Community

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!

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.

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.

 

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.