D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[Lanefan]

Which is just ignoring the question. Kinda funny to say "hey you ignored the context" in your literally immediately previous post, only to then do that to my own.

IME it doesn't ignore the question at all. The DM hosts, and in the rare occasions where that's not true the game's either at a neutral site (e.g. university classroom or yacht club meeting room) or at someone else's house because they've specifically offered to host that session.

Typical completely useless "advice". Not worth further response.

You're willing to run something you don't in fact want to?

Right, didn't think so. And so, what next?

One v one? Odd group, considering that means the singular player really is exactly as essential as the GM.

Given that your take seems to be that any one player is as essential as the DM, then yes: one-v-one.

Hypothetical: three out of five players are really really jazzed about Eberron and have specifically made clear numerous times in the past (since you demand that we only consider the tiny slice of the hobby that constitutes a stable 20-year-plus group) that they think Greyhawk is not a particularly good setting. The GM, however, thinks it's the best thing ever written and thus has tried, for (say) the tenth time, to make Greyhawk But Homebrewed So Everyone Should Love It. The other two players aren't opposed, but aren't compelled either.

In that case I'm inviting in the two players who aren't opposed while finding two or three others more attuned to my tastes (and if can't, I'll run with just the two for now, no biggie); meanwhile I'm suggesting one of the three runs an Eberron game to scratch that itch.

Our community of players is, fortunately, big enough that I can pick and choose like this.

 

[Clint_L]

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things here, but it's the internet, why not?

I like alignment; however, I think it works best when used in one of the following situations:

1. The Players and the DM are almost always in agreement about what "morality" means so when a character (PC or NPC) commits and act and the character's reasoning is fairly obvious (or can be explained), the players and the DM agree about whether the act is "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "good" (e.g., a "good" character may justifiably commit "evil" acts in some circumstances, such as being coerced, while an "evil" character may justifiably commit "good" acts in some circumstances, such as deception/building an alibi for later evil acts).

2. The Players and DM trust each other to "play reasonably fair" and when there is a dispute as to whether a character (again, PC or NPC) of alignment X would plausibly commit an act, there is a discussion about the dispute, usually over PC actions, with the resolution being either "the DM agrees the PC would plausibly commit the act" or "the PC agrees that the PC would not plausibly commit that act and an "alignment change" will occur either immediately or in the future if the PC continues with similar acts).

Generally it fails when the Players and DM disagree about "what is moral" and whether acts a character of a certain alignment are appropriate to that alignment... and after discussion are unable to come to an agreement. At its extreme, this manifests as one party or both being labelled "controlling DM fiat" or "obnoxious wangrod rule lawyer player."

I would further posit that "morality (and thus alignment) is a complex/adult subject" and this last situation is less a failure of alignment as a system (since it's almost impossible to legislate morality at the table in a way everyone will agree with) and more a failure of communication between players and DM... in exactly the same way that a game that incorporates other potentially problematic elements such as horror, torture, racism, romance, sex, or other similar complex/adult subject is a failure if an agreement cannot be reached on how the material should be presented... in other words "alignment in your world" can work great... but it is probably one more subject that should be covered during "Session Zero" in order to work properly.

Let me ask a question: what is gained in these instances by using alignment? Why not just focus on desires, choices and actions? How does putting a label on those ("That was a lawful evil act") add anything but potential disagreement to the situation?

For example, say the player character chooses to to enforce the letter of the law in a way that directly benefits them at the expense of, I dunno, an orphanage. What is added by labeling that act as lawful neutral, or lawful evil, or something else entirely? Like, who cares what you call it, they still did it, and that will affect how others see them...but not always in the same way.

 

[Lanefan]

Where does it say the Deck is immune to divinations?

It has to be, otherwise Augury or even Portent would completely break it, never mind Commune.

I've heard people claim this before, but at least as presented in the 1e DMG, nothing is said about it. I guess there's an argument for later editions when it's classified as a "minor artifact". Now again, if the DM wants to rule that it is so it can't be cheesed (though I'm amused at the idea of trying to balance something that is unbalanced by it's very nature), that's certainly their prerogative. But as near as I can tell, that's a ruling, not a rule (which, granted, some would say is a distinction without a difference).

Again, your ruling is as absolute as my DM's was, my main complaint with him was how he went about it. I pointed out to him I had a magic item that plainly says it does a thing, he cycled through several reasons why he felt it shouldn't do that, before finally saying "you know what, it did warn you, so you would have been warned not to draw any cards".

Yeah, here I'd have simply pointed out that the Deck's magic trumped your Phylactery just like it trumps any other divinations and stopped there.

 

[Maxperson]

I did, which led to a debate about how much time a "moment" is (the DM tried to say it would take my entire round at one point during the "debate"). My character knew about the Balance card since it was drawn by someone else in a previous encounter, so I said I was using the Phylactery before each draw. When I actually drew Balance, suddenly he had a problem with it.

That's a super tough corner case. Since the cards are random, the DM couldn't tell you in advance. And since the phylactery only tell you if the action you are contemplating(drawing from the deck) is bad, you don't know which card it would be. The only way for your phylactery to work is to back it up and have you not draw.

I think your DM ultimately made the correct call, but did it in a pretty crappy way.

 

[Maxperson]

It has to be, otherwise Augury or even Portent would completely break it, never mind Commune.

Yeah, here I'd have simply pointed out that the Deck's magic trumped your Phylactery just like it trumps any other divinations and stopped there.

Was portent in AD&D? I don't see it in the 1e or 2e PHBs. Augury had a qualification that the DM could make any adjustments he wanted for the circumstances, so you can rule that fails. Commune, though, I'd easily allow to work. You're talking to a god. If the god can't overcome the deck's magic, the deck is stronger than gods which makes no sense. It's a minor artifact at best.

 

[Lanefan]

Was portent in AD&D? I don't see it in the 1e or 2e PHBs. Augury had a qualification that the DM could make any adjustments he wanted for the circumstances, so you can rule that fails. Commune, though, I'd easily allow to work. You're talking to a god. If the god can't overcome the deck's magic, the deck is stronger than gods which makes no sense. It's a minor artifact at best.

Portent is in UA I think.

And yes, the whole point of the Deck is that nothing can tell you what you're about to draw. Even deities can't predict the future.

 

[Maxperson]

Portent is in UA I think.

And yes, the whole point of the Deck is that nothing can tell you what you're about to draw. Even deities can't predict the future.

They don't have to predict the future. They can know which card is on top, which is second, third, etc.

 

[James Gasik]

It has to be, otherwise Augury or even Portent would completely break it, never mind Commune.

I wonder about this. I mean, by that logic, you couldn't use divinations on anything with a random effect, be it a Bag of Beans to a Wand of Wonder or jumping in a weird magical pool. There's already limitations placed on many such effects (augury has a failure chance, for one) that I'd be reluctant to narrow their focus even more.

If a player found a way to abuse a Deck of Many Things in a game I was running, I'd think it was my own fault for using the darned thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How does the GM feel about this Eberron idea some of their players want? Are any of them willing to GM?

No matter how many times anyone says, "Well if you want to play something, run it!", it never becomes even the tiniest bit more relevant.

Running a game isn't playing in a game. It never will be. It is literally the very core of your argument that running a game is radically different from playing in one, isn't it? So by your own lights, how can it be even remotely useful to tell someone "well if you want to play something, run that thing"? You're literally telling them to NOT play the thing they want to play!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IME it doesn't ignore the question at all. The DM hosts, and in the rare occasions where that's not true the game's either at a neutral site (e.g. university classroom or yacht club meeting room) or at someone else's house because they've specifically offered to host that session.

Then perhaps you should consider the hypothetical when several other people are telling you that your experience is not as universal as you believe it to be. That having a player host, rather than the GM, can in fact be an established pattern.

In other words...considering that the question is actually worth answering on its own merits, rather than doing, for what would be a third time, "I don't believe that happens, so I reject the hypothetical and will not consider it." Which is what you've done here, again.

You're willing to run something you don't in fact want to?

I'm willing to run things I hadn't considered and to be sold on things I had not originally planned.

Right, didn't think so. And so, what next?

You're refusing to respond to my hypothetical. Again. Because that is now an established pattern. Three out of three.

I responded to your hypothetical by taking it seriously. I then gave you one of my own. It would be cool to actually take seriously the things I've proposed.

Given that your take seems to be that any one player is as essential as the DM, then yes: one-v-one.

You've misconstrued what I said. I was saying anyone specific player, and that that is simply "entirely possible"--not even remotely guaranteed. But it's much easier to defeat a position I never took, that goes for ridiculous extremes, rather than responding to what I've said, isn't it? I swear there's a term for that. Haybloking? Silagepersoning? I swear, it's on the tip of my tongue!

In that case I'm inviting in the two players who aren't opposed while finding two or three others more attuned to my tastes (and if can't, I'll run with just the two for now, no biggie); meanwhile I'm suggesting one of the three runs an Eberron game to scratch that itch.

Our community of players is, fortunately, big enough that I can pick and choose like this.

And for those three players, they're now just F'd. They literally don't get to play.

Because that? That is my experience. And if you can argue that your experience is an absolute universal, so the hell can I.