Community

Scypio wrote:

The second response should be changed to:
"Some players enjoy a consequence mechanism to player actions."

Every mechanic is a consequence mechanism to player actions. That wouldn't be a counter to my argument.

Since my argument is that alignment is bad because the negative consequences discourage some types of non-disruptive roleplay, the counter would have to be that some players enjoy the negative consequences.

I don't think he was arguing to only get negative consequences.

He wasn't. But his justification of the mechanic was that some players enjoy the negative consequences, which would mean theydon't discourage roleplay.

if you don't experience bad experiences, the good doesn't seem as good (my opinion).

Which has little to do with my argument. I'm not saying mechanics should never punish, but that they shouldn't be designed in a way that discourages certain types of nondisruptive roleplay.

wrecan's argument Show

Scypio wrote:

It can give characters with different personalities/goals/actions different choices for character development. These can be are not limited to powers, class features, different paths (paragon/prestige), items, etc.

That's not a function of alignment. The very fact that a character must choose one paragon/prestige path or another forces the choice.

Adding a prerequisite doesn't force a choice. It limits the choice. In fact, it forces a lack of choice. Instead of "I have five paths to choose," we have "The book offers five choices, but due to alignment, I can only choose from two of them."

So fighters with stat X can have feature Y.

Right. Which is why I would never justify the existence of Abilities on the fact that they limit a player's choices of features. That's a drawback of Abilities, not a benefit of them.

mouser wrote:

You're completely missing my point wrecan - as shown by your use of the word "masochist" rather than simply stating as a premise "negative consequences discourage roleplay".

I stated that as a premise: "Non-masochistic players are discouraged by negative consequences that are unevenly distributed among characters."

I include "Non-masochistic" in the beginning because, by definition, people who enjoy negative consequences are masochists. As set forth in the dictionary: "masochist" means "gratification gained from pain, deprivation, degradation... , esp. the tendency to seek this form of gratification."

having those consequences mean you have to think about your actions and weigh your decisions.

Except that, as established above, alignment does that unevenly. So the only people who get to enjoy the negative consequences are those who purposely choose character personalities penalized by them.

It also means people who do not enjoy the negative consequences, but would otherwise play a character who would incur them, are discouraged. It also means that people who would enjoy them, but would otherwise play a character who would not incur them are discouraged.

Again, the problem with alignment is that the unevenness of the consequences affects player choices in a way that is not conducive to encouraging roleplay. It's haphazard in that it only benefits those who happen to 1) enjoy the negative consequences and 2) would play a character who would incur negative consequences.

A world where you can do pretty much whatever you want

That's a false dichotomy. The alternative to alignment is not a world without consequences.
wrecan's argument Show