|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:39AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
And it's not just because they stifle roleplay by making you follow the 'script' or 'rails' to get power, but the designers of 3e have actively said that they had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with the playtesters failing at life.
I was referring to the 1st edition versions. Where the only reason you would be a fighter was if you didn't qualify for ranger or paladin (or didn't want to be Good for some reason).
Illusionists were a cool class too. Specialist wizards never quite captured the feel of that class. They didn't have alignment restrictions though.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:40AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
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.
Those concepts are things people want to play that alignment keeps them from playing. And keeping people from playing the character that want means they can't have fun -- or at least can't have as much fun as they could have without it.
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 - 9:46AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Ah, no. See, again, this actively punishes a certain player for choices he might make, and it isn't YOUR job as DM to do that to him. If some character starts to act out-of-alignment, a lot, then you might have to make him change it,
The problem is, what are you possibly going to change my alignment to? All of my characters are solidly in 3+ alignments, because I create actual personalities. Are you going to keep changing my alignment round robin? What's the point?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:46AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
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.
Problem: Many gods portfolios and tenets have no alignment conection or have connections beyond alignment. If you are LN and believe all undead must be destroyed or magic is evil you are less suited to follow We Jas then a CG person who has no issues with undead and enjoys magical research. The existance of alignment gives a series of false negatives and positives when used to cull deities.
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?
Both systems require DM fiat, but when you disagree with the DM over a tenet he says nothing about your personal beliefs and has the option to overlook the incident. If you disagree with a DM over alignment you are dragging each others real world views into the picture. And the DM doesn't have the option of pretending the deity didn't notice or is willing to overlook the fact, because alignment is a deity overriding unfeeling force that must be consitant. Your DM must decide that either his real life beliefs are wrong, or your are.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:54AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
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?
Well, truthfully, I probably wouldn't play a character with that restriction. But if a divine classed character who took a vow of chastity as part of his class tenets started sleeping with barmaids, then some consequences would be appropriate. And if I was playing such a character, I would roleplay resisting the temptations of such women (for some reason I have the picture of the swordsman from Final Fantasy VI in mind here).
Alignment changing stuff isn't (or shouldn't be) little things. A paladin with a drinking problem is certainly playable (at least at my table), so long as he didn't go and start murdering and raping people when he was drunk or something extreme like that.
I think the game was designed with flawed (or potentially flawed) characters in mind, at least in later editions (1st edition was unforgiving - in a lot of ways, not just alignment). That's why the rules say it takes a gross violation of the paladin's code to cause a loss of powers. Not any time he slips up.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 9:55AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2008
|
I can see how it would foster a restrictive environment for some. Thank you both for those timely replies.
Perhaps "crutch" and "tool" are synonymous as far as others are concerned, but I like to use alignment as a tool. I would also be inclined to think that I have a decent amount of creativity for a young stick-in-the-mud and that the character concepts I've made thus far in my short time playing the game were at least fun for me(and hopefully the rest of my group as well). I have much more limited experience with open ended type alignment systems such as WW games or Shadowrun, but I enjoyed those as well.
I'm not sure how I feel about class based alignment restrictions...I suppose it would be on a case by case basis. I DO, however, have a tendency to enjoy some of the alignment based spells/magic items/etc. that tend to turn up in games like 3.5 D and D. Having Good with a capital G and Evil with that awesome capital E really helps me feel those cosmic forces and their conflict in the universe. Being able to see those two forces in action in the sword the BBEG holds or the spell that I'm casting to save my companion really seems to fit the genre for me. On occasion, it really makes the game for me. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy the other systems of course. I definitely geeked out in my first game of Shadowrun playing my juggernaut of a troll street sammy and didn't have any trouble making the character sans slapping a "Lawful Neutral" somewhere on my character sheet.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, alignment has it's place in certain games. Of course, everyone at the table should be in agreement on it's use(the agreement being not only to use it but how to use it) for it to work properly. Being a person who can enjoy a game with or without it, I get a bit confused when I see people Grognarding for the sake of keeping things the same or "raging against the nerd rule machine" because they feel that their creativity would be absolutely stifled by a little set of two capital letters somewhere on their character sheet. Can't we have it both ways when the system fits and the people are happy with it?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 10:04AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
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.)
I disagree with this completely. Alignment should have next to nothing to do with paladins or clerics. Only the tenets of their God should have meaning. In virtually every case, you can follow a Gods tenets from multiple alignments.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 10:04AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
Problem: Many gods portfolios and tenets have no alignment conection or have connections beyond alignment. If you are LN and believe all undead must be destroyed or magic is evil you are less suited to follow We Jas then a CG person who has no issues with undead and enjoys magical research. The existance of alignment gives a series of false negatives and positives when used to cull deities.
Wee Jas may prefer the CG person more, but neither characters are suitable as a follower of Wee Jas. Your character should still adhere to the tenets of the god; alignment is only the "first check".
Both systems require DM fiat, but when you disagree with the DM over a tenet he says nothing about your personal beliefs and has the option to overlook the incident. If you disagree with a DM over alignment you are dragging each others real world views into the picture. And the DM doesn't have the option of pretending the deity didn't notice or is willing to overlook the fact, because alignment is a deity overriding unfeeling force that must be consitant. Your DM must decide that either his real life beliefs are wrong, or your are.
But it does not have to be so confrontational with alignment. I've played under DMs with VERY different world views than my own. This did cause a problem when I disagreed with a certain morality ruling, but I learned (his view) and accepted it (for the game world). Remember, its just a game and in this game, acts like genocide, racism, and religious perecution are not only non-evil, but many times good.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 10:09AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
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.
It's also simpler for a Judge to just pronounce a sentance with no trial, jury, or evidence. Simpler =/= better.
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?
That just makes absolutely no sense. Becoming evil for killing an innocent is NOT a consequence. Jail, maiming and/or death are consequences. Nor does knowing that you will become evil help you to understand those consequences.
As for your end questions, which edition are you breaking them in?
Edit: I just realized from your "simpler" example. You don't have to remember the tenets of every God. That's just silly. You only have to remember the tenets of the one you're a cleric or paladin of, and that's very easy to do.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 10:14AM
#40
|
|
|
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.
Damn,buddy, you are bitter. Did you get burned often by adversarial DMs?
I did not see this with paladins. Sure, I will grant you that due to their alignment limitations and code, they were some similarities, but I did not see them as pretty much all being identical. Maybe that goes to the imagination of the people playing them. I do know that the paladin class was one of the worst offenders for this, though, and an easy trap to fall into.
There was a good article in Dragon way back in the day that would still be of interest to any that may have access to it. It was in issue #148 page 24 "Good Does Not Mean Boring". It lays out four different types of paladins and a few other tips all based on the Lawful Good paladin.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche 
|
|
|
