|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 2:23PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
I was thinking the other day that there is not enough of alignment posts on the forums. So here is one more.
But all of those other posts are full of people who talk in circles and bully you with their 3rd Edition books. They tell you that alignment is just fine the way it is (in their books) and use rules to try and prove it. When you say you don't agree, they say IT'S YOUR OPINION and go point to something in a book or you're wrong. Because book can never be wrong. It was written by the gods or something.
So this post is for opinions on alignment. If you think it is good, post here. If you think it is pointless and a lot of times bad (because it is), post here twice.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 2:25PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
there's currently 2 threads right below this one talking about alignment and i think there was another one last week. Maybe posting in those instead of creating a new one would be the more efficient to keep dicussions grouped.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 2:34PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
Yes but this one is for opinions. If you put opinions in the other threads the same three people come and attack you with their 3rd edition books and their dead philosophers. That is why they put those threads I think. So people would post opinions and they can attack them for posting opinions. This thread fixes that.
What is your opinion on alignments?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 2:59PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
there's currently 2 threads right below this one talking about alignment and i think there was another one last week. Maybe posting in those instead of creating a new one would be the more efficient to keep dicussions grouped.
Joke ----- Noctaem. ------------------------- OP I was thinking the exact thing.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 3:00PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
oh right, post twice. Opinion. I dislike alignment. If you try to use it in a game, I'll probably debate on leaving.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 4:21PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
I was thinking the other day that there is not enough of alignment posts on the forums. So here is one more.
But all of those other posts are full of people who talk in circles and bully you with their 3rd Edition books. They tell you that alignment is just fine the way it is (in their books) and use rules to try and prove it. When you say you don't agree, they say IT'S YOUR OPINION and go point to something in a book or you're wrong. Because book can never be wrong. It was written by the gods or something.
So, are you saying that it is your belief that the RULE-BOOKS regarding the RULES of the game are somehow...incorrect? And that you know how the system is supposd to work BETTER that the people who DESIGNED it?
D&D is a fantasy game. As such, the rules are whatever the rulebooks claim. Those are objective facts about the rules of the game, because they are within the confines of that game, which are layed out and presented in black and white. If you make a claim that something is a fact, and the RAW expressly contradict that, then you are objectively wrong.
Now, if someone is of the opinion that those rules are bad, then they are entitled to their opinon. But the thread to which you are referring (and mocking the title of in your thread here), is about clearing up misconceptions about what the alignment rules actually are. For example, any number of people say "alignment is a straightjacket". Well, the rules expressly say that it is not, ergo, it is not, when used in accordnce with RAW. The only way it is a straightjacket is if someone is deviating from RAW to make it so.
There is no value judgement in there.
I have never made a value judgement on someone else's opinions on alignment. If people don't like it, fine. Remove it, don't use it. But when they make false claims about what the rules say or do, I object, because the rules do not say those things.
And the rulebooks regarding the rules of a game are NOT wrong, unless they are corrected in errata. In a game with so many houserules and deviations from RAW, the only way to have a coherent discussion about RULES is to adhere to the RAW as the only objective truth. If we were discussing the rules of Monopoly, then the only valid basis for fact is the rules of Monopoly as written by Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it). And those rules, as objective points of reference to which anyone can look at and read, are to be taken as the facts of that subject. The same applies to D&D, and any ruleset one is discussing.
It's not about opinions, and whose opinion is "better". It's about clearing up what the rules DO say and what they DO NOT say, and the RAW are the only objective references which can be used. As such, they are the only things that can be taken as "given fact" for purposes of logical discussion.
So this post is for opinions on alignment. If you think it is good, post here. If you think it is pointless and a lot of times bad (because it is), post here twice.
Your blatant bias aside, I will humor the intent of your OP.
I like alignment. I find it a useful tool in character creation and roleplay. I think alignment mechanics help to reflect classic fantasy tropes which are useful not only as storytelling aides, but also to reward the implementation of those classic fantasy tropes with mechanical effect.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 5:28PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
I dislike alignment. I find that most of the time it creates the expectation of a singular set of moral guidelines, the issue is that no such thing exists. Each person on this planet has formed their own set of moral guidelines that they follow. Most of the time people are fairly good at reconciling their minor differences unless specifically challenged on them. However when you are told that there are objective moral guidelines you insert your own guidelines for the objective guidelines and fight tooth and nail against others with differing opinions. I also find that in most cases it limits the type of game that can be played by enforcing this concept of an objective moral system. The game shouldn't make assumptions like that for players. If players want to enforce an agreed upon objective moral system it should be something they concot and implement themselves. Also alignment has commonly been used in three basic ways that cause issues:
- DMs punish players for doing things the DM doesn't want them doing.
- Limiting class archetypes for the sake of matching the designers smaller view.
- Ruining plot by providing ample ways of reading a persons alignment.
(Anecdotal evidence time)
I find that commonly alignment is ignored by most groups and only really comes up when it has become an issue in some way or another. The system shouldn't be a core assumption that the game makes for its players. Ultimatly adding alignment in through house rules is easier then taking it out.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 6:12PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
I dislike alignment.
You forgot to post twice, lol.
Also alignment has commonly been used in three basic ways that cause issues:
- DMs punish players for doing things the DM doesn't want them doing.
- Limiting class archetypes for the sake of matching the designers smaller view.
- Ruining plot by providing ample ways of reading a persons alignment.
(Anecdotal evidence time)
I find that commonly alignment is ignored by most groups and only really comes up when it has become an issue in some way or another. The system shouldn't be a core assumption that the game makes for its players. Ultimatly adding alignment in through house rules is easier then taking it out.
I disgree with one of your statements in your anecdotal bit. Adding alignment and it's mechanics in as a houserule touches on so many parts of the game, from creatures to magic items to spells, that it would be easier to complie a list of things to ignore when removing alignment. My opinion is that it would be easrier to remove than add in.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 6:15PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2010
|
Everybody follows the morals taught to them as a child, though many find themself changing their morality thanks to experience. One thing we tend not to do is question our beliefs. We tend, instead, to act as though what we learned must perforce be unassailable and uncontrovertible.
We never ask ourselves, "Does this work? Does this explain the world in a way that can be replicated? Is this why people do the things they do? Is it a valid explanation for why things turn out the way they do?"
We are reluctant to accept that we do certain things a certain way, and that others may hold us in error. We are reluctant to examine our actions, and we avoid correcting our errors lest we find ourselves being held in contempt for what we did.
The ultimate judgement on our actions is found in the answer to this question; What happened as a result of what we did? If harm comes of our behavior, we can call it evil. If benefit comes, than it can be called good. But, at what stage do we declare it good or evil, for often the immediate result may say one thing, while results further down the road will say quite another. My only advice in this case is to wait until the long term results have made themselves known. Saving that elf lord's life may result in a wave of executions tearing the land apart. Teaching those goblins to read might result in a chain of libraries focused on improving humanoid life and leading to the establishment of properous businesses run by gobins and orcs and even gnolls.
So call not evil that which you hate, but call instead evil that which harms, and harms the many to the benefit of a few.
One dagger is a plot point. A thousand daggers is inventory. Thank you for disrailing this thread. 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 6:15PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
My opinion is that it would be easrier to remove than add in.
Why not leave the system hooks intact, but blue-box them?
|
|
|
