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

[hong]

Yes, but how often are you allowed to change your alignment during a given campaign?

A stupid question. How often a PC changes alignment is completely up to the player. If it gets to the point where it's disruptive, then you deal with it out of game, just like any other problem of this sort.

As I said earlier: As a DM, I like to present my player characters with moral dilemmas. If the players are allowed to change alignments so freely, then the dilemmas will not only be unchallenging (and thus not really "dilemmas"), but player characters will be changing alignments every two or three game sessions.

If there's no possibility of changing alignments at all, then there are no dilemmas worthy of the word.

Is that supposed to be typical and within moderation? So, if I, say, DM a six-month campaign with a group of five player characters, and if one of them switches alignments three times during that period, and three of them each switches two times, and one of them switches only once, that's typical and okay, right?

Right. If five people are having fun, and you are not, then the problem lies with you. Find a new group, or play by yourself.


Hong "or with yourself, if you prefer" Ooi

 

[Desdichado]

Does anyone besides me see the irony of Azlan professing early on in the thread that D&D is "stuck in the 70s" and yet comes on as a strong proponent of proscriptive alignment?

By the way, Azlan, before you say any more on the "letter" and "spirit" of alignment, I suggest you reread the 3e PHB alignment chapter over again, you clearly don't understand it. It states very clearly that alignment can change, that it is descriptive and not proscriptive, and it should never be used as a straight-jacket to control player actions.

No offense, and I'm sure you have plenty of fun, but reading your posts makes it more and more clear to me that I wouldn't ever want to play in your game.

 

[Azlan]

RPGs are, and always have been, and always will be, little more than "play pretend" for teens and grown-ups. We didn't need rules when we were six, and we had fun. Now we need rules, or we feel it isn't a "real" game.

Ah, but we do need rules. Otherwise, role-playing games will be little more than what they were when we kids...

Kid #1: Bang, you're dead!
Kid #2: No, I'm not. I shot your first!
Kid #1: No, you didn't.
Kid #2: Yes, I did.
Kid #1: No, you did not!
Kid #2: I did too!
Kid #1: Did NOT!
Kid #2: Did TOO!

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well, the class is called fighter... what did you expect? He fights, and that's it. If you want the character to do something else, multiclass.

Besides, you can't really expect each class to be balanced with each other for each style of gaming. They balanced them for combat, because combat is the field where balance is most important.

Um I expect the fighter even with the name fighter to be as good out of a fight as a rogue is in a fight. I'm mean the name is rogue not dealer of death so why should he kick butt in a fight.

They balanced them for combat and that's it. That's why they screwed up. Combat may be the field where balance is most important but it sin't the only field. And they balanced the game almost like combat was the only field.

 

[Azlan]

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal
Does anyone besides me see the irony of Azlan professing early on in the thread that D&D is "stuck in the 70s" and yet comes on as a strong proponent of proscriptive alignment?

Sigh. I said that, judging by one or two people's comments here, D&D did indeed appear to be "stuck in the '70s". But I don't really think that 3rd Edition D&D is that way.

No offense, and I'm sure you have plenty of fun, but reading your posts makes it more and more clear to me that I wouldn't ever want to play in your game.

If you're like hong and Tsyr, here, and you want unrestrained, totally non-penalized freedom in changing your alignment (even if it's freedom to the point where you can change alignments "like socks", as someone stated previously), then I wouldn't want you playing in my games either.

BTW: In my campaigns, I allow a player character to make only one alignment shift in a single game session. Thus, a character could go from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in a single game session, but not from chaotic good to chaotic evil. Furthermore, a player character who voluntarily shifts alignments gets no XPs for that game session. If the alignment shift "makes sense" in both the character's concept and the campaign's storyline, then I might give the player character up to half XPs for that game session, but no more than that. But that exception is only for a player character's first alignment shift. Any alignment shifts after the first, and the player character will get no XPs for that game session, no matter how much it "makes sense".

 

[Henry]

This discussion can continue without personal insult. Let's please be respectful of one another, even if we have differences in play styles.

 

[Henry]

BTW: In my campaigns, I allow a player character to make only one alignment shift in a single game session. Thus, a character could go from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in a single game session, but not from chaotic good to chaotic evil. Furthermore, a player character who voluntarily shifts alignments gets no XPs for that game session. If the alignment shift "makes sense" in both the character's concept and the campaign's storyline, then I might give the player character up to half XPs for that game session, but no more than that -- and that's only for a player character's first alignment shift. Any alignment shifts after the first, and the player character will get no XPs for that game session, no matter how much it "makes sense".

Something I'm misunderstanding -- apparently, Tsyr, Wormwood, and Azlan are all allowing the players to "shift" the character's alignment, rather than determine it by actions the PC has taken. Is this true, or am I misreading here? In my group's games, we follow the PHB method - that is, the DM makes the call, and the shift happens when the DM feels it appropriate:

from the PHB:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak, occasionally tempting him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not the lawful or good thing to do. People are also not consistent from day to day. Good characters can lose their tempers, neutral characters can be inspired to perform noble acts, and so on. Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has
changed to match her actions.

So, as a player you have stated your intent to go within certain guidelines, as broad as they are, and if you consistently go outside of them, say if the Lawful Good character is not only occasionally greedy, but methodically starts figuring out ways to rob banks, steal from alms boxes, and bilk peasants out of funds for "adventuring fees", then as a DM, it's time for an alignment change - Probably to True Neutral, but closer to Neutral Evil if innocents are harmed in the PC's dealings.

 

[Tsyr]

Something I'm misunderstanding -- apparently, Tsyr, Wormwood, and Azlan are all allowing the players to "shift" the character's alignment, rather than determine it by actions the PC has taken. Is this true, or am I misreading here?

Misreading, for me.

To spell it out:

In my game, characters do not know there alignment. Period. They might *think* they do, based on what they originaly wrote down, but they don't *know*. Unless they happened to, oh, cast "know alignment" on themselves or something, but nobody has ever done that.

Characters give me a starting alignment. I keep track of it from there.

When I say "shift alignment", I mean that the character has done enough things that indicate his alignment is closer to a different one, so I change his alignment.

 

[Desdichado]

If you're like hong and Tsyr, here, and you want unrestrained, totally non-penalized freedom in changing your alignment (even if it's freedom to the point where you can change alignments "like socks", as someone stated previously), then I wouldn't want you playing in my games either.

Neither hong nor Tsyr said that. You've consistently interpreted that, despite their best efforts to present themselves as clearly as possible. You are either incredibly poor at reading comprehension, or are wilfully misrepresenting their position.

Regardless, I don't want to ever play in a game where alignment is such a core ethos to the character. I don't ever want to play in a game where the DM tells me how my character should act.

BTW: In my campaigns, I allow a player character to make only one alignment shift in a single game session. Thus, a character could go from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in a single game session, but not from chaotic good to chaotic evil. Furthermore, a player character who voluntarily shifts alignments gets no XPs for that game session. If the alignment shift "makes sense" in both the character's concept and the campaign's storyline, then I might give the player character up to half XPs for that game session, but no more than that. But that exception is only for a player character's first alignment shift. Any alignment shifts after the first, and the player character will get no XPs for that game session, no matter how much it "makes sense".

Bleh. It sounds like you're not really doing anything all that different than Tsyr is, you're just determined to argue anyway.

 

[Theuderic]

Hong, why do you have to insult people? Didn't your momma love you when you were a kid?