I have seen 1000's of posts worth of discussion about the alignment systems and whether or nor they work, so I wanted to add a poll for the people here to see at a glance what the general consensus is: just the numbers, none of the arguments please, there are other threads for reading the specific arguments.
I have seen 1000's of posts worth of discussion about the alignment systems and whether or nor they work, so I wanted to add a poll for the people here to see at a glance what the general consensus is: just the numbers, none of the arguments please,
Oh, yay, redundant threads. I'd think just putting one poll in 4e General would be better than two different polls.
And I reiterate: I think this is going to wind up devolving into yet another pointless alignment debate. I give it a week at most.
Oh, yay, redundant threads. I'd think just putting one poll in 4e General would be better than two different polls.And I reiterate: I think this is going to wind up devolving into yet another pointless alignment debate. I give it a week at most.
It would be nice to see a thread not go up in flames, as unlikely as that is.
Personally, I voted that the system would need work to be useful. Particularly a line stating that the alignments are a guide, and not to be enforced mechanically or by dm fiat.
I like the usage of alignment as a shorthand of what general behaviors a character may follow, while accepting that people will vary in behavior both short- and long-term.
It would be nice to see a thread not go up in flames, as unlikely as that is.Personally, I voted that the system would need work to be useful. Particularly a line stating that the alignments are a guide, and not to be enforced mechanically or by dm f
I like the usage of alignment as a shorthand of what general behaviors a character may follow, while accepting that people will vary in behavior both short- and long-term.
But if you accept that, then how can use use them as a shorthand? The player may not act at all how you expect. That's fine if you're not depending on certain behaviors, but aggravating for DMs who assume that the PCs will go along with the plot as presented, because to do otherwise would be against their alignment.
But if you accept that, then how can use use them as a shorthand? The player may not act at all how you expect. That's fine if you're not depending on certain behaviors, but aggravating for DMs who assume that the PCs will go along with the plot as p
The Alignment System "works" as defining the very basic morality of people in a game like D&D. Alignmnt Based mechanics, however, are full of crap and should be abolished or tailored in a way that allows one group to keep them and one group to dismiss them. Personally, as a fan of the Paladin, I always felt shafted when we fought enemies where a good majority of my powers were nigh useless because......alignment. The big Iron Golem that's defending the entry way into the Lich's castle, rabid animals roaming the woods, and other primitive or unthinking creatures that are just as deadly as "evil" people but are not effected by character's abilities.
As a player, I don't want to be "shut-off" as a contributing player to the story just because some mechanic says "no, you can't use that now".
The Alignment System "works" as defining the very basic morality of people in a game like D&D. Alignmnt Based mechanics, however, are full of crap and should be abolished or tailored in a way that allows one group to keep them and one group to dismis
It was just said that we did NOT want this to devolve into another thread like before. Please respect that. Vote and hold your peace. If you can't and feel you must comment, don't comment about other people's views. This is not what this thread is for. Contact the person by PM or go post in one of the hundreds of threads about alignment.
It was just said that we did NOT want this to devolve into another thread like before. Please respect that. Vote and hold your peace. If you can't and feel you must comment, don't comment about other people's views. This is not what this thread i
I don't mean this to start an argument, but I have a question about the poll.
How would one vote to say "4e's method of alignment having no mechanical effect but still a core part of the game's fluff" go?
I'd like to participate but I feel the options are cutting out a lot of the issue as presented.
I don't mean this to start an argument, but I have a question about the poll.How would one vote to say "4e's method of alignment having no mechanical effect but still a core part of the game's fluff" go?I'd like to participate but I feel the options
How would one vote to say "4e's method of alignment having no mechanical effect but still a core part of the game's fluff" go?
Sounds like "Alignment systems would need significant improvement to work" if you feel that 4e's system works by making those improvements.
The main arguments against alignment seem to be "My DM doesn't let me roleplay the way I want to" (which can be addressed by avoiding railroading DMs) and "It's to 'subjective' for mechanical effects" (which you would improve, by taking out the mechanical effects, to make it work better).
Sounds like "Alignment systems would need significant improvement to work" if you feel that 4e's system works by making those improvements.The main arguments against alignment seem to be "My DM doesn't let me roleplay the way I want to" (which can be
How would one vote to say "4e's method of alignment having no mechanical effect but still a core part of the game's fluff" go?
Sounds like "Alignment systems would need significant improvement to work" if you feel that 4e's system works by making those improvements.
The main arguments against alignment seem to be "My DM doesn't let me roleplay the way I want to" (which can be addressed by avoiding railroading DMs) and "It's to 'subjective' for mechanical effects" (which you would improve, by taking out the mechanical effects, to make it work better).
Well, the problem is that if the 4e system is veiwed as current then it isn't "the systems need a lot of work", it is "this system needs a little work."
I mean, what are we talking about as the base for the alignment here? ADND alignment? 2e? 3.5e? 4e?
Edit: To be more clear there are 2 concepts here. 1) Overall alignment. Battle between good and evil in the game etc. So, the story of the game. 2) Alignment mechanics that make the rules of the game function differently. So, the basic functions of the game.
Which version of alignment are we talking about here?
Sounds like "Alignment systems would need significant improvement to work" if you feel that 4e's system works by making those improvements.The main arguments against alignment seem to be "My DM doesn't let me roleplay the way I want to" (which can be
The main arguments against alignment seem to be "My DM doesn't let me roleplay the way I want to" (which can be addressed by avoiding railroading DMs) and "It's to 'subjective' for mechanical effects" (which you would improve, by taking out the mechanical effects, to make it work better).
The main argument against alignment is Wovon Man Nicht Sprechen Kann, Darüber Muß Man Schweigen.
The main argument against alignment is Wovon Man Nicht Sprechen Kann, Darüber Muß Man Schweigen.
The main arguments against alignment seem to be "My DM doesn't let me roleplay the way I want to" (which can be addressed by avoiding railroading DMs) and "It's to 'subjective' for mechanical effects" (which you would improve, by taking out the mechanical effects, to make it work better).
So you'd be left with a descriptor. Descriptors always influence your actions and push you towards stereotyping creatures and making them dull, no matter how often you cry to high heaven that you're too "good" for that to happen.
So you'd be left with a descriptor. Descriptors always influence your actions and push you towards stereotyping creatures and making them dull, no matter how often you cry to high heaven that you're too "good" for that to happen.
I have had virtually no problems with Alignment since starting to play D&D in about 1976. Not until I got into online forums did I find others had significant issues. Alignment has worked well enough for me and mine since 1E although the silly stuff with xp loss, etc. was dropped almost immediately. It is not, however, well-written and never has been. Its purpose for even being in the game still goes undefined. Its means of perpetuating that purpose thus is abused, not understood. It is thus deemed pointless and disruptive by many and there's nothing to be gained by arguing that with people who feel that way.
Even if _I_ think it works because over 30 years of playing under it I haven't generally had issues with it doesn't mean that I can or should ignore the fact that others do. Alignment really is a mess in its interpretation and imposition. The fact is some games just do not need it or want it and for that reason alone it should at the very least be altered so that it can be safely ignored, outright, in every aspect, by those who wish to do so, and in every version of the game.
I have had virtually no problems with Alignment since starting to play D&D in about 1976. Not until I got into online forums did I find others had significant issues. Alignment has worked well enough for me and mine since 1E although the silly stuf
I have had virtually no problems with Alignment since starting to play D&D in about 1976. Not until I got into online forums did I find others had significant issues. Alignment has worked well enough for me and mine since 1E although the silly stuff with xp loss, etc. was dropped almost immediately. It is not, however, well-written and never has been. Its purpose for even being in the game still goes undefined. Its means of perpetuating that purpose thus is abused, not understood. It is thus deemed pointless and disruptive by many and there's nothing to be gained by arguing that with people who feel that way.
Even if _I_ think it works because over 30 years of playing under it I haven't generally had issues with it doesn't mean that I can or should ignore the fact that others do. Alignment really is a mess in its interpretation and imposition. The fact is some games just do not need it or want it and for that reason alone it should at the very least be altered so that it can be safely ignored, outright, in every aspect, by those who wish to do so, and in every version of the game.
Alignment has worked well enough for me and mine since 1E although the silly stuff with xp loss, etc. was dropped almost immediately.
So alignments work if you drop any mechanics that acompany them, well said.
Problem # 2 with alignments is that any attempt at open and honest evaluation and discussion is sabotaged by relentless pedantry.
To make it CLEARER - they worked even with the stupid parts because they were easily avoided. They worked BETTER without them. I never said drop any accompanying mechanics. I was suggesting that accompanying mechanics be ABLE to be dropped by those who are, at this point, blindly fanatical in their opposition to alignment.
So alignments work if you drop any mechanics that acompany them, well said. [/quote]Problem # 2 with alignments is that any attempt at open and honest evaluation and discussion is sabotaged by relentless pedantry.To make it CLEARER - they worked even
Alignment has worked well enough for me and mine since 1E although the silly stuff with xp loss, etc. was dropped almost immediately.
So alignments work if you drop any mechanics that acompany them, well said.
Problem # 2 with alignments is that any attempt at open and honest evaluation and discussion is sabotaged by relentless pedantry.
Man_in_the_Funny_Hat rolled a 20! Critical hit!
So alignments work if you drop any mechanics that acompany them, well said. [/quote]Problem # 2 with alignments is that any attempt at open and honest evaluation and discussion is sabotaged by relentless pedantry.[/quote]Man_in_the_Funny_Hat rolled a
Alignment has worked well enough for me and mine since 1E although the silly stuff with xp loss, etc. was dropped almost immediately.
So alignments work if you drop any mechanics that acompany them, well said.
Problem # 2 with alignments is that any attempt at open and honest evaluation and discussion is sabotaged by relentless pedantry.
To make it CLEARER - they worked even with the stupid parts because they were easily avoided. They worked BETTER without them. I never said drop any accompanying mechanics. I was suggesting that accompanying mechanics be ABLE to be dropped by those who are, at this point, blindly fanatical in their opposition to alignment.
Fanaticism in this discussion is claiming they have any meaning or relevance.
So alignments work if you drop any mechanics that acompany them, well said. [/quote]Problem # 2 with alignments is that any attempt at open and honest evaluation and discussion is sabotaged by relentless pedantry.To make it CLEARER - they worked even
I think the "problem" is clear based on the poll results - there are two camps that are VERY polarized: "the system is fine" and "it should be abandoned." Apparently there is no room for compromise. Which is the reason for the overwhelming majority of the heated debates on the subject.
I think the "problem" is clear based on the poll results - there are two camps that are VERY polarized: "the system is fine" and "it should be abandoned." Apparently there is no room for compromise. Which is the reason for the overwhelming majority
Nonsense, there's a clear spot for compromise: An alignment system with zero rules impact. That picks up everyone in the "abolish" category, most of the "fix" category, and at the least everyone in the "keep" category who was thinking of 4e, as well as generally reasonable individuals like Funny Hat. Support there's not just a plurality, it's the majority view.
Nonsense, there's a clear spot for compromise: An alignment system with zero rules impact. That picks up everyone in the "abolish" category, most of the "fix" category, and at the least everyone in the "keep" category who was thinking of 4e, as well
Nonsense, there's a clear spot for compromise: An alignment system with zero rules impact. That picks up everyone in the "abolish" category, most of the "fix" category, and at the least everyone in the "keep" category who was thinking of 4e, as well as generally reasonable individuals like Funny Hat. Support there's not just a plurality, it's the majority view.
This. I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my class.
This. I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my class.
Nonsense, there's a clear spot for compromise: An alignment system with zero rules impact. That picks up everyone in the "abolish" category, most of the "fix" category, and at the least everyone in the "keep" category who was thinking of 4e, as well as generally reasonable individuals like Funny Hat. Support there's not just a plurality, it's the majority view.
This. I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my class.
Yes, this is why I almost picked the middle option. If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
This. I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my class.[/quote]Yes, this is why I almost picked the middle option. If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I pl
If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
I think the "problem" is clear based on the poll results - there are two camps that are VERY polarized: "the system is fine" and "it should be abandoned." Apparently there is no room for compromise. Which is the reason for the overwhelming majority of the heated debates on the subject.
The poll is incomplete. I think alignment could and should be explained better and in depth. I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about alignment to understand it better to avoid problems. It is a brick wall they are determined to put their head through.
The poll is incomplete. I think alignment could and should be explained better and in depth. I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about
That would merely make the problem worse. Alignment is the conceit of knowledge, pretending it has meaning harms the players far more than the mechanical impacts do.
That would merely make the problem worse. Alignment is the conceit of knowledge, pretending it has meaning harms the players far more than the mechanical impacts do.
I think the "problem" is clear based on the poll results - there are two camps that are VERY polarized: "the system is fine" and "it should be abandoned." Apparently there is no room for compromise. Which is the reason for the overwhelming majority of the heated debates on the subject.
The poll is incomplete. I think alignment could and should be explained better and in depth. I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about alignment to understand it better to avoid problems. It is a brick wall they are determined to put their head through.
Evidence please.
The poll is incomplete. I think alignment could and should be explained better and in depth. I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about
I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about alignment to understand it better to avoid problems. It is a brick wall they are determined to put their head through.
I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about alignment to understand it better to avoid problems. It is a brick wall they are determined to put their head through.
Hi, Mr. Kettle. I'm Ms. Pot. Pleased to meet you.
I tihnk I'm in love. (And great profile pic!).
Hi, Mr. Kettle. I'm Ms. Pot. Pleased to meet you.[/quote]I tihnk I'm in love. (And great profile pic!).
Nonsense, there's a clear spot for compromise: An alignment system with zero rules impact. That picks up everyone in the "abolish" category, most of the "fix" category, and at the least everyone in the "keep" category who was thinking of 4e, as well as generally reasonable individuals like Funny Hat. Support there's not just a plurality, it's the majority view.
The majority of people who frequented this thread, anyway. And even if that was the majority of forum dwellers, the forum does not represent an accurate cross-section of D&D players. So, while this poll is interesting, no real data regarding majority of any view can be gleaned.
The majority of people who frequented this thread, anyway. And even if that was the majority of forum dwellers, the forum does not represent an accurate cross-section of D&D players. So, while this poll is interesting, no real data regarding majori
I also happen to think that even if it were it wouldn't matter because, as shown in other threads, anti-alignment people are not willing to read things about alignment to understand it better to avoid problems. It is a brick wall they are determined to put their head through.
Hi, Mr. Kettle. I'm Ms. Pot. Pleased to meet you.
This is why I said what I said. Both sides are firmly entrenched in their beliefs. No amount of debate will change minds.
Nonsense, there's a clear spot for compromise: An alignment system with zero rules impact. That picks up everyone in the "abolish" category, most of the "fix" category, and at the least everyone in the "keep" category who was thinking of 4e, as well as generally reasonable individuals like Funny Hat. Support there's not just a plurality, it's the majority view.
This. I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my class.
But that is not a compromise, that is all but abandoning the system
Hi, Mr. Kettle. I'm Ms. Pot. Pleased to meet you.[/quote]This is why I said what I said. Both sides are firmly entrenched in their beliefs. No amount of debate will change minds.This. I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my cla
I dont care about alignments if they have no impact on my class.
But that is not a compromise, that is all but abandoning the system
Anyone else can still be any alignment they want, and use it however they want for themselves. All that's would go away is any possibility of a person (player or DM) using alignment to control the character or class of another person (player or DM), which is ok because I'm told that only bad DMs do that. Everyone's a winner. That's a compromise.
But that is not a compromise, that is all but abandoning the system[/quote]Anyone else can still be any alignment they want, and use it however they want for themselves. All that's would go away is any possibility of a person (player or DM) using al
These alignments are defined by the game system. The issue with alignments comes from the following two things:
The interpretation of the alignments by players and DMs.
The interpretation of the purpose of the alignment mechanics by the players and the DMs.
If a player has a Lawful Good Paladin Character and plays as he or she sees fit. The other players and DM has no problem with the players interpretation of the alignment. The mechanics are not brought into play and therefore, there is no issue.
If a player has a Lawful Good Paladin Character and plays as he or she see fit. The other player and/or the DM have problems with the players interpretation of the alignment. The mechanics are brought into play and therefore, there is an issue.
In 3.0 and 3.5 I found that alignment as a mechanic to restrict multiclassing.
As an example in 3rd Edition you couldn't be a Paladin/Barbarian due to alignment issues.
In 4th Edition they have made that mechanic not an alignment mechanic but simply a design one.
For example in 4th Edition you can multiclass or hybrid if you wish but you aren't going to get all the goodies you are looking for.
In fact in 4e restrictions arise with Divine characters due to Domain and Pantheons in conjunction with powers, mechanics, and feats.
For example a player who wants to play a Blackguard and wants to max out the usefulness of Adent Strike with feats needs the following Domains: Darkness, Destruction and Strife.
In order to have access to those some of those Domains you need to pray to one of the following dieties Cyric, Ghaundaur, Gruumush, Lolth, Shar, Sseth, Talona, and Zehir.
If the DM is running a campaign where the object is to destroy evil in the world, there is going to be an issue, since those deities are usually the source of such problems.
Now a DM could simply allow the player to take the Domain they want, but the Domain is also defined with a purpose and is linked to a particular deity.
Is a domain simply a mechanic? or Does it have a close relationship to a deity and that deities alignment.
Once again you are back to the similar issues of interpretation of a mechanic or possibly alignment depending on your views of what a Domain is.
So there are still restrictions yes? Just in different ways?
Some describe previous alignment mechanics as a way of punishing players with mechanics.
In 4e a player who wants to have specific feats due to domains has to pray to a particular deity who in turn has an alignment requirement. What is gone is the in-game of penalizing a character for an alignment change.
So in previous editions a player who wanted to play a Paladin had be Lawful Good and was restricted by his alignment and code of conduct.
In 4th Edition, a Paladin can be of any alignment. However if they want a particular Domain powers, feats and such they have to select a particular deity which in turn dictates their alignment. But there is no in-game mechanic to keep the player from playing a different alignment.
So in previous editions if you wanted to play a particular type of class you had to pick a specific type of alignment.
In 4th Edition if you want to have specific divine powers and feats you have to pick a specific type of alignment.
So it's still there, it's just designed differently.
Since 4th Edition's driving force is to be useful is more important than anything else, this is not only a mechanical restriction but also a social as that fellow players want you to be useful too.
In my opinion with 4th Edition with Divine characters you are even MORE restricted than previously editions by the design of mechanics.
That is of course my interpretation and my opinion.
I have had no serious issues with the Alignment system, but that is not to say the system doesn't have problems.Previous Editions Alignments: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Good, Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neut
In my opinion with 4th Edition with Divine characters you are even MORE restricted than previously editions by the design of mechanics.
That is of course my interpretation and my opinion.
The issue is with restriction of one's roleplaying, and the perceived obligation by players and DMs to block others based on alignment considerations. In 4th Edition, there's alignment and certain restrictions and pressures, but there's no restriction on how one roleplays that alignment, and no real leverage anyone has to make anyone roleplay a specific way.
As a specific example, if I'm a paladin in 4e, I can't be told that I have to help someone, or kill someone, or not help someone, or not kill someone. I don't have to rat out the party rogue because if I don't I'll lose my powers.
The issue is with restriction of one's roleplaying, and the perceived obligation by players and DMs to block others based on alignment considerations. In 4th Edition, there's alignment and certain restrictions and pressures, but there's no restrictio
In my opinion with 4th Edition with Divine characters you are even MORE restricted than previously editions by the design of mechanics.
That is of course my interpretation and my opinion.
The issue is with restriction of one's roleplaying, and the perceived obligation by players and DMs to block others based on alignment considerations. In 4th Edition, there's alignment and certain restrictions and pressures, but there's no restriction on how one roleplays that alignment, and no real leverage anyone has to make anyone roleplay a specific way.
As a specific example, if I'm a paladin in 4e, I can't be told that I have to help someone, or kill someone, or not help someone, or not kill someone. I don't have to rat out the party rogue because if I don't I'll lose my powers.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.
Divine characters still have alignment restrictions. If a Lawful Good Paladin decides to perform an act a DM considers Evil. The DM can still do something about it. It's just not as clearly defined.
DM's shouldn't have tell players how to roleplay their alignments anyway. I understand that position.
The question I have for you is why do you think the previous alignment mechanics were designed that way in the first place?
The issue is with restriction of one's roleplaying, and the perceived obligation by players and DMs to block others based on alignment considerations. In 4th Edition, there's alignment and certain restrictions and pressures, but there's no restrictio
in 4E there are paragon paths, themes, backgrounds and so on that require a specific alignment I believe. Loss or change of alignment could prove to have lesser to serious negative impact on a PC.
in 4E there are paragon paths, themes, backgrounds and so on that require a specific alignment I believe. Loss or change of alignment could prove to have lesser to serious negative impact on a PC.
in 4E there are paragon paths, themes, backgrounds and so on that require a specific alignment I believe. Loss or change of alignment could prove to have lesser to serious negative impact on a PC.
True but are the impacts clearly defined in the 4 Edition system?
True but are the impacts clearly defined in the 4 Edition system?
As a specific example, if I'm a paladin in 4e, I can't be told that I have to help someone, or kill someone, or not help someone, or not kill someone. I don't have to rat out the party rogue because if I don't I'll lose my powers.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.
True, but there's a host of reasons why that's not enough to keep people from believing there is. There really wasn't an alignment-changing mechanic in 3.5, outside of certain spells, but it still happened.
Besides which, some people act as though the DM will punish them for alignment violations, so they feel they have to attack the thief for acting like a thief.
Divine characters still have alignment restrictions. If a Lawful Good Paladin desides to perform an act a DM considers Evil. The DM can still do something about it. It's just not as clearly defined.
Nor should it be. Why should the DM "do something about it"? What's it to the DM? If you're talking about having the world act in a way that's interesting to the players (if not the character), I'm all for it, but I suspect you mean penalizing the player in some way that the player will find so boring that they won't try the triggering action again.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.[/quote]True, but there's a host of reasons why that's not enough to keep people from believing there is. There really wasn't an alignment-changing mechanic in 3.5, outside of certain spells, but it still
in 4E there are paragon paths, themes, backgrounds and so on that require a specific alignment I believe. Loss or change of alignment could prove to have lesser to serious negative impact on a PC.
True but are the impacts clearly defined in the 4 Edition system?
the same thing that happens whenever you require something to make something else work. It stops working. If you need to be of evil alignment to use a weapon and you are no longer of evil alignment, you can't use the weapon, it's that simple. Same for all the other stuff.
True but are the impacts clearly defined in the 4 Edition system?[/quote]the same thing that happens whenever you require something to make something else work. It stops working. If you need to be of evil alignment to use a weapon and you are no lo
in 4E there are paragon paths, themes, backgrounds and so on that require a specific alignment I believe. Loss or change of alignment could prove to have lesser to serious negative impact on a PC.
True but are the impacts clearly defined in the 4 Edition system?
No, but that doesn't matter, as there are no rules for changing alignment in 4th Edition, and no reason to assume that it's possible. Yes, a divine character has alignment restrictions based on their deity. No, there's nothing in the rules to force the divine character to be played a certain way or lose its alignment. Incidentally, there's no rule that states what to do should this impossible (as far as the rules are concerned) condition arise.
A DM could decide that a character's alignment could change, but they're on their own at that point and will also have to decide what it means, such as whether certain feats go away, or what replaces them.
True but are the impacts clearly defined in the 4 Edition system?[/quote]No, but that doesn't matter, as there are no rules for changing alignment in 4th Edition, and no reason to assume that it's possible. Yes, a divine character has alignment restr
As a specific example, if I'm a paladin in 4e, I can't be told that I have to help someone, or kill someone, or not help someone, or not kill someone. I don't have to rat out the party rogue because if I don't I'll lose my powers.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.
True, but there's a host of reasons why that's not enough to keep people from believing there is. There really wasn't an alignment-changing mechanic in 3.5, outside of certain spells, but it still happened.
Besides which, some people act as though the DM will punish them for alignment violations, so they feel they have to attack the thief for acting like a thief.
Ah the memories...
Group of adventures go into town, hit the local tavern. Within five minutes the party's thief is caught stealing from a merchant in the tavern. Group's Lawful Good Paladin is now between a rock and a hard place on what he should do next.
Seen it a thousand times and it never gets old. Never say a DM get involved either except when running the NPCs.
The player of the Lawful Good Paladin decided to pick that character's class, alignment and how to play them. Sure a DM can and might tell the Paladin Player how to roleplay but they shouldn't. Alignments should be a guideline not a bear trap. Depending on the system they have a purpose though, and players and DM should no what that is.
Divine characters still have alignment restrictions. If a Lawful Good Paladin desides to perform an act a DM considers Evil. The DM can still do something about it. It's just not as clearly defined.
Nor should it be. Why should the DM "do something about it"? What's it to the DM? If you're talking about having the world act in a way that's interesting to the players (if not the character), I'm all for it, but I suspect you mean penalizing the player in some way that the player will find so boring that they won't try the triggering action again.
I understand what you are saying.
But I don't completely agree. Allow me to explain.
Divine characters should be defined as much by the deity as they are by the race and class they play. They serve that said deity, the reason for alignment restriction is so that the character is similar to the deity in regards to the morality, understanding and purpose of that deity.
If you don't then the deity is simply an empty vessel game mechanic that is used to get the powers and abilities you want your character to desire.
As I've said before alignment isn't the issue as it is the intrepretation, but I should also add the the issue is the intrepretation of enforcement.
I've have some pretty intense players at my table. I've also had to ask some of those players to not return to that table because what they consider fun ruining the fun of the majority of other players.
In all the times I've had to do that it was never a Dungeons and Dragons game. I'm pretty luck guy in that regard.
In previous editions a Paladin was a state of mind, a mentality if you will.
In 4th edition its just a class.
There is nothing wrong with that. But I had more fun and have seen players have more fun in previous editions.
But alignments aren't for everyone and I understand that. Nobody likes being told what to do. I never though alignments should be that way.
At my table players can play as they choose, but I see the lack of alignment as a way to kind of dumb down the game. If I wanted to play an MMO I would play it on my computer, not a gaming table.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.[/quote]True, but there's a host of reasons why that's not enough to keep people from believing there is. There really wasn't an alignment-changing mechanic in 3.5, outside of certain spells, but it still
0.04% of Feats (1) 0.9% of Themes (1) 1.7% of Paragon Paths (10) 3.4% of EDs (4) 7.0% of Artifacts (4) 0% of Other Items (0)
Total game features (only counting the features listed above): 0.2% (20)
Tbh, I'm surprised it's that high, and with the bloat in content you could remove them all with no issue whatsoever but removing the alignment restriction would be the most sensible course.
0.04% of Feats (1)0.9% of Themes (1)1.7% of Paragon Paths (10)3.4% of EDs (4)7.0% of Artifacts (4)0% of Other Items (0)Total game features (only counting the features listed above): 0.2% (20) Tbh, I'm surprised it's that high, and with the bloat in c
0.04% of Feats (1) 0.9% of Themes (1) 1.7% of Paragon Paths (10) 3.4% of EDs (4) 7.0% of Artifacts (4) 0% of Other Items (0)
Total game features (only counting the features listed above): 0.2% (20)
Tbh, I'm surprised it's that high, and with the bloat in content you could remove them all with no issue whatsoever but removing the alignment restriction would be the most sensible course.
thanks for the actual numbers Fardiz Though I'm surprised there's no "other items".
thanks for the actual numbers Fardiz :) Though I'm surprised there's no "other items".
Group of adventures go into town, hit the local tavern. Within five minutes the party's thief is caught stealing from a merchant in the tavern. Group's Lawful Good Paladin is now between a rock and a hard place on what he should do next.
Seen it a thousand times and it never gets old. Never say a DM get involved either except when running the NPCs.
Everything you describe there is old. And tired. Why bother with the boring consequence of catching the thief stealing. Why risk the boring consequence of the paladin administering further justice to the thief?
Game I was in recently, the one that cemented my dislike of the return of alignment, one player was playing a thief and decided to steal from the wizard we were consulting. The cleric asked if he could see this and stop her. I asked why he was blocking the action of his fellow player, and he said it was because of his alignment. I was flabbergasted. No one had fun there, not even the cleric, who I'm pretty sure just thought he was supposed to do that for some reason. Then again, some people like that control over others. I'd just prefer they had fun with some other aspect of the game.
The player of the Lawful Good Paladin decided to pick that character's class, alignment and how to play them. Sure a DM can and might tell the Paladin Player how to roleplay but they shouldn't. Alignments should be a guideline not a bear trap. Depending on the system they have a purpose though, and players and DM should no what that is.
By the same token, the paladin should not tell anyone else how to play, either directly or by disincentives.
But I don't completely agree. Allow me to explain.
Divine characters should be defined as much by the deity as they are by the race and class they play. They serve that said deity, the reason for alignment restriction is so that the character is similar to the deity in regards to the morality, understanding and purpose of that deity.
Okay, sure, someone decided that a deity wouldn't empower someone with opposed views. I get that. But the mechanics don't actually bring that about. Nor do the rules (especially in 4e, but just as much in any other edition) adequately explain how to act similar to that deity. So, you have the right alignment for the deity, but nothing happens if you deviate from it. It's like having a certain blood type or hair color.
If you don't then the deity is simply an empty vessel game mechanic that is used to get the powers and abilities you want your character to desire.
Yes, just like any other class. I see no issue with that, because it's also a blank slate for the character, allowing the player to play the way they want, rather than trying to interpret vague guidelines in a book.
In previous editions a Paladin was a state of mind, a mentality if you will.
I will not. People may have wanted to see it that way, but it was just as much a bunch of mechanics then as it is now. People endowed it with some kind of mysticism, but that wasn't inherent to it. Plenty of people just wanted it because it had a lot of bells and whistles, or made them immune to a lot of the tricks the DM could try to pull, or because it gave them an excuse (they thought) to police the behavior of their fellow players.
It was only ever a class. Nothing prevents the paladin fans from playing a paladin as they always did. They personally just feel less special because they thought the class itself was only for certain people who could handle it. But it's not.
At my table players can play as they choose, but I see the lack of alignment as a way to kind of dumb down the game. If I wanted to play an MMO I would play it on my computer, not a gaming table.
Spoken like someone who developed skills for coping with the idiosyncrasies of a certain system, and dislikes those skills having been made obsolete in later versions of that system. My advice to people like that is not to devote much time to learning system-specific skills, but to skills that are useful in any edition of any system.
Everything you describe there is old. And tired. Why bother with the boring consequence of catching the thief stealing. Why risk the boring consequence of the paladin administering further justice to the thief?Game I was in recently, the one that cem
0.04% of Feats (1) 0.9% of Themes (1) 1.7% of Paragon Paths (10) 3.4% of EDs (4) 7.0% of Artifacts (4) 0% of Other Items (0)
Total game features (only counting the features listed above): 0.2% (20)
Tbh, I'm surprised it's that high, and with the bloat in content you could remove them all with no issue whatsoever but removing the alignment restriction would be the most sensible course.
Mind listing those items, or telling my your search criteria?
Mind listing those items, or telling my your search criteria?
The Deck of Many Things (Heroic) (+1 concordance being unaligned) The Deck of Many Things (Paragon) (+1 concordance being unaligned) Adamantine Horse of Xam (+2 concordance for being lawful good) Book of Vile Darkness (+4 concordance for becoming evil, If you are chaotic evil, all non-evil creatures must make opportunity attacks against you when you provoke them,Implement attack powers using this tome deal 2d10 extra damage to good-aligned targets.)
The last one is pretty messed up. This is its concordance chart:
Starting Score
5
Owner gains a level
+1d10
Owner becomes evil
+4
Owner kills a good ally
+4
Owner kills a good creature that’s not an ally
+2
Owner gains corruption points equal to highest ability modifier
+2
Owner performs an evil act
+1
Owner uses a healing power on an ally
–1
Owner performs a good act
–2
Owner removes corruption points by Remove Affliction ritual or similar magic
–4
I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that a "good act" is defined anywhere.
But this is such a tiny part of 4e, that it's better off ignored.
The four artifacts?The Deck of Many Things (Heroic) (+1 concordance being unaligned)The Deck of Many Things (Paragon) (+1 concordance being unaligned)Adamantine Horse of Xam (+2 concordance for being lawful good)Book of Vile Darkness (+4 concordance
Game I was in recently, the one that cemented my dislike of the return of alignment, one player was playing a thief and decided to steal from the wizard we were consulting. The cleric asked if he could see this and stop her. I asked why he was blocking the action of his fellow player, and he said it was because of his alignment. I was flabbergasted. No one had fun there, not even the cleric, who I'm pretty sure just thought he was supposed to do that for some reason. Then again, some people like that control over others. I'd just prefer they had fun with some other aspect of the game.
I've had players make the alignment statement for their actions. A player makes their actions nobody else. If the cleric had simply said that his character had a moral issue with stealing what would you have done?
By the same token, the paladin should not tell anyone else how to play, either directly or by disincentives.
True. But what if the player wants to play their character in that regard by telling people what they should do? What then? Once again it never says Paladins have to enforce their views on others, players who play them make that decision.
Okay, sure, someone decided that a deity wouldn't empower someone with opposed views. I get that. But the mechanics don't actually bring that about. Nor do the rules (especially in 4e, but just as much in any other edition) adequately explain how to act similar to that deity. So, you have the right alignment for the deity, but nothing happens if you deviate from it. It's like having a certain blood type or hair color.
Then a deity is simply a stepping stone for power. The player can disregard all edicts, rules, and culture designs by that deity.
Of course now the DM should do the same. Which means that if the players meet a NPC of an evil deity they shouldn't worry. After all the NPC could be the nicest guy in the world and simply ignored his deities rules too.
Also NPCs should now be cautious as well. A new paladin coming into town of a good god could in fact be a a murderous raider. Since the deity will do nothing to protect its good name.
Yes, just like any other class. I see no issue with that, because it's also a blank slate for the character, allowing the player to play the way they want, rather than trying to interpret vague guidelines in a book.
But the diety is not a blank slate, it has a purpose, and the player should have a purpose for choosing it. Or else what is the point of even having them?
I will not. People may have wanted to see it that way, but it was just as much a bunch of mechanics then as it is now. People endowed it with some kind of mysticism, but that wasn't inherent to it. Plenty of people just wanted it because it had a lot of bells and whistles, or made them immune to a lot of the tricks the DM could try to pull, or because it gave them an excuse (they thought) to police the behavior of their fellow players.
On Advanced D&D Paladins and other character like it were designed to be more powerful and were given alignment as a way of balancing it.
I didn't agree with it but I understood the reasoning or else why would people play a fighter at all?
Spoken like someone who developed skills for coping with the idiosyncrasies of a certain system, and dislikes those skills having been made obsolete in later versions of that system. My advice to people like that is not to devote much time to learning system-specific skills, but to skills that are useful in any edition of any system.
I don't feel my skills are obsolete in fact if anything they make me a better DM.
There are tons of other systems that have ways to control a players actions: Exalted, Legend of the 5 Rings, World of Darkness to name a few. Just because they don't call it alignment doesn't mean they aren't there.
As a DM you have a responsibiity to everyone at that table so they all have fun. If the players don't want alignment then you remove it from the game.
The reason why I LIKE alignment is because it seems to be pretty basic idea and seems help players I run for as a guideline as to be better heroes because the new edition is all about that being heroes.
A character can say they are a hero and do quite the opposite. If that is the game people like than great. If its not as a DM you have a responsibility for dealing with the problem.
Of course I play in that same regard.
Let me give one more example so you understand what I mean by all this:
Many years ago was about 16 I was in a game at Pacificon. I was in a 2nd edition D&D game. I played an elven fighter. My female friend who's father was your DM was playing an elven druid.
In the game there was four other players including a player who was playing a cleric. During that game the cleric stated that we would charge us 50 gp her heal. I stated that was totally fine because I would charge him 100gp to protect him from every enemy we came across.
He stated that was bull, I said so was his charging to heal my job was to protect, his was to heal.
Later during the last fight my friend's character dropped, the cleric went over to her character and began to remove her character's clothing and stated what he was going to do her, please use your imagination because I'm not repeating what he said in these forums.
I asked the player if he was serious, he stated he was. So on my next turn my character spun around and stabbed the cleric in the back. So did every other character at the table.
Then the player of the cleric got ticked turned to the DM to complain. The DM responded by stating that since nobody was no longer attacking the Thri-Keen they ceased attacking the party.
We then spend the next round killing the cleric. He stamped off in a huff. The DM told the convention and that player was asked to leave. At the time such actions were not allowed at the convention they wanted a clean convention.
Did I ruin someone else's fun? Yes but was it a good time for all? Heck no.
Players can do whatever they want but depending on what you do there can be consequences. You want to play a game where you can do whatever you want fine? But I play to be a hero unless the game.
I've had characters kill other characters, I've had characters do things I personally don't agree with. If a player desides to murder a person in a tavern in broad daylight the city guard is called. If they really wanted to do that then they should sneak into that NPCs room at night.
I've had players make the alignment statement for their actions. A player makes their actions nobody else. If the cleric had simply said that his character had a moral issue with stealing what would you have done?True. But what if the player wants
I am of the opinion that in any game there is a sort of social contract. Generally the social contract says that nobody is going to do anything really gross or work to ruin the fun. People who do should be kicked from the game their in without question. In game penalties shouldn't be used to deal with problem players.
I am of the opinion that in any game there is a sort of social contract. Generally the social contract says that nobody is going to do anything really gross or work to ruin the fun. People who do should be kicked from the game their in without ques
Then a deity is simply a stepping stone for power. The player can disregard all edicts, rules, and culture designs by that deity.
Of course now the DM should do the same. Which means that if the players meet a NPC of an evil deity they shouldn't worry. After all the NPC could be the nicest guy in the world and simply ignored his deities rules too.
Also NPCs should now be cautious as well. A new paladin coming into town of a good god could in fact be a a murderous raider. Since the deity will do nothing to protect its good name.
Exactly! You think you're arguing against this, but you totally aren't: The charlatan evangelist, the historically-toned crusader, the evil hero on the path back from darkness --look at all the interesting plot devices that abolishing alignment just let us have!
If you stop demanding the authors write the characters for you, you have the world to gain and nothing to lose but your ability to bitch about other people playing "wrong". And if that latter point actually bothers you? You're a jerk and you shouldn't be playing anyway.
On Advanced D&D Paladins and other character like it were designed to be more powerful and were given alignment as a way of balancing it.
They weren't though, fighters were stronger. Paladins were just shinier.
Exactly! You think you're arguing against this, but you totally aren't: The charlatan evangelist, the historically-toned crusader, the evil hero on the path back from darkness --look at all the interesting plot devices that abolishing alignment just
I am of the opinion that in any game there is a sort of social contract. Generally the social contract says that nobody is going to do anything really gross or work to ruin the fun. People who do should be kicked from the game their in without question. In game penalties shouldn't be used to deal with problem players.
I've really only had a problem with people like this with two people, the person I described above and a player that played at my table for years.
I've really only had a problem with people like this with two people, the person I described above and a player that played at my table for years.
As a specific example, if I'm a paladin in 4e, I can't be told that I have to help someone, or kill someone, or not help someone, or not kill someone. I don't have to rat out the party rogue because if I don't I'll lose my powers.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.
True, but there's a host of reasons why that's not enough to keep people from believing there is. There really wasn't an alignment-changing mechanic in 3.5, outside of certain spells, but it still happened.
Besides which, some people act as though the DM will punish them for alignment violations, so they feel they have to attack the thief for acting like a thief.
Divine characters still have alignment restrictions. If a Lawful Good Paladin desides to perform an act a DM considers Evil. The DM can still do something about it. It's just not as clearly defined.
Nor should it be. Why should the DM "do something about it"? What's it to the DM? If you're talking about having the world act in a way that's interesting to the players (if not the character), I'm all for it, but I suspect you mean penalizing the player in some way that the player will find so boring that they won't try the triggering action again.
And this is where the DM has to make his vision of alignment clear. If he/she does, and the player agrees and then ignores that vision, then who's fault is it when the DM says, "um your paladin lost his powers because you did (did not do) X and he is no longer lawful good"?
The alignment rules like all other D&D rules are intended as guidelines and can be and should be altered on a group to group basis. In this sense, the rules are fine as is (as I voted).
Everything you describe there is old. And tired. Why bother with the boring consequence of catching the thief stealing. Why risk the boring consequence of the paladin administering further justice to the thief?
I hate to say it, but this argument of yours is getting old and boring . You may find these situations boring but others have fun with them. Sometimes these small situations expand themselves into intra-party or party and society relations making for some very interesting events. It all depends on how the players and DM interpret and handle those small situations.
There is no actual in-game mechanic to do so.[/quote]True, but there's a host of reasons why that's not enough to keep people from believing there is. There really wasn't an alignment-changing mechanic in 3.5, outside of certain spells, but it still
And this is where the DM has to make his vision of alignment clear. If he/she does, and the player agrees and then ignores that vision, then who's fault is it when the DM says, "um your paladin lost his powers because you did (did not do) X and he is no longer lawful good"?
And this is where the DM has to make his vision of alignment clear. If he/she does, and the player agrees and then ignores that vision, then who's fault is it when the DM says, "um your paladin lost his powers because you did (did not do) X and he is no longer lawful good"?
The DM's. His vision of alignment is invalid.
read what I wrote: The DM expresses his vision on alignment and the player agrees to abide by the DM's vision (whether through simple agreement or discussion and compromise, the alignment system in the group has been determined). And then the player "breaks the rules" set ahead of time.
And that is the DM's fault?
The DM's. His vision of alignment is invalid.[/quote]read what I wrote: The DM expresses his vision on alignment and the player agrees to abide by the DM's vision (whether through simple agreement or discussion and compromise, the alignment system in
It is the DM's fault for using an archaic, restrictive, subjective mechanic.
The only proper use of alignment is to not use it.
In your opinion... And you have the right to that opinion, but not all DMs and players agree with you.
If you sat down in a game where the DM spelled out that he wanted to use alignment and how he intended to use it, and you respond by saying that alignment is a bad system and we should not use it, the options are simple:
1) you can simply leave the group, because you disagree with the DM. 2) you have a calm and rational discussion with the DM and maybe you can convince him to change his mind on the subject. 3) you abide by the DM's decision and play the game as he and the other players have agreed to play it
If you choose #3 (YOUR choice not the DM's) and then go against the DM and the other players, it cannot be the DM's fault no matter how much you want it to be.
In your opinion...And you have the right to that opinion, but not all DMs and players agree with you.If you sat down in a game where the DM spelled out that he wanted to use alignment and how he intended to use it, and you respond by saying that alig
I've had players make the alignment statement for their actions. A player makes their actions nobody else.
That's fine right up until those actions are used directly against another player's character, to block or control that other player's choices. In this game, the cleric player was making what seemed to him to be a valid choice, but it was blocking and potentially punishing a valid choice by the rogue, a choice that has no impact on the cleric except if inaction on the cleric's part violates his alignment and causes him to be punished.
If the cleric had simply said that his character had a moral issue with stealing what would you have done?
Nothing. His character having a moral issue with stealing does not block the rogue's action.
If the player has an issue with the action, the two players can discuss the issue. Mechanics should not be used to control player behavior. This is the core issue with alignment misuse.
Okay, sure, someone decided that a deity wouldn't empower someone with opposed views. I get that. But the mechanics don't actually bring that about. Nor do the rules (especially in 4e, but just as much in any other edition) adequately explain how to act similar to that deity. So, you have the right alignment for the deity, but nothing happens if you deviate from it. It's like having a certain blood type or hair color.
Then a deity is simply a stepping stone for power. The player can disregard all edicts, rules, and culture designs by that deity.
Then they're no different than a character that isn't required to choose a deity. And why should they be? Ideally, they're also no more powerful, because why should following a edicts, rules, and culture designs provide a character class with more power? And if they are more powerful, but the edicts, rules, and culture designs are easy to follow, then where's the balance?
From this dilemma springs the idea that playing an alignment must be challenging, that paladins must be in danger of falling, that clerics should be put in compromising positions. From this springs overly conservative alignment play, so as to avoid any traps the DM might set.
Of course now the DM should do the same. Which means that if the players meet a NPC of an evil deity they shouldn't worry. After all the NPC could be the nicest guy in the world and simply ignored his deities rules too.
Also NPCs should now be cautious as well. A new paladin coming into town of a good god could in fact be a a murderous raider. Since the deity will do nothing to protect its good name.
A real deity isn't going to have to worry about the actions of a single individual.
Yes, just like any other class. I see no issue with that, because it's also a blank slate for the character, allowing the player to play the way they want, rather than trying to interpret vague guidelines in a book.
But the diety is not a blank slate, it has a purpose, and the player should have a purpose for choosing it. Or else what is the point of even having them?
There is no point. It's just flavor, like hair color, or sword style. It's guidance, but not stricture.
People want there to be a point, but there's nothing consistent, which leads to problems.
I'd say that's the main issue. I don't care what someone's interpretation of alignment is, as long as they leave me and my character alone about it.
As I've stated before alignment is a guideline. If someone bothers you about it, it's going to be a DM or another player.
Well, yeah. The issue is that people DO bother me about it, and I can either be pushed around, or engage in an interminable argument about interpretations.
I will not. People may have wanted to see it that way, but it was just as much a bunch of mechanics then as it is now. People endowed it with some kind of mysticism, but that wasn't inherent to it. Plenty of people just wanted it because it had a lot of bells and whistles, or made them immune to a lot of the tricks the DM could try to pull, or because it gave them an excuse (they thought) to police the behavior of their fellow players.
On Advanced D&D Paladins and other character like it were designed to be more powerful and were given alignment as a way of balancing it.
I didn't agree with it but I understood the reasoning or else why would people play a fighter at all?
Because they didn't have the stats to play a Paladin. As I recall, stats needed to be rolled, and there were other multiclassing restrictions for being a paladin. Being a fighter was simply easier to qualify for. Some DMs removed all the other restrictions because players wanted to play paladins, and that left alignment as the only apparent restriction. But alignment can't function as a restriction without a player agreeing to a DM's interpretation. Other in-game restrictions don't work that way.
Spoken like someone who developed skills for coping with the idiosyncrasies of a certain system, and dislikes those skills having been made obsolete in later versions of that system. My advice to people like that is not to devote much time to learning system-specific skills, but to skills that are useful in any edition of any system.
I don't feel my skills are obsolete in fact if anything they make me a better DM.
Your skills having to do with understanding alignment have no utility in 4th Edition. It doesn't surprise me then that you find 4th Edition "dumbed down." Anyone can deal with it, unlike past editions which require mastery like yours.
There are tons of other systems that have ways to control a players actions: Exalted, Legend of the 5 Rings, World of Darkness to name a few. Just because they don't call it alignment doesn't mean they aren't there.
And tons of other systems don't have those things. Controlling players is bad. I stand by this. If you can't play with a player, easily misinterpreted rules are not going to change that.
A character can say they are a hero and do quite the opposite. If that is the game people like than great. If its not as a DM you have a responsibility for dealing with the problem.
Yes, but that is the time to talk to the player. Trying to do it in game is almost always an inferior and more problematic approach.
In the game there was four other players including a player who was playing a cleric. During that game the cleric stated that we would charge us 50 gp her heal. I stated that was totally fine because I would charge him 100gp to protect him from every enemy we came across.
You are using in-game methods to retaliate for an out-of-game insult. Mistake 1.
I asked the player if he was serious, he stated he was. So on my next turn my character spun around and stabbed the cleric in the back. So did every other character at the table.
You continue to deal with out-of-game problems in-game. Mistake 2.
We then spend the next round killing the cleric. He stamped off in a huff. The DM told the convention and that player was asked to leave. At the time such actions were not allowed at the convention they wanted a clean convention.
The convention should have been told as soon as the cleric's player started acting lewdly.
Players can do whatever they want but depending on what you do there can be consequences.
And if those consequences punish the player instead of making things interesting for the player, then the DM should have addressed the problem by talking to the player, rather than attempting to passively solve the problem in-game.
You want to play a game where you can do whatever you want fine? But I play to be a hero unless the game.
I think some words are missing there. I think you should play the way I want, and I should play the way I want, and neither you nor the DM should try to use the game to get me to change. Talk to me about it, like a mature person.
If a player desides to murder a person in a tavern in broad daylight the city guard is called. If they really wanted to do that then they should sneak into that NPCs room at night.
What's the point in calling the city guard? What happens: the players kill the guards and cause more trouble, or they're captured. Boring. If you want the players to act a certain way, TALK TO THEM AS PLAYERS.
And this is where the DM has to make his vision of alignment clear. If he/she does, and the player agrees and then ignores that vision, then who's fault is it when the DM says, "um your paladin lost his powers because you did (did not do) X and he is no longer lawful good"?
It's the game's fault for assuming that taking away a character's power is ever an interesting or fun thing to do.
The alignment rules like all other D&D rules are intended as guidelines and can be and should be altered on a group to group basis. In this sense, the rules are fine as is (as I voted).
They are easily misunderstood otherwise. Until this is changed, they are not fine.
Everything you describe there is old. And tired. Why bother with the boring consequence of catching the thief stealing. Why risk the boring consequence of the paladin administering further justice to the thief?
You may find these situations boring but others have fun with them. Sometimes these small situations expand themselves into intra-party or party and society relations making for some very interesting events.
It all depends on how the players and DM interpret and handle those small situations.
There are lots of other consequences that could be imposed that have less of a tendancy to be as boring as blocking actions usually is. Why not spend time on those, instead of risking a waste of everyone's time on something that "sometimes" is interesting?
That's fine right up until those actions are used directly against another player's character, to block or control that other player's choices. In this game, the cleric player was making what seemed to him to be a valid choice, but it was blocking an
Forgot one: Basic D&D Alignments:Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic. ("Good" and "Evil" were subjectively applied, either by intent or, more simply, "different alignment than you.")
Forgot one:Basic D&D Alignments: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic. ("Good" and "Evil" were subjectively applied, either by intent or, more simply, "different alignment than you.")
Basic D&D Alignments:Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic. ("Good" and "Evil" were subjectively applied, either by intent or, more simply, "different alignment than you.")
I have to admit that I don't remember any mention of "good" or "evil" in that way in the Red Box. And it was very easy to assume that "chaotic" meant "evil" since things like skeletons were evil. But if alignment really worked that way in Basic, then I really this it's as good as alignment has ever been. Things like Protection from Evil still existed in that set, and anyone could use them, with relative effect, but the connotations of "good" and "evil" were out of the picture, at least as far as making someone behave.
Forgot one:Basic D&D Alignments: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic. ("Good" and "Evil" were subjectively applied, either by intent or, more simply, "different alignment than you.")[/quote]I have to admit that I don't remember any mention of "good" or "evil"
If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.[/quote]Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.
If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.
But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.[/quote]Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.[/quote]But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.
If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.
But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.
Just because you use a pita, does not make it less a sandwich.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.[/quote]Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.[/quote]But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.[/quote]Just
If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.
But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.
Just because you use a pita, does not make it less a sandwich.
Oh, good. But it's still okay if I make it with light mayo, right?
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.[/quote]Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.[/quote]But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.[/quote]Just
I have to admit that I don't remember any mention of "good" or "evil" in that way in the Red Box. And it was very easy to assume that "chaotic" meant "evil" since things like skeletons were evil. But if alignment really worked that way in Basic, then I really this it's as good as alignment has ever been. Things like Protection from Evil still existed in that set, and anyone could use them, with relative effect, but the connotations of "good" and "evil" were out of the picture, at least as far as making someone behave.
On re-reading the Red Box manual, you're right; they actually were pretty explicit on that, when it came to the two sections on Alignment, in both the Moldvay & Mentzner versions of the rules, which used the same wordings....
Alignment: How characters and monsters behave Take a moment, now, and think about how your character behaved. The fighter was one of the “good guys.” You wanted to do the right things; for example, you brought the cleric back home with you. On the other hand, the magicuser and the goblin were the “bad guys.” They didn’t care whether you lived or died, just what they could get from you - selfish, and nasty besides.
There is a way to describe how your character behaves in the game; it is called Alignment. Your fighter’s Alignment is called Lawful, he tries to protect others and defeat monsters.
Aleena the cleric was also Lawful. This is one reason why you became friends. Your Charisma helped when you first met her, but if your Alignments were different, you probably wouldn’t have been so friendly to each other.
Bargle, the magic-user, had a different Alignment than yours. He was Chaotic, the opposite of Lawful. He was selfish, cared only about himself and steals from others. Most people don’t like chaotic’s. You two wouldn’t normally become friends at all (except for the spell he cast, that magically forced you to be his friend for a short time).
Monsters have alignments, too. The goblin and the ghouls were Chaotic. But the snake wasn’t really bad or good (although it certainly was dangerous). Its Alignment is called Neutral. It will fight to protect itself and will help others, if that will help it, but is mostly concerned with surviving. Neutral doesn’t mean stupid (Alignment has nothing to do with Intelligence); it means a balance, an average between the Law and Chaos. The snake was just a typical animal, trying to stay alive and get something to eat.
same source, p.55
Character Alignment
Three basic ways of life guide the acts of both player characters and monsters. Each way of life is called an alignment. The three alignments are named Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Each alignment has a language that includes hand signals and other body motions. Player characters always know how to speak their alignment language in addition to any others they may know. If a monster is able to speak, it will also be able to use its alignment language.
Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the DM. Most Lawful characters will reveal their alignment if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other player characters. The alignments give guidelines for characters to live by. The characters will try to follow these guidelines, but may not always be successful. If a DM feels that a player is not keeping to a character’s chosen alignment, the DM may suggest a change of alignment or give the character a punishment or penalty.
Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful characters always try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are fair and just.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called “good.”
Chaos (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world. Everything happens by accident and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted, their behavior is hard to predict. They have strong belief in the power of luck. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called “evil.”
Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together. A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered “good” or “evil” (or neither), depending on the situation.
Example of Alignment Behavior
THE SITUATION: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the group, whatever the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger gets too great, the character will try to save himself (or herself), even at the expense of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or might run away. The character will not care what happens to the rest of the party.
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions. Player characters and intelligent monsters will always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages are not written down, nor may they be learned unless a character changes alignment. When this happens, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately.
Note that playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score shows, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
However, in the section on Spells, this was handled a little differently. In the Mentzner version, "Protection from Evil" simply protected the spellcaster from all attacks with an effective bonus to AC & Saves and almost full protection from "Enchanted creatures." Detect Evil was even more vague, affecting "evilly enchanted objects" and "creatures that want to harm" the spellcaster. Moldvay, on the other hand, included sentences that got omitted by Mentzner:
From Detect Evil: "The exact definition of 'evil' is left to each referee, and players should discuss this point so that all are in agreement."
From Protection from Evil: "This spell serves as some protection from 'evil' attacks (attacks by monsters of some alignment other than the cleric's alignment)...."
Furthermore, in Mystara setting, Lawful/Chaotic were even more separate from good/evil, as evidenced by the organized religions of Karameikos. The Church of Traladara is associated with Chaos, but tends to be the more lenient and accepting of the two religions; the Church of Karameikos, associated with Law, is far more strict (though still not as bad as the Church of Thyatis from which it schismed), and tends to be imposed upon the native populace. From my own personal point of view (as both a neo-pagan and a unitarian-universalist), that makes the CoT "good" and the CoK "evil."
Thus, as I said, it strikes me as very subjective and eye-of-the-beholder, in terms of Good vs Evil. There's clearly stuff that is Good, and there's clearly stuff that is Evil; but there's also stuff that can be both. I know "moral relativism" is viewed negatively, but in all serious, there are a lot of things which one religion considrs "evil" and another one considers "good," even from religions that otherwise share similar/identical pantheons, histories, and tenets of belief. If people who do religion and philosophy professionally can't get their scheisse straight, how could a bunch of gamers be expected to do so?
On re-reading the Red Box manual, you're right; they actually were pretty explicit on that, when it came to the two sections on Alignment, in both the Moldvay & Mentzner versions of the rules, which used the same wordings....Basic D&D, on Alignment
Bargle, the magic-user, had a different Alignment than yours. He was Chaotic, the opposite of Lawful. He was selfish, cared only about himself and steals from others. Most people don’t like chaotic’s. You two wouldn’t normally become friends at all (except for the spell he cast, that magically forced you to be his friend for a short time).
When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other player characters.
We can see here where one might easily get the impression that one is misplaying one's Chaotic alignment if one is at all trustworthy, or gets along with any other character. Then again, it's clearly implied that the players should not be Chaotic.
If a DM feels that a player is not keeping to a character’s chosen alignment, the DM may suggest a change of alignment or give the character a punishment or penalty.
There it is. Anyone who started out on Basic, as I did, would have the strong impression that characters can be given a "punishment or penalty." A very vague suggestion, and not really one conducive to fun play between friends. That wording is pretty shocking. Did the DM section go into more detail?
Note that playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score shows, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Don't get me started on acting as intelligently as one's Intelligence score. That's almost as bad as alignment.
However, in the section on Spells, this was handled a little differently. In the Mentzner version, "Protection from Evil" simply protected the spellcaster from all attacks with an effective bonus to AC & Saves and almost full protection from "Enchanted creatures." Detect Evil was even more vague, affecting "evilly enchanted objects" and "creatures that want to harm" the spellcaster. Moldvay, on the other hand, included sentences that got omitted by Mentzner:
From Detect Evil: "The exact definition of 'evil' is left to each referee, and players should discuss this point so that all are in agreement."
From Protection from Evil: "This spell serves as some protection from 'evil' attacks (attacks by monsters of some alignment other than the cleric's alignment)...."
Ah, okay, so it wasn't universally described as relative, but one could read between the lines here and extend this example to the rest of the game.
Thus, as I said, it strikes me as very subjective and eye-of-the-beholder, in terms of Good vs Evil. There's clearly stuff that is Good, and there's clearly stuff that is Evil; but there's also stuff that can be both. I know "moral relativism" is viewed negatively, but in all serious, there are a lot of things which one religion considrs "evil" and another one considers "good," even from religions that otherwise share similar/identical pantheons, histories, and tenets of belief. If people who do religion and philosophy professionally can't get their scheisse straight, how could a bunch of gamers be expected to do so?
I think it's because alignment is so simplistic. Once anything more interesting than killing skeletons becomes part of play, of course contradictions are going to arise.
Thanks for the quotes. Did you type those out by hand?
[/quote]Ah, memories, and not altogether good ones.[/quote]We can see here where one might easily get the impression that one is misplaying one's Chaotic alignment if one is at all trustworthy, or gets along with any other character. Then again, it's
There it is. Anyone who started out on Basic, as I did, would have the strong impression that characters can be given a "punishment or penalty." A very vague suggestion, and not really one conducive to fun play between friends. That wording is pretty shocking. Did the DM section go into more detail?
Alignment is the way a player wants to play a character, either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. Sometimes a player forgets (or ignores) the alignment of his character, and plays the adventurer incorrectly. You should talk privately with the player about the problem, and encourage the proper play of alignment. Never threaten or tease a player during a game; deal with the problem in private.
If the problem continues after you have warned the player more than once, you may tell the player to change the alignment of the character to the different alignment actually being played. A penalty may be applied at this time, such as the loss of one level of experience, a valued item, etc. If you penalize alignment changes, you should also reward good alignment play (for example), by increasing experience awarded, treasures or changing monsters to make them easier to defeat.
Be sure that you are playing the alignments of monsters correctly! The players may respond to unfairness by refusing to play in your game.
If a change of alignment occurs due to the effects of a magic item (such as a Helm of Alignment Changing, or a curse), no penalty should be applied. Take the player aside and explain the situation. A good player will cooperate, playing the new alignment well, resulting in more fun for all. The original alignment should return after a period of time (after the curse or Helm is removed).
That sort of thing does affect player options, by the way. When I was a player in 2nd edition, using the 9 point scale, I pretty much always picked Chaotic Good (Chaotic Neutral otherwise) characters simply because, as a libertarian/rational anarchist, that was where I personally was, and so it was easier to pick that as an alignment, so that I would be able to stick to my alignment better. The threat of alignment punishment discouraged me from playing characters outside my comfort zone.
When I introduced my friends to 4e for a tabletop game, they had similar issues: they explicitly didn't want to play a Paladin because they didn't want to have to be Lawful Good (with the paladin from Dorkness Rising being the ideal of their visions). I had to spend about 15 minutes explaining to them the whole thing about 4e alignment and the changes to the system; after which, they've run paladins of Avandra, the Raven Queen, and Pelor, feeling a lot more willing to take the risks in order to play interesting characters. Without the rod of alignment hanging over their heads, they were much more willing to eat the carrot of enjoyable characters.
Thanks for the quotes. Did you type those out by hand?
Mentzner stuff no, Moldvay stuff yes. I'll leave it at that....
Mentzner did, Moldvay did not.DM Section regarding Alignment
Show
Alignment ChangesAlignment is the way a player wants to play a character, either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. Sometimes a player forgets (or ignores) the alignment of his charac
If the player has an issue with the action, the two players can discuss the issue. Mechanics should not be used to control player behavior. This is the core issue with alignment misuse.
That's fine right up until those actions are used directly against another player's character, to block or control that other player's choices.
So if a player character has moral issue with an action by another player it's ok until that player decides to use their action player to stop another player from performing that action?
By not allowing it you are condoning a player from doing an action. Isn't this is form of social control?
Even if mechanical is that not a form of controlling a player as a DM?
I've decided to break this up so not to have extremely long posts.I find some of following statements them contradictory: So if a player character has moral issue with an action by another player it's ok until that player decides to use their action
Regardless, it's apparently easy for players to believe that they must enforce their views. This is a real thing that happens.
The point I was making was that nowhere in alignment no code of conduct is a Paladin required to enforce his view on others, therefore the player makes that decision. If a player comes to that conclusion it's the DM job to explain it to them.
There is no point. It's just flavor, like hair color, or sword style. It's guidance, but not stricture.
People want there to be a point, but there's nothing consistent, which leads to problems.
I submit they are choosing where there powers come from.
Martial - power comes from training.
Arcane - power comes from study knowledge and lore.
Primal - power comes from nature and primal energies.
Psionic - Power comes from psionic abilities either learned within you.
Divine - Power comes from a deity of your choosing.
The description of Clerics, Paladins, Avengers etc are pretty clear where the power comes from and what that class is requested to do for the selected deity.
If a player wants to play a Striker class they have a huge selection to chose from. Its stands to reason that if they select a Divine powered striker it has to do with the background as much as the powers and how they play in game.
The point I was making was that nowhere in alignment no code of conduct is a Paladin required to enforce his view on others, therefore the player makes that decision. If a player comes to that conclusion it's the DM job to explain it to them.I submit
Well, yeah. The issue is that people DO bother me about it, and I can either be pushed around, or engage in an interminable argument about interpretations.
4th Edition has no such design. You and those arguing it are holding onto archaic principals of previous editions with that design.
4th Edition has no such design. You and those arguing it are holding onto archaic principals of previous editions with that design.
What's the point in calling the city guard? What happens: the players kill the guards and cause more trouble, or they're captured. Boring. If you want the players to act a certain way, TALK TO THEM AS PLAYERS.
I think you should play the way I want, and I should play the way I want, and neither you nor the DM should try to use the game to get me to change. Talk to me about it, like a mature person.
And if those consequences punish the player instead of making things interesting for the player, then the DM should have addressed the problem by talking to the player, rather than attempting to passively solve the problem in-game.
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
A player can perform any action they see fit in-game.
A DM shouldn't perform any action that penalizes a player for an action they decide to do that might be negative player's views in-game.
Another player shouldn't perform any action another player decides to do that might be negative to that player's views in game.
I feel the need to explain my issue with this.
So a group of adventurers go into town. The Fighter decides he likes the inn. So he kills the inkeeper for the deed. The mage decides he wants the table closest to the fireplace so he kills the people sitting at it. Meanwhile the rogue steals everything from everyone in the tavern.
In order of fun for all...
The city guard is not called because that would take away from the players fun.
The NPCs in the tavern just sit there because if they say anything that would detract from the players fun.
If any of the players get their stuff stolen by the rogue they shouldn't say anything because that would detract from the players fun.
The characters decide to fight some orcs, they charge into the cavern and attack. When the Orcs attack they drop the Wizard who gets ticked because he's down, and now he can't do any actions except for death saves until healed. Perhaps we should not have the orcs attack because by doing so it detracts from the player's fun.
Now after game a DM can talk to your players about their actions. Of course since there is no in-game consequences and if they are having fun then you're at an impasse.
Let me explain why I brought up my Cyberpunk game:
When I ran Cyberpunk it was fun for the player for awhile, eventually they asked to start another campaign. When I asked why some of them stated that they felt the whole grey world was frustrating.
When I asked why they said because they felt then couldn't trust anyone. I asked they felt if they could trust each other's characters, some felt they could and others felt they couldn't. After discussion on if everyone was comfortable with change the game system I asked what they wanted to play. They told me Dungeons and Dragons.
Most Dungeons and Dragons games are a structured game world in this design, good is good, evil is evil. Good fights evil. 4th Edition suggests that the players play heroes but they don't have to. If I were to run a game like seems to be suggested Dungeons and Dragons not only becomes more like Cyberpunk it becomes even less realistic because in real life actions have consequences.
Let me see if I understand you correctly: A player can perform any action they see fit in-game. A DM shouldn't perform any action that penalizes a player for an action they decide to do that might be negative player's views in-game. Another player s
It doesn't surprise me then that you find 4th Edition "dumbed down." Anyone can deal with it, unlike past editions which require mastery like yours.
First I make to claim to be a master of previous editions.
As for why I think its "dumbed down"? I thought it was pretty blatant but I suppose I should be specific:
4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons
Each player selects a class
Each class has a role designation in which you are suggested to fullfill.
Each class has a selection of powers and skills to chose from.
Most classes have additional options (Builds) depending on how you want your character to perform.
When a player performs an action in combat they select from their chose of options:
The types of abilities are essentially the following At-Will, Encounter, Daily has a amount of time in which it can be used again.
Some powers require you to have specific weapons and/or armament to use them.
Selecting feats that complement these powers is suggested.
World of Warcraft MMO
Each player selects a class
Most classes have additional options (Talent Trees) depending on how you want your character to perform.
Each class has a role designation in which you are suggested to fulfill.
Each class has a selection of powers to chose from.
When a player performs an action in combat they select a power or ability from the toolbar.
Each power or ability has a specific amount of time in which it can be reactivated.
Some powers require you to have specific weapons and/or armament to use them.
So you select a power instead of pushing a button. But in previous editions you simply said what you were going to do. Yes you had powers but unless you were a mage they didn't follow the same basic rules.
First I make to claim to be a master of previous editions. As for why I think its "dumbed down"? I thought it was pretty blatant but I suppose I should be specific:4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Each player selects a class Each class has a role d
I submit the following comments about 4th Edition and alignments. Although I don't agree with all of it and I expect no one else to, I think there are a few interesting comments that can be observed here.
I submit the following comments about 4th Edition and alignments. Although I don't agree with all of it and I expect no one else to, I think there are a few interesting comments that can be observed here.dungeonsmaster.com/2010/11/alignment/
You may wonder why I seem so annoyed that that idea of alignments being removed. Here are the basic reasons:
I haven't had issue in my games with alignment.
I like them
My players like them.
If you remove alignment from Dungeons and Dragons then it is gone. You have your way, but I don't have mine, and what is more important to me my PLAYERS don't have their way.
Sure I can recreate it, but there is no place for it on the sheet, then I have to decides how I wish to do it.
But I completely understand and respect why some people don't like them.
Your fun shouldn't be taken away just as much as my fun.
Fun should be had by all.
So here is my solution:
Alignments become OPTIONAL
Players can decide if they want it as a guideline for roleplaying.
The only thing I see it being required is RPGA since joining them is optional anyway and they have rules for everything.
You may wonder why I seem so annoyed that that idea of alignments being removed. Here are the basic reasons: I haven't had issue in my games with alignment. I like them My players like them. If you remove alignment from Dungeons and Dragons then it
And this is where the DM has to make his vision of alignment clear. If he/she does, and the player agrees and then ignores that vision, then who's fault is it when the DM says, "um your paladin lost his powers because you did (did not do) X and he is no longer lawful good"?
The DM's. His vision of alignment is invalid.
read what I wrote: The DM expresses his vision on alignment and the player agrees to abide by the DM's vision (whether through simple agreement or discussion and compromise, the alignment system in the group has been determined). And then the player "breaks the rules" set ahead of time.
And that is the DM's fault?
Yep. Same thing you said earlier. That's exactly WHY it's his fault: He is a control freak.
The DM's. His vision of alignment is invalid.[/quote]read what I wrote: The DM expresses his vision on alignment and the player agrees to abide by the DM's vision (whether through simple agreement or discussion and compromise, the alignment system in
If you remove alignment from Dungeons and Dragons then it is gone. You have your way, but I don't have mine, and what is more important to me my PLAYERS don't have their way.
Nope, that's a lie. You can add all the personal houserules you want, and you know it. The actual concern is that you know that if they're removed from the default system, then you'll have no authority to appeal to when attempting to inflict the system on people who dislike it.
Nope, that's a lie. You can add all the personal houserules you want, and you know it. The actual concern is that you know that if they're removed from the default system, then you'll have no authority to appeal to when attempting to inflict the syst
Nope, that's a lie. You can add all the personal houserules you want, and you know it. The actual concern is that you know that if they're removed from the default system, then you'll have no authority to appeal to when attempting to inflict the system on people who dislike it.
First off I stated I can add it in.
What is more work for a DM?
Ignoring the alignment system? Or adding an alignment system after it has been removed?
The actual concern is that you know that if they're removed from the default system, then you'll have no authority to appeal to when attempting to inflict the system on people who dislike it.
Don't put words in my mouth.
If I actually beleived that I would suggested having alignment optional and it being a guideline for players only.
The only authority of I have to my players is for them to have a good time. That is a DM's job.
First off I stated I can add it in. What is more work for a DM?Ignoring the alignment system? Or adding an alignment system after it has been removed?Don't put words in my mouth.If I actually beleived that I would suggested having alignment optional
I find some of following statements them contradictory:
~ quotes omitted for space, because the following summarizes it succinctly ~
So if a player character has moral issue with an action by another player it's ok until that player decides to use their action player to stop another player from performing that action?
By not allowing it you are condoning a player from doing an action. Isn't this is form of social control?
Even if mechanical is that not a form of controlling a player as a DM?
I cannot speak to the original poster, but I sort of agree with you in that — and, for the record, I'm on the other side of the argument from you. However, some of the wording is a bit ambiguous, so I'm going to restate them simply, as my opinions:
• If a Character has a moral issue with what another Character does, and handles it In Character, that's ok; that's the consequence of one's actions, and is pure RP, with no mechanical enforcement.
• If a Player has a moral issue with what another Player does, and handles it (preferably maturely) Out of Character, that's ok; that's the whole working things out thing between two individual people.
• It's when the two cross — when people take "character disagreements" to the table, or "table disagreements" into the RP — that's where the problems exist.
The point I was making was that nowhere in alignment no code of conduct is a Paladin required to enforce his view on others, therefore the player makes that decision. If a player comes to that conclusion it's the DM job to explain it to them.
Actually, that's not true. Each "code of conduct" is different. And if the person playing Lawful Good decides that their "code of conduct" means intervening in such situations, then a failure to do so would be contrary to that "code of conduct."
The DM's job shouldn't be to tell people who to, or how not to, roleplay. The DM's job should be helping to craft a world in which the players may act as characters and immerse themselves, in some form or another. To achieve that goal, if there is a repeated source of conflict, then it is in the DM's best interests to remove that source of conflict.
If that "source of conflict" happens to be the Enforcement of Alignment mechanics? Then it's the DM's job to remove them.
Divine - Power comes from a deity of your choosing.
The description of Clerics, Paladins, Avengers etc are pretty clear where the power comes from and what that class is requested to do for the selected deity.
If a player wants to play a Striker class they have a huge selection to chose from. Its stands to reason that if they select a Divine powered striker it has to do with the background as much as the powers and how they play in game.
This fails to explain how/why Alignment Enforcement Mechanics are necessary/required? I've played a Paladin using the Thief class and the Ordained Priest theme. I've seen a Bard with a multiclass feat refluffed as a Paladin of a goddess of music. I've seen and played Avengers of the Raven Queen who are assassins. I've NPC'd good followers of Bane and evil followers of Bahamat.
If someone wishes to play a character that derives their power from the Divine, there's nothing that says that they must be forced to maintain any strict alignment. If anything, having to maintain such a strict alignment, in my opinion reduces the storytelling opportunities.
Most Dungeons and Dragons games are a structured game world in this design, good is good, evil is evil. Good fights evil. 4th Edition suggests that the players play heroes but they don't have to. If I were to run a game like seems to be suggested Dungeons and Dragons not only becomes more like Cyberpunk it becomes even less realistic because in real life actions have consequences.
I've rarely played in such a game, and I've played a lot of D&D. Good is Good except when it's Evil masquerading as Good. Evil is Evil except when it is in it's best interests to be Good, or when it becomes rehabilitated. Sometimes Evil becomes Evil because of the actions of the Good; sometimes Good becomes Good because of the actions of the Evil. My group tends to ascribe to the anti-hero mentality, as in Serenity/Firefly, and be Big Damned Heroes.
I do not begrudge you and your group your story and game. You're more than welcome to play it. But don't presume what anyone else plays to be identical. And don't assume that that's what we want or need. Sometimes, the heroes aren't obvious.
As for why I think its "dumbed down"? I thought it was pretty blatant but I suppose I should be specific:
~ Inane comparison of D&D to a video game ~
So you select a power instead of pushing a button. But in previous editions you simply said what you were going to do. Yes you had powers but unless you were a mage they didn't follow the same basic rules.
I have a tabletop group with 7 people (including myself). Care to guess how many have ever player a MMO? None. So I couldn't tell you how accurate your comparisons between the two are.
Again, it doesn't mean a damned thing, with regard to the topic in question (Alignment). However, I will address it. Is 4th edition simplified, compared to other editions? Sure it is. That's part of the draw. That's part of the attraction. There's far less time explaining to new players what to do and how to do it. There's far less of a learning curve. There's not the "I know you want to play a magic user, but that class is too complex for you to learn; here, play this fighter instead, and work up to it."
Once you get the basic of 4e mechanics for any one class, you can play anything you want. Once you get the basics of any other edition's mechanics for any one class, you have at least 3 more classes you have to figure out.
I submit the following comments about 4th Edition and alignments. Although I don't agree with all of it and I expect no one else to, I think there are a few interesting comments that can be observed here.
More than half of whom either supported the "dilution" of alignment in 4e or were ambivalent to it.
I liked this one the best:
Let me start of by asking based on the old 9 slot alignment chart where would you put a character like “Tony Soprano”? Depending on which episode you watched there are probably arguments that he could fall into all 9.
Society labels a person with an alignment. It is very rare that an individual will see themselves as “Evil”, even those that are deemed so by the larger society will have justifications for their evil acts.
The sooner D&D distances itself from alignments the better. Judge players on their Roleplay and characters on their actions.
You may wonder why I seem so annoyed that that idea of alignments being removed. Here are the basic reasons:
I haven't had issue in my games with alignment.
I like them
My players like them.
If you remove alignment from Dungeons and Dragons then it is gone. You have your way, but I don't have mine, and what is more important to me my PLAYERS don't have their way.
Sure I can recreate it, but there is no place for it on the sheet, then I have to decides how I wish to do it.
But I completely understand and respect why some people don't like them.
Your fun shouldn't be taken away just as much as my fun.
Fun should be had by all.
So here is my solution:
Alignments become OPTIONAL
Players and DMs decide if they want it.
The only thing I see it being required is RPGA since joining them is optional anyway and they have rules for everything.
In 4e, alignment is optional. Players and DMs can decide if they want it. And if it's optional for regular play, then it should definitely be optional for the RPGA; otherwise, different DMs and their differing opinions on what each alignment means/should be handled would get to be far too complex. If I'm DMing something and I believe that the Lawful Good character did something evil, but a previous DM didn't — or vice versa — then there'd be too many ambiguities and inconsistencies.
And I've decided to recombine it, so as to not be posting 8 times consecutively.I cannot speak to the original poster, but I sort of agree with you in that — and, for the record, I'm on the other side of the argument from you. However, some of
I submit the following comments about 4th Edition and alignments. Although I don't agree with all of it and I expect no one else to, I think there are a few interesting comments that can be observed here.
Flawed from start to finish, and not particularly interesting either. It's a reactionary hackjob without the slightest hint of understanding. Let's break it down by parts:
Missing alignments. Anyone complaining about "missing alignments" in 4e needs to read some fricking neuroscience. 9-point was meaningless box-filling, while alignments in 4e correspond to observed moral bases. It's still imperfect, but it's a huge step forward in reducing the degree to which alignment is active disinformation.
Changing alignments. This isn't even an argument, it's a facile description of something imaginary.
Repercussions. "In 4e D&D there are no in-game repressions for changing your alignment." is the sort of mentally handcuffed nonsense that makes me weep for the state of roleplaying. And not just because he can't spell. (Or is "repression" a Freudian slip?) There are whatever in-game repercussions for behavior you want, what there aren't are metagame repercussions. Story choices are resolved by more story, not by preventatively banning stories some closed-minded author didn't deign to support with a given class.
Alignment in Your Game. The best thing I can say about this section is that at least he's nice enough to say "It may not resonate as all that important to ... newer players", and tip his hand to anyone who hadn't yet caught on that he's a total ****. His advice is straight-up antiroleplay authoritarianism: "Constantly remind your players that they must stay within the boundaries of stereotype!" If this is the sort of fascistic crap you think of as good DMing, Grimli, then I'm afraid I'm losing respect for you by the letter.
Flawed from start to finish, and not particularly interesting either. It's a reactionary hackjob without the slightest hint of understanding. Let's break it down by parts:Missing alignments. Anyone complaining about "missing alignments" in 4e needs t
The only authority of I have to my players is for them to have a good time. That is a DM's job.
If that's the case, then why do you seek to impose such limitations upon them?
Granted, your players seem (according to you) to want the "Obvious Good vs Blatant Evil" sort of game, and I won't begrudge them that if it's what they want.
But that doesn't mean that you have to have mechanical restrictions on alignment, either. The lack of the one does nothing to prevent the set-up of the other.
Then why are you trying to enforce your way of thinking upon players you've never even met?If that's the case, then why do you seek to impose such limitations upon them?Granted, your players seem (according to you) to want the "Obvious Good vs Blatan
I feel that people on this thread are taking my comments out of context so allow me to try to be as clear as possible:
I don't believe that DM's should punish players for not roleplaying their alignment. That is not a DMs job.
I believe that alignment is a guideline for roleplaying and that is how I run.
You don't want alignment then you don't have it.
You game is your game as you see to run it or play it.
If you or your group has issue alignment or alignment mechanics then I suggest you find another group or talk about the issue.
Issues with players and characters are separate. When those player can't see the separation then its problem. When that has happened in game of mine in the last twenty years it was not a question of alignment because it was not a game with alignment.
Players have opinions, some players express these opinions well and some don't. The misunderstanding of these opinions leads to problems, this happens in all games not just ones with an alignment system.
When I am called about thinking that 4 Edition is dumbed down I have the right to express my reasons.
If you haven't played in MMO then fine but if you have you can't tell me the similarities between them look at other boards online.
There is nothing wrong with this design I simply feel that the new system limits options in combat by giving a select number of options with the templates. I feel that is not more apparent than some RPGA games.
In all honestly I find 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons the most. I find it the best D&D system to date. Primarily due to the introduction of the Role system. I feel it's built like enjoy it's a team game now and you have a position on that team.
If you run a game like X-Crawl I feels it's the best system to use.
4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons on alignment and the mechanics of alignment:
There is no in-game mechanic on enforcing alignment [AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE ONE!]
4th e Player's Handbook for Paladins and in the Player's Handbook 2 for Invokers it states that a player of that class was required to have the same alignment as their deity. (If you don't believe me look it up with the character generator under those classes in the compendium section under Paladin's and deities or the corresponding section for Invokers). But it doesn't require the player to play that alignment.
It is not stated in the Essentials Rules Compendium for Warpriest or for Clerics(Templar) on the generator so I would take it as if it has been changed. I have no issue with that change.
When I gave a solution it is to be taken as a suggestion, not an edict. When I suggest it should be optional I feel that it should be in all D&D Editions.
If you don't like my suggestions then ignore them I'm fine with that.
I suggested alignment being optional so that players who want alignment can have it, while other who don't want it don't have to.
As for RPGA 4th Edition Dungeon and Dragons Living Forgotten Realms RPGA states under character creation they state that your character's alignment has to be Good, Lawful Good, or Unaligned as well as a character cannot have an Evil or Chaotic Evil deity.
If you don't like the RPGA's rules its simple, that is totally cool because you don't have to play with them. It's an organization they make the rules not me.
[pants]
Just because I have my own opinions on alignment doesn't mean I respect your issues with alignment. Nor does it mean I don't respect your opinions on alignment.
If you take nothing away from this rant them please take the statement above.
P.S.
Additionally if you are playing 3.0 or 3.5 and are having issues with alignment I suggest the X-Crawl Sellout!: A Player's Handbook. It provides some interesting concepts of how alignment can be played and how someone of an evil alignment isn't necessarily evil. You may be able to use it against a DM who has specific opinions on alignment and alignment enforcement.
I feel that people on this thread are taking my comments out of context so allow me to try to be as clear as possible: I don't believe that DM's should punish players for not roleplaying their alignment. That is not a DMs job. I believe that alignme
If no one can tell me how to play my character, I don't care what alignment they say I have to be. In my own mind, I play my character as if alignment is completely independent of actions anyway.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.
Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.
But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.
Just because you use a pita, does not make it less a sandwich.
Oh, good. But it's still okay if I make it with light mayo, right?
Light mayo tastes the same. I think that passes the detect evil test.
Especially since you can just write down 'Tuna Sandwich' for your alignment and it's just as relevant.[/quote]Tuna Sandwich is both good, and useful.[/quote]But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.[/quote]Just
I feel that people on this thread are taking my comments out of context so allow me to try to be as clear as possible:
I don't believe that DM's should punish players for not roleplaying their alignment. That is not a DMs job.
I believe that alignment is a guideline for roleplaying and that is how I run.
You don't want alignment then you don't have it.
You game is your game as you see to run it or play it.
If you or your group has issue alignment or alignment mechanics then I suggest you find another group or talk about the issue.
Actually, we were taking your comments in context. However, the context in which they were presented was not the reality of the situation; I apologize for my misunderstanding of your position.
However, to be fair, I feel that the context you presented them in was, well, misleading. You posted a strong support for the inclusion of alignment in the system — including a link to a blog which existed solely to lament the absence of alignment enforcement mechanics; you implied that it was a strong support to your thesis. And nowhere did you state any support for 4e; you only complained (inanely, as I described it) about it being "dumbed down." One man's "dumbed down" is another person's "greatly streamlined." If you really think that the system is the best, then using disparaging and insulting terms and cliched arguments (the whole comparison to a video game) to describe it isn't exactly the best way to show your position. As for the RPGA, they allow you to choose Unaligned; the rest of your posts failed to explain that you accepted "Unaligned" as a valid option. Therefore, when you said that you felt that Alignment should be the default for RPGA — combined with the rest of your posts which implied support for Enforced Alignment Mechanics — the only logical conclusion (for me, anyway) was that you wanted the RPGA to have EAM.
Now that you've explained yourself a whole lot clearer — in a single, concise, and far less verbose post, at that — I feel that I an truly understand your position, something which I apparently failed to do with 8 not-so-concise somewhat-verbose posts.
So, again, apologize for the misunderstanding. Glad to find out that we're actually mostly on the same side of the debate.
Actually, we were taking your comments in context. However, the context in which they were presented was not the reality of the situation; I apologize for my misunderstanding of your position.However, to be fair, I feel that the context you presente
I feel that I must point out to you, Grimli, that while you have a point that a Paladin or Invoker must have a corresponding alignment to their chosen deity, the text on all Divine classes in 4e states that once the ceremonies of investiture are performed and the person granted their power, then they have the power and don't necessarily have to follow that deity's teachings to the letter, nor do they even have to be aligned with their church; the power is theirs and can't be taken away. And in contrast, if you read the Avenger (both in the PHB2 and in Divine Power), it's pointed out that they are often considered heretical to their church for being extremists or otherwise not well looked-upon, and/or can even be polytheistic, and they are like Clerics in that they can worship a deity either tied to their alignment or--if unaligned--any deity. The idea here is that they are encouraging roleplay that builds characters organically, which is something that the PHB encourages very strenuously; alignment is a very tiny part of how the character is built. Indeed, the nature of how a PC gains their power as a Divine class honestly makes the inclusion of alignment in 4e seem clunky and a poor fit; the various gods have their individual codes and tenets laid out, and that gives far more guidelines on how to follow the faith of that deity than alignment honestly does.
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
You'll please forgive me for the wall o' text, but I felt that you really were just mouthing the same tired false claims that people who have been trying to detract from 4e (much like the people who claimed 3e was Diablo before them) used, without full knowledge of what WoW really was like. And since you were the one who claimed that "[i]f you have [played an MMO] you can't tell me the similarities between them..." (I presume you meant "you can't tell me there aren't similarities between them."?), I'm just pointing out that almost all of the "similarities" fall apart quite badly when you actually look at them.
I feel that I must point out to you, Grimli, that while you have a point that a Paladin or Invoker must have a corresponding alignment to their chosen deity, the text on all Divine classes in 4e states that once the ceremonies of investiture are perf
I feel that I must point out to you, Grimli, that while you have a point that a Paladin or Invoker must have a corresponding alignment to their chosen deity, the text on all Divine classes in 4e states that once the ceremonies of investiture are performed and the person granted their power, then they have the power and don't necessarily have to follow that deity's teachings to the letter, nor do they even have to be aligned with their church; the power is theirs and can't be taken away. And in contrast, if you read the Avenger (both in the PHB2 and in Divine Power), it's pointed out that they are often considered heretical to their church for being extremists or otherwise not well looked-upon, and/or can even be polytheistic, and they are like Clerics in that they can worship a deity either tied to their alignment or--if unaligned--any deity. The idea here is that they are encouraging roleplay that builds characters organically, which is something that the PHB encourages very strenuously; alignment is a very tiny part of how the character is built. Indeed, the nature of how a PC gains their power as a Divine class honestly makes the inclusion of alignment in 4e seem clunky and a poor fit; the various gods have their individual codes and tenets laid out, and that gives far more guidelines on how to follow the faith of that deity than alignment honestly does.
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
You'll forgive me for the wall o' text, but I felt that you really were just mouthing the same tired false claims that people who have been trying to detract from 4e (much like the people who claimed 3e was Diablo before them) used, without full knowledge of what WoW really was like. And since you were the one who claimed that "[i]f you have [played an MMO] you can't tell me the similarities between them..." (I presume you meant "you can't tell me there aren't similarities between them."?), I'm just pointing out that almost all of the "similarities" fall apart quite badly when you actually look at them.
Excellent points.
As for the wall o text none is necessary.
Thank you for your well constructed criticism.
Excellent points.As for the wall o text none is necessary.Thank you for your well constructed criticism.
The invoker entry, which I read recently, doesn't have the same "once you are ordained you can do as you like" bit as the other divine classes, but that is a bit nit picky.
I disagree with a lot of Grimli's points, but some of them have merit. And I agree with basically all of what Rogue said.
But the key point I wanted to bring up is this:
Thanks Grimli, Rogue and Swmabie for being civil. You all are being excellent examples of what can happen when reasonable folks disagree and discuss their beliefs. It speaks volumnes of you three that you can thank one another for critiques and talk to one another like reasonable adults.
I'd like to say a couple of things:The invoker entry, which I read recently, doesn't have the same "once you are ordained you can do as you like" bit as the other divine classes, but that is a bit nit picky.I disagree with a lot of Grimli's points, b
The invoker entry, which I read recently, doesn't have the same "once you are ordained you can do as you like" bit as the other divine classes, but that is a bit nit picky.
I disagree with a lot of Grimli's points, but some of them have merit. And I agree with basically all of what Rogue said.
But the key point I wanted to bring up is this:
Thanks Grimli, Rogue and Swmabie for being civil. You all are being excellent examples of what can happen when reasonable folks disagree and discuss their beliefs. It speaks volumnes of you three that you can thank one another for critiques and talk to one another like reasonable adults.
I have a saying:
You can learn more about yourself from an enemy in one day, than you can from a friend in a lifetime.
I'm not trying to say that people here are enemies, it's a form of expression I use when someone apologizes for being honest.
Someone who likes you no matter how honest will usually spare your feelings and not give you proper critizism. Someone who has issue most of the doesn't spare you feelings. They will tell you how they see you. It can be harsh but in the end you get more from that type of conversation.
I was raised to discuss and argue, it what my family does. I have no issue with other people's opinions. If everyone agreed about everything life you be boring to me. I love to be pushed it makes me a better person in the end as long as I have the open mind to accept it.
I have a saying:You can learn more about yourself from an enemy in one day, than you can from a friend in a lifetime.I'm not trying to say that people here are enemies, it's a form of expression I use when someone apologizes for being honest.Someone
The invoker entry, which I read recently, doesn't have the same "once you are ordained you can do as you like" bit as the other divine classes, but that is a bit nit picky.
I disagree with a lot of Grimli's points, but some of them have merit. And I agree with basically all of what Rogue said.
But the key point I wanted to bring up is this:
Thanks Grimli, Rogue and Swmabie for being civil. You all are being excellent examples of what can happen when reasonable folks disagree and discuss their beliefs. It speaks volumnes of you three that you can thank one another for critiques and talk to one another like reasonable adults.
The Invokers can have divinity shards in their own right, often have atypical theological understandings, and are expected to be polytheists who fundamentally view all the gods as a single "side", so again, wide theological latitude.
The Invokers can have divinity shards in their own right, often have atypical theological understandings, and are expected to be polytheists who fundamentally view all the gods as a single "side", so again, wide theological latitude.
The invoker entry, which I read recently, doesn't have the same "once you are ordained you can do as you like" bit as the other divine classes, but that is a bit nit picky.
I disagree with a lot of Grimli's points, but some of them have merit. And I agree with basically all of what Rogue said.
But the key point I wanted to bring up is this:
Thanks Grimli, Rogue and Swmabie for being civil. You all are being excellent examples of what can happen when reasonable folks disagree and discuss their beliefs. It speaks volumnes of you three that you can thank one another for critiques and talk to one another like reasonable adults.
The Invokers can have divinity shards in their own right, often have atypical theological understandings, and are expected to be polytheists who fundamentally view all the gods as a single "side", so again, wide theological latitude.
Not saying they can't, I just thought it was interesting how it didn't have the little aside that the others did.
The Invokers can have divinity shards in their own right, often have atypical theological understandings, and are expected to be polytheists who fundamentally view all the gods as a single "side", so again, wide theological latitude.[/quote]Not sayin
Another thing to note is that just because alignment itself has no penalty doesn't mean using you're deity given powers to act counter to their teachings will lack consequences.
For example, a Paladin of Bahamut snaps and decides to burn down a courthouse and city hall to try to instill his own twisted sense of justice. He won't get zapped with a bolt from heaven that suddenly zaps his powers, but expect some angry Avengers and other Paladins coming in to either take you in for questioning or simply try to end you right there. Pretty much a story action would have story-related consequences.
Another thing to note is that just because alignment itself has no penalty doesn't mean using you're deity given powers to act counter to their teachings will lack consequences.For example, a Paladin of Bahamut snaps and decides to burn down a courth
Another thing to note is that just because alignment itself has no penalty doesn't mean using you're deity given powers to act counter to their teachings will lack consequences.
For example, a Paladin of Bahamut snaps and decides to burn down a courthouse and city hall to try to instill his own twisted sense of justice. He won't get zapped with a bolt from heaven that suddenly zaps his powers, but expect some angry Avengers and other Paladins coming in to either take you in for questioning or simply try to end you right there. Pretty much a story action would have story-related consequences.
This. The idea of story-related actions having story-related consequences is one of the things I like most about 4e's viewpoint. The idea that the DM has to put more thought into it than the "you've broken your alignment/disobeyed your god, you lose all your Paladin powers!" followed by the inevitable rolling of a new character or atonement plot is far more interesting to me, and it also doesn't divorce the PC from the rest of the group quite as much. That has always been what I viewed as problematic with the atonement concept: it means that the DM has to run an entire separate quest that focuses on one PC in order to make their abilities viable again, should the Paladin fall, or else the DM has to run it "off-screen", in which case it's sort of pointless to have it happen.
I much prefer the idea of dropping in occasional encounters with agents of the church to spice up the plot without completely investing in a separate storyline. It adds another layer, rather than being a whole separate event that takes time away from the major plotline.
This. The idea of story-related actions having story-related consequences is one of the things I like most about 4e's viewpoint. The idea that the DM has to put more thought into it than the "you've broken your alignment/disobeyed your god, you los
I was raised to discuss and argue, it what my family does. I have no issue with other people's opinions. If everyone agreed about everything life you be boring to me. I love to be pushed it makes me a better person in the end as long as I have the open mind to accept it.
Same here. My family (7 people total) would often debate things news-worthy, political, philosophical, and societal, around the dinner table; it taught us to think, be quick on our wits, and not take disagreements personally.
Dealing with Grimli has actually been quite enjoyable. He's well-thought out, doesn't beat dead horses, and is willing to accept the other side of the argument at face value. Some people around here (on both sides) could learn some lessons from him. Thank you, sir (or madam), for being a good debater.
Speaking of thanks.... This was so well written, that I will be adding it to my Sig as soon as I finish posting this. It is the best response to this tired and cliched complaint, and I bow down to your eloquence.
Another thing to note is that just because alignment itself has no penalty doesn't mean using you're deity given powers to act counter to their teachings will lack consequences.
I finally want to support this statement here. For those of us who wish to... divorce Alignment from the Mechanics of the game, is probably the best way to word it, I don't recall a single one of us ever saying that there should never be any consequences for heretical behavior or blasphemy by those who represent particular deities. Quite the contrary; that's the whole purpose of organized religion (in my opinion), is to punish people who are "doing it wrong."
Deities and their intervention in individual lives was recently discussed in DM Experience; if I recall the feedback correctly, most people felt, especially at the Heroic level, such micromanagement issues were beneath the attention of the Divine. Besides, there's plenty of schisms and heresies and differences of opinion in people who follow the same gods elsewhere, why wouldn't there be such things in a fantasy world?
....
Now, to add something new.
I almost never ask my players for their alignments. Instead, I may ask them to use the nine "personality questions" in the PHB, to judge how their characters might react in certain situations — and these answers are more for their own aid than mine; this sort of thing, I feel, helps people to figure how to roleplay their characters far more than picking a point in the alignment star, so to speak.
As for what their actual alignments are? If/when I think it matters, I make those determinations based upon the deeds of their characters, their actions and reactions. The nine-point system is a simple one to use, with two separate axes; I can pretty much place them somewhere on the spectrum, though rarely in the middle of any one area; often they are in the gray, though fairly consistent about it. I find it amusing that people roleplay a more consistent alignment when they don't have to worry about it than they do when they're mandated to have one, at least in my own experiences....
Same here. My family (7 people total) would often debate things news-worthy, political, philosophical, and societal, around the dinner table; it taught us to think, be quick on our wits, and not take disagreements personally.Dealing with Grimli has
Another thing to note is that just because alignment itself has no penalty doesn't mean using you're deity given powers to act counter to their teachings will lack consequences.
For example, a Paladin of Bahamut snaps and decides to burn down a courthouse and city hall to try to instill his own twisted sense of justice. He won't get zapped with a bolt from heaven that suddenly zaps his powers, but expect some angry Avengers and other Paladins coming in to either take you in for questioning or simply try to end you right there. Pretty much a story action would have story-related consequences.
This. The idea of story-related actions having story-related consequences is one of the things I like most about 4e's viewpoint. The idea that the DM has to put more thought into it than the "you've broken your alignment/disobeyed your god, you lose all your Paladin powers!" followed by the inevitable rolling of a new character or atonement plot is far more interesting to me, and it also doesn't divorce the PC from the rest of the group quite as much. That has always been what I viewed as problematic with the atonement concept: it means that the DM has to run an entire separate quest that focuses on one PC in order to make their abilities viable again, should the Paladin fall, or else the DM has to run it "off-screen", in which case it's sort of pointless to have it happen.
I much prefer the idea of dropping in occasional encounters with agents of the church to spice up the plot without completely investing in a separate storyline. It adds another layer, rather than being a whole separate event that takes time away from the major plotline.
Consequences are appropriate as long as the consequences are interesting, and not punitive or manipulative, and not part of some vicious cycle. If you send some avengers or something to capture or "end" the character and the player isn't into the idea then either the PC kills them (leading to another, stronger intervention team), is killed (boring), or is captured (boring). If they player is on-board with this approach, any of those outcomes could be interesting, but as punishment or manipulation they are likely to cause further in-game issues and lead to a less interesting game.
This. The idea of story-related actions having story-related consequences is one of the things I like most about 4e's viewpoint. The idea that the DM has to put more thought into it than the "you've broken your alignment/disobeyed your god, you los
If you remove alignment from Dungeons and Dragons then it is gone. You have your way, but I don't have mine, and what is more important to me my PLAYERS don't have their way.
Nope, that's a lie. You can add all the personal houserules you want, and you know it. The actual concern is that you know that if they're removed from the default system, then you'll have no authority to appeal to when attempting to inflict the system on people who dislike it.
First of all, there isn't any authority needed. If a DM decides that the Paladin loses his class abilities after, say, using local orphans for troll-bait, then the Paladin loses his class abilities.
How about adding this for a personal houserule, for those of us who dislike alignment:
Alignment doesn't exist. No PC, NPC, monster or intelligent item may have behavior or preferences which can be defined as good or evil. No player character, monster, NPC or intelligent item can be indifferent in terms of morality, either in thought or deed. No character may exhibit any consistency in how they behave. No PC, NPC, monster or intelligent item may undergo a spiritual crisis. Deities, if any, do not have a preference. Their mythologies, if any, may not contain anything which hints toward a preference for a type of behavior or moral code.
This seems much more restrictive to me, than saying a character of a class defined by his/her morality will have some sort of consequences if he/she doesn't uphold his/her stated moral code.
Nope, that's a lie. You can add all the personal houserules you want, and you know it. The actual concern is that you know that if they're removed from the default system, then you'll have no authority to appeal to when attempting to inflict the syst
Centauri: But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.
---------------- Pita IS bread. Call it what you want. Actions can be described in terms of good and evil. It doesn't matter if anyone tells you that or not. It doesn't matter if the book explicitly writes it down or not.
And I prefer salad dressing on my tuna sandwich. And boiled eggs and onions. Mmmm-hmmm... smell that dragon-breath!
Centauri: But I don't like bread, I prefer pita. STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY ALIGNMENT.----------------Pita IS bread. Call it what you want. Actions can be described in terms of good and evil. It doesn't matter if anyone tells you that or not. It
Centauri: Consequences are appropriate as long as the consequences are interesting, and not punitive or manipulative, and not part of some vicious cycle. --- If a character buys stuff and eventually comes to a point where he runs out of money, is that punitive? This is along the same lines as the Paladin stops being such a good guy and loses powers. I think those of us on the keep-alignment-in side of the debate see character actions as having consequences as a good thing, not as some sort of punishment.
I personally don't think a player playing a holy warrior who has been granted abilities BECAUSE he is a paragon of virtue as well as a paragon of the ideals of chivalry at its best should be so danged shocked when he suddenly loses some of that sweet divine favor and grace after he/she begins doing vile and despicable acts or ignores his chivalric code and sacred vows. The player playing such a character seems, frankly, a bit paranoid to think that the DM is being a control freak when he decides it has become fairly obvious that the character is not really all that virtous and chivalrous and rules that he no longer gets the benefits that come with being so virtuous and chivalrous.
Especially since the character can now go Blackguard... which is much more fun than some stuffy do-gooder, anyway.
Centauri: Consequences are appropriate as long as the consequences are interesting, and not punitive or manipulative, and not part of some vicious cycle.---If a character buys stuff and eventually comes to a point where he runs out of money, is that
. You may find these situations boring but others have fun with them. Sometimes these small situations expand themselves into intra-party or party and society relations making for some very interesting events. It all depends on how the players and DM interpret and handle those small situations.
