Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4017473" data-attributes="member: 42582">It is true that alignment is determined in part by the mechanics. But I think it is widely believed (not universally, though) that the rules can be very hard to apply. I am one of those who believes so - part of the problem is that alignment is defined simultaneoulsy in a consequentialist and a deontological fashion. In practice, I think the GM looms large in alignment determinations, and in working out the implications in play of an alignment imputed by the rules.Furthermore, in actual play alignment is often exerienced as prescriptive, in this sense: many GMs forbid evil PCs in their games. The PHB encourages this prescription by describing the Evil alignments purely by reference to the wickedness of such enemies, as opposed to the properties of such heroes. Alignment thus becomes a tool for limiting player choices.The frequent remarks to this effect by the designers, and especially James Wyatt in his discussion of the power suites they are designing to eliminate the 15-minute adventuring day problem.  On this I agree with what Reynard and Apoptosis have said. Presumably it can be ignored. But I regard it as an interesting indication of the designers' expectations about how the game will be played. And it is a noticeable difference from earlier editions.Not forbidden. Part of the complexity here is that D&D has always had a funny relationship to the setting side of its system, sometimes trying to pretend that the system and setting are entirely independent. I think 4e is deliberately being more upfront about this, indicating what sort of setting presuppositions best support the game in play.I'm not ignoring this. I already agreed that the GM has no reduction in his or her power to introduce game elements (subject to earlier caveats about (i) adversity and (ii) when background becomes an encounter). It is everything that happens after a world element comes into play that I am focussing on (as well as the caveated preludes thereto).bThis is probably false (see Chris Sims's posts wrt Healing). But anyway it is irrelevant, because GMs in D&D (especially in 2nd ed AD&D) have nearly always regarded themselves as free to tweak a monster's hit points or dice rolls on the fly in order to better enhance the play experience. What 4e is doing is giving this power to the players instead.On the Stunned vs Dazed thread, I predicted that there will be mechanics that permit AP to be used to avoid the consequences of stun, paralysis etc. My evidence is the Paragon feat we have seen that allows AP to be used to avoid the consequences of surprise - there is no good design reason to privelege surprise as a status in this respect.Only time will tell whether or not my prediction is absurd.</blockquote>

Verification