Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[billd91]

Because (putting to one side dirty hands situations, which this isn't) no rational person chooses evil? Which you seem to recognise when you say "maintaining an alignment would be a source of theme and conflict for the character." If it makes no difference whether good or evil is chosen, where would the theme and conflict come from?

Why is it irrational to choose evil? I think elementary game theory dispenses with that assumption pretty quickly.

Or to put it another way - what is the point of having the GM tell the player the evaluative significance of his/her choices? I give that sort of advice to my children - but it seems a bit condescending to do it to my peers!

Clarity. Same reason you'd tell the player about the consequences of other decisions they're making like trying to jump a 30 foot gap without a running start when the GM knows that's certain failure. To avoid misunderstandings.

 

[D'karr]

Again, as @Imaro noted, if the player was told, before taking that action, that in your game world, this was an evil act, and would result in loss of his Paladinhood, the player would have the choice of:

(a) deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;
(b) discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;
(c) deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;
(d) not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.

Frankly, I think your concerns are a lot more related to lack of trust in the GM (any GM), an issue seen in many prior threads, than about alignment specifically.

I'm the player. I have come up with my character concept, which I'm keen on playing. I'm a paladin of justice, I punish wrong doers. I have dedicated my life to honing my senses to the pursuit of justice. I will call my character Murcielago.

DM: Ok, you have finally tracked Ra's al ghul and his cronies. They are on that Lightning Rail headed to Breland. They are carrying the doomsday device (DD) that destroyed Cyre creating the Mournland during The Last War.
Murcielago: I jump on the last cart and give chase.

Combat ensues

DM: You have defeated all the cronies all that is left is the DD and Ras. During the fight with Ras he got pinned under the DD and you see that the DD is getting ready to activate its clockwork mechanism spinning frantically, what do you do?
Murcielago: OOC: "Shoot the hostage... Excellent!!!!" IC: I hit the DD with my sword trying to jam the sword far enough to deactivate it. ( I roll a 20)
DM: Nat 20, your sword cleaves into the DD stopping its clockwork mechanism. You are sure that it won't cause the original level of planned destruction they intended, but you can see a surge of energy building and it will probably destroy this cart only. What do you do?
Murcielago: OOC: Stop with the Keanu voice please, you are breaking my immersion. IC: In my best raspy voice - "Ras I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." I jump out of the cart and let the DD blow up.
DM: Wait!!!! That is an evil act. If you do that you will lose your paladinhood and forever be known as "Murci the impotent".
Player: What? That's stupid. This guy is clearly evil, and deserves justice, preferably by my sword, or by getting blown up by his own weapon. What do you mean leaving him here is evil? If I had killed him like the other mooks we wouldn't be having this conversation. Are you f'n serious?

Presented Option(s):
(a) deciding his character will not take an action which, in your game world, he knows to be evil;

Player: OK, dammit! I will save Ras and jump. OOC: Are you playing my character, or am I?​

(b) discussing the issue prior to making a decision, which I would expect a good GM would be open to;

Player & DM: 45 minute argum.. discussion, or 700 page thread ensues depending on whether this is a TT Game, or a PbP Game.​

(c) deciding his character is prepared to take an evil act and lose his Paladinhood;

Murci the impotent:"Screw you Ras!!!!!", OOC: and you too DM - That is the stupidest ruling ever! IC: I'm jumping.​

(d) not having suggested Batman, a character whose primary motivation is, depending on who writes him, vengeance, with justice being the other contender, is a Paladin in the first place.

DM: well you should not have suggested Batman (I mean Murcielago) was a Paladin in the first place. Have fun playing your pimped out warrior.
Player: Yeah like I said before, screw you! Why don't I just play one of your NPC's? You can create it, and you can tell me what to do, and what not to do. Oh, yeah I forgot there is already a PC class for that. Next week get ready for Murci2 Dark Bat Rising. I'm making a Fighter/Wizard! You can't screw me with those stupid alignment rules with MY wizard, right?
DM: We call those elves, and they were awesome!!!!​

Now that is a very tongue in cheek depiction, but it captures nicely why mechanical alignment, as you have just described it, is an impediment to my game.

Thanks for the very poignant example.

 

[Manbearcat]

As an aside, this sidetrack about @pemerton 's Skill Challenge and the familiar taking damage while in passive mode (if that is what happen) is really odd. I wish I could figure out what the premise being addressed was. I'm sure its either "haha fiat" leaking in from the fighter vs spellcaster thread or its positing that there is a mechanical equivalence of "familiar out until next short rest (which is basically immediately post Skill Challenge)" and "Paladin has lost all of his divine powers (the stuff that renders him an actual Paladin) until an atonement quest is fulfilled." That (and/or) perhaps something about there being an equivalence in the GM analysis of the fiction and generating an outcome/complication of immediate physical feedback from Vecna (through his material artifact of which his will is given manifest) for denying his machinations and immediate cosmological feedback (through metaphysical subordination of all power) from a patron Deity who feels his metaphysical value system has been maligned by his champion. I just don't see the equivalence (if that is what we're going for here) and/or I'm not seeing the thrust of all this. It is just coming off as a puzzling, full-frontal-assault.

Further, with respect to the passive/active state of Familiars, my sense has always been that "passive" and "active" are merely keywords for rules adjudication in combat. It allows for players to move the Familiars (PC build components) from background color ("look at my cool floating sword!") to an actual moving part in the theater of tactical combat ("my floating sword hammers against their defenses, allowing me to move to a more advantageous position after my attack - Shift 1") while putting it at risk. Rules for combat and noncombat are very segmented in 4e. One is tight and crunchy and requires fidelity to keywords and all interactions thereof. The other is abstract in the extreme and left to the GM to adjudicate fallout.

And again, I'm not sure if this is the same for everyone (I suspect it is for most all groups unless they are trying some oddly paced 4e), but my 4e is tightly scene-based so short rests couldn't be more hand-waved. Conflict over? Short Rest. You have your encounters back, you spend your surges, and boom, your familiar is back. Couldn't be more trivial. On obscenely rare occasions (such as extremely perilous journeys where I'm using the disease/condition track to pressure the PCs with rest denial), I'll deny Short Rests. But they are so far in the minority as to not be worth mention. I can't imagine that is anything nearing unorthodox play.

 

[Hussar]

Why is it irrational to choose evil? I think elementary game theory dispenses with that assumption pretty quickly.



Clarity. Same reason you'd tell the player about the consequences of other decisions they're making like trying to jump a 30 foot gap without a running start when the GM knows that's certain failure. To avoid misunderstandings.

There is a difference though. If you are trying to jump, it's a pretty clear cut ruling. You need to beat X DC and that is not possible in current circumstances.

In alignment I'm telling the player that he is playing his character wrong and I know better.

 

[Hussar]

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was an example about a heavily wounded paladin faced with a townie about to be splatted by a giant. In that example there was an interpretation that the paladin had to save the townie.

Yet, that example is pretty much identical to the Batman example. After all, it's not the paladin killing the townie.

Even within this thread people cannot be consistent in interpretations. How can you expect consistency in a game?

 

[D'karr]

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was an example about a heavily wounded paladin faced with a townie about to be splatted by a giant. In that example there was an interpretation that the paladin had to save the townie.

Yet, that example is pretty much identical to the Batman example. After all, it's not the paladin killing the townie.

Even within this thread people cannot be consistent in interpretations. How can you expect consistency in a game?

Yep, because it is interpreted there are going to be an infinite number of variations. As a player, I don't want to deal with that scenario. As a DM, I don't want to have to deal with that scenario. That is why I don't use mechanical alignment. The facetious example I used above could have just as easily been reversed with a player that wanted to save Ras and the DM insisting that saving Ra's al ghul was an evil act. You could also have a DM that rules that leaving the Doomsday Device might be evil, and another that thinks that the "correct solution" is to fully deactivate the device.

I don't want to play "guess what the DM wants" for a game. I don't want my players to have to guess either, and I don't want to have to spend brain cells on determining either way. Play is much more fun then the players can PLAY THEIR characters instead of having me be their conscience.

 

[Sadras]

This thread is crazy.

You honestly think it's rare? Really?

I do. Look as you have stated in the past you have a long established group, mature players. I do too. Alignment generally doesn't come up.

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.

Great example!

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.

I can only tell you how I would rule it within my current campaign as setting which includes particular deities which do play a role.
For myself I would not view this action as evil. Given the series of events that led up to this - Batman continually asks Raz to consider his actions, to change his view and Raz on every single occasion rejects Batman's pleas.
That final act of leaving him, is almost the paladin's way of "if you are innocent or if there is some hope for you yet, may the gods spare you, if not you will die here"

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.

I cannot deny you have successful enjoyable games, but I do too with alignment. And the players in my group, two of whom I have discussed this thread with, actually prefer an alignment inclusion game rather than without one.

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

Absolutely. I have never challenged you on the possibility that two DMs might rule differently. In fact, @Bedrockgames and myself declared this to be a feature not a bug.
I might even add, that if the deity served by the paladin was one whose specific domains were compassion or forgiveness, I might have ruled differently, then again dependent by the setting.

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.

As a DM you have every right to rule this as an evil act as long as, and this was mentioned by @Bedrockgames a while back, you are consistent with these rulings for similar type adjudications. It is far more important for you to be consistent in your DMing of Deities' laws of alignment. Cannot stress how important this is, otherwise do not use alignment if you cannot be consistent.

With regards to punishment. I have mentioned, I'm sure I also saw a response by @N'raac on this, that we might take a different view than those presented within the rulebooks depending of course on the circumstances. The only point we were arguing on was using "mechanical alignment" and adjudicating on PCs actions thereon does not deter from the roleplaying experience. @pemerton and yourself were equating it to wearing a straight-jacket.

What I mean is, I might allow for an Atonement spell on this example if I rule as you would. I know this is going against the rules as written, but that does not mean I do not use alignment or that I do not make adjudications on PC actions through the lens of alignment based on the deity the PC serves.

And @Imaro and @N'raac, 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.

As long as you are consistent and it wasn't a "gotcha" moment. Refer below.

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.

Discussion might ensue. I do not believe a row. But refer below.

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.

You are missing their point. They are reflecting that Pemerton whether he follows the rules or not, and in IMO for this case not (WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FINE, BECAUSE MOST OF US DO IT), he was using DM fiat to judge the PC's actions. And they are equating that to DM fiat while using alignment. To spell it out for you and some others (specifically @D'karr) on this thread because straw man arguments keep on getting raised, they are calling him a hypocrite.

You get to do anything you want.

This is what we are arguing for which you are equating to straight-jackets, muzzles and the like.

I see. So as long as the DM tells you first that you are wrong, that's ok because now you have the choice of being wrong or right, according to the DM. And this is acceptable to you? Really? Wow. You are a lot more tolerant of interference by the DM in your character than I am. Then again, you've both nicely illustrated why you can't have any shades of grey. After all, according to you now the DM is supposed to up front tell you that you are wrong. Bleah. No thanks. From either side of the screen. That just seems so shallow to me.

All the abovementioned 'refer below' - begin here:

Yes, it doesn't have to come off as flat as that. For instance a character is about to do an action, because the player misheard the DM or another player or was unaware of something. The DM internally believes the player would not have his character do an action if he was aware of all the facts so he takes it upon himself to inform the player before the action is resolved. Discussion now ensues between player/s and DM.

Same thing here. The DM informs the player that perhaps during his scripture readings, or his time at the temple/monastery he learned the tenets on his faith and one of the examples was such an example (do you leave the bad guy to die), maybe it was a question asked by a student there, perhaps as the paladin is about to leave he gets a mental pang, does he ignore it? It can be roleplayed, it can be given as backstory or knowledge or it can be as flat as you have described it above.

Something else to note. @Imaro and @N'raac. You claim that a DM is obligated to inform a player of the moral status of his actions before he acts. This appears in no version of DnD and is purely your own house rule.

Actually it is within the rules. I did quote it a while back, so yeah its not like we remember everything. 2e DMG page 28

Unconscious change
If the DM suspects that the player believes his character is acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change SHOULD NOT surprise the player - not completely anyway.

So no 'gotcha' moments.

Which is fine but considering your vociferous criticisms of Pemerton for what you feel is not following mechanics I have to wonder why you think that alignment mechanics cannot stand on their own without your house rules.

Proven above that they do.

House rules that you feel so strongly about that you call DM's who don't use them poor DM's that you would not want to play with.

Gotcha!
I hope you see from the batman example, alignment is not as stringent as you imagine it to be - it depends on a lot of things, but like everything else in the game - there is a good way and a bad way of utilising it, and admittedly when our group was much younger we were probably terrible at it.

 

[Sadras]

I don't want to play "guess what the DM wants" for a game. I don't want my players to have to guess either,

From this statement, I imagine you must play with new players or DMs every week? Given that kind of inconsistency it could be a problem I admit.

and I don't want to have to spend brain cells on determining either way.

Using your best computed estimate how many brain cells do you believe such actions require. More or less than deciding if a PC plan will work or not, or determining the DC of a task or skill challenge, or the reply of an NPC?

Play is much more fun then the players can PLAY THEIR characters instead of having me be their conscience.

So when determining actions, players in your group do not consider their characters' conscience at all?

 

[Sadras]

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was an example about a heavily wounded paladin faced with a townie about to be splatted by a giant. In that example there was an interpretation that the paladin had to save the townie.

Yet, that example is pretty much identical to the Batman example. After all, it's not the paladin killing the townie.

Even within this thread people cannot be consistent in interpretations. How can you expect consistency in a game?

I have not read that post, but from your 2-3 line description of said example, I do not consider the batman/raz example equal with the townie one. So I definitely disagree with your assessment there.

 

[Sadras]

@D'karr when you decide to enter a debate 90+ pages, standard forum etiquette would require you to please make the effort and actually read why @Imaro and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] are arguing over @pemerton's use of DM fiat instead of jumping to conclusions and raising strawman arguments all over the place. Honestly it isn't fair on anyone what you have done.

If we took the play examples that @pemerton has provided and looked at them from the perspective of a DM created world, and the notion that the world creator is "god", which is a pretty classic way of viewing the role of the DM. He is the ultimate authority to decide what is happening with everything.

Yes, which would include alignment. I'm in agreement with you here.

There would be absolutely no "leg to stand on" to argue about his use of the gods, artifacts, etc. From his play example, at character creation he communicated to his players his expectations about the campaign world, the gods therein, and some expectations of what they would be facing. The players have obviously accepted his portrayal of this setting, as they are not complaining about any of it. And they have been playing in it for a long while since they are already at epic level. I take their experience as way more important than that of the nay-sayers.
It seems ludicrous, in almost a "rules-lawyery" way, to argue that he is "doing it wrong", or that his stated play experiences could not have happened, or that he is "breaking the rules". It is purely comical the mental contortions you have to do to even justify the argument. Whether he is using the default setting, or a home-brew setting is irrelevant. He is the DM. It seems to me that he knows his game and his players best. Judging from his stated play examples I can find nothing in them that falls even remotely outside the realm of normal for what a DM does during a game. His game sounds pretty fun. And guess what, he is not using alignment as a mechanic. He has stated so and provided many examples of play, in which it is clear that he is not, I can't fathom what others are arguing with him about.

To his play experience of running his game mechanical alignment is an impediment. He has repeatedly stated so, and has provided some pretty concrete examples of actual gameplay situations, not edge case hypothetical scenarios, in which mechanical alignment in his game would have been an impediment. Isn't that what the question posed originally was?

The above paragraph is exactly what I am talking about. You are utterly missing Imaro's and N'raac's point with his, IMO, a mess of a post.