Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Sadras]

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.

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] you are actually doing more harm than good for the anti-alignment side especially with the above example despite your 'tongue and cheek' admission.

Thank you for illustrating so fervently what the alignment crowd has been stating all along at least for at least the last 30-40 pages if you have made the effort to read them, that the non-alignment side is confusing bad Dming with the use of 'mechanical alignment'.

 

[Sadras]

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.

I stated the same to Hussar, but your reply is so much more eloquent. Sadly can't XP you.

 

[Sadras]

In ratio/degree losing a familiar (minor feature) for a very finite time, or even forever, does not begin to compare to losing your paladinhood (main feature).

So is your problem the punishment? Because one can still utilise mechanical alignment, one only needs to alter the punishment or stick as you prefer calling it. I mean you can still play 1e and 2e utilising wights, wraiths and spectres, but change their "output" from level drain to something else: more damage, (temporary) ability drain, age...etc
I consider the punishment side of your argument countered with regards to "why I don't like mechanical alignment for my campaign"

But at the core level, which is really the point, what pemerton has said is that in one instance (his game) the player gets to see the outcome of what the player is interested in seeing (stake => reward/loss). And more importantly to do this the DM doesn't have to make evaluative judgements of whether the beliefs of that character are right or wrong, good or evil, black or white. In a mechanical alignment game the player gets to see the outcome of what the DM decides him to see (stake => loss). And the part he is not interested in, the DM must make an evaluative judgement of whether the characters value system is right or wrong, good or evil, black or white. And then punish him if that evaluation comes up on the wrong side.

Incorrect. In mechanical alignment, the player can still get to see the outcome, despite the evaluative judgments (if any) by the DM. Since 'punishment argument' above has been mooted, our example is now one and the same with @pemertons with no real change since pemerton used DM fiat to roleplay his deity's actions, and the alignment crowd uses DM fiat to roleplay deity actions when dissatisfied with their servants.

Your only argument left remaining is that the DM must make evaluative judgments on PC actions through the lens of alignment.
@Hussar's argument is that there is no consistency in this. He would prefer it laid down in black & white or removed entirely.
@Bedrockgames and myself replied that we view this as a positive not a negative but that consistency by the DMing in his ruling of alignment is extremely important. Consider also that within ones gaming group there is some degree of familiarity between the participants and usually aligned thoughts and ideas between the players and the DMs exist, I cannot see this as becoming an issue.

I have addressed the non-Gotcha moment (per the rules) and I have also mentioned that for characters in the campaign to be their sole arbiters on their morality removes a certain immersion from play at least for me and my group. You need to have an external party for your actions to have any significant consequences.

@Hussar agreed that consequences exist and mentioned that he was only comfortable on ruling on a deity's aspects/domains such as beauty, love, strength and the like.
It has been shown by @Imaro and @N'raac that DMs can have differing views on those as well.

@Manbearcat tried a difference angle stating that he could not roleplay super-intelligent cosmic beings due to his limitations and experiences.
This was countered that he should not be playing dragons, rape victims, creatures of 18+ intelligence/wisdom since his own limitations would impinge on him.
He also stated that evaluative judgments should stand the test of time. The answer to this being that the judgments need only be answerable to the laws of the deity and a specific point in time.

That is where we are +/-
I still have a post or two of Manbearcat's to read.

 

[D'karr]

@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.

Entering a debate after 90+ pages, doesn't mean that I have not read what each side has said. I have read almost every post and I'm well aware of the argument(s). It simply means that I have more important things to do with my time than spend the equivalent of writing "War and Peace" on, yet another, alignment thread. I might spend the time reading it, but it doesn't encourage me to write and respond to every post. You mentioned just a few posts above that what they are doing is deliberately calling [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] a hypocrite. You then proceed to tell me that what I'm doing is not fair to anyone. Can anyone even write those two things within the span of a few posts with a straight face.

If there have ever been strawmans raised on this thread it is exactly by those that are calling others hypocrites, without ever specifically saying that of course - Board rules and such, you know. "Baby throat ripping paladins" are a strawman. As far as I know pemerton is the only one that has provided actual game play examples from his table. But then we must proceed to "destroy" his examples by appealing to the "the rules"? When the other posters are asked to give actual game play examples instead of hypothetical exaggerations we get .... "crickets chirping". That's right nothing but more attacks. They have offered not one actual game play counter example of how the aligment mechanics in their games have improved it. We get a lot of lofty platitudes but not even one example, that is not a hypothetical about "throat ripping paladins".

Rules for artifacts are very specifically targeted for "DM discretionary use". Then the argument hides behind the "Eye of Vecna" as that is not what the "RAW" for the "Eye" says it can do - another "gotcha" technique. If there ever was a strawman it is that. An artifact can do whatever a DM needs it to do, that is what they are specifically there for.

What I have seen is petty "rules lawyering" to try to say, "gotcha you hypocrite" to pemerton. That is what is actually not fair. The theoretical examples, and the "options" presented by the dissenters show exactly why mechanical alignment is an impediment to our games. It might not be an impediment to theirs, but it is to us.

Pemerton has been very consistent and clear in what he has expressed. The thread title asks, "do alignments improve the gaming experience?" Pemerton, and others have said that "No, alignments are an impediment to THEIR gaming experience." Then you have a few posters try to dogpile on him with rules arguments of what a DM CAN and CAN'T do.

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.

No, I don't think I'm missing the point. You made the point very clear in this post.

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.

Yes, it is clear what they are trying to do, and those of us that can see pemerton's point don't appreciate it. To spell it out clearly, those of us that don't use mechanical alignment see these set of options:

(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.

As an impediment to our games.

I made a rather tongue-in-cheek post about those options. The bottom line is that as a player those options are not acceptable to me. I'm the player, then let me play MY character as I have envisioned him. As a DM those options are not acceptable to me either. The player has made a decision - I want him to explore his definition of what justice entails, not my prescripted definition or give him the "godhammer". The fact that different DMs can interpret the exact same action, in that "Batman example", in multiple ways is another reason why as "mechanical rules" alignment is an impediment to my game. And if there ever was a reason why alignment is an impediment to my game it is threads like this one, and the countless others that crop up regularly in these boards and others. Rules that are so poorly designed, or so broadly defined as to be meaningless are an impediment to my games. The fact that 90+ pages, and more to come I imagine, are being used to argue for, and counter-argue against a particular set of rules should be an indication that the rules are not useful.

 

[billd91]

Yes, it is clear what they are trying to do, and those of us that can see pemerton's point don't appreciate it. To spell it out clearly, those of us that don't use mechanical alignment see these set of options:



As an impediment to our games.

I made a rather tongue-in-cheek post about those options. The bottom line is that as a player those options are not acceptable to me. I'm the player, then let me play MY character as I have envisioned him. As a DM those options are not acceptable to me either. The player has made a decision - I want him to explore his definition of what justice entails, not my prescripted definition or give him the "godhammer". The fact that different DMs can interpret the exact same action, in that "Batman example", in multiple ways is another reason why as "mechanical rules" alignment is an impediment to my game. And if there ever was a reason why alignment is an impediment to my game it is threads like this one, and the countless others that crop up regularly in these boards and others. Rules that are so poorly designed, or so broadly defined as to be meaningless are an impediment to my games. The fact that 90+ pages, and more to come I imagine, are being used to argue for, and counter-argue against a particular set of rules should be an indication that the rules are not useful.

So, if you don't use alignment, what if the player does something else controversial? Suppose something really illegal in the setting locale or insulting to some power? Do you tell them they're likely going to encounter difficulties then? And what if they disagree? That's not any different, ultimately, other than in the specifics. PC acts, GM imposes consequences.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat tried a difference angle stating that he could not roleplay super-intelligent cosmic beings due to his limitations and experiences.

This was countered that he should not be playing dragons, rape victims, creatures of 18+ intelligence/wisdom since his own limitations would impinge on him.

For the record, this was not what I said at all (and hopefully this was clarified and crystalized in my most recent post). I can roleplay them to the hilt. I can call upon all manner of genre material, introspection, extrapolation, philosophy, and understanding of the human condition to inform my roleplaying of NPCs and framing of conflicts. That is not difficult to do and it is not problematic for play.

(Using my most recent example) What is problematic for play is when I conceptualize an outcome for the product of play that is discordant with respect to the player's conception of play and their conception of their PC. What is problematic for me is telling the Druid player, who is thrust into an ongoing conflict that puts at tension Civilization vs The Savage Wild, that their conception of this struggle and their conception of their PC (their internal ethos struggle) is inappropriate with respect to my take on the overarching cosmology + how the conflicts have unfolded. What is problematic for me is (i) performing this mental overhead (at all...as I don't think its constructive, productive and I don't think it yields good play at my table), thus taking away from overhead that might be better spent elsewhere, (ii) table handling time to resolve a potential conflict between my conception and my player's conception of events/cosmology/the output of their internal struggle, (iii) asserting that I have a better conception of their PC and the cosmological output of their struggle and imposing my conception as the ultimate product of play.

Roleplaying dragons/brilliant wizards/sex-trade victims/peasant thieves and framing conflicts around related thematic material is trivial for me. I say, without hesitation, that I can perform those tasks as
well as any GM can. My confidence in doing so is entirely unrelated to how I feel the imposition of my conception (and the handling time and overhead that the process entails) may negatively affect play (certainly for me...and presumably for players who dispute my conception).

He also stated that evaluative judgments should stand the test of time. The answer to this being that the judgments need only be answerable to the laws of the deity and a specific point in time.

This is also incorrect and doesn't remotely capture the nuance of the point and how it relates to the conversation at hand. But I'm not inclined to spill any more words here.

I'm pretty sure this thread has outlasted its useful life (which I don't believe it had any in the first place!).

 

[billd91]

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.

There are lots of places in the rules where the GM and player may disagree and where there may be ambiguity in the situation. The principle of seeking clarity remains the same.

 

[D'karr]

[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] you are actually doing more harm than good for the anti-alignment side especially with the above example despite your 'tongue and cheek' admission.

Thank you for illustrating so fervently what the alignment crowd has been stating all along at least for at least the last 30-40 pages if you have made the effort to read them, that the non-alignment side is confusing bad Dming with the use of 'mechanical alignment'.

Wait a minute... Those "mechanical" options were proposed by n'raac who, if we are picking teams, is on the "pro-alignment" camp. Are you saying he is a bad DM? I don't particularly have an opinion either way as I have not seen one example of his game, to date. But I'm in no way "confusing bad DMing with the the use of 'mechanical alignment'".

With mechanical alignment those are exactly the options the player would have, if the DM deemed a particular act "evil". That second part of the sentence is exactly what pemerton has been aguing against. He, and others, don't want to have to make that particular "evaluative judgement" at the table. Those particular options are exactly the kind of thing that creates an impediment at my table. Those options are not acceptable and one of the reasons I don't use mechanical alignment, and have not used it since the late 80's.

If those are the options I have, whether a good DM or a bad DM puts them in front of me, they are unacceptable to me. This is one of the reasons those that don't use mechanical alignment find mechanical alignment "distasteful". And one of the reasons many equate it to a straitjacket.

Options

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

So the players must not take an action that they were ready to take before I, as the "god figure", told them, "ah, ah, ah... That's evil". The character has no free-will and must be circumscribed to my will as a DM.

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

This is a red herring in that the outcome of the discussion will still boil down to (a) that's evil, (b) that's not evil - because I said so. If this thread, and countless others, is an example of how that discussion ends it is not a good example of concise/precise rules. Alignment is arguably one, if not the most, contentious set of "rules" in the game. I find no desire to spend time arguing morality questions at the table, so I don't use mechanical alignment. In this case the "rules" are still an impediment. The "fact" that I can argue against them is not even relevant. BTW, this use of a "discussion" is even not part of some versions of the game. In 1e, for example, the DM tracked alignment secretly for each player. So there was not even the possibility of a discussion.

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

This is a corollary to option (a). The character still doesn't have free will. If he wants to play "my game" then he must comply, or get the "godhammer". Unless the player wants to deliberately explore the option of a "fallen paladin". He would be mechanically inferior, which is not a problem for some players. But I'm still not seeing how mechanical alignment is not an impediment to the kind of game I want to play, or more importantly DM. This one sounds so much like, "it puts the lotion on its body, or else it gets the hose again" that in my mind the idea of an "option" is almost laughable.

(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.

I was hoping n'raac was being facetious when he put this one in that list of options. This is the only one that I would put in the category of bad DMing. Still not a bonus to my desires for a game.

 

[Sadras]

Entering a debate after 90+ pages, doesn't mean that I have not read what each side has said. I have read almost every post and I'm well aware of the argument(s). It simply means that I have more important things to do with my time than spend the equivalent of writing "War and Peace" on, yet another, alignment thread. I might spend the time reading it, but it doesn't encourage me to write and respond to every post.

I didn't intend for you to reply to every post. I merely intended that its bad form to misrepresent the debate (if I referred to it as argument, that was wrong) they are having which you did. They do not have a problem with Pemerton going outside the rules, it was his game afterall. That was not the issue. Your initial post makes it seem like it was. That is misrepresentation.

You mentioned just a few posts above that what they are doing is deliberately calling @pemerton a hypocrite.You then proceed to tell me that what I'm doing is not fair to anyone. Can anyone even write those two things within the span of a few posts with a straight face.

C'mon, they do not have a personal issue with him or his roleplaying capabilities, it is part of the discussion between them. In plain English: They are merely pointing out that what he says he doesn't like, he actually does do.

As far as I know pemerton is the only one that has provided actual game play examples from his table. But then we must proceed to "destroy" his examples by appealing to the "the rules"?

They are also not trying to destroy his example, they are merely pointing out what we consider to be evaluative judgments on his part, he doesn't want to agree to it for reasons as stated in his posts. Whether we agree to those reasons or not is how the discussion has continued.

When the other posters are asked to give actual game play examples instead of hypothetical exaggerations we get .... "crickets chirping".

Actually @Imaro, @N'raac and I did answer the hypothetical put forward from @Hussar. It was a good one for this discussion.

They have offered not one actual game play counter example of how the aligment mechanics in their games have improved it.

Now this reflects you haven't read the post where @N'raac (who can correct me on this) mentions that alignment doesn't detract from roleplay. That is his stance, whereas the non-alignment side said it does impede their play. So the onus is on the non-alignment crowd to prove otherwise, hence Pemerton's example.

What I have seen is petty "rules lawyering" to try to say, "gotcha you hypocrite" to pemerton. That is what is actually not fair. The theoretical examples, and the "options" presented by the dissenters show exactly why mechanical alignment is an impediment to our games. It might not be an impediment to theirs, but it is to us.

The thread's current debate has been how has it been an impediment to you? [insert your example here]
Can you see, the burden of proof lies with you.

Pemerton has been very consistent and clear in what he has expressed. The thread title asks, "do alignments improve the gaming experience?" Pemerton, and others have said that "No, alignments are an impediment to THEIR gaming experience." Then you have a few posters try to dogpile on him with rules arguments of what a DM CAN and CAN'T do.

This is more misrepresentation by you. As for dog-piling him. Do not worry @Pemetron can take care of himself, he is pretty resilient.

No, I don't think I'm missing the point. You made the point very clear in this post.

I respectfully disagree.

I'm the player, then let me play MY character as I have envisioned him.

As a DM I say go ahead, but your character's vision should not infringe on the vision of the Deity you choose to serve within the setting.

The player has made a decision - I want him to explore his definition of what justice entails, not my prescripted definition or give him the "godhammer".

Then by what prescription? The definition of justice will be your character's own, why do you need to explore it? Don't you already know it?

The fact that different DMs can interpret the exact same action, in that "Batman example", in multiple ways is another reason why as "mechanical rules" alignment is an impediment to my game.

Why will you be having multiple DMs at your table adjudicating you character's actions?

Rules that are so poorly designed, or so broadly defined as to be meaningless are an impediment to my games.

Rules such as any that require for the DM to use his own judgment or 'brain cells'? Deciding whether the PCs plan will work? The response of an NPC? DM fiat is necessary to run an adventure, create a setting, decide on magic levels - the books provide guidelines. There are no hard and fast rules. So broad rules are quite common in D&D, that doesn't make the whole game bad? This is not a boardgame.

The fact that 90+ pages, and more to come I imagine, are being used to argue for, and counter-argue against a particular set of rules should be an indication that the rules are not useful.

Alignment is less argued about than the Fighter/Wizard balance. Using your indicators of what is useful and not useful I dare say you appear to be proposing that both those classes be scrapped.

 

[Sadras]

1) You were not very clear. As this

Now I am no cosmological entity. I'm not equipped with heightened metaphysical perception nor intelligence agents. I'm not equipped with whatever measure of precognition they possess (mystical divinations or whatever the possess to say "weal" or "woe" during divine consultation) to adjudicate the long view at a level far removed from my mere mortal means of extrapolation.

is not the same as this.

I don't want to pit my take on cosmology versus their take on cosmology. I don't want to compel (a hard compel or through soft operative conditioning - "incline your analysis/perceptions of this moral issue towards my own and behave in this fashion or you will be punished - your choice") a player with cosmology. Make no mistake. I can play deities all the way down to beggars. To the hilt. I have very strong, stern, unrelenting, well-concieved opinions on all things philosophy. I just don't want that to drive play.

2)

This is also incorrect and doesn't remotely capture the nuance of the point and how it relates to the conversation at hand. But I'm not inclined to spill any more words here.

Perhaps, but you had not replied to my response, so one can but only assume.

Thanks for the druid example. How do you think alignment would have affected your DMing of it?