|
7 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 10:42PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Back on topic, I think alignments should be 100% optional. Regardless, I'm tossing alignments out the window of any games I play in or run. If a character wants to describe their character with adjectives like "honest, caring, selfish, sarcastic, cowardly, meticulous, unpredictable, moderate, compassionate" etc, that would be fine by me. I think it's a much better way for players to get a feel for their character than something ambiguous like Lawful Neutral.
Good/Evil/Neutral might work in your games, but I play games with subjective morality. It's not better or worse than what you;re advocatng, but I prefer it when players care about what their character do and how they act and treat others, instead of focusing on two words written on their character sheet. They're a relic of previous editions, a source of constant debate, and I think they should have no place in D&D Next or ANY edition of D&D to come.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 3:02AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Rules are here to reduce the level of ambiguity in a system.
Alignments do not adress ambiguity in any way, it's another job for the DM who have to houserule what each alignment is at his table when precision is required in the game. Alignments are ambiguous, and having ambiguous rules or no rules at all is the same thing.
Alignments are useless and cumbersome, they bring nothing useful in the game that any DM or game element description doesn't bring by default.
When a DM justifies a decision by saying "you are this alignment ", he is saying nothing pertinent. He always has to explain how the fact of being of this alignment goes against the player's decision.
Having to describe and explain everything through the prism of alignment is artificial, useless, cumbersome, and dogmatic.
Why teach or learn anything about alignments ? Our preconceptions automatically warp our interpretations.
The mechanical applications of morals or ethics can be implemented directly in the concerned parts of the game, and nothing will be lost as the final interpretation will also be set by the DM, often someone with the same cultural preconceptions as his players (try to remember that these boards are frequented by people not coming from anglo-saxons cultures).
Why learn and teach inaccurate rules to name and handle badly what anyone can name and handle without it ?
Funny and dogmatic ways to categorize people should be left to sects IMO.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 3:45AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
He's not going to kill the bad guy.
He's not going to pull a gun.
...predictable points that are directly related to his lawfulness.
Strategy and tactics applied to overcoming obstacles are not the stuff of law vs. chaos. 
Well if you're saying that the only thing that makes him lawful is following a code, then what about a pirate who follows "The Pirates Code". Is he lawful as well?
What about a cleric of a god of chaos. Obviously he follow the holy tenets of his faith, because he's a devoted cleric, does that make him lawful or is he chaotic because the tenets of his faith are all about inciting chaos?
Now I suppose you could just make the vague generalization that if you follow any code of ethics, but at that point, I'm not quite sure if that's all that helpful, given that you have to explain that code of ethics somewhere for it to mean something, and at that point you can make it part of the NPC/PCs personality description anyway. I don't really see the advantage of having an alignment specifically to say "This guy has a code of ethics."
Do we really need it?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 1:03PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2012
|
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductKeep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 7:14PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2009
|
Bump
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 25, 2012 - 10:27PM
#66
|
|
|
I will admit, I would be pretty ok with this idea. Good, Neutral, Evil are pretty easy to define. Law and Chaos cause all the confusion :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 4:07PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
I think that "Good" and "Evil" make sense as supernatural concepts that apply to monsters. Angels are GOOD. Devils are EVIL. Many beasts are unaligned. Many monsters have a base nature and set of inclinations that either run harmoniously or destructively.
But I think alignment as something for players is largely flawed. I'd prefer a list of adjectives instead. For many characters whether they are "lighthearted" or "serious", "impulsive" or "thoughtful" is a far better description than whether they are "lawful" or "chaotic".
I do like the traditional 9 alignment grid (provided it allows for TN as impartial, as well as uncaring) but as a tool for describing players I find it a bit limited. In some ways the 5 way alignment of 4e makes more sense (if you think of the alignments as "altruistic, kindly, uncaring, selfish, malicious"). I think 3 alignments make sense to a degree, but it seems to group malicious and selfish together, when those are quite distinct (or would selfish be "neutral"?)
Anyway... as a planar or monster type I can see alignments having use. But for players? Keep them option. Players are more complex than just being one of 9 categories.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 4:24PM
#68
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
- Sesquipedalian
Date Joined:
May 20, 2001
|
I always thought there should be a third axis to better describe alignment- Active, Unaligned, Passive.
Active would be really pushing the alignment openly. Unaligned would allow non-aligned creatures such as animals (who don't have an agenda) and Passive would be still aligned, just not pushing very hard on it.
There's a difference between a chaotic evil wizard going into town and blasting fireballs everywhere and a chaotic evil wizard who just wants to be left alone in his tower to conduct his demon summoing research.
Active would be the more "extreme" version.
Spoiler:
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
|
|
|
