So it's not a mistake on N'raac 's part... you're just not following the rules for familiars... got it.
Now, what I see here is that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] reads the rules for familiars and skill challenges, and concludes they were not followed. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] reads the same rules, and concludes that they were followed. Apparently, two different users of the rules come to entirely opposite conclusions on how they apply. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], how does this compare to your assertion that alignment is a bad system because two different GM’s can come to inconsistent, even opposing, conclusions and both be correct?
Wait so the player activated his familiar? Or did you take control of his resource, activate it so it could take damage and then arbitrarily take it away because he chose not to funnel souls to Vecna... If so, wow... you not only arbitrarily stripped him of the resource, you also took over control of the resource in order to strip it away without his consent...
I can’t speak for [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] on this, but for myself:
- I agree with the statement above;
- I believe [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s GMing of this was consistent with the in game fiction and made for gaming at least as good, and more probably significantly better, than mechanically applying the rules;
- my contention that removal of a character resource, whether temporary or permanent, without the player’s consent or direction, due to the character’s moral choices is inconsistent has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the rules were, or were not, followed – the prior edition rules that would remove a Paladins powers and/or reduce a character’s level due to alignment issues were also “the rules”, and were cited as bad rules (for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], at least) because they reduced the character’s ability to influence the in-game fiction inappropriately. He sees a significant difference between unilateral removal of the familiar because the player made a choice that a higher power relevant to the character disagreed with and removal of abilities for alignment issues. I don’t. That’s the disagreement.
I remember from one of these threads recently that OD&D only had L/N/G and I knew first hand it was true for B/X. But I had forgotten that Moldvay explicitly ended the descriptions with:
Did OD&D leave those out? What about the other versions of Basic?
I don’t believe OD&D linked Law to Good or Chaos to Evil explicitly. An old White Dwarf article suggested CG and LE, pointing to the Chaotic Doctor and the Lawful Daleks as not well handled by the three choice continuum.
The first Basic I read (the “blue book” with the Dragon) had the 5 alignment chart (LG, CG, LE, CE, N). Later editions, I think, went back to L, N, C.
What I find weird is that, if Mearls and Baker write a skill challenge in which a consequence is a change in recovery time, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; and if WotC publishes disease and curse rules which have, as one component, that recovery time for healing surges or powers is delayed, that is (presumably) permissible within the rules; but that if I implement such a consequence then I'm disregarding the action resolution mechanics!
What I find weird is any effort to defend whether this was consistent with the rules or not. You have told us the alignment rules are not good rules because they reduce a player’s ability to impact the fiction by removal of character resources. You then present a play example where you remove a character’s resources, reducing his ability to impact the fiction. Even if I assume that this was 100% consistent – exactly how the 4e rules were presented – even if it were an example of proper play from the rule book itself – that would still leave it a rule under which a player’s ability to impact the fiction is reduced by (temporary) removal of a character resource, due to the decisions made by the character/player in question.
Suppose the challenge had unfolded like this, instead: I invite the player to make a Perception check, and when he does I tell him that he notices a fire has started, and some MacGuffin is sitting in the middle of the fire. He then makes an Athletics check to have his PC rush in and grab the MacGuffin from the fire before it is burned to a crisp. If I said that the PC suffers level-appropriate fire damage, would you call that "GM fiat" not grounded in the action resolution rules?
Is this a hypothetical example, like the ones you dismiss when we present them? What check did the player make using his familiar to expose it to loss? I would call it GM fiat if the you said “As you prepare to rush in, your familiar darts in, clutches the MacGuffin in its claws and swoops out to your side, laying it at your feet as it collapses from the pain of its burns.” I don’t believe the player in your game used the character resource of his familiar to redirect the flow of souls (so it was not a resource used in the skill challenge), nor did he attempt to harm the familiar to do so (so its incapacitation was not a success of his roll).
Or here is another example, this one not hypothetical but from actual play, when the PCs reforged the dwarven thrower Whelm into the mordenkraad Overwhelm:
So you think another one will have more pleasant results?
I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. Was that the Dwarven Paladin? Do Paladins have mounts in 4e? Had you said “Your mount is injured and is unavailable for a period of time”, or “The magic flows from the weapon at your belt into Whelm, so your weapon is non-magical for a week”, that would be more comparable, in my view, to KOing the familiar. Both would incapacitate a resource the character had not invoked in the successful skill roll from which its loss was ruled to result. Had Vecna removed some power that he, in the fiction, grants to the Invoker, that would seem far more logical.
Are you really saying that it is not a permissible consequence of a successful skill challenge that a PC owe an NPC money?
The PC offered money. The Invoker did not, as I understand it, even activate his familiar, much less offer it as part of the stakes. You did.
It seems to me that the success of the Acrobatics check tells us whether or not the PC caught the widget in mid-air, but s/he is taking damage from the fall either way!
Sure. But his horse, follower, or what have you, which was no part of the check, didn’t jump in after him, and he didn’t break some unused magic item on landing.
And again Sadras, there is absolutely no problem with differences in opinion regarding interpretations. Two people looking at something might very well disagree whether it is truly beautiful.
But it's far more unlikely that one will say it's truly beautiful while the other says it has no redeeming qualities and is wholly ugly.
Compare the aesthetics of two cultures (21
st century North America and 15
th century Europe, say) on viewing a chubby young lady, 25 lb overweight, and a waif-thin supermodel. Their standards seem pretty different to me.
That's where the problem lies in alignment. That two people can have completely opposite interpretations and both be able to 100% justify those interpretations using the alignment definitions.
Kind of like Imaro and Permerton reach completely opposite interpretations of the familiar and skill challenge rules, huh? I find Imaro’s are justified, and I also see Pemerton’s point, so they’re both justified using the rules. I don’t know about 100%, but I suspect I would not perceive the two alignment judgments as each being 100% either.
When you use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:
Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM disagrees with the player's interpretation of alignment ---> The DM informs the player of the disagreement and the player is now beholden to accept the new interpretation ---> The player must now go back to the concept of his character and re-evaluate the character based on this new interpretation, changing his character to conform to the DM's interpretation.
In other words, the player must change his character's behaviour to conform to the DM's interpretation which is 100% external to the player's conception of his character. If he fails to change his behaviour, then the DM is obligated to invoke various consequences, up to and including permanently stripping character abilities.
However, when you don't use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:
Event occurs ---> Player reacts to the event based on the conception that the player has of his character ---> The DM causes in game reactions to the player's reactions which may be positive or negative as the case may be, based n the DM's interpretation of NPC's in the game.
That's the fundamental difference here.
I’ve inserted the example scenario below in
bold.
Event occurs
the Imp is transferring souls to Vecna ---> Player reacts to the event based on the player's interpretation of alignment
I will redirect them to RQ--- > The DM disagrees with the player's interpretation of alignment
You’re evil and sworn to Vecna ---> The DM informs the player of the disagreement and the player is now beholden to accept the new interpretation ---> The player must now go back to the concept of his character and re-evaluate the character based on this new interpretation, changing his character to conform to the DM's interpretation.
OBJECTION: The player is not required to change his character’s decision, only to abide by its consequences.
In other words, the player must change his character's behaviour to conform to the DM's interpretation which is 100% external to the player's conception of his character.
The player must let the souls flow to Vecna If he fails to change his behaviour, then the DM is obligated to invoke various consequences, up to and including permanently stripping character abilities.
The Powers of Evil demolish your familiar in their disappointment over your lackluster service (or the powers of Evil no longer serve you, so your Imp familiar leaves).
However, when you don't use mechanical alignment, the flow looks like this:
Event occurs
the Imp is transferring souls to Vecna ---> Player reacts to the event based on the conception that the player has of his character
I will redirect them to RQ ---> The DM causes in game reactions to the player's reactions which may be positive or negative as the case may be, based n the DM's interpretation of NPC's in the game.
Vecna demolishes your familiar in their disappointment over your lackluster service
Or, if we accept that the player knew full well the familiar was at risk, the player can either change his behaviour or suffer consequences, up to and including the indefinite removal of a character ability (now established to be a feat normally subject to temporary removal, which pemerton has decided will not recover in its usual timeframe).
I'm sorry? In that case, every 3E GM who ever told their players, "OK - you wake up and the sun is a fiery red in the East" is breaking the rules, because nowhere in the 3E rulebooks is the GM given express permission to frame that scene.
I think a sunrise and talking with your deity while dead are quite different in scope. I am also saying there are no rules for communing with the character’s deity while the character is dead, so any such interaction is not a “by the rules” scene, but a “GM Fiat” scene. There is nothing wrong with the latter, but neither are there rules for it in the game, so it cannot be conducted or adjudicated “in strict accordance with the rules” no rules govern its conduct or adjudication.
Can you tell me what text there even hints at the impermissibility of the GM framing a scene in which a dead PC interacts with the Raven Queen? Particularly if the player of the dead PC requests such a scene?
Can you show me any rule that governs how such an interaction is requested by the character, how it should be determined whether his request is granted or how the scene should be adjudicated? There are no such rules, I believe, and with no such rules, the entire scene is complete GM fiat. That’s not a bad thing, but it’s not an “in the rules” thing either.
So, contrary to your claim that curses and diseases are irrelevant, they are highly relevant. A key responsibility of a 4e GM is to manage pacing, and variations in pacing, and bonuses and penalties to recovery of resources relative to the normal recovery periods; the rules for curses and diseases provide a model for the way 4e handles can use those particular mechanical techniques to handle various sorts of fictional circumstances (for instance, many diseases delay the recovery of healing surges; a curse might delay the recovery of certain powers; etc).
They are mechanical rules for the removal of a character’s abilities, thus reducing the player’s ability to impact the fiction. So are mechanical alignment rules and undead level draining rules, both of which you have stated you consider bad rules, at least for your game.
The rule doesn't say that the owner "should" die instantly and crumble to dust.
Apparently, they say the owner
does die instantly and crumble to dust – emphasis added:
To quote for a 4th time (from pp 165 and 168 of the DMG): "A malevolent artifact such as the Eye of Vecna has no compunctions about leaving its owner at the most inopportune moment (for instance, ripping itself from the character’s eye socket during a battle). . . The Eye of Vecna consumes its owner, body and mind. The character dies instantly, and his body crumbles to dust." So at least two options are provided. With an implication (via the use of "for instance") that the GM might interpolate other options as seem appropriate.
I’ll accept you quoted that four times. Consider reading it this time.
Arcane Power, p 138, says this: "Your DM might maintain some light touch of control over how your familiar acts, or might allow you to completely control it."
In the case of my player, the parameters of "light touch of control" had already been fairly well established: for instance, as I believe I mentioned, in an earlier session the familiar had, without the PC's knowledge (or the player's until after the event) turned invisible and filched a ring from an NPC to give to the PC. And the player deliberately chose to implant the Eye of Vecna in his familiar, which obviously has implications for our shared understanding of the relevant "light touch of control".
So a “light touch of control” consists of the Familiar taking independent action, activating itself without the player’s consent, or even knowledge (he must make an Insight check to perceive it’s doing something), opposing the will of its master (he had to force it to redirect the soul energies) and then being removed from play. I’d hate to see a “heavy-handed approach”, but I guess two people can read the rule “light touch of control”, reach very different interpretation and (hey, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) both be 100% right under the rules.
He and his friends shut down the soul abattoir, stopped Vecna getting the resulting flow of souls, and escaped from the cavern alive. As well as these story rewards, they earned the relevant amount of XP. (Off the top of my head, 7000 each.) Two of the PCs - the cleric and paladin of the Raven Queen - also had their weapons and holy symbols enhanced from +5 to +6 due to their mistresses gratitude.
So she rewarded those already sworn to serve her for their involvement, but not the Invoker who chose her over his other obligations, suffered the loss of his familiar for it, and redirected the soul energies to her, and away from Vecna. Why does he get no reward (other than the xp everyone gets) for his service and success in the challenge?
What I have repeatedly said is that I do not like, as part of my role as GM, having to judge the adequacy of the evaluative judgements that my players make. In this case, that would mean that I don't what to have to decide whether or not the player did the right thing in having his PC choose the Raven Queen over Vecna. And guess what - I didn't do that!
The invoker expressed a value judgment – whether the souls should flow to Vecna, or to the Raven Queen. He then acted on it.
BUT I DIDN'T JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT HIS DECISION WAS CORRECT. Whereas alignment rules would require me to do that - to judge whether he did a good or evil thing.[/quote]
You did judge that an Evil deity disapproved. Do Evil deities tend to approve of Good acts, or Evil ones?
N’raac said:
I conclude that your objection to similar mechanics for Paladins, or for the alignment system, are not a hard and fast philosophy
My conclusion is an opinion, not a fact. I see it could be interpreted as an assertion of fact, so I apologize for that lack of clarity and state for the record it was an opinion. I have set out the support for my opinion, and it remains my opinion. Your objection to removal of character resources due to moral choices of the character (or player) is not absolute, in my opinion, but a matter of degree, as evidenced by your removal of the Invoker’s familiar as a consequence of that characters moral choice in directing soul energies.
It is no more “wrong” than your opinion that alignment, reasonably and properly applied, would be detrimental to your games.
BTW, the difference I see between Warlock and Paladin is that the warlock approaches the Power with an offer of service in exchange for a reward of power. The Paladin is rewarded with power as a consequence of his service. The Paladin chose service without demanding the reward first. A cleric could go either way. There is a significant similarity in that all are rewarded by higher powers for their services. Similarly, both a soldier serving his country and a mercenary working for the highest bidder are paid for their services. They are very different in other respects.
There is one thing at least where I agree with you here. Imposing penalties on a character just because the player breaks alignment, and not for some visible in game reason, is something I dislike (and I think the rules in 2E---dont recall if 3E advises this---give bad advise in that respect). What I like is using alignment for things like paladins, where the violation of alignment matters because their powers come from a relationship or connection with these cosmic forces or the gods. I also like it for things such as orotection from good/evil, magic weapons that interact with alignment, etc. So i differ from you in that i feel the GM handling alignment and treating it as an objective thing outside the characters is perfectly fine, but i agree that it is a bit stupid to dock the thief XP or take away his thief skills because he is being too Lawful. I also tend to focus on egregious alignment violation.
I think 2e suggested a natural alignment change might appropriately carry no XP penalty. I forget which direction 3e went in that regard. 1e had the harshest phrasing, I believe. I think most who favour the alignment rules do focus on egregious behaviour (one outrageous action or a consistent trend of clear, but less outrageous, behaviour) and the Powers granted for service to a specific being or philosophy.
