Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

There are no hard and fast rules of how deities react or punish allowing for DM creativity to shine through

AD&D had very hard and fast rules on this - the paladin is forevermore a fighter. I think 3E does also.

 

[Sadras]

AD&D had very hard and fast rules on this - the paladin is forevermore a fighter. I think 3E does also.

I was speaking to the rules which dictate how the DM roleplays the situation regarding permanent or temporary loss of powers. Right now I do not have those books in front of me and it has been a while since I read that section in AD&D or in 3e, will check it out when I get home and revert.

 

[Celebrim]

The way I see it, there are two major issues with alignment and they are both shown in this thread:

1. Disagreement between the Player and the DM

If you swim way upthread in this thread, you'll see a discussion between [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] and the OP where Celebrim flat out states that the OP does not understand and is misinterpreting alignment. Ok, fair enough, that's his opinion.

Now, imagine a situation where Hypothetical Celebrim is the player and our OP is the DM. According to most in this thread, it is the DM who determines what alignment is in the game. I've seen that repeated a number of times that it is absolutely the DM who makes the determination.

You can replace 'alignment' with 'rules' in the above train of logic and come to the exact same conclusion. Heck, let's just do it:

"The way The way I see it, there are two major issues with rules and they are both shown in this thread:

1. Disagreement between the Player and the DM

If you swim way upthread in this thread, you'll see a discussion between [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] and the OP where Celebrim flat out states that the OP does not understand and is misinterpreting the rules. Ok, fair enough, that's his opinion.

Now, imagine a situation where Hypothetical Celebrim is the player and our OP is the DM. According to most in this thread, it is the DM who determines what the rules are in the game. I've seen that repeated a number of times that it is absolutely the DM who makes the determination."

By this logic, I guess we are supposed to conclude that RPGs are better without rules?

The OP's logic ran as follows:

1) The rules regarding alignment produce a situation I don't like.
2) Therefore the rules regarding alignment [as it concerns PC] should just be dropped.

My counter to this assertion was simply that it was not the rules causing the problem, but the DMs flawed interpretation of the rules. It is of course true that the DM is allowed to set any rules he likes, even if they are based on a misunderstanding on his part. We get tons of arguments on this board over things like 'Are 1e M-U's over powered", where the original poster is not using casting segments, dropped requirements for spell components, is making extremely generous interpretations of the spell wording, is ignoring limiting clauses within spells, and is otherwise altering the rules that provide for balance and yet complaining that the game is unbalanced. It's certainly reasonable in such a context to point out that the poster's own particular rules are responsible for the situation he says he doesn't desire.

This was my assertion. The poster's own (novel and unsupported) interpretation of alignment was responsible for the problem's he said he had with alignment.

Which means, in this hypothetical situation, that Celebrim is 100% wrong. He's flat out wrong. The DM has determined that X is a good/evil issue and he is the final word on the matter. So, what are our Hypothetical Celebrim's choices?

In a sense, yes. If I'm a player at a DM's table, and the DM sets the rules I have no authority to overturn those rules whatever they may be. The DM does have the final word on any rules issue. He certainly also has the final authority to define good and evil as it exists in his cosmology. However, if the DM's own interpretation of the rules is not producing the results he wants, this suggests a fundamental confusion. The OP claimed the confusion was in the rules. I claimed that the confusion was in the interpreter of the rules.

I'd like to note that my particular complaints regarding the DMs interpretations don't fall into the usual sort of things that people normally disagree about. The OP wasn't claiming that (for example) abortion was a good aligned behavior, and that this was a definition of good and evil that I simply couldn't accept - an argument I might add that occur independently of alignment rules and which could certainly wreck the ability of two people to socialize quite independently of alignment depending on how strongly they felt about such things. Those sort of disagreements are a framework I think I could largely play within, even if it made me a rebel (of some sort) within the game world. Rather, my biggest complaint was what I feel is the fundamental misunderstanding regarding alignment - that it is a marker for personality (whether for example, you are happy or brooding, introverted or extroverted, meticulous or sloppy, etc. It's over the question of whether alignment is personality that I feel most table arguments about alignment originate.

The rest of the arguments about alignment are literally alignment arguments - fundamental disagreements over the nature of morality - relativism vs. absolutism, for example.

a) Suck it up, and continue playing, even though he strongly disagrees with the DM. I can't see how this is adding to Celebrim's enjoyment of this game.

b) Quit the game. Again, I'm failing to see how alignment has contributed to the enjoyment of the game.

c) Argue and fight with the DM, causing all sorts of table drama. Now our Hypothetical Celebrim is a bad player and the Hypothetical DM comes on EN World to complain about him and get all sorts of sympathetic pats on the back from En World Posters who feel that the DM is never wrong.

Again, in none of these situations is alignment helping to make a better game.

Perhaps, but each of these results is equally available for any rules dispute - like for example, over whether the rules represent the physics of the game world. Yet, we'd never suggest that rules don't add to the RPG experience (well, most of us wouldn't). What's particularly interesting about the sort of disputes that arise around alignment is that they are quite likely to arise independently of any rules governing alignment as well.

2. Players need to be forced to play their characters

This one I find even more problematic. Alignment gives DM's a honking great big lever into the personality of a PC.

Personality?? I suppose in a very very broad definition of morality.

The Dm is effectively telling the player, "No, sorry, you don't know how to play your character right, and I'm going to punish you for it by invoking the game mechanics." And the player has zero recourse here.

I suppose. In practice, I've never seen this happen. Particularly in modern games, the discussion tends to be: "You don't seem to be living up to your alignment contract. Do you want to change your alignment?" Sometimes I may make utilize IC recourse. After a deity witnesses the character being merciless and cruel, the character may receive a vision indicating the deities growing displeasure long before things escalate to a table conflict. I don't recall ever having to force an alignment change on a player. Usually there is a recognition by the player that they are more comfortable playing the character with a different alignment. I've fortunately not had a large problem convincing a character that the choices he's been making are not in fact LN (or NG, or whatever). Generally speaking, the player tends to recognize, "Yeah, it's pretty clear my allegiance is to myself and I'm happy with rule breaking... I probably should reannotate my character sheet, because clearly I can't hold to a LN contract." Of course, alignment change has at least some consequences (even if you aren't penalized with XP loss), but for most characters it's usually not dramatic. It's more which magic items you can pick up safely, and which spells are effective against you (and at my table, what actions might garner you a small amount of bonus XP). The ugliest alignment rules argument I've ever witnesses was between a DM and a power gamer (playing a fighter no less) who wanted 'Good' on his character sheet for rules reason, but who refused to follow any stricture or scruples whatsoever (murdering captives, for example).

And yes, this was a far bigger problem than alignment was ever intended to fix. Alignment can't fix dysfunctional play and was never intended to. I don't know any rules that can that because ultimately its not a rules issue.

If your players are playing their character in a manner that you, the DM, feel is inappropriate, my gut reaction is, well... too bad. That's their character, not yours. It is not your job to judge how someone plays their character. And it's certainly not your job to tell your players that they are playing their character wrong.

For most things, I would agree with you. I'm a strong defender of the concept that DMs don't get to play the PCs. There are nonetheless ways of playing a character that are wrong, and this wrongness doesn't require any specific alignment system. For example, a player that meta-games and uses information his character doesn't have (for example, knowledge of modern technology, information learned OOC) isn't playing his character right. A player that violates the strictures he has chosen for himself (perhaps he took a Flaw in GURPS, and refuses to adhere to it), isn't playing his character right. At some point, yes, it is the GM's job to say, "ERrr... you aren't doing it right." That doesn't necessarily imply railroading or any of your other known bugaboos about how DM's are bad bad bad things.

 

[N'raac]

You seem very concerned about these episodes of play that simply don't come up in my games.

Read the topic of the thread. It is “Do alignments improve the gaming experience”. It may surprise you to learn that “your games” or even “your gaming philosophy” falls well short of “the gaming experience”.

You have repeatedly stated the player’s determination of whether the character is following his moral code is inviolate. Are you now saying that extends only to your players, or only to those players who concur with your view of what is plainly and obviously consistent with, or at odds with, the palain’s obligations? If no player at your table would ever violate their alignment/code/morality/whatever you wish to call it to the extent that he would reasonably be penalized under the alignment rules, then why are they a huge bone of contention?

I don't believe anyone supporting the alignment system is supporting arbitrary GM decisions which split fine hairs, and destroying characters as a consequence. Those DM's are no better than players who think it is OK for the LG paladin to behave in a blatantly non-LG fashion. You are assuming that we will have only good players, who will role play their characters reasonably in line with whatever code of morality they have designed that character to possess, and only horrible GM's who will place the characters in huge moral dilemmas where their principals cannot all be upheld, then beat them down with the penalty stick for "failing to uphold their code" no matter what action they take. Is it possible that there could be a good GM and good players at the same table, and that alignment is not a stumbling block for such a group? Perhaps it does not add to their game (they would play that moral code anyway), but I fail to see how adding the alignment (most) consistent with their code, and interpreting those alignments within a reasonable range of behaviour, is devastating to the game, as you seem to consider it, either.

I mean, if it's obvioust to everyone that tearing the throat out of the child is at odds with the paladin's obligations, what makes you think the player of a paladin would declare such an action?

It cannot be obvious “to everyone at the table” if the paladin’s player is declaring the action.

I’ve provided the player’s rationale. The child will die horribly either way, at his hands or another’s. The greater good requires he infiltrate this cult, and tearing out the newborn’s throat with his teeth will enable him to build the trust needed to do so. It’s all good, because he will save more than just one newborn in the long run, and exact a horrible bloody vengeance on the cultists later.

So do we assume the Raven Queen is fine with her Paladin tearing out the child’s throat for the greater good, or is there a line beyond which that assumption does not hold true, whether or not that line is eve crossed in your particular game?

I don't see how it makes the game a better experience for the GM to unilaterally change the numbers on a PC sheet such that the player no longer has a mechanically adequate vehicle for engaging with the stakes that are currently at play in the unfolding campaign.

OK, we’re talking about relative power of the characters. Here I can agree – leaving one player unable to meaningfully contribute is problematic. The old “fighter forevermore” rule left the Paladin as able to contribute as any other fighter, but that was back in the day when the Paladin had all the abilities of the fighter, plus some extra added abilies. Hence my comment that a better system might allow the Paladin to replace his Paladin levels with levels in some other martial class.

While he doesn’t lose everything, he is considerably de-powered. Perhaps the player gets the choice – a quest to restore his lost honor and Paladinhood (like the wizard needing to get his spellbook back, or the archer needing to replace his bow) or converting the Paladin levels to Fighter levels (perhaps over a brief timeframe, so he’s lacking some of his punch for a while, much like a spellcaster in a dead magic area or a ranger whose favoured enemy isn’t featured for a while).

He does still have his BAB, save bonuses, weapons, armor, martial feats, skills, etc., so it’s not like he has lost all ability to participate, but I do agree he needs some way to restore mechanical effectiveness. Which reminds me – you still have not answered this:

Is the about actual gaming philosophy and alignments themselves, or about the presence of mechanical drawbacks if one fails to follow alignment as determined and judged by the GM?

The article doesn't work on a theory of moral relativism. It doesn't adopt any meta-ethical theory.

To the extent that D&D's traditional alignment system is itself moral relativist in the way you describe, that is a reason - as I have posted already upthread - that it is an obstacle to my game.

“Whatever the player chooses is deemed morally perfect” seems like a pretty relative determination to me. The player chooses when and where any given principal can morally be compromised (right up to tearing out that newborn’s throat for the greater good), based on the absolute authority of the player which I believe you are supporting.

Arthur's has at least two - god and the devil - and three if you regard Merlin as an otherworldly power distinct from both of those. Aragorn's also has at least two - Iluvitar and the Valar vs Melkor and Sauron.

Two is not numerous, especially not in comparison to the tyical D&D milieu, and I don’t think anyone in Arthurian myth considered the devil (or Merlin) the source of morally correct behaviour. Nor do I believe LoTR ever suggested that Sauron’s path was one of goodness and righteousness.

You seem to insist on importing real world religion, via Arthurian legend. So how consistent are Arthurian (or Roland) ideals with:

- Turn the other cheek
- Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord
- Love the sinner, hate the sin
- Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors
- Blessed are the meek

I don’t believe Arthur, or any traditional D&D paladin, or any source for same, espouses these very Christian ideals. Do you?

Second, and more significantly, if my players have come to a fundamental disagreement over what their common god requires, why would I, as GM, step in and by stipulation tell them how to resolve their disagreement? This is the crux of playing an RPG. They can sort it out themselves, resorting - in the end, and within the limits of the system - to the action resolution mechanics.

The same thing could happen if the PCs found themselves arguing with the Raven Queen.

Assuming that they can interact in some way with the Raven Queen, how is the question of which approach was considered the more righteous by the Raven Queen resolved? What happens to the character who was wrong, based on this resolution? Both are assumed to follow the code of their deity unfailingly, under your model. Each feels their path was correctly following that code, and that the other compromised it. They cannot both be correct.

But the way 4e is structured, that wouldn't happen until epic levels. At which point the PCs are themselves epic beings - in my game one is a demigod, another a Marshall of Letherna, another a Sage of Ages. If they found themselves turning on the Raven Queen, taking the view that they could better uphold her ideals than she can, that would be the sort of stuff that awesome games are made of. And why would anyone expect them to lose their powers at that point? They would have staked their claim as autonomous epic beings.

If their moral decisions are always deemed to match those of their patron, how can they take the view that they can uphold her ideals better than she can? She always agrees with the manner in which they uphold her ideals, based on your “player determines deity” model, doesn’t she? Or does achievement of epic status make the PC’s unflagging ability to perfectly match the morality of his code somehow fade at those levels?

This is where I feel you are failing to understand the basic reason why I find alignment an obstacle to my desired play experience. You keep positing these scenarios intending to show why the GM has to step in. But I don't play RPGs in order to have the GM step in. I play RPGs in order to have the players make decisions. If the players find themselves bringing their PCs into the sor of conflict you describe, well, c'est la vie. Apart from anything else, it shows they're immersed in and committing themselves to the fiction!

When the players make decisions, does the rest of the world react? It seems like NPC’s also make decisions. The enemies of the PC’s made decisions. The Baron made the decision to spare the prisoner when asked by Derrick, even though Derrick wished he would not agree to this. The enemy made decisions to make her an enemy.

The players can come into conflict with each other, with NPC’s, with the environment, and with untold other matters. Yet, from your reasoning, they can never come into conflict with their own patrons, except you then describe exactly that happening at epic levels (where, presumably, their previous omniscience as to the code prescribed by that patron somehow atrophies).

The player can decide his character will kill the invading army. I expect the invading army to resist the PC’s decision, and I expect that is what happens in your game as well – isn’t it?

 

[Guest 85555]

Who is this "lot of us" you speak of?

Do you think I am in a substantial minority. My impression is plenty of players out there share my view on this.

The issue here is though, that you have zero choice here. You don't cede anything. You were never given the option in the first place. The rules place all of the power in the hands of the DM, full stop.

I think ink this is a case where they either give the GM authority to interpret cosmic will or they do not and both lead to very different places in terms of style. Someone like me, I prefer that being cedddd to the GM . Whether there are enough if me who play D&D to ensure alignment stays as is I. The game I do not know. But we have a fun tangential style divide here over how much impact players should have on the setting beyond their character. That doesn't make either side wrong. But it is going to make it difficult for us to find a solution we agree works.

 

[N'raac]

Who is this "lot of us" you speak of?

Sadras and I, plus our gaming acquaintances, at a minimum. Bedrock as well, I assume, as you are replying to him.

The issue here is though, that you have zero choice here. You don't cede anything. You were never given the option in the first place. The rules place all of the power in the hands of the DM, full stop.

Now, if it was an option that would be different. If I sit down at the table, and the DM says, "Ok, we have two options here - 1. I make all the decisions regarding alignment or 2. alignment decisions are made by the players. I want to play 1. What do you want?"

So you are asking the GM to cede his power to you, is that correct? Aren’t you the guy who unflaggingly argued that, by agreeing to play the game, we agreed to follow its rules as written? Now, you are coming back on this thread arguing that we should not follow those rules?

If I agree to that, then it's entirely on me. I have no room to complain. If I don't agree, then I can either bow out of the game, or the table can come to some sort of compromise. Either way, everyone at the table is happy.

But, the way it's laid out now, there are no choices. Besides Play or Not Play I suppose.

Your first paragraph seems to suggest this discussion is a good result. The second seems to suggest a negative view. But in both, you are choosing to play the game by its rules or not play the game at all. I don’t see the big difference between “bow out rather than follow the rules” and “not play because I do not like the rules”.

My main games for the past several years have been Hero (3d6 resolution) and d20 (d20 resolution). If I decide I don’t want a game where random chance is as significant a determiner of success (d20 swings way wider than 3d6), then I either bow out of, or don’t play, a d20 game. Are you suggesting instead I should negotiate for us to play with 3d6? Or perhaps I should bow out – not play – the d20 game whose mechanics I dislike and instead play Hero, which is designed with the mechanic I prefer in mind.

For what it is worth I will sign up for this "lot of us", not that we have actual numbers, but from the gaming circles I've see they all bend to the DM's interpretation of alignment.

Sign me up too, on the same basis you outline below.

Also from what I have seen the players and the DMs do not strongly disagree where they are exactly polar opposites.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] also seems to indicate his players aren’t at polar opposites either. Makes me wonder why he so vehemently opposes the alignment system when it seems like he and his players would never have serious disagreements anyway.

I find the non-alignment loving crowd on this thread to be rather exaggerated in their interpretation of how the alignment crowd roleplays.

While I concur, a lot of our own examples can also be extreme. Killing orc babies tends to crop up a lot.

When the question of whether an action or a series of actions affects alignment a discussion normally ensues and a reasonable consensus is reached at the table and USUALLY prior to the action being performed. There are no major disagreements and generally everyone is on the same page. The player is given the opportunity to motivate and justify his position and generally everyone at the table has their say, but the DM has the final word. Some players purposefully make their character perform a questionable action due to the circumstances of the story -perhaps it would improve the roleplay narrative or they think something within the story broke their characters resolve...whatever.

To me, the concern of arbitrary stripping of PC abilities, which both [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seem most concerned with, is not consistent with the above. They don’t seem to perceive any discussion beyond “do it my way or get a beating”. They seem to approach this from the perspective that the GM will always seek to abuse the system, and the players, while the players will all be strong role players who would never compromise their vision of the character’s ethics.

The rules always did place the power in the DMs hands. This is a not a new concept, and might I add a bad DM is a bad DM no matter what the rules say.

Exactly. A GM who will use the alignment rules to screw over the players at every turn, which always seems to be [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s expectation of every GM’s use of any authority granted to him, is not going to become a better GM because we remove the alignment rules. As Celebrim says, your description of a dispute over an alignment interpretation can just as easily be a disagreement over any rules interpretation.

I do not see this as necessary. The DM sets the ENTIRE setting - deities, land, law, races, classes, customs, history, adventures, monsters, conflicts, difficulty on tasks... I do not see why it has to be any different for alignment.

I think there are some clear cut issues (where few, if any, reasonable GM’s and players will disagree) and a lot of grey areas. The grey areas are the challenge, and I think more often adjudicated by the table. A good GM is likely to solicit input on those grey areas, and follow a consensus if one emerges. He might very specifically rule that, in his game world, a specific issue is seen by a specific alignment in a specific way. If the GM wants to tell me “Orcs are, in my world, beings of pure, undiluted evil. They can never be redeemed or reformed. They cannot be persuaded from their evil ways.” then I can agree that, in his world, killing orc babies is not inconsistent with an LG alignment. Begs the question how we have a LG ½ orc paladin confronted with that choice, though…

I rather suspect that, if all his players disagree with his views on major issues, he will either see the view of the table, or start looking for a new table.

 

[Ratskinner]

The OP claimed the confusion was in the rules. I claimed that the confusion was in the interpreter of the rules.

I would suggest that the failure of 40 years' experience with these rules to add much clarity or resolution to alignment debates of any type is indicative that indeed, confusion lies within the rules. ....which certainly doesn't mean that the interpreters of said rules are any better off.

 

[Celebrim]

I would suggest that the failure of 40 years' experience with these rules to add much clarity or resolution to alignment debates of any type is indicative that indeed, confusion lies within the rules. ....which certainly doesn't mean that the interpreters of said rules are any better off.

I agree that the rules could be written better. I certainly am sympathetic to anyone who says, "I don't understand what alignment is supposed to mean." or "I think the alignment rules need to be reworked or rewritten."

But when someone says, "Alignments don't improve the gaming experience.", my response tends to be, "Compared to what?" While the two axis alignment system is (more or less) unique to D&D, the general concept of descriptors that mark or constrain the character in some way are not at all unique to D&D. A lot of different systems intended to accomplish much the same thing are out there. I'm sympathetic to learning from those other systems and adopting ideas from them as your system for handling alignment, but the OP is much more logical IMO about what this means than some other posters in the thread when he notes that simply dropping alignment from the rules leaves a big hole in the rules.

And the situation has certainly not been helped by the fact that different editions of the game have differed over just what exactly constitutes the core philosophy of the alignments in exactly the sorts of ways you'd expect different DMs. Even Gygax has a couple of subtle biases that have led to misunderstanding. I think part of the problem here is that alignment is something all DMs have a lot of problems become detached from and treating as part of their referee stance. It's natural for the DM to impose on the situation that one way of thinking is 'better' than the others, which is stepping out of the DMs role as neutral arbiter. It's equally hard for the player to see having an action denoted as evil as something other than condemnation unless the player was explicitly and self-consciously striving for that result in his characterization.

 

[Umbran]

Read the topic of the thread. It is “Do alignments improve the gaming experience”. It may surprise you to learn that “your games” or even “your gaming philosophy” falls well short of “the gaming experience”.

There is nobody I know of on these boards who has experience sufficient enough to speak to "the gaming experience" as a whole. Nor has anyone done anything like a useful (meaning "statistically relevant) bit of polling on the subject.

So, we can either resort to our personal experiences, or we can just end the discussion here.

 

[DMZ2112]

*ascends podium, straightens microphone, clears throat*

LOL, alignment.