Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Cadence]

From what I've read so far, the response is going to be along the lines of
...
3) if alignment is used it forces them to micro manage the players so that even less extreme situations would require telling the players what to do.

Pretty much spot on.

Now, how is this a mistaken view of alignment?

[Micromanagement is] manage[ment] or control with excessive attention to minor details.

Micromanagement generally has a negative connotation.

If you're referring to play according to 1e RAW, then it seems to be pretty close.

If you're referring to what those of us who use alignments do in practice and have been describing over the previous few 100 posts, then it seems off. As we've said up-thread, we're just on the look out for repeated actions (you don't get punished for a single non-egregious action) of non-edge things (alignments are big tents; things that are bad enough that they're obviously not fitting to a cursory view) and that even then we don't take control of the character or make them lose levels (like in the 1e and harsher 2e sense), they just lose access to their alignment requiring powers. (I thought it seemed related to what @pemerton describes as doing as far as deities keeping tabs on their clerics and other divine class followers, except he avoids having to make loaded-language moral judgments of the players).

Calling this "micromanagement" seems like saying a real life supervisor at work micromanages your computer usage because you can be demoted and lose network access for having porn or obvious games on your office computer screen that's visible to customers and other employees walking buy. Or that the state police micromanage your driving by giving out tickets if you're going 30 over the speed limit or are switching lanes repeatedly and tailgating.

Micromanagement would seem more like having overkill web-blocking software or a supervisor with their desk set up to see all the employees screens, write down all the times they're off task for a few seconds, and hand them a computer use violation memo if anything was noticed. Or like having the state police send out robo-tickets from a battalion of cameras set to notice the slightest rolling stop or anything at all over the speed limit. These two do certainly sounds like 1e (and part of 2e) raw. Has a single poster upthread said they played that way... even in 1e?

Yet, funnily enough, no one ever talks about how that barbarian isn't following his alignment. After all, the penalties are almost as strict as for a divine class. What higher power is taking away his ability to rage? Bards who become lawful can no longer progress as Bards. So on and so forth.

Chaotic doesn't mean going against the law all the time - you can walk on the side-walk and not the grass or tell the truth when it suits you and not violate chaotic. So even in strict 1e land wouldn't it be harder to violate being Chaotic than it would Lawful?

(Edit: Thanks @N'raac , should say "Even chaotic doesn't ... violate being non-Lawful than it would Lawful?")

I've never played or DMed a Bard in 3/3.5 so didn't realize they had an alignment restriction. It's gone in PF for the Bard but still there for Barbarians and Monks. The Barbarian restriction seems firmly rooted in Howard's Conan - the defining trait of the barbarian is being the uncivilized other. So they can't rage when they lose that and become "civilized". I'd be ok with nuking that one. For the Monk, requiring lawful seems to be a bad way of enforcing "being disciplined" and I'd nuke that one.

I can certainly see better ways that alignment could have been done - maybe tie it directly to the views of particular gods and only have outsiders and divine classes have "alignments" that are affected by the spells. In PF, for example, clerics don't lose access to any spells for being just one shift over in alignment, they lose stuff for violating the will of their deity who is giving them the spells. (How this works for clerics worshiping more nebulous concepts doesn't seem to be explained in RAW beyond "work with your GM").

Well considering his statement was a general one that stated alignment was always needed for enforcing player behaviour then I would think you need to take that up with him.

I'm trying to find the post where one of the pro-alignment people actually said "always needed for enforcing" without some qualifiers that change the spirt of the words.

My group has no need for this because my players have no problem maintaining their character's integrity and would see compromising that as no fun.

So you're saying that having mechanical alignment wouldn't change a single thing about how your table runs. Cool. <- indicating that I recognize this could be putting a spin on your words to suit my own purposes

 

[N'raac]

OK, I'm going to dig through this point by point. Some misunderstanding may arise from the summary nature of the discussion (ie there are mechanics behind the prose that have not been stated) and some from my lack of expertise with 4e in general.

I have also stressed the location of the relevant consequence within the bog-standard framework of action resolution. In the same skill challenge, the player of the fighter spent an encounter power to aid with an earlier check. As a result, he did not have that power available in the combat that occurred between the 7th and 8th successes. The treatment of the imp is no different.

If I understand this correctly, the fighter chose to expend an encounter power in order to enhance his success at a check. Key here being the player made the choice to expend a resource. My read of your summary was that the player did not choose to have the familiar impaired, nor did he trade access to the familiar for some enhancement to his ability to achieve success in the skill challenge. Perhaps my read is in error (eg. he said "I will use my Familiar to get a bonus to the roll - I assume that will put it out of commission for a while"), but there is no indication of this in your prior posts.

This is what happens when actions are resolved. In the same skill challenge, several players spent action points. They previously had them available, but after expenditure did not.

Again, a resource expended by choice of the player for some perceived benefit.

In the same skill challenge, two or three PCs tood damage. They previously had hit points available, but had to dedcut them (and ultimately the healing surge required to replenish them).

I assume they took damage by virtue of the action resolution mechanics. I don't recall any indication that the familiar had a to hit or damage roll made against him, received any from of saving throw, etc. All I saw described was that Vecna put the familiar out of commission.

Here are some comments in the 4e rules on how to adjudicate skill challenges, and impose consequences for choices made and actions declared:

DMG pp 74, 76
What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure.

Beyond those fundamental rewards, the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward. . .

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat — experience and perhaps treasure.​

So far, all about rewards. I assume we agree denial of abilities is not a reward. A penalty for failure is noted, but my understanding was that they succeeded.

DMG2 p 86
Here are some options you might want to account for in desiging a skill challenge: . . .

* Voluntarily taking damage . . . or sacrificing a healing surge.

In this particular case, the player voluntarily chose to take a penalty - 1 hp of damage to his PC's familiar - in return for achieving an outcome, namely, stopping Vecna getting access to the soul energy.

This reinforces my suspicion that your description left out a key point. This is the first indication I have seen that it was the player who chose to lose access to the familiar, rather than this being a consequence imposed by the GM acting as Vecna. That seems a very crucial fact, and I am surprised it would not have been raised earlier, as every comment seems to have noted the surprise that the GM unilaterally removed access to this resource. Note: I do not consider it "voluntary" unless the player initiated loss of access to the familiar's abilities. If he said "I think I will channel the energy to the RQ" and was told Vecna might punish him, that seems little different than the Paladin being told his declared action of burning down an orphanage might result in loss of his Paladin abilities (little different in spirit; very different in scope).

Next you'll be saying I'm inconsistent because, in combats with Orcus's demons, I have them attack the paladin of the Raven Queen first - Oh no, I'm depriving him of his hit points by judging him to be an enemy of Orcus! This is the first time I've ever encountered the suggestion that a paladin becoming a mere fighter forever more is no different from taking some hit point damage in a fight.

Taking damage requires the action mechanics be employed - he could have avoided damage had the roll to hit failed, and the amount of damage was not set arbitrarily.

But it does open up a question. By declaring himself a follower or servant of the RQ, the player takes on a measure of ownership of the RQ. By declaring himself the implacable foe of Orcus, does he take on a similar measure of ownership of Orcus? Can he then say "No, Orcus wishes his foes to suffer by watching all their friends and comrades suffer and die horribly, while they live on - he would attack my character LAST, not first!"?

In forming the opinion that the invoke's allegiance to Vecna is ambiguous, I am not adjudicating any action as part of my role as referee. I am simply describing the state of the game fiction, as I understand it based to a significant extent on discussions with the player of the PC in question. I don't understand how this has any bearing on whether or not mechanical alignment is an impediment to my play experience.

Speaking for myself, I am addressing your broad comments earlier that the role playing choices of the character should not impair their mechanical effectiveness. The Paladin chooses how to role play service to his calling, and his powers remain available whatever the choice. But the invoker chooses how to role play the balance of service to his various masters, and his familiar is rendered unavailable. That is a mechanical impairment resulting due to his role playing. So I perceive this as inconsistent with your stated reason for disliking mechanical alignment. Obviously, mechanical alignment is not in play in your game, or in the 4e milieu from what I see, so the issue is not directly mechanical alignment, but the philosophy behind your distaste for mechanical alignment.

See, this is not an evaluative judgement in the sense that I have characterised and used that phrase.

Just for clarity, that would be the phrase you cannot actually characterize or explain because you would violate board rules?

It is judging whether or not the PC's conduct satisfies the desirs of another. Whereas I am talking about judging whether or not a PC's conduct expresses or promotes a value.

"Service to my masters" is not a value? The invoker lost his familiar for not serving Vecna's will. It seems that certain values get judged and others do not, based on whether you consider yourself an appropriate judge of consistency to those values.

The scene has already been played, so I'm not sure how relevant it is that other options were open, or that you might have done it differently.

So we should not pose hypothetical questions, because the play is what is important. And we cannot question scenes which have already been played, as that is not relevant. What's left to discuss?

But if a player lets me know that his PC has doubts that he is living up to his requirements, and then tells me that he want to discuss the matter with his god, I don't feel any obligation to tell him that his doubts were misplaced.

I thought that whether he is right or wrong was a decision for him and him alone to make, and its results to be determined in play. In fact, you initially dismissed the possibility of seeking guidance from the deity noting that 4e lacked a commune-type spell. Now, you describe a scene designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics where the GM expresses the views of the Raven Queen directly and explicitly to the character, with no use (or none described) of any action resolution mechanics.

This is a fairly banal example that shows why my experience is not in accordance with you and other posters who seem to assume that the absence of mechanical alignment means that, for the character in question, anything goes. This PC, as played by this player, had doubts about his resolution. I, playing his mistress to whom he put the matter, urged him to be more resolute.

But she could not have sent a more subtle sign earlier, such as a dream, denial of some power until he returns to the business at hand, etc.? It seems you are now taking on precisely the role you indicated you refused - evaluating the consistency of the character's conduct with his stated allegiances.

The one who inspired Aragorn, Arthur, Lancelot, Roland et al.

Leaving Roland out (on spec, not with any evidence), which of those characters demonstrated any form of supernatural powers? We seem to be assuming each and every character who expresses some devotion to a higher ideal to be a Paladin. What prevents them being a Fighter with a strong moral code, and nothing more? The Paladin gains supernatural powers - which of these characters demonstrates supernatural powers?

The fact is that little source material aligns perfectly with the game rules, much less those rules applied to a specific setting for the game.

I've never had any trouble playing and GMing paladins - who in my view are inherently located within an ethic of this sort, in particular one in which the divine speaks unerringly on questions of value - once mechanical alignment is put to one side.

So, once we assume whatever they do is consistent with their code, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code. Sounds a bit circular to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Where is the actual play?

At the table, not on the message board, nor in the rulebooks which we discuss on the message boards.

This is like @Sadras's example upthread - as far as I can tell these are mere hypotheses. They are not examples from your actual play. Nor are they examples from my actual play. As best as I can tell, they are not example from any play that any poster on these boards has expeienced or heard of. So what is their relevance?

If it actually happens in my game, then I'll get back to you on how it unfolded.

At which time, may I assume any comments will be reviewed with something like

The scene has already been played, so I'm not sure how relevant it is that other options were open, or that you might have done it differently.

Chaotic doesn't mean going against the law all the time - you can walk on the side-walk and not the grass or tell the truth when it suits you and not violate chaotic. So even in strict 1e land wouldn't it be harder to violate being Chaotic than it would Lawful?

Is any character class required to be Chaotic (Anti-Paladins, I suppose) rather than Non-Lawful? The only sign of a "Lawful rather than Chaotic" bias I can think of off the top of my head is evaluating possible choices of actions based on what the organized hierarchy, tradition, etc. would suggest, rather than making a decision based on personal viewpoints. But I also think that Chaos is hard to play, because the character should not be predictable, and we don't tend to that kind of approach. When Elric drops a huge reward (whether paid or plundered) into the sand, says "Come along, Moonglum" and walks away, that scene struck me as Chaotic. If the Barbarian looks to his tribal elders and does whatever they advice, without considering a viewpoint of his own, that seems pretty contradictory to Chaos (which may be why Barbarians aren't even all that common in Barbarian tribes).

 

[Cadence]

Is any character class required to be Chaotic (Anti-Paladins, I suppose) rather than Non-Lawful?

Ack. It is just non-lawful. Put an edit in my post above to fix that.

But I also think that Chaos is hard to play, because the character should not be predictable, and we don't tend to that kind of approach.

Chaotic in the D&D sense doesn't seem like it should be impossible to predict, just harder to entirely narrow down with certainty. You can't tell when the chaotic pirate crew will rebel against their captain, but its a safe bet they will do so at some point in the not to distant future. Is any alignment that goes against one's real life persona hard to play because it's so easy to either play one's self or play a cliche?

I wonder what leads to more bad caricature's instead of characterizations -- trying to play chaotic evil or lawful good turning into lawful stupid. (Whenever I hear evil party I automatically flash back to some WoD players describing a Sabbat game they also play in -- where all of the actions sound like those of stupid petty humans and not inhuman at all.)

 

[Abraxas]

In response to this, how do you deal with new players entering into the group who do not possess the roleplaying experience perhaps necessary to stick to the paladin/'LG' code? What about a group of new players? I mean I understand most of us are fortunate to have long established gaming circles, so we do not worry about using the alignment 'stick', myself included, but certainly I can see the value of alignment as a learning tool which deters inconsistent play by newbies and remember it wont be just sprung up on them in a useless terrible fashion "You did many bad acts, you are evil now" it will be a constant discussion during sessions between DM and players, players and players, examining the roleplaying of ones character. I can certainly see the value of alignment for learning purposes which also integrates with the setting.

Having DMed for a lot of new players - including 2 or 3 groups consisting of entirely new players - the following is my experience.

1) I talk to all the players and let them know what my expectations for the game are as a DM and ask them what they want to get out of the game. The way this is expressed depends very much on the age/maturity of the players and how serious they want the game to be.

2) Most new players don't have a tough time figuring out what is expected if you can give them a point of reference. I usually tell people that a Paladin should be like Captain America or the Lone Ranger. If I want more grim & gritty, with less direct divine intervention, I suggest Sparhawk. (If anyone doesn't think these are good examples of a Paladin - I don't care - they are examples of what I expect of a paladin)

3) In the beginning I'm more lenient - with more divine warnings, or NPC mentor guidance, etc.

4) I reward playing to the archetype in ways that makes the game fun for everyone at the table.

5) I don't allow Paladins (or Clerics) of an ideal or philosophy. They have to have a patron deity.

 

[pemerton]

For myself, and I believe a number of others on this side of the fence, alignment in the game is fine. It's a nice little shorthand and it helps to give players a handle on the motivations of their character. As far as that goes, that's fine.

My personal beef is mechanical alignment. Where "violating" alignment carries mechanical penalties.

Every version of D&D has had alignment, but the degree to which that has carried mechanical elements varies greatly. On one end you've got 4e and Basic/Expert D&D, and really OD&D, which have alignment, but, very, very few mechanics tied to that.

I find shorthand alignment more useful for NPCs/monsters than for PCs - it is way of getting a quick handle on what an author intended as the cosmological motivation of some character - but I agree with you that it is harmless and at worst not very useful.

This is what 4e and B/X are like.

For me, the biggest issue with mechanical alignment is not the mechanical penalties - though I don't like that either - but the need to judge and track.

 

[pemerton]

I am addressing your broad comments earlier that the role playing choices of the character should not impair their mechanical effectiveness. The Paladin chooses how to role play service to his calling, and his powers remain available whatever the choice. But the invoker chooses how to role play the balance of service to his various masters, and his familiar is rendered unavailable.

Are we still stuck on this point?

The paladin's play can lead to mechanical consequences, such as taking damage.

The invoker's play can lead to mechanical consequences, such as his familar taking damage.

I don't see how this is rocket science.

Taking damage requires the action mechanics be employed

Yes. It's called the skill challenge mechanic. The player could either have his PC let Vecna have the souls, or have his PC send them to the Raven Queen but take damage to his familiar. He took the latter option.

That is a mechanical impairment resulting due to his role playing. So I perceive this as inconsistent with your stated reason for disliking mechanical alignment.

As far as I can tell, you are the only person posting in this thread who equates taking damage for angering an NPC with a permanent change to character class for making an immoral choice.

And that equation is what your imputation of inconsistency depends upon.

I certainly don't feel the force of the implied equation and hence don't feel the force of the impuation of inconsitency.

Just for clarity, that would be the phrase you cannot actually characterize or explain because you would violate board rules?

I actually defined "evaluatively meaningful decision" at some length upthread, I would guess around post 460 or so. I have not gone up and searched for it.

In one of the posts I quoted about half-a-dozen posts upthread, I also made the point that the metaphysics and epistemology of value and of evaluative judgement are very different from those of description and descriptive judgements. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has also made this point several times now.

Here are examples of expressive, evaluative judgement: a player forming a view about whether his/her PC, or some other NPC or occurence, is honourable, or beautiful, or just, or truthful.

Deciding that someone is angry is not an evaluative judgement. It is just description.

"Service to my masters" is not a value?

The word "service" is a subtle word. It can encompass a range of meanings, from "doing what someone wants" to "honouring someone" to "doing what is good for someone, even if they don't know it".

I don't see how it is in play in this particular case, though, because the invoker in question is not motivated by a desire to serve Vecna. As I have posted multiple times, the player did not think that by thwarting Vecna his PC was serving Vecna. He knew he was thwarting Vecna. That was his goal. There is some resemblance to the idea, discussed upthread, of a player deliberately playing his/her paladin to fall.

So, once we assume whatever they do is consistent with their code, there's no difficulty assessing their compliance with said code.

Who is the "we" here? It's certainly not me. I don't assume that everything a paladin PC does is consistent with his/her code. I follow the lead of the player in that respect.

This goes back to the basic point that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] have made: at least some players, including those that (it seems) the three of us play with, are capable of playing PCs who honour a code without needing the GM to police that for them.

I thought you said upthread that you don't need to police your players either. Yet presumably you don't take the view that whatever they do would be compliant with their codes. So why would you suppose that others think differently?

I thought that whether he is right or wrong was a decision for him and him alone to make, and its results to be determined in play. In fact, you initially dismissed the possibility of seeking guidance from the deity noting that 4e lacked a commune-type spell. Now, you describe a scene designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics where the GM expresses the views of the Raven Queen directly and explicitly to the character

<snip>

But she could not have sent a more subtle sign earlier

You seem to have a great love of judging others' play while posting no examples of your own.

Anyway.

First, you are wrong about what I said upthread. I noted upthread that epic PCs come into contact with gods.

Second, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the scene is designed outside the rules and outside the action resolution mechanics. The scene comes about precisely by application of the action resolution mechanics: the PC died in combat, and hence his soul went to the Raven Queen.

Third, this is the fourth time a dead PC in my game has met with the Raven Queen and been tasked with something. The other occasions involved 2nd, 3rd and 15th level PCs. Here is a link to the last of those.

Fourth, if a player wants his PC to talk with his mistress - whom he is meeting, having died - about whether or not he should be more resolute, why would I not play through that scene? And how is this meant to resemble judging whether or not a player is playing his/her PC properly?

Leaving Roland out (on spec, not with any evidence), which of those characters demonstrated any form of supernatural powers? We seem to be assuming each and every character who expresses some devotion to a higher ideal to be a Paladin. What prevents them being a Fighter with a strong moral code, and nothing more?

OK, so here's a new move: all those literary and mythical figures who are the inspiration for the paladin class - the ones who can pull holy swords from stones, who heal with a touch, whose mere presence lends inspiration to the followers and companions, who are warded by the divine from evil magic - are not actually paladins.

Each to their own, I guess, but I play paladins and clerics because I am moved by those stories and the themes they embody, and want to emulate or explore them in some way.

So we should not pose hypothetical questions, because the play is what is important. And we cannot question scenes which have already been played, as that is not relevant. What's left to discuss?

My objection to hypothetical questions is that - from you, from [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], from [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - they are intended as these knockdown refutations. As if the only way to stop these outrageous travesties of morals and of genre is to wield the hammer of mechanical alignment. Yet you deny you wield any such hammer.

So if you don't encounter those hypotheticals despite not wielding a hammer; and if I don't get them, which I know I don't; then why do you keep mentioning them? What do you think their purpose is?

 

[pemerton]

we're just on the look out for repeated actions (you don't get punished for a single non-egregious action) of non-edge things (alignments are big tents; things that are bad enough that they're obviously not fitting to a cursory view) and that even then we don't take control of the character or make them lose levels (like in the 1e and harsher 2e sense), they just lose access to their alignment requiring powers.

How often does this happen in play, in your experience?

 

[Hussar]

I find shorthand alignment more useful for NPCs/monsters than for PCs - it is way of getting a quick handle on what an author intended as the cosmological motivation of some character - but I agree with you that it is harmless and at worst not very useful.

This is what 4e and B/X are like.

For me, the biggest issue with mechanical alignment is not the mechanical penalties - though I don't like that either - but the need to judge and track.

I'd agree with this. Personally I think one leads to the other.

 

[Cadence]

How often does this happen in play, in your experience?

I think, like many of you, I've been blessed with an incredibly good group of RPers over the decades. I don't remember ever needing them (or ever using any mental energy to monitor player behavior because nothing jumped up and screamed at me as wrong).

This seems related to a broader-than-alignment-in-D&D question I've been mulling but haven't fully formed. Something like "Who are rules written for in games?" or "Should games include rules that could help shape the play of beginning players and give help to reign in the really bad ones... even if the long term better players will never need them?" or "Do we really need the rules to punish cheaters and encourage good RPing?"

Why do other types of games and sports have rules for punishing cheating if the good players we want to play with wouldn't do it? Did Gygax need to include the things about dealing with disruptive players if we've never needed them? Do RPGs really need a point buy system for ability scores (last 1e game and all the VtM games I've ever played the GM's trusted us to pick our scores and we didn't abuse them)? Should an RPG be designed around roles and niche protection if an experienced group of players already knows that?

Or more relevantly - should the game have a rule for cutting off the divinely given powers of a deity-worshiping divine-spellcaster if they really piss off their deity? Where I'm at right now, this seems like something that belongs in the rules, and I want to say enforcing alignment itself doesn't (although having it there doesn't bother me personally). But if one allows paladins and clerics that worship or get their powers from concepts like "goodness"... it seems to me like that should have a similar enforcement mechanism.

I'm hoping for time to go back to your comments on my PF alignment revision and ask you a few questions for a bit more clarification, but I'm not sure I'll get that time before Tuesday to actually make sure I've got my mental ducks in a row and have checked all the other posts since then. One of them seems like it should be related to the last sentence in the preceding paragraph.

 

[Manbearcat]

For me, the biggest issue with mechanical alignment is not the mechanical penalties - though I don't like that either - but the need to judge and track.

That is where I come from on this. I don't want the mental overhead while I'm GMing. I find it to be an unecessary distraction that pays no dividends while simultaneously not being thematically tight enough or focused enough (such as Beliefs, Distinctions, Aspects, Themes or a focused setting such as God's Watchdogs or What Will You Do For Power) to consistently assist me in hooking players and framing (relevant) scenes that drive play towards (relevant) conflict. "Rulership is more woe than weal for the honorable, but they are the only ones who should have it...for the wicked ruler eats the flank of the fattened calf and throws the rest out while his subjects starve in misery" gives me specific, weighty material from which to animate conflicts that "puts the player in a spot" and drives play toward conflict they are interested in. "Honor-bound, reliable, respects tradition and legitimate authority" isn't specific or weighty enough to cue me.

Beyond that, I certainly don't want the workload outside of gaming (my life is busy enough) for mediation conferences with players whose behavior I find may be aberrant with respect to their alignment (and they've either shifted or are heading that way).