Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

You really think shutting down one feat for an encounter or so (the full duration hasn't been specified, but the minimum of an encounter has been flagged) is the equivalent of draining a level or stripping a paladin of paladinhood? Within the 4e framework it's not as severe as many diseases (which can weaken until the next extended rest, for instance).

N'raac summed up my thoughts on this answer pretty well in his post, it seems that the objection against the DM being able to punish a paladin for not acting a certain way through taking away his character resources has now switched gears and been changed to a concern for the level of punishment, when the argument earlier was clearly that the DM shouldn't be punishing the PC through denial of his character resources for how he behaved...

IMO, regardless of the level of punishment, your actions in the example are consistent with the general philosophy (which you claim to reject) of "punishing" a character because he chose to behave in a certain manner.

No. It's forming a view about Vecna's behaviour and attitude. The player is not obliged to form the view that his PC erred.

Well apparently if he wants access to the power of his imp and the power of the Eye of Vecna that he attained as a character resource he does.

Also I'm not seeing how this is different from any other deity (or cosmological force) judging and punishing a follower through the DM... A cleric or paladin who looses their power because the DM formed a view about their particular deity's behavior and alignment is the same thing as you just demonstrated in your post... only yours doesn't even give the PC's a broad outline to go off of like alignment does. Your punishment of the player is based on whatever you as the DM feel the deity or cosmological force thinks and has an inkling of doing. I'm in no way seeing the philosophy you have been espousing demonstrated in this play post... in fact I am seeing the opposite of it in actual play.

The player has deliberately cultivated his PC's service to about half-a-dozen gods, several of who are oppposed (Vecna/Ioun; Vecna/Raven Queen). And he deliberabely chose to implant the Eye of Vecna into his imp. He's been expecting something like this for some time, and more or less asking for it! At the moment of the crunch, he very strongly suspected that his choice would have a mechanical consequence.

So these are all assumptions, right? I mean if you were certain this is what the player wanted then why not let him decide? That would have been more in line with what you've been arguing for, if he wants to play a character who has cultivated service to numerous gods, and he deliberately implanted the Eye of Vecna in his imp... and you're sure this is what he wants and expects... why didn't you (like you've been arguing over the past couple of pages) allow any type of punishment, judgement, etc. to be decided on by the player?

He has benefits to, at a minimum in the fictional positioning in relation to the Raven Queen, which I'm sure he (and the rest of the players) will take advantage of in due course.

Uhm, ok... This sounds suspiciously like my argument for the paladin and cleric having the fictional positioning of being backed by a religious organization/power/etc. that you then shot down as something you'd never considered... yet now fictional positioning with the Raven Queen is considered a "benefit". How is this anymore a "benefit" then any other organization or power that any other pC has courted? How does this so called benefit (which anyone can have) make up for the mechanical effectiveness you took away as punishment for his character not behaving a certain way?

 

[Cadence]

Trying to think of how to implement alignment (in PF in particular) in a way that might be acceptable to both pro- and anti- groups and wouldn't require massive rewriting of the rules... here's a first pass:

Descriptive Alignment: law-neutral-chaos and good-neutral-evil serve as short hand descriptors <insert ways there used that way from previous editions for creatures, characters, and societies>. A given player may find another short descriptor more useful in summarizing their characters moral/ethical tendencies and views for themselves, GM, and fellow players. This aspect of alignment has no direct mechanical implications and should be kept updated to match the characters persona.

Cosmological Alignment: Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are also names that describe the collective commonality of several groups of gods, outsiders, and divine concepts - other names in some campaigns might be Lords of Order, Lords of Light, Lords of Entropy, and Lords of Darkness. The deities and outsiders with these descriptors typically have views in rough correspondence with the descriptive version of alignment above - but just because two deities share the same cosmological alignment does not mean they will necessarily usually agree on what is an appropriate except in the most blatantly obvious of situations. Spells such as Detect Evil, Circle Against Good, etc... are based on cosmological alignment and affect only beings that have that cosmological alignment and not simply creatures with descriptive alignments. Beings with cosmological alignment include outsiders of the Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil types; Undead(?); and beings granted divine powers by deities or concepts strongly associated with cosmological alignments (typically those using aligned outsiders as servants or those granting the alignment domains) or collections of like-aligned deities. These include many clerics and all paladins.

Whether a character maintains their cosmological alignment is judged by their individual deity (or associated group of deities in the case of a concept) and how well they serve that particular purpose - not on how they necessarily fit the descriptive alignment stereotypes. [Note: In standard PF a cleric may have an alignment one step away from the deities alignment, but still gets that aura, and "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."]

The alignment restrictions of the other classes are updated as: Druids are forbidden from having more than one cosmological alignment (e.g. they cannot be Lawful Good but could be one or the other). Barbarians are forbidden from being Lawful and Monks are forbidden from being Chaotic. Paladins are judged in the same manner as clerics.

 

[pemerton]

it seems that the objection against the DM being able to punish a paladin for not acting a certain way through taking away his character resources has now switched gears and been changed to a concern for the level of punishment, when the argument earlier was clearly that the DM shouldn't be punishing the PC through denial of his character resources for how he behaved

For some reason I am having difficulty communicating my key concern.

Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.

Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.

These are different things.

Also, an invoker in service to multiple gods, including a god of secrets and deceit like Vecna, is not in the same moral or metaphysical position as a paladin. The relationship is less like a calling and more like a bargain.

Being punished by Vecna because you broke your contract is very different to being told that your action is not in accordance with the ideals of a being who instantiates what ideal behaviour requires.

And I'd already posted upthread, both before and after [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post about "physical consequences", that it's obvious in an RPG that choices have consequences. But those are different from rewriting the player's PC.

(Perhaps you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] aren't familiar with the 4e familiar rules. A familiar can be killed, and hence take some time to reform. Stipulating that the "reforming" takes longer than typical is in much the same neighbourhood as inflicting a disease that limits surge expenditure during a short rest.)

 

[Imaro]

For some reason I am having difficulty communicating my key concern.

Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.

No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil...

Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.

No but you still determine how this deity feels about a particular action... which is exactly what you are doing with alignment.

These are different things.

How you chose to state them would make them appear to be... but they really aren't that different.

Also, an invoker in service to multiple gods, including a god of secrets and deceit like Vecna, is not in the same moral or metaphysical position as a paladin. The relationship is less like a calling and more like a bargain.

This really has no bearing on the bigger issue... both are having their actions judged by a higher power/being

Being punished by Vecna because you broke your contract is very different to being told that your action is not in accordance with the ideals of a being who instantiates what ideal behaviour requires.

No it's really not... both are judging your actions and deciding whether they cross some threshold which would cause them to respond in a certain way... all decided by the GM of course.

And I'd already posted upthread, both before and after @Manbearcat's post about "physical consequences", that it's obvious in an RPG that choices have consequences. But those are different from rewriting the player's PC.

Well, in 3.x there is atonement so in the case of both paladins and clerics the loss they suffer of some of their class abilities is a temporary state... if they want it to be.

(Perhaps you and @N'raac aren't familiar with the 4e familiar rules. A familiar can be killed, and hence take some time to reform. Stipulating that the "reforming" takes longer than typical is in much the same neighbourhood as inflicting a disease that limits surge expenditure during a short rest.)

Oh, I'm familiar with the rules for familiars in 4e but they played no part in what happened. You didn't use the action resolution mechanics to take the power of the familiar (actually kill it) and the Eye of Vecna away... you just decided it was gone as a punishment because Vecna was angered and then also decided on an arbitrary length of time to restrict the players access of the familiar and his magic item. To take your disease example, it would be akin to you deciding without any rolls that a PC caught a disease because he made a moral decision and then modifying the disease to be even worse than a normal one... again all without using any type of resolution mechanics...

What I'm not understanding is how this is any different than determining whether a deity, cosmic force, or whatever determines you've made it angry by not following it's concepts of good or evil??? How about this, instead of deciding whether what the PC did was "good" or "evil" how about you decide whether the being, force or whatever that is judging the character thought it was good or evil and punished him (just like in your example) appropriate to its judgement?

 

[Hussar]

No they require you to determine whether a character's actions are consistent with those a particular deity or cosmological force would deem to be in accordance with their concept of good or evil...

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ve-the-gaming-experience/page66#ixzz2tdK4CHv1

Hang on, that's wrong. Good and evil are defined by the PHB, not by individual NPC's or cosmological forces. Good doesn't vary depending on who you ask. There is only one definition given for good and evil. It is not subjective according to the alignment mechanics.

IOW, if it's good to act a certain way, then every single good aligned diety will recognise it as such and reward it accordingly.

There is no "accordance with their concept of good or evil" under D&D alignment.

 

[Cadence]

Hang on, that's wrong. Good and evil are defined by the PHB, not by individual NPC's or cosmological forces. Good doesn't vary depending on who you ask. There is only one definition given for good and evil. It is not subjective according to the alignment mechanics.

IOW, if it's good to act a certain way, then every single good aligned diety will recognise it as such and reward it accordingly.

There is no "accordance with their concept of good or evil" under D&D alignment.

I think RAW explicitly disagrees with you in 1e, 2e, and PF.

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil.

This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. ... Each of these cases for alignment is, of course, stated rather simplistically and ideally, for philosophical and moral reasonings are completely subjective according to the acculturation of the individual.

Alignment: This shows the characteristic bent of a monster or hero to law or chaos, good or evil or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the being when encountered. The above is also true as regards the alignment of divine beings, except that deities are not always constrained to follow their alignment to the letter. Their motives and purposes are far above the mortal, and though a deity will generally follow his or her alignment, the being's specific actions may sometimes seem to contradict this.

Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and evil.

It is not a code of behavior carved in stone. It is not absolute, but can vary from place to place. ... Finally as in all points of disagreement with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs. Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone-it belongs to your players as well.

Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. ... Each description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. ... Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.

 

[Imaro]

Hang on, that's wrong. Good and evil are defined by the PHB, not by individual NPC's or cosmological forces. Good doesn't vary depending on who you ask. There is only one definition given for good and evil. It is not subjective according to the alignment mechanics.

IOW, if it's good to act a certain way, then every single good aligned diety will recognise it as such and reward it accordingly.

There is no "accordance with their concept of good or evil" under D&D alignment.

I am speaking to the details, gaps, gray areas, etc. that are not covered by the descriptions of alignment (It seemed self evident to me that if something was clearly and specifically stated in the rule books as a good or evil act no arbitration was necessary for said action )... unless you believe alignment as presented is a totally comprehensive moral structure... and that deities are totally infallible and all-knowing beings (which they don't appear to be in default D&D) different deities and cosmological forces would have to interpret the actions in these realms... probably in different ways depending on their portfolios, personalities, etc.

 

[Cadence]

Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.

Deciding that Vecna is angered by a decision to thwart him does not require any such judgement.

Does my rewrite in #652 above address some of that issue? (Doing a recompilation of some PF rules, and if there's an easy way to address that concern it might be something for me to include).

 

[Umbran]

Alignment mechanics require me to judge whether my player's action declaration for his/her PC was good or evil.

They call for you to judge the character's action against the fictional game universe's standards of good or evil, yes.

Being punished by Vecna because you broke your contract is very different to being told that your action is not in accordance with the ideals of a being who instantiates what ideal behaviour requires.

If you were playing a game set in modern times, and the character was part of the military, and thus subject to the codes of military justice, or a police officer, and thus tied to certain behaviors lest they lose their badge, or in a fantasy realm, joined a knighthood that had a strict code of honor, would you have a problem with bringing down the repercussions if they broke those rules?

So, if the characters puts themselves in the place of being beholden to a cosmological power, how is that different? The paladin, before game start, has made such an agreement - they've sworn to hold strictly to a code of behavior, and they knows darned well something bad will happen if they strays. That's a bargain the player willingly makes going into the game. There's no "rewriting" involved if the player is properly informed heading into the situation.

 

[Hussar]

They call for you to judge the character's action against the fictional game universe's standards of good or evil, yes.

But, who sets those standards? It's not like the game universe sets those standards all by itself. Those standards are set by the DM and the DM's interpretation (hopefully through the lens of the setting, but, not necessarily) of alignment.

If you were playing a game set in modern times, and the character was part of the military, and thus subject to the codes of military justice, or a police officer, and thus tied to certain behaviors lest they lose their badge, or in a fantasy realm, joined a knighthood that had a strict code of honor, would you have a problem with bringing down the repercussions if they broke those rules?

But, therein lies the problem. For one, as part of a military or police force, I would have a very codified set of behaviours that most certainly does not allow two different people to look at the same action and come up with diametrically opposed interpretations of actions.

And, at no point would my soldier or police officer, acting outside of those codes, suddenly no longer be able to access the skills he learned in order to become a police officer or soldier. I might be demoted, I might be drummed out of the service, I might even be imprisoned or executed, but, at not point would my character sheet ever actually change.

So, if the characters puts themselves in the place of being beholden to a cosmological power, how is that different? The paladin, before game start, has made such an agreement - they've sworn to hold strictly to a code of behavior, and they knows darned well something bad will happen if they strays. That's a bargain the player willingly makes going into the game. There's no "rewriting" involved if the player is properly informed heading into the situation.

But, there is rewriting going on. The player and the DM have made this agreement in good faith. No one is being a jerk. But, there is an honest disagreement over interpretation. Again, I point to several examples in this thread alone of two perfectly reasonable people looking at the same situation and giving opposite interpretations. Why should the DM's interpretation always win?

As a DM, I do not want this responsibility. I trust you to play your character in a manner which is consistent with the character you have presented to me, whether it's a noble paladin or a shifty eyed thief. Doesn't matter. I entrust you with the responsibility of playing your character to the best of your ability. If you want to simply ignore that responsibility whenever it becomes more convenient, then why are you playing that character?

See, the argument seems to be that we need DM adjudicated alignment because players cannot be objective. I would argue that the player knows his character better than the DM does and has no need for oversight. Given the choice between maintaining character integrity and possibly losing the character and compromising the character and then trying to justify actions to the table, well, for me and anyone I want to play with, I'm reaching for a new character sheet. If no one is judging your behaviour, then who are you justifying your actions to? Yourself? Why bother? A player who simply chooses the easier choose to "win the game" knows that he's violating the table's trust.

If he doesn't care, then he's not really someone I want to game with.