D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[uzirath]

The other problem is that "objective goodness" renders a lot of moral arguments absolutely pointless. What is good? We can point to an angel of "objective goodness," ask, and we know. There is no moral quandary to be found. Good is what denizens of this plane say is good, and it must be good because it's a plane of objective goodness.

This is similar to what drove me away from using alignment back in my AD&D days. It felt too easy to solve complex moral problems with a "Know Alignment" or "Detect Evil" spell. I usually include plenty of Obvious Evil in my games, but I want the majority of people and monsters to feel like folks in the real world... striving to survive, making deals, making mistakes, building up trust over time, etc. As GM, I certainly don't want the job of measuring all of them against some sort of objective in-game standard. Much more fun to simply let them do their thing and see what happens.

 

[MNblockhead]

I may be mistaken, but weren't you opining about the lack of mechanical alignment -- ie tools for the DM to get on your case in the meta?

I don't see how following the rules of the game are getting on the player's case. Your characterizations require an adversarial DM, which can be an issue throughout the game. I don't see a DM adjudicating rules relating to alignment much different than other mechanics.

 

[Velderan]

I don't see how following the rules of the game are getting on the player's case. Your characterizations require an adversarial DM, which can be an issue throughout the game. I don't see a DM adjudicating rules relating to alignment much different than other mechanics.

Yeah, I feel like most of the objections to alignment are born out of examples that if alignment wasn't there to be the issue, there certainly be something else taking its place to cause problems. Some people just aren't good fits to play games together, regardless of the rules involved.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't see how following the rules of the game are getting on the player's case. Your characterizations require an adversarial DM, which can be an issue throughout the game. I don't see a DM adjudicating rules relating to alignment much different than other mechanics.

The rules you're asking for are rules to encourage being an adversarial DM.

"What how your players play their characters. Judge them. If they step out of line, damage their character." That's what the class restrictions in 3e were.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The rules you're asking for are rules to encourage being an adversarial DM.

"What how your players play their characters. Judge them. If they step out of line, damage their character." That's what the class restrictions in 3e were.

Mmmm. Kinda. There's a huge difference between "The DM is peering over your shoulder and judging you for how you play your character and is going to strip their abilities if you don't line up with them" the way the pre-4e rules recommended and "If you get a reputation as a bad guy who brings shame to your organisation they might have Words with you as a consequence."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Mmmm. Kinda. There's a huge difference between "The DM is peering over your shoulder and judging you for how you play your character and is going to strip their abilities if you don't line up with them" the way the pre-4e rules recommended and "If you get a reputation as a bad guy who brings shame to your organisation they might have Words with you as a consequence."

And that's Allegiance, not Alignment!

There's nothing wrong with having a player choose to be part of an organization and deal with the organization's culture.

It's a whole other thing to demand players pick a moral and ethical box where they suffer consequences for not agreeing with the DM or even worse, the designers who think nipple rings are evil.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The rules you're asking for are rules to encourage being an adversarial DM.

"What how your players play their characters. Judge them. If they step out of line, damage their character." That's what the class restrictions in 3e were.

that's not what's being asked for here though is it? i don't think i've seen anything encouraging alignment switching penalties, what is being presented is the minimum requirement of 'either play as the alignment your sheet claims you are or accept the alignment change'

 

[Vaalingrade]

that's not what's being asked for here though is it? i don't think i've seen anything encouraging alignment switching penalties, what is being presented is the minimum requirement of 'either play as the alignment your sheet claims you are or accept the alignment change'

Some people are harkening back to the days of alignment mechanics.

Also, I just want to not put an alignment on my sheet period because it is terrible and I don't want to participate in it.

 

[MNblockhead]

The rules you're asking for are rules to encourage being an adversarial DM.

"What how your players play their characters. Judge them. If they step out of line, damage their character." That's what the class restrictions in 3e were.

I think my players are more about the damage my Monsters do to their PC hit points.

 

[MNblockhead]

And that's Allegiance, not Alignment!

There's nothing wrong with having a player choose to be part of an organization and deal with the organization's culture.

It's a whole other thing to demand players pick a moral and ethical box where they suffer consequences for not agreeing with the DM

(Some thoughtful but meandering thoughts about why l like alignment...)

or even worse, the designers who think nipple rings are evil.

[Record scratch]

What? Okay, you must share the background on this. What that really a thing?