Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

it would also break immersion for the rest of us at our table if the character behaved in any which way he wanted without any repercussions. As I have said before, my players and I prefer a heavier consequence game

The characters in my game can't act any way they want to without repercussions. It was because of that that the dwarven fighter/cleric kept the promise that was given in his name, even though he hated it and he hated the consequences.

The reason that this doesn't need GM arbitration to bring about is because the player of that character wants to play a PC who is bound by obligations of honour, and hence who is not always free to act as he might desire. And the player satisfies that want by playing the PC in that way.

The player also has no reason to play the PC another way. There is no advantage that would flow to the player, in playing the game, were the PC to act more expediently, even though within the fiction of the gameworld expedience might give the PC what he wants. For instance, the game wouldn't be more fun, or more engaging, were he to play his PC differently. So he doesn't.

 

[Sadras]

The example you give, for instance, seems to equate the PCs desires with those of the player (after all it is the PC's action which is dishonourable, presumably - I assume you're not asking whether I would lie to or betray the friends with whom I play the game).

Apologies for interjecting @N'raac on an answer to you.
Pemerton, what I posted upthread in response to @Hussar where he stated that couldn't players be objective and I responded not usually as much as what a DM would is highlighted in N'raac's example scenario. To reiterate what I answered to Hussar: Given the gamist, min/maxing tendencies, munchkinism, broken exploitative combos that exist and this prevalent with players - often you have players have their characters goals align with their own, whether purposefully or non-purposefully. Hence the reason for it being best to have an external arbiter on such things.

I don't know - put me in the situation and let's find out. If it's a dragon, I'd probably flank it. I don't see that dragons are entitled to a fair duel. If it was a hobgoblin war chief I might not flank.

IMO, it is not honourable to approach ones enemy from behind whether it be a dragon or the hobgoblin warchief. Perhaps I am equating knights with paladins too much here - but given the D&D novels for the characters Sturm Brightblade (Dragonlance) or Fain Flinn (The Penhaligon Trilogy) and I know neither were your typical D&D paladins but both were knights of honour and fought dragons and neither would not announce himself when fighting one, as well as the examples of Paladins within the PHBs over the editions, Paladins are Knights in my campaigns - that is not to say that all Knights are Paladins in my settings.

The 4e paladin has various powers intended to support the paladin in soloing in various ways, so that not flanking is not necessarily a mechanical disadvantage.

Which implies that if you were playing a paladin you would not necessarily call out to your enemy, thereby informing him of your presence, but instead would base your next move on gaining mechanical advantage. That is the gamist predisposition I was referring to earlier.
In our campaigns, playing a paladin involves sacrifice not only by the character in-game through the narrative, but also by the player, as he attempts to mitigate those gamist tendencies, we all have, in trying to roleplay someone of that assumed calibre.

Playing a paladin at our table is onerous. It gives credence (for our setting backstory) to why so few individuals ever become paladins and fewer still that remain paladins until their departure from the world. In the older editions this was further enforced with high ability score requirements.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know @S'mon 's player (her being in another hemisphere and all), but this doesn't strike me as very puzzling. I prefer paladins to clerics (and if I were to play a cleric would prefer a STR cleric to a WIS cleric) because I prefer the archetype of a holy warrior to the archetype of the non-warrior saint and miracle worker, which the D&D cleric at least flirts with.

The basic cleric in every edition (with the possible exception of 4e) could never be considered a non-warrior... ever. And some editions including 3.x/PF allow you to make an even more warrior oriented cleric, so this excuse seems to hold little water.

And I can imagine wanting to play the archetype of an avenger (in the BECMI sense) rather than of a fighter or cleric: a dark warrior called to the service of some god like Bane or Asmodeus, a sort-of punisher for the gods, angel-of-vengeance figure.

Again a fighter/cleric or even a cleric is a warrior in nearly every edition of D&D. What exactly about the "Avenger" (putting aside the fact that the Avenger wasn't an evil paladin, it was a chaotic fighter prestige class) archetype can not be satisfied by these classes... better yet how can it (without house rules) be represented by an evil paladin in 3.x or Pathfinder since that would be a fallen paladin and thus be lacking abilities (Smite evil/Aura of Good/etc. which don't really make sense for an evil paladin any way)?

The paladin of the Raven Queen in my 4e campaign falls somewhere between these two archetypes (or, rather, mixes elements of both).

Of course, because paladins in 4e are aberrant when compared to paladins in every other edition. They are little more than divine mercenaries that are not beholden to anything higher than or outside of themselves.

Which posters? I have repeatedly stated my understanding of why @Sadras and @Bedrockgames enjoy alignment mechanics, and neither has posted to tell me I'm wrong though both are clearly following and participating in the thread. (Perhaps you have some other poster in mind - @Hussar ? It would aid communication if you made it clear who you are talking about.)

I am speaking about you... since you keep categorizing my desire to play with mechanical alignment as based on punishing unruly players when I have given other reasons I enjoy it. Perhaps I haven’t been clear or direct enough so here are a few snippets of posts I’ve made, some are even addressed to questions you presented, as to why outside of punishment I can enjoy mechanical alignment… Hopefully these clear things up…

“As to what the "evaluative shorthand" of alignment could do to improve this episode (and note this is a purely subjective thing) is to communicate that these actions have a greater cosmological influence than just what is happening in the hear and now... that your actions have much more far reaching implications as even the tiniest of choices can tilt the world more or less towards one of the cosmological states that are represented by the forces of alignment... IMO, it's more Moorcockian and even Tolkien-esque than Howardian as far as the type of setting it speaks to, stories it produces and, implications that naturally arise. Will this improve your particularly play... I doubt it as you've made it clear there really is no answer concerning alignment that will give it a favorable view in your eyes.”

“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.”

“ …I am curious about one thing and your views on it. Earlier I said D&D is one of the few/only (if you don't count clones separately) FRPG's to use alignment in a mechanical sense, as a role playing tool, as cosmological forces and as a moral guideline for it's campaign worlds, gods and planes. With the multitude of FRPG's out there that have no alignment in them or even alternate ways of dealing with personality and/or belief such as your often cited BW or Heroquest... why is it important that D&D become like the multitude of other games out there and remove the effect of alignment? “

But as @Manbearcat said, those reasons don't speak to me (and I believe they do not speak very strongly to my players either). And I don't understand why you and @N'raac are trying to persuade me I'm confused about my own preferences and my own play experience.

I'm not concerned with whether my reasons speak to you or not, and I said a while back in this thread I am not trying to persuade you of anything (I guess you forgot/missed that) as well. What I'm concerned with is clearing up the reason I like alignment that I feel you are mis-representing.

You're joking, right? I posted 5 posts yesterday evening (from 684 to 689, with one of those being S'mon) amounting to around two-and-half thousand words. I explained in (excruciating) detail the difference between evaluative and non-evaluative judgement, between various forms of penalty, between mechanical effectiveness and fictional positioning.

Not joking at all, here's just one small example of what I mean...

I
They were not taken outside the action resolution mechanics. They were taken as part of the resolution of a skill challenge. Furthermore, it is inherent in a 4e familiar that it may be shut down. And it is inherent in a 4e artefact like the Eye of Vecna that it is somewhat overpowered but also potentially temperamental.

Nowhere in your example is there mention of a skill challenge with a failure condition where the player loses his familiar and magic item… and nowhere in your previous addressing of this issue was it mentioned… and yet all of a sudden it wasn't DM fiat or judgement (which has been the point since it was first brought up), instead now a SC is the real reason they were taken away…

If you want to persuade me that I'm wrong to think alignment is an impediment to my play experience, why don't you write up some actual play reports that illustrate how great it is?

Here we go again... let me repeat... I AM NOT TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU OF ANYTHING... that doesn't mean I won't question your statements or views, call out what I see as incoherent, state my own views about alignment, etc. That's why it's a forum and not your personal blog.

Similarly, if you think the way I run my game is no different from yours or @N'raac 's, post some play reports and then we'll see.

No, I don't know enough about how you actually run a game to make a statement like that... but that example you posted doesn't, IMO, illustrate what you're preaching... and I as well as various other posters have presented why we view it that way.

 

[pemerton]

Nowhere in your example is there mention of a skill challenge with a failure condition where the player loses his familiar and magic item

At the climax of the action - which at this point was being resolved as a skill challenge, which is a fairly tightly defined mechanical subsystem for determining the outcome of certain events in a 4e game

The quote from me is from the post in question. As you can see, it mentions that the events described occur in the context of a skill challenge.

you keep categorizing my desire to play with mechanical alignment as based on punishing unruly players when I have given other reasons I enjoy it.

Where have I said that?

I am not trying to persuade you of anything

<snip>

I AM NOT TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU OF ANYTHING... that doesn't mean I won't question your statements or views, call out what I see as incoherent

So you're not trying to persuade me, just point out that I'm incoherent in stating my own preferences and experiences.

The basic cleric in every edition (with the possible exception of 4e) could never be considered a non-warrior... ever. And some editions including 3.x/PF allow you to make an even more warrior oriented cleric, so this excuse seems to hold little water.

<snip>

a fighter/cleric or even a cleric is a warrior in nearly every edition of D&D.

<snip>

paladins in 4e are aberrant when compared to paladins in every other edition. They are little more than divine mercenaries that are not beholden to anything higher than or outside of themselves.

It's not an excuse. It's a reason. A cleric is, traditionally, a priest. A paladin is, traditionally, an honourable warrior called to divine service.

I don't see what 3E or PF particularly has to do with my conception of the paladin - I don't play either of those games. I also don't see why 4e is aberrant, when in the view of some players - including me - it actually has the best realisation of the paladin archetype in any edition of the game, especially with the STR/CHA split: it is the only version of the game to mechanically realise the difference between Lancelot (STR) and Galahad (CHA).

As to the divine mercenary thing: the OED defines mercenary as "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army", which seems pretty accurate. (Perhaps the "foreign" aspect is optional, particular when talking about pre-modern military organisations.)

The 4e PHB pp 89-90 characterises paladins thusly:

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause . . .​

What strikes me in that is "pledg[ing] . . . to something greater than themselves", the "exampl[e] of divine ethos in action", the "pure and simple" movitvation, the "obligations", and the "fervent crusad[ing]". None of that screams "mercenary" to me. There is no mention of a pact, no mention of a payment, no mention of a readiness to be bought away. And that text, particularly those bits I've called out, expressly contradicts your claim that the 4e paladin is not beholden to anything outside him-/herself.

 

[pemerton]

that example you posted doesn't, IMO, illustrate what you're preaching

Preaching? A poster asked whether anyone had ever found alignment to be an impediment to play. I answered that I had. And [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], and then subsequenlty you in agreement with him, posted arguing that I was wrong. I'm not preaching - I don't care what anyone else does in their game - I'm just explaining why I am not wrong in my own characterisation of my own play experience.

It doesn't bother me that you and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and others enjoy using alignment in your games. As I've mentioned multiple times, I'd be interested to see some actual play reports illustrating how you use it and derive pleasure from that use.

As to the example you seem puzzled by: nothing in that example involves me as GM making an evaluative judgement about what the player did, nor subjecting the player's own evaluative judgement to any sort of scrutiny. It does not involve any challenge to the player's conception of his character. In fact it affirms the player's conception of his character: he understood his character to be opposing Vecna, and that understanding was affirmed via consequences flowing from that choice.

The only reason I can imagine that you might see that as contradicting what I have said is because you have adopted [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s imputation to me of the view that actions should never carry consequences in the fiction, rather than my repeated assertions to the contrary (including via agreement with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s notion of "phsical consequences", which would include a familiar being shut down).

 

[Imaro]

The quote from me is from the post in question. As you can see, it mentions that the events described occur in the context of a skill challenge.

So did they loose the skill challenge or win? In other words what mechanical resolution of the SC (failure or success) allowed you to take away his character build resources? Again this was one of the main focuses of discussion when you first presented this example and you never stated it was taken as part of the SC until much later in the conversation.

Where have I said that?

Really??? I'm not about to go back through the thread to pick out specific examples, but you've constantly harped on this point concerning both [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and myself.

So you're not trying to persuade me, just point out that I'm incoherent in stating my own preferences and experiences.

I'm trying to discuss... but even when something isn't about you... it sudden;ly becomes about you, see below.

It's not an excuse. It's a reason. A cleric is, traditionally, a priest. A paladin is, traditionally, an honourable warrior called to divine service.

Wait a minute are you claiming that the cleric throughout numerous editions has not been more warrior than priest? Are you being serious right now? The original cleric was created as a warrior against the undead, not as a priest.

I don't see what 3E or PF particularly has to do with my conception of the paladin - I don't play either of those games. I also don't see why 4e is aberrant, when in the view of some players - including me - it actually has the best realisation of the paladin archetype in any edition of the game, especially with the STR/CHA split: it is the only version of the game to mechanically realise the difference between Lancelot (STR) and Galahad (CHA).

BUT ... [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is playing 3.x/PF... and that's who I was commenting on, you then chose to reply so I'm not sure why this line of conversation has suddenly (again) become something about you personally... that wasn't the original context of the discussion. The paladin in 4e being aberrant has nothing to do with your personal feelings about it, it's a statement of fact... it is the only paladin (including BECMI) that doesn't have any alignment restrictions, and thus yes by the definition of aberrant (different from the usual or natural type)... it is. Whether you like it mnore or not has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Again, it's not about you personally.

As to the divine mercenary thing: the OED defines mercenary as "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army", which seems pretty accurate. (Perhaps the "foreign" aspect is optional, particular when talking about pre-modern military organisations.)

The 4e PHB pp 89-90 characterises paladins thusly:

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory! . . .

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause . . .​

What strikes me in that is "pledg[ing] . . . to something greater than themselves", the "exampl[e] of divine ethos in action", the "pure and simple" movitvation, the "obligations", and the "fervent crusad[ing]". None of that screams "mercenary" to me. There is no mention of a pact, no mention of a payment, no mention of a readiness to be bought away. And that text, particularly those bits I've called out, expressly contradicts your claim that the 4e paladin is not beholden to anything outside him-/herself.

What mechanical effect represents that pledge in the game? Can that same pledge be easily transferred with no penalties to something else, for whatever reason? Is it the paladins choice to decide what and who he serves whenever he feels like it? I mean 4e talks a good game but the mechanics don't back up a character who is beholden (being under obligation for a favor or gift) to anything for anything. In earlier editions the paladin truly was beholden to something greater than himself for the gift of his powers... in 4e he's simply not.

 

[Herschel]

Alignment is part of the setting.

Only when it's chosen to be. The issue is mechanically ingraining alignment, not its existence.

Unfortunately I do not have the stats, but I guarantee you a fair number of players look at ways to optimise their character builds mechanically, which is not wrong, but that reflects a predisposition to choose on mechanics rather than the concept of a character and that is normal given that D&D is still a game.
Given that a class such as a paladin is arguably more conceptual in nature than most of the other classes (less gamist), it requires boundaries of a conceptual nature which might otherwise be broken by munchkinist/gamist tactics. Hence it is better to have an external adjudicator (i.e. not the player).

These paragraphs are a direct contradiction, at least as far as early editions go. If you wanted to play a front-line beatstick/tank, Paladin was a superior mechanical choice. The heavy restrictions were a rather clumsy way to balance the class by making it harder to choose.

 

[Umbran]

Only when it's chosen to be. The issue is mechanically ingraining alignment, not its existence.

But that logic is entirely reversible. Folks who don't like to play with alignment say that the problem is that it has ingrained mechanical impact. The folks who like playing with alignment would say there's a problem with *not* having a clear and well-rooted mechanical impact.

Both sides are entirely correct. Having the game written with things that you don't personally like is a pain. Go figure!

This reduces the issue to a much more general and simple question: How flexible are you in the face of things that aren't as you, personally, would have them?

 

[TwoSix]

Both sides are entirely correct. Having the game written with things that you don't personally like is a pain. Go figure!

This reduces the issue to a much more general and simple question: How flexible are you in the face of things that aren't as you, personally, would have them?

I would say, broadly, that's it easier to remove and replace mechanics you don't like than to have to make them up whole cloth. So I would leave alignment in, especially since its mechanical footprint is so small.

If something alignment specific comes up, just define it terms of allegiances or supernatural categories.

 

[Hussar]

Imaro - your last bit about being beholden is why I characterize your views of mechanical alignment as using alignment to punish errant players.

It's true. A 4e paladin is not under any mechanical reasons for behaving like a paladin. That's because you don't actually need the stick to force players to play their characters.

People who play paladins in 4e do so because they want to play paladins. Not because playing a paladin is any sort of advantage. Why choose the archetype and then not play it? There's no advantage. Min max gamist play doesn't enter into it.

It would be like playing a wizard but choosing to wear armor and use a sword. Sure you can do it but why bother? Why not play a fighter?

IOW you don't need mechanical alignment in order to play moralistic characters.