D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Vaalingrade]

And still, despite minor variations, I can play alignment in 5e almost exactly the same as in AD&D. I notice that people who hate alignment either have to bring up minor details or actually invent things to try to make a point...



And this is proof of the above. Alignment has never been extremely clear cut, there have always been degrees, variations and interpretations anyway.

It'd be real nice if you answered the question sometime soon.

Yeah, I know, the good thing is that incredibly good designers such as yourself have always had the right, considering all that they have successfully designed and published, to criticise the design of others.

That's... not how criticism works.

That's not how anything works.

And I find is significant, and in like with the above that you choose to now discuss the skill system in a thread about alignment. sigh

How is this significant?

The discussion is on the longevity of a mechanic and the long term popularity of the game. Comparing it to another mechanic is completely fair game.

 

[Lyxen]

"Minor Variations" like entire systems that deal with experience penalties, loss of magical powers, whole entire definition changes of the different allowed or varieties of alignments ranging from 3 to 5 to 9 to 10 options each with their own specific sub-definitions which are specific to a given edition of D&D...

And how much of the rules did this take ? Less than 0.1%. AD&D was full of options that no-one ever used anyway. However the core of the alignment matrix and what it means has stood almost unchanged since the AD&D PH. Deny that.

And at this point it functions pretty much exclusively as an RP tool with no mechanics tied to it, whatsoever...

Which, in practical play, it was at the time, except for reducing the choice of class for a minority of cases.

AC has been more set in clay than Alignment has. At least there was never a time where you lost XP for having too high or too low an Armor Class.

Of course there were some changes, the main one being ascending instead of descending, but the principle has stayed the same and the armor list and its benefits the same too.

Ahhh... so "Good Game Design" is "Vague and progressively disconnected from all other game mechanics as to essentially be irrelevant for the system". Good to know.

I'll wait until you produce anything that receives any sort of recognition, and I promise I will not even wait 50 years to see if it stands the test of time even barely like some core concept of the game.

 

[Lyxen]

That's... not how criticism works.

That's how it works with reasonable people, they make it constructive and not a pure rant. But of course, if it's just ranting and venting that you want because the game does not correspond to your specific views, I'll leave you to it, it holds no interest for me.

The discussion is on the longevity of a mechanic and the long term popularity of the game. Comparing it to another mechanic is completely fair game.

Have you even read the title of the thread ?

 

[Vaalingrade]

What part of the rules do you consider to be alignment?

Seriously. Define your terms.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's how it works with reasonable people,

Hence all the groundbreaking movies of Roger Ebert.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'll wait until you produce anything that receives any sort of recognition, and I promise I will not even wait 50 years to see if it stands the test of time even barely like some core concept of the game.

Hey, if you wanna tell me to go fornicate with myself, just do it, man. No need to pretend like you're being civil.

Go away.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's just say 'eating people is bad' and skip the pointless semantic argument that sounds like someone trying to excuse eating non-human sapient?

Nobody sounds like they are making an excuse to eat a non-human sapient being. At least not to anyone reading things rationally. Arguing it's not cannibalism is not an argument or excuse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let's just say 'eating people is bad' and skip the pointless semantic argument that sounds like someone trying to excuse eating non-human sapient?

Yeah, that's pretty much my position as well.

The reason "eating fellow humans" is morally Not Okay is not because it's "a creature eating its own kind." It's because you're eating another sapient being. Thus, the morally relevant thing is "eating another sapient being." It sure would be nice if we had a shorter, more pithy term for that, but because non-human sapient beings are more rare than people who have no strong opinions about any grammar topic whatsoever, we'll just have to keep using the clunky circumlocution "eating another sapient being."

And yeah. Vampires, illithids, etc.? Fine calling them "always evil," along lines like my last post. My illithids (rather, singular, since only one has ever appeared) COULD eat other things than fresh, sapient brains. But any who choose to do that ARE evil, and that evil really does leave a mark on the soul. (They even have cloning tech, so they COULD just reproduce with clones...but they don't, demonstrating their evil.) Maybe eating sapient brains even stains an illithid's skin dark purple-green, so you can even dodge the "but how do you KNOW they're evil" thing.

I use these things sparingly. The one illithid was quite evil. (And his hubris killed him, delightful irony.) Devils? They're scary, but not because they're violent. It's because they're manipulative. They don't tell lies or try to trap people in bad deals--because that's stupid and bad for business. They'll give you contracts that only ask you to step just a little outside your moral bounds, to do something you think is good. And every step they persuade you to take down that road makes you more and more like them. Even if you decide to opt out, they've made the world more like them--which is a win for them.

Pure evil is a nice palate cleanser; that and non-moral conflicts (e.g. actual animals, non-lethal competition, etc.) They help highlight and sweeten the complex conflicts, difficult moral choices, and deep character reveals. It's a refreshing gulp of water or bit of citrus juice to cut through the richness. You wouldn't, in general, want exclusively that palate-cleansing and nothing else, unless you were getting your fill of those other things elsewhere (which is fine! but not super relevant for me). But such things serve a useful purpose, when used sparingly, so things don't become too ponderous or over-saturated.

 

[Steampunkette]

Nobody sounds like they are making an excuse to eat a non-human sapient being. At least not to anyone reading things rationally. Arguing it's not cannibalism is not an argument or excuse.

Cannibalism wrong.
Cannibalism is -not- eating anything that is sapient.
Cannibalism is only for humans eating humans.
Eating Elves is therefore not Cannibalism, and not wrong, unless there is a word for eating a species that -isn't- human that is also wrong.

 

[Lyxen]

What part of the rules do you consider to be alignment?

The part where it helps you roleplay your character, help define his personality ? Which, by the way, is very similar in AD&D and 5e. Funnily, and to shut down the "straightjacket" thingie, checking that allowed me to find this: "Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its “true” neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other." All descriptive, never prescriptive.