Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[Bendris Noulg]

It's something that changes based on what you do, instead of changing what you do based on it, if you follow.

Okay, merely a conflict in how we'd word it (since, obviously, my description of the A&A system above should indicate that I do, indeed, follow).

 

[Azlan]

...alignment, as opposed to basicly anything else in the game, is not "fixed" in any way. It's something that changes based on what you do, instead of changing what you do based on it

Ha! That's putting the horse before the cart, for sure.

So, basically, your alignment can change without penalty according to whatever you, the player, feel like doing, from one game session to the next? And why? Because you, as a player, should always have ultimate, unrestrained say-so over your beloved characters... ?!

That's so self-centered.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

That's so self-centered.

Not exactly. The DMG indicates clearly that alignment doesn't change that easily, that long-term game play of the desired alignment is required in order to effect the change. So a Player can say (or just start playing) a different alignment than the one selected, but it's up to the DM to determine when the change actually occurs (i.e., when the mechanics of the game reflect the change in attitude).

That's primarily why I use a point-based system; It removed the ambiguity from the process, and informs the Players of exactly when I will invoke the change.

 

[Tsyr]

So, basically, your alignment can change without penalty according to whatever you, the player, feel like doing, from one game session to the next? And why? Because you, as a player, should always have ultimate, unrestrained say-so over your beloved characters... ?!

Yup, you got it. It's my character. See the little bit on the top where it says "Player: David Weaver"? It doesn't say "Player: Azlan (or whoever)". I control what my character does. Period. If you try to tamper with this, ever, I walk. End of story.

You don't know my character one five thousanth as well as I do. You cannot tell me what my character does or does not do. If my Neutral Good human ranger wants to kill that elf child, then darnit, it's my choice, and I have to life with the consequences. You're free to change my alignment.. in fact, I would expect you to. But I'm free to do it.

Now, after a point, of course, you just get into characters who are effectivly just plain Chaotic... doing whatever they want, whenever they want to. These are just chaotic evil people*. They might try to convince you they are good ("But I saved Homlett!"), but after a point, excuses don't have any meaning and they stay CE. Or some varient on E, anyhow. But personaly, I would have booted a player long before it reached that point anyhow. That's just a bad player in general.

That's so self-centered.

You have unlimited NPCs to do whatever you want with. You control basicly every single facet of the world as it is. Give my my bloody character, or else it's basicly just you sitting at a chair and telling us a story.


*: What is Chaotic Neutral, then, you ask? Chaotic Neutral is funny... and it's a thin line, unlike what some players might think. CN is one step away from CE... the only difference is that CN has no real desire to do evil deeds, they just will if they have to. After a point, however, it can be construed that, regardless of what the PLAYER says, the CHARACTER evidently does have a desire to do evil. Then their alignment switches, and it's hard to switch back from CE. That's how I run it in my games, anyhow... I'm not trying to say this should be the Universal Constant or something.

 

[Azlan]

Yup, you got it. It's my character. See the little bit on the top where it says "Player: David Weaver"? It doesn't say "Player: Azlan (or whoever)". I control what my character does. Period. If you try to tamper with this, ever, I walk. End of story.

My, aren't you a prissy player!

You don't know my character one five thousanth as well as I do.

If, as you say, I don't know your character one thousanth (or even one hundreth or one tenth, for that matter) as well as you do, then how can I effectively be your DM? If "alignment" is such a broad and loose game concept for your, and if you're able to deviate from one alignment to another according to your whims, without penalty, then how can I, the DM, know anything at all about your character's personality and behavior? How can I motivate, stimulate, and/or challenge your particular character?

You cannot tell me what my character does or does not do. If my Neutral Good human ranger wants to kill that elf child, then darnit, it's my choice

This is exactly this kind of "roleplaying" that I, as DM, abhor. It's so un-disciplined and downright selfish for a player to be like that.

But personaly, I would have booted a player long before it reached that point anyhow. That's just a bad player in general.

A bad player is as a bad player does.

Personally, I think "chaotic neutral" players (regardless of what they claim the alignments of their characters to be) are a drag; and if unchecked, they're likely to de-rail a campaign.

You have unlimited NPCs to do whatever you want with. You control basicly every single facet of the world as it is. Give my my bloody character, or else it's basicly just you sitting at a chair and telling us a story.

You seem to think this is mostly about power and control, and little (if anything) to do about game balance, campaign cohesion, and gameworld credibility; when, in actuality (or at least, as far as I'm concerned), it's the opposite. Do you think that power and control is what we DMs get off, on? Do you think we devote all the time and hard work it takes to be a DM, because we're control freaks and power mongers... ?

Cripes. Give me a break.

 

[Wormwood]

You seem to think this is mostly about power and control, and nothing to do about game balance, campaign cohesion, and gameworld credibility.

What does a character's alignment have to do with any of those things?

If a player consistently plays his character in a way contrary to their stated alignment, the DM is well within his rights to call for an alignment change---I'm sure Tsyr would agree to that.

Suddenly he shows up on Detect Evil, maybe he's no longer a Paladin. These are all game efefcts stemming from alignment shift. That's all well and good.

What the DM *isn't* allowed to do is let a character's current alignment dicate his behavior.

 

[Fenes 2]

I'd rather have a DM tell me "do that and your PC will change alignment" than "You can't do that because of your alignment". Stories are full of how people change, for better or worse, and it is often a main theme of literature.

As a tangent, I always saw Chaotic Neutral not as an excuse to run amok, but as the alignment for any character that had no strict code of behaviour, was more likely to react very flexible to any situation, and had no real big altruistic streak. Not someone who alternates between good and evil acts at radnom, but someone who takes more or less the "mercenary" route - do the good thing, for a price.

 

[Tsyr]

My, aren't you a prissy player!

If you wish. Personaly, I just consider myself a player... You know, I play my character... But whatever you want to call me. Doesn't matter.

If, as you say, I don't know your character one thousanth (or even one hundreth or one tenth, for that matter) as well as you do, then how can I effectively be your DM? If "alignment" is such a broad and loose game concept for your, and if you're able to deviate from one alignment to another according to your whims, without penalty, then how can I, the DM, know anything at all about your character's personality and behavior? How can I motivate, stimulate, and/or challenge your particular character?

Is the only way you can motivate my character by throwing the same thing at him over and over? Just because I risked my life to save that squalling baby in the burning-down house last time, doesn't mean I will this time, or any time in the future. Maybe I got sick of nearly getting burned to death. Don't expect to be able to slot my characters into some nice little "Responds to X, Y, and Z stimulus" formula.

This is exactly this kind of "roleplaying" that I, as DM, abhor. It's so un-disciplined and downright selfish for a player to be like that.

And I don't exactly disagree with that view... But what I'm saying is, it's the players *right* to be able to do that, even if you don't always like the results. Otherwise, you are basicly saying "Ok, you have free choice, as long as you choose something that I was hoping you would choose anyhow".

A bad player is as a bad player does.

Ne? I'm trying to parse that... I think you just called me a bad player, but before I take offense at that, would you mind restating that one?

Personally, I think "chaotic neutral" players (regardless of what they claim the alignments of their characters to be) are a drag; and if unchecked, they're likely to de-rail a campaign.

Depends on how you deal with them.

You seem to think this is mostly about power and control, and little (if anything) to do about game balance, campaign cohesion, and gameworld credibility; when, in actuality (or at least, as far as I'm concerned), it's the opposite.

Actualy, I don't think anything of the sort. I think it's about freedom. As I said, players have exactly *one* thing in your entire game they can control... their characters. Give them that. Or else why are they there?

Do you think that power and control is what we DMs get off, on? Do you think we devote all the time and hard work it takes to be a DM, because we're control freaks and power mongers... ?

Well, I've seen enough proof-positive examples of this that I could, if I wanted to, probably make a case for that view. But no, I don't. What I do think, however, is that the DM's power should have limits. And those limits should never be crossed. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop DMs from doing whatever the hell they feel like.

And I should point out, I speak as a DM, not just a player. I live by these same rules. So don't think I'm some player whining about "players rights" because I want to be more "munchkin" or something. I'm included in that "we" you were talking about.

Yes, I've been there when a player does something unexpected and throws a monkey-wrench in a plot you had going. I know it can be frustrating. But I've also been on the other side of the screen when a DM flat out said "No, you can't do that. I don't think your character would do that, so you can't." And by far, in my opinion, the former is a better situation than the latter.

And you want to know what else I found out? Generaly, when a player manages to much something up *that* badly... so badly that you just wanna give the player some free dental work... Generaly it's a good sign you were starting to rail-road them a bit too much anyhow, for them to be able to do that.

Cripes. Give me a break.

Likewise. Lets not forget who is insulting who in each post we make...

 

[Azlan]

What the DM *isn't* allowed to do is let a character's current alignment dicate his behavior.

Perhaps "dictate" is too strong a word. But an alignment should define a player character's pre-disposed moral and ethics, and provide some restraint (albeit not as much as the ubiquitous "straightjacket") on his actions. Otherwise, why have alignments at all? Just so a character can radiate good or evil? Just so spells like Protection from (Alignment) can work? Just to serve as restrictions for certain character classes?

Myself, as DM, I often present my player characters with moral dilemmas. It is up to the players to solve those dilemmas while roleplaying their respective alignments and staying within them -- that is the challenge. If alignments are defined too broadly and loosely, or if the player characters are wantonly able to switch from one alignment to another, then where is the challenge... ?

 

[Tsyr]

If a player consistently plays his character in a way contrary to their stated alignment, the DM is well within his rights to call for an alignment change---I'm sure Tsyr would agree to that.

150%. I'm actualy fairly strict about changing alignments.

I'd rather have a DM tell me "do that and your PC will change alignment" than "You can't do that because of your alignment". Stories are full of how people change, for better or worse, and it is often a main theme of literature.

Exactly.

As a tangent, I always saw Chaotic Neutral not as an excuse to run amok, but as the alignment for any character that had no strict code of behaviour, was more likely to react very flexible to any situation, and had no real big altruistic streak. Not someone who alternates between good and evil acts at radnom, but someone who takes more or less the "mercenary" route - do the good thing, for a price.

Yeah, kinda... Except for that last bit. IMHO, a CN doesn't really care if he's doing the "bad" thing, if it will help the situation or himself. But it also doesn't mean doing the bad thing, in the long run, doesn't bother him. Just that he isn't opposed to doing it, if it needs to be done.

The difference between that an CE, IMHO, is not only does the CE not *care* if it's a "bad thing", but he also doesn't need a pressing *reason* to do a bad thing... he would do a bad thing instinctivly, before he thought of a good thing to do.