|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 8:29AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
Because it wasn't answered ont he other thread: Mouser, if you're at the table with me and every time your character, say, tries to talk to a barmaid, I whip out a stun gun and give you a shock, would you say I'm discouraging you from interacting with barmaids? Would you keep trying to talk to barmaids? Would you continue to play at my table if I keep insisting on doing this?
Or in character, if talking to the barmaid made your encounter powers unavailable for the rest of the day because I rule that you're too distracted thinking about the barmaid and he sauciness?
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 8:30AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
As above, it's a problem with the System, not the DM. And as above, Divine Classes BASED on a specific mindset are not subject to Alignment Problems; they're based on them, so it usually works out. However, Mr. Monk doesn't appreciate being FORCED to be Lawful, and building the entire Class out of that alignment was really crap-tastic. 4E will do an infinitely better job.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 8:34AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
As above, it's a problem with the System, not the DM. And as above, Divine Classes BASED on a specific mindset are not subject to Alignment Problems; they're based on them, so it usually works out. However, Mr. Monk doesn't appreciate being FORCED to be Lawful, and building the entire Class out of that alignment was really crap-tastic. 4E will do an infinitely better job.
So are you saying that alignment restrictions for specific cases is fine?
I also agree that the core classes in 3.5 were not written well with respect to alignment. From the core classes, only the clerics and paladins should have had alignment restriction. (Although paladins should not have had to been LG.)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:01AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
 , Scypio. Perfect. 
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:10AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
> If someone creates a cleric who worships Wee Jas
Then the character's standing should be based on the question, "Are you upholding the tenets of Wee Jas" rather than "Are you upholding the tenets of Lawful Neutral (or Lawful Evil, or both, since Wee Jas never really decided which side of that fence to be on)?"
This goes hand in hand with the decoupling of alignment from everything else in that now the tenets of Wee Jas can be whatever is suitable to the god, rather than having to be structured around the stipulations of the alignment system.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:18AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
My argument is that alignment is full of fail. If you can make a fully fleshed out character then it is not needed at all. If playing a cleric or paladin you should only have to follow your gods tennets, however breaking those tennets should not lead to any mechanical consequences only rp ones, because any dm that strips a player of powers does not deserve to be a DM. I would much rather have seen rules for fleshing out characters.
That said I would not mind seeing an allegiance type system with alignments being possible alliegances. In fact such a system would be incredibly dynamic.
As for paladins. No class should be restricted to a certain alignment or only one arctype. In previous edditions all paladins looked and acted the exact same 90% of the time because of the code and alignment. It allowed for almost no variation you had to be the "paragon" of virtue 100% of the time or your powers would be stripped. What if I wanted a paladin whose seen too much and has an alcholhol abuse problem? Certain dms would use that as an excuse to strip player of powers, rather than doing rp consequences. To me thats bad design and bad story telling.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:20AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2008
|
I thought this discussion was more about having alignment in a game and less about proving it's futility via listing all the classes that have alignment restrictions. Showing that you can have a character concept such as a chaotic wandering monk or a lawful court bard isn't telling me why one can't have fun using the mechanic in a general sense.
I'm also a bit confused as to some of the viewpoints stating that alignment, by it's very existence, hurts roleplaying. Could someone please explain that to me further without resorting to using a story where table communication or other DM/player interaction is the obvious problem? If possible, I'd prefer it without snark or a verbose "my game concept is better than your game concept" approach. Let's leave our e-reps and forum egos checked at the door, please.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:32AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
I thought this discussion was more about having alignment in a game and less about proving it's futility via listing all the classes that have alignment restrictions. Showing that you can have a character concept such as a chaotic wandering monk or a lawful court bard isn't telling me why one can't have fun using the mechanic in a general sense.
I'm also a bit confused as to some of the viewpoints stating that alignment, by it's very existence, hurts roleplaying. Could someone please explain that to me further without resorting to using a story where table communication or other DM/player interaction is the obvious problem? If possible, I'd prefer it without snark or a verbose "my game concept is better than your game concept" approach. Let's leave our e-reps and forum egos checked at the door, please.
Sure Id be happy to. To me it hurts role playing because if you develop alingment first your not really thinking of your characters personality all your doing is wrapping a few contrite concepts around alignment and calling it a character, if you go with personality first you then have to try and shove that concept into a little box. To my mind having those little boxes at all hurts my creativity and ideas for character concept because its one more thing I have to think of rather than simply playing how the character would act.
It also leads to metagaming as in a paladin player will never break alignment because that would neuter his character, even if it made sense for the character to act against alignment. Thus as far as I am concerened alignment is at best a crutch and at worse a hinderance.
Those who use it as a crutch will have a much harder time developing characters without it or coming up with real personalities.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:33AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
> If someone creates a cleric who worships Wee Jas
Then the character's standing should be based on the question, "Are you upholding the tenets of Wee Jas" rather than "Are you upholding the tenets of Lawful Neutral (or Lawful Evil, or both, since Wee Jas never really decided which side of that fence to be on)?"
This goes hand in hand with the decoupling of alignment from everything else in that now the tenets of Wee Jas can be whatever is suitable to the god, rather than having to be structured around the stipulations of the alignment system.
From the way I see it, there are two main advantages to checking against LN instead of against Wee Jas's tenets.
1) It provides a simplier structure for initial checking and comparision. It is easier to remember the 4 to 6 concepts of law/neutral/chaos and good/neutral/evil or the 9 alignments than it is to remember the tenets of all the gods. You can get a "quick" picture easier. Additionally, it allows you to "sort by a category". If I have a particular idea of my cleric's personality, I can assign an alignment, then see what gods would be applicable. This could eliminate much of the gods that are clearly not suitable.
2) It also provides a framework which gives a basis of expectations. Yes, the idea of good/evil law/chaos can change between tables, but there are guideline which provide some consistency. Its easier to know consequences if I know that killing an innocent will make me evil, hence I lose features A, B, and C. It does require DMs judgement, but without a framework, it would be completely up to DMs judgement. If I break one of Wee Jas's tenets, does that mean anything? If I continually break one, what can I expect?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:37AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
I'm also a bit confused as to some of the viewpoints stating that alignment, by it's very existence, hurts roleplaying. Could someone please explain that to me further without resorting to using a story where table communication or other DM/player interaction is the obvious problem? If possible, I'd prefer it without snark or a verbose "my game concept is better than your game concept" approach. Let's leave our e-reps and forum egos checked at the door, please.
From what I see, the argument is that players would meta-game as to not change alignments (or to change alignments). Players would (out of fear) not perform any acts that could be borderline or require a judgement call from the DM.
Additionally, there is the idea that it causes newer players to be constrained by the ideas suggested by the alignment descriptors.
|
|
|
