Results 181 to 210 of 328
Thread: I Love Alignments
-
2022-11-29, 09:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Oh, it's not showing me how many you have.
The fact you don't want to use alignment, or the fact that it's not useful to you or others, doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means it's not useful, maybe.
I myself said, I don't really like it. I don't however, dislike it. I just think that most people who rail against it, don't understand it or are railing against something else.
gbaji looks crazy, because they're always arguing against flimsy strawmen and feeling imprisoned by people who don't exist. Many of their examples last thread about being boxed in by alignment, included Roy and Elan as examples... but both of them are complex characters that are not remotely boxed in by their alignment.... gbaji meanwhile kept insisting they should be.
When anyone says Roy is Lawful Good, and the arguments made in the comic explain why (Roy is trying, Roy does more Good than Neutral, is more Lawful than Neutral, Roy repents, ect ect), then gbaji defaults to some position like "So now you're not enforcing alignment" or "you're being hypocritical now".
Earlier gbaji was insisting that Robinhood can't be CG, despite being the archetype of CG, because he "plans too well" something about being too social with his merry band.If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
-
D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
-
Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?
-
2022-11-30, 12:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2020
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
I like alignment. Part of it is that I find it useful for character creation, even if only in a small way. Part of it is that I love arguing, and it's a nice, fun thing to have arguments about. Part of it is that it satisfies the urge to sort characters into categories.
I don't begrudge anyone for not using it, but personally I think it's amusing and sometimes helpful.
-
2022-11-30, 12:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-11-30, 12:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
-
D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
-
Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?
-
2022-11-30, 12:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
It is not uncommon when two good characters debate and disagree with certain things such as a lawful good character and a chaotic good character debate on certain issues for ethical reasons.
It's time to get my Magikarp on!
-
2022-11-30, 01:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2020
- Gender
-
2022-11-30, 01:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
It's time to get my Magikarp on!
-
2022-11-30, 02:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
That group is prone to endless arguing, has a somewhat adversial player-GM relationship and produces regularly questions about if the GM had been unfair doing this or that. That group is certainly better off without alignment as additional argument source at all. Do you really think the classical "GM decides about alignment" would be a good fit there ? That the players would just quitely accept what Talakael says about their characters ?
It is also not uncommon for two lawful good characters to disagree and debate, even about ethics.
Really, of all the stupid things that alignment has, the idea that people of the same alignment work well together people of different alignments tend to disagree, argue or even fight, is one of the worst.Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-11-30 at 02:32 AM.
-
2022-11-30, 03:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
If someone is constantly fighting the GM, that is a player problem and there isn't much you can do.
Maybe put them on some kind of leash or something, or therapy, or who knows.
What do you mean by "that group"?Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-11-30 at 03:07 AM.
If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
-
D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
-
Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?
-
2022-11-30, 04:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Talakeal regularly posts here. He has a campaign log, but otherwise he regularly opens a post when there was serious disagreement at his table. I don't really want to go into more detail as it is neither my group not my original example. KorvinStarmast brought it up. If you really are interested, well, you can read it all. There is even currently one about clearing minitures from a battlemap and players feeling betrayed as they took it as a declaration of end of combat even if an enemy (not on the map) still was known to be around or something like that.
Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-11-30 at 04:09 AM.
-
2022-11-30, 08:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Well, it depends on how you arrange the distribution in society. If the overwhelming majority of people are LG, LN, or NG, then society will conform to the consensus of those groups and the members of those alignments will get on comparatively well together. They'll have arguments with other societies that are organized somewhat differently, but those conflicts are likely to ultimately be motivated, whatever the excuses, by economic factors. Likewise, CG good freewheeling creative types do seem to enjoy each others company and form natural associations, though this may be because they have little choice in the matter, having bee forced to the fringes of society. But the others are indeed different. TN and CN individuals are likely to prefer NG and CG neighbors respectively, while all evil individuals would preferentially associate with neutral or even good individuals rather than other evil individuals, though they often end up grouped in unstable units such as criminal gangs - which fight each other constantly - because they have little choice.
-
2022-11-30, 08:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-11-30, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
This just makes it sound like the GM and/or the players are bad and/or toxic.
My players have never felt betrayed except those two people in two separate campaigns that ragequitted. One because he wasn't god yet, and the other because his Cadillac escade got hit with an RPG.If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
-
D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
-
Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?
-
2022-11-30, 02:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
I always said it is not useful. That is my main argument against it.
And i am pretty sure most people who rail against alignment do understand it. They just really dislike it. Having a disagreement and asserting that the other party just must not be getting it because otherwise they would not have such a different oppinion, seems a tad arrogant imho.
No one has ever questioned the alignment of my characters either. Not my paladins, not my evil clerics not anyone else. I have not questioned the alignment of other players characters either, even as DM. I have also only ever once seen an alignment shift in game. That was when a player decided that when his PC was not ressurrected but brought back as a mummified creature (with the PCs consent of course via Speak with Dead) that his also should shift the alignment to LE.
I would see the lack of alignment questioning and alignment shifts less as "alignment is working" and more as "alignment is so irrelevant, it tends to get ignored most of the time".Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-11-30 at 02:55 PM.
-
2022-11-30, 02:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2022-11-30, 03:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Because i don't have to prove uselessness. Proving the lack of something is a pretty pointless endeavor. People claiming its usefullness should bring use cases forward that can be discussed then. The burden of proof is on them.
"I like it" is not a use. It is a matter of taste.
Not that it matters that much. I can just cut it from all my games and if i were to play in a groups that wants to keep it, i don't really have much problem to put two letters on my sheet and then ignore it for the rest of the campaign.
-
2022-11-30, 03:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2022-11-30, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Yes, if i ever meet someone IRL who eally wants to include it, i might be convinced to do so just to make them happy. But i certainly would ask them why they think it would be beneficial for the game and how. Just to make sure they don't demand the DM to actually do anything with it or have other weird expectations.
Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-11-30 at 04:10 PM.
-
2022-11-30, 07:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
gbaji meanwhile, seems to indicate, they think, that alignment is an oppressive box that players are forced into, and that it makes their characters really boring and limited.
If alignment is irrelevant, I'm not sure how it can be oppressive.
There are plenty of times where gbaji has insisted that chaotic characters can't plan things or have to be anti-social. Other times they insist that lawful characters have to always obey all laws. This and other things indicate a major misunderstanding of how alignment works.
You are the first voice I've seen in awhile, which pushes against alignment, and yet seems to understand it.
Alignment is indeed a bit of a mixed bag, and it's, as far as I can tell, not really that punishing, nor incredibly rewarding.
It's decent training wheels, but most of its function is taken up by oaths, with their dos and don'ts.Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-11-30 at 07:17 PM.
If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
-
D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
-
Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?
-
2022-11-30, 07:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: I Love Alignments
"We like it" is a use. Since we like it, then adding it to the game increased the enjoyment we got out of the game. That increased enjoyment for our group is the usefulness our group finds in it. This is true about Alignment just like it is true of Mind Flayers, or Feats. The usefulness being based on the consequence of a matter of taste also explains why alignment being useful to me does not imply it is useful to you.
It would be a rather pointless endeavor to try and prove to me that I don't exist. So the burden of proof is on me. Hopefully this reply is sufficient proof that I exist.
Now, if you can accept I exist and accept I find alignment useful. Then I can entertain your curiosity about details of why I like it and details of the uses I use it for. However just like it is pointless endeavor for you to try to prove the lack of something, it is pointless for me to give a high detail proof when the low detail proof of "Hi I exist, I like alignment, and it works for our group." is a sufficient proof.
You were replying to Satinavian but their other arguments are right there. Some really dislike alignment. I think it is readily apparent that alignment should not be used when it is disliked.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-11-30 at 07:52 PM.
-
2022-11-30, 09:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: I Love Alignments
Yes. I'm in complete agreement on having natural consequences for character actions in a game. And those absolutely can include things like a deity tossing someone out for not following their dictates, to a liege dismissing someone who doesn't follow their orders, to any order/organization ejecting people for not following their code of conduct, to party members turning on others who cause harm/disruption, etc.
But none of those things require an alignment system in the game to work. So I keep circling around to "why have it in the first place?".
I described Roy's behavior in the comic. He took advantage of a mistaken identity to get literal royal treatment at the Inn, and he lied directly and repeatedly to his party members to trick them into going on a side quest for the starmetal. That's what I was talking about, so if you think that's incredibly disruptive and annoying and would get the character killed, arrested or the player banned, then you are literally talking about punishing Roy here. Because that's what I was talking about.
Not sure if that's what you meant to respond to.
No. You keep presenting a strawman version of my argument where you insist this is what I'm doing and then argue against it, as though you are accomplishing something. That's not remotely what I'm arguing.
I'm saying that when it comes to D&D alignments we basically have a very simple pair of binary choices:
A. We do not enforce alignment rules at all.
B. We enforce alignment rules.
With me so far? If we choose A, then we aren't using alignment in the game, and our conversation is done. We've concluded (as I have) that alignment rules serve no purpose and can be ignored.
If we choose B, and you are the GM (the one who's responsible for enforcing rules in the game), we have two options:
B1: The GM prohibits actions by a character that are outside the alignment for that character (I think this is bad GMing, but I include it because you have mentioned "banning" or "blocking" actions so it's there as a possible GM response).
B2: The GM allows any actions, but if a character consistently exhibits behavior out of their listed alignment, the GM will impose an alignment shift.
Following me? Are we in agreement that these are the "Rules"? I would hope so, given that this is pretty elementary and obvious, but for some reason, the moment I go one step past this point, some posters keep looping back to this step and claiming it doesn't exist, or doesn't happen, or whatever. You keep saying that I'm the only person saying that GMs may shift a PCs alignment, for example. Which is odd, because that's literally what the rules say the consequences are for failing to play within your character's alignment.
All I'm doing is going one step further and stating that if one wants to play a character that does not fit into a single alignment definition, and the GM is enforcing alignment rules, then they must be subject to B1 or B2. Right? Note, I'm not saying that this PC is disruptive, or homicidal, or otherwise a problem to the table, the game, or the players. Just that they are playing in a way that doesn't match the character's alignment. That's it. Everything else about disruption is stuff you made up. I never said it. Stick to what I'm actually arguing here.
So yes, if we assume that the player would like to play a character like that, to the degree that the rules are enforced, it does put a damper on that player's decisions and actions with their own character. And to the degree that there may be penalties associated with alignment shifts (assuming B2 option), then there's an active punishment for playing these types of characters.
I don't think it's unreasonable to further conclude that this will result in players feeling pressured to play their characters "within their alignment", or even "within any alignment" if we're to be a bit more broad. And yeah, I consider that "cardboard cutout" play. We can disagree on that, but can we get past this odd argument over "the rules" of alignment in the first place?
So you would not block PC actions as long as they weren't disruptive or game breaking? So you go with B2 then? I'm just trying to get you to commit clearly to what your preferred method of dealing with the situation I'm describing is.
Great. That's what I was looking for. You play in the B2 scenario. So you agree that alignment shift is the consequence of not playing a character within their written alignment. Progress at last!
None of them were. You've invented this assumption. The closest I came was my example of a character suffering grief over a dead friend and dealing with it by becoming angry, drinking, getting into bar fights, etc. All behavior that a typical barbarian character might just call "a normal Saturday night". Hardly something you'd ban a player for doing, right?
What you call "insanely complex" I call "being a real person". And yes, you literally just said that if the GM and the other players believe that your character should have a different alignment, you'd change the character's alignment.
The only real question here is a matter of degrees. How many times must a character do things that are outside the written alignment before the GM imposes an alignment change? Clearly, I think we both agree, that just one thing, or maybe even a couple, doesn't warrant such a thing. But how about 10? or 20? or 100?
I've "insisted" that characters that are not played within their written alignment will have their alignment changed. You just said that's what would happen. It's funny because, like I pointed out earlier, you keep wanting to argue this phase of what I'm saying, but also seem to fundamentally agree with me on it. Maybe it's because I like to make arguments in a very formalized manner, and establish "agreed upon facts" first, and then move from there? Dunno. It's just strange.
The part you should be disagreeing with isn't whether alignment changes can or will be forced, but how frequently that happens and how much of a burden it actually is. But, oddly, you keep getting caught up on this part. It's almost like you disagree with my conclusion (which is perfectly reasonable btw), but because of this have adopted a "I can't agree with him on anything along the way" approach. Which has lead you to insist that no one but me has ever argued that a GM may impose an alignment change on a character if they fail to act within the constraints of their alignment. Which is ludicrous, but there you have it.
It forces you to play your character within the alignment. Otherwise, it serves no purpose and can (and should) just be removed from the game. Seriously. If you never enforce alignment rules on any character in your game, and only do so via "natural consequences" as mentioned my NichG, then why bother writing anything on the character sheet in the first place?
And if you are enforcing it, then somewhat by definition, it does put limits on how a player may play their character. It's by design. I'm not sure how you don't get this. You get that the word "force" is contained within the word "enforce", right? That's not an accident of spelling or something.
Yes. You have said this over and over. I, on the other hand, was not talking about annoying actions. I was talking about players being played in a manner that is well within the behavior limits the GM has placed for PCs in the game, but that are *not* within the limits covered by the alignment written on their sheet.
What would you do, as a GM, if someone were to play a character with <whatever> alignment (let's not get stuck on details here), but exactly half the time they play the character as though they have <a different> alignment? Heck. What if the player says his character is a huge moon lover and his personality and behavior changes based on the phases of the moon. It's not some supernatural thing. He's not a member of a religion that acts this way out of devotion to the moon god or something. He just has a personality that says that in each phase change of the moon, he acts differently.
How would you handle that character? That's not even "insanely complex". It's just someone with an odd quirk. Let's also assume that none of these behaviors are "evil", nor does it result in any disruptive behavior. Just... different. And not a consistent alignment. What do you do as the GM?
And if moon-guy is too complex for you, how about a regular person who is high functioning, very organized, color codes his cover sheets for work projects, always has his tie on straight, donates to charities, helps the poor, volunteers at a soup kitchen, etc, but on the weekends he binge drinks, gambles excessively, and engages in a variety of high risk behaviors. Which alignment is he? Lawful? Or Chaotic? Both? Either? Neither? I've personally known a number of people who are like that. Totally buttoned up during the work week and in "polite society", and total wrecks the rest of the time (they would just say "cutting loose"). These people clearly exhibit behaviors that fall firmly into two diametrically opposed D&D alignments. And in the "real world", we just call that a "guy who parties on the weekends", but in D&D, we only get to pick one alignment for him. So is he CN, but pretends to be LG? Or is he really LG, but occasionally lets loose with some CN behavior? Which "side" of this person determines his "true" alignment?
I could probably come up with a dozen different, completely playable, PC personality descriptions that most posters here would have an incredibly difficult time fitting into any single D&D alignment. It's not really that hard. Unless, of course, you've become so accustomed to playing in a D&D alignment environment and you just naturally think in terms of "start with alignment, then define personality based on that". Which is precisely the "cardboard cutout" character types I'm talking about. Starting with personality and then trying to fit into an alignment? It's a lot more difficult and it wont take long before you start realizing how limiting it is.
I'm examining hypothetical cases. What if <situation A>? What if <situation B>? And along the way showing that there's a lot of different behaviors and personalities that, while each may individually fit into an alignment category, are certainly possible for the same individual to have and act on, and not in a broad "I'm changing gradually over time" way either. Just "today I feel like doing X" and "yesterday I felt like doing Y". Or even "when I'm in a fight I act this way, but when I'm out socializing I act another way, and when I'm at work I behave in yet another way". The alignment system in D&D simply does not handle this well (or at all really). Not if you actually attempt to enforce it as a GM.
Usually, you just end up ignoring it. Which, again, leads us back to "why bother having it"?
If you haven't figured it out yet, my main position on alignment is that it should just not exist. Requirements for membership in some club/religion/order/whatever? Absolutely. You don't need a bi-axial alignment system to do that though. Or any kind really. But certainly not the one that D&D has.
I'm just following that to the logical conclusion that the only time alignment *ever* matters is the kinds of cases I'm talking about. It only matters when someone doesn't comply with the requirements. So let's examine those cases. And when I do, I find that it either also doesn't matter (alignment shift didn't make any difference, so again why bother?), or it's a hardship on the character. It's that final case I'm examining and finding wanting. And yes, as I've stated a couple times now, the fact that the potential for hardship exists, tends to lead the player away from playing character types for which alignment shifts are a hardship and/or to be more diligent at complying with the alignment requirements if it does.
And that, IMO, results in restrictions on player freedom to play characters as broadly and in as much variation as they may wish to.
Set aside the "hyper annoying or his player was annoying". Would you agree that if Roy consistently behaved as he did at the Inn, or did while getting his party to quest for the starmetal, that Roy should have his alignment changed from LG? I'm not talking about what his alignment *is*, or what the Deva said. I'm speculating about what level of "Roy doesn't follow the LG alignment" results in some GM response in your opinion.
There has to be one, right? Where does that happen? And how does it happen?
You have yet to clearly state that "yes, if a PC is played consistently in a manner not consistent with their alignment in my game, I would impose some rule on them", nor have you clearly stated exactly what you would do. Instead, you've gone off on tangents about rude/disruptive behavior, which was not at all what I was talking about.
That's a funny bit of projection. I've been extremely clear about my statements and position, and you've done almost everything in your power to respond with everything under the sun *except* what I'm actually talking about.
Yup. But I wasn't talking about cases of people being hyper annoying. I was talking about players not playing their characters within their alignment. Period. You invented this. Not sure how many times I can point this out to you.
I literally just want you to answer the question I posed:
What would you do as a GM if a player plays their character consistently in a way that is not in accordance with the alignment on their character sheet? It's not disruptive. It's not annoying. It's not game breaking. It's just not what their alignment says they should be doing.
What do you do?
I maybe made the mistake of assuming we all follow the same logical rules here. That it's a question of "enforce/not-enforce", followed by "prevent/punish" actions. Maybe that's what's lead to the confusion here. But at the core, this is what I'm assuming and basing my argument on. So what would you do in that situation? My personal conclusion and position derives from this answer, but I'm having difficulty getting that point across because you keep looping the argument back to this point instead. So maybe we settle this one question instead?
This. Exactly this. If alignment rules never cause problems, then they aren't needed in the first place. But when they do... well... that's the conditions I'm looking at.
No. That was me in the other thread saying that these are the sorts of silly assumptions that some other people claim. I was the one specifically arguing that a chaotic evil assassin could have friends/family he would be willing to sacrifice for. I was countered by an insistence that this wasn't possible and that anyone who would do that couldn't be CE.
The lawful bit was examining different aspects of what (again) other people ascribe to being lawful. And yes, "obeying the law/rules" is one. "being orderly and structured in your behavior" is another. I was making no argument about what lawful had to be, but merely that different aspects of what many people do associate with "lawful alignment" can, in some cases, be contradictory.
My argument there, as it is here, is that the entire thing is silly and we should just chuck it out. Most games would be much better off for it.
I actually completely agree with this. I've even made the point that it can be useful from a "training wheels" point of view. But I do feel that if you want to play characters that are more nuanced, or have personality quirks, or are just plain inconsistent (like real people tend to be), those training wheels become incredibly restrictive.
And yeah, most of the "function" of alignments works with oaths/laws and the consequences for breaking them. The remaining function is IMO almost entirely harmful to roleplaying (excepting, again, the "training wheels" concept). So yeah, why not just eliminate them entirely? What real purpose does it serve? Would we have any less of an idea of what kind of person Roy is if we didn't know he was LG? Or any of the rest of the Order? I don't think so. We'd judge them based on their words and actions in the strip without arbitrary labels and be just fine with it.
Heck. Even the afterlife would work better. So we have Roy, his mom, and his brother all in the LG afterlife hanging out (and maybe his dad too, but that's subject to debate). Er, but what about his sister? So due to this silly alignment thing, she doesn't get to spend her afterlife with her family? We just kinda skirt around that? Ignore it? Hmmm...
-
2022-11-30, 10:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: I Love Alignments
Again saying this as someone who isn't all that fond of D&D's alignments...
But, in some sense, that can be all the 'alignment system' is - an explicit tracker of how well received you are by different (cosmic) entities. If those entities are so omnipresent that their approval has actual physical effects, its just part of the cosmology. No different than say something like Shadowlands taint or Lying Darkness taint or Honor or Status in L5R. Explicitly mechanized trackers of things that have widespread but specific effects, to make it easier for players to understand the practical consequences of certain choices and to have things to plan or aim for.
I don't tend to use D&D alignments, but I do tend to use 'taint systems' that basically amount to cosmic forces that have noticed the character - could be Paradox or Song or Name or Idem or Nothingness or Grey or Madness or whatever. And characters can as a meaningful in-character statement want to have e.g. at least 3 points of Madness but not more than 5, by the scales of the things which measure such taints. You could just as well have a Heaven or Hell or Order or Chaos taint.Last edited by NichG; 2022-11-30 at 10:11 PM.
-
2022-11-30, 10:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
-
2022-12-01, 04:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Well, maybe i need to go into more detail about what i mean with useful.
You see, i am not against to include stuff that someone wants if it does no harm and no one is opposed to that. But to be useful, it IMHO needs to have a beneficial impact on the game/campaign beyond that.
There are players who draw portraits for their characters or describe their hairdo or the cut of their characters garments etc. And they obviously derive some fun from this, so it is fine. But there is no actual impact on the game beyond some visual imagination hints. And even that is often limited to the player of the characters because many others often don't even pay attention or soon forget what they regard as unimportant detail.
I think that alignment tends to be similar. Sure, everyone marks two letters on their character sheet the same as everyone writes something into hair color and eye color (if the species has hairs and eyes), but usually that's it. Looking back, i would even say hair and eye color have more often become relevant to the game than alignment.
To be considered useful, one must actually do something with alignment beyond marking two letters on the sheet. And that must have a positive impact.
-
2022-12-01, 08:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Gobbotopia
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
I'm sure there's some kind of vising system for close friends and family. or maybe it's like god ascension and (if she accepts) she'd be able to go to the LG afterlife on sponsorship from the rest of her family. Or maybe she'll have her own family she wants to hang out with, we don't see any of Roy's Mom's family up there.
Personally i'll never understand the whole "Alignment is restrictive" thing. Alignment is nothing, it is not a physical tangible thing, it's just a representation of your actions. You control it, not the other way around.
You're not forced into doing only chaotic good things because you're chaotic good, You're chaotic good because you do chaotic good things. And even then there's wiggle room, your alignment is what you're like a MAJORITY of the time. A Lawful character can still have a grief-induced tantrum that ends up breaking someone else's property, but this doesn't mean they're going to stop being lawful. Given their past deeds before the incident, it's likely they'll try to make amends for the issue and get the property replaced or repaired in some form. But even then, that's entirely up to them. That's just a prediction you can make based on their alignment, not an obligation they MUST comply too.
Saying alignment is restrictive just sounds a lot like saying the clothes you are currently wearing are restrictive. You are the one who chose what you are currently wearing, you can change them at any time. You're wearing your clothes because you put them on, you didn't put them on because they decided they'd be what you're wearing today.Avy by Thormag
Spoiler
-
2022-12-01, 09:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: I Love Alignments
Ah, thanks for elaborating on what you mean as useful. You are ignoring the primary use case anything has in RPGs, but I now understand the requirement.
So something existing in the game and causing the playgroup to enjoy the game more than they otherwise would have does not satisfy this requirement unless they do a 2nd thing with the something that exists.
1) If we are ignoring the baseline positive effect, then does it matter if there is a secondary positive effect?
2) Does changing the alignment count as doing something? One of the use cases for GM described alignment is the GM describing the alignment. If the description alone is not enough of a "do something" then what about when the description changes?
3) I find playing evil characters in character often makes me wish they came with a disclaimer that I do not agree with some of their actions and advice. Similar to an unreliable narrator disclaimer. Alignment helps me feel comfortable playing such characters because it gives a passive disclaimer.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-12-01 at 02:00 PM.
-
2022-12-01, 06:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-12-01 at 06:06 PM.
If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
-
D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
-
Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?
-
2022-12-03, 01:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-12-03, 02:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Yes. But that would need to actually happen, not just remain a theoretical possibility. Players changing their characters alignment as a method to make statements about the characters or GM giving regular alignment based feedback for the characters actions and actually shifting them around. And it has to be seen as something positive by most of the table.
3) I find playing evil characters in character often makes me wish they came with a disclaimer that I do not agree with some of their actions and advice. Similar to an unreliable narrator disclaimer. Alignment helps me feel comfortable playing such characters because it gives a passive disclaimer.
-
2022-12-03, 06:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Actually, along those lines, 'no evil characters' does serve as an at least somewhat accurate shorthand regarding the sorts of behaviors of the GM wishes to ban at any given table. This can be compared positively to VtM, where the amount of intraparty infighting desired in any given campaign was highly variable and making certain the players built a coterie that would actually work together in anything resembling a functional way took a lot of session zero monitoring. So, insofar as having an in-game mechanic that allows that GM to quantify 'don't be a d***' as an rule, alignment is useful - and while this shouldn't be necessary, regrettably, it absolutely is sometimes.