|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 2:48PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2007
|
I wouldn't say mad, but I'm definitely not happy with the return of one of the things I was most pleased to see given the boot when 4e was released.
I'll be houseruling that away.
Cool. I was house ruling the old 9 alignments anyway, instead of the stupid 5 and the uber stupid Unaligned.
Anyway, why ruin the fun of those who liked alignments? You could always houserule the old alignment system.
Some dude once said: "If WotC would put crap in boxes with the DnD logo on them, some people would still call it the best product WotC has made."
Resident Pervert.
Don't flame me for my writen errors, English is my second language.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 2:50PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
I wouldn't mind alignment-ish restrictions if done well. But, as alignments in 4e are simply awful (e.g. Lawful Good = Super Good), any restrictions flowing from them are similarly awful.
That's the problem right there with writing alignment restrictions into the mechanical DNA of the game. It was removed in 4E for very good reasons and the devs even in 2000 with 3E wanted to remove it (and nearly did).
Too often those that write in the "alignment restrictions" wouldn't understand the difference between the various alignments or what they represented even if the concepts poleaxed them between the eyes.
Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good". It's been something quite different. Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil".
Asking our current crop of designers to write alignment restrictions when they clearly don't understand their own alignment system makes as much sense as asking Bozo the Clown to fix your car.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:08PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good". It's been something quite different. Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil".
I can't agree with you there. There are really only two aspects discussed in the 4e PHB regarding good and lawful good. A good character may be called to risk his life, while the lawful good may be called to sacrifice his life. A good character may "feel compelled" to stop tyranny, while the lawful good is "morally bound" to stop tyranny. The way the description is written, lawful good is good turned up to 11. Same thing with chaotic evil, as chaotic evil is granted the possibility of being even more abhorrent than just regular evil, but is at least as abhorrent.
Alignment in 4e really is just a single axis affair, which is why I find it so repulsive.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:12PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin. It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:13PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good". It's been something quite different. Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil".
I can't agree with you there. There are really only two aspects discussed in the 4e PHB regarding good and lawful good. A good character may be called to risk his life, while the lawful good may be called to sacrifice his life. A good character may "feel compelled" to stop tyranny, while the lawful good is "morally bound" to stop tyranny. The way the description is written, lawful good is good turned up to 11. Same thing with chaotic evil, as chaotic evil is granted the possibility of being even more abhorrent than just regular evil, but is at least as abhorrent.
Alignment in 4e really is just a single axis affair, which is why I find it so repulsive.
First of all, there is a reason it's single axis. Law and Chaos are two sides of the same coin. Arguing the difference between them is impossible because all you have to do is turn one over to find the other.
Anyways. Going back to your example of Chaotic Evil. No, actually the Evil alignment is far more evil than Chaotic Evil, which just embodies mindless destruction. The original intent was for Lawful Good to embody a specific subset of Good where one felt the civilization was the best means to the end. However, the developers have over time twisted the meanings of the alignments to please old schoolers. (See Virtue of Sacrifice and some Demon Lords).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:14PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin. It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.
You should be aware that DnD is and has been it's own beast for a long time now.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:15PM
#17
|
|
|
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin. It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.
You always could play LG paladins, and the game always could reflect the fiction that inspired it. Allowing alignment to interfere with a player's class instead of expanding their options is (IMO) a bad idea.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:18PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
So it's how many things you can't have if you don't want to be Lawful Good?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:19PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin. It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.
But why should the system prevent me from playing something that goes against the norm? Or should all Paladins be the same, ever?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 22, 2010 - 3:20PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good". It's been something quite different. Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil".
I can't agree with you there. There are really only two aspects discussed in the 4e PHB regarding good and lawful good. A good character may be called to risk his life, while the lawful good may be called to sacrifice his life. A good character may "feel compelled" to stop tyranny, while the lawful good is "morally bound" to stop tyranny. The way the description is written, lawful good is good turned up to 11. Same thing with chaotic evil, as chaotic evil is granted the possibility of being even more abhorrent than just regular evil, but is at least as abhorrent.
Alignment in 4e really is just a single axis affair, which is why I find it so repulsive.
That isn't true. Oh it looks at first blush like a single-axis system, but it's not. Read the alignment descriptions on pages 19 to 20 of the PHB. Both Good and Lawful Good will sacrifice themselves for the sake of others. Whether or not they feel it's a moral imperative merely depends on how strongly they hold to their good or lawful good alignment.
However, LAWFUL Good, even in 4E (read page 19) also requires respect for authority, social codes, ect and they believe that such codes promote and enhance the greater good. "Good" characters don't necessarily agree. Both are still capable of sacrifice.
A similiar difference (not uniform axis) exists between Evil and Chaotic Evil. Both are vile and both work against the weal of their fellow man. In the case of "Evil", it's a brutal application of the "zero sum game". In the case of Chaotic Evil, it's far more chilling Nihilism that goes far beyond personal self interest. Chaotic Evil creatures often don't care about anything....sometimes not even themselves which makes them quite different from Evil.
All this is right in the PHB if the Devs would bother to read it.
-Polaris
|
|
|
