|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:17PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2008
|
I have no doubt that the alignment talk is a well-worn trail in D&D forum lore, but I wanted to get some public input on why any alignment is beneficial to the system at all.
On Balance Issues: It strikes me that the alignment system attempts to replicate the motivations in the heart and minds of the character (or monster). In 3.5 edition and previous, alignment was also treated as a condition of the character- some weapons did more damage to good guys, or could only be wielded by them, etc. Paladins could only be a certain alignment type, based on the sub-genre of paladin. 4th edition removes this concept to the sidelines, and the only support for it in the core 3 books is really in artifact behaviors.
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and, in 3.x and back, penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again). But evil? Chaotic? Not so much.
If it serves the chaotic evil purpose of a character to pay his taxes and give his rebate to orphans with diseases, he may. It's serving his evil purpose. In fact, if one time in twenty my chaotic bard obeyed the speed limit, it would really throw the other players for a loop. How very... chaotic.
In short, the farther you stray from "Good" and "Lawful", the farther you stray from principles. An evil warrior can do quite anything and it is not good unless he does it deliberately so.
On Ethical Issues. I'm GMing a campaign right now where the players are "evil" cultists in serviec of a nihilistic Goddess, and their over-arching purpose is the destruction of everything by smashing the three Prime Planes together. But as a party, they are devoted, loyal, friendly and trustworthy. They'll stab an orphan in the head without thinking twice as long as it serves the Goddess' goals, but it is only by devotion to a cause, rather than a love of being a dirtbag, that motivates them.
To return to the point, they are only evil because their cause is evil, and because they are not governed by rules of conduct tied to principles.
Tolkien once wrote that that his wicked creature Wormtongue may 'betray himself, and do good that he does not intend' (I think it was wormtongue. Smeagol? Not the point). Self-service is not always evil, even at the cost of others. America going to war in WWII caused great harm to thousands of german soldiers, no? But they did it to preserve the good that they had made efforts to create. It is socially self-serving, but self-serving nonetheless.
So why bother? The point is this. Your characters should be motivated by principles and goals. You can roleplay that! So much behavior is already entrusted to the players to decide; why this strange categorization? I say shuck the constraints of saying that your character is always good. Anyone who's ever had an alcoholic dad would sneer at the concept that good men never fall from grace and do evil unintentionally. Very (VERY) few people want to be evil.
To quote Winston Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:26PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2005
|
My friends and I have been treating alignment this way since the beginning of our foray into D&D and roleplaying games in general.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:33PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and even penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again).
Where?
In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor. It's as mechanically important as deity. Which doesn't care if it's lip-service or devotion. It allows for person interpretations.
I think descriptions of your character are important. If not for others, they are a reminder to oneself. The shorter the descriptor, the easier it is to remember. I sometimes am inclined to forget that I intend my Tiefling Warlock to be willing to eat babies for immortality. Which by looking at "evil" on his character sheet, I'm reminded.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:51PM
#4
|
|
|
There are alignments? Ooooh you mean those words the players write down and then immediately ignore. Ahh yes, alignments. They're easy, I ignore what my players write on the PC records as just not worth my time. I judge them on their actual actions and I don't think another moment about it. If the details in MY books say creature X is evil, I tend to listen to those words though  Well most of the time. If a players dogoody Paladin is acting horrendous you can bet it will have repercussions. The gods ARE watching you know.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:57PM
#5
|
|
|
I personally believe that Alignment was never beneficial to begin with, let alone beneficial enough to rant about in any context. A system mechanic designed to hinder the individual player though a set of straight-jacked rules isn't beneficial for anyone.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:57PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2005
|
The main problem is alignment-based class restrictions (Because obviously all them there barbarians have no self control, and there's no such thing as a nonlawful monk, as evidenced by the main character from every brawler ever  ), which are thankfully gone (officially, rather than houseruled anyway) with 4th ed anyway, so it's all good.
Zammm = Batman. Bronies unite."I'd call you a genius, but I'm in the room." It's my sig in a box
Show
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
Funny story:
InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game.
I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?"
Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy."
Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb."
Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious. 
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
Show
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now.
O' Jesus
Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle.
Amen.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears  would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic  , giving you time to set up your silly  combo  . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills 
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 1:05PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2008
|
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and even penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again).
Where?
In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor. It's as mechanically important as deity. Which doesn't care if it's lip-service or devotion. It allows for person interpretations.
I think descriptions of your character are important. If not for others, they are a reminder to oneself. The shorter the descriptor, the easier it is to remember. I sometimes am inclined to forget that I intend my Tiefling Warlock to be willing to eat babies for immortality. Which by looking at "evil" on his character sheet, I'm reminded.
Oops, I meant the 3.x paladin. Thanks for pointing it out. Corrected in the post.
I've never felt comfortable passing judgement on a play-style, so please do not misinterpret this as dismissive or condescending, but the span of players I've played with over the years are enthusiastic about the behavior of their PCs, and if incredibly strong ambition were in line with that, I can't imagine that such a character-defining trait needing a reminder.
But different strokes for different folks, right?
I guess that it all depends on how willing the DM is to criticize characters for not thinking of that word on your sheet when they ask you what you want the PC to do. An evil character, in my experience, is far less accountable to always rob that orphan than a good character is to always defend the goblin-besieged town.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 1:14PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2009
|
In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor. It's as mechanically important as deity.
Au contraire, deities allow for different domain feats to be selected. And with the domain synergy feat now available, domain powers rock my socks.
Besides artifacts, the only thing alignment affects is which dieties you can serve (and this doesn't matter if you or the god are nuetral).
Story-driven punishments for actions out of alignment are always fun. The consequences do not have to be mechanical, but if a lawful good pally starts eating babies to gain immortality, I bet Bahamut's going to be PISSED.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 1:17PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
Alignments serve as a sort of RP aid. Players can look at the descriptions for the alignments and at least try to follow the RP concepts given. In principle, it provides a sort of framework for character intent and spirit if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 1:22PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2008
|
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and even penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again).
Where?
In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor. It's as mechanically important as deity. Which doesn't care if it's lip-service or devotion. It allows for person interpretations.
I think descriptions of your character are important. If not for others, they are a reminder to oneself. The shorter the descriptor, the easier it is to remember. I sometimes am inclined to forget that I intend my Tiefling Warlock to be willing to eat babies for immortality. Which by looking at "evil" on his character sheet, I'm reminded.
Oops, I meant the 3.x paladin. Thanks for pointing it out. Corrected in the post.
I've never felt comfortable passing judgement on a play-style, so please do not misinterpret this as dismissive or condescending, but the span of players I've played with over the years are enthusiastic about the behavior of their PCs, and if incredibly strong ambition were in line with that, I can't imagine that such a character-defining trait needing a reminder.
But different strokes for different folks, right?
I guess that it all depends on how willing the DM is to criticize characters for not thinking of that word on your sheet when they ask you what you want the PC to do. An evil character, in my experience, is far less accountable to always rob that orphan than a good character is to always defend the goblin-besieged town.
I remember when 4th came out the first character I rolled was a Paladin. One of the other players saw my alignment and was like "dude, is that a house rule already?". I was excited to be able to play a by the book non-lawful paladin.
As for alignments themselves, there is only one reason I ask my players to pick one: so I can ballpark how they MIGHT react in a given situation. Though like most DMs on these boards, I tend to gauge that more by the characters in-game actions anyways, but if there's a character I have no experience with it helps.
I would not miss the concept at all if the game never made mention of it in the PHB. For monsters though, different story. I think they're helpful to gauge generally how monsters behave but again, you mileage may vary. I've had my share of benevolent chromatic dragons and virtuous hobgoblins.
|
|
|
you loads
