Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

In another one the DM set it up up front that we could put things in about the backstory, including the religions of the land. It ended up bascially being Norse with all of the divergence of opinion about how they acted like is found in the variety of real world writings. In contrast to what you discuss further down in your response, we didn't have any real control of it after those inputs though

<snip>

I think the GM waited to see how we spun the story of the hanging and justified it to each other before deciding what Odin would have done.

I read this as implying that you actually did have control after the initial backstory stuff - albeit informal control. Have I misunderstood?

I'm picturing possibility of the problem that happens in comic books when the author forgets something and you end up with a continuity conflict. Of course that can happen with all kinds of in game details (wait, that inn was in that other town, not this one!).

Sure, weird stuff can happen. Even around religious rituals - last time it was the tail feather of a raven used to ward the dead from harm, this time it's the wing feather, because no one wrote it down and memory fades or gets distorted.

But I can't really envisage this happening for a core detail, out of the blue as it were, like "What's the basic connection between my world view and that of my patron deity?"

I think this ties into at least two other threads where an answer to several problems has been "Fate does that". Sometimes I like the game where I'm exploring the world and dealing with what my character has at hand (in the classic keep track of all the resources D&D type thing), and not helping to directly create the world on the fly by more than what the character is doing.

I really think this is something of a red herring. I don't play with strong player authorship of the Fate variety (or even the Burning Wheel variety). The key issue with alignment mechanics, at least for me, isn't backstory/world creation. It's about the place of evaluative and expressive response in the game. You can have the most vanilla methodologies you like for backstory creation (and by all standards but the most traditional my game is pretty vanilla), but still not want it to be part of the GM's job (or anyone else's, for that matter) to make those judgements that alignment mechanics require.

Then he found out a few more details about how the creator god had set the universe up. Failing to get answers to his theological question about (iirc) how allowing all those souls to be damned could possibly be good, he went back to working for what he thought was good in his own mind

<snip>

we argued about which of several people who'd committed crimes against either the gods or against men should be that one. I think we all thought the gods we worshipped didn't particularly care one way or another about which one it was.

<snip>

What was the neutral priestess of Badb's responsibility to the 5 year old she bought from slavery because she reminded her of a long ago butchered relative?

Sounds like good stuff! - the first two remind me somewhat of the campaign I described upthread where the PCs tried to save the world from the consequences of the karmic pact the gods had entered into at the beginning of time.

It seems to me that alignment is not playing much of a role in either episode. For instance, your gnome seems to be entertaining the conclusion that the "LG" creator god is not really good - which strike me as contrary to the traditional canons of alignment. That's not a criticism of your play at all - quite the contrary. I'm just not seeing how these episodes are establishing the value of alignment as a tool in your play; I'm not seeing how it contributed to the episodes of play that you describe.

Were we failing to take the challenges seriously in these cases because we were exploring what the gods wanted, or how the characters viewed themselves, and not what the world's rules of alignments were?

It sounds like you were taking the challenges of the situations that confronted your PCs very seriously. What I'm missing is how alignment fitted in. For instance, in the case of your gnome PC the key question in your play of him doesn't seem to have been "How can I play this character faithfully to NG alignment" - which is what the 2nd ed PHB suggests you should be asking - but rather "What ought my attitude be towards a creator god who claims to be benevolent but who lets all these souls be condemned to perdition?" I think the second question is about a million times more interesting and challenging than the one framed by the 2nd ed PHB. As I already said, though, what I'm not seeing is how alignment as a mechanical tool helped you play.

Self-correction: I can see one thing, namely, that because you gnome PC had NG rather than LG on the sheet, you couldn't become a paladin. I can see how, within the context of a game in which paladinhood had become associated with the "LG" creator god, and so the question of whether or not to become a paladin - itself a big deal - was also bound up with the question of whether or not to revere the creator god, which is another big deal, then alignment has become entwined within that complex of big deals.

In an alignment free game I think the same situation could be set up - certain classes can be associated with reverence for certain gods without mediation via alignment (which I think is often the de facto approach for druid PCs, especially 3E-style druids with their watered-down neutrality), and then the challenge for your gnome would be the question of worship. There's also the bit about "veering towards lawfulness". If that was being adjudicated by the GM then it's different from the sort of play I'm setting out as my own personal preference. If that was being adjudicated primarily by you as player - "I feel I need to reorient myself as an honourable person who observes all the right precepts" - then I think it could be done much the same in an alignment-free game. (In terms of my own play experience, it makes me think of the way the player of the drug-addicted PC played out his recovery then fall then partial subsequent redemption.)

Couldn't that be brought to bear on issues of alignment threshold crossing?

Perhaps. What I'm still not seeing is why I would want to.

I can 100% see why the play you describe - of which I've quoted some snippets - is worthwhile. Unless I've badly misunderstood, a lot of it reminds me of the sort of stuff I enjoy in my game, some of which I described upthread. What I'm 100% missing, though, is how alignment is making any contribution to that play. It seems completely epiphenomenal - a mere book-keeping afterthought. (With the possible exception of the gnome would-be paladin, but I've tried to explain above why I think you can get that sort of play without alignment, such that while the words used to frame the issues might be a bit different, the actual dynamic would not be. To put it even more simply, I'm 100% confident you could get that gnome-would-be-paladin-sort-of-play going in Gloranthan Runequest or HeroWars/Quest, and neither of those has D&D-style alignment.)

 

[Umbran]

Maybe I've missed something, so I beg your pardon if I have...

I disagree here. The compel doesn't determine whether the innocents get eaten or not, the compel is specifically about the character having to flee from the snake. It is not incumbent upon the GM to make sure the player succeeds in their goals, it is up to the player. I see no reason why the player couldn't, especially now empowered with a Fate point (If he doesn't use it he is choosing not to engage the action resolution mechanics), think of a way for the innocents to survive. In the same way that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] made the suggestions about still finding a way to attack the snake when a melee attack was disallowed, a clever player can find a way to save the innocents if he wants to. That said I also see nothing inherently wrong with a scene that does end in failure for the player/character... especially if they choose not to use the resources at their disposal.

Let's walk this back a bit - in the pages of long post, I think maybe some detail is getting lost, or bits are getting overstated, and either is important to avoid.

If the compel is to "flee", that's a problem. That's a compel to take a specific action, which most versions of the rules advise against. On the face of it, I'd agree that it isn't a complication - the world isn't complicated when you have no choice at all. "You fail" is pretty darned simple, and usually not a whole lot of fun. Compels are for making the player work a little harder, not to make them just lose.

That's why I suggested a compel to "stay out of striking range". It restricts action, but it continues to allow the character to engage. It means the players must take less obvious paths, or think creatively, while given them a Fate point to help them enact the creative solution.

The fail-compel could be part of a larger whole: compel to completely cower in fear for a moment, only to see the villain make off with the innocents, turning a simple hack-and-slash combat into a chase scene, for example, might still be okay. It still allows some chance at success.

Yes but you seem to be making the assumption that the GM must somehow allow the player to "fail forward" when in fact by giving the player the Fate point, the GM has given him the opportunity and means to succeed at this task.

That's only true if the situation remains open to action. If the PC has been forced to flee, and the innocents are eaten, well, then the point isn't really relevant, as it cannot be applied, and the player cannot succeed.

I'm sorry but, IMO, sometimes it's ok for a player or their character to actually fail at something.

Maybe I have been out of the discussion too long and have missed something relevant. But, "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is not the character failing at something.

Simply put - the compel should not be used to create a barrier the player cannot be expected to overcome. I repeat that compels are not tools to make the player lose.

The thing is... the spending of Fate points is a tool that is totally under the control of the player... and while the DM is supposed to keep the flow of Fate points going it is still possible for a player to nova with FP's and I don't know if it's necessarily the responsibility of the GM to auto-refill whenever they do that.

Honestly, if the player fails, it should probably be when they roll the dice - they failed to be clever, or failed to have enough resources available, or just got unlucky. Or, maybe when the opponent rolls the dice - the player takes more damage then they can handle, and either dies or must concede and take a consequence.

Using a compel to make the player just fail... if that's what we're talking about... seems like bad form, to me.

 

[pemerton]

The compel doesn't determine whether the innocents get eaten or not, the compel is specifically about the character having to flee from the snake.

<snip>

I see no reason why the player couldn't, especially now empowered with a Fate point (If he doesn't use it he is choosing not to engage the action resolution mechanics), think of a way for the innocents to survive.

<snip>

by giving the player the Fate point, the GM has given him the opportunity and means to succeed at this task

Well if the compel does not end the scene then all my concerns about it being anti-climactic and a scene-ender rather than a complication go away.

That is not what I took [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] to have in mind - I though he was intending the compelt to flee as a scene-ender, and he seemed to go along with that in replying to my post. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], in his most recent posts, also seems to be reading it as a scene-ending compel. But what N'raac had in mind is somewhat orthogonal to the question of how Fate actually plays.

Because I don't know Fate well enough, I don't know what effect fleeing has on action resolution. In D&D or Burning Wheel or most games that use non-abstract or semi-abstract positioning, having to flee would end the scene, because the PC can no longer act upon the elements that make up the scene (due to geographic separation). In MHRP this isn't necessarily the case, because distance is just another scene descriptor or complication, and PCs have plenty of capacity to act at long range (whether via super speed, super stretching, telephone link up or whatever). In HeroWars/Quest, if you had to flee you might still be able to act via some sort of relationship or magical ability or other PC build element that does not rely upon geographic proximity to make sense within the fictional positioning.

It seems to me that whether or not fleeing is scene-ending depends on whether Fate is closer to D&D or to MHRP. I'll leave that question for the Fate players to resolve, though.

I think you'll find Fate a much more traditional roleplaying game than the ones you list above

<snip>

MHRP and HQ... seem to have a much more meta-game and artificial setup in their play structure than Fate but that's just my opinion.

I don't really follow "artificial" here - all games are artefacts and all game play is artifice - and I don't know that I see the difference in metagame either - imposing aspects on people/things looks a lot like MHRP complications to me. But each to their own. As I said above - if the compel does not end the scene, then that resolves my main concern.

The thing is... the spending of Fate points is a tool that is totally under the control of the player

But if the player spent them all, that suggests to me that the player thought the stakes were pretty high. Which is one reasonable definition of a climactic moment.

 

[Imaro]

@Umbran and @pemerton... I think it might be helpful if we review exactly how FP's and to a lesser extent compels work...

Now it's already been established that you cannot mitigate the compel once accepted, so no matter what in that scene my character is going to flee from the snake (that said NOTHING in the compel touches on whether the snake ate the innocents or not)... however once I agree to that I receive a Fate point, which I can spend immediately as long as it doesn't mitigate the act of me fleeing from the snake...

The first option at this point (and again this is assuming saving the innocents is my goal) is to compel my own aspect... Here is the relevant excerpt from the Fate rules...

if a player wants to compel another character, it costs a fate point to propose the complication. The GM can always compel for free, and any player can propose a compel on his or her own character for free.

So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...

My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...

Now granted it's up to the DM to decide whether this is an acceptable compel but then that's one of my points about Fate being a more traditional game it really does leave the lion's share of the arbitration in the gm's hand as opposed to the rules, dramatic needs (this is where games like HQ feel artificial to me) or group consensus at the table deciding. My point is that by the rules... the above is a perfectly acceptable way to save the innocents and, because you can compel your aspect for free doesn't cost the player anything. So that's one way the innocents could be saved.

Now let's say for whatever reason the GM doesn't take the compel, here are the ways that the Fate point can still be used...

Spending Fate Points
You spend fate points in any of the following ways:
• Invoke an Aspect: Invoking an aspect costs you one fate point, unless
the invocation is free.
• Power a Stunt: Some stunts are very potent, and as such, cost a fate
point in order to activate.
• Refuse a Compel: Once a compel is proposed, you can pay a fate point
to avoid the complication associated with it.
• Declare a Story Detail: To add something to the narrative based on
one of your aspects, spend a fate point.

I'm looking at the last one, where I can declare a story detail based on one of my aspects... Let's take my "Defender of Innocents" aspect. I spend a Fate point and declare that as I am fleeing from the snake it momentarily distracts the beast, because even in my fear I am a "defender of the innocent", and the distraction gives the innocents a chance to escape.

So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared. So no I don't agree that the scene as presented was... "Rocks fall, everyone dies". the compel had nothing to do with whether the snake ate the innocents or not and in no way do my suggestions above mitigate or nullify the actual compel... and in one instance the drama and tension is heightened even more as now the fleeing character has a gigantic snake chasing him.

EDIT: I will say that while these suggestions do in fact save the innocents... what they don't do (and I think this ties into @N'racc 's bigger point) is reinforce a paladin archetype (bold and steadfast defender of the innocent) through how the scene plays out... But then that wasn't the goal.

 

[Ratskinner]

While I'm not that familiar with Fate, I am fairly familiar with Marvel Heroic RP. In that system, the mechanical analogue of the "compel" would be the imposition of a "Trembling with fear" or "Running away" complication on the PC; but the action resolution mechanics in MHRP are such that a complication of that sort won't end the scene unless it reaches a certain degree of mechanical severity. Which seems, to me at least, an important difference from the scene-ending compel.

My feeling is that @Ratskinner was thinking along similar lines to me when he suggested that the consequence of the snake acting against the player would be some sort of negative aspect imposed by the snake: that adversely affects that players' prospects of action resolution within the scene, but isn't in and of itself scene-ending.

Very much my way of thinking. Compels in Fate should be discrete events with "consequences" that you feel immediately. If you compel the hero away from the snake & family, then the family is dead/eaten/whatever.

However, I'm really writing with regrets to say that real-life concerns will likely keep me from posting much (if at all) for the near future. Fortunately, its not in a bad/terrible way, but much of my free time has been absorbed. What there is left of it, I prefer to gaming, rather than debating about gaming. I'm sorry to leave mid-conversation.

In the meantime, may you all roll crits when you need them.

 

[N'raac]

So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...

My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...

I was actually thinking on those lines myself recently, though not initially.

Now granted it's up to the DM to decide whether this is an acceptable compel but then that's one of my points about Fate being a more traditional game it really does leave the lion's share of the arbitration in the gm's hand as opposed to the rules, dramatic needs (this is where games like HQ feel artificial to me) or group consensus at the table deciding. My point is that by the rules... the above is a perfectly acceptable way to save the innocents and, because you can compel your aspect for free doesn't cost the player anything. So that's one way the innocents could be saved.

Emphasis added. This seems to be a lot of the objection some detractors have to the alignment rules - the GM must evaluate the actions of the characters. However, I see very few games whee the GM does not have a significant role in evaluating success or failure of a variety of efforts of the PC's. Who sets the DC of various tasks, decides whether that chandelier can support the swashbuckler's weight (or even if there is a chandelier) or assesses the opening attitude and views of an NPC, and how difficult they might be to change?

So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared. So no I don't agree that the scene as presented was... "Rocks fall, everyone dies". the compel had nothing to do with whether the snake ate the innocents or not and in no way do my suggestions above mitigate or nullify the actual compel... and in one instance the drama and tension is heightened even more as now the fleeing character has a gigantic snake chasing him.

I consider "rocks fall everybody dies" to include an element of disconnection to the ongoing narrative. The rocks came from nowhere. The snake and the innocents were part of the ongoing narrative. If rocks fall and everybody dies because the PC's made a lot of noise in an avalanche-prone mountain region, that doesn't seem inappropriate from where I sit.

EDIT: I will say that while these suggestions do in fact save the innocents... what they don't do (and I think this ties into @N'racc 's bigger point) is reinforce a paladin archetype (bold and steadfast defender of the innocent) through how the scene plays out... But then that wasn't the goal.

Bingo - the GM, not the player, is determining which of the character's values are paramount by selecting which aspect to Compel. If the player envisions the Paladin archetype, he envisions the character overcoming his fears, attacking the snake and deliberately placing his own well-being in jeopardy for the benefit of those in need, overcoming his own fears to do so. The GM compels the fear of snakes, and the conception is overridden.

OR the player conceives a character whose fear of snakes is an overwhelming phobia and, despite his fervent desire to save the innocents, the very thought of a snake, much less a huge snake such as this one, overrides all conscious thought, and the player envisions his character paralyze with fear, or fleeing in terror, unable to overcome his dread of snakes. And the GM Compels his Defender of the Innocent aspect, forcing the character to boldly confront the snake to defend its would-be lunch, again overriding the player's conception of his character.

The Compel aspect of Fate, to me, places much more control of player reactions in the hands of the GM than the alignment system does, assuming a reasonable GM managing either mechanic, or a unreasonable GM managing either. Sure, the unreasonable GM can strip my character of his Paladinhood for fleeing the snake in accordance with his phobia - but he cannot usurp my control of that character and force him to overcome his fear of snakes - no matter how low on resources my character may be. In Fate, he can do so - and he probably should. The mechanics surrounding aspects sets each aspect as equally weighted. They provide equal bonuses when invoked, and Compels can prioritize one over the other under the rules as written, rather than the player defining their hierarchy.

 

[N'raac]

I can 100% see why the play you describe - of which I've quoted some snippets - is worthwhile. Unless I've badly misunderstood, a lot of it reminds me of the sort of stuff I enjoy in my game, some of which I described upthread. What I'm 100% missing, though, is how alignment is making any contribution to that play. It seems completely epiphenomenal - a mere book-keeping afterthought. (With the possible exception of the gnome would-be paladin, but I've tried to explain above why I think you can get that sort of play without alignment, such that while the words used to frame the issues might be a bit different, the actual dynamic would not be. To put it even more simply, I'm 100% confident you could get that gnome-would-be-paladin-sort-of-play going in Gloranthan Runequest or HeroWars/Quest, and neither of those has D&D-style alignment.)

As I see your posts over the past several pages, you have not asserted that "alignment is unnecessary". but that "alignment is an impediment" to the gameplay you wish to achieve. I don't deny that great gaming can take place without alignment, and I expect a lot of situations where alignment is not part of the focus. But I do not agree that the examples of "great gameplay" you have described are in any way impeded by alignment, nor facilitated by its absence. The Gnome has decided that, to him, the Lawful requirement that souls which do not follow the appropriate path in life will be damned is too great a compromise to Good for him to countenance. The deity in question, and his followers, allow Good to be tempered by Law.

To return to one of your examples, I can easily interpret a "Resolute Defender" being wholly unwilling to consider other viewpoints, resolutely committed to its orders. I can also easily interpret LG indicating that, while loyal to those who provided her instructions, and thus inclined to obey those orders, that Lawfulness is not absolute, but is tempered by the desire to bring the greatest good to the greatest number, such that a compelling argument that its orders must be violated due to these new facts could persuade her to apply her own judgment that those instructions were ill-conceived in light of this new information, and she must, therefore, deviate from those instructions for the greater good (not resolutely comply with her orders as a "resolute defender" would, or insist upon communicating with her superiors to allow them to determine whether these arguments mandate a reconsideration of her orders).

 

[Hussar]

All right N'raac, you want an example of alignments being a direct impediment to the game?

How about our own conversation in the rather lengthy Fighter/Caster power thread where I gave the example of a PC wizard using Planar Binding to summon a Glabrezu to gain a wish. You decided that a wish will never be granted, because no wish could ever be "evil enough" for the Glabrezu. I mean, I gave an example of the wizard using the wish to destroy an orphanage, kill a high priest of a good temple and I believe a couple of other pretty thoroughly evil examples.

Your response was to simply brush all examples aside as not evil enough. The wizard could never gain the wish from the Glabrezu without paying for it directly, because no wish could ever be evil enough.

This, to me, is a perfect example of how alignment plays out at more than a few tables. The DM has a very specific outcome in mind and will simply use the vagueness of the alignment system to channel play into whatever the DM finds acceptable. It has nothing to do with "improving the game experience" or "presenting a believable world" and everything to do with the DM forcing his vision of the game onto the players and using the mechanics to bludgeon them into following.

 

[pemerton]

once I agree to that I receive a Fate point, which I can spend immediately as long as it doesn't mitigate the act of me fleeing from the snake...

The first option at this point (and again this is assuming saving the innocents is my goal) is to compel my own aspect...

<snip>

So how about I propose another compel on my aspect... "Why'd it have to be snakes"... something along the lines of...

My character has the "Why'd it have to be snakes" aspect and am in a situation where I am fleeing from a gigantic snake so it makes sense that, unfortunately the snake would immediately chase after me, Damn my luck...

<snip>

Let's take my "Defender of Innocents" aspect. I spend a Fate point and declare that as I am fleeing from the snake it momentarily distracts the beast, because even in my fear I am a "defender of the innocent", and the distraction gives the innocents a chance to escape.

So I have just shown two ways, by the rules, that a player can still allow the innocents to be spared.

Imaro, as someone not that familiar with Fate these strike me as good examples of why the fleeing need not be scene-ending. I'm curious what [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] thinks of them (and wish [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] well on hiatus).

 

[Sadras]

In the meantime, may you all roll crits when you need them.

So you wish ill on my players' characters? How utterly evil of you.
Have a good break!