Community

Stop avoiding the issue
whether roles work or not isn't the point
alignment is what people misuse
the weakness of one does not the other annoint

I've shown you my problem you've refused to address
then you got roles involved and made a big mess

age isn't the problem, merely the function
if classes are equal what does alignment provide?
flavor and fluff? more like to the head truncheon 
No class is lined up along alignment's divide

Monks can be rowdy, fierce and crude
to master the rage takes a pretty strict dude

A role from 4e is not what you claim
it's a start not an end, these are not the same
A sorceror blasts and lays down the pain
but nothing says damage is all he can gain

slow, stun, and daze these are all here
the foes of the blood caster have control to fear 
you just have to look and it all becomes clear
any build that you want is really quite near

alignment however is used to restrict
to say no, nay, or never
instead of "hey that is clever"
rethink alignment if you want it to stick

This thread is amazing,
But that's enough praising.

In the spirit of Next -- it seems to me --
The solution is simple: more clauses for thee:
"Alignment's not needed,
While decorum is heeded.
It's a fun game; be free!"

See, alignment's an example
For Next to show how ample
Our beloved internet's resources are;
If Wizards puts DM guides on the web,
The books can focus on ebb,
Instead of setting up a stifling bar.

Another one? God-damn!
The hell's with all these poetry slams!?

Heroic fantasy deserves proper treatment.
When D&D was born, the big writer was Moorcock.
So Gygax went and created alignment.
The fans of the Multiverse knew it would rock.

It lays cosmic powers bare; leaves the veil rent.
Dark is the power of the great and mighty warlock,
Without it he can't fight, even with will bent.
Death is required for spells of death, what a big shock.

Like poetry, metaphysics need mechanics.
All art has a verse, even if it's blank.
Without codified structure, it's all too erratic.
It may not rhyme, but it does make a point.

The hero is the champion of creative life.
The tyrant, the prodigous fact.
Stories with morals may be rife,
That doesn't make alignment didact.

I went to play, expecting fun
But my DM had me in the gun
My paladin had spent too long
Without his goody-two-shoes on
And how I chose to have him play
Just did not fit the One True Way
So I spent four hours at the table
The target of a moral fable
I think the title of it went
"Bad Player, here's your punishment."

Now I know that the roll of dice
Brings nasty things as well as nice
A PC goes through thrills and spills
Can suffer madness and disease
Fall foul of irate NPCs
And many other dreadful ills

But nothing's worse or more amiss
Than blatant DM prejudice
That victimizes our PCs
To deliver in-game homilies
The DM is the game's ringmaster
Not its preacher or its pastor
If he thinks I'm a wretch or vile
A twerp that's riddled with black bile
Then I can't be jiving to his style.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 11:34PM, Nautilus wrote:

I went to play, expecting fun
But my DM had me in the gun
My paladin had spent too long
Without his goody-two-shoes on
And how I chose to have him play
Just did not fit the One True Way
So I spent four hours at the table
The target of a moral fable
I think the title of it went
"Bad Player, here's your punishment."

Now I know that the roll of dice
Brings nasty things as well as nice
A PC goes through thrills and spills
Can suffer madness and disease
Fall foul of irate NPCs
And many other dreadful ills

But nothing's worse or more amiss
Than blatant DM prejudice
That victimizes our PCs
To deliver in-game homilies

Your DM sounds like a serious ass.
Grab a lighter and drench him in gas.
Make sure you've read,
And remembered what I've said,

"The hero is the champion of creative life.
The tyrant, the prodigous fact.
Stories with morals may be rife,
That doesn't make alignment didact."

I hear these stories of horrible abuse
But the worst I've seen is NPC misuse.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 11:40PM, Zaramon wrote:

Your DM sounds like a serious ass.
Grab a lighter and drench him in gas.

Fun as it for the DM to be torched
Sadly it leads to the dice getting scorched.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 11:57PM, Nautilus wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 11:40PM, Zaramon wrote:

Your DM sounds like a serious ass.
Grab a lighter and drench him in gas.

Fun as it for the DM to be torched
Sadly it leads to the dice getting scorched.

If the quality of the game is set to fall
down into the pit of twilight's pall
if you're forever denied the heroic hall
better to just f****** burn it all.

if alignment is cosmic
the bard shouldn't give a wit

if alignment is intent
berserkers are of lawful bent

if alignment is personality
monks should be free

if alignment is behavior
a tracker bar is in favor

as a mechanic alignment is bunk
so clean out of your head of this junk

if nine squares you must have go right ahead
just don't expect to change what the book said

if you must have mechanics then listen closely
you must employ great consistency


(Basically pick 1 thing for alignment to be, and stop trying to make it the other 3, it won't be a good mechanic, but it will at least be a consistent useable mechanic, stop trying to make it a combination of personality tests, cosmic affiliation, personal morals/ethics, and records of specific acts, these are all separate things. They can and do influence one another, but just because the moon influences the tide doesn't make Luna water. If you want alignment mechanics you have to clarify what alignment is and apply it consistently.)

I find myself in rampant agreement with Rampant,
In stance against other alignment threads
Yes the agreement in this thread is rampant.
In stance against other alignment threads, in bold journey we follow a different thread.

This cooperation is rare of form,
May text be clear so rules hold true.
So sad harmony is deviant norm.
To make light of subject, I run with the puns, always seeking that extra bit of fun.

I may not be Will, but I certainly have a will and will to use it
because playing with language is such a thrill.

The truth is I really don't care
It's a playtest and I try to be fair
But at it reaches it's ending
I'll just make my own setting
Something something tupperware

Think of all those other RPGs
Those ones that do not fall apart
When a characters alignment
Is not at the core of their heart

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:06AM, Lawolf wrote:

Think of all those other RPGs Those ones that do not fall apart When a characters alignment Is not at the core of their heart

D&D alignment makes you wish that you were dead?
You prefer some other game?  That's fine, play that instead.
Why come here suggesting D&D must change to suit you?
You expect the devs to simply bow down and salute you?
Altering mechanics is a worthy point to take up,
But "lawful good" is part of D&D's genetic makeup.
Here upon this forum lurk the grumps and the naysayers... 
But search the larger web, or ask your local players:
Every one will tell you of some half-forgotten story
Of how they were returning from a tomb, covered with glory
When Bob the Uptight (Paladin) demanded that they lurch
Right back into the village, give their treasure to the church!
Or how they staggered from a dungeon, yelping for the nurses,
Happy with their loot, to find the thief had swiped their purses!
Yes, D&D alignment is a little old and groggy
Subject to the murk of moral argument so foggy.
Still, it structures stories, grounds the game's philosophy; 
And that's what makes for memories of playing D&D.
  

     

But P-Daddy none of us are telling you
how to play your game; its true!
Yet you insist on telling us,
"Play my way or take the bus!"

You certainly don't have any trouble
within your own roleplaying bubble.

Your players and you must surely see
eye to eye for this to be.

So when, "LG Paladins Only" you say,
Your players respond, "Of course, hip hip horay!"

Certainly none of your friends would make a Chaotic Monk,
So why let its existance get you worked up in a funk?

Why do you exclaim that your thoughts are The Way?
Some disagree, no matter what you might say.

If a compromise is really what you want,
then the answer must be there in plain font.
"A Monk must be Lawful if your DM requires,
Or they can be anything if your DM desires."

Then everyone is happy, even me and you,
We all get what we want, yes its true!

But our memories of the D&D that we play
Will be clearly inferior, if not made his way:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:37AM, professordaddy wrote:

Still, it structures stories, grounds the game's philosophy; 
And that's what makes for memories of playing D&D.    

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:52AM, Arithezoo wrote:

But P-Daddy none of us are telling you
how to play your game; its true!
Yet you insist on telling us,
"Play my way or take the bus!

Once upon another thread, I railed against some fluff
Written into spell descriptions.  "Stop!," I cried, "enough!
I think that the players, not the game, should rule the fiction.
Choking down this mecha-fluff is creative constriction!"

You then came into the thread. "Yikes," I saw you utter.
"Don't let Rules-as-Written set your tiny heart aflutter!
You can skip the parts that you do not want in the rules...
And if the GMs say you can't, well they're just being tools."

Thanks for condescending, let me offer you the same:
You don't like alignment?  Just ignore it in your game.
After all, if as you say, each table picks and chooses
Which rules stay and which are toast, then great, nobody loses.



   

Hypocrisy, it would appear
Has reared its most ugly head
Once more into the breach you charge
Do you lay as well in your own made bed?

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:16AM, professordaddy wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:52AM, Arithezoo wrote:

But P-Daddy none of us are telling you
how to play your game; its true!
Yet you insist on telling us,
"Play my way or take the bus!

Once upon another thread, I railed against some fluff
Written into spell descriptions.  "Stop!," I cried, "enough!
I think that the players, not the game, should rule the fiction.
Choking down this mecha-fluff is creative constriction!"

You then came into the thread. "Yikes," I saw you utter.
"Don't let Rules-as-Written set your tiny heart aflutter!
You can skip the parts that you do not want in the rules...
And if the GMs say you can't, well they're just being tools."

Thanks for condescending, let me offer you the same:
You don't like alignment?  Just ignore it in your game.
After all, if as you say, each table picks and chooses
Which rules stay and which are toast, then great, nobody loses.

Twisting my words is rude,
so please don't do it, dude.
Fluff is not RAW, yo,
as I quoted, well you know.
Yikes I did utter upon reading that you,
let prewritten fluff turn your game into poo.

But if I'm getting what you say,
Then you agree with me this day.
What is printed in the books,
Shouldn't worry us in our nooks.
So in the end what the authors decide,
will not affect our choice to abide.
What this means is that any character builder,
Must not enforce options and eliminate choices...uh...ilder.

For this is the reason we don't like to instill,
the idea of alignment being part of the class.
Oh its all well and good to say, "Do what you will!"
but not letting us use a program is terribly crass.

Ok now i must protest
PD just give it a rest
Restrictions aren't fluff
they're mechanical stuff

I've told you in poem and in prose
what must be done
if alignment wants to be part of the fun
so get your ducks in a row
pick a purpose and get on with the show
or wait for the death thoes

(i'm serious, i'd be more than willing to deal with alignment mechanics if they were implemented consistently and intelligently) 

Alignment should be made opt-outtable
Alignment restrictions be opt-innable.
That way all tables find it winnable
And no one sees it as redoubtable.
Alignment as an entry on a sheet
Offends no solitary character,
No matter how much your DM whacked her;
Alignment sans mechanics has no feet.
Mechanics when included as a choice
Can be ignored by those who'd rather play
With stories that alignment may delay
And used by those who'd rather give it voice.
Opt-outtable or in, is, you will see,
The only way we all can play 5e.

 

I come back and see harmony rent.
So much for bold new agreement
With so many on the battlement.
Now good discussion got up and went.

Oh Zaramon no need to be so sad
Despair not for this thread may still prevail.
There's still agreement plenty to be had 
And for one lone dissenter, do not bail.

Professor Daddy may consensus shun
Perhaps he only plays a mocking role
The rest of us are in accord as one 
Agreement won't depend upon the whole.

Alignment in and limitations opt
Appears to be the standard we agree.
Avoiding wars that ole editions flopp'd,
Allowing each to play quite happily.

So flee not this discussion made in rhyme
Ignore the bad and you'll see good in time.

 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:54PM, wrecan wrote:

Oh Zaramon no need to be so sad
Despair not for this thread may still prevail.
There's still agreement plenty to be had 
And for one lone dissenter, do not bail.

Professor Daddy may consensus shun
Perhaps he only plays a mocking role
The rest of us are in accord as one 
Agreement won't depend upon the whole.

Alignment in and limitations opt
Appears to be the standard we agree.
Avoiding wars that ole editions flopp'd,
Allowing each to play quite happily.

So flee not this discussion made in rhyme
Ignore the bad and you'll see good in time.

 

You are much better at this than me,
I'm going to go and climb a tree.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Arithezoo wrote:

You are much better at this than me,
I'm going to go and climb a tree.

This poor sonneteer
Is humbled by compliments
And his haikus suck. 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:37AM, professordaddy wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:06AM, Lawolf wrote:

Think of all those other RPGs Those ones that do not fall apart When a characters alignment Is not at the core of their heart

D&D alignment makes you wish that you were dead?
You prefer some other game?  That's fine, play that instead.
Why come here suggesting D&D must change to suit you?
You expect the devs to simply bow down and salute you?
Altering mechanics is a worthy point to take up,
But "lawful good" is part of D&D's genetic makeup.
Here upon this forum lurk the grumps and the naysayers... 
But search the larger web, or ask your local players:
Every one will tell you of some half-forgotten story
Of how they were returning from a tomb, covered with glory
When Bob the Uptight (Paladin) demanded that they lurch
Right back into the village, give their treasure to the church!
Or how they staggered from a dungeon, yelping for the nurses,
Happy with their loot, to find the thief had swiped their purses!
Yes, D&D alignment is a little old and groggy
Subject to the murk of moral argument so foggy.
Still, it structures stories, grounds the game's philosophy; 
And that's what makes for memories of playing D&D.
  

     

If that is how you want to play,

The option for you will make my day.

But all of us who do not,

To simply find we are caught,

By what as we see,

Is not D&D,

And option for US it is sought.




And it still has not escaped attention,

That still you have not yet mentioned,

One single reason,

Why in every season,

Every last unarmed man,

Whatever his plan,

Must have always been trained,

In an Eastern styled way.






One might think,

You cannot,

And so slink.                                         

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:01PM, wrecan wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Arithezoo wrote:

You are much better at this than me,
I'm going to go and climb a tree.

This poor sonneteer
Is humbled by compliments
And his haikus suck. 

One would consider
weekly Q&A haikus
to be good practice?

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:37AM, professordaddy wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 9:06AM, Lawolf wrote:

Think of all those other RPGs Those ones that do not fall apart When a characters alignment Is not at the core of their heart

D&D alignment makes you wish that you were dead?
You prefer some other game?  That's fine, play that instead.
Why come here suggesting D&D must change to suit you?
You expect the devs to simply bow down and salute you?
Altering mechanics is a worthy point to take up,
But "lawful good" is part of D&D's genetic makeup.
Here upon this forum lurk the grumps and the naysayers... 
But search the larger web, or ask your local players:
Every one will tell you of some half-forgotten story
Of how they were returning from a tomb, covered with glory
When Bob the Uptight (Paladin) demanded that they lurch
Right back into the village, give their treasure to the church!
Or how they staggered from a dungeon, yelping for the nurses,
Happy with their loot, to find the thief had swiped their purses!
Yes, D&D alignment is a little old and groggy
Subject to the murk of moral argument so foggy.
Still, it structures stories, grounds the game's philosophy; 
And that's what makes for memories of playing D&D.
  

     

I don't follow how you suggest everyone play a different game if there is something they don't like about the current playtest of D&D Next. Differing opinions are needed in order for D&D Next to work- not everyone will like alignment restrictions- and they should express it. Alignment restrictions make sense with Monks and Paladins since they were there from the beginning- however if someone doesn't like it I hope they stick with D&D. Odds are it will be optional. I've always ignored alignment restrictions in D&D. 

Ah, but hunterian, I think you must see
Those who think different aren't playing "real D&D."
That only those gamers who think as he might
Are able to be the ones doing it right.

Since alignment is optional
there's no need to grouse.
But even if it weren't
it would be in my house.
The rules are flexible
and not meant to repress.
This rhyming's annoying,
alas, I digress.       
If you want a monk
that breaks all the rules
Go right ahead
you have all the tools.
If you dont like alignment
then you're not alone.
But nothing will happen
If all you do is groan.
Stop waiting for someone
to come hold your hand.
Take some initiative 
Pull your head from the sand.       
There will always be rules
that make people halt.
But if you don't overcome them
that's your own damned fault.  
 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:17PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

Since alignment is optional
there's no need to grouse.
But even if it weren't
it would be in my house.
The rules are flexible
and not meant to repress.
This rhyming's annoying,
alas, I digress.       
If you want a monk
that breaks all the rules
Go right ahead
you have all the tools.
If you dont like alignment
then you're not alone.
But nothing will happen
If all you do is groan.
Stop waiting for someone
to come hold your hand.
Take some initiative 
Pull your head from the sand.       
There will always be rules
that make people halt.
But if you don't overcome them
that's your own damned fault.  
 

Yeah, you win (really, I dig it), let's leave this embarrassment alone.

Making our characters exist in e-tools
Requires their devs to ignore all these rules
Losing access to apps is the risk that we take
If in the rules the restrictions we bake

This is a playtest!
we're supposed to declare what we think is best

it's a brand new edition
let's not screw it up now for the sake of tradition

anything less than utter perfection
should be put on the table for intensive dissection 

alignment has flaws, deep and dividing
in order to keep it there must be re-writing

for such as myself I don't see the need
alignment is nothing but a spoiled old seed

if attempt to revive it you feel you must
get out your kit and clean off the rust 

(seriously i've explained quite clearly what needs to happen for aligment to make a useable mechanic so either do it or stop pushing)

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:10PM, hunterian7 wrote:

I don't follow how you suggest everyone play a different game if there is something they don't like about the current playtest of D&D Next. Differing opinions are needed in order for D&D Next to work- not everyone will like alignment restrictions- and they should express it. Alignment restrictions make sense with Monks and Paladins since they were there from the beginning- however if someone doesn't like it I hope they stick with D&D. Odds are it will be optional. I've always ignored alignment restrictions in D&D. 

I don't follow how you proclaim
everyone play a different game
if there is something they detest
about the current playtest of D&D Next.

Differed opinions 
are needed for Next to work- 
Some hate alignment

That's their choice
And they should have voice.

Alignment restrictions make sense
with Monks and Paladins since
they were there from the start 
If that breaks your heart
however if someone doesn't like it 
I hope they stick with us gents. 

Odds are it will be options.
I've always ignored alignment restroptions.
 

Fixed for poetry heaven
You're welcome, Hunterian seven.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Mand12 wrote:

One would consider
weekly Q&A haikus
to be good practice?

One imagines so.
Then you see that those haikus
Are not improving. 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:17PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

There will always be rules
that make people halt.
But if you don't overcome them
that's your own damned fault. 

Responses to this argument abound,
And many have been uttered here before.
To keep the playtest on a footing sound
You must complain about what you abhore.

Mand12 explains another cost we pay
If we keep silent about what we despise.
The electronic tools that Wizards may 
Develop bakes those rules you can't revise.

And so the best result I see for all
To play the form of game they most desire
Is make alignment rules quite optional
To opt out if that is what you require 

And then we all can play the game we truck
No matter how the other tables suck!

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:54PM, wrecan wrote:

Oh Zaramon no need to be so sad
Despair not for this thread may still prevail.
There's still agreement plenty to be had 
And for one lone dissenter, do not bail.

Professor Daddy may consensus shun
Perhaps he only plays a mocking role
The rest of us are in accord as one 
Agreement won't depend upon the whole.

From my current stance, I can be by logic shaken.
However, I should point out, it's you who are mistaken.
There is not but one who finds alignment worth repeating,
All the devs, it seems, think it's a mechanic worth greeting.
Else the current playtest would not make these others shudder,
Weep, and gnash their teeth, and terrify each one anudder,
With tales of how alignment once more raised it's hoary head
In this most recent playtest, and has filled them all with dread.
'Tis not jus me you must convince that Lawful Good and Evil
Are plain bad mechanics, scarcely worthy of retrieval.
You must convince Mearls, and the other devs' beside him.
Tell me, when you try it, will you insult and deride him?
Do you think that that's the way to make your case compelling?
Seems to me it's so (behavior here can be so telling!).
I can be by logic swayed, I feel I must repeat it.
I could give up Lawful Monks.  Don't know as I need it.
All I ask is that the game be well-suited to newbies,
Else we push this here beloved franchise down the tubies.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:02PM, professordaddy wrote:

'Tis not jus me you must convince that Lawful Good and Evil
Are plain bad mechanics, scarcely worthy of retrieval.

Since none of us do this statement believe
I'd warrant you'd do better to grant us reprieve.
We do not make claim that alignment can't exist
That is the point you seem to have miss'd.

And as far as new gamers I'm sure I won't hear
That chaotic monks caused them to   in fear.
For are not newbies joining and playing with gumption
Unlikely to share and believe your assumption?

A notion that quite frankly holds no appeal
Is that D&D has some Platonic ideal
Of a game that's pure perfect, pristine D&D
And all other takes are corrupted copies
So when somebody sneers from their mountaintop high
"Yes, you're playing a game with AC, dice and classes
But the rules hail from somewhere the sun never passes
That's not real D&D. Sure, some bits are the same,
But without A,B,C,D, it's a whole 'nother game!"
I just listen politely - I'm that kind of guy
Then tell 'em where they can go sit, spin and fry.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:55PM, wrecan wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 1:17PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

There will always be rules
that make people halt.
But if you don't overcome them
that's your own damned fault. 

Responses to this argument abound,
And many have been uttered here before.
To keep the playtest on a footing sound
You must complain about what you abhore.

Mand12 explains another cost we pay
If we keep silent about what we despise.
The electronic tools that Wizards may 
Develop bakes those rules you can't revise.

And so the best result I see for all
To play the form of game they most desire
Is make alignment rules quite optional
To opt out if that is what you require 

And then we all can play the game we truck
No matter how the other tables suck!

Electronic tools are buggy and glitched.
Every few weeks, something new gets pitched.
I'd rather see them all get ditched,
than to constantly have them being switched.  

There's something to be said for pencil and pen.
Doing things like they did them back then.
It's more authentic and more genuine
Than paying for subbys again and again.   

People played fine without all that crap
for years and years without a gap
Technology seems to have no cap
but what's the point if it works like a trap?

I'm all for advancing the hobby through tech
but what's the point if it's always a wreck?
I feel like my cash is just going to heck
When every update makes me wanna yell "blech"!  
    
   

So bad rules are fine, even if they screw those of us
Who disagree with you, and think e-tools are a plus?

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:02PM, professordaddy wrote:

'Tis not jus me you must convince that Lawful Good and Evil
Are plain bad mechanics, scarcely worthy of retrieval.

You misunderstand, professordaddy, true
My claim is not alignment is plain bad
But that mechanics for alignment do
Not need to be required in our fad.

As optional mechanics you would see
That I'd ignore them without any pain
And you'd include them just as easily
With one edition both could play again

So why my option would you me deny,
When I would not deny the same to all?
Excise your rules, then, why must it be I.
'Tis easier to make it optional.

It's sad when you must twist our words around
So choice seems to be forc'd and up seems down.

It is only your call
to use such tools.
If they limit your game
you just seem like fools.   


 
     

Nov 28, 2012 -- 3:32PM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 3:22PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 2:44PM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 2:41PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 10:11AM, professordaddy wrote:

Priests serve Gods, some good, some foul, Some the law, some insurrrction, Thieves spread chaos, Monks choose order, Seeking spiritual perfection.

rhyming aside, this argument is one of the worst I've ever seen.

What is your "argument'"? 

There is no basis for the argument that monks need to be lawful. There is also no basis for the arguement that self control and spiritual dedication make a person lawful.

When an argument has no basis, no counter argument is required.

...it's a little bit required..." *said like Bill Murray in Stripes* 

No, it's really not. An argument with no basis whatsoever can simply be dismissed.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:28PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

It is only your call
to use such tools.
If they limit your game
you just seem like fools.

I don't understand why you'd continue to fetter
Attempts to make sure that the e-tools are better
If they suck more by including the excluding rules
Wouldn't that mean the other side's the fools?

Nov 28, 2012 -- 4:33PM, Nautilus wrote:

An ordered mind? That's a piece of fluff
Which some might consider evocative stuff
Fluff's a wonderful servant, but a terrible master
And enforcing it's simply a bloody disaster.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:28PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

It is only your call
to use such tools.
If they limit your game
you just seem like fools.

Of course I can ignore the tools they spend
Good money to develop for our play
But they should want the tool to be an end
And not exclude those who would gladly pay 

The playtest does exist for us to show
Our preferences for the rules we want
And thus we need to let the Wizards know 
That options won't make customers so scant.

Ignoring wants, a foolish thing to try
And of course I don't have to buy their stuff
Suggesting that solution 'fore we buy?
That seems quite spiteful and quite rough.

Do not propose to drive consumers back
With options we can all receive our crack. 

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:02PM, professordaddy wrote:

You must convince Mearls, and the other devs' beside him.
Tell me, when you try it, will you insult and deride him?
Do you think that that's the way to make your case compelling?
Seems to me it's so (behavior here can be so telling!).

"When you make my coffee, please don't use tabasco."
Is hardly a source of insult or fiasco.

If memory serves and it might be mistaken
there's a House Rules option that can be taken.
At least I think that's what I recall
before I let my DDI sub fall.

Just click that bad boy and you're off to the fair
to change what you like without ever a care.
However if that is no longer true
then why in the world would you pay for that poo?

E-tools should help the DM and player
not impose restrictions and remove flavor.
If you're letting yourself get roped into buying
then other options should you consider trying.

I won't tell anyone that they're doing it wrong
but every day it's the same dance and song.
"It stifles my game and that isn't funny"
Well tough luck, Jack, be wiser with money.             
  

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:42PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

If memory serves and it might be mistaken
there's a House Rules option that can be taken.
At least I think that's what I recall
before I let my DDI sub fall. 

You're unfortunately lacking in DDI lore,
As Builder won't show things you don't qualify for.
The houserule button at first seems quite neat,
But in reality all it does is add a bonus power or feat.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:42PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

E-tools should help the DM and player
not impose restrictions and remove flavor. 

Exactly!  I'm so glad, I'll jump up and 
That you're in complete agreement with me here.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

Electronic tools are buggy and glitched.
Every few weeks, something new gets pitched.
I'd rather see them all get ditched,
than to constantly have them being switched.  

I play with paper, I play with my laptop.
So that's more options you would me deny.
Can you a minute take to think and stop
Suggesting now that there be less to try?

Three decades I have played this lovely game
With pencil, pen, with pixel, and with mouse.
I love them all and never be so lame
As to require one alone in this game's house.

Alignment seems so much the same to me.
Some want it in and some would want it out.
So let them all play how they like to be.
The tools can work for both without a doubt.

But only if we tolerant will be, 
Else future grognards we will never see.

I am glad to say
The poetry is forcing us
To be more civil!

If my character concept is restricted anywhere
My money shall as well be spent elsewhere
Now as this proves
I suck at haikus
Refrigerator

Hey diddle diddle,
Let's meet in the middle,
With alignment open to all,
Then we can all pick,
If we want it to stick,
Or make it stay out in the hall.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:28PM, wrecan wrote:

As optional mechanics you would see
That I'd ignore them without any pain
And you'd include them just as easily
With one edition both could play again.

That sounds just, I have admitted:
Problem with solution fitted!
Saving only one more quandary
'For we shelve this dirty laundry:

Which rule set, both, mine, or your,
Goes into books labelled "Core?"
If it's both, I must demurely
Disagree.  It goes down poorly
Brand new players to confuse,
knowing not which rules to use.

Choosing rules before they've tried?
Seems like brand-name suicide.
To encourage game adoption,
Needs must be a default option.

Mearls and fellows' grand myopia:
There's no modular utopia.
Matters not to whom they've pandered:
One design will be the standard.

Thus the question - no diversion -
Which rule is the Red Box version?

The Res Box will just have the basic 4 classes.

That should be enough to cover our ... butts.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 12:54PM, wrecan wrote:

Oh Zaramon no need to be so sad
Despair not for this thread may still prevail.
There's still agreement plenty to be had 
And for one lone dissenter, do not bail.

Professor Daddy may consensus shun
Perhaps he only plays a mocking role
The rest of us are in accord as one 
Agreement won't depend upon the whole.

Alignment in and limitations opt
Appears to be the standard we agree.
Avoiding wars that ole editions flopp'd,
Allowing each to play quite happily.

So flee not this discussion made in rhyme
Ignore the bad and you'll see good in time.

 

Encouraging words lend heart and strength to me,
So I'll not spirit away and hide.
In happy contemplation awhile I'll abide
And share the joy of verse with thee.

Alignment as a module's an ideal tool.
Not in the heart of the game should it be borne
Lest the community be split and torn.
Necessity should be core's only rule.

The rules should not set people to run,
Like a scattered crowd at Snow's gun.
But bind the community into one,
To sit at one big table and have some fun!

Finals are over now as a dime
Counts the value of my time.
And since outside I feel Hell's rime.
I'll stay awhile to speak in ryhme.

Poetry, words of peace.
Pen and sword fighting as one.
Stay above the lake.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 3:32PM, professordaddy wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:28PM, wrecan wrote:

As optional mechanics you would see
That I'd ignore them without any pain
And you'd include them just as easily
With one edition both could play again.

That sounds just, I have admitted:
Problem with solution fitted!
Saving only one more quandary
'For we shelve this dirty laundry:

Which rule set, both, mine, or your,
Goes into books labelled "Core?"
If it's both, I must demurely
Disagree.  It goes down poorly
Brand new players to confuse,
knowing not which rules to use.

Choosing rules before they've tried?
Seems like brand-name suicide.
To encourage game adoption,
Needs must be a default option.

Mearls and fellows' grand myopia:
There's no modular utopia.
Matters not to whom they've pandered:
One design will be the standard.

Thus the question - no diversion -
Which rule is the Red Box version?

There need be no "Core",

But simply an option,

Choose this or choose that,

However your fashion.


As this decision,

Will be made by DMs,

There is no need to fret,

That you'll lose your new friends.             

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:48PM, wrecan wrote:

I play with paper, I play with my laptop.
So that's more options you would me deny.
Can you a minute take to think and stop
Suggesting now that there be less to try?

Three decades I have played this lovely game
With pencil, pen, with pixel, and with mouse.
I love them all and never be so lame
As to require one alone in this game's house.

Alignment seems so much the same to me.
Some want it in and some would want it out.
So let them all play how they like to be.
The tools can work for both without a doubt.

But only if we tolerant will be, 
Else future grognards we will never see.

I am glad to say
The poetry is forcing us
To be more civil!

(Might have to go Eminem-style with pseudo-rhymes this time)

I'm not denyin'
Anyone from tryin'
whatever they want to make characters stylin'.

But if you're gonna pay
for somethin' today
that keeps you from choosing what you want to play.
 
Thank no one but you.
It's sad but it's true.
You chose poorly, no right to feel blue.

If the tools get improved
I might just be moved
To open my wallet and get back in the groove.

As for you and your table
If you're willing and able
Keep spendin' your cash and believin' a fable.   

TSR did it cool
with the 2E Core Rules
That let do what you wanted without breaking the tools

They can look to the past
and see it real fast
It's been done before, but was it the last?

East-side, fools
  
--makes weird hand signs that look like advanced arthritis---                  
       

Nov 29, 2012 -- 3:32PM, professordaddy wrote:

Which rule set, both, mine, or your,
Goes into books labelled "Core?"
If it's both, I must demurely
Disagree.  It goes down poorly
Brand new players to confuse,
knowing not which rules to use.

Like you and me, they'll just simply try it.
I am pretty sure there won't be a riot.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:48PM, wrecan wrote:

I play with paper, I play with my laptop.
So that's more options you would me deny.
Can you a minute take to think and stop
Suggesting now that there be less to try?

Three decades I have played this lovely game
With pencil, pen, with pixel, and with mouse.
I love them all and never be so lame
As to require one alone in this game's house.

Alignment seems so much the same to me.
Some want it in and some would want it out.
So let them all play how they like to be.
The tools can work for both without a doubt.

But only if we tolerant will be, 
Else future grognards we will never see.

I am glad to say
The poetry is forcing us
To be more civil!

(Might have to go Eminem-style with pseudo-rhymes this time)

I'm not denyin'
Anyone from tryin'
whatever they want to make characters stylin'.

But if you're gonna pay
for somethin' today
that keeps you from choosing what you want to play.
 
Thank no one but you.
It's sad but it's true.
You chose poorly, no right to feel blue.

If the tools get improved
I might just be moved
To open my wallet and get back in the groove.

As for you and your table
If you're willing and able
Keep spendin' your cash and believin' a fable.   

TSR did it cool
with the 2E Core Rules
That let do what you wanted without breaking the tools

They can look to the past
and see it real fast
It's been done before, but was it the last?

East-side, fools
  
--makes weird hand signs that look like advanced arthritis---                  
       

AD&D,4E, DDI, DDO, does it matter to you?
If they're something you truly abhore.
You don't have to play with what you rue.
Like a monk transcended simply ignore.

Like a short bird of pink hue
I take you deeper and show you more
When nothing I tell you is true.
But in the honest choice you'll find what's adored.

Like a dirty thief, I hide and I sneak
Like the sage who hides in his beard
Allusions and references in all week
The hero's ultimate and unknowable Wierd.

-edit 

The scholarly father is oddly aware
of a point worthy for taking note.
Should a "core" be laid naked and bare,
Or does one side get to gloat?

Nov 29, 2012 -- 4:35PM, YouKnowTheOneGuy wrote:

The scholarly father is oddly aware of a point worthy for taking note. Should a "core" be laid naked and bare, Or does one side get to gloat?

Alignment is optional now in the core,

And so, at the risk of being labeled a bore,

I'd suggest that the whole "alignment mechanics" idea,

Is utterly flawed in ways which are clear.

You cannot make things which are optional here,

Required for the use of the things over there!         

There's a lot you could choose, and you can't pick it all
Or you'll get a book that makes Ptolus look small
While the selection process is no doubt involved
The alignment conundrum is easily resolved
The class blocks they write should at most say "Most are"
Since saying "you must be" is going too far
Then provide a side table, backgrounded in gray
That the group can make use of, if this is their way
Which has alignment restrictions once used in the past
Pick and mix, blend and stir, for a game built to last.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 3:32PM, professordaddy wrote:

Which rule set, both, mine, or your,
Goes into books labelled "Core?"
If it's both, I must demurely
Disagree.  It goes down poorly
Brand new players to confuse,
knowing not which rules to use.

Then disagree you must with me I guess
For I believe that both they could include
Explaining whether to say no or yes
For which alignment rules should be imbued.

For "options" is the playtest's middle name
No option need be made the one default
And this cements the playtest's claim to fame
Inuring it to more unfair assault.

Confusion? No! I don't believe it will
Engender such dismay at tables round.
Enlarges, rather, tables, giving fill
To more playstyles than one rule would make bound.

Embrace the options that Next to you affords
And gather round the tables against the hordes!

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:48PM, wrecan wrote:

 
I am glad to say
The poetry is forcing us
To be more civil!

Poetics have rithm and rhyme
and often force thought about the manner of expression
sometimes they work... but not all of the time.
although for many they leave a healthier impression.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 5:52PM, wrecan wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 3:32PM, professordaddy wrote:

Which rule set, both, mine, or your,
Goes into books labelled "Core?"
If it's both, I must demurely
Disagree.  It goes down poorly
Brand new players to confuse,
knowing not which rules to use.

Then disagree you must with me I guess
For I believe that both they could include
Explaining whether to say no or yes
For which alignment rules should be imbued.

For "options" is the playtest's middle name
No option need be made the one default
And this cements the playtest's claim to fame
Inuring it to more unfair assault.

Confusion? No! I don't believe it will
Engender such dismay at tables round.
Enlarges, rather, tables, giving fill
To more playstyles than one rule would make bound.

Embrace the options that Next to you affords
And gather round the tables against the hordes!

Hear, hear!

There is no right; there is no wrong.
There's just D&D, so sing a song!

Nov 29, 2012 -- 5:55PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:48PM, wrecan wrote:

 
I am glad to say
The poetry is forcing us
To be more civil!

Poetics have rithm and rhyme
and often force thought about the manner of expression
sometimes they work... but not all of the time.
although for many they leave a healthier impression.

Sometimes poetry is written in free or blank verse.
With words twisted like gnarled and broken vines.
The seams of mind's armor are lights for Durandal to penetrate.
Shattering the unshatterable is a hidden and soaring vision.
Though, it's always wrought in love and makes the reader stretch.
In all forms, poetry is never less than music, each favor a different melody.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 7:46PM, Zaramon wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 5:55PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 2:48PM, wrecan wrote:

 
I am glad to say
The poetry is forcing us
To be more civil!

Poetics have rithm and rhyme
and often force thought about the manner of expression
sometimes they work... but not all of the time.
although for many they leave a healthier impression.

Sometimes poetry is written in free or blank verse.
With words twisted like gnarled and broken vines.
The seams of mind's armor are lights for Durandal to penetrate.
Shattering the unshatterable is a hidden and soaring vision.
Though, it's always wrought in love and makes the reader stretch.
In all forms, poetry is never less than music, each favor a different melody.

To me when unusal structures are placed on and entwine language we may indeed stretch the readers/listeners minds unless those structures are too familar so that rather than down faerrie paths most unexpected what is achieved becomes the trite walking of a narrow rode.

So for thee I have a rhyme, a roguish scheme,
It's a style that ever carries a most unique mark.
Coy little structures that follow a hidden theme,
Whispering soft and slow of Riddles in the Dark.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:22PM, Zaramon wrote:

So for thee I have a rhyme, a roguish scheme,
It's a style that ever carries a most unique mark.
Coy little structures that follow a hidden theme,
Whispering soft and slow of Riddles in the Dark.

Scintillating weaving smiles through threads of color and fire
It is strands such as these which break me free of scowls
brought on by others most dark and dire
lanced by athenas winged owls
 
 

Reading this thread has been a delight,
Getting thoughts of rhyme trapped in my head all night.

I wonder if this thread's style of ryhme,
Could be used in others to improve everyones time.

All I know is that these rythems get stuck in my head,
And everything else I see in any other thread,
Comes out in rhyme as soon as it is read.

As far as alignment is concerned,
I have read and learned.
Far more people agree then don't,
But deciding only one side should have their way we won't.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

But if you're gonna pay
for somethin' today
that keeps you from choosing what you want to play.

It doesn't have to be that way and still
The DDI for Next has not been built
We have an opportunity to fill
The programs with the options as a quilt

So now's the time to make your voices heard
And not to tell us simply not to buy
A product that has not yet uttered word
Before designers have a chance to try.

No choice is made, no choices there to make
Until we have a product to review
So we can still both have and eat our cake
And we'll enjoy it if you'd let it through.

Your criticism is quite premature
Let's make our case and hope we like it more

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:30PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:22PM, Zaramon wrote:

So for thee I have a rhyme, a roguish scheme,
It's a style that ever carries a most unique mark.
Coy little structures that follow a hidden theme,
Whispering soft and slow of Riddles in the Dark.

Scintillating weaving smiles through threads of color and fire
It is strands such as these which break me free of scowls
brought on by others most dark and dire
lanced by athenas winged owls
 
 

Many for verse invoke the muse.
But I would sooner relax and preen.
As keeper of wisdom her role is a ruse.
So I'll sit on the shoulder of Pallas Athene.

Nov 29, 2012 -- 3:27PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Hey diddle diddle,
Let's meet in the middle,
With alignment open to all,
Then we can all pick,
If we want it to stick,
Or make it stay out in the hall.

Hear, hear!

Nov 30, 2012 -- 5:00PM, Zaramon wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:30PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:22PM, Zaramon wrote:

So for thee I have a rhyme, a roguish scheme,
It's a style that ever carries a most unique mark.
Coy little structures that follow a hidden theme,
Whispering soft and slow of Riddles in the Dark.

Scintillating weaving smiles through threads of color and fire
It is strands such as these which break me free of scowls
brought on by others most dark and dire
lanced by athenas winged owls
 
 

Many for verse invoke the muse.
But I would sooner relax and preen.
As keeper of wisdom her role is a ruse.
So I'll sit on the shoulder of Pallas Athene.

Keen bladed wit leading Odysseus nigh.
bring cool penance to this game 
and un-rend the cyclops eye. 
lost to all but fame.
 

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 5:00PM, Zaramon wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:30PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 29, 2012 -- 10:22PM, Zaramon wrote:

So for thee I have a rhyme, a roguish scheme,
It's a style that ever carries a most unique mark.
Coy little structures that follow a hidden theme,
Whispering soft and slow of Riddles in the Dark.

Scintillating weaving smiles through threads of color and fire
It is strands such as these which break me free of scowls
brought on by others most dark and dire
lanced by athenas winged owls
 
 

Many for verse invoke the muse.
But I would sooner relax and preen.
As keeper of wisdom her role is a ruse.
So I'll sit on the shoulder of Pallas Athene.

Keen bladed wit leading Odysseus nigh.
bring cool penance to this game 
and un-rend the cyclops eye. 
lost to all but fame.
 

Armor and sword mark noble knight,
But they just as well mark a rabble-rouser.
They're all much greater, life beyond simple fight.
Unlike yet the same, like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.

Nov 28, 2012 -- 4:33PM, Nautilus wrote:

An ordered mind? That's a piece of fluff
Which some might consider evocative stuff
Fluff's a wonderful servant, but a terrible master
And enforcing it's simply a bloody disaster.

My master is my slave

With its edge it cut magination
a roleplayers soul it entwined
though chaos it is alligned
player freedom its shreiks maligned.

This sword here at my side
dont act the way it could

To the game it brang confinement
this chaos of personality and constriction
poorly defined they call alligment
I despise it with conviction

A storm it brang so I put it in consignment..
yet in runes of D&D, free it bursts
game table and forumn peace are the
souls for which it thirsts

Keeps calling me dungeon master,
but it makes a judge of me.
not of rules but ethics and behavior,
forcing advanced philosphy

Though in a wave of edition change I toss it,
ever it returns with wicked screams to settle in the dms tool kit
whatever its clearly sith
and its chains Ill have nothing to do with.

 

All those who think alignment's time has passed...
What do you do when "Detect Evil" is cast?

For "detect evil" we have devils,
If its like 4E they could be some for all levels.

Demons and undead also remain,
Creatures made from evil magic and mind,
I think those of evil origin could sustain,
Detect Evil's intent and design.

Nov 30, 2012 -- 11:08PM, professordaddy wrote:

All those who think alignment's time has passed... What do you do when "Detect Evil" is cast?

It spoiled a plot
that I worked on a lot.
Because it made me so pissed,
In my games, detect evil no longer exists.

It is on the subject of monks that I write
For this is a subject on which I will shed some light
For monks must study and practice, oh yes
Their bodies and minds must be perfect, no less
Yet no one thinks about wizards anymore
Even though their beards grow long and white from the bore
Their souls and their minds must be sharp as a razor
So they may conjure forth a celestial gator
In my opinion, the entire concept must go
Too many arguments, words thrown to and fro
So you keep your nine tiles, if its a must
I'll go bury mine down deep in the Earth's crust

I like my edition, and not a revision
Too close to my opinion, an alignment may be
So instead of a rule, each person can express their own vision
And with much opposition, we can all play 5E
Because in the end, now matter how hard we pretend
Its not the the game, but the players that make the decision.     

No alignment mechanics 
means no detection of such
detect evil a problem
not so much 

Nov 30, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 28, 2012 -- 4:33PM, Nautilus wrote:

An ordered mind? That's a piece of fluff
Which some might consider evocative stuff
Fluff's a wonderful servant, but a terrible master
And enforcing it's simply a bloody disaster.

My master is my slave

With its edge it cut magination
a roleplayers soul it entwined
though chaos it is alligned
player freedom its shreiks maligned.

This sword here at my side
dont act the way it could

To the game it brang confinement
this chaos of personality and constriction
poorly defined they call alligment
I despise it with conviction

A storm it brang so I put it in consignment..
yet in runes of D&D, free it bursts
game table and forumn peace are the
souls for which it thirsts

Keeps calling me dungeon master,
but it makes a judge of me.
not of rules but ethics and behavior,
forcing advanced philosphy

Though in a wave of edition change I toss it,
ever it returns with wicked shreiks to settle in the dms tool kit
whatever its clearly sith
and its chains Ill have nothing to do with.

 

Apologies to BOC
for any associations. 

Nov 30, 2012 -- 11:08PM, professordaddy wrote:

All those who think alignment's time has passed... What do you do when "Detect Evil" is cast?

There is no alignment,
because its time is past.
So a spell to detect it
simply cannot be cast.

Whether using map, dousing rod, compass or sextant,
One cannot detect the completely nonexistant.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 10:45AM, Salla wrote:

There is no alignment,
because its time is past.
So a spell to detect it
simply cannot be cast.

Whether using map, dousing rod, compass or sextant,
One cannot detect the completely nonexistant.

If Evil^(tm) in your world just does not exist
I feel for your players and the stories they've missed
Of a dichotomous reality of black and of white
Where one can escape the mundane and do Right^(tm)

Nov 30, 2012 -- 11:08PM, professordaddy wrote:

All those who think alignment's time has passed... What do you do when "Detect Evil" is cast?

We don't play D&D anymore... well, for some years really, and the RPG we do play doesn't have alignments (at least not in the sense D&D does).
But, if we did play D&D, we wouldn't use alignments.
So, if someone cast detect evil, I would go by the targets motivations.

Easy.

Nov 30, 2012 -- 11:26PM, Ahearn_Condon wrote:

For "detect evil" we have devils, If its like 4E they could be some for all levels. Demons and undead also remain, Creatures made from evil magic and mind, I think those of evil origin could sustain, Detect Evil's intent and design.

Beyond the direct a more general answer indeed lies.
When crafting favored enemy name
There is  superatural and mundane.
So favored adversary and guiding organization
is it paladin, is it ranger? depends on initiation.

Broadening scope of class with specializations and backgrounds
mulitple aspects can bring specifics in to bounds

 

I've removed content from this thread. Trolling and Baiting are both violations of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

Keep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from making any personal attacks. 

Dec 1, 2012 -- 10:57AM, Robin_Hoodlum wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 11:08PM, professordaddy wrote:

All those who think alignment's time has passed... What do you do when "Detect Evil" is cast?

We don't play D&D anymore... well, for some years really, and the RPG we do play doesn't have alignments (at least not in the sense D&D does).
But, if we did play D&D, we wouldn't use alignments.
So, if someone cast detect evil, I would go by the targets motivations.

Easy.

Excellent!
That's what we would do too, if we played D&D.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 10:52AM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

If Evil^(tm) in your world just does not exist
I feel for your players and the stories they've missed
Of a dichotomous reality of black and of white
Where one can escape the mundane and do Right^(tm)

Alignment spells that evil do detect
Need not exist for evil to exist
On that perhaps you might want to reflect
Before you cry 'bout stories we have missed
Detect alignment does morality
No service. It does only make it seen.
Detect alignment lacks reality
Yet evil is as real as ever been.
I need no spells to make heroic tales
Of villains plain and heroes shining true.
I need DM alone and he regales
Us with adventures full of derring-do.
So spare us your false pity undeserv'd.
Our games do fine though that leaves you unnerv'd.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 1:00PM, wrecan wrote:

Dec 1, 2012 -- 10:52AM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Dec 1, 2012 -- 10:45AM, Salla wrote:

Nov 30, 2012 -- 11:08PM, professordaddy wrote:

All those who think alignment's time has passed... What do you do when "Detect Evil" is cast?

There is no alignment,
because its time is past.
So a spell to detect it
simply cannot be cast.

Whether using map, dousing rod, compass or sextant,
One cannot detect the completely nonexistant.

If Evil^(tm) in your world just does not exist
I feel for your players and the stories they've missed
Of a dichotomous reality of black and of white
Where one can escape the mundane and do Right^(tm)

Alignment spells that evil do detect
Need not exist for evil to exist
On that perhaps you might want to reflect
Before you cry 'bout stories we have missed
Detect alignment does morality
No service. It does only make it seen.
Detect alignment lacks reality
Yet evil is as real as ever been.
I need no spells to make heroic tales
Of villains plain and heroes shining true.
I need DM alone and he regales
Us with adventures full of derring-do.
So spare us your false pity undeserv'd.
Our games do fine though that leaves you unnerv'd.

Were what you doth attest be true
Of Salla's latest rhyme,
I'd have taken no exception to
Something so sublime.
Rather urge you to return once more
To the prose that Salla spoke.
Of words highlighted by underscore
And the meaning it did invoke.
"One cannot detect the completely nonexistent"
What was actually promulgated.
A statement of rather explicit intent
And rather lopply weighted.
Clearly something that factly does not exist
Like Evil in its many guises,
Would preclude its mirror I must insist
Hence a stormy debate arises.
The absence of Evil spells the lack of Good
And all that would entail.
Its the core of the genre, without them we would
Lose the greatest stories we could hail.
Thus I return to my position insistent,
Not of a spell but the lack of its prey.
If Evil is completely nonexistent
There is nothing left to say.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 3:20PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Were what you doth attest be true
Of Salla's latest rhyme,
I'd have taken no exception to
Something so sublime.
Rather urge you to return once more
To the prose that Salla spoke.
Of words highlighted by underscore

Your argument's semantics, nothing more.
For Salla did not say that evil can't
Exist. Instead, he said that evil for
Mechanics from his campaign is absent.
You're reading poetry and looking for
A fight. So if you want to score cheap points
Look elsewhere and don't try to further bore
Us with your inane wordplay. He anoints
His clerics with no power to detect
Alignment, but that does not mean his tales
Lack any moral fiber.  So reflect
On that before your poetry hoists sails.
Yes, evil can exist where it is not
Detected. Saying otherwise is rot.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 3:31PM, wrecan wrote:

Your argument's semantics, nothing more.
For Salla did not say that evil can't
Exist. Instead, he said that evil for
Mechanics from his campaign is absent.
You're reading poetry and looking for
A fight. So if you want to score cheap points
Look elsewhere and don't try to further bore
Us with your inane wordplay. He anoints
His clerics with no power to detect
Alignment, but that does not mean his tales
Lack any moral fiber.  So reflect
On that before your poetry hoists sails.
Yes, evil can exist where it is not
Detected. Saying otherwise is rot.

Your excessive vitriol draws my attention
And I'm sad as I know not its intention
Objective I was trying to be
So we differ, c'est la vie
I hope not to have to see an ORC's intervention

Sometimes a rush'd poem
Is darker than intended
I am quite sorry.

Your apology
Is accepted graciously
On butterfly wings

We still have not any answer,

To why these mechanics need say "must" when encountered.

Some settings or tables might chose to restrict,

But a tight bound mechanics does not options permit.

Given we are supposed to have modular fun,

In this new edition none need to be bummed.

There are many Monk concepts which simply don't need,

Any restriction as they don't live by creed.

Given that open suits all and not some,

Continued argument simply starts to look dumb. 

Dec 1, 2012 -- 3:20PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Were what you doth attest be true
Of Salla's latest rhyme,
I'd have taken no exception to
Something so sublime.
Rather urge you to return once more
To the prose that Salla spoke.
Of words highlighted by underscore
And the meaning it did invoke.
"One cannot detect the completely nonexistent"
What was actually promulgated.
A statement of rather explicit intent
And rather lopply weighted.
Clearly something that factly does not exist
Like Evil in its many guises,
Would preclude its mirror I must insist
Hence a stormy debate arises.
The absence of Evil spells the lack of Good
And all that would entail.
Its the core of the genre, without them we would
Lose the greatest stories we could hail.
Thus I return to my position insistent,
Not of a spell but the lack of its prey.
If Evil is completely nonexistent
There is nothing left to say.

But it is a poor idea, you see
To take words from here so lit'rally
To argue semantics here, plain folly
For in this thread of poetry
we choose words not for precision
but based on rhymes are our decisions

 

Dec 1, 2012 -- 7:00PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

But it is a poor idea, you see
To take words from here so lit'rally
To argue semantics here, plain folly
For in this thread of poetry
we choose words not for precision
but based on rhymes are our decisions

 

Indeed, being forced to make verse
Makes this already heated argument worse.

Simply put, one doesn't need two words on a page
To have 'good' and 'evil', in this or any age.

Good, evil, law and chaos are just psychology, not 'cosmic force'
Subjective and undefinable, and undetectable, of course.

Without alignment mechanics, a spell to detect such
Even if it could exist, it wouldn't accomplish much.

Dec 1, 2012 -- 7:00PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

But it is a poor idea, you see
To take words from here so lit'rally
To argue semantics here, plain folly
For in this thread of poetry
we choose words not for precision
but based on rhymes are our decisions

I've yet to make such a loose mistake
I choose my words quite carefully
If you cannot do so, if you haven't the chops
Perhaps you should avoid poetry

Dec 1, 2012 -- 10:47PM, ChrisCarlson wrote:

Dec 1, 2012 -- 7:00PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

But it is a poor idea, you see
To take words from here so lit'rally
To argue semantics here, plain folly
For in this thread of poetry
we choose words not for precision
but based on rhymes are our decisions

I've yet to make such a loose mistake
I choose my words quite carefully
If you cannot do so, if you haven't the chops
Perhaps you should avoid poetry

Perhaps, but remember 'Should'
is simply not the same as 'Would'
There will always be those that try their hand
though their skills rest on a foundation of sand

Keep in mind this little fact
that there is no 'experts only' pact
Though your own words may be chosen carefully
the same will not be true of all you see.