Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Imaro]

Speaking of ridiculous N'raac and imaro. You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar.

No one is arguing this, please go back and read what we have posted in this thread, if you still need clarification on our position I'm sure one of us can provide it for you.

Just how limited are the deities in your campaign? I always thought gods were the ultimate DMPC. They are gods. They can do pretty much anything.

Well in my campaign deities can strip both paladins and clerics of the powers they granted them... so I would say pretty powerful. However, in 4e, a deity can't even take away the power the rituals of his own church imbued a mortal with, so why would they be able to arbitrarily affect someone's familiar? If they have no control over their own worshipers and rites... You tell me how powerful they really are?

I did not realize that a familiar was more powerful than a god. Good to know.

Again, no one is arguing this and repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

In a battle against a 10th level demon the god will surely win and the familiar will loose (see he's more powerful)... However as I stated the gods power apparently isn't omnipotent when it comes to the rites and rituals their own church uses... so why should we assume a god can step outside the rules when it comes to a familiar??

 

[Imaro]

Think of how ridiculous this sounds:

Player: I think X is beautiful.

DM: no you are wrong. It is not only not beautiful but is wholly ugly. And you must now incorporate my definition if beauty into your character.

While I can certainly see preferring one thing to another, it would be pretty rare to see someone looking at a waterfall and saying, "that's an ugly waterfall. "

Let's...

Player (A Shadar Kai): I'm going to worship the god of beauty and praise her by piercing, tattooing and ritually scaring/cutting my body in numerous places...

DM: Hmm, that seems more like mutilation of your body as opposed to making it more beautiful...

Two opposing viewpoints, whose concept of beauty is correct?

 

[Imaro]

You are both supposing that you can know better than me whether or not a man you've never met, in a city that I imagine neither of you has ever been to, who has been a close friend of mine for 20-odd year, consented to his character suffering a certain consequence in an RPG.

The most ridiculous thing is that the only evidence you have that this event even occurred is my own testimony typed onto this message board, yet you won't accept my testimony that the player consented to what happened. In fact, not only did he consent, he SET IT UP. By implanting the Eye of Vecna into his familiar. I can't even imagine a more reckless and aggressive way of staking your familiar's welfare on your PC's relationship with Vecna.

So no implicit consent, got it.

Me! That's my job as GM - it's called introducing complications and presenting challenges for the players. But I have no idea what you mean by "secret backstory" here. It wasn't a secret that the imp had the Eye in it - the player chose to have his PC put it there! It wasn't a secret that Vecna craves the energy of souls and the Shadowfell - he's the god of necromancy who is a major recurring figure in the campaign!

But in "introducing complications" you arbitrarily took control of a character build resource... made it act against the player and then made it vulnerable to attack. That's not complicating, it's controlling and not a light control as you claimed above it's pretty blatant and pretty heavy control of a character build resource that you acted on in response to a decision the player made.

Because that's not the player's job. For good reasons - players have an obvious conflict of interest if they have to both advocate for their PCs and frame complications that get in the way of their PCs.

Oh, I agree... I even stated this earlier but what I don't understand is if you agree with this why for you it doesn't apply to complications arising due to morality? It's a complication... it can get in their way... and there is a conflict of interest so why is this the players job but other complications with conflicts of interest aren't??

Yes. Deciding to play off Vecna against Levistus by sticking the Eye in your Imp, then choosing to thwart Vecna when he takes advantage of that situation, then not pushing back when he inflicts retribution, are hugely salient.

Where in the description of the Eye of Vecna does it allow the DM to activate a familiar (in order to kill it) or the power to channel souls to Vecna? So unless you made the player aware of these house rules to the artifact... his decision to put it in his familiar wasn't salient to what you decided happened later.

Frankly, you and N'raac seem to be arguing for a boring game - where players make bold moves, and the GM just ignores them and putzes around with - well. what? - I'm not sure. Sunrises, maybe, rather than meetings with their immortal overlords! You seem to be suggesting that, as a GM, it's bad practice to follow your players lead and frame the conflicts around the signals sent by the player. Maybe I should have just ignored all the imp and Vecna stuff, and just run some pre-packaged railroad involving some irrelevant fetch quest chasingsome who-could-care-less MacGuffin?

It would be like having a character in 13th Age choose as their One Unique Thing "I am the last of the dwarven guardians", and then never framing them into a scene where they have to choose between saving the dwarfholmes or realising something else they value.

If you did it while arbitrarily controlling, making vulnerable and removing for an indeterminate time one of the dwarven guardians character build resources it would... but that is not what you are describing above.

In one of the Burning Wheel rulebooks, Luke Crane explains the role of player-purchased relationships: they're always the focus. So if a vampire is in town, and one of the PCs has a relationship with an NPC in that town, then of course it is that NPC that the vampire is stalking, or wooing! Who pays for a relationship just so it can be ignored? Who sticks the Eye of Vecna into their imp just so that nothing will happen?

Who said nothng should happen. Personally if I didn't want to invalidate character choice and character build resources I would have had the character decide whether his imp does or doesn't try to give souls to Vecna (offering him something in return for choosing too, I mean since you're using DM fiat any way)... I also would have been clear with the player that in order to do this his imp would have to be active (see how it's still his choice). If at that point the player chooses to have his imp do it I would then frame the scene where his character discovers the imp doing this... and we would play out from there to see what happens.

However,as you can tell from my position on mechanical alignment and the paladin being punished... I'm not claiming I have a problem with decisions affecting the character's ability to impact fiction... you were.

As I said, your prescriptions strike me as prescriptions for boring, colour-by-numbers RPGing.

Or perhaps you're just not seeing how they could be used properly and well...

You say these things so confidently, almost like you were in the room playing the game rather than thousands of kilometres away! You don't know how the familiar is going to come back. You don't even seem to have thought about the ways the familiar might be recovered.

I'm going by exactly what you have told me... so unless you are lying I should be confident in what I am saying since it is based on your account.

Just off the top of my head I can think of the following possibilities: supplication to Vecna; or a skill challenge to defeat Vecna's current hold on the imp; or a Remove Affliction ritual; or perhaps, given that the PC is very close to gaining a level, he tears the Eye from the imp and implants it in his own empty socket, vowing to use the Eye to take control of Vecna and all his works! (And then at 26th level retrains the familiar feat.)

This is like expecting the victim to have dealt with the crime better... it has nothing to do with the actions you took in order to achieve the results you wanted... so bringing up what the player should or could have done after you DM fiat'd the situation into the result you wanted is pointless.

Luckily I play with players who will think of these sorts of thing, or other things I haven't, and won't just sit around passively waiting for me to dole out prepackaged bits of plot like feeding the pigeons in the park.

Not sure how this even relates to the discussion... or are we at the point now where you're taking passive aggressive pot shots at other posters?

 

[Imaro]

Take a fairly known example. In the first Nolan Ryan Batman movie, at the end of the movie the Batman has Raz alGul trapped in the runaway train. Batman says that he won't kill him but he won't save him either and jumps away leaving Raz alGul to die.

Now is that an evil act or not? You can make a very good case either way. But with alignment there can be no ambiguity and no grey. Either it is evil and the DM strips the paladin or it's not and thus no moral shades of grey.

Evil in 3.5...

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Batman is clearly not acting evil. He is not killing anyone and is clearly acting in a neutral manner (moral shades of gray are still possible)... not making a sacrifice to protect or help Ra's Al'Ghul. It takes a willing act of evil for a paladin to fall and thus he would not fall in that situation. That took every bit of 10 secs on my part to decide after reading the entry...

In my game, there is no answer. Just varying interpretations. And I don't have to pretend that I actually do know the answer. For me, that's much more interesting.

First why are you making the decision as opposed to using the books to decide what the deity or cosmological force decides? Second.. you can't judge what is evil but you can decide with certainty what is and isn't "beautiful"... I find that confusing to say the least. I also find it confusing that it's not also interesting for you to leave the interpretation of things like beauty and strength up to interpretation but instead only god and evil or law and chaos...

 

[Bedrockgames]

You honestly think it's rare? Really?

Take a fairly known example. In the first Nolan Ryan Batman movie, at the end of the movie the Batman has Raz alGul trapped in the runaway train. Batman says that he won't kill him but he won't save him either and jumps away leaving Raz alGul to die.

Now is that an evil act or not? You can make a very good case either way. But with alignment there can be no ambiguity and no grey. Either it is evil and the DM strips the paladin or it's not and thus no moral shades of grey.

In my game, there is no answer. Just varying interpretations. And I don't have to pretend that I actually do know the answer. For me, that's much more interesting.

It is entirely up to the GM, but i think you can have grey within alignment. An act may simply not rise to the level of being firmly good, evil, lawful or neutral, because of all the factors involved or overlap. In this case, its a judgment call the gm makes. However, i never use alignment to surprise players. If the paladin is going to do what batman does here and i think it is a violation of his alignment, i would simply indicate to the player that he knows his god might disaprove or something.

Alignment isnt about knowing the real world answers to moral questions. If the GM labels the batman scenario an act of evil, i dont see that as a critique of my own ideas regarding the hyopthetical, i see it as the GM trying to apply his understanding of the alignments to the setting. Nothing more. I don't game to validate my moral opinions. If the setting says something is evil, but i think its good, i just see that as a setting feature.

 

[N'raac]

@Imaro has provided a great response I agree with, so I will try to reduce the point by point issue.

Speaking of ridiculous N'raac and imaro. You realize that you are arguing that it is impossible for a GOD to kill someone's familiar.


Just how limited are the deities in your campaign? I always thought gods were the ultimate DMPC. They are gods. They can do pretty much anything.

@Imaro has already noted that a deity lacking the power to take away powers that he granted in the first place seems pretty low powered too.

How can that GOD determine whether the Familiar’s moral choices, which are made by the player exactly as those of the PC are, justifies causing any harm to that familiar?

In any case, the question is not “can a God do this” but “did the 4e mechanics support this”.

This is the insulting bit, and outrageously arrogant also on N'raac's part.

Considering the source, I shall take the classification of “outrageous arrogance” as a compliment. Thank you!

Furthermore, there was no removal due to a moral choice. So can you please stop saying that.

??

Given the game I run, nearly everything that happens to the PCs is a consequence of a character's moral choice

The PC made a moral choice to redirect the flow of souls from Vecna to the Raven Queen. As a consequence, his familiar and the Eye itself were removed. At least that’s what I see.

No I haven't. Can you please stop imputing to me things that I have not said. I have asked you multiple times to not do that.

Are you now saying the removal of a Paladin’s or Cleric’s abilities (or another character’s level loss) – his influence over the fiction – is not a reason you consider mechanical alignment problematic? That is where my statement that “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” comes from.

I did read it. All of it. Including the bit that says the Eye of Venca might fall out of the PC's eye socket during a crucial battle. Do you think that's irrelevant? Meaningless?

The manner in which the Eye moves on – its consequences to the wielder – seemed quite specific in the rules about the Eye specifically. The general rule that an artifact could move on at any point seems not to be modified by, nor to modify, the manner in which this specific artifact moves on.

There's no rule in any version of D&D, other than perhaps Moldvay Basic, for framing the first scene. So that's all GM fiat now!

Yes, it IS all GM fiat. It is neither “in accordance with the rules” nor a “violation of the rules” – there are no rules to accord with or to violate. There are no mechanics to apply.

Because that's not the player's job. For good reasons - players have an obvious conflict of interest if they have to both advocate for their PCs and frame complications that get in the way of their PCs.

And yet we have been repeatedly told that the player’s conflict of interest does not, in any way, motivate them to play outside their character’s stated loyalties, moral code or alignment. Thank you for acknowledging that such a conflict of interest does, in fact, exist.

Frankly, you and N'raac seem to be arguing for a boring game - where players make bold moves, and the GM just ignores them and putzes around with - well. what? - I'm not sure. Sunrises, maybe, rather than meetings with their immortal overlords! You seem to be suggesting that, as a GM, it's bad practice to follow your players lead and frame the conflicts around the signals sent by the player. Maybe I should have just ignored all the imp and Vecna stuff, and just run some pre-packaged railroad involving some irrelevant fetch quest chasingsome who-could-care-less MacGuffin?

Once again, NO ONE is saying your game was bad. We are saying it seems inconsistent with your prior statements of why mechanical alignment would have been detrimental to it. I would suggest your game was GOOD precisely because pressure was placed on the players, and their characters, over their moral choices. But that is similar to the pressure that well-run alignment rules also place on players and their characters.

Or do you think the writers of 13^th Age and Burning Wheel somehow made a quantum leap forward, realizing that RPG’s should be interesting, where before the designers were aiming for a mixture of frustration and boredom?

Evil in 3.5...

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Batman is clearly not acting evil. He is not killing anyone and is clearly acting in a neutral manner (moral shades of gray are still possible)... not making a sacrifice to protect or help Ra's Al'Ghul. It takes a willing act of evil for a paladin to fall and thus he would not fall in that situation. That took every bit of 10 secs on my part to decide after reading the entry...

Agreed. The Paladin’s “grey area” (if we consider Bats a Paladin) is that he will not always take the Pure Good approach. In some cases, Law (his actions merit the penalty of death) may conflict with Good (respect for all life, his included), providing more or less tension. Frankly, the D&D model pretty much guarantees that respect for life can be overridden – mortal combat is a common element in the game.

A single non-good action is not “an alignment change”. A single Evil action does not change alignment from Good. If it did, the Paladin’s single evil act would not have to be singled out as causing loss of powers.

First why are you making the decision as opposed to using the books to decide what the deity or cosmological force decides? Second.. you can't judge what is evil but you can decide with certainty what is and isn't "beautiful"... I find that confusing to say the least. I also find it confusing that it's not also interesting for you to leave the interpretation of things like beauty and strength up to interpretation but instead only god and evil or law and chaos...

I am equally confused. I am also envisioning the God of RPG’s – the True Exemplar of All That Is Great in Gaming - assessing which version of D&D is to be preferred. Is it possible that even the Exemplar of a specific concept might see merit in a variety of different expressions and interpretations of that concept?

 

[Hussar]

No one is arguing this, please go back and read what we have posted in this thread, if you still need clarification on our position I'm sure one of us can provide it for you.



Well in my campaign deities can strip both paladins and clerics of the powers they granted them... so I would say pretty powerful. However, in 4e, a deity can't even take away the power the rituals of his own church imbued a mortal with, so why would they be able to arbitrarily affect someone's familiar? If they have no control over their own worshipers and rites... You tell me how powerful they really are?



Again, no one is arguing this and repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

In a battle against a 10th level demon the god will surely win and the familiar will loose (see he's more powerful)... However as I stated the gods power apparently isn't omnipotent when it comes to the rites and rituals their own church uses... so why should we assume a god can step outside the rules when it comes to a familiar??

Wait.. what? Who has claimed that a deity cannot remove the powers of a church? That's a new one.

All that has been claimed is that the DM will not use mechanical alignment as a reason for removing the powers of a church. If the deity in question wants to strip powers away, I'm unaware of any reason why he cannot do that.

 

[Hussar]

Let's...

Player (A Shadar Kai): I'm going to worship the god of beauty and praise her by piercing, tattooing and ritually scaring/cutting my body in numerous places...

DM: Hmm, that seems more like mutilation of your body as opposed to making it more beautiful...

Two opposing viewpoints, whose concept of beauty is correct?

Wouldn't that be done during character generation? Presuming the DM allowed the character in the first place, what reason would the DM have for changing interpretations at a later point?

 

[Hussar]

On the Batman example - see, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Both N'raac and Imaro have decided that this is not an evil act and thus a paladin Batman would never be punished for doing that.

I would hope that it's fairly obvious that it is possible to view this as an evil act.

So, you're the player and you leave the guy to die, based on your interpretation of evil. I'm the DM and I'm using mechanical alignment. You leave Raz alGul behind and now you're a fighter. This was a deliberate evil act, so, it's not like you can fix it with an Atonement spell.

And [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], you'd both be perfectly sanguine and pat me on the back for being a good DM? After all, I'm doing EXACTLY what you say I should be doing - defining good and evil in my game world.

Considering the lengths you're going to try to rules lawyer Permerton here, constantly badgering him about a play example, I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely. It's far more likely that we're going to have a flaming row at the table because my interpretations don't match yours.

See, in the beauty example, I would have no problem with the player of the Shadar-Kai claiming to worship a god of beauty by ritualistic scarification. That's cool. Because, after all, without mechanical alignment, he can actually be wrong. There's nothing saying that he's right. With mechanical alignment, he has to be right or wrong because if he's right, he gets spells, if he's wrong he doesn't. But, lacking mechanical alignment, I'm now free to come up with any number of reasons why he is wrong but still gets spells.

I have to admit, watching you, Imaro and N'raac, in this thread, you are really not coming off sounding very creative in your games. Considering how dogmatic you are about following the letter of the rules, I can see why you would not like 4e. I mean, the Artifact rules in 4e are deliberately loose to allow all sorts of DM interpretations. They are certainly not exhaustive and they are not meant to be. Artifacts are what you add to the game when you want to chuck rules out the window. Add to that the fact that you are arguing that a GOD cannot kill someone's familiar at will baffles me. it's a GOD. It gets to do anything it wants to do. Gods don't follow any rules in the books.

Heck, did 4e gods even get stats? I don't think they did. They're gods. Once the DM has dropped a god into play, all bets are off. You get to do anything you want.

 

[N'raac]

Wouldn't that be done during character generation? Presuming the DM allowed the character in the first place, what reason would the DM have for changing interpretations at a later point?

While I am not as convinced as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that everything is determined in play, could this character not have started off as lacking any real religious beliefs, and develop through the course of the game, having unplanned occurrences that lead to the character becoming more religious, then announcing their intent to express their newfound devotion in exactly the manner set out above (maybe even in conjunction with levelling up and taking a level in a more religious class)?

Not every development in the life of the character can, or should, be determined at character generation, and not every possible direction can be discussed with the GM up front. Characters can an should grow during play, not have their life cycle mapped out from L1 to 30 at initial character generation.