|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 9:35AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2001
|
Personally I'm sick of all the fighting. I don't really mind threads like this, where the initial subject is the merit of the alignment. What I do take issue with though is when people who do appreciate the system try to talk with each other about how to better use the system or interpret a character, only to have a hater barge in and insist that using alignment in the first place is some kind of sin.
Most of the time I've barged in or seen someone else barge in, it wasn't because the thread was full of people "appreciating the system trying to better use it", it's because said people were angrily yelling at each other about whether or not Batman is good, or because a player got his paladin powers stripped away by an angry DM and everyone was fighting about whether or not it was justified. Usually the advice from the haters is "Instead of arguing about this for days on the internet and constantly worrying that your DM might wreck your character because of the different beliefs the two of you have, how about you just don't use it?" I just haven't had much experience where people enjoyed having their powers stripped by the DM because they roleplayed against his religion/ethics or enjoyed needing to decide their character's actions by trying to guess whether the DM was feeling more liberal or fundamentalist today. That's the real problem here - it was a system that said "You get punished if you do something naughty, but we're not telling you what those things are." That's just asking for dramatic arguments between people with different real-life belief systems.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 9:42AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
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.
It's a property, as any other. The benefits derived therefrom are dependant upon the specific group. What is having distinct classes beneficial? or distinct races? it gives another set of options that may (or may not) be expanded upon and worked with.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 9:45AM
#43
|
|
|
It gives another set of options that may (or may not) be expanded upon and worked with.
A most Excellent observation. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 9:47AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
If a character's sheet says "Chaotic Evil," but the character does a lot of things in an organized way that also reveals his general goodwill toward and care of others, this isn't a reason to penalize the character or the player. It's a reason to realize that the "Chaotic Evil" on the sheet is a typo. Nobody really acts outside of his character. Whatever he does or says or thinks is his character.
Also, it is harder to maintain dedication to do good. Most people who do evil things do so because it is easier. Most of the time, it's hard to do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:26AM
#45
|
|
|
Well alignment is likely not as critical as say stats or using dice.
But some people DO manage to play the game with no stats, and even no dice on occasion.
I've always wished I could manage a game based solely on the players describing what they wanted to play, and myself making the entire PC record based on their description, and then running the entire game based solely on the players dialogue and myself resolving virtually everything by dice rolls myself. With the player only needing to sit back in their chair and enjoy the game unfettered by a single statistical hassle.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:30AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2003
|
And thus we see the other problem with alignment. Some people just hate the idea so much they'll willingly twist what the book says. They'll willingly take examples of people misusing it, and saying that is how its done. They'll constantly point at humans making mistakes..and say its the fault of the rules..not the people abusing them or using them incorrectly.
In the end this was the real problem with alignment. People who hated it would blow it out of proportion, then go around convincing everybody this is how its suppose to work, then try to ruin other peoples game...or rip someone a new one just for using alignment and telling them it was the source of all problems. I saw it time and time again, someone is talking about an evil character in their game going around and causing problems and issues with the party.....and repeatedly someone would post that the problem was alignment..if you got rid of alignment you'd get rid of the problem. When the actual problem was the person playing the evil character was just a pain in the butt and was using any excuse he could find to be a problem.
You'd hear about draconian DM's who set up paladins to fall, on purpose, with no other choice. And they'd blame it on the 'horrible alignment' instead of on the DM who was again being a pain in the butt and was sabatogeing the players fun by misusing the rules.
Anyone who says alignment was a horrible system and ruined D&D because it was a straitjacket and forced you to act a certain way. I laugh at whole heartedly..then shake my head. Because I know that person was wrong, they didn't know the alignment rules, they knew a twisted version, or were right out lieing.
You prefer to not play in a black and white world. Thats fine. You prefer to be able to play certain classes without acting out that alignment. Thats fine. You prefer your actions to have no mechanical consequence whatsoever in the game world, hey thats fine. You prefer your actions to have no actual consequence in the game whatsoever...well sure thats fine to..but saying those who want to get rid of alignment are solely for that is hyperbole :D. Saying that a system you have problems understanding or that you just don't enjoy using is broken and always abused is the point where you are wrong.
And still to this day..I see people posting the same drivil. Oh its a strait jacket, oh your alignment changes every few seconds, oh I wrote down the wrong two letters and now my char is ruined, oh its a waste of space that only caused problems.
Yaknow what..even with alignment as toothless, as non-mechanical....as useless as it is in 4e. There is currently a thread in the Whats a Player to do forums. With a DM who is somehow managing to be overly strict with alignment, who is somehow managing to take away char sheets for changing alignment, who is somehow forcing players to act a certain way...all in the name of alignment.
But here's the thing....I already said it, and its true. Alignment is completely and utterly toothless, with very little and very limited actual interaction with the rules, all of those things I just listed? Are things the DM is doing, of his own violation. These are all things the DM wants to do, without having ever seen it in the 4e book. With the 4e book in no way possible saying this is how things are done, beyond the suggestion that you prob shouldn't allow evil chars (a suggestion not a rule).
Alignment aint the problem, it never was the problem, then problem is that people get their own ideas on alignment and insist its used that way. Some DM sets up a char I have to fall and lose abilities...I know its the DM being a jerk...not the rules he's missusing. Someone tells me my char of whatever alignment isn't acting as he should, and I need to retcon my action...I know they are being an idiot and don't know what alignment is. The DM insists I change my alignment every session because of a single action (maybe even multiple times in a session), and changing it is negative to my char, I know the DM is either being a jerk or hasn't actually read about alignment. The DM warns me that an action I'm about to do of my own violation is not in keeping with my alignment, but I can do it anyway, I'll just have to suffer the concequences of that action....wow someone who actually knows a bit about it and how to use it...if he isn't too strict I'll prob stick around (I prefer alignment to be played loosly over strictly myself). Also if he dosn't use it to just shoehorn me into taking actions he wants me to take...now that is annoying as heck.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:31AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2010
|
I thought that alignment reared the ugly side of its head with the Planes Below supplement. It keeps describing Elemental Chaos, chaos, chaos. But then you have an ultra-lawful githzeria hanging around. And the efreet are supposedly chaos, but they have rigid cultural rules. And the archons are chaos minions, but they're arguably lawful neutral. And the slaad are chaos personified but several paragraphs of fluff are devoted to justifying their unchaotic aspects.
Really, all that fantasy logic is just so arbitrary and unnecessary. So many sentences wasted on paltry excuses and weak justifications. Why not just dispense with the explicit "chaos" label? The elemental plane just is the way it is. It would be so much easier. Sometimes, creating artificial labels forces you to create an arbitrary box and then force you to squeeze everything into that arbitrary box, and for no good reason really.
Like trying to fit Batman into a lawful or chaotic or evil or good "box". It would be better if that box wasn't created in the 1st place, and just allow people to enjoy Batman for what he is.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:35AM
#48
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
Saying that a system you have problems understanding or that you just don't enjoy using is broken and always abused is the point where you are wrong.
If alignment isn't the problem people say it is, please demonstrate how it has any redeeming value whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:43AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
If alignment isn't the problem people say it is, please demonstrate how it has any redeeming value whatsoever.
I thought I did. Perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly enough. It's another property - as such it can add additional aspects to the game. More options is of value. Simplest example - if everyone had only 1 choice of character - how valuable the game?
Add in race - now your options are expanded immensely.
Multiply by class - exponential increase in options available.
Multiply by alignment - exponential increase in options available.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:47AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
And thus we see the other problem with alignment. Some people just hate the idea so much they'll willingly twist what the book says. They'll willingly take examples of people misusing it, and saying that is how its done. They'll constantly point at humans making mistakes..and say its the fault of the rules..not the people abusing them or using them incorrectly.
In the end this was the real problem with alignment. People who hated it would blow it out of proportion, then go around convincing everybody this is how its suppose to work, then try to ruin other peoples game...or rip someone a new one just for using alignment and telling them it was the source of all problems. I saw it time and time again, someone is talking about an evil character in their game going around and causing problems and issues with the party.....and repeatedly someone would post that the problem was alignment..if you got rid of alignment you'd get rid of the problem. When the actual problem was the person playing the evil character was just a pain in the butt and was using any excuse he could find to be a problem.
You'd hear about draconian DM's who set up paladins to fall, on purpose, with no other choice. And they'd blame it on the 'horrible alignment' instead of on the DM who was again being a pain in the butt and was sabatogeing the players fun by misusing the rules.
Anyone who says alignment was a horrible system and ruined D&D because it was a straitjacket and forced you to act a certain way. I laugh at whole heartedly..then shake my head. Because I know that person was wrong, they didn't know the alignment rules, they knew a twisted version, or were right out lieing.
You prefer to not play in a black and white world. Thats fine. You prefer to be able to play certain classes without acting out that alignment. Thats fine. You prefer your actions to have no mechanical consequence whatsoever in the game world, hey thats fine. You prefer your actions to have no actual consequence in the game whatsoever...well sure thats fine to..but saying those who want to get rid of alignment are solely for that is hyperbole :D. Saying that a system you have problems understanding or that you just don't enjoy using is broken and always abused is the point where you are wrong.
And still to this day..I see people posting the same drivil. Oh its a strait jacket, oh your alignment changes every few seconds, oh I wrote down the wrong two letters and now my char is ruined, oh its a waste of space that only caused problems.
Yaknow what..even with alignment as toothless, as non-mechanical....as useless as it is in 4e. There is currently a thread in the Whats a Player to do forums. With a DM who is somehow managing to be overly strict with alignment, who is somehow managing to take away char sheets for changing alignment, who is somehow forcing players to act a certain way...all in the name of alignment.
But here's the thing....I already said it, and its true. Alignment is completely and utterly toothless, with very little and very limited actual interaction with the rules, all of those things I just listed? Are things the DM is doing, of his own violation. These are all things the DM wants to do, without having ever seen it in the 4e book. With the 4e book in no way possible saying this is how things are done, beyond the suggestion that you prob shouldn't allow evil chars (a suggestion not a rule).
Alignment aint the problem, it never was the problem, then problem is that people get their own ideas on alignment and insist its used that way. Some DM sets up a char I have to fall and lose abilities...I know its the DM being a jerk...not the rules he's missusing. Someone tells me my char of whatever alignment isn't acting as he should, and I need to retcon my action...I know they are being an idiot and don't know what alignment is. The DM insists I change my alignment every session because of a single action (maybe even multiple times in a session), and changing it is negative to my char, I know the DM is either being a jerk or hasn't actually read about alignment. The DM warns me that an action I'm about to do of my own violation is not in keeping with my alignment, but I can do it anyway, I'll just have to suffer the concequences of that action....wow someone who actually knows a bit about it and how to use it...if he isn't too strict I'll prob stick around (I prefer alignment to be played loosly over strictly myself). Also if he dosn't use it to just shoehorn me into taking actions he wants me to take...now that is annoying as heck.
Um you don't need aligment to have non mechanical consequences for actions. Player caught stealing that's what jails are for no alignment necessary. Alignment IS a straight jacket no two ways around it. It makes for cookie cutter characters with no real personality. As to mechanical consequences for actions why are such things a good thing? Why should certain classes be stripped of power simply for a disagreement between player and dm? What real reason is there to keep alignment? I cannot think or see any positive value for the system.
|
|
|
