|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:06PM
#31
|
|
|
Honestly, I like the concept of the 9 alignment system.
But I always found it was more of a hindeance to utilize in game. Over the years I've found so many players just choose Chaotic Neutral so they can pretty much do whatever they want and consider it justified. It caused more arguments than it was ever worth. The examples they wrote really just muddled the whole thing further. Eventually I just stopped using them at all.
I really liked what they did with alignments in 4e and hope they don't go back to the 9 alignment axis.
Personally I'd be fine if they paired it down to 3: good, unaligned, evil.
I think unaligned taking the place of neutral was also brilliant.
If they bring them back, which I imagine they will, make them an optional module instead of a core part of a character.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:07PM
#32
|
|
|
Honestly, I like the concept of the 9 alignment system.
But I always found it was more of a hindeance to utilize in game. Over the years I've found so many players just choose Chaotic Neutral so they can pretty much do whatever they want and consider it justified. It caused more arguments than it was ever worth. The examples they wrote really just muddled the whole thing further. Eventually I just stopped using them at all.
I really liked what they did with alignments in 4e and hope they don't go back to the 9 alignment axis.
Personally I'd be fine if they paired it down to 3: good, unaligned, evil.
I think unaligned taking the place of neutral was also brilliant.
If they bring them back, which I imagine they will, make them an optional module instead of a core part of a character.
I'm still of the mind that they should flush alignment once and for all. Not as a core rule, not as an optional rule. Get rid of it COMPLETELY.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:12PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2009
|
It's funny, but in a broader sense, I think you can link making an alignment choice to how much people like or dislike being held accountable for their actions.
A certain number of people in this world (I won't conjecture on the percentage) really don't like being brought to task for the choices they make. In D&D of old, alignment could do that with DM judgement or alignment mechanics (spells and bane weapons).
These players mistakenly believe that the alignment system can't service them. True Neutral is right there. Call it Unaligned if you like, they largely serve the same purpose. If that is too galling, then consider Chaotic Neutral and spontaneously do whatever they heck you want.
That's remarkably insightful. I've considered the concept before, but I haven't put a lot of thought into it. I think you're spot on, by the way. Most of the people I game with play Unaligned characters in 4E, and almost all of them played some kind of Neutral (Chaotic Neutral, usually) in 3.x; mostly, I've always thought, because it meant they didn't have to put a lot of thought into their characters, motivations, etc, and they don't need to be held accountable for the things they do or say.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:20PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2009
|
The thing about Unaligned that's always bothered me is that I just ... can't imagine a person who would identify themselves that way. Personally, I consider myself Lawful and Good; I'm concerned about matters of justice, social equality, and order, just like most everyone else. By saying, "I'm Unaligned", it would be like saying, "In the grand scheme of Good vs. Evil, I don't care; some people want to be war heroes, guardians of the weak, etc, and others want to be thieves and rapists and murders ... but it's all whatever to me. I don't care one way or the other. And in the grand scheme of Law vs. Chaos, I still don't care; I have no opinion as to whether a world with strong societal traditions and familial bonds is any better or worse than a world of complete anarchy and utter entropy. I just don't care."
That's "Unaligned" to me, and again; I just can't imagine an actual person holding that belief.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:25PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Alignments suggested a motivation. Unaligned just means a lack of motivation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:40PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2009
|
The Alignment system is archaic and antiquated. Thier was a point that I thought alignment was integral to playing the game. These days I think it doesn't matter. I think it should be optional and unless there is going to be some game effect that goes along with alignment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 2:55PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
Don't blame the developers for your inability to think outside the box.
Wow, how very insulting. I hope you're feeling all superior now.
It has nothing to do with thinking outside the box or not. If I wanted to play a fantasy game without the feel of the old D&D mythos, there are plenty of other games out there I could play instead... Some of them with better and/or more flexible game mechanics. That said, when I play D&D I want to play D&D not a "reinvention of D&D". None of the changes that I mentioned made 4e a better game IMO, just different from the existing traditions of D&D. And that's what was so alienating about them--not changes to make the playing experience better, just change.
Back on topic, though...
Alignment is.. and always should be... a guideline for roleplaying, not a straightjacket. The problem with some people's experience seems to be that their DM's didn't bother to understand that or the descriptions of the alignments.
I can understand the desire to decouple alignment from rules to a certain extent, but I think the example given for that speaks more of a DM not bothering to understand alignments than an actual failing of an alingment/rule coupling. Would this not have been an issue if the paladin class had a brief guideline for the character's moral behavior rather than specifying lawful good?
Are there any other alignment rule interactions aside from paladins losing powers that people have an issue with? Detect/potection from alignment spells? What?
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:12PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2009
|
That said, when I play D&D I want to play D&D not a "reinvention of D&D". None of the changes that I mentioned made 4e a better game IMO, just different from the existing traditions of D&D. And that's what was so alienating about them--not changes to make the playing experience better, just change.
Then don't use them. Nobody's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to accept Wizards' fluff. Like I said before: if you want the cosmology of your game world to be based on the Great Wheel, go for it; if you want to use the 9 alignment system, go for it; if you want your Eladrin to be celestial beings from the plane of Arborea instead of "high elves" from the Feywild, go for it! It's your world. Make what you want of it.
My original statement stands.
And look, I don't have anything against you -- I just hear this from people a lot. They think that everything in the books is written in stone, and that if you make any adjustments, you're "no longer playing D&D". And that's just silly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:37PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
That said, when I play D&D I want to play D&D not a "reinvention of D&D". None of the changes that I mentioned made 4e a better game IMO, just different from the existing traditions of D&D. And that's what was so alienating about them--not changes to make the playing experience better, just change.
Then don't use them. Nobody's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to accept Wizards' fluff. Like I said before: if you want the cosmology of your game world to be based on the Great Wheel, go for it; if you want to use the 9 alignment system, go for it; if you want your Eladrin to be celestial beings from the plane of Arborea instead of "high elves" from the Feywild, go for it! It's your world. Make what you want of it.
My original statement stands.
And look, I don't have anything against you -- I just hear this from people a lot. They think that everything in the books is written in stone, and that if you make any adjustments, you're "no longer playing D&D". And that's just silly.
The problem with that, though, is if I can play the way I want with and existing edition without making changes, why switch to a new edition if I have to make changes? It's not leting me do the things I want and already do any better, so it just seems like a waste of time and money.
If 5e wants to attract me as a customer, it needs to do the things I want and already do better than what I'm used to. It also need to carry on and support the traditions of D&D that make D&D distinct from other fantasy games.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:43PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I'm still of the mind that they should flush alignment once and for all. Not as a core rule, not as an optional rule. Get rid of it COMPLETELY.
Why? Can you provide even one rational explanation as to why we shouldn't have alignment, at least as an optional rule? I think it's like that other poster said: some players just don't want their characters to have to be held accountable for their actions - like they are just playing video game, and not an actual role-playing game.
With the D&D game settings like Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms clearly divided into good and evil factions, are you suggesting that your players don't care at all about how their characters view their respective worlds ethically and morally? Are your characters just conscience-free automatons? I assume that you and your players have real-world political and religious views, yes? So wouldn't the characters in your game also have moral and ethical opinions of their own? I am not saying that you have to agree with their in-game views - not at all - just that they surely must believe in something, right?
Furthermore, perhaps the most glaring problem with your extreme "scorched-earth" approach is that there have always been entire pantheons in D&D in which the gods operate under very clear terms of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil, and these gods expect their followers to be of similar mindset or else be denied access to spells/powers/etc. If you get rid of alignment, then you senselessly erase decades of canon with respect to all of this stuff, and you might as well just chuck Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms out with the trash, because they would no longer make sense anymore as game settings. Meilikki, Malar, Shar, Selune... what's the difference, right? By the gods, I would absolutely hate to play with you guys. The thought that you could have an entire campaign where everyone is essentially Unaligned or Neutral seems so myopic that I don't know how you could stand it. You might as well just go play Halo.
Regardless, 5E absolutely must have our nine alignments in order for it to make any sense. And as I've said before, if the devs listen to the scorched-earth crowd, then 5E will be an utter waste and a total business failure (i.e. 4E all over again), as their castrating our world any more than they already have will just guarantee that the rest of us will not buy the books. That's not going to make anybody happy.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
