Community

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Panartias wrote:

I played mostly 2ed AD&D where alignment was handled more restrictive. There were more classes with alignment-restrictions and to change ones alignment meant you needed twice the usual amount of XP for the next level – apart from consequences for the aforementioned classes. Yes that’s a lot of punishment which most of you would probably hate. (And which sounds more like a straightjacket then a roleplaying aid)

As a way to simulate internal conflict or something like that, that a player might willingly choose for their character, it's probably not a bad system. But read as a punishment and a disincentive puts one in the position of tiptoeing around alignment to avoid those consequences. People shouldn't be roleplaying out of fear.

Some DMs also take the presence of these consequences as an indication that they should be looming large, that if there are such consequences then they were obviously intended to come into play and that the DM should be challenging the players with them somehow. Then alignment conflicts become harder to avoid and a problematic feedback loop develops.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Panartias wrote:

The Intention was probably that everyone should think before about what type of character to play and not change that every few sessions without a very good reason.

Maybe. I never got that impression.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Panartias wrote:

Then there is either something wrong with the adventure or the players haven’t chosen the race / alignment / faction they really want to play (Or I’m just missing your point here) When we take “The Hobbit” as an example, the dwarves are hold together by race, alignment family (clan) bonds and their goal…

The point is that "really want to play" doesn't need to mean "fully invested in every bit of fiction." If I want to play a dwarf, because I like their toughness, or I find them funny, or I have a cool idea for a dwarf, I shouldn't have to be compelled to hate elven characters, or use an axe, or any other common fiction about dwarves.

Look at the Fellowship of the Ring: they're really only held together only by their mission. Granted, that fellowship broke, but Thorin also kicked out Bilbo.

The "something wrong with the adventure" is assuming that alignment, or other fictional tendencies can be relied on as a way to hook the players into the adventure. That assumption only works when the players are bought in to the adventure, and if they're bought into the adventure, then those fictional tendencies aren't actually necessary in the first place.

I think there's an idea that certain races, classes, and even alignment choices are better or more advantageous than others, and so every possible downside of those choices must be brought to bear as the "cost" for making that choice. For races and classes, I'd even agree that's true, but not for alignment. No alignment is better than another, unless the DM goes out of their way to make it so.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Panartias wrote:

But a dislike for alignment came in my experience often from players, who wanted to behave in such a disruptive way. A way around the alignment problem could be in this case to have “Detect Evil” just detect hostile intentions towards you (and “Protection from Good/Evil” work likewise against enemies)

That kind of dislike arises because the players are being blocked by the mechanics, instead of by the DM simply addressing the distuptive behavior and asking that it not occur. Alignment is designed in such a way that it looks like player problems can be solved at a character level, and they can't.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Panartias wrote:

Again we seem to agree. By “handle” I mean that the characters might argue more among themselves, the different alignments reflecting different personalities (I know they don’t have to).

Sometimes alignment is not just reflecting this, but is causing it. A chaotic bard believes he must lie or risk losing his alignment. A lawful paladin believes the bard must be punished or the paladin will lose his alignment. Blocking like this is a primary cause of arguments, but it's easy to come to the conclusion that alignment requires such blocking.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Panartias wrote:

Sounds interesting. As I mentioned before, GURPS works with certain advantages and disadvantages that define your personality in place of an alignment. Since you get character points for short CP for this, which you can use to improve your character you are bound by this too.

I don't think disadvantages or flaws work, because they are too easily forgotten about, overlooked, or mitigated, unless the player is very invested in them - in which case they probably weren't really necessary in the first place. Alignment works in DW because it's up to the player to show how the task was achieved, and there's no downside for not achieving it. Similarly, Aspects work in the FATE system because the player wants their downsides to be used, because this is how the player gains points to take cooler actions.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 2:58PM, Panartias wrote:

Having this lawful paladin and chaotic bard together in an adventuring party and both characters have fun would certainly be hard. But the idea that the bard must lie or risking his alignment is somewhat ridiculous. He probably will try to embellish the stories about the party’s deeds (they fought 100 orcs in stead of 10) but changing the story so that the heroic paladin looks like the evil villain is a bit too much.

This raises the question whether lying is more of an evil or of a chaotic act. I think in the 10 commandments it say not “lying” but giving “wrong testimony against someone”

Well, regardless of that, or whether or not the bard, or rogue, or assassin, or barbarian must do any given thing, there's the likelihood that they will, and that another character who fears for their own alignment must block them. That is too much.