The Nine

The Rule of Three mentions that the nine alignments will be the default for 5e...


And... Here... We... Go!

Veteran of The Transfer... Add 700 to my post count... 

1.5E continues its bold backwards march. Hardly surprising.
I honestly don't think anyone was expecting the nine alignments to not be presented as the default alignment grid.  What's interesting, and will be unfortunate to some/many, is reading into the deeper meaning behind the post that DDN will be given a distinctly flavorful presentation (war between Law and Chaos, Rod of Seven Parts, fundamental forces of existence).  I won't lie and say that doesn't help me as a DM and player out tremendously, because it does.  And I am personally excited to play DDN.  For others though, while overriding a default assumption that there is a war between Law and Chaos may be acceptable (like overriding a default assumption about Dwarves getting bonuses against Giants, or some such), I can easily see understandable disapproval in needing to override default assumptions about mechanical alignment.

I hope at least that mechanical alignment effects as presented in core are much more associated with those planar concepts and fundamental forces than they are with personality (even if I'm just going to make them more visible in my own games).

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
alignment was the first thing i saw in 4e that made me go "what the S is this F???"

i welcome back the hollywood squares of morality with wide open arms
1.5E continues its bold backwards march. Hardly surprising.



oh gosh do you think they'll bring back thac0?
The problem isn't the alignment system that they're using. The problem is that there are going to be core mechanics for it as something other than an optional module. It's so tragically regressive.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
An option to remove a module = an option to include that module.

Celebrate our differences.

I don't think modules are a good idea. It would just make the game very disjointed for the sake of appeasing every miniscule minority opinion at the expense of the overall quality of the game.
It's so tragically regressive.



Strong words for a game about elves and faeries.
An option to remove a module = an option to include that module.


It really all depends on the organization and presentation of it.  If they say, "players can optionally ignore mechanical alignment effects" and then put all of the mechanical alignment effects in their own subsection or sidebar of the book, clearly distinguished, rather than intermingled with other effects of similar type, then in practice it's more, "players can optionally include mechanical alignment effects."  For the inclusion of the broadest section of the community, I hope it's the latter.  I'd like as many of us as possible to be playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
It would just make the game very disjointed for the sake of appeasing every miniscule minority opinion at the expense of the overall quality of the game.

The last thing that alignment mechanics bring to D&D is "quality". And if you think that people who hate alignment mechanics are a "miniscule minority", then... well, I don't know what to say to that other than .

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I am thrilled about the inclusion of the classic nine alignments in D&D Next. The alignments are, for me, really an "iconic" part of the default D&D game. Can't wait to play the new edition!

I've been playing D&D for many years, and for those many years, I've seen many players who do not like alignments for various reasons (everything from flat-out not understanding the alignments and assuming they're something they are not, to holding some out-of-character, personal "no absolute truth" doctrine). Frankly, alignment has always been easy to remove from the game (like anything else) if the group so chooses, so I've never really cared about the big fuss or seen much point in it. If someone doesn't like an aspect of the default game, let him follow Gygax's old advice and change it. 
An option to remove a module = an option to include that module.


It really all depends on the organization and presentation of it.

That goes without saying, really.  That's the nature of modules and as long as they are designing 5E to be modular, it is pretty safe to assume that they will do their best to make relaed modules easily interchangeable (9 alignments - 5 alignments - no alignment).

Celebrate our differences.

It would just make the game very disjointed for the sake of appeasing every miniscule minority opinion at the expense of the overall quality of the game.

The last thing that alignment mechanics bring to D&D is "quality". And if you think that people who hate alignment mechanics are a "miniscule minority", then... well, I don't know what to say to that other than .

He was not referring specifically to alignment.  He was talking about modules in general.  You know, what he said in the first sentence that you opted to not quote from a two sentence post.

Celebrate our differences.

He was not referring specifically to alignment.

This is a thread about alignment, so I assumed they were talking about alignment (as a module).

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The last thing that alignment mechanics bring to D&D is "quality". And if you think that people who hate alignment mechanics are a "miniscule minority", then... well, I don't know what to say to that other than .

He was not referring specifically to alignment.  He was talking about modules in general.  You know, what he said in the first sentence that you opted to not quote from a two sentence post.



Thaaaaaaaaaaank you.
Thaaaaaaaaaaank you.

If you weren't talking about alignment, then your post was off-topic.

Poster 1: "Check out this alignment stuff."
Poster 2: "I don't like this."
Poster 3: "You don't like this alignment stuff?"
Poster 2: "That's not what I said! You're making assumptions!"

You really gonna play that game?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
If you weren't talking about alignment, then your post was off-topic.


Not that I think either of you have the high ground in this argument, but he could agree that his post wasn't about the specific topic, but related in a general sense.

Player 2: I don't like this.

Player 2: I don't like the general set of things of which this included.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
He was not referring specifically to alignment.

This is a thread about alignment, so I assumed they were talking about alignment (as a module).

If you were reading the thread, you would have noticed that his post was in direct response to the previous post, which references alignments as a module, hence his response, which was completely on topic.

Celebrate our differences.

Ok folks, let's please get back on topic.

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

ORC_Chaos 
Ahh, a good old fashioned alignment thread.  Why, I haven't seen one of these for, oh, 8 minutes.

And to all the ORCs, I wish y'all well, because with the Rule of Three response on alignment, I believe I see a ****torm on the horizon.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
An option to remove a module = an option to include that module.


It really all depends on the organization and presentation of it.


That goes without saying, really.


Completely agreed, but given the nature of the statement in the article (assumed default with option to extrude), I think it needs to be said that is still not how it may play out on a practical matter

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
It's worth pointing out that alignment was a default system in 4e, yet it was completely removable should you desire not to use them.

The only significance of this comment is that instead of 4e's limited alignment system where Lawful Evil doesn't exist, the full nine are coming back. 

So if you want to use alignment, then the alignment system will be The Nine by default.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The problem isn't the alignment system that they're using. The problem is that there are going to be core mechanics for it as something other than an optional module. It's so tragically regressive.



That's not actually what they said, you know.

Why should I believe your assumption that alignment will be inextricably, mechanically linked with the system at its most basic level, when that goes against pretty much all of what the stated design goals are for 5e?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The only significance of this comment is that instead of 4e's limited alignment system where Lawful Evil doesn't exist, the full nine are coming back.

No, there's more. Unlike in 4E, alignment is going to have mechanics, and those mechanics are going to be embedded in the core system rather than in optional modules. Sure, I can house rule those away, but I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy about the ability to house rule something not meaning that something was a good idea. I think that's Oberoni?

That's not actually what they said, you know.

Really? That's what it sounds like to me:

"The classic nine alignments are planned to be the default alignment assumptions (though personally I also have a soft spot for "Unaligned" as well). As for mechanical impact, I think that there's an assumption in the history, world, and cosmology of Dungeons & Dragons that there are tangible, elemental forces of good, evil, law, and chaos, etc. Some of D&D's best stories are built on it; see the war between Law and Chaos that led to the creation of the Rod of Seven Parts. Having mechanics that interact with a fundamental force of existence makes sense, much in the same way that having mechanics that interact with fire, lightning, etc. make sense. However, we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses."

Why should I believe your assumption that alignment will be inextricably, mechanically linked with the system at its most basic level, when that goes against pretty much all of what the stated design goals are for 5e?

A) I don't assume that alignment will be inextricably linked with the rest of the system. In fact, I totally believe that alignment mechanics will be easy to remove from the game, as the article says. However, the problem is that the alignment mechanics would need to be removed from the game at all. Why should I need to remove it rather than having groups that want to use it add it? I think that's what goes against pretty much all of what the stated design goals are for 5E.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Why should I need to remove it rather than having groups that want to use it add it? I think that's what goes against pretty much all of what the stated design goals are for 5E.

It's a module.  They plug and play as much as they unplug and play.  It makes no difference if they are defaulted in or out.  You really are making a big deal about something that will be completely optional.

Celebrate our differences.

They plug and play as much as they unplug and play.

Well then, we clearly have different understandings of what modules are and/or what it means for the game to be modular.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Why should I need to remove it rather than having groups that want to use it add it?


Ultimately, it's likely because alignment is an iconic feature of D&D and thus it's a default assumption.
Why should I need to remove it rather than having groups that want to use it add it?


Ultimately, it's likely because alignment is an iconic feature of D&D and thus it's a default assumption.

And more to the point, it doesn't matter either way.  The result is the same.  Those that want to play with alignment play with alignment.  Those that don't want to play with alignment, don't play with alignment.

Celebrate our differences.

The only significance of this comment is that instead of 4e's limited alignment system where Lawful Evil doesn't exist, the full nine are coming back.

No, there's more. Unlike in 4E, alignment is going to have mechanics, and those mechanics are going to be embedded in the core system rather than in optional modules. Sure, I can house rule those away, but I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy about the ability to house rule something not meaning that something was a good idea. I think that's Oberoni?

That's not actually what they said, you know.

Really? That's what it sounds like to me:

"The classic nine alignments are planned to be the default alignment assumptions (though personally I also have a soft spot for "Unaligned" as well). As for mechanical impact, I think that there's an assumption in the history, world, and cosmology of Dungeons & Dragons that there are tangible, elemental forces of good, evil, law, and chaos, etc. Some of D&D's best stories are built on it; see the war between Law and Chaos that led to the creation of the Rod of Seven Parts. Having mechanics that interact with a fundamental force of existence makes sense, much in the same way that having mechanics that interact with fire, lightning, etc. make sense. However, we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses."

Why should I believe your assumption that alignment will be inextricably, mechanically linked with the system at its most basic level, when that goes against pretty much all of what the stated design goals are for 5e?

A) I don't assume that alignment will be inextricably linked with the rest of the system. In fact, I totally believe that alignment mechanics will be easy to remove from the game, as the article says. However, the problem is that the alignment mechanics would need to be removed from the game at all. Why should I need to remove it rather than having groups that want to use it add it? I think that's what goes against pretty much all of what the stated design goals are for 5E.




The sentence in the response that you failed to highlight between the two that you chose to emphasize seems particularly pertinent.  Rodney seems to be implying that alignment will only have mechanical effects on beings from the outer planes, or perhaps those imbued with some sort of otherworldly power.  Instead of parsing the information presented you're making assumptions that are simply not supported  within the text that your using as the basis for your argument.
Why should I need to remove it rather than having groups that want to use it add it?


Ultimately, it's likely because alignment is an iconic feature of D&D and thus it's a default assumption.

And more to the point, it doesn't matter either way.  The result is the same.  Those that want to play with alignment play with alignment.  Those that don't want to play with alignment, don't play with alignment.


Oh, I agree.
Ultimately, it's likely because alignment is an iconic feature of D&D and thus it's a default assumption.

But it's not alignment that's the problem here. It's alignment mechanics. Those may be iconic in some ways, but iconic does not mean good. Just look at THAC0. 4E showed show the game can get along just fine without alignment mechanics.

The sentence in the response that you failed to highlight between the two that you chose to emphasize seems particularly pertinent.  Rodney seems to be implying that alignment will only have mechanical effects on beings from the outer planes, or perhaps those imbued with some sort of otherworldly power.

And that's better, sure, but if it solved the problem entirely, then I wouldn't still be worried about it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I think Crimson Concerto has enough precendence on their side to be worried that things won't work out as easily (read: little to no effort whatsoever) in practice as they do in a handful of sentences from Rule of Three.

The question is not whether, but how much faith do you have in the developers that "modular" can be achieved with such great finesse that it is nearly invisible to the players if a module starts in the default game and needs to be extracted or exists in the core books and needs to be included.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
The question is not whether, but how much faith do you have in the developers that "modular" can be achieved with such great finesse that it is nearly invisible to the players if a module starts in the default game and needs to be extracted or exists in the core books and needs to be included.

Whether people liked playing 4E or not, most agree that the core was an elegant rule set.  If they can do elegant, they can do finesse.

Celebrate our differences.

Ugh...

This is one less point for D&D Next. I will have to work out the alignment system from the ruleset manually. That's work to make the game playable. I don't like it. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I don't see how skipping over several paragraphs of text equates to work...  it's actually less work than if you read it with the intent to include it.  But hey, one man's work is another man's play. 

Celebrate our differences.

I don't see how skipping over several paragraphs of text equates to work.

Because first you have to find all of those paragraphs. Sure, the ones explaining what alignment is are simple enough to skip over, but then you also have to remove the Paladin's Detect Evil, the non-chaotic restriction for the Monk, pretty much any spell that affects creature of some alignments but not others. Then, if there were balance reasons for this sorts of features, you need to come up with some way of replacing them or otherwise making them work. That's not always easy.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
going digital would make skipping optional stuff easier
For the reasons cited by Crimson Concerto, going digital would neither be easier nor more difficult (IMO)
I don't see how skipping over several paragraphs of text equates to work.

Because first you have to find all of those paragraphs. Sure, the ones explaining what alignment is are simple enough to skip over, but then you also have to remove the Paladin's Detect Evil, the non-chaotic restriction for the Monk, pretty much any spell that affects creature of some alignments but not others. Then, if there were balance reasons for this sorts of features, you need to come up with some way of replacing them or otherwise making them work. That's not always easy.

I didn't read about any of those things in the article.  I did see the part where they said it would be easy to remove and would only be related to things that were "dealing with powerful, elemental forces of alignments."  But hey, if things that are easy to remove are not easy to remove for you, then you may not want a modular game at all.

Celebrate our differences.

I didn't read about any of those things in the article.

We don't know anything about DDN. The only thing that we have to go on is experience from how things were handled in previous editions. Again, it doesn't matter to me whether they say it would be easy to remove, because (a) they haven't exactly given me good reason to trust them, and (b) I don't think that I should have to bother with removing it anyway.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Sign In to post comments