Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

Wait.. what? Who has claimed that a deity cannot remove the powers of a church? That's a new one.

All that has been claimed is that the DM will not use mechanical alignment as a reason for removing the powers of a church. If the deity in question wants to strip powers away, I'm unaware of any reason why he cannot do that.

Sheesh... I'm the critic but apparently have read the books more closely than some of its biggest fans...

pg. 90 PHB 4e

"...Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony, but each faith has its own methods. This ceremony of investiture gives the paladin the ability to wield divine powers. Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore. How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful."

Yeah so no... a deity in default 4e can't strip a paladin of his powers period (and their is a similar section for clerics). The above doesn't mention good or evil it states the paladin can act however he wants and the deity can't do jack as far as his powers go.

So tell me again how powerful and infallible 4e deities are again... They can't even check their own flock.

 

[Imaro]

Wouldn't that be done during character generation? Presuming the DM allowed the character in the first place, what reason would the DM have for changing interpretations at a later point?

Why? Why would this necessarily be done during character creation, one of the fun things about playing a divine character is expanding the rituals, taboos and commandments he takes upon himself in recognition of his faith during actual play.

Outside of that you still aren't addressing the fact that these are opposite views on what beauty is and create the same situation you claim alignment does... an evaluative judgement on the part of the DM. As for having discussion upfront... this is exactly what many pro-alignment posters have said should take place, so if it you believe pre-game discussion can alleviate the tension in this situation why does it being good or evil instead of beauty change anything?

 

[D'karr]

I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games. Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e. I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations. They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be.

I'm totally with you on this one. Following this same strict adherence to nitnoid methodology when adjudicating alignment is why many consider the alignment mechanics a straitjacket. Another strong reason why I'm not interested in mechanical alignment for my games.

If we took the play examples that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has provided and looked at them from the perspective of a DM created world, and the notion that the world creator is "god", which is a pretty classic way of viewing the role of the DM. He is the ultimate authority to decide what is happening with everything. There would be absolutely no "leg to stand on" to argue about his use of the gods, artifacts, etc. From his play example, at character creation he communicated to his players his expectations about the campaign world, the gods therein, and some expectations of what they would be facing. The players have obviously accepted his portrayal of this setting, as they are not complaining about any of it. And they have been playing in it for a long while since they are already at epic level. I take their experience as way more important than that of the nay-sayers.

It seems ludicrous, in almost a "rules-lawyery" way, to argue that he is "doing it wrong", or that his stated play experiences could not have happened, or that he is "breaking the rules". It is purely comical the mental contortions you have to do to even justify the argument. Whether he is using the default setting, or a home-brew setting is irrelevant. He is the DM. It seems to me that he knows his game and his players best. Judging from his stated play examples I can find nothing in them that falls even remotely outside the realm of normal for what a DM does during a game. His game sounds pretty fun. And guess what, he is not using alignment as a mechanic. He has stated so and provided many examples of play, in which it is clear that he is not, I can't fathom what others are arguing with him about.

To his play experience of running his game mechanical alignment is an impediment. He has repeatedly stated so, and has provided some pretty concrete examples of actual gameplay situations, not edge case hypothetical scenarios, in which mechanical alignment in his game would have been an impediment. Isn't that what the question posed originally was?

 

[Hussar]

Sheesh... I'm the critic but apparently have read the books more closely than some of its biggest fans...

pg. 90 PHB 4e

"...Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony, but each faith has its own methods. This ceremony of investiture gives the paladin the ability to wield divine powers. Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore. How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful."

Yeah so no... a deity in default 4e can't strip a paladin of his powers period (and their is a similar section for clerics). The above doesn't mention good or evil it states the paladin can act however he wants and the deity can't do jack as far as his powers go.

So tell me again how powerful and infallible 4e deities are again... They can't even check their own flock.

Funny how you provide the quote but fail to read it. "Punished by other members of the faithful". Yup his class powers can't be stripped. But it would be a pretty sad DM who couldn't punish a wayward character.

Iow you don't need mechanical alignment.

In the shader Kai example, he would need some in game connection to our church of beauty. If the DM didn't feel comfortable with this version of beauty, the player can't join the church and can't take the multiclass feats to become a true cleric.

Not the way I would do it but I'll leave that to DM's who are more concerned with world building than me.

 

[D'karr]

Sheesh... I'm the critic but apparently have read the books more closely than some of its biggest fans...

LOL. Maybe you should have read what you quoted a bit further.

How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him...​

Isn't that exactly what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been saying all along? He let's the player of the paladin define how the character will wield those powers in a just, honorable and compassionate way.

He has already stated that behaving in a way that is contrary to this doesn't have a mechanical or story benefit in his game. He doesn't have to use a mechanical hammer to force the player to comply. In his game a player of a paladin plays one because he wants a character that behaves in a just, honorable and compassionate way. If the player wanted to explore a "fallen paladin", I'm pretty sure that pemerton would frame scenes that provide those opportunities. Then they would both figure out how to make it happen in story and mechanically if necessary.

...paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful.​

And this right here provides even more opportunity for roleplaying rather than less. Roleplaying that involves the DM and players and happens at the game table. Not pre-scripted consequences which is what mechanical alignment would provide for this.

 

[Imaro]

And @Imaro and @N'raac, you'd both be perfectly sanguine and pat me on the back for being a good DM? After all, I'm doing EXACTLY what you say I should be doing - defining good and evil in my game world.

No [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... you're playing "GOTCHA" with alignment, which is expressly what we said not to do. Did you tell the player that this act would be considered evil and cause him to fall?

Considering the lengths you're going to try to rules lawyer Permerton here, constantly badgering him about a play example, I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely. It's far more likely that we're going to have a flaming row at the table because my interpretations don't match yours.

Well you know what they say about assuming...

You communicate with me about what that action would be considered morally and the ramifications of my choice and then leave it up to me to decide... I guarantee we won't. You play alignment gotcha (which I view as very similar to what pemerton did with the familiar) and yes we'll have a problem.

See, in the beauty example, I would have no problem with the player of the Shadar-Kai claiming to worship a god of beauty by ritualistic scarification. That's cool. Because, after all, without mechanical alignment, he can actually be wrong. There's nothing saying that he's right. With mechanical alignment, he has to be right or wrong because if he's right, he gets spells, if he's wrong he doesn't. But, lacking mechanical alignment, I'm now free to come up with any number of reasons why he is wrong but still gets spells.

That's cool. your preferences are yours and more power to you, but if I am playing to explore what beauty means in this particular DM's setting... Anything and everything you want it to be, because you can't be "wrong"...is a very boring, uninteresting and unsatisfying answer Imo. In the same way that if I wanted to explore a dungeon the GM created but every time I entered a room and asked what do I find... the DM tells me... "well whatever you want to be in there is in there so make it up"...

I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games. Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e. I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations. They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be. Artifacts are what you add to the game when you want to chuck rules out the window. Add to that the fact that you are arguing that a GOD cannot kill someone's familiar at will baffles me. it's a GOD. It gets to do anything it wants to do. Gods don't follow any rules in the books.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] let me be blunt I don't game with you and don't really even know you so I could honestly care less whether you think from a couple of posts on a forum that I'm not creative. I do think you're overstepping your bounds a little here since in turn you don't know me and haven't played in a single game I've run and honestly have nothing to go on as far as judging my creativity... It's like me assuming you are ignorant of many of the 4e rules from the few posts you've made in this thread recenty that were incorrect... but instead of making a claim about you I am addressing the argument and not the person.

Oh, and OAN: Only gods do have rules in the book (I cited one example in a post before this one) ... you just haven't read them.

Heck, did 4e gods even get stats? I don't think they did. They're gods. Once the DM has dropped a god into play, all bets are off. You get to do anything you want.

Is Lolth a god... she's in MM3. I think you're vastly overestimating the power of gods in 4e at least as far as the books present them. Of course you are free to house rule them into any power level you want.

 

[Imaro]

Funny how you provide the quote but fail to read it. "Punished by other members of the faithful". Yup his class powers can't be stripped. But it would be a pretty sad DM who couldn't punish a wayward character.

Iow you don't need mechanical alignment.

Keep shifting those goalposts... You said a deity could do anything... the passage goes against that... It wasn't quoted in reference to mechanical alignment and needing it.

OAN: Did followers of Vecna punish the player in @pemerton's example or did Vecna do it directly

In the shader Kai example, he would need some in game connection to our church of beauty. If the DM didn't feel comfortable with this version of beauty, the player can't join the church and can't take the multiclass feat to become a cleric.

He could already be a cleric and decide this... and he still keeps his powers regardless of whether the deity believes what he is doing is beautiful or not. Again the point you made was that somehow subjectivity was mitigated when it wasn't good and evil... and this isn't true.

 

[pemerton]

So no implicit consent, got it.

<snip>

I'm going by exactly what you have told me... so unless you are lying I should be confident in what I am saying since it is based on your account.

Except apparently you're ignoring the bit where I said "not only did he consent, he set it up."

Given this, the rest isn't worth responding to.

 

[Imaro]

LOL. Maybe you should have read what you quoted a bit further.

How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him...​

Isn't that exactly what @pemerton has been saying all along? He let's the player of the paladin define how the character will wield those powers in a just, honorable and compassionate way.

He has already stated that behaving in a way that is contrary to this doesn't have a mechanical or story benefit in his game. He doesn't have to use a mechanical hammer to force the player to comply. In his game a player of a paladin plays one because he wants a character that behaves in a just, honorable and compassionate way. If the player wanted to explore a "fallen paladin", I'm pretty sure that pemerton would frame scenes that provide those opportunities. Then they would both figure out how to make it happen in story and mechanically if necessary.

...paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful.​

And this right here provides even more opportunity for roleplaying rather than less. Roleplaying that involves the DM and players and happens at the game table. Not pre-scripted consequences which is what mechanical alignment would provide for this.

I was going to comment on this but I'm not even sure what it is exactly you are trying to say besides 4e supports non mechanical alignmnet (which has never been argued against in this thread by anyone) and that you like non mechanical alignment better than mechanical alignment... Uhm, ok... I guess

 

[Imaro]

Except apparently you're ignoring the bit where I said "not only did he consent, he set it up."

Given this, the rest isn't worth responding to.

Putting the familiar in the imp was not giving you implicit consent to control it, activate it and destroy it for an in-definite amount of time (the same way putting the Eye of Vecna in a character's eye doesn't allow you to control his actions.). Did he say it was ok for the familiar to redirect the energy, did he say it was ok for the DM to activate his familiar so it could take damage? Or did you decide this yourself.

EDIT: It's a yes or no answer...