Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

I find that there is an unavoidable conflict of interest when one party decides his PC will adhere to a code of subservience/adherence to another being or ethical philosophy- as in a cleric or paladin to his faith & code- in exchange for powers within the campaign world AND is given the ability to adjudicate whether his PC has successfully met the terms of that pact.

As I've indicated upthread, I don't regard it as a pact.

Also, I don't run a game in which the players get any advantage by violating their code. For instance, the game doesn't become more fun, or the players field of action (via his/he PC) become any larger, by violating the code. (This is not true in all D&D styles. For instance, it is not true in Gygaxian "skilled" play. But I don't run a Gygaxian game.)

Hence, there is no conflict of interest in my game.

I am subject to an externally imposed ethical code as a condition of being granted all kinds of powers.

The situation is in my view not really comparable. You have powers that you could abuse, and a standing temptation to steal from the client trust account.

But as I already noted, the player has no advantage to gain by having his/her PC break the code. (At least, not in the sort of game that I run.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, the dismissive part is mostly on the listener. It's dismissive in the sense that it's not something I want to play. I have no interest anymore in this style of play where the DM sees the players as opponents. But, then again, considering the dismissive and condescending tones that are directed to anyone who doesn't like traditional D&D, I'm thinking that I don't really care that much.

To me, the RBDM is adversarial. Again, it's not something I want to play at all. I do not enjoy it and I find it very detrimental to gaming. It advocates a style of play where players are forced to constantly play paranoid because any mistake will result in death or serious consequences for the character. When I get new players at the table from these types of tables, it takes forever to deprogram them into a much looser style where mistakes are considered a good thing.

Additionally, there is the constant battle to try to add in mechanics which support my style of gaming from those who are completely dismissive of any mechanics that don't fit in with their play styles.

I see dismissive ness coming from both camps, I do not think it is productive in either case. If you are going to characterize peoples prefered styles of play as 'adversarial', given the negative associations that word has, it is going to generate a strong response. Especially if it is being done in a way that presents the opposite approach as better, more evolved, better designed, etc. to me it is a misleading way to describe tradition rpg play.

 

[pemerton]

I already answered that and explained my take in that passage. I think my position on it is pretty clear.

It's not remotely clear to me.

As I said, I got the initial impression that you thought it was not good advice. But then, when you said you disagreed with me, I thought you thought it was good advice. Is there a reason you can't explain which?

Also, thanks for the apology for misrepresenting what I said about Gygax's DMG! It's big of you to apologise, and I accept.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton I am done if you are going to continue in this way. Have a nice day. And no I do not think it is bad advice because it is hyperbole like I said before.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I've indicated upthread, I don't regard it as a pact.

Also, I don't run a game in which the players get any advantage by violating their code. For instance, the game doesn't become more fun, or the players field of action (via his/he PC) become any larger, by violating the code. (This is not true in all D&D styles. For instance, it is not true in Gygaxian "skilled" play. But I don't run a Gygaxian game.)

Hence, there is no conflict of interest in my game.

Who decides if the PC has violated his Code (which you don't consider a pact)? If it is the player, the conflict exists.

The situation is in my view not really comparable. You have powers that you could abuse, and a standing temptation to steal from the client trust account.

But as I already noted, the player has no advantage to gain by having his/her PC break the code. (At least, not in the sort of game that I run.)

The paladin has abusable powers as well. Detect Evil, for instance. One need not look too deeply into history to see how people who claimed to have that power have abused it. When it is a verifiable fact of a fiction verse that some people known as Paladins actually can detect evil, the ability to abuse it becomes riskier.

A corrupted Paladin may well find the increase of material power and wealth he gains as be he becomes "Witchfinder General" to be worth the loss of his divinely granted gifts...

A similar scam could be run with the Turn Undead power, or he could withhold its use until a ransom is paid.

 

[Hussar]

Who decides if the PC has violated his Code (which you don't consider a pact)? If it is the player, the conflict exists.



The paladin has abusable powers as well. Detect Evil, for instance. One need not look too deeply into history to see how people who claimed to have that power have abused it. When it is a verifiable fact of a fiction verse that some people known as Paladins actually can detect evil, the ability to abuse it becomes riskier.

A corrupted Paladin may well find the increase of material power and wealth he gains as be he becomes "Witchfinder General" to be worth the loss of his divinely granted gifts...

A similar scam could be run with the Turn Undead power, or he could withhold its use until a ransom is paid.

So, it comes around full circle.

Players cannot be trusted to play their characters without a conflict of interest, therefore, the DM must step in to make sure that the players are playing their characters correctly, because only the DM can be objective.

Yeah, no thanks. I don't need alignment mechanics to bludgeon my players into playing how I feel they should be playing.

 

[billd91]

So, it comes around full circle.

Players cannot be trusted to play their characters without a conflict of interest, therefore, the DM must step in to make sure that the players are playing their characters correctly, because only the DM can be objective.

Yeah, no thanks. I don't need alignment mechanics to bludgeon my players into playing how I feel they should be playing.

And again, as I'm sure has been said before, you're mischaracterizing it. It's not a question of playing correctly - it's a question of whether or not the PC's code has been violated. Playing correctly doesn't come into it except in the cases in which there is an actual misconception of the code/alignment. Then, you correct that misconception and move on and if the code remains violated - you put the consequences into effect.

 

[Hussar]

And again, as I'm sure has been said before, you're mischaracterizing it. It's not a question of playing correctly - it's a question of whether or not the PC's code has been violated. Playing correctly doesn't come into it except in the cases in which there is an actual misconception of the code/alignment. Then, you correct that misconception and move on and if the code remains violated - you put the consequences into effect.[/QUOTE

But, the person determining the violation is the DM, not the player whose character is being directly affected by the DM's determination. The player is being told that no, you don't really know what your code means, I, the DM, know better than you, so, now you have to either do what I say, or I'll take your character away.

Your presumption here is that the DM can never be wrong, or, even more, the player cannot be responsible for playing his own character "correctly". The player will always have some misconception of his code or alignment that the DM must step in to correct.

I prefer to put all this in the hands of the player because I find that it results in better play at my table. I refuse to play policeman for the behaviour of players.

 

[Umbran]

I asked some time ago if this thread was going to go anywhere, if anyone was going to learn much.

And all we still see is repetition over repetition of the same old positions. Nobody gives an inch. I will remove the need for anyone to concede, by closing the thread.

Please, folks, double check to see if your energies are being used *constructively*. Consider how much cool, interesting, creative stuff you cold have done with the time you spent hovering over thousands of these posts, dug in and refusing to yield.