|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 12:42PM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
"If alignment is going to be used by the PC and just ignored by the DM, or vice versa, what's the point of even using it."
None. There is no point either even if the PC and DM both ignore it or both use it.
It is pointless in every way, bad design, and adds nothing to the game mechanically or with flavor. It is only there to make argument on forums or at the table.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 12:46PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
I like my own objective version of objectivity. It works for me.
You mean the actual definition of the word? The one Notrecommended linked earlier?
I was making a joke. If the definition of objective only worked for me, then it would be subjective but I called it an objective version (which is almost an oxymoron in its own right).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:14PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Ah. My bad then.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:19PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
But a Paladin needs alignment more than any other class ... or he is just a fighter.
It is regrettable that the two classes are basically just warriors. Alignment isn't what sets the paladin apart, though, because there can be lawful good fighters, too, with players just as dedicated to following that ideal. Paladins differ in the fact that they have abilities fighters don't have.
I am not saying they need alignment for their backstory, it is just a tool that can be used in creating it.
I don't see how. It's more like an end result, a label put on to summarize the backstory.
"stupid things" ... there is a plethora of stupid things the cleric in my group stops the rest of them from doing. Last game he stopped a pair of dwarves, who were drunk at the time, from urinating on homeless people in the streets of the capital.
That's in poor taste, but arguably it doesn't even register on any measure of good, evil, law, or chaos. Why should the cleric bother stopping them? It really seems more like it was just something the DM didn't want the players doing. Alignment's most popular use, after all, is as a means of telling players "No," without actually saying "No."
I get that it would be telling the PC what his character thinks. But if alignment is going to be used by the PC and just ignored by the DM, or vice versa, what's the point of even using it.
Exactly. This is exactly right. There is no point. It seems like there should be a point, since it's in the rules, and appears all over the place, but any point that appears to exist really only exists because people thing it should exist.
Now this could fall under more of a deity thing, in that cause the PC should not get to judge what happens to him. That would be like asking a child what they want their punishment to be.
First of all, there's no reason anything has to happen to the character. Second of all, it's not like asking a child what they want their punishment to be, because the player and the DM are not adversaries, and the DM is not in any way like the player's parent, trying to teach them good behavior (unless the player's out-of-game behavior is socially unacceptable). There needs to be trust around the table. Alignment is not a substitute for it. Rules can substitute for trust, in some games, but in D&D there are too many of them, and they're too subjective.
In the case I stated above the cleric would no longer get spells from the deity he was worshiping because he did something against that god.
And how did you judge that to be appropriate? Why was any consequence required at all?
Someone other than the PC has to belive they are evil. If PC takes down the BBEG, when everyone thinks they are good, then the PC will be looked upon as being evil.
They are look upon as evil, by that BBEG and his followers, who believe themselves to be in the right.
Now if this is what you are going for, fine. But then you have to take into account that everyone ... everyone thinks they are evil.
No, just those who thought the BBEG was good.
Shopkeepers wouldn't want to deal with them, healers might not want to, and that is saying that they are even allowed into a city to begin with.
Why not? This is all completely arbitrary, and seems intended to punish the players for not going along with what the DM wanted. Since when do shopkeepers refuse the business of evil people? One town might have a warrant for the PCs (boring, unless the point is something other than prison or execution), and another might not look twice at them. Healers might be compelled (by their alignment, perhaps?) to treat anyone who needs them.
Anytime a DM plans to impose consequences for player actions, they should ask themselves if they're not really imposing those consequences because the players are making the game not fun, and the DM wants to make it not fun for the players until they shape up.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:53PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2012
|
- Alignment is one of the things that does set the Paladin apart though. You can not be a Paladin if you are say LE. And yes the powers are another thing that make the Paladin different as well.
- It is just a tool for the PC. Just because the tool is there doesn't mean they have to use it. That is like saying when coloring a picutre you have to use all the crayons in the box on the picture. If you don't want to use green you don't have to. If the PC doesn't want to use or think about their alignment when crafting their backstory they don't have to. For that matter the PC doesn't even have to make a backstory if they don't want to. The backstory itself is a tool for both the DM and the PC. But not something that is needed ... say like dice. Although that is more of a table rule sort of thing.
- The cleric that stepped in was a PC, not a NPC. I was going to let them do that then probably get thrown in jail for the night. The PC were actually roleplaying two drunk dwarf brothers who just went through hell in a dungeon and were celebrating back at town. I as the DM was going to let them do what they wanted.
- The example with the cleric in the orphanage ... If said cleric is a healer and general good person, then just up and declares he is going to an orphange to kill everyone in side, because he feels like it, then yes I would judge that the cleric's deity will punish him. He would have to change deity. A good deity would not want a child murder going around in his name. That would be something for an evil deity to relish in.
- Well that need to be made clearer then. You said all NPC are "good". Going on that basis, that everyone is "good" in their own mind, as a DM do you not allow detect evil or know alignment type spells in your games? Because if said NPC don't think they are evil why would detect evil work on them?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 1:57PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2012
|
Is funny how the people that defend alignment in the game always use some examples that aren't from D&D. It's like they can't stop themselves. Crayons?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:05PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The cleric that stepped in was a PC, not a NPC. I was going to let them do that then probably get thrown in jail for the night. The PC were actually roleplaying two drunk dwarf brothers who just went through hell in a dungeon and were celebrating back at town. I as the DM was going to let them do what they wanted.
Did they want to be thrown in jail? Maybe they did, but I'm betting not.
Did you want them to be thrown in jail? How is that fun? Isn't there any other plausible way things could go, that would be more interesting?
The example with the cleric in the orphanage ... If said cleric is a healer and general good person, then just up and declares he is going to an orphange to kill everyone in side, because he feels like it, then yes I would judge that the cleric's deity will punish him. He would have to change deity. A good deity would not want a child murder going around in his name. That would be something for an evil deity to relish in.
You decide that. Are you sure you're not deciding that because you don't want the player to take particular actions in-character, as with the more realistic example of the cleric getting drunk?
Well that need to be made clearer then. You said all NPC are "good". Going on that basis, that everyone is "good" in their own mind, as a DM do you not allow detect evil or know alignment type spells in your games?
There's nothing to allow, as they don't exist in 4th Edition.
Because if said NPC don't think they are evil why would detect evil work on them?
It wouldn't, obviously. Nor should it. Detect evil is pointless. If you can't hide your evilness and evil is punished, you either wouldn't bother to hide it or you wouldn't be evil.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:07PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2012
|
I am only defending it as a tool for the PC to use in backstory creation. That was the best example I could think of off top of my head.
In my game we agree that alignment is there for that purpose mainly. In that respect it show how the PC were brought up. Now this might change if we to add a paladin to the PC. Not sure how though.
Back on point, I am not defending alignment as a game play mechanic. I don't use it other than backstory creation. Then based on that let the PC decide how they will act in situations that come up.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:10PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Is funny how the people that defend alignment in the game always use some examples that aren't from D&D. It's like they can't stop themselves. Crayons?
Well, alignment didn't originally appear in D&D, and the core ideas that it's built upon (Cosmic forces.) didn't come from D&D either. Really, nothing in D&D really originated from D&D.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:18PM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Back on point, I am not defending alignment as a game play mechanic. I don't use it other than backstory creation. Then based on that let the PC decide how they will act in situations that come up.
Agreed. The idea (not necessarily yours) that I can't get behind, is making the game unpleasant for the players as a disincentive for straying from their backstories.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
