|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 4:56AM
#671
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
Since you ask. Below is from 4ed alignments.
Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiances you might have.
yea? so? the cosmic forces of good an evil are a staple of fatasy and the real world. I fail to see how that one line makes alignment any more or less "optional" for you.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 7:25AM
#672
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Since you ask. Below is from 4ed alignments.
Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiances you might have.
yea? so? the cosmic forces of good an evil are a staple of fatasy and the real world. I fail to see how that one line makes alignment any more or less "optional" for you.
Who said anything about "optional". Your claim was that alignment was no longer some super cosmic force. I said that your claim was directly opposite to 4ed's stance and then proved it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 9:59AM
#673
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
Since you ask. Below is from 4ed alignments.
Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiances you might have.
yea? so? the cosmic forces of good an evil are a staple of fatasy and the real world. I fail to see how that one line makes alignment any more or less "optional" for you.
Who said anything about "optional". Your claim was that alignment was no longer some super cosmic force. I said that your claim was directly opposite to 4ed's stance and then proved it.
actually ThaX made that statement...
Your entire arguement is that alignment should be removed from the game because you do not like it. Well, be unaligned and it is removed from the game. You can do whatever you want, worship any diety and there are no negatives either way. If you do not like the sample world in the PHB fine, make your own without any concept of good and evil and move on. How does having alignment in the book for those who want it, and having unaligned for those who do not a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 10:51AM
#674
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
@DaidojiTaidoru
That's not an example, that's a restatement of your original point with a quotation taken out of the core rulebooks. Order and Chaos as described in the book I would argue are inherently antithetical. One is motivated by a desire for things to be ordered and maintains a disciplined outlook on the world (statements like, "All things happen for a reason") while the other thrives on things being much more murcurial and has a very spontaneous outlook on the world (statements like, "God plays dice with the universe"). There's really no overlap between the two. Many (eastern especially) myths depend on those two forces opposing each other.
Discipline and a belief in order are not the same thing. Impulsiveness and a belief in disorder are not the same thing. You have 2 unrelated concepts that you are claiming form one unified whole. This doesn't work.
I can believe that life is a pointless exercise that has no real meaning and goal and still hold myself to an set of rules and regulations. I can believe that everything happens for a reason and still wander about the world casually doing whatever I please. In fact those are very common personalities in the real world.
If you can think of an action that can be motivated by both a desire to keep order and make things stable as well as to promote disorder and upset stability, I'd love to hear it.
The goal of war is to destabalize your enemy's order so you can impose your own order upon them.
Again it's not the action itself that is lawful or chaotic, it's the motivation behind it.
Except Alignment was specifically determned by actions.
It isn't until the Faction War (which I also have) in which the character begins behaving outside of that initial description (and in quite a villainous fashion such that I would probably have given him a good hard Neutral Evil to Chaotic Evil).
His tax rivals into the ground plan, and his goal of overthrowing the Cage by force, are both in his initial writeup. There really isn't a good way to overthrow a neutral city via civil war. People tend to die in wars. And if the war is in a city it'll mostly be civilians.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 11:20AM
#675
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
actually ThaX made that statement...
Whoops. Sorry about that.
Your entire arguement is that alignment should be removed from the game because you do not like it.
No. It should be removed from the game because it is useless and MANY do not like it.
Well, be unaligned and it is removed from the game.
This causes fights unless EVERYONE in the group is of the same mind.
You can do whatever you want, worship any diety and there are no negatives either way.
Social discomfort due to clashing with other players is most definately a negative.
If you do not like the sample world in the PHB fine, make your own without any concept of good and evil and move on.
Name one person on this forum who said anything about having no concept of good and evil in the game world. No alignments =/= no concept of good and evil.
How does having alignment in the book for those who want it, and having unaligned for those who do not a bad thing?
If it's presented as an optional rule and not some sort of cosmic force of the universe, it isn't bad. If it's a solid rule presented as a cosmic force more powerful than a locomotive deity, it's a large problem. At that point it becomes a HUGE disconnect in the game. You end up with a world where "Alignment is a universally cosmic force that dwarfs deities and is 100% non-existant at the same time." It does not compute.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 2:40PM
#676
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
No. It should be removed from the game because it is useless and MANY do not like it.
How about:
It should NOT be removed from the game, because MANY do like it.
I can back that claim up, too. But you don't wanna see that, do you? You only want to see that you don't like it, and that there's some other people who don't like it, and you're all so full of your own self-importance that you think game rules should reflect your opinions.
Alignment is now optional, which SHOULD make everyone happy. Except for the people who are so arrogant that it has to be entirely their way.
Well, be unaligned and it is removed from the game.
This causes fights unless EVERYONE in the group is of the same mind.
You can do whatever you want, worship any diety and there are no negatives either way.
Social discomfort due to clashing with other players is most definately a negative.
Both of your examples are problems with specific players or DMs, not alignment.
If you do not like the sample world in the PHB fine, make your own without any concept of good and evil and move on.
Name one person on this forum who said anything about having no concept of good and evil in the game world. No alignments =/= no concept of good and evil.
YOU have consistently demonstrated a lack of clear understanding of good and evil in the game world by insisting that you can have a LG character who only ever behaves in a CE way.
How does having alignment in the book for those who want it, and having unaligned for those who do not a bad thing?
If it's presented as an optional rule and not some sort of cosmic force of the universe, it isn't bad. If it's a solid rule presented as a cosmic force more powerful than a locomotive deity, it's a large problem. At that point it becomes a HUGE disconnect in the game. You end up with a world where "Alignment is a universally cosmic force that dwarfs deities and is 100% non-existant at the same time." It does not compute.
Only to you, because you lack the understanding.
Alignment IS a cosmic force of the universe. However, the decision to join that conflict is optional. Much like the volunteer military in the U.S. today. There's no draft. No one enlists against their will. Does that make the might of the military or our impact on the world any less real? No.
So, more correctly, "Alignment is a universal, cosmic force that dwarfs deities, but is 100% optional to join."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 3:01PM
#677
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
I'd rather alignment stay in place, but become completely optional with NO mechanics tied to them at all. 4E has taken a good step in the right direction, but have left a few dangling principles still around. Just a tiny pinch further and it'll be just right. Well, just right for me, that is. Naturally.
I want alignment in D&D to be like a gun. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. As it is now, it's pretty damn close. One more little shove and it'll be there.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 3:04PM
#678
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I'd rather alignment stay in place, but become completely optional with NO mechanics tied to them at all. 4E has taken a good step in the right direction, but have left a few dangling principles still around. Just a tiny pinch further and it'll be just right. Well, just right for me, that is. Naturally.
I want alignment in D&D to be like a gun. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. As it is now, it's pretty damn close. One more little shove and it'll be there.
Ha! Agreed completely. Complete agreement. All that jazz. 
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 4:50PM
#679
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
"Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiances you might have."
The point is that it was tied to Gods and various other entities in the previous systems while in 4th it is more over encompassing and vague than what it was.
Look at it this way. A player used to have 6 choices for Alignment. (LG, CG, G, LN, CN, N) and now only has three (LG, G, U).
So, these three alignments have more area covered in fewer choices. There is no longer confusion about "true Neutral," the tricky lawyer like Lawful Evil, or the ever conflicting Chaotic Neutral. Everything is plain with just the five alignments presented, and it no longer a mechanic that punishes the choice that someone has made. No alignment restriction for classes/PP/ED, no spells that uses against you, it simply gives a player a starting point for how the character is.
Oh, as for the Evil Alignments, I assume that one would play a heroic campaign as the books have directed. Evil is for the enemies. Thank you.
Terms you should know... Spoiler:
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
Show
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 09, 2010 - 10:11PM
#680
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2010
|
@DaidojiTaidoru
That's not an example, that's a restatement of your original point with a quotation taken out of the core rulebooks. Order and Chaos as described in the book I would argue are inherently antithetical. One is motivated by a desire for things to be ordered and maintains a disciplined outlook on the world (statements like, "All things happen for a reason") while the other thrives on things being much more murcurial and has a very spontaneous outlook on the world (statements like, "God plays dice with the universe"). There's really no overlap between the two. Many (eastern especially) myths depend on those two forces opposing each other.
Discipline and a belief in order are not the same thing. Impulsiveness and a belief in disorder are not the same thing. You have 2 unrelated concepts that you are claiming form one unified whole. This doesn't work.
I can believe that life is a pointless exercise that has no real meaning and goal and still hold myself to an set of rules and regulations. I can believe that everything happens for a reason and still wander about the world casually doing whatever I please. In fact those are very common personalities in the real world.
You're right that your beliefs and how/why you act don't necessarily have to be one in reality. I gave two examples, one in which is a way a person of a certain alignment might act, the other of a belief that person might have. In the case of alignments, the former supercedes the later since a person can believe things vastly out of character for how they act and do all the time. However, consider that in DnD beliefs actually have traditionally had a tangible effect on the world so those two are going to be a hell of a lot closer than they would be in real life. Likely, if you "believe" in a god of chaos, that god is going to effect your life in many aspects, likely making your everyday life much more chaotic and probably going to influence the ways you think and act. Again, this is a fantasy world, and in this fantasy, what you believe often effects how you act physically.
If you can think of an action that can be motivated by both a desire to keep order and make things stable as well as to promote disorder and upset stability, I'd love to hear it.
The goal of war is to destabalize your enemy's order so you can impose your own order upon them.
Faulty statement. The goal of war is to conquer another group period. There's no inherently alignment behind. The consequences of War can be either Ordered or Chaotic (likely a mix of the two), but the simply act of War is completely neutral. You can't just add conditionals onto a statement to make a point true. If you think that another group acts in a way that does not meet your definition of Order, you might engage them in War in order to impress your viewpoints or culture on them, but the act itself is utterly neutral.
Again it's not the action itself that is lawful or chaotic, it's the motivation behind it.
Except Alignment was specifically determned by actions.
Actions are much less potent than intent in regards to alignment because they are completely metaphysical abstract concepts to begin with. Metaphysics have never been determined by an action in a void. The very concept is ridiculous. You can't define an abstract concept by a physical action and ignore all context. If I feed the poor, people would see that as a good act. If I'm feeding the poor so I can fatten them up to feed to demons, then that's undeniably an evil one. See how that works?
It isn't until the Faction War (which I also have) in which the character begins behaving outside of that initial description (and in quite a villainous fashion such that I would probably have given him a good hard Neutral Evil to Chaotic Evil).
His tax rivals into the ground plan, and his goal of overthrowing the Cage by force, are both in his initial writeup. There really isn't a good way to overthrow a neutral city via civil war. People tend to die in wars. And if the war is in a city it'll mostly be civilians.
His rivals are generally demons and bad people to begin with, and taxing them is a whole lot less harmful than he could do. Also, his initial concept was wanting to overthrow the city of Sigil, which there may be several good reasons to do so, but as of Faction War it turned from wanting to overthrow it to wanting to rule it. That path led his character into quite a darker place and changed his alignment. Regardless it's not really relevant to this conversation.
I get that you don't really like the Law v Chaos dichotomy or think it's particularly relevant, and I'm not going to even attempt to try and change that position. However the concept of cosmological morality is a part of the fantasy trope and is not subjective in the first place. For example: In Christian Mythology there is a cosmological Good v Evil dichotomy. However, "Good" in this sense is defined as having absolute faith in God. Now that does not seem like a particularly "good" trait in of itself to me, however what I think about an alignment or how it is defined is unimportant. In a Christian Themed campaign, being a Good character would imply faith in God. If I made a character who was still good in every way I thought of the word but was heretical in their belief of God, they'd still fall into the "Evil" spectrum of this campaign. That's fine, it's one of the specifics of -that- campaign.
DnD has a base cosmology as well, and in that cosmology are forces that you might not understand (in the sense that you don't feel they are consistent) or agree with. Again, that's fine, since they are essentially only examples to begin with. Apparently the new designers of the game felt the same and decided to simplify it for the base campaign. That's cool, and I don't mind one bit really. I never play in the base campaigns to begin with and always use my own alignment systems to represent the cosmological and metaphysical forces of the game, often based in the traditional 3x3 DnD system. Within my own cosmology, everything is fairly consistent (I've ironed out any silliness such as divorcing "Order" entirely from man made "Laws") and my players understand that and are fairly happy and interested in how I use that cosmology. Ordered and Chaotic makes perfect sense to me... heck, for the most part it still exists in 4e, just now as a kind of "unaligned alignment" what with the conflict between the Astral Realm and the Gods holding Order over the multiverse and the Elemental Chaos and Primordials seeking to tear it all down.
|
|
|
