|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 10:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2009
|
This will keep it from confusing new players and will make it simpler to play at the table, while keeping modifications easy through modules. At the very least this is how it should be in the core rules. No need to make them any more confusing than they need to be. Cutting out the fancy schmancy psychology debates that come with older edition alignments is a clearcut way of doing this.
Things that 5E needs to do:
-Make the use of battlemaps/miniatures the default.
-Make healing fun, magical AND non-magical needs to be an option. Long live the Warlord!
-Make magic items feel magic/mythical. I don't want a dagger +1, I want STING.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 10:38PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
It is admittedly true that it's the Law-Chaos axis that tends to cause more confusion and debate than the Good-Evil axis. I could live with such an alignment model as long as alignment restrictions stay dead and as long as the book makes clear that "Neutral" should not be a commonly viable PC alignment, at least not for a normal game.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 10:50PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Alignment should remain fluff, with a module to pop it in as a mechanic. Admittedly, one of the things I really liked about 4th is it treated alignment as fluff (I wonder why they didn't hack off L. Good and C. Evil while they were at it. I always figure that leaving those two in but not the rest was absurdity... But, my reasons behind that are filled with social/political views... Tanget aside!) Personally, I prefer allegiance (a la D20 Modern) over alignment, as its much more expansive and fun to tinker with. (Allegiance Module/Alternative for 5e! Come on, make it happen!) I do like how alignment is used in Planescape though. No matter. Whose to say you can't toss the law v. chaos stuff out the window?
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 11:08PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2009
|
It keeps the generic core set simple AND it gives WotC more modules to sell us! Think about all the money they can get by selling modules for lawful characters and modules for chaotic characters, and maybe a module that gives you advice on how to play with both in the same party! For the DM there could be all sorts of monsters, puzzles, traps, and ways to integrate both into your campaign! WotC could make a killing off this.
Things that 5E needs to do:
-Make the use of battlemaps/miniatures the default.
-Make healing fun, magical AND non-magical needs to be an option. Long live the Warlord!
-Make magic items feel magic/mythical. I don't want a dagger +1, I want STING.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 11:14PM
#5
|
|
|
There should be 9 alignments. Alignments should be fluff.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 11:57PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
There should be 9 alignments. Alignments should be fluff.
+1
I think alignment should have some mechanical interaction; I don't need there to be alignment restrictions in mechanics though, simply situational modifiers (beneficial and/or detrimental).
EDIT: Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:12AM
#7
|
|
|
I just want a balanced aligment grid/axis, in this departement I don't like the 4E version, while the OP's axis is balanced I do like the pyschologycal debates so I would like a more expanded aligment.
Regardless aligment should remain fluff.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:34AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
If adding an ethics axis to the morality axis makes the game too confusing, then quite honestly they need a different game...like paste eating.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 1:32AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I think the current proposal of 10 alignments is broad enought while remaining simple at the same time.
Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
True Neutral
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil
Unaligned
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 1:50AM
#10
|
|
|
When alignment isn't a rolling ball of contention, I'll consider accepting it as anythign other than arbitray flavour text.
For very straight forward games, the Good-Meh-Evil 3 parter may work, but if you have too much moral complexity, it breaks down into squabbles over what is "Good" and what is "Evil".
Having hard rules for that runs the risk of "Don't tell me how to play my character" while having vague rules opens it up to at table philosophicla battles.
Mind you, I'm all for some modules with mechanics, I've even seen some where people with the same affiliation or similar alignments have bonuses to social interactions with each other... which seems sorta reasonable on the surface...
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
