(Discussion) General Part IV

Creamsteak · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

dpdx said:
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 · Nov 8, 2003

WizWrm said:
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 · Nov 8, 2003

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 · Nov 8, 2003

Creamsteak said:
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.

(Discussion) General Part IV

Creamsteak

Explorer

Creamsteak

Explorer

WizWrm

First Post

Creamsteak

Explorer

WizWrm

First Post

dpdx

Explorer

WizWrm

First Post

dpdx

Explorer

Dungannon

First Post

Uriel

Living EN World Judge

Similar Threads