Without mechanical effects(ie, penalties), it's just a bogus description. And not even a good one at that. Much easier to let it die, and make your character based on a personality, not a label.
Sorry DC, not to pick on you, but yours was handy. For any that spout that alignment has no mechanical effect, that is false. Alignment is a property like any other and can be incorporated into mechanics like any other... for example, a weapon with the property: Property: On a critical hit you deal +6d8 damage instead of +6d6 against evil creatures.
That really looks like a mechanical effect to me.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
still can not understand how people can take somethign mean to help you define your char as a stright jacket...
Some people do. I have had players determine their every action by looking at their alignment ("Ah, I'm Neutral Good, I can't do that ...") without realizing that actions determine alignment, not the other way around.
facepalm
I think you are confusing things...
That player defined it`s character upon creation, is like defining, my char is 4 feets tall, now in game he want toreach over the fridge,the player looks at his CHARACTER heigh ("Ah, I'm 4 feet tall, I can't do that ...").
that is called roleplaying, defining a character and then playing it as defined, the idea when you define a character alignment orpersonality is to roleplay it, so notdoing an action because the character asdefinedwould notdoit, is called GOOD ROLEPLAYING, contrary to bad roleplaying where you define a character as "good" and who does ntolike to kill, killing and attacking everithing in front of him without asking why or having a very good reason.
yesa character can take an action contrary to it`s alignment but ussually will have a good reason for it.
also by your definition race is also a straightjacket, hell I m a halfing, can not reach!
So if pay heavy attention to the descriptions in the PHB, it seems that LG wouldn't really fit with G even though it is part of a subset. I think this problem arose from trying to describe (2-3e) Lawful Good as (4e) LG and wanting (2-3e) CG/NG to fit into (4e) G. But the description seems to imply that G in 4e is of a more chaotic (2-3e terms) nature.
"Sub-set" is a misnomer.
Lawful Good is 3e's Exalted, representing the most virtuous people, someone like the Bhudda, Superman, or Andrew Wiggin belongs here. Good is 3e's entire Good alignment spectrum, someone like Sir Baden Powel, Daredevil, or Bean belongs here. Unaligned is for people who disaccociate themselves from alignment, most people fall into this category. Evil is 3e's entire Evil alignment spectrum, someone like Jack the Ripper, the Kingpin, or Peter Wiggin I. Chaotic Evil is 3e's Vile, representing the most selfish sadists, someone like Adolf Hitler, Red Skull, or Achille.
Overall, though, I've never seen alignment as anything more than just another descriptor like hair colour, race or even personality quirks.
That's all morals are; personality quirks. Even people who profess to believe in the same sort of "right to life" will disagree over what it means.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
Long Live Dragonlance and the Nexus! I still want an athasian nightmare beast and a warforged dragon mini! "Look, Meat, I'll tear your face off, rip your throat out and eat what's left-because that's what I do to food like you." ~Thrikreen Intimidation Tactic. My Custom 4th edition Content (New Content:2)Show
* My Personal 4e Darksun Material found below: Updated Weapon Options. (critical impact, repair, salvage) http://www.4shared.com/document/bMZK2PNy/Updated_Optional_Darksun_Weapo.html 4th edition Athasian Sloth v1.2 (includes three monster write ups and a new disease) http://www.4shared.com/document/lj561SRh/4th_edition_Athasian_Sloth_v10.html 4th edition Athasian Flailer v1.0 http://www.4shared.com/document/JGi9PqSe/4th_edition__Athasian_Flailer_.html
It is not established that the unsub known as Jack the Ripper was intending to alter the entire social dynamic of society. It is only established that he felt a certain element of society needed to be removed if possible, and he was unwilling to risk his own well-being to further that goal.
Therefore, he lacks the scope needed for being an exemplar of Chaos, in addition to the dedication to his own goals to be an exemplar of total Villainy. Instead, he merely committed many murders without being caught. An exemplar of Evil, sure, but of Vile Deeds? Not at all.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
So if pay heavy attention to the descriptions in the PHB, it seems that LG wouldn't really fit with G even though it is part of a subset. I think this problem arose from trying to describe (2-3e) Lawful Good as (4e) LG and wanting (2-3e) CG/NG to fit into (4e) G. But the description seems to imply that G in 4e is of a more chaotic (2-3e terms) nature.
"Sub-set" is a misnomer.
Lawful Good is 3e's Exalted, representing the most virtuous people, someone like the Bhudda, Superman, or Andrew Wiggin belongs here. Good is 3e's entire Good alignment spectrum, someone like Sir Baden Powel, Daredevil, or Bean belongs here. Unaligned is for people who disaccociate themselves from alignment, most people fall into this category. Evil is 3e's entire Evil alignment spectrum, someone like Jack the Ripper, the Kingpin, or Peter Wiggin I. Chaotic Evil is 3e's Vile, representing the most selfish sadists, someone like Adolf Hitler, Red Skull, or Achille.
Overall, though, I've never seen alignment as anything more than just another descriptor like hair colour, race or even personality quirks.
That's all morals are; personality quirks. Even people who profess to believe in the same sort of "right to life" will disagree over what it means.
so where do legal neutral fall into? , they are not good nor bad, they are not unaligned either...
also is hard toput legal evil and neutral evil in the same evil...
just concede on it, youcan move from 9 alignments to 6 or 4 or 3, todo so you must make simplifications, basically a system that`s not as granular as itwas, it`sjust like that, and doingso some things previsuly where well defined will no longer be, that`s reality, say wathever you wantit wont change.
and alignment is as much as a label, as it`s your character skin color, his gender, etc... is a definition, as someone that at least has tried towrithe some stories, know isimportant to define a character andstick to that to keep the coherency, and many times the char might not behave as I want to, but that`s just how it is...
So if pay heavy attention to the descriptions in the PHB, it seems that LG wouldn't really fit with G even though it is part of a subset. I think this problem arose from trying to describe (2-3e) Lawful Good as (4e) LG and wanting (2-3e) CG/NG to fit into (4e) G. But the description seems to imply that G in 4e is of a more chaotic (2-3e terms) nature.
"Sub-set" is a misnomer.
Lawful Good is 3e's Exalted, representing the most virtuous people, someone like the Bhudda, Superman, or Andrew Wiggin belongs here. Good is 3e's entire Good alignment spectrum, someone like Sir Baden Powel, Daredevil, or Bean belongs here. Unaligned is for people who disaccociate themselves from alignment, most people fall into this category. Evil is 3e's entire Evil alignment spectrum, someone like Jack the Ripper, the Kingpin, or Peter Wiggin I. Chaotic Evil is 3e's Vile, representing the most selfish sadists, someone like Adolf Hitler, Red Skull, or Achille.
Overall, though, I've never seen alignment as anything more than just another descriptor like hair colour, race or even personality quirks.
That's all morals are; personality quirks. Even people who profess to believe in the same sort of "right to life" will disagree over what it means.
so where do legal neutral fall into? , they are not good nor bad, they are not unaligned either...
also is hard toput legal evil and neutral evil in the same evil...
just concede on it, youcan move from 9 alignments to 6 or 4 or 3, todo so you must make simplifications, basically a system that`s not as granular as itwas, it`sjust like that, and doingso some things previsuly where well defined will no longer be, that`s reality, say wathever you wantit wont change.
and alignment is as much as a label, as it`s your character skin color, his gender, etc... is a definition, as someone that at least has tried towrithe some stories, know isimportant to define a character andstick to that to keep the coherency, and many times the char might not behave as I want to, but that`s just how it is...
OR YOU make real characters. I'm sorry but alignment is a limiter I dont need a stupid descriptor to tell me how to play my character. Sometimes my character will do good things sometimes not. My character has goals and motives and cannot be easily identified by any of the previous nine alignments, because she could fit into any and all of them except evil, even then she can be evil. Alignment is a bad idea. the one time I was in a game that took it seriously it was bad.
and alignment is as much as a label, as it`s your character skin color, his gender, etc... is a definition, as someone that at least has tried towrithe some stories, know isimportant to define a character andstick to that to keep the coherency, and many times the char might not behave as I want to, but that`s just how it is...
I don't understand how people are drawing a comparison between Alignment and physical characteristics. I don't understand how they're saying personality traits and motivations should be as static as skin color or gender.
That, to me, is the exact wrong way to approach alignment. Descriptive? Yes. But not unchanging. Even 3.5 makes that point in the SRD.
My problems with alignment were with players/GMs who didn't understand that - who thought alignment should dictate your actions - should restrict them. That is the kind of attitude that made me start completely ignoring alignment.
The realization that, even as a descriptive tool, it's not very good - that is what finalized my abandonment of them. Alignments are merely shorthand for some vague philosophical leanings of the character - I'd rather write a single sentence describing some real, concrete, motivations for any given NPC. I'd rather write a background, and create a personality for a PC - and I'd rather my players did the same, rather than saying "I'll be Lawful Neutral, I think."
I'm willing to tolerate this alignment system because of that big, important "Unaligned." I think it actually makes the system more of a helpful option, than something players are likely to take for granted. That "Good" alignment means more when you had a choice to just not pick - when you're not being tossed into an alignment, whether you want to or not.
OR YOU make real characters. I'm sorry but alignment is a limiter I dont need a stupid descriptor to tell me how to play my character. Sometimes my character will do good things sometimes not. My character has goals and motives and cannot be easily identified by any of the previous nine alignments, because she could fit into any and all of them except evil, even then she can be evil. Alignment is a bad idea. the one time I was in a game that took it seriously it was bad.
Yes and I have also seen this I-do-what-fits-my-personality talk used to justify the most insane set of contradictory behavior simple because the player wants to burn the town down one minute because he was insulted and in the next wants people to see him as good hero of the people.
I have seen it work both ways. A mature fleshed out character with a well defined personality can be played without an alignment. I have seen people do it and enjoyed playing with them.
I have also seen where alignment can end arguments because someone within a group is playing the character one way one week and a different way the next week that makes no sense and is completely out of character. Alignments can help define what a character's range of actions are.
It goes back to my English professor telling me something I am sure many have heard. You can break the rules to make a master piece but first you have to master the rules to know what your breaking and how to do it without ruining the whole thing.
