilemma comes up. The GM notes that the action Player A wants to take would be a code violation; Player A disagrees.

Now, leaving aside the mechanics the group uses to resolve which is right- group vote, GM gets final say, roll of the dice, whatever- the game situation is the same: if player A's Paladin violates his code, he loses his powers.

This is the question which has never been answered - Who makes these decisions, and how, in the [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] model. As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code. To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat. And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down" "no, you missed")

 

[Bedrockgames]

The GM also decided which gods/faiths are present. Deciding the campaign world's treatment of ethical issues is just part of worldbuilding, IMHO.

So the GM decides how Good & Evil are defined, and Paladin players have to choose one set of options consistently or lose power...so what?

Like the Paladin, my profession has a code of conduct. I didn't create it, someone else did, but I accepted it when I entered the field. My say in its nature is minimal- unless I am part of the committees that revises and redrafts the rules, I have almost no say at all beyond voicing ways I think it could be improved. Ultimately, I have to abide by the rules, or I lose my (legal) powers. That loss can be temporary or permanent.

For some of us this is important to enjoyment of the game. I want to be in a believable and consistent world. I am totally fine with others wanting something different, but it really did hurt my enjoyment of play when a lot oft his "players as co-gm/storyteller", "say yes" stuff started emerging, because suddenly the world we inhabited was in flux and did not have solid internal logic (there was a maguic guild in town because player A wanted there to be one, there was a +1 sunblade of vampirism because the player who made the half vampire templar of the sun put it on his wishlist, etc. In a world where players get their powers from powerful entities or forces, to me it makes more sense to have the GM handle that aspect of the setting (because to me it is a setting element).

Again of people like another approach I am totally fine with that. However I thini what I take issue with is the attitude I sometimes encounter toward my approach, that it is somehow outdated or inferior (not saying that is present here, just that I do encounter it). That is no longer how rpgs should be designed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A generally co-operative and consensus-building group will not suddenly become a GM lead dictatorship because we add alignment rules, nor will a group that plays a very Player vs GM style suddenly have no arguments at the table because we remove alignment from the rules.

Sure, but that's not the issue. Long personal experience tells me that, with the same players, a game that has alignment with D&D-levels of vagueness actually integrated into actual game rules will have far more arguments and conflict than one that does not. The vast majority of arguments in my early gaming groups revolved around Paladins and interpretations of LG. CN, the next worst problem alignment, in my experience, was responsible for approximately 10% of the BS Paladins were, and it wasn't because LG was bad - we had tons of LG non-Paladins who were fine - it was because of the huge penalty if you didn't agree with the DM's version of LG (I once saw a Paladin stripped of his powers for REFUSING to kill orc babies - literally babies! No lie, no exaggeration, happened in front of me! DM said it could be G but wasn't L because the Paladin "knew" they would grow up to be Evil and dangerous, so...).

As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code. To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat. And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down" "no, you missed")

That's not remotely accurate comparison, so it's mystifying as to why you'd think that.

The dice determine whether he hits or misses. If you, as the DM, overrule the dice, you're using DM fiat, and in quite a serious way. The player usually rolls the dice.

This isn't a dice-determined situation. This is about role-playing, and different perspectives on complex moral issues. Comparing the two is fruitless at best, and actively disingenuous at worst.

 

[Manbearcat]

I agree that antagonism is not a question of mechanics, but of players and playstyle. A generally co-operative and consensus-building group will not suddenly become a GM lead dictatorship because we add alignment rules, nor will a group that plays a very Player vs GM style suddenly have no arguments at the table because we remove alignment from the rules.


This is the question which has never been answered - Who makes these decisions, and how, in the @Hussar model. As I read his posts, Hussar must have exclusive rights to dictate whether his character is adhering to his code. To me, that's like having the exclusive right to determine whether the character's attack succeeds, whether he is hit in return and who wins the combat. And, like the former, sooner or later there will be two competing determinations of what happens ("I shot you - fall down" "no, you missed")

On the first paragraph:

I think there is a bit of a false dilemma at work there. Adding or removing alignment isn't going to outright invert the aesthetics of a table experience nor the dynamics of a system. However, component parts of any system, specifically if they push toward or work against a certain model, are going to perturb the baseline one way or another. What feedback effects that may have is up for grabs.

For instance, consider the implications on the micro-culture of a table when initially exposed to classic Gygaxian arms race, adversarial GMing (I certainly remember initiating players into the play dynamic.). When players deploy their divination/perception effect (mundane or supernatural), and I counter with something unforeseen (ear worm, trapper, stun jelly, anti scry or teleport zone, etc), the operant conditioning towards arms race and rock-paper-scissors is inevitable. In fact, it's intended and is the point of play as outlined by the GMing principles and the embedded system mechanics that play into it. Great bit of fun but it produces a strong impetus toward a specific play experience. The GMing principles and embedded system components inherent to classic d&d alignment push toward a specific play experience and table aesthetic.

On the second paragraph:

I'll examine the second part (which will tie into my response above) by pulling out the nature of alignment in Dungeon World and what kind of play that promotes.

In DW, a character has an ethos statement to pick out which is tied to class. It delineates a very specific task to work toward or a focused, specific behavior to become manifest in play (similar to 4e quests and MHRP Milestones). At the end of a session (an actual game move and part of play - postmortem eval of the session by all players - GM is one of the players), everyone discerns the impact of play. This includes what XP is earned which involves the resolution of bonds and alignment statements, and other component parts. Alignment may shift or the focus of a character may deviate from that initial alignment statement to another within the extended alignment portfolio (to be resolved in upcoming sessions). These mechanics and table aesthetics create a very different one from classic D&D alignment. But they certainly help to produce rich, morally clear (yet potentially deep or nuanced) characters and grand adventure. I've GMed the system a fair amount, but I've yet to see a slippery slope of "two competing determinations of what happens" emerge as a result.

 

[Bedrockgames]

r grabs.

For instance, consider the implications on the micro-culture of a table when initially exposed to classic Gygaxian arms race, adversarial GMing (I certainly remember initiating players into the play dynamic.). When players deploy their divination/perception effect (mundane or supernatural), and I counter with something unforeseen (ear worm, trapper, stun jelly, anti scry or teleport zone, etc), the operant conditioning towards arms race and rock-paper-scissors is inevitable. In fact, it's intended and is the point of play as outlined by the GMing principles and the embedded system mechanics that play into it. Great bit of fun but it produces a strong impetus toward a specific play experience. The GMing principles and embedded system components inherent to classic d&d alignment push toward a specific play experience and table aesthetic.
.

I don't think it is accurate to characterize Gygaxian D&D or traditional D&D as adversarial.