Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[fagura]

It's really interesting how far this discussion went these last two months. I never imagined it would go that far when I originally posted it.
I 've been watching your posts (although I ve been missing a couple of pages from time to time) and many examples of in-game problems or lack of them mainly due or thanks to the way alignment is used by each table.

Alignment use came up in the final stages of a living campaign setting I am co-creating too. We decided to keep the alignments 'unofficially' (for gaming session purposes that is), but abandon them in player vs player interactions in the living world. I don't wish to spam here describing the setting and all, I do believe it offers several distinctive features compared to previous living worlds, if anyone is interested he can find our intro video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNHNwR5utpU.

To say the least, this thread proves that alignment implementation has its issues and the way it s used is under debate although others see a tool and others a burden.

 

[granan]

Don't over complicate alignment

I suppose alignment is there to help enhance the game. Unfortunately, many players either toss it aside or become totally crippled by it. As the DM I never allow the game to be played by evil characters. So alignment then becomes easy to judge in game. I only penalize players if things get to far away from what a group of good or neutral PC's should look like. I give them the freedom to act how they would like, however there is a limit before bad karma happens.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose alignment is there to help enhance the game. Unfortunately, many players either toss it aside or become totally crippled by it

Why is it unfortunate that some people don't use alignment mechanics?

As the DM I never allow the game to be played by evil characters. So alignment then becomes easy to judge in game. I only penalize players if things get to far away from what a group of good or neutral PC's should look like.

What happens at your table if there are participants who disagree on what counts as good or evil?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Why is it unfortunate that some people don't use alignment mechanics?

He deliberately used the phrase "toss it aside". Which implies ignoring something without examining it for useful potential.

The people in this thread who eschew alignment do so after careful consideration. They know the up-side, they just don't think it outweighs the down-side.

 

[Dannorn]

Well, what's the point of mechanical alignment if it isn't a stick? I mean, I use purely descriptive alignment - ie. alignment is simply a shorthand description with no mechanics tied to it. So, it can't be a stick. If you're using mechanical alignment as nothing but a shorthand description, why tie penalties to it?

You can tie penalties to something without it being a stick. Are proficiencies a stick? Of course boy but you're still penalized for not having them. Like anything else it becomes a stick when you start using it to hammer players and punish them for not playing the way you want.

So, if there is no stick, what is the point of maintaining mechanical alignment?

To provide an additional challenge to the player. Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment, so when a situation comes up where the player knows going against their alignment is the smarter option they'll do it, every time. Mechanical alignment gives the player reason to pause and consider other options, because the easy/smart option might push them far enough that they'll get an alignment shift along with any and all penalties that entails. It also encourages players to find clever ways of getting the same results as going against their alignment while still staying true to it.

 

[granan]

Why is it unfortunate that some people don't use alignment mechanics?

What happens at your table if there are participants who disagree on what counts as good or evil?

Because alignment mechanics need not be difficult. If a PC put Lawful or Good on their character sheet it is easy to discern when they violate their ethics in game. So when they ignore a wrong or commit a wrong, as the DM its my prerogative to judge it and chart the alignment shift. One wrong act does not mean a change it just happens just like in real life. Some players don't think much about a campaign beyond hack and slash. Sure the Paladin needs to be Lawful Good but that's about as far as alignment goes for some.

That's easy as the DM I'm the judge and a participant does not have to see it the way I see it. Especially if a campaign world is designed as a forsaken place such as Dark Sun. In my current campaign everything is not black and white, sure there is good and evil but sometimes there is a whole lot of gray and I do give the PC's room to play.

 

[pemerton]

Without mechanical alignment the player has no reason to hold to their alignment, so when a situation comes up where the player knows going against their alignment is the smarter option they'll do it, every time.

Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly asked for arguments or examples that make out this claim.

What advantage does a player get by (for instance) having his/her PC break a code of honour while purporting not to?

I understand that a character might get an advantage from lying or cheating. But what advantage does a player get from having his/her paladin PC lie or cheat? For instance, how does that make the game more fun?

 

[Imaro]

I understand that a character might get an advantage from lying or cheating. But what advantage does a player get from having his/her paladin PC lie or cheat? For instance, how does that make the game more fun?

I guess ultimately that would depend on what the player finds fun... Perhaps he enjoys moral versatility but likes paladin powers? Maybe the fact that he can play on an honorable reputation and when convenient stab an opponent in the back is enjoyable for the player. Maybe there isn't one reason.

IMO... It's akin to asking... Why do some players enjoy building and playing characters that use exploits and/or broken rules when building their characters? How does that make the game more fun for them? regardless of why... it happens.

 

[pemerton]

Why do some players enjoy building and playing characters that use exploits and/or broken rules when building their characters? How does that make the game more fun for them?

For some, because they prefer "build" to play. (But I suspect this is a minority.) For others, because it increases the scope of their control over the game, by increasing the range and depth of their player resources.

Perhaps he enjoys moral versatility but likes paladin powers? Maybe the fact that he can play on an honorable reputation and when convenient stab an opponent in the back is enjoyable for the player.

These seem to me to be reasons for the character moreso than they are reasons for the player. The player of a morally fickle character is not him-/herself being "morally versatile" - it is not immoral to tell a story about a murderer, for instance.

On the matter of "stabbing oppoenents in the back". There is one approach to play where this really is a convenience for the player - namely, Gygaxian "skilled" play - but no one on this thread seems to be GMing that sort of game. Conversely, if you consider, say, 4e, it is in fact not at all convenient for the player of a paladin to stab an opponent in the back. The character's power - given the mechanical build - comes from being forthright, not sneaky. (Both in and out of combat.)

Hence my question: what sort of game is a (non-Gygaxian) GM running, in which the GM's framing and resolution of situations, in conjunction with the mechanics, really does make it more convenient for the player to stab opponents in the back? And why is alignment the preferred solution, rather than (say) the GM revisiting his/her approach to the framing of situations?

 

[Imaro]

On the matter of "stabbing oppoenents in the back". There is one approach to play where this really is a convenience for the player - namely, Gygaxian "skilled" play - but no one on this thread seems to be GMing that sort of game. Conversely, if you consider, say, 4e, it is in fact not at all convenient for the player of a paladin to stab an opponent in the back. The character's power - given the mechanical build - comes from being forthright, not sneaky. (Both in and out of combat.)

Hence my question: what sort of game is a (non-Gygaxian) GM running, in which the GM's framing and resolution of situations, in conjunction with the mechanics, really does make it more convenient for the player to stab opponents in the back? And why is alignment the preferred solution, rather than (say) the GM might revisiting his/her approach to the framing of situations?

Let me try explaining this in 4e terms... Does a paladin who tricks his opponent into imbuing a poison that makes him dazed, blinded or immobilized gain a benefit in combat effectiveness against said opponent over a paladin that fights his opponent in an honorable duel? None of the paladins powers are reduced in effectiveness because he poisoned his opponent so then why wouldn't he?

IMO: This isn't dependent upon a particular play style or edition.