Community

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:05AM, Maxperson wrote:

You have to take it in context.  When it says "Usually.....specific deities...", it means "...the rest of the time non-specific deities.", which it defines as a faith or philosophy.  Or put another way, if there weren't non-specific deities, they wouldn't have used the word "specific" at all.  They would just has said "deities".

But that doesnt make a non patron deity a patron deity.

What im seeing is:

Max: Absolute wording is only absolute when it works for my arguement.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:19AM, Herrozerro wrote:

But that doesnt make a non patron deity a patron deity.

Hello, McFly!  A faith or philosophy IS a patron deity according to the rules, they are just non-specific ones.

What im seeing is:

Max: Absolute wording is only absolute when it works for my arguement.

Take off your blinders, then. 

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:51AM, Maxperson wrote:

So I ask you.  What's the point?  If I'm just going to ignore alignment anyway because it fails, why even have it?

Mechanics. You (as a player) can ignore it when playing your character, but the game mechanics can key off them.

No.  Actually LN fit him best per the specific alignments.  Only about 1/3 of LG fit him and was bolded, 1/3 of CG was bolded, and about 90% of LN was bolded.  Of course he was also 100% bolded as being neutral with respect to Law and Chaos, so.....

Okay, if you really need to have things analyzed directly, here we go, part by part:

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So with the first statements about Good and Evil, Batman is clearly Good since not only is he concerned with protecting innocent life, but he helps others, respects life, and is concerned with dignity. His entire life is a personal sacrifice in order to help others.

While he does hurt others, he does not kill. If you REALLY REALLY want, you can stretch oppression to mean imprisoning criminals, but c'mon.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Okay, here's the first part about neutral (Good/Evil). Batman does have compunctions against killing innocents, but definately makes sacrifices to protect or help others. He is committed to others by personal relationships.

So while he's fitting Good to a tee, he fits part of Neutral. Let's continue and see what else is written.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Okay, so its saying that being good or evil can be either a choice or an attitude. Next it talks about how  Neutral (Good/Evil) usually represents a lack of commitment or a commitment to a balanced view. Batman is definately committed to Good so he does not lack commitment and he's not committed towards balance. So I again, it leans the analysis towards Good. The second paragraph (dealing with animals) does not apply.

So based on the section in the PHB, Batman should be considered Good. You agree with his Lawfulness, so I'll skip that portion. Next, before it gives examples of the Nine Alignments, it says the following:

Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.

It states how the alignments are combinations of the axes. It states that each of the following descriptions describes a "typical" character and that "individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day." It also then states they are guidelines and not scripts.

So more weight should be given to the definitions at the top than the examples below. Additionally, the bolded portions which you are quoting are typically describing the Good or Lawful aspect of Batman as described by the primary definitions.

The Neutral Good description is mainly describing the Good aspect (which should be similar since Batman is good). The Lawful Neutral description is primarily describing the Lawful aspect (which should be similar since Batman is Lawful). The "Neutral" portions of both those descriptions are not as heavily stressed because they corespond to their lack of dedication to those aspects. For example, the LN description just talks about the Lawful element without the Good/Evil element. If you combine that Lawful description with a description of Good, you get a character which is very similar to Batman.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:37AM, Scypio wrote:

[Mechanics. You (as a player) can ignore it when playing your character, but the game mechanics can key off them.

If it's not accurate, though, why should I have to suffer incorrect mechanics?

So with the first statements about Good and Evil, Batman is clearly Good since not only is he concerned with protecting innocent life, but he helps others, respects life, and is concerned with dignity. His entire life is a personal sacrifice in order to help others.

Yes, Batman is Good.

While he does hurt others, he does not kill. If you REALLY REALLY want, you can stretch oppression to mean imprisoning criminals, but c'mon.

I haven't even tried to portray him as evil. 

Okay, here's the first part about neutral (Good/Evil). Batman does have compunctions against killing innocents, but definately makes sacrifices to protect or help others. He is committed to others by personal relationships.

So while he's fitting Good to a tee, he fits part of Neutral. Let's continue and see what else is written.

Part = 66% of the 3 areas.  That's a very large part of his personality that is neutral with respect to good and evil.

Okay, so its saying that being good or evil can be either a choice or an attitude. Next it talks about how  Neutral (Good/Evil) usually represents a lack of commitment or a commitment to a balanced view. Batman is definately committed to Good so he does not lack commitment and he's not committed towards balance. So I again, it leans the analysis towards Good. The second paragraph (dealing with animals) does not apply.

It does lean that way, but a significant portion of his personality also fits neutral. 

So based on the section in the PHB, Batman should be considered Good. You agree with his Lawfulness, so I'll skip that portion. Next, before it gives examples of the Nine Alignments, it says the following:

What just a minute, Sparky!  I said that he fit lawful and chaotic to about the same degree, but he only fit about 30-40% of each.  What he fit 100% was the neutral with respect to law and chaos, which would be neutral in that area.

It states how the alignments are combinations of the axes. It states that each of the following descriptions describes a "typical" character and that "individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day." It also then states they are guidelines and not scripts.

The problem is, he's not varying just a bit more or less than a single alignment depending on the day.  He's solidly acting like 4-5 of them all the time.

The Neutral Good description is mainly describing the Good aspect (which should be similar since Batman is good). The Lawful Neutral description is primarily describing the Lawful aspect (which should be similar since Batman is Lawful). The "Neutral" portions of both those descriptions are not as heavily stressed because they corespond to their lack of dedication to those aspects. For example, the LN description just talks about the Lawful element without the Good/Evil element. If you combine that Lawful description with a description of Good, you get a character which is very similar to Batman.

That makes sense, but he still fits the neutral with regards to lawful and chaotic far more than he fits either one of those two, and he does fit both of the others to a significant degree.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:22AM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:19AM, Herrozerro wrote:

But that doesnt make a non patron deity a patron deity.

Hello, McFly!  A faith or philosophy IS a patron deity according to the rules, they are just non-specific ones.

Its not, it is an other Faith.  It is saying:

"All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity-for example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies."

It is not saying That philosophies are Patron Deities.  It is saying Usually clerics Follow Patron Deities.  Sometimes they do other stuff.

It does not say: Clerics Usually Follow Patron Deities. Sometimes they follow other patron Deities that are not listed.

You keep saying that a literal minded player will read the Alignment as is, but you have not been able to bring proof of a literal minded player.  I bring proof of a literal minded player and you write it off as "Its just nonsense because I think its easy"

So I have to say, your literal minded player who reads the words like that is being stupid and is wrong as well.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:34AM, Scypio wrote:

DaidojiTaidoru:

The two point argument which you posted against alignment is based around the non-concrete nature of the system. You stated that you would think its absurd to have mechanics based upon factors which are not concrete (hits on about 17). But I will contend that conditional modifiers are a portion of the game which also is not concrete and is very positive. Conditional modifiers very often can lead to creative thinking, teamwork, tactics, etc. They are subject to the DMs judgement and(can) add very significant mechanical benefits.

Additionally, DCs (even though they are presented in a table) are subject to the DMs judgement on how difficult a check should be. If the DM judges a skill check to be deemed "hard" instead of "medium", a concrete mechanical effect is created. I can argue that performing said task should be "medium" difficulty instead of "hard". The issue can be compounded if I fail the check by 1, causing an argument.

But a large part of DnD is based upon the DM making judgements and the mechanical effects that come with them.

This is very true.  A lot of D&D is making jusgement calls, and WotC would be stupid to try to create concrete mechanical effects for everything.  The problems with universal mechanical alignment as opposed to the other houserules are the following:

1 - The DMs judgement is limited.  If WotC were to declare assassination Evil, then suddenly a huge chunk of the DMs judgement gets cut out.  He's now stuck houseruling whole chunks of the book to work with his setting.  And he has to inform the players of this.  And every time WotC goes on to make this judgement there's more stuff that has to be looked over and houseruled (especially back when designers use "Evil only" to hide their broken crap they use to pump up NPCs).

2 - Alignment tries to make a non universal system universal.  WotC giving you an idea as to how to handle someone dropping a bookshelf on you in combat?  Cool.  WotC demanding you have a bookshelf in every combat?  Not cool.  Alignment doesn't belong in every game, and it's usually different in the games it belongs in.  The Law Chaos axis has no meaning in Ravenloft.  Birthright and Ebberon care more about your Bloodline and country then your alignment.  While Planescape is far more intrested in your faction, though the traditional alignments still see use.  And for a good chunk of peoples home games alignment really has no place at all.

3 - Alignment never goes away.  The DM says the wall is Hard instead of Easy to climb?  Annoying, but the wall will go away after this scene.  The DM says looting the bodies of monster you kill is Evil?  That's a universal constant that will always be annoying you until you stop playing with him.

4 - Alignment is often personal.  If the onus is on you as a group to define Good and Evil, if you disagree one of you is, in effect, calling the other person Evil (or amoral).  This can strain the group as you can imagine.  If there was a system in place, you could point out that this is just to enforce setting flavor, but if there's no setting flavor to enforce, now you're debating morality instead of playing D&D.  Not something a lot of people like.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:22AM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:19AM, Herrozerro wrote:

What im seeing is:

Max: Absolute wording is only absolute when it works for my arguement.

Take off your blinders, then. 

I would suggest you do the same.  Try going back and rereading your own posts.  There is a reason why he said "Max: Absolute wording is only absolute when it works for my arguement."

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:56AM, Maxperson wrote:

If it's not accurate, though, why should I have to suffer incorrect mechanics?

I wouldn't say "incorrect" mechanics. But its definately okay to call them vague mechanics. But again, as I posted before, there are plenty of non-concrete rulings that the DM will make which affect gameplay and mechanics (like circumstance bonuses, DCs, etc).

And if you/your group do not want them, they don't have to suffer with them. If you don't want to use alignment and there's a +1d8 vs Evil property, you can just not use that property. If you don't like an alignment restriction, you can just ignore it. But I contend that its harder to try to add all that material than ignore it.

What just a minute, Sparky!  I said that he fit lawful and chaotic to about the same degree, but he only fit about 30-40% of each.  What he fit 100% was the neutral with respect to law and chaos, which would be neutral in that area.

Sorry, I thought you agreed with the lawful part. I must have misread what you wrote. Also, since you thought his best alignment would have been LN, I thought you agreed with the Lawful aspect so I concentrated on shifting it towards Good.

After re-reading the section on Law/Chaos from SRD, I agree with you. As described by the PHB, Batman would most likely fit Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos. So he would be NG.

But, I was trying to remember where I got the idea that methology was part of Law/Chaos and remembered an article from the "other" thread. So after doing a search, I found  this article. So if you accept this as some sort of rules clarification, I think it'll support the "lawful" quality of Batman.

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Compare the above quote with the following one:

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

Sadly, it does not describe Neutral, but the lawful description fits Batman very well. So it is very possible that this is a source of confusion since this article "updates" and gives clarification on the rules in the PHB.

The problem is, he's not varying just a bit more or less than a single alignment depending on the day.  He's solidly acting like 4-5 of them all the time.

If you think he's definately Good, then how is he varying between 4 and 5 alignments? Are there examples of how he either choses not to chose between Good and Evil or choses to maintain a balance between the two? And you already stated that you do not believe he's evil.

And if you use the description purposed by the article, he should be either LG (methods via article) or NG (outlook towards law/chaos via PHB). So I don't know how the article should be interpretted compared to the PHB. Is it supposed to clarify, update, or errata? I suppose I just trumped neutral since I think "not chosing" gets trumped by "methods". But again, I could see why you would not go this way.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 12:07PM, Scypio wrote:

But, I was trying to remember where I got the idea that methology was part of Law/Chaos and remembered an article from the "other" thread. So after doing a search, I found  this article. So if you accept this as some sort of rules clarification, I think it'll support the "lawful" quality of Batman.

Sadly, it does not describe Neutral, but the lawful description fits Batman very well. So it is very possible that this is a source of confusion since this article "updates" and gives clarification on the rules in the PHB.

It was an interesting article.  However, it did specify that it was only advice, so it isn't really an update or clarification on PHB rules.  That said, by that article, Batman would shift back towards lawful

The problem is, he's not varying just a bit more or less than a single alignment depending on the day.  He's solidly acting like 4-5 of them all the time.

If you think he's definately Good, then how is he varying between 4 and 5 alignments? Are there examples of how he either choses not to chose between Good and Evil or choses to maintain a balance between the two? And you already stated that you do not believe he's evil.

I guess it's a matter of perception or perspective.  I don't believe that even though he is good in a lot of areas, that it precludes him from being neutral in other areas.  The same goes for Law, neutrality and chaos on the other axis. 

By that article, he consistently acts lawful.  By the PHB and other criteria, he also acts consistently neutral.  Also by the PHB, he consistently acts out portions of chaotic. Regardless of how much lawful or neutral he embodies, he also embodies freedom, adaptability and flexibility, the first three things they thought worth mentioning when describing chaos.

My position is that if you embody to a significant degree multiple alignments, then you ARE multiple alignments.  I can see where some people would take the strongest alone on each axis and peg someone with that single combination, but I think that is a very innacurate way of doing it.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 11:08AM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

1 - The DMs judgement is limited.  If WotC were to declare assassination Evil, then suddenly a huge chunk of the DMs judgement gets cut out.  He's now stuck houseruling whole chunks of the book to work with his setting.  And he has to inform the players of this.  And every time WotC goes on to make this judgement there's more stuff that has to be looked over and houseruled (especially back when designers use "Evil only" to hide their broken crap they use to pump up NPCs).

This is not limited to an alignment like system in anyway. Whenever a new book or new ruling comes out, there's the potential for a large amount of revised houseruling. I think this is simply a downside of a "living" game that constantly gets tweeked.

2 - Alignment tries to make a non universal system universal.  WotC giving you an idea as to how to handle someone dropping a bookshelf on you in combat?  Cool.  WotC demanding you have a bookshelf in every combat?  Not cool.  Alignment doesn't belong in every game, and it's usually different in the games it belongs in.  The Law Chaos axis has no meaning in Ravenloft.  Birthright and Ebberon care more about your Bloodline and country then your alignment.  While Planescape is far more intrested in your faction, though the traditional alignments still see use.  And for a good chunk of peoples home games alignment really has no place at all.

I honestly don't play in many supported worlds. But if it clashes heavily with the world, they should just describe the necessary changes. For example, in a game where Alignment has no meaning, they could just say something to the extent of "replace Alignment with this system:" or something to that extent. I would assume all campaign books have section where they describe adding or removing content which does not fit into the setting.

3 - Alignment never goes away.  The DM says the wall is Hard instead of Easy to climb?  Annoying, but the wall will go away after this scene.  The DM says looting the bodies of monster you kill is Evil?  That's a universal constant that will always be annoying you until you stop playing with him.

But if the DM constantly judges certain wall Hard when you insist they should be Easy, then you have the same long term lingering effect. I know this is a tangent, but I had a DM once rule that climbing ropes only gave you a bonus to a climb check (instead of changing the DC). So if I tried to climb a slippery wall, I'd only get +X instead of changing the DC to a set one. It didn't help when I pointed out that according to his rules, it was easier to do a dead climb of a rope than use it to scale a slippery wall. And this ruling did not change over the campaign.

4 - Alignment is often personal.  If the onus is on you as a group to define Good and Evil, if you disagree one of you is, in effect, calling the other person Evil (or amoral).  This can strain the group as you can imagine.  If there was a system in place, you could point out that this is just to enforce setting flavor, but if there's no setting flavor to enforce, now you're debating morality instead of playing D&D.  Not something a lot of people like.

I know some people may be offended by such things, but it really looks like the player is taking it too personal. First of all, the player shouldn't relate themselves with the character. But even if they do, they are typically in fantastic situations of extreme circumstances. The character is not in a situation that the player should be used to.

Secondly, the players should recognize that the morality of the game world is not the morality of real life. I know its hard to separate sometimes, but at the end of the day, players have to remember they're only playing a game.

And of course, there are guidelines in the rule book and articles for additional support if you need to make an argument. Therefore you can get some backing on your decisions. (If there's absolutely no backing at all, it think the DM should not fiddle with player alignment.)

Nov 2, 2009 -- 12:29PM, Scypio wrote:

This is not limited to an alignment like system in anyway. Whenever a new book or new ruling comes out, there's the potential for a large amount of revised houseruling. I think this is simply a downside of a "living" game that constantly gets tweeked.

Except you can't play without some rules.  The question then is "Is alignment a rule that the D&D game needs to function?"  Since most games function perfectly well without it the answer would appear to be "No."  And if the D&D base set doesn't need alignement the complications caused by adding it are all unessicary.

And before someone gives the "We don't need the Sorcerer line," that's a bad comparison.  If a class is removed D&D still has the class system, which limits character choices.  Alignment is better compared to the class system itself.  Removing the class system creates more choices at the expense of balance and complexity.  If Alignment is removed there's no system to enforce setting specific morality, increasing choices at the cost of setting specific benefits.  But since the core of D&D is player created settings that's a net gain.

I honestly don't play in many supported worlds. But if it clashes heavily with the world, they should just describe the necessary changes. For example, in a game where Alignment has no meaning, they could just say something to the extent of "replace Alignment with this system:" or something to that extent. I would assume all campaign books have section where they describe adding or removing content which does not fit into the setting.

Except the most common setting is player created.  And most settings, player created or official that I've seen have no need for universal alignment.  I agree that systems should be added or altered to fit new settings, but since the most common alignment system is "None" why should WotC design the base rules with alignment then force people to remove it peicemeal instead of adding the rules to the settings that need it?

But if the DM constantly judges certain wall Hard when you insist they should be Easy, then you have the same long term lingering effect. I know this is a tangent, but I had a DM once rule that climbing ropes only gave you a bonus to a climb check (instead of changing the DC). So if I tried to climb a slippery wall, I'd only get +X instead of changing the DC to a set one. It didn't help when I pointed out that according to his rules, it was easier to do a dead climb of a rope than use it to scale a slippery wall. And this ruling did not change over the campaign.

True, if you and your GM disagree often then alignment is the least of your problems.  However certainly the game designers should try to avoid causing as many problems as possible.

I know some people may be offended by such things, but it really looks like the player is taking it too personal. First of all, the player shouldn't relate themselves with the character. But even if they do, they are typically in fantastic situations of extreme circumstances. The character is not in a situation that the player should be used to.

Secondly, the players should recognize that the morality of the game world is not the morality of real life. I know its hard to separate sometimes, but at the end of the day, players have to remember they're only playing a game.

I personally still can't think of a good way to tell someone that actions they think are perfectly fine are in fact Evil and will forever damn them to hell.  "It's just a game" doesn't seem like it would cut it, especially since they know that, as the GM, I'm the one who set up the morality rules for this world.

As for using reference work, that would be nice, except that the designers have never agreed with each other about alignment.  I've seen a murdering, torturer who's trying to pull off a coup de etate against a nuetral ruler listed as CG in official print.  The book of Exalted Deeds managed to contradict itself in the same chapter.

But I'm willing to reconsider my position if it could be shown that D&D as a system gains from mechanical alignment.  Currently I can't find any reason.

1. Everyone keeps saying alignment restricts creativity or character concepts, yet I have not seen a single detailed example of a concept that is restricted beyond very vague examples.

2. People keep saying that alignment is subjective depending on the point of view, when in fact alignment is written in a neutral perspective and not in a good or evil perspective. It is a universal force. Good is always good and evil is always evil. Evil people know they're evil because they chose the side of evil. Evil people who think they're good guys are insane and it has nothing to do with subjective alignments and everything to do with a mental disorder. Asmodeus knows he's evil. He promotes evil and its very clear that evil orcs know they're evil since you CHOOSE your alignment, it doesn't choose you. The only time this will differ is in a novel or fluff to drive a story. In that case, alignment is a plot device and doesn't matter.

3. Alignment is optional to begin with. Don't like it, don't use it. But it was included for those who do enjoy it. Wotc did this to make everyone happy, yet the alignment haters still complain and grow angry about it even though they don't have to use it. Why, because I use alignment? That pisses people off? Thats silly. If you don't enjoy alignment, don't use it but don't expect everyone to do the same and don't get angry because others enjoy something you hate.

4. Alignment is a choice. You pick your alignment. Pick the alignment that fits well with your concept. I'v played dozens of characters and run games for hundreds of different characters. In that time, I'v only seen concepts that "almost" didn't work well with alignment, but they were silly/absurd/crazy concepts to begin with.

5. I'v found nothing in 4e that claims you cannot change your alignment if you want to. So, you can shift your alignment if thats what you want. How you explain that in game to make sense is up to you and the DM.

6. Don't allow DM's to be alignment jerks who make alignment your master and you must obey. When this happens, its not the games fault. Talk to your DM.

Please post these concepts you all keep talking about that the alignment system won't allow you to play by default. I'm honestly curious to see what they are. If no one does, then I will assume its because no one has a concept that doesn't work and you're just complaining because your DM runs alignment incorrectly.

7. Removing alignment from your game is ok. Using alignment in your game is ok. Do what you most enjoy and don't berate those who choose something different.

Post concepts, lets see if anyone can actually show a fully fleshed out character concept that is impossible to run using alignment. A concept that isn't absurd like " I save the people so I can kill the people so I can save their souls so I can use their souls to fuel my spells so I can use my spells to return them to life." A "good, interesting concept worth playing that alignment won't allow.

betcha-can't-do-it.

[edit] Batman is NG. in 4e, Batman is G. That is all.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:31PM, Duke5150 wrote:

2. People keep saying that alignment is subjective depending on the point of view, when in fact alignment is written in a neutral perspective and not in a good or evil perspective. It is a universal force. Good is always good and evil is always evil. Evil people know they're evil because they chose the side of evil. Evil people who think they're good guys are insane and it has nothing to do with subjective alignments and everything to do with a mental disorder. Asmodeus knows he's evil. He promotes evil and its very clear that evil orcs know they're evil since you CHOOSE your alignment, it doesn't choose you. The only time this will differ is in a novel or fluff to drive a story. In that case, alignment is a plot device and doesn't matter.

Yes, they choose to be evil, but what actually IS evil?  What actually IS good?  Is good watering the neighbor's yard?  Is evil killing a fly for no better reason than it's fun to make a smooshy mess?  Or are good and evil only that .0001% of actions and attributes that are listed in the alignment section, leaving all the rest to be unaligned?

[edit] Batman is NG. in 4e, Batman is G. That is all.

LOL Batman is God!  You heathen!

P.S. I almost didn't know how to respond to a post from you that wasn't all bolded.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:41PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:31PM, Duke5150 wrote:

2. People keep saying that alignment is subjective depending on the point of view, when in fact alignment is written in a neutral perspective and not in a good or evil perspective. It is a universal force. Good is always good and evil is always evil. Evil people know they're evil because they chose the side of evil. Evil people who think they're good guys are insane and it has nothing to do with subjective alignments and everything to do with a mental disorder. Asmodeus knows he's evil. He promotes evil and its very clear that evil orcs know they're evil since you CHOOSE your alignment, it doesn't choose you. The only time this will differ is in a novel or fluff to drive a story. In that case, alignment is a plot device and doesn't matter.

Yes, they choose to be evil, but what actually IS evil?  What actually IS good?  Is good watering the neighbor's yard?  Is evil killing a fly for no better reason than it's fun to make a smooshy mess?  Or are good and evil only that .0001% of actions and attributes that are listed in the alignment section, leaving all the rest to be unaligned?

Duke 5150's reply since he doesn't know how the hell to multi quote.

Use common sense when it comes to judging actions and alignment consequence. Using mundane or absurd examples are just that. I'd compile of a list of good/unaligned/evil actions if I had the time. As it is, watering a neighbor's year would be a mundane good act. Since you are doing something for others benefit. But what are all the factors? Are you getting paid to do it? If so, unaligned. Are you doing it when the sun is highest and the day is at its hottest in order to dry out the grass? If so its an evil mundane act, but either way its not a strong enough act to result in any alignment consequences. Killing a fly for the pure joy of taking a life would be an evil act. Killing a fly as a reaction as we all do in real life would probably be unaligned since people in general do not respect the life of a fly. So its like a child drowning a pet, without knowing that the pet can't breath underwater. So it wouldn't have an alignment affect. Someone aware of and in tune with life on a more sensitive scale wouldn't kill a fly, or a roach or a spider. (cleric of pelor maybe?) Because ALL life is important to that type of person.

[edit] Batman is NG. in 4e, Batman is G. That is all.

LOL Batman is God!  You heathen!

P.S. I almost didn't know how to respond to a post from you that wasn't all bolded.

Har har smart ass. I'm attempting to learn how to multiquote. No idea if I did it correctly. I guess we shall soon see.

I also agree, batman rocks. Looks like I'm in need to create a new religious faction in eberron. The Batman faith. With the dark knights and the utility belts and the Pow! Whoosh! Zoom! Kersplat! Holy redundant topics!

Nov 2, 2009 -- 2:05PM, Duke5150 wrote:

Use common sense when it comes to judging actions and alignment consequence. Using mundane or absurd examples are just that. I'd compile of a list of good/unaligned/evil actions if I had the time. As it is, watering a neighbor's year would be a mundane good act. Since you are doing something for others benefit. But what are all the factors? Are you getting paid to do it? If so, unaligned. Are you doing it when the sun is highest and the day is at its hottest in order to dry out the grass? If so its an evil mundane act, but either way its not a strong enough act to result in any alignment consequences. Killing a fly for the pure joy of taking a life would be an evil act. Killing a fly as a reaction as we all do in real life would probably be unaligned since people in general do not respect the life of a fly. So its like a child drowning a pet, without knowing that the pet can't breath underwater. So it wouldn't have an alignment affect. Someone aware of and in tune with life on a more sensitive scale wouldn't kill a fly, or a roach or a spider. (cleric of pelor maybe?) Because ALL life is important to that type of person.

That response was more or less what I expected and was looking for.  Aren't you foolish for falling into my trap?  Muahahahah! ::cough:: ::cough::  Sorry.  Anway....

My point is that there are hundreds and thousands of acts that have to be interpreted in the light of LG, G, U, E, and CE in the alignment system.  How those things are interpreted will vary so wildly it isn't even funny.  Let's go back to the fly for a minute.

A great many people don't consider insects to be worth enough to warrant killing one for ANY reason as evil.  Others would view killing a fly that is bothering your typical wedding recption a good act, this despite the fact that killing a human that is bothering your typical wedding reception would be intepreted by most as evil. 

How do we decide what each level of life warrants in the alignment system?  The only way I can see is for the DM to just have God decision rights.  Having to stop and debate the morality of every act not covered by the alignment system would be incredibly tiresome.  So, we're left with the DM making all the decisions, which is bad in my opinion since alignment choice and options would be restricted by the DMs interpretations. 

If I have a character in mind to be roleplayed a certain way and it's important to my concept for the world at large to view him as a good guy, and the DM is interpreting my character's actions as unaligned and/or evil, it can ruin my enjoyment in playing that character.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 2:23PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 2:05PM, Duke5150 wrote:

 

Use common sense when it comes to judging actions and alignment consequence. Using mundane or absurd examples are just that. I'd compile of a list of good/unaligned/evil actions if I had the time. As it is, watering a neighbor's year would be a mundane good act. Since you are doing something for others benefit. But what are all the factors? Are you getting paid to do it? If so, unaligned. Are you doing it when the sun is highest and the day is at its hottest in order to dry out the grass? If so its an evil mundane act, but either way its not a strong enough act to result in any alignment consequences. Killing a fly for the pure joy of taking a life would be an evil act. Killing a fly as a reaction as we all do in real life would probably be unaligned since people in general do not respect the life of a fly. So its like a child drowning a pet, without knowing that the pet can't breath underwater. So it wouldn't have an alignment affect. Someone aware of and in tune with life on a more sensitive scale wouldn't kill a fly, or a roach or a spider. (cleric of pelor maybe?) Because ALL life is important to that type of person.

That response was more or less what I expected and was looking for.  Aren't you foolish for falling into my trap?  Muahahahah! ::cough:: ::cough::  Sorry.  Anway....

My point is that there are hundreds and thousands of acts that have to be interpreted in the light of LG, G, U, E, and CE in the alignment system.  How those things are interpreted will vary so wildly it isn't even funny.  Let's go back to the fly for a minute.

A great many people don't consider insects to be worth enough to warrant killing one for ANY reason as evil.  Others would view killing a fly that is bothering your typical wedding recption a good act, this despite the fact that killing a human that is bothering your typical wedding reception would be intepreted by most as evil. 

How do we decide what each level of life warrants in the alignment system?  The only way I can see is for the DM to just have God decision rights.  Having to stop and debate the morality of every act not covered by the alignment system would be incredibly tiresome.  So, we're left with the DM making all the decisions, which is bad in my opinion since alignment choice and options would be restricted by the DMs interpretations. 

If I have a character in mind to be roleplayed a certain way and it's important to my concept for the world at large to view him as a good guy, and the DM is interpreting my character's actions as unaligned and/or evil, it can ruin my enjoyment in playing that character.

Those are good points and I understand the last paragraph perfectly. There are only two solutions that spring to mind.

1. If the DM uses alignment in an enjoyable way (good judge of actions/consequence/ morality), then alignment can be fun to use. If the DM can do this, using alignment can benefit the game. If this is the case, Use alignment.

2. If the DM uses alignment in a way that leaves the players frustrated or kills the fun of the game, alignment should not be used. Its a perfectly fine option to have monsters and npc's with alignments since the DM is in control of them, but allow the players to use an alternative method of showcasing their morality.

2-B. Use a homebrewed/modified version of the alignment system, that works FOR the group and not against them.

Although, again. I believe there are some acts that are beyond consequences due to being so minor. If someone wants to delve so deep as to analyze every possible action, then I feel thats taking it a bit too far. Concentrate on serious/major actions. Although, I can see where that would lead. A debate on what is a major action.

Another issue would be all the different factors surrounding an action. Killing a living being is wrong/evil. But there are exceptions. What are the exceptions. (insert laundry list) ( insert debate arguing the list) Now compile another laundry list where killing a living being is actually a good act. Then debate that list.

So I believe I see the different sides, regarding alignment. But as this debate can bleed into so many different games, its silly. D&D is not the only game to use alignment. Star wars, for example, has the light and darkside. So, do we borrow from that game? Do we take concepts of good/evil from different  games to make a universal list? Would anyone actually agree? Is there even a point?

So we get very clear good and evil actions and very clear exceptions.
Taking a life is evil.
Taking a life in defense of another is good.
Taking a life in self defense is unaligned.
Provoking conflict to take a life in self defense is evil even if its lawful.
Stealing is evil.
Stealing to survive is unaligned.
Stealing to feed another is good even though its not lawful.
Stealing from someone you believe to be rich, yet is actually poor is unaligned/ no its evil! No its.. *head explodes*

Yeah, a big pain in the ass. Thats what it is. Now I feel tired and need to lay down.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 2:23PM, Maxperson wrote:

My point is that there are hundreds and thousands of acts that have to be interpreted in the light of LG, G, U, E, and CE in the alignment system.  How those things are interpreted will vary so wildly it isn't even funny.  Let's go back to the fly for a minute.

A great many people don't consider insects to be worth enough to warrant killing one for ANY reason as evil.  Others would view killing a fly that is bothering your typical wedding recption a good act, this despite the fact that killing a human that is bothering your typical wedding reception would be intepreted by most as evil. 

How do we decide what each level of life warrants in the alignment system?  The only way I can see is for the DM to just have God decision rights.  Having to stop and debate the morality of every act not covered by the alignment system would be incredibly tiresome.  So, we're left with the DM making all the decisions, which is bad in my opinion since alignment choice and options would be restricted by the DMs interpretations. 

If I have a character in mind to be roleplayed a certain way and it's important to my concept for the world at large to view him as a good guy, and the DM is interpreting my character's actions as unaligned and/or evil, it can ruin my enjoyment in playing that character.

So is it really about the Dm having a say in what your doing that rankles you?

Again sit down a session beforehand and actually go over expectations.   If you have arguements during that time that cannot be resolved, then there are way more issues going on with the group than alignments.  Personally I would suggest that someone needs to swallow their pride and just let some things go.  It's that whole adult thing and all.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 5:03PM, Duke5150 wrote:

Those are good points and I understand the last paragraph perfectly. There are only two solutions that spring to mind.

Thanks.

1. If the DM uses alignment in an enjoyable way (good judge of actions/consequence/ morality), then alignment can be fun to use. If the DM can do this, using alignment can benefit the game. If this is the case, Use alignment.

Right, but enjoyable or not, it still really needs to be controlled by the DM.  It just depends on if you have a flexible DM or not.  One who isn't going to press his version of morality.  But that kind of DM isn't playing with alignment as a set in stone good and evil is defined game.

2. If the DM uses alignment in a way that leaves the players frustrated or kills the fun of the game, alignment should not be used. Its a perfectly fine option to have monsters and npc's with alignments since the DM is in control of them, but allow the players to use an alternative method of showcasing their morality.

Again, this is fine if you have a reasonable DM, but a non-reasonable one probably won't drop alignment.

2-B. Use a homebrewed/modified version of the alignment system, that works FOR the group and not against them.

Homebrew/house rules are always a way to work around a rules issue. 

Although, again. I believe there are some acts that are beyond consequences due to being so minor. If someone wants to delve so deep as to analyze every possible action, then I feel thats taking it a bit too far. Concentrate on serious/major actions. Although, I can see where that would lead. A debate on what is a major action.

I agree.  I think there are some acts that are beyond consequence due to being minor.  The thing is, what constitutes "too minor" will be different for each person.  You and I will agree on some things as being too minor, and disagree on others.  Even if the group decides that things that are "too minor" won't be debated, you'll still have a TON of issues that will be debated, and now you'll be adding in "But this one is a minor issue." to the list of problems with that issue

Another issue would be all the different factors surrounding an action. Killing a living being is wrong/evil. But there are exceptions. What are the exceptions. (insert laundry list) ( insert debate arguing the list) Now compile another laundry list where killing a living being is actually a good act. Then debate that list.

So I believe I see the different sides, regarding alignment. But as this debate can bleed into so many different games, its silly. D&D is not the only game to use alignment. Star wars, for example, has the light and darkside. So, do we borrow from that game? Do we take concepts of good/evil from different  games to make a universal list? Would anyone actually agree? Is there even a point?

So we get very clear good and evil actions and very clear exceptions.
Taking a life is evil.
Taking a life in defense of another is good.
Taking a life in self defense is unaligned.
Provoking conflict to take a life in self defense is evil even if its lawful.
Stealing is evil.
Stealing to survive is unaligned.
Stealing to feed another is good even though its not lawful.
Stealing from someone you believe to be rich, yet is actually poor is unaligned/ no its evil! No its.. *head explodes*

Yeah, a big pain in the ass. Thats what it is. Now I feel tired and need to lay down.

It is enough to make the head explode, and after it does, you still won't have anywhere near a complete list of what is what and what all the exceptions are. 

Personally, I'd rather just play my character the way I design his personality to be, and any consequences are in game responses to his actions only.  If I break into a shop to steal food, who cares if I'm doing it for personal gain or to survive.  If I get caught, they may or may not care about my reasons, but good, evil and unaligned just never play into it.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:31PM, Duke5150 wrote:

7. Removing alignment from your game is ok. Using alignment in your game is ok. Do what you most enjoy and don't berate those who choose something different.

Truth.

I get tired of people telling me I'm playing the game wrong.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 5:55PM, Alyri wrote:

So is it really about the Dm having a say in what your doing that rankles you?

Nope.  Not in the slightest. 

Nov 2, 2009 -- 5:57PM, Maxperson wrote:

Personally, I'd rather just play my character the way I design his personality to be, and any consequences are in game responses to his actions only.  If I break into a shop to steal food, who cares if I'm doing it for personal gain or to survive.  If I get caught, they may or may not care about my reasons, but good, evil and unaligned just never play into it.

I care as a Dm.  I grew tired of that playstyle years ago.

Notice I didn't say you are playing wrong.

I just don't run or play games in that style anymore.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 5:57PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 5:55PM, Alyri wrote:

So is it really about the Dm having a say in what your doing that rankles you?

Nope.  Not in the slightest. 

 The  what was the purpose of saying

"How do we decide what each level of life warrants in the alignment system?  The only way I can see is for the DM to just have God decision rights.  Having to stop and debate the morality of every act not covered by the alignment system would be incredibly tiresome.  So, we're left with the DM making all the decisions, which is bad in my opinion since alignment choice and options would be restricted by the DMs interpretations. 

If I have a character in mind to be roleplayed a certain way and it's important to my concept for the world at large to view him as a good guy, and the DM is interpreting my character's actions as unaligned and/or evil, it can ruin my enjoyment in playing that character."

for?

Nov 2, 2009 -- 6:20PM, Alyri wrote:

I care as a Dm.  I grew tired of that playstyle years ago.

Notice I didn't say you are playing wrong.

I just don't run or play games in that style anymore.

That's fine.  I'm one of the most vocal anti-alignment people on these forums, but I haven't said you are doing it wrong if you use it and enjoy it.  I just don't think it needs to be included as part of the game.  It's easy enough to add, especially now that there are almost no mechanics that use it.  And I firmly believe that it can and does hinder the developement of new players.  If it didn't, then I wouldn't care one way or the other whether it sits in the books or not, but I strongly feel that it does more harm than good.  That's not to say that people who know what all alignment entails and choose it are playing wrong.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 6:22PM, Alyri wrote:

 The  what was the purpose of saying

"How do we decide what each level of life warrants in the alignment system?  The only way I can see is for the DM to just have God decision rights.  Having to stop and debate the morality of every act not covered by the alignment system would be incredibly tiresome.  So, we're left with the DM making all the decisions, which is bad in my opinion since alignment choice and options would be restricted by the DMs interpretations. 

 

This was just an observation.  While I am not a dictator and understand that player fun is paramount, I believe the the DM is the one in charge of the game.  He should listen to all sides during a dispute and fairly make a decision.  Once that decision is made, it's final.  That said, many people here don't like that philosophy and don't want the DM to have that kind of power.  My paragraph above was directed their way to show that sort of system would need to have a DM with the power to decide.

If I have a character in mind to be roleplayed a certain way and it's important to my concept for the world at large to view him as a good guy, and the DM is interpreting my character's actions as unaligned and/or evil, it can ruin my enjoyment in playing that character.

for?

 

This is just truth.  Sometimes a character concept requires that the character be seen in a certain light.  If you have a DM who sees alignment differently, his perceptions of good and evil could ruin that concept.  It has happened to me before, and I have had to scrap the character.  It does not mean however, that I have a problem with DMs being the final arbiter on things, just that this is one of the downsides to such a play style.

I think the game suffers when every evil villian knows they are evil, I think it cuts off a lot of very good plot lines and ideas.  A lot of evil people think they are doing good I don't see that changing at all in a fantasy setting, people can always be duped, or delude themselves.  And some actions that would be evil in some circumstances would not be in another.  And what if I wanted a character who saved people and supported the people but didnt care about the kind of government?  Acording to the book to be good I have to care about democracy.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:24PM, williamhm75 wrote:

I think the game suffers when every evil villian knows they are evil, I think it cuts off a lot of very good plot lines and ideas.  A lot of evil people think they are doing good I don't see that changing at all in a fantasy setting, people can always be duped, or delude themselves.  And some actions that would be evil in some circumstances would not be in another.  And what if I wanted a character who saved people and supported the people but didnt care about the kind of government?  Acording to the book to be good I have to care about democracy.

And I think it can be very good when a bad guy knows he is evil and yet feels he is doing good.  Ala the Operative from serenity or Dr. Horrible.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:24PM, williamhm75 wrote:

I think the game suffers when every evil villian knows they are evil, I think it cuts off a lot of very good plot lines and ideas.  A lot of evil people think they are doing good I don't see that changing at all in a fantasy setting, people can always be duped, or delude themselves.  And some actions that would be evil in some circumstances would not be in another.  And what if I wanted a character who saved people and supported the people but didnt care about the kind of government?  Acording to the book to be good I have to care about democracy.

Do you use alignment in 4e?

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:28PM, Duke5150 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:24PM, williamhm75 wrote:

I think the game suffers when every evil villian knows they are evil, I think it cuts off a lot of very good plot lines and ideas.  A lot of evil people think they are doing good I don't see that changing at all in a fantasy setting, people can always be duped, or delude themselves.  And some actions that would be evil in some circumstances would not be in another.  And what if I wanted a character who saved people and supported the people but didnt care about the kind of government?  Acording to the book to be good I have to care about democracy.

Do you use alignment in 4e?

NOPE, and I don't think it should be in the game at all I feel, and no one has proved otherwise that it suffers for having it exist.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:33PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:28PM, Duke5150 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:24PM, williamhm75 wrote:

I think the game suffers when every evil villian knows they are evil, I think it cuts off a lot of very good plot lines and ideas.  A lot of evil people think they are doing good I don't see that changing at all in a fantasy setting, people can always be duped, or delude themselves.  And some actions that would be evil in some circumstances would not be in another.  And what if I wanted a character who saved people and supported the people but didnt care about the kind of government?  Acording to the book to be good I have to care about democracy.

Do you use alignment in 4e?

NOPE, and I don't think it should be in the game at all I feel, and no one has proved otherwise that it suffers for having it exist.

If you don't use it, then you don't have to deal with any of the issues that alignment may cause? So what the problem? And why would you want to rob those of us who enjoy alignment of a part of the game we enjoy? You have the choice to use it or not, you already got what you wanted. So why push it further? Leave alignment fans a part of the game they enjoy. Wotc gave alignment haters what they wanted. Its now possible to not use alignment at all.

Be happy! Everyone wins!

Did Max ever give an example of a character concept that he could not play using alignment?

Because at some point I might be in a game with a dm that thinks alignment is a good idea if it is in the books.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Because at some point I might be in a game with a dm that thinks alignment is a good idea if it is in the books.

I would say in that game you take the option of not playing an alignment as is said in the books.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, Shakiko wrote:

Did Max ever give an example of a character concept that he could not play using alignment?

No, but he made his point about his opinion of alignment very clear, atleast to me and I agree that alignment can be as confusing and frustrating as a DM wants it to be. In the end, alignment is up to the DM, unless its a cool DM (like myself   ) who actually listens to his/her players.

Whats the word I'm looking for here? Oh yeah, Compromise. A word some folks need to keep in mind.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Because at some point I might be in a game with a dm that thinks alignment is a good idea if it is in the books.

Then don't play in that game - it's simple enough.

Oh - nevermind, we went there before.  You feel its alright to force your views on the DM, but not for the DM to force his on you.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 6:28PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 6:20PM, Alyri wrote:

I care as a Dm.  I grew tired of that playstyle years ago.

Notice I didn't say you are playing wrong.

I just don't run or play games in that style anymore.

That's fine.  I'm one of the most vocal anti-alignment people on these forums, but I haven't said you are doing it wrong if you use it and enjoy it.  I just don't think it needs to be included as part of the game.  It's easy enough to add, especially now that there are almost no mechanics that use it.  And I firmly believe that it can and does hinder the developement of new players.  If it didn't, then I wouldn't care one way or the other whether it sits in the books or not, but I strongly feel that it does more harm than good.  That's not to say that people who know what all alignment entails and choose it are playing wrong.

You may not have said 'playing wrong', but you have on more than one occasion said it is a crutch for people who do.

I disagree with alignment hurting starting players.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:59PM, Duke5150 wrote:

No, but he made his point about his opinion of alignment very clear, atleast to me and I agree that alignment can be as confusing and frustrating as a DM wants it to be. In the end, alignment is up to the DM, unless its a cool DM (like myself   ) who actually listens to his/her players.

Whats the word I'm looking for here? Oh yeah, Compromise. A word some folks need to keep in mind.

I sent it to you this afternoon.  Did it not arrive?

Nov 2, 2009 -- 10:23PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:59PM, Duke5150 wrote:

No, but he made his point about his opinion of alignment very clear, atleast to me and I agree that alignment can be as confusing and frustrating as a DM wants it to be. In the end, alignment is up to the DM, unless its a cool DM (like myself   ) who actually listens to his/her players.

Whats the word I'm looking for here? Oh yeah, Compromise. A word some folks need to keep in mind.

I sent it to you this afternoon.  Did it not arrive?

Oh? I rarely check my homepage. I'll check it out and get back to you tomarrow. I'm about to retire. Busy day tomarrow.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:59PM, Duke5150 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, Shakiko wrote:

Did Max ever give an example of a character concept that he could not play using alignment?

No, but he made his point about his opinion of alignment very clear, atleast to me and I agree that alignment can be as confusing and frustrating as a DM wants it to be. In the end, alignment is up to the DM, unless its a cool DM (like myself    who actually listens to his/her players.

Whats the word I'm looking for here? Oh yeah, Compromise. A word some folks need to keep in mind.

I just got confused in all the discussion about Batman - but isn't Batman written by different writers?

Couldn't it be possible that different writers could have a different spin on the same character?

In which case it would be difficult to settle on an appropriate alignment.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 9:42AM, Alyri wrote:

Depends really.

It's been as simple as "we all agree not to be buttheads with each other"  to so complex to need 3 pages to complete.

 

My current manifesto will include:

1. any house rules

2. expectations of the players(be on time, inform DM if cannot make the session, table chatter[i.e. hey dude you see that new movie trailer/video game/etc] to a minimum, etc.)

3. expectations of the DM (have material ready, be fair, dont punish players, etc.)

4. Game rules clarifications(this can tie back into houserules)

5. campaign rules(this also can tie back into houserules)

It is printed out and signed by everyone involved.  If you refuse to sign, you do not play.  Simple as that.  If you break the manifesto you get booted.  Simple as that.  Anyone has the power to boot someone.  Then we make characters for the game, together as a group.

It can take one or even two sessions to complete.  I have grown tired of playing in a 2-6 session game.  When I DM a game it is for a minimum of 20-24 sessions (6 months, meeting 1/week).  Taking 2 sessions before we start to get rid of so many game stalling headaches is well worth it imnsho.

ymmv

I see what you mean, get the floor rules set right from the start and it makes everything else a lot easier. No unexpected suprises that way.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:53PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Because at some point I might be in a game with a dm that thinks alignment is a good idea if it is in the books.

I would say in that game you take the option of not playing an alignment as is said in the books.

the whole point is alignment has no need to be in the books there is no reason to include it anymore.  It's too confusing and inane to be of any use what so ever.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 4:52AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:53PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Because at some point I might be in a game with a dm that thinks alignment is a good idea if it is in the books.

I would say in that game you take the option of not playing an alignment as is said in the books.

the whole point is alignment has no need to be in the books there is no reason to include it anymore.  It's too confusing and inane to be of any use what so ever.

I disagree, as have others.  One could argue that you dont need Gender or Age on the character sheet either.  Its not like they have anything to do with the game either.  In fact Im mad that they wasted space on such useless items.  even more space on the character sheet then the Alignment!

But on a more serious note, 4e's alignment is nothing like you say it is, it is the most giving of all of them despite what max says it is broad strokes compared to tiny boxes.

4e alignment is a Legacy from Edition's past which still needs to stop taking it's last breaths, hurry up and die.

The alignment sections "great perks" for new gamers, as it's proponents so call them, are just as easily satisfied by a more in depth explanation of what roleplaying is, and infact Alignment was used so that they could "save space" rather than actually give helpful advice to new gamers.

If you open almost any other modern successful RPG, you'll find a significantly more detailed Roleplaying section, which if you follow and answer the little snippets generally you find where your character stands on the moral compass quite easily, as well as your character's specific personality traits.

The reason it's easier for new to rpg games gamers to make new, characters that have depth is because frankly the other systems take the time to explain what Rping is as well as what makes a character a character. D&D needs to stop being lazy and using Alignment as a lame rp tool that doesn't even do it's job very well and hire a guy to just write up one or two pages explaining what Rping is, and what Character goals and motivations are properly.

This is also, partly where imo there is the Culture difference from D&Ders to not D&Ders. D&Ders have quite often very little experience making deep characters, compared to their not D&Ders counterparts. And I think honestly that has alot to do with Alignment's existence and the lack of -good- explanations about Roleplaying and Character motivations.

4e made great progress with Alignment, it went from being a Flaw with the System and the Rules themselves, to just being a Flaw of the book the system is printed in.

And someone can say "but I liked old alignment mechanics!" yes and there are people out there that still prefer carbeurators to fuel injection. That does not however mean that carbs are in anyway shape or form mechanically superior, or even equal.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:02PM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

Except the most common setting is player created.  And most settings, player created or official that I've seen have no need for universal alignment.  I agree that systems should be added or altered to fit new settings, but since the most common alignment system is "None" why should WotC design the base rules with alignment then force people to remove it peicemeal instead of adding the rules to the settings that need it?

Because its easier to remove material, especially when its not fundamental mechanic compared to have to create. How many people have stated that they haven't used alignment (either in 3.x or 4e)? It should be pretty easy to just ignore alignment restrictions or not use properties that key off of alignment. Its much easier to say "don't use any alignment swords" than to figure out how to balance and implement alignment mechanics.

What level of a magic armor should +2 against Evil be compared to +2 against Chaotic Evil? What level should a spell be if it grants +1d10 damage against a certain alignment? These questions would be harder than to just ignore certain weapon properties and powers.

Its the idea that we can play different games. If DnD is a box of paints, you may dislike a certain color. Would you have to have that color removed so I can't use the color which I like? Just don't use the color and let me use it.

I personally still can't think of a good way to tell someone that actions they think are perfectly fine are in fact Evil and will forever damn them to hell.  "It's just a game" doesn't seem like it would cut it, especially since they know that, as the GM, I'm the one who set up the morality rules for this world.

As for using reference work, that would be nice, except that the designers have never agreed with each other about alignment.  I've seen a murdering, torturer who's trying to pull off a coup de etate against a nuetral ruler listed as CG in official print.  The book of Exalted Deeds managed to contradict itself in the same chapter.

If its something borderline, people shouldn't take it so personally. For example, I know evil for the greater good is a borderline case. So I should be aware that this may be an evil act. If I defend a city against raiders and my DM rules me as evil, then I probably will have greater issues with that DM. Most the example given on this thread were acts which people should not be shocked at. If you have a good example of a dispute, please illustrate.

But I'm willing to reconsider my position if it could be shown that D&D as a system gains from mechanical alignment.  Currently I can't find any reason.

To me, its mainly flavor and gameplay pentrating into mechanics. Its a mechanic which is based upon player actions. Fighter A and Fighter B can be effected very differently based upon not just what we chose when we level or what equipment we buy, but by the very way they behave in the game.

If you're familiar with most Star Wars video games, its like that but potentially much more complex and in depth. What "side" I'm on, based upon my actions through the game, grants me different abilities or properties.

Nov 2, 2009 -- 2:23PM, Maxperson wrote:

If I have a character in mind to be roleplayed a certain way and it's important to my concept for the world at large to view him as a good guy, and the DM is interpreting my character's actions as unaligned and/or evil, it can ruin my enjoyment in playing that character.

But even if you throw out the alignment system, the same problem remains. If your character's concept requires being considered good, but the DM and hence the world considers him evil, then the concept suffers. Without alignment, the DM still needs to judge your character since the DM need to determine how the world treats him. In an alignment-less game, the "people" can still turn against him. The authorities may think he should be apprehended. And other such factors. So the DM still has to judge you since the character needs to interact with the world.

Scypio: too bad alignment never functioned that way. Alignment was a punishing tool when it was mechanically present. "oh you are good? ahahahha +2d6 against your face!" Etc.

However the only "perk" you got for being good was not being punished by holy etc.

Alignment was used frankly as a punishment and not a rewards tool. Nor was it used in any fashion as a true power suite.

The thing about what you propose, with Fighter A and B is that alignment didn't actually do any of those things. All it determined was what kind of gear they could use. Or what kind of spells raped their faces even better than they would have normally.

And given alignment's incredibly subjective manner, which varies world to world, it should -never- have been incoporated into a Universal book. Especially when what's fine in one world bones you in the next. Alignment was bad for a number of reasons, one of them being it effectively made people playing different campaigns potentially playing by different games all together.

Alignment over the course of it's existence has done nothing useful for the hobby as a whole, except divide the community, not just between "I ditched alignment" but between even people that use Alignment because Alignment frankly is so vague that it has no context and is open to an incredibly stupidly diverse range of interpretations, which is extremely poor design when those interpretations can destroy a character in .02 seconds.

Why do you need Mechanics to punish people for role playing choices?  Can't you just use RP to do that?  Why should spells effect someone differently based on moral out look?  Such things are so grey that it should be nigh impossible to tell.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:17AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Why do you need Mechanics to punish people for role playing choices?  Can't you just use RP to do that?  Why should spells effect someone differently based on moral out look?  Such things are so grey that it should be nigh impossible to tell.

The idea of using planar resonances to more selectively target/affect something is a concept I find appealing personally, so I liked those old alignment structures.  Its a matter of preference really, and the upsides and downsides more depended on who was doing the interpretation than on some objective flaw or strength.  The current alignment system could be just as abused if a DM were of a mind to punish players, as could any other system... the older stuff was almost certainly easier to justify, but the issue wasn't the rules or systems, it was the petty and punitive DMs out there acting like adversarial pricks.  At least from the perspective I tend to look at it from.

Really, it just comes down to the notion that a guy of a mind to punish you is going to find a way to do it, and the only thing stuff like this is going to change is the method, not the act.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:17AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Why do you need Mechanics to punish people for role playing choices?  Can't you just use RP to do that?  Why should spells effect someone differently based on moral out look?  Such things are so grey that it should be nigh impossible to tell.

why? because moral out look is part of D&D, and has been.  Just like dwarves, and elves, and fighters, and clerics.  As for the earlier comment - 4e doesn't punish so much as reward those who choose to choose (different options available).  It's D&D - again, if it bothers some that much - why not either go unaligned or play something else.  Does taking away others' toys make you feel that much better?

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:14AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

Scypio: too bad alignment never functioned that way. Alignment was a punishing tool when it was mechanically present. "oh you are good? ahahahha +2d6 against your face!" Etc.

However the only "perk" you got for being good was not being punished by holy etc.

I would argue that prestige classes were a perk of being good. Additionally, there were using certain items was a perk. I don't think that it reached its potential, but there were definate positives.

Alignment was used frankly as a punishment and not a rewards tool. Nor was it used in any fashion as a true power suite.

The thing about what you propose, with Fighter A and B is that alignment didn't actually do any of those things. All it determined was what kind of gear they could use. Or what kind of spells raped their faces even better than they would have normally.

What I proposed was what it could add to the game. Someone wanted to know what mechanical benefits could be added which would justify alignment's inclusion. So I gave an idealized image of alignment.

But I don't think it is all negative. While people think of limitations due to alignment, I imagine it as options for being certain alignments. For example, random anybody adventure has X classes to pick from. If he's alignment Y, there are Z more classes. But I know most people see a class and immediately see alignment as restricting the number of character concepts. I guess its just different ways to look at character creation.

And given alignment's incredibly subjective manner, which varies world to world, it should -never- have been incoporated into a Universal book. Especially when what's fine in one world bones you in the next. Alignment was bad for a number of reasons, one of them being it effectively made people playing different campaigns potentially playing by different games all together.

It is subjective, but so is many things (see previous posts). So you should talk with your DM and group and come to an agreement on many issues (which could include alignment).

And how is it bad that different campaigns cause the game to be different? I always thought that was part of the appeal of DnD?

But I don't think it is all negative. While people think of limitations due to alignment, I imagine it as options for being certain alignments. For example, random anybody adventure has X classes to pick from. If he's alignment Y, there are Z more classes. But I know most people see a class and immediately see alignment as restricting the number of character concepts. I guess its just different ways to look at character creation.

Only, when there are actual variations of what each alignment does. IE no Paladin of "you must be LG! and only LG!11111!". And as long as each class actually presented you with multiple builds based upon your alignment does that really work.

And then of course you have to handle the big issue of transitioning, from one alignment to another. You'd have to more or less concretely nail down the process of alignment shifting so that players are not totally screwed as their alignment shifts. (That way they seemlessly lose some powers, but gain new ones)

Which in a subjective environment such as Alignment is kind of counter to the point.

Even in your proposal, you end up with the same end scenario. Everyone would be playing by the same set of rules interpreted the same way (the game designers). In order for your proposal to work in any meaningful way at least.

What makes D&D so appealing, is the diversity of games that the system can support while using the same rules. Subjective Rules such as alignment, is playing by different rules effectively. Unless of course you make Alignment not Subjective anymore, but then you are imposing one Setting and Playstyle over all the others. Which mars imo what D&D is all about.

At one time I thought much like you did on this issue Scypio. Then I had those realizations, and admitted it was better left in a ditch somewhere.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:09AM, Scypio wrote:

Because its easier to remove material, especially when its not fundamental mechanic compared to have to create. How many people have stated that they haven't used alignment (either in 3.x or 4e)? It should be pretty easy to just ignore alignment restrictions or not use properties that key off of alignment. Its much easier to say "don't use any alignment swords" than to figure out how to balance and implement alignment mechanics.

What level of a magic armor should +2 against Evil be compared to +2 against Chaotic Evil? What level should a spell be if it grants +1d10 damage against a certain alignment? These questions would be harder than to just ignore certain weapon properties and powers.

Its the idea that we can play different games. If DnD is a box of paints, you may dislike a certain color. Would you have to have that color removed so I can't use the color which I like? Just don't use the color and let me use it.

As anyone who tried to remove alignment from 3rd Edition can state, it is not always easier to remove a system then it is to add one in.  In addition by making alginment the default rules you encourage new DMs to shoehorn alignment onto their game even if it is actively detrimental to the setting they desire.

To me, its mainly flavor and gameplay pentrating into mechanics. Its a mechanic which is based upon player actions. Fighter A and Fighter B can be effected very differently based upon not just what we chose when we level or what equipment we buy, but by the very way they behave in the game.

If you're familiar with most Star Wars video games, its like that but potentially much more complex and in depth. What "side" I'm on, based upon my actions through the game, grants me different abilities or properties.

But why should this be a concept universal to all D&D games?  Why shouldn't it be an optional rule tucked away somewhere (with actual decent rules attached to it) instead of a must have feature that doesn't fit, well, all but 2 actual D&D games I've played in.

Most systems run fine without roleplaying rules.  The only ones that require them are ones that are very setting heavy.  Why should D&D, an incredibly setting light system be using alignment as a default?

Nov 3, 2009 -- 8:44AM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

But why should this be a concept universal to all D&D games?  Why shouldn't it be an optional rule tucked away somewhere (with actual decent rules attached to it) instead of a must have feature that doesn't fit, well, all but 2 actual D&D games I've played in.

How can you claim it Universal when it has an opt out clause? (opt = option, optional, no?)

Most systems run fine without roleplaying rules.  The only ones that require them are ones that are very setting heavy.  Why should D&D, an incredibly setting light system be using alignment as a default?

Untrue - setting is a spectrum from light to heavy - depending on the campaign.  Even my combat-heavy, limited RP PbP campaign ended up with a fairly "heavy" setting (mostly due to the players).

Funny I don't recall ever seeing Smite Evil as being Optional to the Paladin class, or Detect Evil in previous Editions.

Nor do I recall Protection from Evil or the other myriad of spells being "optional rules". Especially since Core Gameplay was allegedly balanced on alignment being there.

@Micha: I stayed away while the talk was SUPPOSED to be on previous versions (although the topic was 4e) - it has since reverted back to 4e.  My comments only apply to 4e

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:00AM, PBN wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 8:44AM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

But why should this be a concept universal to all D&D games?  Why shouldn't it be an optional rule tucked away somewhere (with actual decent rules attached to it) instead of a must have feature that doesn't fit, well, all but 2 actual D&D games I've played in.

How can you claim it Universal when it has an opt out clause? (opt = option, optional, no?)

Most systems run fine without roleplaying rules.  The only ones that require them are ones that are very setting heavy.  Why should D&D, an incredibly setting light system be using alignment as a default?

Untrue - setting is a spectrum from light to heavy - depending on the campaign.  Even my combat-heavy, limited RP PbP campaign ended up with a fairly "heavy" setting (mostly due to the players).

Its not optional though we have already seen at least two paragon paths with alignment requirments thats not optional.  Optional would be if they had no requirments for it in anything, did not mention it in the core book at all and had a later book that had rules for alignment.  Oh and every monster entry has an alignment usually unaligned but not always.  So no it really isnt optional.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:28AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Its not optional though we have already seen at least two paragon paths with alignment requirments thats not optional.  Optional would be if they had no requirments for it in anything, did not mention it in the core book at all and had a later book that had rules for alignment.  Oh and every monster entry has an alignment usually unaligned but not always.  So no it really isnt optional.

Would you call races optional?  How about classes?  deities?

All of the above have prerequisites in PPs.  And I odnt see any complaining that someone might disallow Teifling's and there is unusable PPs now.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:30AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Would you call races optional?  How about classes?  deities?

All of the above have prerequisites in PPs.  And I odnt see any complaining that someone might disallow Teifling's and there is unusable PPs now.

That's why I say it's all cheese no matter how you slice it.  They want to avoid the alignment, but still get the benefits of it.  Some (many?) DO, indeed, go so far as ignoring racial and class requirements (including making elves with the dwarven racial package, based on prior conversations).  What D&D is packaged as means little to them.  Hence the reason I keep questioning whether it's the right game, and why the insistence on changing a game that others do enjoy.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:33AM, PBN wrote:

That's why I say it's all cheese no matter how you slice it.  They want to avoid the alignment, but still get the benefits of it.  Some (many?) DO, indeed, go so far as ignoring racial and class requirements (including making elves with the dwarven racial package, based on prior conversations).  What D&D is packaged as means little to them.  Hence the reason I keep questioning whether it's the right game, and why the insistence on changing a game that others do enjoy.

Personally I think it's because, given that Alignment is supposed to be what it is. Where as a Race? That's cultural there. (At least in D&D in most worlds) Other races might not simply have access to the speciality in question hence the Racial requirements. Or they might not have the biology required.

Alignment? I don't know what is so specific about Alignment that just because I have "Good" on my character sheet, means that I can't swing my Bastard Sword in a particular way.

Another thing I take issue with about Alignment in particular is the actions of most pcs. Think about it, you are breaking into someone else's home, murdering them, possibly their entire family and then you go and take their stuff afterwards. For little or no reason other than "wrong place and wrong time buddy".

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:28AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Its not optional though we have already seen at least two paragon paths with alignment requirments thats not optional.  Optional would be if they had no requirments for it in anything, did not mention it in the core book at all and had a later book that had rules for alignment.  Oh and every monster entry has an alignment usually unaligned but not always.  So no it really isnt optional.

Actually, it is still optional.  Every paragon path created is ALSO optional.  No one has to take a paragon path that uses alignment.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:30AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:28AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Its not optional though we have already seen at least two paragon paths with alignment requirments thats not optional.  Optional would be if they had no requirments for it in anything, did not mention it in the core book at all and had a later book that had rules for alignment.  Oh and every monster entry has an alignment usually unaligned but not always.  So no it really isnt optional.

Would you call races optional?  How about classes?  deities?

All of the above have prerequisites in PPs.  And I odnt see any complaining that someone might disallow Teifling's and there is unusable PPs now.

I like racial, and class based PPs and epic destinies, but alignment is bad.  I don't need alignment to define my character, and basing a paragon path on alignment is needless.  No one who isn't something of a pacifist for instance is going to take life singer.  You dont need the good requirment on platnum knight.  As to the races the paragon paths and feats help add extra flavour to those races and accent them.  I like how different each race can be, alignment however is only ever a restriction that limits character personality as you can't deviate from it at all.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:43AM, williamhm75 wrote:

I like racial, and class based PPs and epic destinies, but I THINK alignment is bad.  I don't need alignment to define my character, and basing a paragon path on alignment I THINK is needless.  No one who isn't something of a pacifist for instance is going to take life singer.  I THINK You dont need the good requirment on platnum knight.  As to the races the paragon paths and feats help add extra flavour to those races and accent them.  I like how different each race can be, I THINK alignment however is only ever a restriction that limits character personality as you can't deviate from it at all.

Fixed it for you.

You ee the argument could be made the opposite way Racial and Class PPs and EDs are even more restrictive.  Why cant My wizard take Self forged?  Why do I have to be a dragonborn to have the Scion of [Dragonborn something or other]?

you are taking one very broad and not limiting factor of the game and saying it is too restrictive when Class and Race the two founding principles of the game are quite a bit more restrictive. 

If your Teifling Warlock wanted to be selfforged you are SOL unless you MC into Artificer.  

Though if you wanted to be a platnium knight all you have to do is place a little G in a box next to the Warlord word. that doesn't really matter unless you are playing with a group that takes it seriously.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:37AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

Personally I think it's because, given that Alignment is supposed to be what it is. Where as a Race? That's cultural there. (At least in D&D in most worlds) Other races might not simply have access to the speciality in question hence the Racial requirements.

Alignment? I don't know what is so specific about Alignment that just because I have "Good" on my character sheet, means that I can't swing my Bastard Sword in a particular way.

This goes back to viewpoint.  First - as to "swinging the Bastard Sword" - a strawman - NO powers (to my knowledge) have an alignment prereq.  Those only apply to feats (only 1 at that), PPs and EDs.  So - the real limitation in that case (using the terminology from 4e) is simply - these paragons and destinies are only available to those who choose this side.  Well, as an example - the harpers... they REQUIRE you to be good (according to their standards).  This works perfectly, and is ENTIRELY reasonable. 

Another thing I take issue with about Alignment in particular is the actions of most pcs. Think about it, you are breaking into someone else's home, murdering them, possibly their entire family and then you go and take their stuff afterwards. For little or no reason other than "wrong place and wrong time buddy".

As there are no set rules for alignment shifting - this is a case where the DM and player have to work together (something that should be the norm, always, in my opinion).  At worst (for the "story") the self-delusion that the character has is enough to convince the organization/powers/etc.  At best, the players (DM and player concerned) have figured out what team (if any) the character is truly serving.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:46AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:43AM, williamhm75 wrote:

I like racial, and class based PPs and epic destinies, but I THINK alignment is bad.  I don't need alignment to define my character, and basing a paragon path on alignment I THINK is needless.  No one who isn't something of a pacifist for instance is going to take life singer.  I THINK You dont need the good requirment on platnum knight.  As to the races the paragon paths and feats help add extra flavour to those races and accent them.  I like how different each race can be, I THINK alignment however is only ever a restriction that limits character personality as you can't deviate from it at all.

Fixed it for you.

You ee the argument could be made the opposite way Racial and Class PPs and EDs are even more restrictive.  Why cant My wizard take Self forged?  Why do I have to be a dragonborn to have the Scion of [Dragonborn something or other]?

you are taking one very broad and not limiting factor of the game and saying it is too restrictive when Class and Race the two founding principles of the game are quite a bit more restrictive. 

Yes but I can rp those with any personality I want, Alignment forces me into a box where I have to act a certain way.  Also there are plenty of races and classes, but few alignments, and in my opinion no character that is well drawn will fit into any one alingment very well.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:49AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Yes but I can rp those with any personality I want, Alignment forces me into a box where I have to act a certain way.  Also there are plenty of races and classes, but few alignments, and in my opinion no character that is well drawn will fit into any one alingment very well.

Where is your character being boxed in?  Your Tiefling Warlock.  Tell me why you annot pick an alignment?

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:49AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Yes but I can rp those with any personality I want, Alignment forces me into a box where I have to act a certain way.  Also there are plenty of races and classes, but few alignments, and in my opinion no character that is well drawn will fit into any one alingment very well.

No - it forces you into a box that you and the DM are "comfortable" with.  Lurking over the thread, it has been mainly the ANTI alignment crowd that sets alignment to be so restrictive.  Most that go with alignment do no such thing. 

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:53AM, PBN wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:49AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Yes but I can rp those with any personality I want, Alignment forces me into a box where I have to act a certain way.  Also there are plenty of races and classes, but few alignments, and in my opinion no character that is well drawn will fit into any one alingment very well.

No - it forces you into a box that you and the DM are "comfortable" with.  Lurking over the thread, it has been mainly the ANTI alignment crowd that sets alignment to be so restrictive.  Most that go with alignment do no such thing. 

My opinion?  Something Happened to Will when he was very little.  Perhaps a DM said "NO YOU CANT DO THAT!" and thats why he is resistive of any kind of restrictions.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:52AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:49AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Yes but I can rp those with any personality I want, Alignment forces me into a box where I have to act a certain way.  Also there are plenty of races and classes, but few alignments, and in my opinion no character that is well drawn will fit into any one alingment very well.

Where is your character being boxed in?  Your Tiefling Warlock.  Tell me why you annot pick an alignment?

Shes not good because she is willing to sacrifice people to achieve her goals, she's not evil though because she does try to be good and control her temper most of the time, and she feels guilty for some of the things she has done but knows she will continue doing whatever she has to to keep her promise even if that means lying, cheating, stealing from others.  In 4e I just write unaligned, but I shouldnt have to worry about it at all.  What does alignment bring that simply rping my character does not?  No one has given me a satisfactory answer other than some cosmic forces bs that does not apply to every world.   I should not have to justify asking for alignment to be removed.  The people who want alignment should bear the burden of proving it is useful enough to keep in the core book as is I don't see it that space could have been put to much better usage, I think keeping it was the one mistake the developers made that hasn't been erated yet.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:54AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:53AM, PBN wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:49AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Yes but I can rp those with any personality I want, Alignment forces me into a box where I have to act a certain way.  Also there are plenty of races and classes, but few alignments, and in my opinion no character that is well drawn will fit into any one alingment very well.

No - it forces you into a box that you and the DM are "comfortable" with.  Lurking over the thread, it has been mainly the ANTI alignment crowd that sets alignment to be so restrictive.  Most that go with alignment do no such thing. 

My opinion?  Something Happened to Will when he was very little.  Perhaps a DM said "NO YOU CANT DO THAT!" and thats why he is resistive of any kind of restrictions.

NO Ive just played with dms who rigorously enforced the alignment rules.  Friend of mine was playing a paladin to protect a friend he lied multiple times, dm decided that Lawful good means telling the truth and he lost his paladin abilities.  Also saw a good character killed by a smite good from a black guard again in my opinion total BS.  I also saw people who based their entire personality around one alignment to avoid an alignment shift and made flat characters.  IN my opinion you can either have a character with personality or one with alignment but not both.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:56AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Shes not good because she is willing to sacrifice people to achieve her goals, she's not evil though because she does try to be good and control her temper most of the time, and she feels guilty for some of the things she has done but knows she will continue doing whatever she has to to keep her promise even if that means lying, cheating, stealing from others.  In 4e I just write unaligned, but I shouldnt have to worry about it at all.  What does alignment bring that simply rping my character does not?  No one has given me a satisfactory answer other than some cosmic forces bs that does not apply to every world.   I should not have to justify asking for alignment to be removed.  The people who want alignment should bear the burden of proving it is useful enough to keep in the core book as is I don't see it that space could have been put to much better usage, I think keeping it was the one mistake the developers made that hasn't been erated yet.

For me?  It provides a common ground.  I could have a party of "Good Characters" and each one could be vastly different because we are not literal nincompoops.  I would allow a good assassin or a good rogue if his end goal was aligned with the side of good.

Once again I just feel you had a bad experience and its effected you for life.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 12:01AM, Shakiko wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:59PM, Duke5150 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, Shakiko wrote:

Did Max ever give an example of a character concept that he could not play using alignment?

No, but he made his point about his opinion of alignment very clear, atleast to me and I agree that alignment can be as confusing and frustrating as a DM wants it to be. In the end, alignment is up to the DM, unless its a cool DM (like myself ) who actually listens to his/her players.

Whats the word I'm looking for here? Oh yeah, Compromise. A word some folks need to keep in mind.

I just got confused in all the discussion about Batman - but isn't Batman written by different writers?

Couldn't it be possible that different writers could have a different spin on the same character?

In which case it would be difficult to settle on an appropriate alignment.

Just because I write a story about drizzt doesn't mean I do so correctly. I could make drizzt into a savage barbarian who has no mercy for anyone. Doesn't mean thats how drizzt is. I could also write a story about how raistlin was a compassionate, selfless person. Doesn't mean I'd be right.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:58AM, williamhm75 wrote:

NO Ive just played with dms who rigorously enforced the alignment rules.  Friend of mine was playing a paladin to protect a friend he lied multiple times, dm decided that Lawful good means telling the truth and he lost his paladin abilities.  Also saw a good character killed by a smite good from a black guard again in my opinion total BS.  I also saw people who based their entire personality around one alignment to avoid an alignment shift and made flat characters.  IN my opinion you can either have a character with personality or one with alignment but not both.

Isnt that what I said?  Bad experience scarred you for life.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:48AM, PBN wrote:

This goes back to viewpoint.  First - as to "swinging the Bastard Sword" - a strawman - NO powers (to my knowledge) have an alignment prereq.  Those only apply to feats (only 1 at that), PPs and EDs.  So - the real limitation in that case (using the terminology from 4e) is simply - these paragons and destinies are only available to those who choose this side.  Well, as an example - the harpers... they REQUIRE you to be good (according to their standards).  This works perfectly, and is ENTIRELY reasonable. 

As there are no set rules for alignment shifting - this is a case where the DM and player have to work together (something that should be the norm, always, in my opinion).  At worst (for the "story") the self-delusion that the character has is enough to convince the organization/powers/etc.  At best, the players (DM and player concerned) have figured out what team (if any) the character is truly serving.

And why Good? Seriously? Dedication to the cause, in game story reasons for joining ecetera.  Just "good"? Of course then there's the Organizational Paragon Path Issue as well, (do all members of the Harpers have the P.P? I would certainly hope not... else then that leads back to one of my big beefs with FR and Trivial Means nothing PCs) but mostly there is the Good factor. How can they tell what's written on their character sheets?

Alignment isn't a Cosmic force anymore, so couldn't someone just fake their way into being one of the Harpers? It's not like they can wave a wand over you and see "not good... rejected!". So really the Alignment req makes no sense really there either. I would think joining -any- organization particular "freedom fighters" would have requirements based upon actual in game behavior in relation to the organization in question. (or being a Corsair... I'd think there would have to be actual pirating involved at some point...)

That has nothing to do with alignment making any sense.

The other thing too Alignment's continued existence has created problem wise is the Shifting Alignments... sure there are requirements of Alignment still but what happens if honestly that alignment changes? There are no rules for it changing, and yet people shift alignments. So what happens? It creates another disconnect with the gameworld the Dm and Players must resolve at best. And at worst it just gives a Dm, a way to Subjectively and cruelly strip away the Pc's abilities.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:02AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:56AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Shes not good because she is willing to sacrifice people to achieve her goals, she's not evil though because she does try to be good and control her temper most of the time, and she feels guilty for some of the things she has done but knows she will continue doing whatever she has to to keep her promise even if that means lying, cheating, stealing from others.  In 4e I just write unaligned, but I shouldnt have to worry about it at all.  What does alignment bring that simply rping my character does not?  No one has given me a satisfactory answer other than some cosmic forces bs that does not apply to every world.   I should not have to justify asking for alignment to be removed.  The people who want alignment should bear the burden of proving it is useful enough to keep in the core book as is I don't see it that space could have been put to much better usage, I think keeping it was the one mistake the developers made that hasn't been erated yet.

For me?  It provides a common ground.  I could have a party of "Good Characters" and each one could be vastly different because we are not literal nincompoops.  I would allow a good assassin or a good rogue if his end goal was aligned with the side of good.

Once again I just feel you had a bad experience and its effected you for life.

See why do their have to be sides in the first place?  Good and evil are largley very nebulous concepts very few things are evil in all circumstances, and few things are good in all circumstances.  I think the game benifits when players really have to think of what motivates their characters to me alignment prevents that sort of thinking.  My character is motivated by a strong desire to prove herself to herself, prove that she isnt just the scared little girl who ran when her father was in trouble, who is trying to rectify the mistakes of her past but is walking down a dark path that might wind up destroying her.  Its a lot better than Im Good I like puppies and Kittens!! which is about what I've seen from people who used alignment.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:03AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:58AM, williamhm75 wrote:

NO Ive just played with dms who rigorously enforced the alignment rules.  Friend of mine was playing a paladin to protect a friend he lied multiple times, dm decided that Lawful good means telling the truth and he lost his paladin abilities.  Also saw a good character killed by a smite good from a black guard again in my opinion total BS.  I also saw people who based their entire personality around one alignment to avoid an alignment shift and made flat characters.  IN my opinion you can either have a character with personality or one with alignment but not both.

Isnt that what I said?  Bad experience scarred you for life.

you mean there are other kinds?  Alignment cannot be used in a way that is not a straight jacket.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:05AM, williamhm75 wrote:

See why do their have to be sides in the first place?  Good and evil are largley very nebulous concepts very few things are evil in all circumstances, and few things are good in all circumstances.  I think the game benifits when players really have to think of what motivates their characters to me alignment prevents that sort of thinking.  My character is motivated by a strong desire to prove herself to herself, prove that she isnt just the scared little girl who ran when her father was in trouble, who is trying to rectify the mistakes of her past but is walking down a dark path that might wind up destroying her.  Its a lot better than Im Good I like puppies and Kittens!! which is about what I've seen from people who used alignment.

Because.

Because that is how D&D is presented out of the box.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 4:52AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:53PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:49PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Because at some point I might be in a game with a dm that thinks alignment is a good idea if it is in the books.

I would say in that game you take the option of not playing an alignment as is said in the books.

the whole point is alignment has no need to be in the books there is no reason to include it anymore.  It's too confusing and inane to be of any use what so ever.

I disagree. There is a reason to include it. Many enjoy it and find it useful. That right there is the most valid reason and why it is included, still.

Its not too confusing. What makes it confusing at all is the different factors involved. Which is fun to think about. Atleast for some of us. But you are free to not use it, wotc included that option for you and those like you. But wotc left alignment for me and those like me.

If you say I shouldn't be allowed to have the rules I want into the game, then why should you? You're idea of fun is no more important than mine. Which wotc seems to understand with how they handle 4e alignment.

Alignment will be in 5e too. I bet. So you should just accept it and move on. You don't have to use it.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:08AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:05AM, williamhm75 wrote:

See why do their have to be sides in the first place?  Good and evil are largley very nebulous concepts very few things are evil in all circumstances, and few things are good in all circumstances.  I think the game benifits when players really have to think of what motivates their characters to me alignment prevents that sort of thinking.  My character is motivated by a strong desire to prove herself to herself, prove that she isnt just the scared little girl who ran when her father was in trouble, who is trying to rectify the mistakes of her past but is walking down a dark path that might wind up destroying her.  Its a lot better than Im Good I like puppies and Kittens!! which is about what I've seen from people who used alignment.

Because.

Because that is how D&D is presented out of the box.

Not anymore not really.  I think the designers messed up with it they changed the cosmonology just enough that its now interesting but it could have been much more so.  Without alignment you could write just a few blurbs about the gods and such and leave it to players to decide.  What if Asmodous isn't evil (which I dont really think he is, so he rebelled against a god so what?)  You could easily do a world like anchient greece with gods being closer to human and not really very "good" Could make for a lot of interesting stories, and a much different feel if each god has a dark side as well as a lighter side, but thats just me. 

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:05AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

And why Good?

Simple - that's the side they serve, with dedication. (that's harpers though - picked at random, others have their own prereqs - some MUCH more restrictive than the harpers)

Alignment isn't a Cosmic force anymore

"... In a cosmic sense, it's the team youb believe in and fight for most strongly.  ... alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegience you might have."
Sounds like a cosmic force to me.

so couldn't someone just fake their way into being one of the Harpers?

Again - that's between the DM and player.  For me - no.

The other thing too Alignment's continued existence has created problem wise is the Shifting Alignments... sure there are requirements of Alignment still but what happens if honestly that alignment changes? There are no rules for it changing, and yet people shift alignments. So what happens? It creates another disconnect with the gameworld the Dm and Players must resolve at best. And at worst it just gives a Dm, a way to Subjectively and cruelly strip away the Pc's abilities.

If you feel your DM is cruel - find another game.  PERIOD.  Much like when confronted with players that make such SIMPLE (to me) issues as alignment into more than they need be, I boot them.  It's a game - you want to FORCE the DM to play your way.  Not cool.  In fact - it is IDENTICAL to the cruel DM you rail against.  Actually, it's worse, in this case, as you are arguing to FORCE ALL DMs to play your way.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:05AM, williamhm75 wrote:

See why do their have to be sides in the first place? 

For the same reason that there are races and classes.  It's D&D.  Other games use some, all or none of them.  If what D&D IS is a problem, then, again, perhaps another game would be better suited for you.  One where you would NEVER have to concern yourself with this one (what should be trifling, but somehow isn't) issue that you seem to have.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:18AM, PBN wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:05AM, williamhm75 wrote:

See why do their have to be sides in the first place? 

For the same reason that there are races and classes.  It's D&D.  Other games use some, all or none of them.  If what D&D IS is a problem, then, again, perhaps another game would be better suited for you.  One where you would NEVER have to concern yourself with this one (what should be trifling, but somehow isn't) issue that you seem to have.

ITS NOT TRIFILING.  Alignment offends me.  Its a sacred cow that should have been removed from the game.  DnD just happens to be the best known fantasy rpg out there, Im willing to play other games and would love to find a group for a new world of darkness game, or something but dnd is the easiest to come by.  Alignment is a straight jacket on creativity it forces your pc to act in a certain manner, that offends me.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 8:34AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

Only, when there are actual variations of what each alignment does. IE no Paladin of "you must be LG! and only LG!11111!". And as long as each class actually presented you with multiple builds based upon your alignment does that really work.

I would like this. I think it was be great if you picked a very generic class and then kept making small (or large) choices which refined your class. And ideally, roleplaying concerns would be part of these choices. So I would definately agree.

The way Paladin should have been handled was Cleric - "combat option" - LG. If you wanted Cleric - "combat option" - some Evil alignment, then you'd have a Blackguard. If you wanted Cleric - "combat optioin" - some other alignment, you could have an Crusader or something. Ideally, you'd want choices for many different possible paths.

Even in your proposal, you end up with the same end scenario. Everyone would be playing by the same set of rules interpreted the same way (the game designers). In order for your proposal to work in any meaningful way at least.

What makes D&D so appealing, is the diversity of games that the system can support while using the same rules. Subjective Rules such as alignment, is playing by different rules effectively. Unless of course you make Alignment not Subjective anymore, but then you are imposing one Setting and Playstyle over all the others. Which mars imo what D&D is all about.

But I think DM judgement is one of the strenghts of DnD. You can pretty much do whatever you want because there is a person that can judge the actions and figure out the consequences. You're not tied down to a finite number of options like a video game.

I think alignment is just one of those cases which is heavy on DM judgement. Its not really that different than conditional modifiers or other ad hoc game mechanics. So I really don't think its so necessary that EVERYTHING needs to be spelled out. There's no massive list of every situation where you can get a circumstance modifier to a skill check.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 8:44AM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

As anyone who tried to remove alignment from 3rd Edition can state, it is not always easier to remove a system then it is to add one in.  In addition by making alginment the default rules you encourage new DMs to shoehorn alignment onto their game even if it is actively detrimental to the setting they desire.

Well, I'm sure you'll still run into balance concerns (either removing or adding). But when you add new content, you'll have to create mechanics. How is that easier than ignoring certain material? I understand it can be difficult for balance purposes, but you have that if you're adding.

Making anything default shoehorns new players into using it even if its detrimental.

But why should this be a concept universal to all D&D games?  Why shouldn't it be an optional rule tucked away somewhere (with actual decent rules attached to it) instead of a must have feature that doesn't fit, well, all but 2 actual D&D games I've played in.

Most systems run fine without roleplaying rules.  The only ones that require them are ones that are very setting heavy.  Why should D&D, an incredibly setting light system be using alignment as a default?

I'm not against alignment being an optional rule, especially if its well supported. I would much rather prefer that over its current state where it basically just exists in name. If I had to implement alignment in 4e, I think the best method would have been to place a description (increase the current size by deleting the section on gods) in the PHB with the optional clause and refer to something like the Greyhawk's setting guide which could have much more detailed rules. And then add a few alignment specific content in each supplement.

But DnD seems to have issues with separating different campaign setting and their default along with the Points of Light.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:56AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Shes not good because she is willing to sacrifice people to achieve her goals, she's not evil though because she does try to be good and control her temper most of the time, and she feels guilty for some of the things she has done but knows she will continue doing whatever she has to to keep her promise even if that means lying, cheating, stealing from others.  In 4e I just write unaligned, but I shouldnt have to worry about it at all.  What does alignment bring that simply rping my character does not?  No one has given me a satisfactory answer other than some cosmic forces bs that does not apply to every world.   I should not have to justify asking for alignment to be removed.  The people who want alignment should bear the burden of proving it is useful enough to keep in the core book as is I don't see it that space could have been put to much better usage, I think keeping it was the one mistake the developers made that hasn't been erated yet.

This background would never fly at my table.  I would give it back and ask you to write a decent background with personality traits.  To me it is yet another "Justification Background".  Sounds so much like all of those cop and lawyer shows where the defendant wants to get away with what he did because of some past hurt made him the way he is.  This type of background is closely associated with the "Gimme Background" the background all about getting something for nothing, usually magic weapons.

What happens with this character when she saves her city?

What is her personality?

Why would any sane person want to 'adventure' with her?

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:05AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:02AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:56AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Shes not good because she is willing to sacrifice people to achieve her goals, she's not evil though because she does try to be good and control her temper most of the time, and she feels guilty for some of the things she has done but knows she will continue doing whatever she has to to keep her promise even if that means lying, cheating, stealing from others.  In 4e I just write unaligned, but I shouldnt have to worry about it at all.

Define "tries to be good". Controlling your temper has nothing to do with alignment. Anyone in any alignment can be angry. Also, anyone in any alignment can feel guilt. Although CE characters rarely do.  Keeping a promise/ honoring your word, can be found in all alignments except CE. CE characters have no honor. So your character isn't CE, or G. YOu don't really fit the unaligned aspect  either. I'd place your character as evil.

There are many different sorts of evil and yours seems to be in that catagory. Sounds like an evil character with mental/emotional issues.

 

  What does alignment bring that simply rping my character does not?

Alignment is a supporting element for roleplaying.

  No one has given me a satisfactory answer other than some cosmic forces bs that does not apply to every world.

Nothing will ever satisfy you when it comes to alignment. Its a pointless attempt for those who try. Also, what world does alignment not apply? Alignment may vary from world to world, but good is always good and evil is always evil. Factors change, absolute concepts do not.

 

   I should not have to justify asking for alignment to be removed. 

And others should not have to lose a part of the game they enjoy because you hate it. You don't have to play with it. Don't be childish. You don't have to use alignment, you can play your character however you want. You don't need alignment to be removed from the game to do that.

 The people who want alignment should bear the burden of proving it is useful enough to keep in the core book as is

Obviously, they have, since alignment is still in the core books. Alignment is a useful tool for those who find it useful. You do not and you never will. Trying to show you how alignment is useful is a pointless waste of time. Plus, you don't need to understand why its useful, since you don't use it.

 I don't see it that space could have been put to much better usage, I think keeping it was the one mistake the developers made that hasn't been erated yet.

Thats just your opinion. It was not a mistake. Fans of alignment wanted it and obviously, there are plenty of us. You're just going to have to accept it. Alignment is here to stay. You have the option to not use it. Be happy you have what you want, the ability to not use alignment.

 

See why do their have to be sides in the first place?

Um, because its a driving force in the game, in movies, in books and in life. In fictional movies, you have good guys and bad guys. Good and evil.

  Good and evil are largley very nebulous concepts very few things are evil in all circumstances, and few things are good in all circumstances.

No, good and evil are always the same. Those that strive to be one or the other can make mistakes and have flaws, but it does not change the nature of heaven and hell, which is the driving force of good and evil.

  I think the game benifits when players really have to think of what motivates their characters to me alignment prevents that sort of thinking.

Wrong. Look at the serious thought put into these discussions. Alignment provokes intellectual debate from a bunch of nerds. Alignment promotes creativity. "how can I step outside the norm while staying within the nature of my alignment?" Alignment HELPS players get a basic idea on character motivations and from there, players outgrow the default alignments and expand on them. Alignment is a foundation you build on, its not a prison that confines you and DM's who allow it to become such are BAD DM's. BAD!

  My character is motivated by a strong desire to prove herself to herself, prove that she isnt just the scared little girl who ran when her father was in trouble, who is trying to rectify the mistakes of her past but is walking down a dark path that might wind up destroying her.

For whatever reason, she is self centered, selfish and driven by her past. Willing to destroy anyone who stands in her way and use those who she can gain benefits from by what you say. That is evil.

  Its a lot better than Im Good I like puppies and Kittens!! which is about what I've seen from people who used alignment.

Then those people have no creativity or are not experienced D&D players.

Bolded my replies, obviously.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:21AM, williamhm75 wrote:

ITS NOT TRIFILING.  Alignment offends me.  Its a sacred cow that should have been removed from the game.  DnD just happens to be the best known fantasy rpg out there, Im willing to play other games and would love to find a group for a new world of darkness game, or something but dnd is the easiest to come by.  Alignment is a straight jacket on creativity it forces your pc to act in a certain manner, that offends me.

And there's your answer, then - by your own words, D&D offends you.  Go play a different game, then, and enjoy it (meant sincerely, no hostiity).  In the meantime, let those who enjoy the game as it is, enjoy this one.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:25AM, Scypio wrote:

I would like this. I think it was be great if you picked a very generic class and then kept making small (or large) choices which refined your class. And ideally, roleplaying concerns would be part of these choices. So I would definately agree.

The way Paladin should have been handled was Cleric - "combat option" - LG. If you wanted Cleric - "combat option" - some Evil alignment, then you'd have a Blackguard. If you wanted Cleric - "combat optioin" - some other alignment, you could have an Crusader or something. Ideally, you'd want choices for many different possible paths.

But I think DM judgement is one of the strenghts of DnD. You can pretty much do whatever you want because there is a person that can judge the actions and figure out the consequences. You're not tied down to a finite number of options like a video game.

I think alignment is just one of those cases which is heavy on DM judgement. Its not really that different than conditional modifiers or other ad hoc game mechanics. So I really don't think its so necessary that EVERYTHING needs to be spelled out. There's no massive list of every situation where you can get a circumstance modifier to a skill check.

That's the thing in a nutshell. Unfortunately though, there are some things particularly the ones that can kill your pc, or leave him or her maimed which are not left up to the Dm discretion, such as effects a power has on you etc. Alignment unfortunately is alot like that once it has mechanical ramifications, something like a skill modifier or conditional modifier is up to the Dm because of the infrequency the event happens in, and because the impact on the character is a great deal less permenate than what Combat typically does to a character.

Alignment's effects, however are often just as permenate as the effects of Combat. Which is why for it to exist, the Subjectiveness would have to be removed. Which would damage D&D tremendously in my opinion, because then you just had the developers tell you, a specific way to play the game. And leave you a great deal less room to play around without house ruling.

Conceptually Alignment isn't terribly different from ad hoc modifiers, unfortunately though for it to be useful at all to the gameplay and to the impact of the game world it unlike those very subjective modifiers is alot more permenate. Which is why I don't approve of it at the end of the day. It's asking for a Subjective Call that can irreperably change the campaign.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:45AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

It's asking for a Subjective Call that can irreperably change the campaign.

It is PRECISELY those subjective calls (including permanent maiming/crippling/insanity/etc) that make EVERY campaign unique. 

Nov 3, 2009 -- 11:04AM, PBN wrote:

It is PRECISELY those subjective calls (including permanent maiming/crippling/insanity/etc) that make EVERY campaign unique. 

I don't know, I've yet to see Alignment be anything that made me think "Man that was special" rather than. "I don't agree with that call" or "okay he got that one right" what have you. Yet everytime there was a character that suffered for it.

To me what makes each campaign unique is the cast of characters within it, and how they react in a given situation.

What makes a campaign unique sure as hell shouldn't be, how the Dm interprets the rules which could directly result in you having a Non Character.

@Micha: This goes back to what I said in the anti-magic thread.  Different people like different things.  The key is that all the players at the table (DM included) are enjoying the game.  What you may see as a non-character, someone else might enjoy.  There was a post some time back, in fact, for a player that wanted to be blind.  That could be fun for some groups - yet the outcry was mainly "how can you nerf your party??!!"  That to me, is the exact WRONG attitude to bring to a game.  If that's what the player wanted, and it could be worked out, it could be AMAZING.  Moreover, based on the responses, it would be a VERY unique campaign. 

The game is what it is, have fun and enjoy - and if you aren't - don't blame the game, blame the particular group (DM and players).  There's an old expression - "it takes two to tango".  It's like I told Will, earlier - if you don't like the way a particular DM ENJOYS playing with alignment (or any other aspect of the game, for that matter), find another, DM yourself, or grab a different game. 

edited: generalized what DM might enjoy

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:45AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

Alignment's effects, however are often just as permenate as the effects of Combat. Which is why for it to exist, the Subjectiveness would have to be removed. Which would damage D&D tremendously in my opinion, because then you just had the developers tell you, a specific way to play the game. And leave you a great deal less room to play around without house ruling.

Conceptually Alignment isn't terribly different from ad hoc modifiers, unfortunately though for it to be useful at all to the gameplay and to the impact of the game world it unlike those very subjective modifiers is alot more permenate. Which is why I don't approve of it at the end of the day. It's asking for a Subjective Call that can irreperably change the campaign.

Ideally, there should be options for your character after an alignment shift. So in essence, you don't fail your alignment, you'd just get different properties since you have a different alignment. Like Paladin - Crusader - Knight - Corrupted Knight - Blackguard or something. Ideally, there should be options for all given choices (although it understandable if they want to reduce the prevalence of Evil character options).

Also, in certain campaigns (city based, intrigue, mystery, etc), its very possible that ad hoc skill checks/challenges (where the DM determined DCs) are more common than combat. And often times, even in a protypical dungeon crawl, PCs will try to do something dangerous which depends on an ad hoc skill check/challenge. These checks/challenges can often times determine large aspects of how the campaign will flow.

So I don't think its wrong when a Subjective Call changes a campaign. I think it happens and typically when it does, it shows the PCs that they really had a choice. If my players suggest something that I didn't think and greatly change the course of a campaign, they normally remember it. It makes you truly feel like you're not just hacking and bashing your way to the end of a cleverly disguised path.

The thing that I never liked about alignment is that roughly 99% of the world thinks that they're good in some way. "Evil" in DnD basically comes down to "selfish". I'd much, much rather RP a character's motivations, demeanor, etc. and if that means that person does good, the game should reflect his goodness (and if he does evil, the game should reflect that as well). As for deities, rather than tossing in some clumsy "you are now NG and your deity is LG and won't give you spells anymore", it's much more conducive to good RPing and in the end a more interesting story if the DM says "your deity is offended by your unwillingness to save the town. No spells for you until you find a way to atone."

But yeah, some people just like to grind and play DnD as a tactical wargame. For those, I guess the 9 alignments system gave them another rule to play with.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 6:50AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

4e alignment is a Legacy from Edition's past which still needs to stop taking it's last breaths, hurry up and die.

Isn't it true that you feel that the Wizard class is also a Legacy from Edition's past which still needs to stop taking it's last breaths, hurry up and die?

Excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 6:50AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

This is also, partly where imo there is the Culture difference from D&Ders to not D&Ders. D&Ders have quite often very little experience making deep characters, compared to their not D&Ders counterparts. And I think honestly that has alot to do with Alignment's existence and the lack of -good- explanations about Roleplaying and Character motivations.

4e made great progress with Alignment, it went from being a Flaw with the System and the Rules themselves, to just being a Flaw of the book the system is printed in.

And someone can say "but I liked old alignment mechanics!" yes and there are people out there that still prefer carbeurators to fuel injection. That does not however mean that carbs are in anyway shape or form mechanically superior, or even equal.

Wow, so now DnDers are lame roleplayers? Is this taken from your indepth study on roleplayers?

As for your carbeurator example, you are saying that a carbeurator is like alignment and fuel injection is like a couple of pages written about roleplaying? Not very good analogy.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 8:44AM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

As anyone who tried to remove alignment from 3rd Edition can state, it is not always easier to remove a system then it is to add one in.  In addition by making alginment the default rules you encourage new DMs to shoehorn alignment onto their game even if it is actively detrimental to the setting they desire.

Alignment is part of DnD - that is why it is so difficault to remove.

It's like trying to argue that classes are too restrictive and should be removed from DnD. Sure you can but then you are really playing another game.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 10:25AM, Scypio wrote:

Well, I'm sure you'll still run into balance concerns (either removing or adding). But when you add new content, you'll have to create mechanics. How is that easier than ignoring certain material? I understand it can be difficult for balance purposes, but you have that if you're adding.

In it's current state I admit alignment is really easy to carve out.  Back when it was a little more tied into the mechanics you ran into all sorts of problems like "What do the Paladin/Monk get in exchange forall these alignment abilities.  How do I work domains?  Cleric spontanious casting?  DR?  Was this ability given the Evil prereq because it's broken?"  Basically if alignment means something it's a little harder to pull out everything, while putting in a new overlaying system will require some tweaks, but can be implemented in stages, with nerfs and buffs occuring as required.

From a psycholigical standpoint it's a lot easier to tweak your own stuff then the printed rules.  And youll get way less player grumbling.

Making anything default shoehorns new players into using it even if its detrimental.

True.  But it should be avoided if it's detrimental most of the time.

I'm not against alignment being an optional rule, especially if its well supported. I would much rather prefer that over its current state where it basically just exists in name. If I had to implement alignment in 4e, I think the best method would have been to place a description (increase the current size by deleting the section on gods) in the PHB with the optional clause and refer to something like the Greyhawk's setting guide which could have much more detailed rules. And then add a few alignment specific content in each supplement.

This I can agree with.  I would like to see good well worked out optional rules for alignment, because while campaigns where there's a Epic struggle between Good and Evil aren't as common as people claim, they still can be fun campaigns.  And the Dms who run them should have a nice rules set availible to them.  In fact having them as an optional rule with as good explination and implementation would also help those people who do use alignment use it better in their campaigns.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 3:47PM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

campaigns where there's a Epic struggle between Good and Evil aren't as common as people claim

Maybe so or maybe not.  None of us on these boards are likely in any position to judge what kinds of campaigns are most common, however, the epic struggle between good and evil is part of the default setting, as are the the ancient fallen empires of Arkhosia and Bael Turath, the deities from Avandra to Zehir, and even the entire conceit of a mostly untamed world with only small communities of civilization (AKA, Points of Light).  Lots of stuff is part of the default setting even though MANY campaigns may never use any of it.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 3:47PM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

None of us on these boards are likely in any position to judge what kinds of campaigns are most common, however, the epic struggle between good and evil is part of the default setting

No.  Not really.  Sure there's Good and Evil.  And they don't get along.  But they also work together when nessicary and have internal dispute all the time.  And most people just ignore the whole thing.  Sure you're more likely to be killing cultists of Vecna cause they're jerks then asking them where the "save the universe from Lovecraftian horrors" artifact is, but that options always there.  Even good aligned characters pay offhand tribute to Lloth (according to Devine Power), and there's a good chance that a temple to Bane is sitting down the street from a Temple to Bahamut.  This doesn't happen if there's actually an Epic struggle between Good and Evil.  The Jedi don't let the Sith put up a branch office just because that planet has a "freedom of religion" clause.

To the people about my characters background, everything in it happened in game.  Literally her personality changed after a number of life shaking events which is what I think should happen peoples personalities do not remain static.  Personality wise she is driven, quiet, withdrawn, and untrusting with reason, like every adventurer in human history (by that I mean the explorers and others who went out and did things) she does so for her own reasons.  To most people the greater battle between good and evil is going to take second place to other concerns.  Personally Id rather just play character personality and not worry about alignment.  It's just something artificial to me that you tack on that you then have to make sure your actions fit inside of, as well as making sure they fit your personality.  It makes characters feel really contrived.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:58AM, williamhm75 wrote:

NO Ive just played with dms who rigorously enforced the alignment rules.  Friend of mine was playing a paladin to protect a friend he lied multiple times, dm decided that Lawful good means telling the truth and he lost his paladin abilities.  Also saw a good character killed by a smite good from a black guard again in my opinion total BS.  I also saw people who based their entire personality around one alignment to avoid an alignment shift and made flat characters.  IN my opinion you can either have a character with personality or one with alignment but not both.

I saw a character die from being hit with a critical hit - they should totally get rid of that BS mechanic.

Yeah, and once a DM had a character arrested and locked up without any of my stuff. DM's are always trying to screw with you.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 5:23PM, Shasarak wrote:

Nov 3, 2009 -- 9:58AM, williamhm75 wrote:

NO Ive just played with dms who rigorously enforced the alignment rules.  Friend of mine was playing a paladin to protect a friend he lied multiple times, dm decided that Lawful good means telling the truth and he lost his paladin abilities.  Also saw a good character killed by a smite good from a black guard again in my opinion total BS.  I also saw people who based their entire personality around one alignment to avoid an alignment shift and made flat characters.  IN my opinion you can either have a character with personality or one with alignment but not both.

I saw a character die from being hit with a critical hit - they should totally get rid of that BS mechanic.

Yeah, and once a DM had a character arrested and locked up without any of my stuff. DM's are always trying to screw with you.

Dying from one crit shouldn't happen our dm usually reduces that to just rendering them unconcious.  In one game right now we are locked up luckily im a warlock and can teleport out of it.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 5:00PM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

None of us on these boards are likely in any position to judge what kinds of campaigns are most common, however, the epic struggle between good and evil is part of the default setting

No.  Not really.  Sure there's Good and Evil.  And they don't get along.  But they also work together when nessicary and have internal dispute all the time.  And most people just ignore the whole thing.  Sure you're more likely to be killing cultists of Vecna cause they're jerks then asking them where the "save the universe from Lovecraftian horrors" artifact is, but that options always there.  Even good aligned characters pay offhand tribute to Lloth (according to Devine Power), and there's a good chance that a temple to Bane is sitting down the street from a Temple to Bahamut.  This doesn't happen if there's actually an Epic struggle between Good and Evil.  The Jedi don't let the Sith put up a branch office just because that planet has a "freedom of religion" clause.

Alright, maybe EPIC was a bit of an exaggeration, but the default setting still includes a definite tension between the cosmic forces of good and evil.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 5:27PM, williamhm75 wrote:

Dying from one crit shouldn't happen our dm usually reduces that to just rendering them unconcious.  In one game right now we are locked up luckily im a warlock and can teleport out of it.

3.5 example...

Giant Golem + Equally Giant Cleaver (20/x3) + Full Power Attack + Party's Wizard = Gooey Paste

That example actualy happended in my old Eberron campaign.  Crits are less swingy in 4e than 3.5, but a few scimitar wielders or a BBEG wielding a magic weapon/implement can still put some serious hurt on unprepared PCs.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 3:47PM, DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

In it's current state I admit alignment is really easy to carve out.  Back when it was a little more tied into the mechanics you ran into all sorts of problems like "What do the Paladin/Monk get in exchange forall these alignment abilities.  How do I work domains?  Cleric spontanious casting?  DR?  Was this ability given the Evil prereq because it's broken?"  Basically if alignment means something it's a little harder to pull out everything, while putting in a new overlaying system will require some tweaks, but can be implemented in stages, with nerfs and buffs occuring as required.

From a psycholigical standpoint it's a lot easier to tweak your own stuff then the printed rules.  And youll get way less player grumbling.

Even if you remove alignment, you don't have to eradicate the concept of good and evil from your game world. The way you behave will be interpreted on more of a sliding scale from good to evil by people who observe your actions. If you are a divine character, your god  could be observing your actions all the time (or never).

If I were to remove alignment from a 3e game without ripping related spells etc. from the game, I'd just change the detect evil to something like detect demons and devils (absolutely evil things), but not let it work on most humans at all - only on thigns that you can interpret as being absolutely evil.

If you are an assassin, you'd be considered evil by many people who find out you murder other beings. Some others might view your actions as good acts, if you murder evildoers etc.

As a cleric, if you choose to channel negative energy, you are considered a practitioner of necromancy by some, which might think you are evil. Others might not think the same.

Basically, you'd just create a lot of gray areas, which is to me more interesting than just being able to use detect evil on just about anyone. What do you do if you find someone who is "evil" in game mechanical terms, but does not break the law?

Oct 24, 2009 -- 7:06PM, Vaalingrade wrote:

I don't know why this thread even exists.

The bloody system has no in game effects anymore. It can't hinder you. It's all a usless label. Meaningless.

What in my most unholy name is there to discuss?!

It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter at all! Don't you get it? We're free!

 

Ding Dong! Alignment's dead. Which old Alignment? The game ruining alignment!

Still as articulate and wise as ever I see...

Oct 23, 2009 -- 9:05AM, Maxperson wrote:

A child molester absolutely can be a good man in other areas.  Child molestation doesn't automatically make anything good that he believes a "mask" or "front" for his pedophelia.  That you can't think of him as a good man is a PRIME example of why alignment doesn't work.  According to the alignment system, someone must be either good OR evil, but never both.  You've fallen into the alignment trap.  With a real personality, good and evil are not so clear cut and you can have someone who is both.  The evil is never excusable because of the good, but it also doesn't make the good, not good.

You seem to be confusing yourself and others here. Good is only good in the absence of evil. Think of it like a bucket of water. Clear, clean water reamins clean and clear only so long as you do not add any dirt (evil) to it. Once you add that dirt, the water will always be muddy (evil or unaligned) whereas you can add as much clean, clear water to a bucket of dirt as you want and you will still only get muddy water. Once a rapist, molester or murderer and you are forever tainted. You will never be truely "good" ever again. You can cease commiting your evil acts and dedicate yourself to doing good but you will still bear the taint of evil for the rest of your life.