|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 5:35PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2012
|
What if they chose to play selfish, calculating characters, but still worked as a team? Would you still be able to ignore alignment.
Considering I build my adventures based off the actions of PCs, yes, I could still easily ignore alignment.
When it comes down to it, I've grown too jaded to give a crap. It's about alignment, it's a debate, that's more than enough reason for me to consider it pointless. Nothing anyone involved has to say will sway opinions, so bringing up the topic only serves to start another debate.
And I use the word 'debate' loosely, as I know from experience that the longer they last, the less like a 'debate' and the more like a group of children squabbling they become. "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" "No, I'M right!" "NO, ME!" On and on and on and on... It's inevitable.
Gunmage, a homebrew arcane striker. (Heroic Tier playtest ready.) GDocs link. (More up to date.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 5:41AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
All these alignment threads make me feel like I'm actively getting worse at D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 5:46AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2010
|
"Alignment" should be replaced with "motivation(s)" and "personality/ demeanor".
The RPG I play does not use alignments as D&D does, but rather uses motivations and personality descriptors.
Works ten thousand times better than D&Ds tired alignment system.
*shrug*
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."- John Stuart Mill
Old Man of the House of Trolls
Resident Hater
God of Anger and Hatred.
Mini Hate Machine
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 6:14AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2012
|
All these alignment threads make me feel like I'm actively getting worse at D&D.
Really? Because they make me feel like D&D is actively getting worse. Or, at the very least, stagnant.
Gunmage, a homebrew arcane striker. (Heroic Tier playtest ready.) GDocs link. (More up to date.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 6:19AM
#25
|
|
|
Morality is relative.
Keep 5e as simple as possibly in the core so new players especially older skeptical players can pick the game up with ease.
Alignment can easily be added as a supplement (something they are not considering enough for alot of mechanics they believe to be core).
Core mechanics are simplicity and are desired, supplement provides additional material within structural context.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 6:22AM
#26
|
|
|
If the rules advised this clearly and repeatedly, in the three core books, would you be satisfied?
The rules make it clear that allignment is not a straightjacket, the description is understandable enough to realise that allignments cover a wide range of behavior. Also in the system it is just their for mechanical functions, if they don't match their alignment it can simly be changed and that isn't relevant
But what do you mean by "selected an alignment for a specific mechanical benefit"? How would a player prove that the alignment had not been chosen for a mechanical benefit? If a class isn't mechanically any better than another class, then picking the alignment required by that class is a specific choice, but it can't be said to provide any "benefit" over any other choice. I say this because I get the general impression that people see the restrictions on paladins not only as a way to emulate a certain tone, but also as a balancing factor.
Yes, as a general tone, LG emulates the Paladin s code of conduct and paragon of the Holy knight in shining armor and virtue, there is an expectation that the Paladin not be evil, corrupt, dishonorable etc etc. That reflects his allignment.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 2:09PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The rules make it clear that allignment is not a straightjacket, the description is understandable enough to realise that allignments cover a wide range of behavior.
That clearly is not happening. Blame it on DM skill if you want, but when something is clearly not catching on with a large portion of the players, the rules are changed and clarified. Wizards could be balanced with fighters, the tools were there, but enough people failed to recognize or heed that advice, that the game changed to balance wizards with fighters inherently, or at least much moreso than before. How can the same be done with alignment, making it work for more people from the get go?
Also in the system it is just their for mechanical functions, if they don't match their alignment it can simly be changed and that isn't relevant
Why does it need to be changed?
But what do you mean by "selected an alignment for a specific mechanical benefit"?
Yes, as a general tone, LG emulates the Paladin s code of conduct and paragon of the Holy knight in shining armor and virtue, there is an expectation that the Paladin not be evil, corrupt, dishonorable etc etc. That reflects his allignment.
My question stands.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:31PM
#28
|
|
|
I've posted this on the What's a DM to do? version of this thread. In order to make everyone happy I suggest this:
- Make alignments optional.
- Describe alignments as a guideline for roleplaying YOUR character or YOUR NPCs only.
- As players you decide to have them for your individual.
- No in-game punishment for not following them.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 11:45PM
#29
|
|
|
The rules make it clear that allignment is not a straightjacket, the description is understandable enough to realise that allignments cover a wide range of behavior. Also in the system it is just their for mechanical functions, if they don't match their alignment it can simly be changed and that isn't relevant
The rules could be more clear on that regard.
Additionally years of playing older editions still sit in people minds. I can still quote rules from 2nd Edition.
Yes, as a general tone, LG emulates the Paladin s code of conduct and paragon of the Holy knight in shining armor and virtue, there is an expectation that the Paladin not be evil, corrupt, dishonorable etc etc. That reflects his allignment.
I don't think the issue is what Lawful Good Emulates, its the mechanics of forcing a player to play in that regard.
Generally speaking people don't like being told what to do. In a social setting such as roleplaying this is even more true.
The issue is what you see as Lawful Good and what others see as Lawful Good is going to be different due to intrepretation of that alignment. That difference can lead to argument which in turn can stop the fun of the game you are intending to play.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 8:10AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I'm fine with them in, just keep them out of anything mechanical. Put the mechanics in a module, leave them out of core.
|
|
|
