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

[Tsyr]

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.

You know... This has been puzzling me. You seem to take great issue with the fact that I don't force my characters into an alignment mold, and you keep bringing up things like "change alignments like socks" and such...

Let me re-state something.

In seven months, I have had one character switch from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good, and one player switch from True Neutral to Chaotic Neutral. Hardly like changing socks.

You talk in the next paragraph (which I will get to) about not letting characters switch alignments more than once per game session...

!!!

I can't even concieve of a character even being ABLE to switch more than once per game session! I mean, what exactly is involved in a switch of alignment for you? declaring you're gonna do it? Or what?

Lemme lay something out in plain(er) english for a moment:

I do not *let* my players switch alignments. It just *happens*. A player that came up to me and said "I wanna switch to Lawful Neutral!" would get the bejeezus slaped out of him with a soggy pillowcase. A players alignment is not something they directly control in my games. It just is. The only way it changes is if the player does stuff that warents it changing.

But you're right... I don't really prevent my players from changing alignment. Provided they want to, they can in a few sessions of acting the way the alignment would be. It doesn't happen, though.

Honestly, I don't mean this in an insulting way, but is the only thing keeping your players from acting in a chaotic, alignment-shifting fashion the fact that you don't *let* them? Are they honestly unable to play a role that isn't being forced on them by a few scratches of graphite on some paper?

I mean, honestly, I'm getting confused here. I don't even quite understand the type of game environment you seem to be hinting at... It's completely outside my range of experience.

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".

Do you have any 'in game' logic for why they can't learn while they are changing the way they act, or is it just an arbitrary rule to enforce something?

 

[barsoomcore]

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!

This makes it all clear to me.

Azlan, you play with crappy role-players. Find a new group. A group of thoughtful and fun gamers. You'll be astonished at what mature people who are actually interested in playing characters and working together to have fun and tell stories can accomplish. I think you'll find you understand the alternate points of view being stated here much better than you do now.

 

[Fenes 2]

Honestly, I don't mean this in an insulting way, but is the only thing keeping your players from acting in a chaotic, alignment-shifting fashion the fact that you don't *let* them? Are they honestly unable to play a role that isn't being forced on them by a few scratches of graphite on some paper?

I can imagine that. I am often astonished by the amount of people who seem to be unable to understand (or even believe) that there are people who, despite knowing that their PCs will not die without a clear warning and a way out, do not exploit this by making them act in a completely foolhardy and suicidal way.

 

[Azlan]

You know... This has been puzzling me. You seem to take great issue with the fact that I don't force my characters into an alignment mold, and you keep bringing up things like "change alignments like socks" and such...

You never indicated to me that you change alignments "like socks". Someone else did; someone else who seemed to be supporting your argument that players should be able to change alignments whenever they want, without penalty.

Do you have any 'in game' logic for why they can't learn while they are changing the way they act, or is it just an arbitrary rule to enforce something?

The penalty for alignment changes in my campaigns is there so that players don't take such changes lightly, just as the penalty for being raised from the dead is there so players don't take the deaths of their characters lightly. Either of these situations is an "ordeal". In the case of changing alignments, it is a mental and highly emotional ordeal.

 

[Azlan]

Azlan, you play with crappy role-players. Find a new group. A group of thoughtful and fun gamers.

I merely gave that example to illustrate why we need rules for role-playing games. My players do not act like those kids do, in the example I gave.

I think you'll find you understand the alternate points of view being stated here much better than you do now.

Oh, I understand their views. I just don't agree with them. (So, Tsyr: Quit trying to lay it out "in plainer english". And Joshua Dyal: I am neither "incredibly poor at reading comprehension" or "willfully misrepresenting their position".)

 

[Theuderic]

Azlan, don't let these remarks bother you. If you like try Dragonsfoot.org.

 

[Azlan]

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.

Although neither hong nor Tsyr said they wanted to be able to change their alignment "like socks", someone else did, someone who seems to be in support of hong's and Tsyr's view. And that view is: Players should have the freedom -- nay, the right -- to change their alignments whenever they want, as often as they want, without any penalty.

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

No, sounds to me like the way I handle player characters changing alignments is quite different from the way Tsyr handles it. For one, I penalize the player characters for it. (Albeit, the penalty is relatively mild, IMHO, especially when compared to old rules where a character lost an entire level for changing alignments.)

 

[Desdichado]

And Joshua Dyal: I am neither "incredibly poor at reading comprehension" or "willfully misrepresenting their position".)

No? Then how do you explain your consistent misrepresentation of what has been stated about alignment changes? Well, obviously, you don't explain it, but I can't think of any other reason besides those two.

Personally, I agree with barsoomcore. I haven't needed or particularly desired alignment in my games for a long time, because it adds little to nothing to the game in terms of characterization and roleplaying, at least with the gamers I'm used to gaming with. If anything, it serves as a poor character description that doesn't really trump other, better characterizations that we're doing as a matter of course anyway.

So, when I play by strict D&D rules, I minimize the impact of alignment in my games to the point of practically not even having it be an issue at all. I prefer to house rule it out completely, although as some have said, it's a bit harder to do that, because it creates a dominoe effect of other changes that then have to be made as well.

That's what happens when you play with mature roleplayers. I don't need to reign in PC actions with a draconian application of alignment as a DM-driven straight-jacket. The way you seem to be implying that you use alignment would turn me off faster than just about anything I can imagine in a game.

I'm not saying that's a problem -- I'm not in your game, and I never will be, so if you and your players like the way you do things, fine. I, of course, don't particularly appreciate the implication that the way I treat alignment, and the way a number of folks (just about all, in fact) that I know treat alignment is somehow "wrong" or "pointless" as you seem to delight in telling us. I also have a pet peeve about folks who wilfully manipulate someone else's post to try and hyperbolize their position. That's a classic straw man debate tactic that most of us can see through. By over-representing the consequences of allowing player freedom, you really aren't proving anything.

 

[Theuderic]

Josh, look, from one Josh to another, please take a laxative.

 

[barsoomcore]

My players do not act like those kids do, in the example I gave.

Wait a minute, then what's the problem? I thought you were explaining why you needed to have strict rules, especially as regards to alignment. I understood that your reason for having strict controls on why players were restricted in changing their alignments was because otherwise they would just run rampant, ignoring character development. You said things like:

many players lack the insight and the self-restraint to roleplay that alignment

This is the kind of "freestyle" roleplaying I've witnessed in most D&D campaigns...(snipped dialog of bad role-play)

And I assumed you were explaining WHY you chose to implement alignment as you do -- in order to solve these problems you were describing.

So I thought you implemented alignment penalties in order to inhibit crappy role-playing. Obviously I've misunderstood you. Can you explain your reasoning to me? What advantages does your system offer to a game with people who are already good role-players?