Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[ForeverSlayer]

Ahhhh, the old alignment discussion.

Well I wish for a return of the alignment mechanics.

 

[Sadras]

But, it would be like two DM's roleplaying Darth Vader, where one proclaims him a force of good and righteousness in the universe and the other a force of darkness and evil and they are both right by the rules of the game.

This can easily be understood as you wanting to limit DMs' backstories for their settings to the "One True Way". Do you want every DM to play Darth Vader/[Insert Deity here] the same way?

 

[Hussar]

This can easily be understood as you wanting to limit DMs' backstories for their settings to the "One True Way". Do you want every DM to play Darth Vader/[Insert Deity here] the same way?

This is a straw man that had cropped up repeatedly in this thread.

There is nothing wrong with variations in interpretation. That's fine. But the interpretations shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

There are more than two interpretations possible. Just because I want coherent and consistent interpretations is not even remotely an invitation to onetruwayism.

But a mechanic which results in opposite interpretations, both of which are supported by the mechanic, is a poorly written mechanic.

I for one was happy to see DnD return to its roots in largely rejecting the later addition of nine point alignments.

 

[Cadence]

I for one was happy to see DnD return to its roots in largely rejecting the later addition of nine point alignments.

Those are some old roots. http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/04/changing-meaning-of-alignment-in-od.html

A comparison of the editions side by side: http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0

 

[Hussar]

Not really. Basic/Expert DnD only used three alignments into the nineties.

 

[pemerton]

Is it though? Fate basically says the scene ends when your players are no longer interested in the scene or their goals have been achieved... my players continuously surprise me with what they come up with and thus I don't think it's easy for a GM to claim something is an automatic scene ender

I don't think we're disagreeing, are we - in play we discover that something wasn't a scene-ender after all.

Also, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] - good post, sorry no XP from me.

 

[pemerton]

Would calling the acts acceptable/unacceptable to the lords of light/dark/entropy/far realms/consistancy/stasis make it less odious at the table (although not necessarily making it more useful)?

In my view, perhaps - because the player is free to repudiate the views of those beings without having to repudiate or adopt any particular moral label. Also, at least as I have seen those sorts of "lords of X" used, it remains an open question whether they are really exemplars of X (perhas the lord of entropy can be tricked, for instance, into helping the cause of order).

Under this final system, a person's alignment goes with wherever they seem to fit best on that survey (well our best guess of where they would go anyway, since we don't have it or the results). A lot of actions are probably represented in several squares and probably depend on the motivation and consequences. In practice (ok the general gist, not the exact story), this seems like it removes almost all of the cases that would lead to someone at the table being called evil. A lot of folk find themselves non-good though, so an alternative less-loaded labeling system might still be preferred.

This sort of approach leaves me uncertain as to what the role of alignment is, other than perhaps to group certain like-minded teams. But in that case a paladin probably wouldn't accidentally change teams, would s/he?

Does "When do the ends justify the means?" work under this last set-up?

I'm not sure. What value is in play that falls outside the scope of aignment classifications?

I am totally lost now. Given the first and second snippet... what is there to talk about with the player?

I'm assuming they want to change part of the backstory. That's would we'd talk about.

If one of the returners was a Cleric of Vecna, would having Vecna strip them of their divinely given gifts until they atoned be something that you would have considered?

One of them was an invoker with Vecna as one of his gods. The extent of his devotion is a bit uncertain (he also serves the Raven Queen and Ioun, both of whom are opposed to Vecna), but when I ruled that he took psychic damage from handling a mysterious but known-to-be-powerful magic sword, he didn't complain: he worked out staight away that it must be the Sword of Kas!

I didn't consider stripping him of his divine powers until atoning. When the PCs had to deal with Vecna later he was angry at all of them, including that particular PC, but there was no special stripping of power.

Part of this is being an invoker (PHB p 101):

More than most other divine characters, invokers offer prayers to and call on favors from the entire pantheon, for all the gods, whatever their alignments, fought together against the primordials.​

But also, gods work in mysterious ways. One setback isn't a total loss, and a poweful character is a valuable asset. Given that Kas has the sword, why also rob yourself of that asset?

More recently, the same PC has placed the Eye of Vecna in his imp familiar, thereby reducing the ability of the archdevil Levistus to spy on him, while increasing Vecna's ability to do the same. I tend to take the view that when you're playing the long game of a god, there are always swings and roundabouts.

 

[pemerton]

Are certain spells, acts, states of being, etc., deemed by the game setting to be “good” or “evil”? If they are, then it does not matter what the player, GM, PC or NPC thinks - these are defined by the game cosmology. Real world ethics don’t enter into the picture

I don't see how they don't, when the words are words taken from that vocabulary and defined, in AD&D and in 3E, by reference to real world values and moral requirements.

When you first tell me “I do not judge the characters’ morality – that is for them alone” and then tell me “If you want to play a character who believes the Undead are OK, why would you pick a follower of the Raven Queen”, I see a significant inconsistency.

Where is the inconsistency? Judging that the Raven Queen hates undead and necromancers, and hence can't be honoured by raising undead, isn't a moral judgement, anymore than the judgement that you can't honour Imix by spreading the polar ice caps.

That Imix loves fire and hates cold isn't a moral judgement. It's simply a basic bit of backstory about the Prince of Evil Elemental Fire Creatures.

I could just as easily say “If you did not want to play an LG character, why did you choose to play a Paladin?”

You could. But I don't see any way of adjudicating whether or not someone is playing their PC as LG without making moral judgements - or alternatively doing it [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s way, of making the player conform to the GM's conception of LG.

In other words, for me there is no equivalence between answering the backstory question of a god's attitude to undead, or cold and adjudicating whether or not a player's play of his/her PC really exemplifies honour and heroism.

The exact same result you seem to consider an example of the pinnacle of Role Playing could occur just as easily in a game with alignments.

As I noted upthread, when I talk about the play experience I am not talking about the story.

Of course the story could be the same in a game with alignments. The story could be the same if the GM simply told the players how to play their PCs, too!

I am talking about the experience of play, the context and dynamics of player choices for their PCs; and the difference made to that by the presence or absence of alignment mechanics.

By the way, if you think my game is not the pinnacle of roleplaying, why don't you post some actual play accounts of your own which show alignment contributing to an awesome time?

If the Samurai’s order is sworn to slay Ogres on sight, or simply sworn never to gamble, there’s a Lawfulness issue here. But from the facts you provided, I don’t see any alignment issue (which would be a synonym, under alignment rules, for a moral dilemma).

Where is the dilemma? You just don't gamble, or you kill the ogres.

The GM is in no way required to judge whether the Samurai dicing with the Ogres was Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.

<snip>

I agree that, if by adding alignment, you will feel obliged to classify every action along the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis, agonizing over each such decision, lying awake at night trying to assess whether choosing mutton over fish at the Inn should cause an alignment change, then I agree alignment would detract from your game.

<snip>

you would be trapped in an endless cycle of ascribing a moral and ethical compartment to every action within the game which would prevent you enjoying it.

The rules for adjudicating a paldin require me to judge, of every action taken, whether or not it is evil, or lawful.

Gary Gygax tells me to track the alignment of the PCs on the alignment graph, on the basis of the actions they perform. What else does mechanical aligment consist in?

there is no need to ascribe a moral context to tying my shoe, eating breakfast or a myriad of other more significant acts carried out in game

I take, it, then, that you regard the events and decisions I referred to upthread as in much the same ballpark as tying a shoelace or eating breakfast.

That on its own tells me that you don't understand the experience of RPGing the same way I do.

You now seem to have moved right to a polar extreme of removing “good” and “evil” from the game vocabulary entirely, which eliminates the classic fantasy trope of Good versus Evil.

<snip>

Are the words good, evil, lawful and chaotic banned from your game? You seem to shift from a hard and fast alignment terminology usage to any form of evaluation at all.

<snip>

The words “good” and “evil” crop up a lot, in my experience, in games lacking mechanical alignment.

Those terms are not part of the game vocabulary, no. Nor are such terms as ". . . is a nice guy", ". . . really pissed us off", etc. They're part of the vocabulary in which judgements are expressed in the course of playing the game.

Seems to me that you had to set the DC the players had to meet in order to persuade the Angel to abandon her post and allow herself to be killed to further the PC’s agenda. A sufficient roll on the player’s skill check, therefore, would be the circumstances under which the Angel would change its views.

<snip>

Clearly, you DID interpret the circumstances under which her views could be changed.

You are running together two different things here. I had her change her mind. I didn't have to decide whether or not it remains true of her that she's a resolute defender.

If needless suffering cannot be good (a proposition I can certainly agree with), and

Deity X is defined to be completely, uncompromisingly Good (which is not automatically the case – Good encompasses a spectrum; as well, Law and Chaos can temper it in many instances), and

Deity X permits certain suffering to continue,

Then it logically follows that this suffering cannot, in fact, be needless. There must be a reason, albeit one I as the character do not understand.

If the GM tells me that the table is 21 feet around and 7 feet across, it follows that the value of pi is 3, I guess. Maybe you can make sense of that. I can't.

Having a person behave in character is not, in my view, a straightjacket.

OK. Why not?

Perhaps it’s the old adage For those who understand, no explanation is needed. To those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. I’m sorry you and Hussar, among others, have had such poor experiences with bad use of alignment rules that you are blinded to any possible benefit they might provide if implemented more reasonably, if not skillfully.

You haven't actually told me of any benefit that might be provided (unlike other posters, who have). I'm still waiting to hear.

 

[Cadence]

But in that case a paladin probably wouldn't accidentally change teams, would s/he?

I think it would prevent that.

I'm not sure. What value is in play that falls outside the scope of aignment classifications?

It could force a discussion or disagreement on something deeper than the two dimensional simplification that is alignment (deontology vs. utilitarianism?).

I'm assuming they want to change part of the backstory. That's would we'd talk about.

Oh, duh. I immediately jumped to the scenario that some other character had already chosen to use the RQ as described and that this one wanting the change would mean their was a contradiction in back story. Assuming they were the only PC with her intimately tied to their concept it works great.

One of them was an invoker with Vecna as one of his gods.

Haven't played any multi-god divines, but that makes perfect sense.

--

Thanks for all the time you've put into your responses in this thread. I think I've finally got a good handle on what you've been saying and it's given me some good stuff to mull over when I run games in the future.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You could. But I don't see any way of adjudicating whether or not someone is playing their PC as LG without making moral judgements - or alternatively doing it @Bedrockgames's way, of making the player conform to the GM's conception of LG.

it is a judgement, and a moral one, but it doesnt have to be the GMs own personal morality. Aliyfments are somewhat vague but also specific in places, and as you pointed out, the alignment categories don't quite correspond to real world positions exactly. I look at them almost like new religions. They re a specific set of beliefs based on the cosmology that draw on moral language we are familiar with, but i am not necessarily there to impose my personal judgments on the players. By that i mean, ii am not going to impose my personal views of good and evil on the players, instead i use the text of the alignment description and my undertstanding of how they seem to be using the terms. This is a minor distinction but an important one. For example, i gm may be a pacifist and not believe in the use of violence as a punitive tool. But he may read the lawful good entry and decide lawful good demands a certain amount of punitive violence (i am not suggesting it does or doesn't, just a random example). Some GMs are better at putting their own beliefs aside than others. My main concern is consistency so if a gm brings his own views into the judgment i am fine with that (arguably in a setting like ravenloft the GM should be bringing his own judgments in when he plays the dark powers).

to take an example outside D&D, i am making a little variant system for wuxia style campaigns. I have a reputation system in place because my players wanted that in play. So i took the basic code of chivalry you find in chinese wuxia TV series and layered that into the setting. The universe doesnt respond to your reputation like it does with alignment in D&D but the inhabitants do. So i am always making judgments in the players actions and how well they cleave to the code. Now i do not personally agree with the code of chivalry, but i can take the different aspects of it to evaluate pc behavior.