Community

Jan 9, 2013 -- 6:49PM, YagamiFire wrote:

4e exists.  You, personally, are welcome to ignore it in your own personal life and games.  But if you come on here claiming about "ALL DND" and completely skip an edition in your thinking you are at best being disingenuous 

God forbid I speak of the GENERAL nature of D&D in which the MAJORITY of the editions have rules for aging. That ONE edition doesn't is an exception, not the rule. And, you are the one bringing up editions...desperately trying to edition war. Why? Because it's all you have. Continue grasping at straws.

Also, hilariously, weren't you unaware that the alignments are defined in 4th Edition itself? Which leads to the question...how can the game define something that is totally subjective?

First off, there is a different between saying "most" and "all".  So claiming "most alignment systems in dnd work like _____" is better than "all alignment systems in dnd work like ____".  Cause one of them is a blatant lie and the other isn't.  Now, it does beg a different argument which gets close to edition warring (whether 4e should be given more weight as it is seen as the "current" version of the game and/or most recent publication of the game), but thats a pointless argument.

Why were you saying I was unaware of how 4e defined alignments?  I was firmly aware of how they were defined.  I just wasn't having a conversation or discussion about the subjective nature until you came in here so it was rather irrelevant.  The conversation was about whether there shouldn't be any alignment based mechanics, something that 4e doesn't have.  The paladin doesn't lose his powers because of lack of agreement with his alignment.  You linked an article which talked about something that never happened and then stopped assuming you won.  Now if we say "well, that article in conjunction with a small amount of logic or an ability to look at the rules proves that point wrong" you rant about a different topic.

I feel like I've said this quite enough times.  I'm not against alignment in general.  I just don't want it in the mechanics.  So you are arguing with someone who has never disagreed with you in the first place (on that particular point).

So here are the sides:
You think alignment is clearly defined and should be used in the playing of the game.  
I think alignment is defined well enough and should be used in the playing of the game.  I think that since it is not clearly and concisely defined (or more importantly definable) that it should be used in playing the game, but not in defining rules sections of the game.

So when you rant, rave, holler and hoot about how much I'm hating on alignment, or whether it is subjective or not please try to focus on what is actually being said.  I'm not saying "toss all alignment out the door".  I'm saying "toss all rules with alignment out the door".