(Discussion) General Part IV

[Creamsteak]

Started a new thread in order to fix ourselves on the current ideas.

1) What should the naming convention for judges be? So far there are different conventions for adding the judges name to the end of the thread title. I'm pretty sure that the end is the best place, but how should we shape them? I'll admit that my own method (parenthesis) looks awkward since it also begins the threads. Should we use [] {} <> - or * before the judge quotation?

Here's one I like,
(Adventure) The Thread Name *Judge: Creamsteak


2) If I wanted to say, "let's throw out alignment", what would we need to do to the game to make everything normal? How do people feel about this? I've noticed at least two or three issues involving alignment that detract from the game itself. I'd rather we get rid of it, and make the game work without. What's your say?

3) Please bring any other issues to the table again, so I can look at them as well. I'll be investigating proposals again soon. I'd like to spend some time working on LEW over the next couple weeks since my midterms are over. I still have tons of homework, but I'm over the first challenge of my schoolyear.

[Creamsteak]

Judges, can you please respond to the Little Sneak and give your judgement on it's acceptability? The version that I've linked to is my own post. The only mechanical change was to the feats requirement (alertness was added). If 3 out of the 4 judges give it a 100% acceptable vote, this class will be added to our official information.

[WizWrm]

I like (Adventure/Judge) Thread Name because it takes up the least extra space.

Personally, I would be perfectly fine with removing alignment. The major issue would be all the spells that deal directly with alignment would need to be altered; on a brief glance it looks like blasphemy, chaos hammer, cloak of chaos, consecrate, desecrate, detect alignment, dictum, dispel alignment, hallow, holy smite, holy aura, magic circle against alignment, protection from alignment, unhallow, unholy aura, unholy blight, and word of chaos, though I might have missed a couple.

Also, the classes with alignment requirements (specifically paladin) would need to be adjusted, and a few mechanics, like clerical turning, would need an additional rule to handle. Additionally, there might need to be some ruling for spells with alignment descriptors, like animate dead, and the summoning spells that summon fiendish/celestial etc. creatures.

Just FYI, the most major d20 source I've seen that removes alignment is Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. I own the book, so I could give you a detailed run-down if necessary, but in brief, he removes most of the above spells, or modifies them to work against outsiders specifically (i.e., the spell magic circle protects against outsiders rather than a specific alignment, etc.)

[Creamsteak]

I would like to keep mandates like "detect evil" for paladins, but Evil would apply to undead, outsiders, clerics of an evil deity, and casters of spells with an evil descriptor.

Just a vague comment. By the way, I'm trying to look over all the proposals tonight as well.

[WizWrm]

Go ahead and give Mercurial Initiate a miss; it's not complete yet, so you don't need to evaluate it. I'll post when (and if) I ever make it look like I want it to.

[dpdx]

First, thanks very much whoever closed the thread WHILE I was crafting my semi-lengthy reply. I lost all of it. Who's Online, anymod?

Second, doing away with alignment would make the game unplayable. Okay, maybe just for me. But that post I lost contained all my reasons.

As a player, I'd rather see a ban on evil PCs. One can roleplay a bitter little curmudgeon who's been wronged by the world all one wants on the Good or even Neutral side of the coin. But Evil is for the NPCs you're icing to get XP, so you can detect them, for one. In brief, you'd have to change too much of the game all of a sudden to make that work, or make some across the board change to the minority of sheets (say, from Evil to Neutral), or make a setting where they can function in, because of one simple truth:

The motivations of PCs that try to ice each other in game go way beyond the game itself.

[WizWrm]

Originally Posted by dpdx

The motivations of PCs that try to ice each other in game go way beyond the game itself.

Not necessarily. There's no reason one character can't be just as strong an enemy of another character as that character is a friend of a third. They don't even have to be of opposing alignments, just opposing viewpoints.

[dpdx]

Originally Posted by WizWrm

Not necessarily. There's no reason one character can't be just as strong an enemy of another character as that character is a friend of a third. They don't even have to be of opposing alignments, just opposing viewpoints.

Then according to Creamsteak's proposal, we should get rid of viewpoints, too, because it would make the game easier if nobody's player character had a point of view or an idea that conflicted with that of somebody else's player character. See where this is heading? Wouldn't you rather just play the game?

Here's what I'm saying: If PCs conflict with each other, that's the problem, not the alignment system. If it's having a dysfunctional effect on the game, the DM should be dealing with the situation however the DM sees fit, not nerfing alignment. If it were my game, I'd make the rolls, and either this plays out and somebody fills out a new sheet, or it gets solved elsewise, but always in-game.

Furthermore, I would think that such a town as Orussus ought to have a Town Watch, a Town Magistrate, and a Town Lockup, being composed as it is of PCs of mixed alignments. And that Gods ought to weigh in from time to time when something is happening in Their World that pleases or displeases them.

There are lots of ways to deal with this problem, but this proposal, in my humble opinion, is among the worst.

[Dungannon]

My quick comment re: alignments. If you want to get rid of alignments for PCs, then you have to remove alignments from the Pantheon as well. IE, a God that espouses trickery and murder in its dogma would be attributed the "evil" descriptor. How could we not then apply the "evil" descriptor to characters in the same world that act out trickery and murder in accordance to the same dogma?

[Uriel]

Originally Posted by Creamsteak

Started a new thread in order to fix ourselves on the current ideas.

1) What should the naming convention for judges be? So far there are different conventions for adding the judges name to the end of the thread title. I'm pretty sure that the end is the best place, but how should we shape them? I'll admit that my own method (parenthesis) looks awkward since it also begins the threads. Should we use [] {} <> - or * before the judge quotation?

Here's one I like,
(Adventure) The Thread Name *Judge: Creamsteak


2) If I wanted to say, "let's throw out alignment", what would we need to do to the game to make everything normal? How do people feel about this? I've noticed at least two or three issues involving alignment that detract from the game itself. I'd rather we get rid of it, and make the game work without. What's your say?

3) Please bring any other issues to the table again, so I can look at them as well. I'll be investigating proposals again soon. I'd like to spend some time working on LEW over the next couple weeks since my midterms are over. I still have tons of homework, but I'm over the first challenge of my schoolyear.

I like < >

I am really all for keeping an Alignment system.

As far as the Evil thing goes: I find that Chaotic Evil PCs, and even Lawful Evil ones don't always fit within a non-evil Society (no legnthy debates, please, I mean a Hobgoblin nation, or one with a Dark Overlord etc, not making comments onthe alignment of real-world societies).Nobody is going to adventure with a Chaotic Evil PC for very long of that PC is played correctly, inless the entire party is debased and dastardly (I run 2 PbP games where they are all evil, with one or 2 Neutrals in the entire mix).
Neutral Evil, however, fits in well, as this often represents someone out for their own gain, though they don't act recklessly (CE) or in a heavy-handed (LE) manner. I think that NE is a very fun Alignment to play, given the right circumstances.

regarding Alignment problems:
I feel that the paladin as a LG only entity is a really limited Class.
I like Paladins of every alignment, as each Deity would have Champions for their cause. Had we had a 'Paladins of all faiths' rule in effect, I might have played one myself. I think that thels and nimisgod are doing just fine playing Lawful Good(e2shoes), however, kudos to them.

[WizWrm]

Originally Posted by dpdx

Then according to Creamsteak's proposal, we should get rid of viewpoints, too, because it would make the game easier if nobody's player character had a point of view or an idea that conflicted with that of somebody else's player character. See where this is heading? Wouldn't you rather just play the game?

That's not the proposal at all. The proposal is to remove the mechanics for alignment. That's all.

Here's what I'm saying: If PCs conflict with each other, that's the problem, not the alignment system. If it's having a dysfunctional effect on the game, the DM should be dealing with the situation however the DM sees fit, not nerfing alignment. If it were my game, I'd make the rolls, and either this plays out and somebody fills out a new sheet, or it gets solved elsewise, but always in-game.

I don't know about "nerfing" alignment. Alignment isn't having a dysfunctional effect on the game; there are just a few situations Creamsteak feels would be better resolved without the concerns of alignment - a paladin taking Dragon Discple of an evil dragon, for one.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that removing alignment would mean out-of-game conflict resolutions, which is what you seem to be implying. Creamsteak is not considering a removal of alignment in order to remove character conflict; that's not the motive here.. Only the mechanics are being considered for removal, to facilitate smoother role-play, and the question up for discussion right now is whether this would indeed turn out to be the effect.

Furthermore, I would think that such a town as Orussus ought to have a Town Watch, a Town Magistrate, and a Town Lockup, being composed as it is of PCs of mixed alignments. And that Gods ought to weigh in from time to time when something is happening in Their World that pleases or displeases them.

There are lots of ways to deal with this problem, but this proposal, in my humble opinion, is among the worst.

What's the problem you're referring to? Character conflicts? Opposing alignments are not what leads to character conflicts; it's the opposing viewpoints, which have no relevance to this discussion. The proposal is simply to remove alignment mechanics in order to make roleplay easier on players.

[Uriel]

CS, there really isn't a need to Judge the Delmon's aid adventure, as it is going to flow in to the Monestary Adventure (hopefully) by the end of the night.

On second thoughts, I'll keep it in the current thread, so I guess it does need a Judge

[Creamsteak]

Judges, I also wanted to make sure 3/4 of us agree to accept Gnomeworks final proposal for his character's feats. I'm OK with them, I believe.

I'll also address that i support scent, and since GaryH supports it, we only need one more vote to allow Scent, though we would still need to make some specific criteria. Obviously races like Gnomes and Half-Orcs could choose it, what other races, wis 11+ or 13+?

[dpdx]

Originally Posted by WizWrm

I don't know about "nerfing" alignment. Alignment isn't having a dysfunctional effect on the game; there are just a few situations Creamsteak feels would be better resolved without the concerns of alignment - a paladin taking Dragon Discple of an evil dragon, for one.

Huh? I said the intra-party knife fights of enemy PCs were having a dysfunctional effect on the game, not alignment. Anyway, I thought that's what I said. You're supposed to be arguing with me.

Anyway, I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of why alignment change is being proposed, and I'm even more glad that it's mostly because of PrC restrictions and not because of intra-party knife fights in the street, that is, if that's truly why Creamsteak proposed it. I originally asked 'why?' in the post I lost.

That said, I'm still like, critically against removing alignment from the game, as in, I'll retire from LEW if this goes through, and devote more time to the Actual Real DnD that is played in my regular PbP games. Too much of the game is built for it, and like I said before, I'm accepting no substitutes, especially if same are readily available in the SRD. Judges and DMs alike will be wasting time 'modifying' central concepts of the game when they could be building a world to encompass and make moot the problems.

Ishmael can't be a blue Dragon Disciple unless he's evil? For god's sake, make a blue dragon that he CAN be a disciple of, then! Does Ishmael's player like the bennies of blues, or does he want to go bad and toss Chain Lightning at the boy scouts? I think nimisgod said he wanted the color to go with his eyes. I present, therefore, for LEW Judge approval:

The Light Blue Dragon
Per Blue Dragon in the MM, except it's aligned Neutral, and goes better with Ishmael's eyes.

or its alternative:

Make the Blue True Neutral.

I expect immediate approval will allow us to move past this ridiculous discussion of getting rid of the mechanics of alignment, and move onto what's really annoying me, which is:

Why do we have to steal from Pratchett? Can't our world be round, er, spherical?

[Creamsteak]

I'm still able to work with the round-world concept. Thing is that not enough players get involved in the proposals and discussions on such matters when they are up.

Which is one reason why I'm glad your getting involved with the alignment discussion. That's at least one more person being vocal... er... writting loudly?

[WizWrm]

No, he can be a blue dragon disicple and still be LG. I had just suggested that it might make IC sense if a blue dragon ancestor would affect him mentally as well as physically; if he's sprouting blue scales and dragon claws, wouldn't it follow that he also starts taking on some of the mental traits?

But no, there is no mechanical limitation that prevents a paladin from being a disciple of an evil dragon.

[Edit]: Honestly, I would also prefer a flat or round world; or maybe a Ringworld/Sigil/HALO or something that has some loose justification, physics-wise.

[dpdx]

Yeah, my bad, I joined late, when Uriel invited me. So blame him.

Lemme just ask: why ARE we talking about ditching alignment?

[dpdx]

As for Ishmael, I'm not his player, but wouldn't it be cool if:

The mental trait showed itself as a desire to fry PCs who didn't walk the straight and narrow path of LG? Just the desire.

'Ishmael feels his hair stand on end as the rogue picks the lock on a chest that is clearly not his own, and struggles to keep his fingers from forming a complete electrical circuit.'

I dunno if blues are electric or not, I'm just sayin'...

[Creamsteak]

The key thing I was thinking about when I prosed the alignment question was a combination of these reasons:

1) People have such varied degrees of belief in alignment. 3e has made most people more agreeable, but people still want to argue semantics (sp? right word?).

2) Alignment restrictions for certain classes bother me. Monk more than Paladin (though I would like to see someone attempt what Uriel mentioned above, champions for each alignment or diety). I can see how a character could train much like a monk without using a code. Prestige classes as well. I just have something against choosing alignment because it's a requirement.

3) Well, although I think it's obvious that Always chaotic evil means "Mostly" chaotic evil... I don't like arbitrating exceptions to the rules. Also, theres always the chance of too many exceptions... it's a general thing.

It's a combination of these three reasons and 50 other little things that make me at least consider (don't assume I'm going either way, I'm CONSIDERING all options) dropping alignment. I want to know what's best for everybody. I don't pay much, if any, attention to alignment unless it's called for. It's an aspect of the game that I absolutely ignore until detect-evil or such is cast, so I don't have any personal problems with dropping alignment.

Edit: and I'm caught up on my first game! Whoohoo! Uriel, the only comment I have concerning that game is such: do you have excel? If you do, I can teach you how to make quick maps if you want, though your methods is fine, I guess (try using the {code}{/code} script to keep it more shapely).

[Uriel]

Originally Posted by Creamsteak

Judges, I also wanted to make sure 3/4 of us agree to accept Gnomeworks final proposal for his character's feats. I'm OK with them, I believe.

I'll also address that i support scent, and since GaryH supports it, we only need one more vote to allow Scent, though we would still need to make some specific criteria. Obviously races like Gnomes and Half-Orcs could choose it, what other races, wis 11+ or 13+?

Yes to Scent, my other fave feat (besides Leadership).
I'm ok with Gnoems and Half-Orcs (as far as PH races).

One option would be to make it accessibly to Druids, Barbarians and Rangers at a certain Level, since they are the least 'civilized'.Say, 5th or 6th?

I asked this in the other thread, but what was the final ruling on gaining HPs, 1/2? 3/4?

-Uriel