Piracy And Other Malfeasance

[Reynard]

Honestly, how long were they factions without also implying behavior? They are guiding behavior already by 1977-78 with the Holmes Basic.

It was still the wrong move.

 

[payn]

Alignments were -- and should have remained -- factions. Turning them into personalities was a huge error.

See, its this kind of thinking that got us into the trouble in the first place. Alignment should be both and more. A nuanced system of tangible results of actions and philosophy, that is also flexible in nature. Though, folks often default to straightjacket responses or obviate the necessity into the background. I think a lot of that is due to the black and white morality nature a lot of D&D's (and fantasy largely itself) history. X always being evil was a shortcut into never having to stop and think about what a character was doing. Alignment is the opposite on steroids. Naturally thats going to be difficult to manage as we see its largely being wiped out of existence.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, setting aside how you have quietly slid from talking about marketing to what they game tells us to do. Also setting aside how pre-emptively insulting people as a rhetorical tool is lame...

Do you regularly use d100s for to-hit rolls? Or do you do what the game tells you to do?

I change the rules of the game when I feel my idea is better than the books, and so does the other GM in my group. No apologies from either of us.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the people that is true for, it was still true even with 9 alignments. "No evil and no CN" was the most common houserule in the world, I think.

Not at our tables.

 

[Voadam]

Good for example, is often viewed as a part time job. You can do whatever as long as you do the good thing when it matters and in an amount that weighs more than the bad you do. Evil, on the other hand, is viewed as a full time zero breaks gig. You must kick every puppy and take all candy from all babies or you are not evil.

Not my experience playing or DMing evil PCs. I have seen the "I get to play evil so I am diving in cartoonishly" but that is not how I have seen it viewed most of the time and there was no group expectation that evil meant you have to kick puppies or you were neutral.

 

[Reynard]

See, its this kind of thinking that got us into the trouble in the first place. Alignment should be both and more. A nuanced system of tangible results of actions and philosophy, that is also flexible in nature. Though, folks often default to straightjacket responses or obviate the necessity into the background. I think a lot of that is due to the black and white morality nature a lot of D&D's (and fantasy largely itself) history. X always being evil was a shortcut into never having to stop and think about what a character was doing. Alignment is the opposite on steroids. Naturally thats going to be difficult to manage as we see its largely being wiped out of existence.

I don't think it added anything positive to the game at any point.

 

[payn]

Not my experience playing or DMing evil PCs. I have seen the "I get to play evil so I am diving in cartoonishly" but that is not how I have seen it viewed most of the time and there was no group expectation that evil meant you have to kick puppies or you were neutral.

Consider yourself lucky then. Hats off to avoiding this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are there tho? Seems like hero is the only option for many folks.

It wasn't like the evil band was particularly attractive from day one to us. I saw just about as many of what D&D would call "neutral" characters in RuneQuest as I ever saw in D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not at our tables.

And? "Most common" does not translate into "universal".

 

[Micah Sweet]

And? "Most common" does not translate into "universal".

Popularity does not and has never really mattered to me. I don't see it as a valid argumemt for anything but making money.