|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:24AM
#181
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
I thank you for the link, and you might want to read it as it gives some of the reasons for the removal alignment mechanics by WotC.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:40AM
#182
|
|
|
I thank you for the link, and you might want to read it as it gives some of the reasons for the removal alignment mechanics by WotC.
I've already read it.
I find their reasoning lazy and spurious.
However, I look forward to seeing the articles discussing why alignment has been put back in 5th Edition. Sadly, I'll wager the reasoning there will still be lazy & spurious as well. I am hoping 5th is not a game camel but we will see. I do not like to judge things during the design process unless I'm an intricate part of it...all I can do is judge the actual design methodology itself, which we are not really privy to.
EDIT: I'll also add that if you are a player of 4th Edition you'd do well to educate yourself on it by reading since this alignment info is part of the games core books.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:34AM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2012
|
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling and Baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductRemember to keep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from making any personal attacks or remarks. You are welcome to disagree with one another as long as it's done so respectfully and constructively.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 11:44AM
#184
|
|
|
Situation # 1 (Dungeons and Dragons 3.5) Many years ago at a game at Dundracon I was playing a Dwarven Fighter/Cleric (Lawful Good). I was in a convention game with only one known person. During a battle with some quick thinking with our Mage and Monk in a show of power and prowess the DM stated that the Gnolls we were battling surrendered. While the rest of us started binding up the enemy the Ranger (Chaotic Good) in our party suddenly starting slaying the now helpless Gnolls. My character intervened on behalf of the Gnolls to stop the slaughter. What happened next was an in character argument between my character and the Ranger. While we had fun arguing this out we didn't realize that the rest of the group had started an argument about alignment. There were some who felt that I was incorrect in role-playing my alignment, while others felt the Ranger we incorrect in playing his alignment. The Ranger had told me in character that his villiage and family had been killed by Gnolls (favored enemy). As a player I didn't have an issue with how he had played his alignment in accordance to his characters background, and he didn't' see issue with the way I had been playing mine. The Question I have what from your interpretation of alignment do you feel that we role-played our alignments correctly? Situation #2 (Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition) I'm running 4e game in which I have a Cleric of Amaunator and a Paladin of Torm (both Lawful Good). While traveling near Thay they came across a band of Slavers with slaves. The Paladin felt due to his traditions slavery was wrong and he was to respect his traditions. The Cleric stated that in Thay such slavery was condoned by the Law and needed to be respected while they were in Thay. Discussion arose on proper alignment interpretation. They asked for my clarification on the matter, I noted the difference in the edicts of their two gods and I said that I felt that they were both playing their alignment correctly. Do you feel that I was correct in my judgment?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 2:01PM
#185
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2009
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Your first step is realizing that Good and Evil are OBJECTIVE in the game. If this is not clear, there can be no starting point for fair, consistent rulings.
Only if you're dumber than a mute butterfly on a cold day. Good and Evil are NEVER objective. Give me ANY moral situation and I can find something morally ambigous.
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME.
Seriously, this is why you people have so much trouble with alignment...a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the game.
Oh and for your example...Arch-demons that are literally made from the Anti-life energy of the universe seek to consume the souls of unborn babies. The happier the parents and the more those parents have done to help others, the more it benefits the demons to consume because it gives them more power. The power is the entire goal of the arch-demons because it A) gives them joy to have power and B) it gives them joy to kill the innocent. Their entire goal is their own power and the misery of others with no concern for a tangible benefit to the power gained since they have no other concerns accept A) gaining power and B) spreading misery. They are fully sentient, sapient beings that choose to do this because of their unrelentingly murderous nature.
Go for it.
What do you plan to do? Wipe them out? Commit genocide? After all, those baby demons will grow up to be killers.
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence 
Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander
Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls
In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag.
I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke.
"Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael
Spoiler:
Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.''
—Bill Clinton
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
Why do I get a silly PG-13 man giggle going everytime I see Fist Of The Forest ?
I heard samsung is making shoes that are making you run faster too.
Liar. Hipsters don't run. It's too mainstream.
Actually, Santa just didn't like you. However, you weren't on the Naughty List, so he had to give you something "better" than coal.
I'd take coal. Heating your house is expesive, and engery cost arn't going down.
Mabey if i beat enough homeless people, i won't have to be cold this year. 
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you?
-Daniel Jackson
"Fun will now commence."
-Seven of Nine
"Excellent."
-Mr. Burns.
Whey is a crotch.
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that. 
There's so much you can do with insanity, especially when it has alot of resources.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank.
2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies.
3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up.
4. ???
5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas.
(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 2:17PM
#186
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Your first step is realizing that Good and Evil are OBJECTIVE in the game. If this is not clear, there can be no starting point for fair, consistent rulings.
Only if you're dumber than a mute butterfly on a cold day. Good and Evil are NEVER objective. Give me ANY moral situation and I can find something morally ambigous.
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME.
Seriously, this is why you people have so much trouble with alignment...a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the game.
Oh and for your example...Arch-demons that are literally made from the Anti-life energy of the universe seek to consume the souls of unborn babies. The happier the parents and the more those parents have done to help others, the more it benefits the demons to consume because it gives them more power. The power is the entire goal of the arch-demons because it A) gives them joy to have power and B) it gives them joy to kill the innocent. Their entire goal is their own power and the misery of others with no concern for a tangible benefit to the power gained since they have no other concerns accept A) gaining power and B) spreading misery. They are fully sentient, sapient beings that choose to do this because of their unrelentingly murderous nature.
Go for it.
What do you plan to do? Wipe them out? Commit genocide? After all, those baby demons will grow up to be killers.
There was no mention of baby demons. The emerge from primordial evil fully aware and adult.
Nice dodge though. so where is the moral ambiguity? We're all waiting, Corran.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 2:18PM
#187
|
|
|
Situation # 1 (Dungeons and Dragons 3.5)
Many years ago at a game at Dundracon I was playing a Dwarven Fighter/Cleric (Lawful Good). I was in a convention game with only one known person.
During a battle with some quick thinking with our Mage and Monk in a show of power and prowess the DM stated that the Gnolls we were battling surrendered. While the rest of us started binding up the enemy the Ranger (Chaotic Good) in our party suddenly starting slaying the now helpless Gnolls.
My character intervened on behalf of the Gnolls to stop the slaughter. What happened next was an in character argument between my character and the Ranger. While we had fun arguing this out we didn't realize that the rest of the group had started an argument about alignment.
There were some who felt that I was incorrect in role-playing my alignment, while others felt the Ranger we incorrect in playing his alignment. The Ranger had told me in character that his villiage and family had been killed by Gnolls (favored enemy).
As a player I didn't have an issue with how he had played his alignment in accordance to his characters background, and he didn't' see issue with the way I had been playing mine.
The Question I have what from your interpretation of alignment do you feel that we role-played our alignments correctly?
Situation #2 (Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition)
I'm running 4e game in which I have a Cleric of Amaunator and a Paladin of Torm (both Lawful Good). While traveling near Thay they came across a band of Slavers with slaves. The Paladin felt due to his traditions slavery was wrong and he was to respect his traditions. The Cleric stated that in Thay such slavery was condoned by the Law and needed to be respected while they were in Thay. Discussion arose on proper alignment interpretation.
They asked for my clarification on the matter, I noted the difference in the edicts of their two gods and I said that I felt that they were both playing their alignment correctly.
Do you feel that I was correct in my judgment?
Before I address this in detail, I will point out that once alignment is on the sheet there is NOTHING keeping a person from doing something against their alignment. So, in both cases, arguing someone is not acting in their alignment (both against the ranger and against you) is an inaccurate statement as there is nothing compelling you to act WITHIN your alignment in the first place. That is one of the major misunderstandings with alignment. Can your alignment change based on actions? Yes. Does some mystical force compel you to act a certain way? No. Your character is your character. Act as you will.
Does that address the situation enough or do you want something more thorough?
EDIT: I'll also add that there is no such thing as "playing ones alignment". You do not play an alignment. You play a character.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 2:25PM
#188
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2009
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Your first step is realizing that Good and Evil are OBJECTIVE in the game. If this is not clear, there can be no starting point for fair, consistent rulings.
Only if you're dumber than a mute butterfly on a cold day. Good and Evil are NEVER objective. Give me ANY moral situation and I can find something morally ambigous.
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME.
Seriously, this is why you people have so much trouble with alignment...a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the game.
Oh and for your example...Arch-demons that are literally made from the Anti-life energy of the universe seek to consume the souls of unborn babies. The happier the parents and the more those parents have done to help others, the more it benefits the demons to consume because it gives them more power. The power is the entire goal of the arch-demons because it A) gives them joy to have power and B) it gives them joy to kill the innocent. Their entire goal is their own power and the misery of others with no concern for a tangible benefit to the power gained since they have no other concerns accept A) gaining power and B) spreading misery. They are fully sentient, sapient beings that choose to do this because of their unrelentingly murderous nature.
Go for it.
What do you plan to do? Wipe them out? Commit genocide? After all, those baby demons will grow up to be killers.
There was no mention of baby demons. The emerge from primordial evil fully aware and adult.
Nice dodge though. so where is the moral ambiguity? We're all waiting, Corran.
"Arch-demons that are literally made from the Anti-life energy of the universe"
That line is missing one of the letters you need to spell baby. Not that I didn't appreciate your goalpost-moving, nicely done.
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence
Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander
Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls
In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag.
I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke.
"Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael
Spoiler:
Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.''
—Bill Clinton
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
Why do I get a silly PG-13 man giggle going everytime I see Fist Of The Forest ?
I heard samsung is making shoes that are making you run faster too.
Liar. Hipsters don't run. It's too mainstream.
Actually, Santa just didn't like you. However, you weren't on the Naughty List, so he had to give you something "better" than coal.
I'd take coal. Heating your house is expesive, and engery cost arn't going down.
Mabey if i beat enough homeless people, i won't have to be cold this year.
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you?
-Daniel Jackson
"Fun will now commence."
-Seven of Nine
"Excellent."
-Mr. Burns.
Whey is a crotch.
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that.
There's so much you can do with insanity, especially when it has alot of resources.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank.
2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies.
3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up.
4. ???
5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas.
(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 5:09PM
#189
|
|
|
Before I address this in detail, I will point out that once alignment is on the sheet there is NOTHING keeping a person from doing something against their alignment. So, in both cases, arguing someone is not acting in their alignment (both against the ranger and against you) is an inaccurate statement as there is nothing compelling you to act WITHIN your alignment in the first place. That is one of the major misunderstandings with alignment. Can your alignment change based on actions? Yes. Does some mystical force compel you to act a certain way? No. Your character is your character. Act as you will.
Does that address the situation enough or do you want something more thorough?
EDIT: I'll also add that there is no such thing as "playing ones alignment". You do not play an alignment. You play a character.
I would like someting a bit more thourough on your intrepretations of the alignments I have brought up and your intrepretations on the actions of those characters playing those alignments.
Of course if you don't want to it's not a big deal I wanted your opinion.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 10:54PM
#190
|
|
|
what alignment is batman?
Batman is Lawful Good.
(This assumes we are talking about the Batman that has been in comics for the last 70+ years and not alternate versions of Batman such as in Elseworlds or the like. That is to say, Batman's common media portrayal is as Lawful Good in comics, television and cinema. Occasionally alternate universes in comics show different kinds of Batman but that is beyond the scope of my answer since characters like Owlman are "Evil" Batman. And yes, I'm a giant comic book geek too)
But Batman breaks these laws often: Felony Assault, Unlawful Entry, Criminal Property Damage, Reckless Endangering, Terroristic Threatening, countless firearm and dangerous weapon charges, not to mention Speeding, Reckless Driving, Illegal Parking, unregistered vehicle... I'm pretty sure I can list a long list of Laws broken by Batman on any given comic or movie version. Probably why he has to wear a mask and hide his identity. There be an outstanding Warrant for his arrest otherwise.
To me, Batman is Chaotic Good. He justifies his actions even though it may be a direct violation of laws meant to protect everyone, including the criminals. I think a Lawful good person in Batman movies is the Inspector. He wants to catch the criminals, but he chooses not to break laws to do it. He feels stuck having to play by the rules. Henceforth he leaves it to Batman to do the things his Law Enforcement is unwilling to do... break the rules to catch the bad guys as a vigilante.
Apart from this one thing (I totally don't think Batman is lawful good ;p) I agree with Yagami on his stand with alignments.
If you choose to play with alignments good. If you choose not to, good. If it causes too much problem in your game, then don't use it. It shouldn't though if follow Yagami's advice. It wasn't meant to be a straight jacket. Alignment exist though in the game. It's just a question of whether you are going to role play a specific alignment with it's restrictions (bad idea, starts arguments), or let your actual play dictate your alignment, and dm decides what that alignment is based on your play when determining alignment matters in the game. (This is what my table uses.;p)
I also don't understand why defining what's "good" and "evil" is so confusing in the game for some people. I hope some of you folks are not that confused defining them in RL, cause that would seriously concern me hehe.
Alignment is part of the dnd world... Just because players and dm handle it so badly, with arguments, straight jacket decisions, terrible role playing, don't make alignment non-crucial. Don't let it cause these type of problems, period.
|
|
|
