D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[Micah Sweet]

Businesses do, in fact, have hierarchy. Often one actually backed up by the force of law, ultimately.

Friendships, in general, do not.

If you wish to assert that a leisure-time activity has an innate and inherent hierarchy, you'll need to defend that, not just assert it.

Because, as I said above: The GM only has authority by group consensus. How does the GM achieve anything at all, if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority?

And if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority, but they somehow exert it anyway, what force are they using to make people obey them who reject their authority?

Often the force is simple inertia. No one else has a better idea or one they are more excited about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, just for one of them, Classrooms objectively benefit from incorporating some elements of collaboration in addition to hierarchy. Teaching students to express autonomy and actively participate in learning, rather than being reduced to passive rote-memorization observers with no agency, has consistently been shown to result in better overall outcomes. Disruptive students will, of course, exist; but by and large the vast majority of students respond well to having some degree of control over their own learning.

I certainly think that collaboration is of significant utility in hospitals and development studios, and probably has significant utility in musical theater groups. I don't know enough about engineering firms nor fire departments to speak to those things. Sports teams already have a mix of collaboration and hierarchy.

To turn your question around: do you feel that hierarchy-based leadership models would work in other areas of life that typically employ consensus, such as friendships, marriages, legislative bodies, professional associations (e.g. the AMA), or academic consortia?

Because I can cherry-pick associations of humans that do not have a rigid, top-down hierarchy just as easily as you can cherry-pick associations of humans which do in fact have one. For example, you forgot armies.

All of those associations either still have a designated person who gets the final word, an emergent individual who gets their way more often than not, or a severe impediment in making and executing decisions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How about the times you keep asserting that every other player is going to do that?

That's why I keep going there. Because you keep saying that that's what the players will do, unless they have their benevolent dictator to save them from their jerk behavior.

So who's going to save us from the GM when that behavior comes from them?

The ability to leave if a consensus can't be reached.

 

[James Gasik]

It's greater than the scope of this thread, but ever since 3e, there's been this sort of class struggle with regards to the agency of players vs. the authority of the DM. You give players more agency, DM's gripe that their ability to run the game has been eroded. You give the DM more authority, players will spread horrible tales about tyrannical DM's.

What both sides need to agree upon is that if the DM is unhappy, nobody plays. If the players are unhappy, nobody plays. A compromise of some kind does need to exist.

And trust me, I know someone is going to say: "I've run the game the same way for decades, with a group of players who all think just like I do" or somesuch. And if that's true for you, fantastic.

Try to give me the benefit of the doubt when I say that isn't a universal scenario.

 

[payn]

It's greater than the scope of this thread, but ever since 3e, there's been this sort of class struggle with regards to the agency of players vs. the authority of the DM. You give players more agency, DM's gripe that their ability to run the game has been eroded. You give the DM more authority, players will spread horrible tales about tyrannical DM's.

What both sides need to agree upon is that if the DM is unhappy, nobody plays. If the players are unhappy, nobody plays. A compromise of some kind does need to exist.

And trust me, I know someone is going to say: "I've run the game the same way for decades, with a group of players who all think just like I do" or somesuch. And if that's true for you, fantastic.

Try to give me the benefit of the doubt when I say that isn't a universal scenario.

I think a lot of it is just venting. Some folks got lucky, as you note, and some folks got really unlucky with a bag of dinks. Though, you are completely correct in that the game only works with cooperation and compromise. There is a point where your preferences might revolve around preventing dink behavior, but that doesnt mean its inevitable otherwise.

 

[Voadam]

And Alignment doesn't encourage tyrannical DMing, there's no evidence that that's the case. Any DM who'd abuse the Alignment system would just find another way to be abusive.

I think there is a qualitative difference in the DM player relationship based on the alignment mechanics.

In OD&D to 3e for example the paladin mechanics had the DM review whether the paladin made a prohibited alignment action (chaotic act for OD&D, evil acts for the other editions) or not and provided punitive mechanics for single actions that cross the line. Alignment definitions being something that can vary this structurally puts the DM in the role of judging how the player plays their PC according to the DM's view of how a paladin should act and imposing mechanical consequences for failure to do so until the character atones for their violation. In good faith a DM and player can vary in their interpretation of what constitutes a prohibited alignment action, so this structurally puts the player in the role of trying to play according to the DM's view of the situation instead of their own if they want to not be mechanically sanctioned.

In 1e this is similar for all characters with the DMG DM alignment tracking of the PCs and level loss for if the DM thinks there is alignment drift.

In 4e and 5e where there is alignment but no real alignment mechanics it does not set up such a player-DM dynamic. The player just plays their character how they feel is appropriate according to their views of it and the DM does not mechanically supervise their players' roleplay. Alignment is left as a general narrative descriptor that can be used or not by players and DMs as possible characterization hooks for the characters they are playing (PCs or NPCs). There is no default system of the DM reviewing the player's roleplay and judging it according to their view of alignment or imposing mechanical consequences for what the DM views as alignment violations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think a lot of it is just venting. Some folks got lucky, as you note, and some folks got really unlucky with a bag of dinks. Though, you are completely correct in that the game only works with cooperation and compromise. There is a point where your preferences might revolve around preventing dink behavior, but that doesnt mean its inevitable otherwise.

While some of it is venting, some of it is also irritation over the fact that the very concept that rules are tools, and thus can be useful in helping achieve some end (like, say, helping players and GMs be on the same page, helping GMs avoid likely problem behaviors, helping GMs identify and address problem player behaviors before they become serious, helping players identify and address problem GM behaviors before they become serious, guiding players and GMs toward productive behaviors, promoting communication, calling attention to areas often overlooked, etc., etc.), has to be re-defended every single time anything involving GM choice comes up.

Because every single time GM choice comes up, this "limited only by the never-spoken 'social contract', thus capable of doing essentially anything" thing comes up, and now we have to do a "if you want to make apple pie from scratch, first you must invent the universe" level of argumentation just to get literally anyone to accept the extremely simple notion that rules are useful tools that really can help problems even if they don't perfectly fix those problems.

 

[GobHag]

Clearly the best way to do this is that the players can, once per campaign and if they're all in consensus, decide that whatever challenge or setting element or character infront of them is not up-to snuff and have it be skipped over or retconned out.

This is the price I'm setting for alignment to brought back into prominence.

Unrelatedly, if this comes to fruition anytime I'm in a table as a player, I will always vote yes or try to convince my fellow players to eradicate ALignment the first time I sniff blood in the water when there's discontent from it.

 

[Necropolitan]

Clearly the best way to do this is that the players can, once per campaign and if they're all in consensus, decide that whatever challenge or setting element or character infront of them is not up-to snuff and have it be skipped over or retconned out.

That's completely absurd, absolutely not.

If you don't like what the DM is doing then tell them. If they refuse to change then leave.

You don't get to force the DM to do what you want.

 

[GobHag]

Not if a game rule says so.

If a GM can take away a major source of power or even characterization of a PC through rules on a whim, then a player table can do those thing to a GM's precious setting through rules by consensus. Which, I remind you, is very much harder.