Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Manbearcat]

I don't know, I think playing with a paladin who's up front about his desire to explore the mechanics and storyline ramifications of falling would be quite interesting. Maybe even have a Vader-esque redemption at the end of the game.

(And if you time it so you fall at 11th level, making you a ex-paladin 1/blackguard10, well, who's counting?)

Oh, I think so too... it's just that there were some who couldn't/didn't understand why anyone would pick a paladin and then not play to the paladin's archetype... and even went so far as to say it was the type of player they wouldn't want in their game.

I just wanted to chime in here right quick and make sure that my position on this issue is clear. I won't speak for anyone else.

My current 4e game actually had a "fallen Paladin" as the primary antagonist for the Epic tier of play. I wrote up a long post expressing all of the details but I cannot seem to find it for whatever reason. The players actually played out his fall in a several session effort (I want to say 25 hours in total). There was the Paladin, his Silver Dragon Mount (companion character), and his sage/herald (Merlinish character who was also a companion character). We played the entirety of his fall (which ultimately turned out to be possession by the demon lord Juiblex). It was a great series of sessions and made for a more rich experience in opposing him, and ultimately freeing him from the posession and helping to bring about his rise from the fall.

In a well-balanced system, I have no issue with a player actually volunteering to fall (thus muting some of the primary issues I have with GM-imposed fall by way of prescriptive alignment evaluation). My main issues with the mechanically-interfacing, alignment-driven Paladin fall (rather than just the dramatic evolution of a protagonist) is:

1) Paladins, specifically in 3.x, have specific requirements to maintain their standing of Lawful and Good. If the player is unaware of the implications and nuance of Law vs Chaos (Good versus Evil is pretty easy to understand), and it is my duty to quality control this behavior, it inevitably requires a lot of mental exertion on my part to (a) educate them on L <= N => C generally (in a vaccuum) and my sense of the specificities of the behavioral regime within context, (b) evaluate their behavior for instantaneous or latent shifts with respect to that continuum, and (c) execute those shifts in game with precise communication.

Otherwise, the informed player should understand it. Follwing that, if they understand it and sincerely want to play a Paladin (with all of the thematic material therein) then it should be unnecessary for me to perform the (unwelcome) mental overhead of quality control of their behavioral regime.

2) Balance. In the 4e game where we ran the fallen Paladin, this wasn't a concern. Relative encounter budgeting remained unchanged. However, a Paladin (already a class on the lower end of the power spectrum and coupled with a very narrow loadout of abilities, that focuses on specific conflicts, within that spectrum of power) that suddenly turns into a Fighter without bonus feats and Weapon Spec becomes a big problem for the GM in 3.x. CR is already unwieldy as class power disparity becomes a grave issue from level 7 onward. Turning an already weak class into a considerably weaker one, further perturbing encounter budgetting , for the duration of an atonement quest (that should be featuring them as the focal point) is a headache that I'm not interested in managing.

Expected or player-initiated falling with no mechanical perterbance? All for it. The general morality play or the thematics aren't the issue for me. I'm a fan of the trope of fallen heroes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Question for folks who enjoy mechanical alignment:

When a Paladin is working with imperfect information and must make a crucial decision where the stakes are high (eg the next move made truly matters), is it incumbent upon the player to (pretty much) exclusively default to the Lawful position; favoring the establishment, observing tradition, and following the protocol of a legitimate authority? If not, then at what frequency of decision-making which disregards (therefore subverting) legitimate authority, bucks the establishment, and besmirches tradition is cause given for the GM to shift the Paladin from Lawful to Neutral (or Chaotic)?

I would assume that GMs have a well-considered M.O. for this scenario. I'm curious just how transparent, codified, and/or uniform people are on this (very important in my estimation) issue.

 

[billd91]

Question for folks who enjoy mechanical alignment:

When a Paladin is working with imperfect information and must make a crucial decision where the stakes are high (eg the next move made truly matters), is it incumbent upon the player to (pretty much) exclusively default to the Lawful position; favoring the establishment, observing tradition, and following the protocol of a legitimate authority? If not, then at what frequency of decision-making which disregards (therefore subverting) legitimate authority, bucks the establishment, and besmirches tradition is cause given for the GM to shift the Paladin from Lawful to Neutral (or Chaotic)?

I would assume that GMs have a well-considered M.O. for this scenario. I'm curious just how transparent, codified, and/or uniform people are on this (very important in my estimation) issue.

It pretty much never really comes up. It's possible to come up with both lawful and chaotic-oriented rationales for many different things a PC might do for it to come down to a crucial decision when the stakes are high and the information imperfect. Alignment trends simply aren't that fragile. It would take a fair amount of consistent play to indicate that the PC has moved from Lawful to Neutral and then even more to shift from Neutral to Chaotic. And by then I've usually indicated that a shift is coming when the paladin's superiors (or signs from his god) have told him off for not cleaving to his vows very well and posted him on all night vigils in the sanctuary wearing a hair shirt as a measure of penance.

That said, if the paladin willingly joined the anarchist insurgency against the legitimate authority, I'd say his paladin powers were inaccessible until he atoned for violating his code so flagrantly. But I wouldn't change his alignment yet.

 

[Imaro]

I just wanted to chime in here right quick and make sure that my position on this issue is clear. I won't speak for anyone else.

My current 4e game actually had a "fallen Paladin" as the primary antagonist for the Epic tier of play. I wrote up a long post expressing all of the details but I cannot seem to find it for whatever reason. The players actually played out his fall in a several session effort (I want to say 25 hours in total). There was the Paladin, his Silver Dragon Mount (companion character), and his sage/herald (Merlinish character who was also a companion character). We played the entirety of his fall (which ultimately turned out to be possession by the demon lord Juiblex). It was a great series of sessions and made for a more rich experience in opposing him, and ultimately freeing him from the posession and helping to bring about his rise from the fall.

I'm curious... in 4e what signifies or differentiates a "fallen" paladin from one who hasn't?

In a well-balanced system, I have no issue with a player actually volunteering to fall (thus muting some of the primary issues I have with GM-imposed fall by way of prescriptive alignment evaluation). My main issues with the mechanically-interfacing, alignment-driven Paladin fall (rather than just the dramatic evolution of a protagonist) is:

1) Paladins, specifically in 3.x, have specific requirements to maintain their standing of Lawful and Good. If the player is unaware of the implications and nuance of Law vs Chaos (Good versus Evil is pretty easy to understand), and it is my duty to quality control this behavior, it inevitably requires a lot of mental exertion on my part to (a) educate them on L <= N => C generally (in a vaccuum) and my sense of the specificities of the behavioral regime within context, (b) evaluate their behavior for instantaneous or latent shifts with respect to that continuum, and (c) execute those shifts in game with precise communication.

Personally I've never really found this to require much mental exertion on my part. A discussion of alignment is necessary but then it falls into campaign discussion... in the same way I would have to explain the broad and specificity of the views, portfolios, etc. of the deities in the game (in a vacuum). I generally keep notes about what my players have done, their goals, etc. as part of running a campaign... It is with these notes that I can evaluate behavior for shifts in behavior. Major shifts would make such a big impression on me during the actual game that I would be hard pressed not to notice them if I am paying even a modicum of attention to the game I am running and the players that are participating. And for me, executing those shifts is no different than executing anything else in the game.

Otherwise, the informed player should understand it. Follwing that, if they understand it and sincerely want to play a Paladin (with all of the thematic material therein) then it should be unnecessary for me to perform the (unwelcome) mental overhead of quality control of their behavioral regime.

Unless they believe outside judgement by a higher power, one outside of the character, is a part of the archetype. Then a player could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force. The fact that you push this judgement onto them could create a dis-satisfying play experience for them.

2) Balance. In the 4e game where we ran the fallen Paladin, this wasn't a concern. Relative encounter budgeting remained unchanged. However, a Paladin (already a class on the lower end of the power spectrum and coupled with a very narrow loadout of abilities, that focuses on specific conflicts, within that spectrum of power) that suddenly turns into a Fighter without bonus feats and Weapon Spec becomes a big problem for the GM in 3.x. CR is already unwieldy as class power disparity becomes a grave issue from level 7 onward. Turning an already weak class into a considerably weaker one, further perturbing encounter budgetting , for the duration of an atonement quest (that should be featuring them as the focal point) is a headache that I'm not interested in managing.

Wait are you claiming that, according to the 3.x rules for building encounters, that a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, fighter and thief is considered lower power than a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, paladin and thief? If not you are conflating the encounter budgeting rules being off with those of the fallen paladin purposefully making you weaker. The paladin and the fighter in 3.x are (right or wrong) considered of equal power. As to the atonement quest being a headache... well it's no different than the individual quests in 4e is it?

Expected or player-initiated falling with no mechanical perterbance? All for it. The general morality play or the thematics aren't the issue for me. I'm a fan of the trope of fallen heroes.

Again you seem to be conflating the balance issues around classes (and honestly in 3.x the fighter and paladin aren't considered that far apart in power level they are both considered tier 5 characters)... with the rules for fallen paladins... of course I thought your problem was the rewriting of a character from paladin to fighter without the players express consent, but now that I realize it's just a balance issue... well then that's different.

 

[S'mon]

I like the PF version of keeping the Cleric's feet to the fire more than the Paladin's... could just make it keeping to the deities code than to LG.
And if the character is looking for the full fall-experience, I say give it to her. Have the rest of her order hunt her down with extreme prejudice if she does and isn't truly remorseful (like the Jedi hunting the Sith... except this time all the clones won't turn on them when they're unprepared).

She was chatting up a Hellknight (powerful LN/LE knightly order) and could easily end up joining them. Her deity Abadar is LN and his Clerics wouldn't really mind her becoming LN or even LE - Abadar has Paladins in Pathfinder canon, but it seems as if 'falling' would just mean loss of
LG-derived powers. Presumably PF Paladins gain their power from Virtue Itself since they
don't need to revere LG deities.

 

[pemerton]

Why would all LG nations be Benthamite only

for some reason those who don't like or want alignment can't accept this as truthful for us and continue to paint alignment as a straight jacket.

<snip>

they are the ones mis-representing what alignment is.

I'm not misrepresenting what Gygax said LG alignment is - he is the one who defines LG as a commitment to the greatest happiness of the greatest number (ie Benthamism).

And as I have said, the straitjacket issue is a red herring. Either alignment sometimes makes a difference to player action declarations, or it does not. If it doesn't, then as far as I can tell it's contributing nothing to play. When it does make a difference, then the fact that on 99 prior occasions it made no difference doesn't strike me as relevant. It's that moment of difference that I'm focusing on.

you have a player who chose the paladin with the intention of not playing the archetype in the manner it's meant to be played in? Are you still up for playing with this person?

there were some who couldn't/didn't understand why anyone would pick a paladin and then not play to the paladin's archetype

Who are you talking about? This does not describe me, or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], or anyone else I recall posting on this thread.

Hussar and I have both said that we can't imagine someone wanting to continue to play a paladin while not playing an honourable character: this is the player whom [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] has said explicitly, and whom [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and I think you by implication, have said needs to be disciplined by alignment. (The baby-throat-tearer was put forward as a paradigm of this type; also the paladin who backstabs the king, and various other examples that I've forgotten the details of.)

But the player [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] describes doesn't want to continue playing a paladin despite not playing an honourable character; s/he wants to play out a fallen paladin. Several hundred posts upthread, and then more recently, I already made the same observation as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] makes, namely, that 3E is an improvement in the "fall" mechanics because of the blackguard rules. The change I would make would be to allow the player to decide when the fall happens - which sounds very close to what is happening with S'mon's player. I don't see how mechanical alignment helps S'mon's player at all, in fact, because it makes the timing of her PC's fall a matter for the GM rather than putting it under her control. (And [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s plan requires it to be under the player's control.)

in 4e what signifies or differentiates a "fallen" paladin from one who hasn't?

Fictional positioning? (Ie much the same thing that distinguishes a traitor from a patriot.)

If they were a STR paladin, you could also rebuild as a Blackguard; and a CHA paladin could be rebuilt as a Hexblade. There might be a rogue 4e group here or there capable of such feats of improvisation!

The paladin and the fighter in 3.x are (right or wrong) considered of equal power.

But an ex-paladin is, in effect, a fighter with no bonus feats - which are, ostensibly at least, what makes a fighter mechanically balanced.

(Technically, per the 3.5 SRD, an ex-paladin is a paladin stripped of all class abilities and spells, but retaining BAB, HD, save progression and proficiencies. So a fighter without bonus feats or weapon spec, and with a slightly different skill list.)

 

[S'mon]

But the player [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] describes doesn't want to continue playing a paladin despite not playing an honourable character; s/he wants to play out a fallen paladin. Several hundred posts upthread, and then more recently, I already made the same observation as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] makes, namely, that 3E is an improvement in the "fall" mechanics because of the blackguard rules. The change I would make would be to allow the player to decide when the fall happens - which sounds very close to what is happening with S'mon's player. I don't see how mechanical alignment helps S'mon's player at all, in fact, because it makes the timing of her PC's fall a matter for the GM rather than putting it under her control. (And [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s plan requires it to be under the player's control.)

Yeah; Alignment & 3e/PF Alignment restrictions are basically just giving me a headache.
I think the player just wants to play a LN/LE Paladin, which would be fine in 4e but is
verboten in 3e/PF. I have a double headache because her deity is LN and would himself be fine
with LN Paladins, were they available! I told her she could be LG with strong LN tendencies
, but now I'm wondering if lifting the alignment restriction or changing it to Lawful and just letting her be LN might be best. I always kinda liked SHARK's Paladins (from threads about 12 years ago!) and they always seemed more LN/LE than anything.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah; Alignment & 3e/PF Alignment restrictions are basically just giving me a headache.
I think the player just wants to play a LN/LE Paladin, which would be fine in 4e but is
verboten in 3e/PF. I have a double headache because her deity is LN and would himself be fine
with LN Paladins, were they available! I told her she could be LG with strong LN tendencies
, but now I'm wondering if lifting the alignment restriction or changing it to Lawful and just letting her be LN might be best. I always kinda liked SHARK's Paladins (from threads about 12 years ago!) and they always seemed more LN/LE than anything.

SHARK's paladins were awesome. Of course, SHARK's whole campaign was over-the-top epic.

I don't see a big problem with LN paladins, just sub out good abilities with lawful ones and evil ones with chaotic ones.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah; Alignment & 3e/PF Alignment restrictions are basically just giving me a headache.
I think the player just wants to play a LN/LE Paladin, which would be fine in 4e but is
verboten in 3e/PF. I have a double headache because her deity is LN and would himself be fine
with LN Paladins, were they available! I told her she could be LG with strong LN tendencies
, but now I'm wondering if lifting the alignment restriction or changing it to Lawful and just letting her be LN might be best. I always kinda liked SHARK's Paladins (from threads about 12 years ago!) and they always seemed more LN/LE than anything.

So... she wants to play a paladin... but not abide by the restrictions of a paladin?? Why do you think the player chose a paladin over say a fighter, cleric, fighter/cleric or any other class that didn't have a requirement to be honorable and good?

EDIT: I am honestly looking for your insight here...

 

[Manbearcat]

Thanks for the reply @billd91 . @Imaro , I'm going to mix up your post if you don't mind.

Personally I've never really found this to require much mental exertion on my part. A discussion of alignment is necessary but then it falls into campaign discussion... in the same way I would have to explain the broad and specificity of the views, portfolios, etc. of the deities in the game (in a vacuum). I generally keep notes about what my players have done, their goals, etc. as part of running a campaign... It is with these notes that I can evaluate behavior for shifts in behavior. Major shifts would make such a big impression on me during the actual game that I would be hard pressed not to notice them if I am paying even a modicum of attention to the game I am running and the players that are participating. And for me, executing those shifts is no different than executing anything else in the game.

I don't find the analysis difficult. That is easily enough performed. The main problems I have are:

1) I've never enjoyed the interaction of alignment with system components/resources (eg; I despise Detect Evil) and the extra-conflict strategizing those fundamental components require/entail. I don't like the implications on the default setting. As such, I don't want to spend any time on it at all; the QC or the extra-conflict strategizing to deal with the divinations et al.

2) People who are peers can disagree vehemently over incredibly mundane things (of the 1st order). Consequently, complex things of 2nd and 3rd order are ripe for disagreement on interpretation and understanding. I really want no part of it in leisure pursuits (wait...I'm posting on a message board...as a leisure pursuit...disagreeing vehemently over incredibly mundane and/or complex things...hrmmm).

3) I find that if people are aware their actions are under a microscope, they will behave differently, without full autonomy. Further, the pressure may "lock them up". I don't want that with people I trust to both be sincere in their play and be provocative and dynamic (coherently) when responding to adversity.

4) A vast proportion of my GMing style is adlibbing and improvising. This is what I enjoy the most and what I am best at. The deeper I get into world-building and quality controlling of play, the less mental overhead I have allotted toward being on my toes and responding with coherent, dynamic, genre-relevant conflict that follows from the preceding conflicts and touches on the cornerstones of the characters' thematic material.

Unless they believe outside judgement by a higher power, one outside of the character, is a part of the archetype. Then a player could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force. The fact that you push this judgement onto them could create a dis-satisfying play experience for them.

No, I certainly understand that a player "could honestly want to experience being judged by his or her deity or cosmological force." Its self-evident. This website is chock full of them as is this thread. That is just not my players' preferences. For my players, a deity is equal parts "cosmological force" and equal parts "PC build tool". We treat a player's deity and a player's ethos as an Instinct in Burning Wheel; it is an insurance policy taken out to assure them that I cannot frame conflicts against their will. If there is any dispute in interpretation or they feel I have infringed upon this insurance, I will respectfully defer to them. There are a million and one conflicts to frame them into that can touch upon their chosen thematics. I'll go with something else as the last thing I want to do is tamper with their sense of protagonism/agency. I may use the relationship to impose physical moral consequences of action or to juxtapose virtues/beliefs such that they have to prioritize, but I won't impose my idea of their divine coupling with their god/ethos anymore than I would tell a Fighter player that they're misinterpreting the footwork of their martial art and narrating something athletically incoherent.


Combining these two:

Wait are you claiming that, according to the 3.x rules for building encounters, that a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, fighter and thief is considered lower power than a party consisting of a cleric, wizard, paladin and thief? If not you are conflating the encounter budgeting rules being off with those of the fallen paladin purposefully making you weaker. The paladin and the fighter in 3.x are (right or wrong) considered of equal power. As to the atonement quest being a headache... well it's no different than the individual quests in 4e is it?

Again you seem to be conflating the balance issues around classes (and honestly in 3.x the fighter and paladin aren't considered that far apart in power level they are both considered tier 5 characters)... with the rules for fallen paladins... of course I thought your problem was the rewriting of a character from paladin to fighter without the players express consent, but now that I realize it's just a balance issue... well then that's different.

I probably didn't communicate this well.

1) The success of the CR system in transcribing challenge from paper to play is contingent upon the (obviously erroneous) supposition that class levels are roughly 1:1 in value. We know this to be untrue in practice. Further still, it becomes even less true as levels accrue and certain powerful classes or combos significantly outscale others, thus further perturbing the formula.

2) Fighters and Paladins are both tier 5 classes. The Paladin's value is generally predicated upon a reasonable dose of GM-framed situations whereby Paladins will have opportunities to (i) Divine/Smite Evil, (ii) Cure Diseases/ailments, (iii) use its mount, (iv) face enemies that afflict disease or fear, and (v) vanquish undead, demons, devils. If a Paladin is not invoking features i - v, their power, which their tier value is contingent upon them engaging, is significantly reduced below their already paltry standing of tier 5.

3) Given that Fighters and Paladins are both very low tier, and a Paladin is now unable to invoke any of its tier-legitimizing features, it is clearly below tier 5. The difference between a tier 6 class and a tier 1 class is legion. Trying to legitimize the protagonism (it is their specific atonement quest of which they should be the focal point) of a tier 6 (or lower) class while in the presence of a tier 2 or 1 class, requires serious hoops being jumped through. Moreover, creating challenges that are engaging, rewarding and climactic for a group makeup composed of vastly disparate power sources is nearly impossible. If play is level 11 or higher and that (formerly tier 5...now likely equivalent to < tier 6) fallen Paladin is with a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid (tier 1)...good luck.

I'm curious... in 4e what signifies or differentiates a "fallen" paladin from one who hasn't?

The evolving themes and fictional positioning (with mechanics to match up).

We played 6 sessions: 2 at level 21, 2 at level 24, 2 at level 27. The Paladin was Cult Survivor Background. He began play as Knight Hospitaler Character Theme which changed to Demon Spawn during a rebuild of the character. He changed from Demonslayer Paragon Path to Demon-Bound. He changed from Legendary Sovereign to Prince of Hell refluffed as Abyssal Lord's Avatar. He didn't get changed to Blackguard.

In a long term game, the route would probably be something similar (perhaps with a rebuild to Blackguard) for a PC Paladin who wanted to explore the falling of their hero; intermittent, subtle rebuilds. I wish I could find that post as I outlined it at length. He went from an unblemished hero of a nation to eventually realizing that he couldn't win the war without stooping to the same depths of depravity of his enemies. Eventually, his sins overcame his virtues, opening him up to possession to a powerful Abyssal Lord (Juiblex). He was recently exorcised of this demonic possession and Juiblex was defeated. He has now been restored to his former Legendary Sovereign status and Demogorgon and Dagon are being pursued by the PCs (the final antagonists of play).