|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 8:14AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
A choice that you are openly aware will be soundly and brutally punished is not a viable choice.
That's like saying I have the choice to stick my tongue in the electrical socket. Sure, it's technically on the menu, but it's a stupid thing to do. The mechanical alignment system worked the same way. Sure, you can roleplay your character -- but only if you want your character to become useless.
Like I said, those circumstances are extremely rare. Maybe it was common in the games you play in, but I've been using more or less the same type of alignment system for about 25 years and it was extremely rare that anything even approaching what you're suggesting ever happened, and in the few cases (i.e. Paladin) where it could be a potential disaster, the player chose a Paladin because he WANTED to RP his character in that way, so there was never a serious issue of these dire consequence to begin with. The whole argument is a red herring. If you can't play the old alignment system without pigeon holing your players, you've got a bad DM.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 8:24AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2008
|
Unaligned > Neutral. Balance schmalance, 'Keeping the universe from eating itself.' is a good goal even if the PC doesn't want to admit to being good, 'Betraying people you swore to aid.' is evil even if the PC rationalizes it with international politics.
I use Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Unaligned, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil, and specify that Alignment is what you do six or seven out of ten times and what you wish you could do ten out of ten times, rather than the whole of your personality distilled into two words. I keep the ethical axis largely because I am mildly OCD and think it looks better than 'Good or Evil', and because it gives me more options in describing alien spiritual beings who really can act a certain way all the time, because they have no concept of self preservation outside of 'I have to go in Ganon's evil jar AGAIN?!'.
I also keep a wooden spoon to threaten people with if they go, 'You're X alignment, you can't do that!' or, 'I do this because, um, I'm X alignment!' too often.
That last bit was a joke.
Or was it?!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 8:43AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2006
|
What I'm doing is keeping the present alignments and re-introducing True Neutral as an intentional counterpart to Unaligned.
Sure, most "neutral" folks are just folks who haven't "picked a side", but others, like Druids and Mordenkainen's Circle Of Eight (on Greyhawk), actively seek to maintain a balance between the extremes of alignment.
That's why I think we need True Neutral in addition to Unaligned, and that's why I'll be house-ruling it in.
The sycophants and EULA quoters aren't worth our time.
4E =/= Essentials; Essentials =/= 4E.
To WotC/DDI: GO "SOON" YOURSELVES.
Internet Rule #41. Needs moar Desu. No exceptions.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 9:51AM
#34
|
|
|
If I must house rule on alignment, I'll simply remove the "mechanic" altogether.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 10:28AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
I won't be using Alignment. I'll be using a social system of allegiances and the like.
Alignment's never worked for my group. Morality's more complex than that in practice.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 10:30AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
My own games have most often run simply on a Good-Neutral-Evil axis.
Sure, you can further describe each one but that's almost never been a factor at my table - unless you were a paladin. Or in the case of the occasional magic item keyed to a specific alignment.
So I don't really see my aproach changing should I run a 4e game.
Once again I'll just have Good, Evil, & Neutral (interchangable with "Unaligned").
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 10:32AM
#37
|
|
|
Re: Title
Back out of existence, like the end of my 3E run?
I am.
Alignments are a crutch for roleplaying that have been taken entirely too far. D&D needs them like it needs Wish and Miracle back.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 12:52PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2005
|
I keep track of the PCs alignments myself. At character creation they create a starting point based on their character concepts, but after that it's up to them how they behave. One player decided to play True Neutral. As the game progressed, he became more "neutral good". As we played I noted incidents in the margins of my paperwork, and when he was affected by a "Protection From Good" ward, the look on his face was great! I had to show him his own record of behavior to show how he had turned "good". It's a lot of bookkeeping on my part, but it keeps alignment where it belongs, in the background, serving only as an identifier and not as a behavioral dictator.
Now imagine instead the look on his face had he drifted from Law to neutral, and you said, sorry, your monk cannot advance any more as a monk.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 1:00PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
Personaly, I'd have prefered a Lawfull-Chaotic-Evil-Good-Unaligned, but this is not illogical..
I had an epiphany, last week; it' s an orderly/civilised/focused/controled Evil and Good VS a Natural/Wild/Chaotic set of Good and Evil. It have a sense.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 28, 2008 - 1:02PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2008
|
I won't be using Alignment. I'll be using a social system of allegiances and the like.
Alignment's never worked for my group. Morality's more complex than that in practice.
qft
|
|
|
