Search results

This is exactly how I feel. I've never used it to hit players with the whammy stick, but I've had a dm do it to me and other players. It isn't me as dm or you as dm or many other responsible people here. It is the d&d community as a whole that is suffering from it. Look at how many arguments...

I think some people confuse good with law when they say absolute good is "too rigid, controlling, domineering when it gets the upper hand". That is not good to me. Yet this is how we can all look at the same term and come up with a million and one different concepts of what good is. It is too...

Yes, they actually said that every class has out of combat roles. I forget where the exact quote was, though. I don't think they called them secondary. That would be a bit of an insult. My view on it is that out of combat roles are so varied and the lines can be blurred so much that you...

See the problem is that if you actually read the whole alignment section, all the alignments are defined by BOTH the cosmological forces and the ideals those words represent. Anyone who says otherwise has not read the alignment chapter, has grossly misunderstood it, or has choosen to ignore...

Well I should have added the second part to that. I've been arguing this elsewhere and it has become exhaustive. Interpretation can be a big plus. I actually like the idea of alignment. I think where it BECOMES bad is when so many of the core mechanics are tied to it. Think of any rule that is...

For referrence, stickiness is a defender trait, not a contoller one. It may seem like something that falls under the controllers domain, but most controllers would actually want to be very unsticky.

That is how most arguments in the world start off, and just about every argument online. Well that and opinion. It happens to me all the time. I make long winded points and people seem to miss one of them and take the whole thing out of context. Then someone comes along and makes my point in a...

Aye, good point. Some people would have meet non-evil orcs, but I guess not everyone would have. If you grew up around a tribe of evil orcs and never meet any good orcs, though, I guess your logical conclusion would be that all orcs are evil and should be destroyed. So now do you follow this...

You know what, I pretty much exactly view law and chaos as such. Law follows outside principles(the world) and chaos follows inside principles(the self), so to say. There is alot more to it, but that is the underlying principle of it. But this is my own personal adaptation and does not try to...

Eh, I had already finished before I saw this. Thanks, though. :) These are the creatures in the mm that can reproduce and are always evil(no templates): Achaierai(Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful) Barghest(Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful, Shapechanger) Chromatic Dragons Hellhound(Evil, Extraplanar, Fire...

You missed an important part: orcs aren't listed as always evil. Take the orc out and put in something that is always evil and can have babies. Is their even anything like that in the mm? Aren't the always evil things like devils and such? As far as I know devils don't have babies, or at least...

You are punished if you are a class that requires being a certain alignment. You don't know you are breaking your code because your definition is different from the dm's. Now the dm has decided that you have not been following your alignment and tells you you can no longer advance in that class...

Good catch. I forgot all abot reading that. How old is that, anyway? So perhaps law and chaos are getting their own system like good and evil may be. I do remember another blog, though, that asked us what we thought chaos meant. Then he went on to say that we'd be wrong(I think). I'm pretty...

I told you where it says it, both in the LN and LE descriptions. Unless those don't mean anything. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm telling you EXACTLY what it says, that following law is mentioned in both LN and LE descriptions. No redefining on my part. That is the problem with alignments...

You need to read the chapter again because it does. Read the edit in my post.

I actually think a little blending will be right in phb1. I can definitely see the warlord as maybe being a leader mainly with a little defender. That's just a guess, though. He's not the only one where I see potential for blending, either. That is why I was curious if they could make a new...

But it did. The description says so. That was the problem with law. It was both the cosmic force of order AND following the laws of the land. I suggest you go read that chapter again. And this is yet another example of why alignment should not be tied to mechanics. Edit: I should add that the...

That is horrible game design. It is fine if you want to give players freedom to explore what law and chaos means to them, but once you couple it with in game mechanics that can punish you for going against it, you are asking for trouble. Just look at the monk. What is okay for the monk to do...

I guess that makes sense, too. On a side note, I wonder if there will ever be new roles.

The names you suggest would be good if it was striker you disliked. Tank would be a good alternative. Tanks are very sturdy but can povide a good boom.