|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:47AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2008
|
Imo, alignments are more of a general idea of what to expect from a given character (PC/NPC). In the campaign I'm playing in, a couple of the other players had their alignment shifted based on their actions. For example; you come a cross a couple of bandits. You manage to intimidate their leader into not fighting you (even getting something in return for not fighting them, because he was that scared). Would attacking those bandits after that be good/unaligned/evil? It depends on the reasons *why* you attack them (bystanders can have different views, ofcourse). In my case, I decided to attack them just for the heck of it (evil, possibly chaotic). After killing the trio of bandits, I decided to brutally mutilate the corpse of one of them (definitely chaotic evil afaik). Ofcourse, it is mostly a guideline. Should a DM make a paladin fall the moment (s)he makes his/her first transgression against his beliefs? Or when forced into such a situation? Is it "good" to kill a goblin child (non-combatant btw) just for the fact that its a goblin? What exactly is "good" and "evil". In the eyes of the goblin, said paladin might as well be a chaotic evil genocide machine. "But its okay, because goblins are evil." Devils are evil and angels are good, so can the two of them share stories in a bar while enjoying a drink? What would the genocidal paladin from the goblin-scene above think of the angel(or even the devil)? So I'm all for chalking it up as a "DM-Tool" to predict possible outcomes based on existing knowledge.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:50AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
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.
Not really. Alignment is not like class or race all it does is deny options. It's simply an inferior method of describing characters rather than personality. A fleshed out character CANNOT be described using alignments. Thank god for unaligned. Though I wish they would scrap the system and replace it with something better like morality in world of darkness if you have to have such a system or just whole sale remove it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:51AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Dec 26, 2009
|
Alignments make good sense in a RPG. They allow you to shape both your own character, as well as the world around you as a DM. It gives you focus. Granted I'm a little sad that the Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral have been gutted... though I don't really miss Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Good....
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:52AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Imo, alignments are more of a general idea of what to expect from a given character (PC/NPC). In the campaign I'm playing in, a couple of the other players had their alignment shifted based on their actions.
For example; you come a cross a couple of bandits. You manage to intimidate their leader into not fighting you (even getting something in return for not fighting them, because he was that scared). Would attacking those bandits after that be good/unaligned/evil? It depends on the reasons *why* you attack them (bystanders can have different views, ofcourse). In my case, I decided to attack them just for the heck of it (evil, possibly chaotic). After killing the trio of bandits, I decided to brutally mutilate the corpse of one of them (definitely chaotic evil afaik).
Actually depends on how you look at it. Not every moral question is grey but something like that yes. A lot of morality depends on cultural context. I can think of a number of ways where mutilating the body could be a good thing, ie string up the mutilated body as a warning to other bandits. Morality is too complex to be fitted into tiny boxes.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:55AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Alignments make good sense in a RPG. They allow you to shape both your own character, as well as the world around you as a DM. It gives you focus. Granted I'm a little sad that the Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral have been gutted... though I don't really miss Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Good....
NO THEY DO NOT make sense in an rpg. What does make sense is fleshing out the characters personality then have actions go from that. A persons moral outlook is largley based on personality and other traits. Figure those traits out first then you know how the character acts without the need for something as limiting as alignment.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:57AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
Not really. Alignment is not like class or race all it does is deny options.
Untrue. There are additional options (in the form of weapons) that exist precisely because of the alignment property.
It's simply an inferior method of describing characters rather than personality.
This is no more than your opinion and/or experience, and is entirely irrelevant to my post. However, see PHB pg 19 to understand why it's also incorrect. personality is separate (though overlapping) with alignment.
A fleshed out character CANNOT be described using alignments.
True - it cannot. However, alignment CAN be a part of a fleshed-out character.
Thank god for unaligned.
yes - you would think it would end such petty arguments. Unfortuantely, as starfir noted, there have been enough poor players and DMs in the past, that the subject still brings forth bile when touched upon.
Though I wish they would scrap the system and replace it with something better like morality in world of darkness if you have to have such a system or just whole sale remove it.
No reason to scrap it. Why not keep it and ADD morality (hence - even MORE options).
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 - 11:01AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Not really. Alignment is not like class or race all it does is deny options.
Untrue. There are additional options (in the form of weapons) that exist precisely because of the alignment property.
And I don't see why such should exist, why should my morality matter to a weapon makes no sense even in a fantasy context.
A fleshed out character CANNOT be described using alignments.
True - it cannot. However, alignment CAN be a part of a fleshed-out character.
Except a fully fleshed out character has no need of alignment because that player will already know roughly how his or her character will act.
Thank god for unaligned.
yes - you would think it would end such petty arguments. Unfortuantely, as starfir noted, there have been enough poor players and DMs in the past, that the subject still brings forth bile when touched upon.
Id say its due to how ambiguous the rules were. NO one should have the power to tell a player that they are playing their character wrong or strip that player of powers not even the dm. I know my character better than the dm does.
Though I wish they would scrap the system and replace it with something better like morality in world of darkness if you have to have such a system or just whole sale remove it.
No reason to scrap it. Why not keep it and ADD morality (hence - even MORE options).
Mainly because some mechanics still creep in like aligment restrictions on certain paragon paths which I see as a bad thing. Any rule that tells you how you should play your character is a bad thing in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 11:07AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
And I don't see why such should exist, why should my morality matter to a weapon makes no sense even in a fantasy context.
more options. There are many tales of the weapons of ultimate good and evil. Why deny them?
Except a fully fleshed out character has no need of alignment because that player will already know roughly how his or her character will act.
I covered need - none of the properties of a character are needed (race, class, etc) - games have been written that forego all of these.
Id say its due to how ambiguous the rules were. NO one should have the power to tell a player that they are playing their character wrong or strip that player of powers not even the dm. I know my character better than the dm does.
Yes I know - the root and epitome of your bias. We've covered this extensively in many threads. For the sake of all - can we skip it this one time?
Mainly because some mechanics still creep in like aligment restrictions on certain paragon paths which I see as a bad thing. Any rule that tells you how you should play your character is a bad thing in my opinion.
Really? there are racial restrictions, class restrictions and all sorts of others. These lend flavor - and create (wait for it) - EVEN MORE OPTIONS.
Seriously - step back, breathe deep, play unaligned and enjoy.
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 - 11:08AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2008
|
First of all, thanks to everyone who posted their opinions. For the most part, there was an awful lot of good stuff to reflect on.
It seems, summarily, that alignment is as useful as you make it, and as damaging as you let it be. In addition, popular opinion is that alignment should be enforced (or not enforced) by the GM.
But what of subjective interpretation? Some groups will need to look very soberly at whether or not they want to accept the GM's human opinion as a basis for factual alignment calls. For example, a member of Hitler Youth in 1938 believed that Germany was performing a noble and just action by ostracizing Jews- the (incorrect, mind you) viewpoint of the time and place was that they had bled the country from within.
Not to say the comparison is fair, but who in America doesn't think that we are good for fighting evil terrorists? What will they say in 70 years?
D&D gives us the opportunity to play more than just men in bug suits out of 50's B-horror. We can re-examine how a race thinks entirely separate from humanity. Read Ender's Game, where the hive-mind the humans fight doesn't see murder as bad because a drone has no individual identity- after all, our hair is alive, and we kill huge sections of it (haircuts) without a single qualm! How, in such a Frontier of uninhibited thinking, can we assign Good and Evil to a DM? What if he's religious and you're not? What if he's really in Friedrich Nietzsche?
In short, it's a game. But alignment is a mature topic. Use it if you want, but make sure you go into it with eyes open. That little box on your sheet should only be filled in if you and the DM know exactly what you meant when you filled it in.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 11:11AM
#60
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
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.
Perhaps I should clarify, as my statement was far too terse.
Stafir_Ortnev seems to be expressing the opinion that alignment was a positive element, and that all the problems people list come not from the system itself, but from improper use.
My challenge, therefore, was that he/she/English-needs-a-polite-genderless-pronoun demonstrate this, to display how alignment being built into the mechanics of the game is in any way, shape, or form positive, how the system itself was not at fault for these numerous experiences that seem to occur in a multitude of games.
I have no problem with optional alignment that doesn't have any impact. The idea that the previous edition's alignment cause no strife, however, that a system with no rewards and only punishments and restrictions, one that interfered with good storytelling, promoted mechanical imbalance with roleplaying requirements, and bastardized philosophy and religion to the point of absurdity, was somehow a "misunderstood and misused, yet worthy system".....does not sit well with me.
|
|
|
