Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Bedrockgames]

Denying that the dictates of a cosmological force of objective good actually answer to the description "good" strike me as being in the same category as standing in lava and insisting that you are freezing ie devoid of all reason.

If a god has an opinion, of course someone might disagree with it. But a cosmological force of objective good doesn't have an opinion: it defines what counts as good. Arguing with it is like arguing that the square root of 4 is not really 2 even when someone has drawn you a 2x2 square and is holding it in front of your face.

As I said above, in the real world people can reject the condemnation of someone who claims to be good, while still affiriming their own goodness, because they can reasonably deny that some judging agents has a true grasp of objective moral requirements. But if the campaign starts from a presumption that there are objective cosmological forces who do have such a grasp, there seems to be no scope for such denial.

We are just going back and forth now. If you cant accept our reasons that is fine, but clearly this works for us and we find it is not only possible for characters to disagree with or challenge the gods decisions at times, but is even desireable. No one is saying the pc can deny the object reality of the gods judgment. The pc's power is gone, that is a fact. How the individual pc rationalizes and unserstands that will vary. Remember they do not have the players handbook and are limited to their finite point if view. I can easily imagine a paladin stripped of his powers who disagrees with the deity because he is deluded, evil, arrogant, foolish, irrational, etc. There are all kinds of reasons and if players want to go there in my campaign, it is entirely kosher and doesn't disrupt the objective reality of these things in the setting.

and importantly, these are extreme cases where powers are stripped and the god makes its will known. Many everyday moral judgments pcs make and actions they take wont even attract the notice of these forces.

 

[Hussar]

But BRG, you're missing the point. Sure the PC could be played that way but the player knows for a fact that the PC is objectively wrong. Basically the player has to decide that his character is deluded and play his character as denying reality.

What he can never be is right.

IME what is far more likely to result is the players will simply internalize the DM's judgements and play characters according to what they know the DM expects.

They simply realize that it is futile to challenge the DM's views and play accordingly. It's a self reinforcing loop because the DM now has few if any alignment problems and thus concludes that mechanical alignment is doing a good job.

The problem for me is when I play at a table like this as a player I find it constrictive and stifling and as a DM it's boring as players won't challenge me.

It works for you and that's great. But I think it works so long as you add the caveat that the players are willing to not challenge the DM's preconceptions.

 

[N'raac]

But BRG, you're missing the point. Sure the PC could be played that way but the player knows for a fact that the PC is objectively wrong. Basically the player has to decide that his character is deluded and play his character as denying reality.

Why is it delusional for the character to come to believe that Law compromises Good excessively, or that Good compromises Law excessively, and that therefore he cannot, in good conscience, follow the tenets of Lawful Good? Is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good objectively wrong? Both are different from Lawful Good, so for LG to be objectively right, all other alignments must be objectively wrong. I reject that presumption.

What the player cannot do is change the alignment of those LG powers to match his own. Neither can they force the PC to adhere to their definition of morality in favour of his own beliefs.

IME what is far more likely to result is the players will simply internalize the DM's judgements and play characters according to what they know the DM expects.

Given your complete inability to envision any GM who actually runs a fair and enjoyable game, rather than being constantly out to screw the players, it hardly seems surprising that your experience is generally negative.

The problem for me is when I play at a table like this as a player I find it constrictive and stifling and as a DM it's boring as players won't challenge me.

This depends what is "constrictive and stifling". If the GM is dictating the characters' every decision, refusing to acknowledge that each alignment holds a vast array of possibilities, that a single act inconsistent with a given alignment does not mean alignment has changed, or that a character might well fall within one alignment while possessing the occasional trait or belief which might suggest a different alignment, to me that is bad GMing.

Just as there are poor GM's out there, poor players also exist. For some of these, any request they play within the agreed upon structure of any game is "constrictive and stifling" because they are a special snowflake who must always get their own way, and cannot abide any rules call, setting limitation, restriction on source material, and so on ad nauseum, which does not go precisely their own way. These players tend to use "constrictive and stifling" to mean any request they play the same game as the rest of the group, and not have a temper tantrum if anything goes against them.

I wish upon such players all the terrible GM's you have had to endure, and I wish such players upon those terrible GM's. They deserve one another.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hussar, none of the things you mention are issues for me when i approach the game this way. It isn't a conflict between players and the GM, it is that the players are there to experience a world that feels real, not amorphous and we find having the GM control these aspects of setting helps create that. We are there to explore the setting as it is managed by the GM. This is just another part of that. One thing it definitely isn't for us is a proxy for discussing or debating real world morality. We are a diverse group in terms of religion, personal ethical philosophies and politics so we don't see what goes on in the game world as being moral judgments of the players by the GM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But BRG, you're missing the point. Sure the PC could be played that way but the player knows for a fact that the PC is objectively wrong. Basically the player has to decide that his character is deluded and play his character as denying reality.

What he can never be is right.
.

Deluded is one possibility but not the only one. He may just be coming to the realization that his alignment is different from his deity's. Perhaps he followed the Lawful good god, but is slowly realizing chaotic good is better approach. In a world where you have this broad range of alignments to choose from, there are all kinds of reasons people might disagree with their gods. A lot of this would depend on the specifics of the setting though and how quirky the gods are. You could have a setting where gods are not perfect exemplars of the alignments, but merely the best exemplars. Perhaps there are vague forces beyond the gods themselves and the gods are just pale reflections of these. So you might have a lawful good god who is right 99% of the time, but every once in a while gets a bit too zealous. It is a bit hard to get into because so much of this will depend on how the GM takes the notion of alignments, gods and planes and then uses that as a foundation for his own personal setting. Everyone takes a different approach. For some, the situation you describe above will be the case. But for others it won't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why is it delusional for the character to come to believe that Law compromises Good excessively, or that Good compromises Law excessively, and that therefore he cannot, in good conscience, follow the tenets of Lawful Good? Is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good objectively wrong? Both are different from Lawful Good, so for LG to be objectively right, all other alignments must be objectively wrong. I reject that presumption.
.

I have seen this sort of thing occur in a campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Again BRG you are stipulating that the player is always wrong. The only reason that the PC is changing his alignment is to conform to the DM's interpretations of alignment.

There is no way for your gods to be wrong. Any differing opinion is simply shuffled into a different alignment pigeonhole.

IOW there is no way for the player's interpretation to be the correct one.

N'raac claims that the powers cannot force pcs to adhere to their definition of morality but that's false. Any time my actions are out of line with the DM's interpretation of alignment my alignment is shifted to conform with the DM's interpretation.

 

[Hussar]

Quote Originally Posted by N'raac View Post
Why is it delusional for the character to come to believe that Law compromises Good excessively, or that Good compromises Law excessively, and that therefore he cannot, in good conscience, follow the tenets of Lawful Good? Is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good objectively wrong? Both are different from Lawful Good, so for LG to be objectively right, all other alignments must be objectively wrong. I reject that presumption.
.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-the-gaming-experience/page110#ixzz2vRgY6PYm

But, N'raac misses the point here. It's not that LG is the only good. It's that any time there is a difference in opinion between the DM and the player over what LG means, the player is always wrong. And, if the player has his character behave as if he is right, the player knows that the character is delusional. After all, if the player was right, then the character would not have been penalised by the alignment mechanics.

Again, N'raac here is just pigeonholing the action into a different slot. There is no way for my character to perform an act that is LG if the DM does not agree that it is LG. It is not possible, in your way of playing.

And, for the love of god, PLEASE stop trying to paint this as a good DM/Bad DM thing. Good grief. We've seen NUMEROUS examples in this thead alone between perfectly reasonable people over whether something is good or not. I mean, I brought up the Dark Knight example of saving Raz Al Gul and freely admit that you can argue it either way. No one is right, as far as I'm concerned.

What I find interesting is N'raac and Imaro both come out with strong interpretations that close off other interpretations and then tried to claim that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on. Leaving the villain to die is NOT an evil act according to them.

My point is, it might be, it might not be. Both sides have pretty strong arguments. So, as a DM, I'm just not going to pick sides. Either interpretation works and you get to stay a paladin in my game. But, in N'Raac's game, there is no question at all. It's not an evil act. Therefore it's acceptable. But, then again, in N'Raac's game, by his own words, I cannot play a Batman inspired paladin since he's decided that Batman isn't a paladin.

So, exactly how is this not limiting? Why would I not feel restricted here? I'm not calling N'raac a bad DM. I've never sat at his table, I have no idea. But, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't enjoy his game, not because of any failings, but, because of play style differences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again BRG you are stipulating that the player is always wrong. The only reason that the PC is changing his alignment is to conform to the DM's interpretations of alignment.

There is no way for your gods to be wrong. Any differing opinion is simply shuffled into a different alignment pigeonhole.

Well, i was responding to pemerton's point, which was it doesnt make logical sense for characters to disagree with the gods in a setting with objective alignments. So my post was not intended to address your concern, which is different.


But to address it, this depends on the setting. I offered an example where under the alignment system you could have gods who are occassionally wrong. In that scenario, it would be possible for pcs to disagree and be right. But yes, one feature of having the gm make these determinations is the pcs cannot deny the realities of the setting and be correct. If the gm defines lawful good in the setting, then he gets to define it (though i can envision a setting where there are four gods of lawful good, each with slightly different interpretations of LG. it is entirely possible to have imperfect gods who are the best examples of lawful good that exist, but still flawed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, N'raac misses the point here. It's not that LG is the only good. It's that any time there is a difference in opinion between the DM and the player over what LG means, the player is always wrong. And, if the player has his character behave as if he is right, the player knows that the character is delusional. After all, if the player was right, then the character would not have been penalised by the alignment mechanics.

Again, N'raac here is just pigeonholing the action into a different slot. There is no way for my character to perform an act that is LG if the DM does not agree that it is LG. It is not possible, in your way of playing.

And, for the love of god, PLEASE stop trying to paint this as a good DM/Bad DM thing. Good grief. We've seen NUMEROUS examples in this thead alone between perfectly reasonable people over whether something is good or not. I mean, I brought up the Dark Knight example of saving Raz Al Gul and freely admit that you can argue it either way. No one is right, as far as I'm concerned.

What I find interesting is N'raac and Imaro both come out with strong interpretations that close off other interpretations and then tried to claim that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on. Leaving the villain to die is NOT an evil act according to them.

My point is, it might be, it might not be. Both sides have pretty strong arguments. So, as a DM, I'm just not going to pick sides. Either interpretation works and you get to stay a paladin in my game. But, in N'Raac's game, there is no question at all. It's not an evil act. Therefore it's acceptable. But, then again, in N'Raac's game, by his own words, I cannot play a Batman inspired paladin since he's decided that Batman isn't a paladin.

So, exactly how is this not limiting? Why would I not feel restricted here? I'm not calling N'raac a bad DM. I've never sat at his table, I have no idea. But, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't enjoy his game, not because of any failings, but, because of play style differences.

If you feel this is restricting, then that is how you feel. No changing that. For me going your way is problematic for my sense of the setting, because the gods adjust to meet the definitions offered by individual pcs. I want Grog the God of Destruction to act like an independent entity outside the pkayers,s, not be shaped by the views of the players. But if your method works for you, i say go for it. I am not in the business of convincing you to use this approach. I think all anyone on the other side here is interested in pointing out, is this way works very well for us and adds to the game. We know this way doesn't work for hussar or pemerton. That is a given in this discussion. But it definitely works for Brendan and N'raac.

One thing i will add is for me at least, this isn't a battle over who is right and who is wrong about what lawful good means, in my group that is your own subjective opinion on the text. I dont really care what player B or the GM thinks about alignment or real world morality. I am not there to impose my view of these things on them. We have all simply agreed to invest the GM with the power to define such things purely for the purpose of running a fictional setting that feels real.