Did the Alignment Champions Win?

[EATherrian]

Did you just say that alignment wars and party infighting are a good thing?

Sheesh, haven't you ever read Elric?

edited: Now I've removed Hongian taint from my kitten...

 

[hong]

Sheesh, haven't you ever read Elric?

edited: Now I've removed Hongian taint from my kitten...

What are you talking about? My cat picture looks nothing like your cat picture.

OH GREAT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE I'M BABBLING NONSENSE.

 

[EATherrian]

What are you talking about? My cat picture looks nothing like your cat picture.

OH GREAT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE I'M BABBLING NONSENSE.

Sorry about that. Just a playful jibe back at you. More to the point of the thread, I remember you redid the Ultima world, how did you deal with Alignment there?

 

[hong]

Sorry about that. Just a playful jibe back at you. More to the point of the thread, I remember you redid the Ultima world, how did you deal with Alignment there?

Never apologise, mang

For Ultima, I just dumped the Law/Chaos axis entirely. Moorcockian Law vs Chaos was a theme not in keeping with what I wanted to do. Similarly I got rid of all L/C alignment-based stuff, including monk/barb prereqs, spells, and weapon enchantments.

I also ditched paladins as a separate class, basically because the class carried too much alignment baggage for me. You could still play a knight in shining armour -- and one player did just that, and he played the greatest "paladin" I've ever seen -- via my knight class, or even just a fighter. The archetype has always been independent of the class.

Basically, it looks like 4E will be doing almost exactly what I was doing anyway!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

OH GREAT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE I'M BABBLING NONSENSE.

What the hell are you talking about?

You are usually very lucid, is everything OK?

 

[Desdichado]

How is that different than what they've always told us was going to happen to alignmnent in 4e? It was never going to go away, it was just going to be de-emphasized and made optional.

 

[LEHaskell]

The single best roleplaying session I've ever been in was based on an argument between my character and another's about what to do with a powerful artifact. Ethical dilemmas can be great characterization (so long as they grow naturally out of play and aren't forced).

Don't tell me -- the Head of Vecna!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it is a good change: keep it and even expand it. (it was always split between unaligned and true neutral, but was called the same)

I liked the way how 3rd edition got rid of:
"change alignment and lose all your xp" rule

but then i didn´t like the that detect alignment spells were so easily available that any undercover mission was practical suicide ("detect evil" was a lot more restrictive... and there was the spell "know alignment" which lets the target know what you just did...)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Did you just say that alignment wars and party infighting are a good thing?

I like to distinguish between party rivalries versus outright party infighting. Alignment can be grist for either mill, depending on how it is handled. Party rivalries are great, and I guess are really what I call party infighting that stays in character and doesn't go too far for the tone of the game. If nothing else, it leads to situations where the party gets into an argument, in character, and I get a break as a DM. I have gone as long as 30 minutes without saying a word while running a game--super.

For my purposes, the new alignment system works just as well as the old one. "Unaligned" is just another niche that a character can occupy, and I can easily see that creating rivalry level trouble in the party. "Oh, you don't care about anything, then?" "Naw, I'm just not on my high horse while saving the princess. Pay me, and I'm good."

 

[Delta]

Here's a tip learned from almost three decades of DMing. (I'll hit that '30 years of running people through dungeons' mark in October or so):Ethical dilemmas get your players arguing with each other, in character, chewing up game time in a way which requires very little prep on your part. THEY remember this great, involving, game; YOU remember having an extra half hour to nap instead of statting out opponents. Someday, I'll write 'The Total Lazy Bastard's Guide To Being A Great DM, or, How To Plot A Five Hour Session On A Twenty Minute Bus Ride')

It's interesting. That may be the single biggest disagreeable thing about gaming I've ever read. That's specifically something that I really really find to be un-fun and frustrating at a gaming table. I've argued against it many times, and institite rules to prevent it (no diametrically opposite alignments in party).

My last gaming group went through a whole evolution over this, starting out thinking that was a good idea, and coming to an agreement in later years that the game was most fun when it was party vs. world. We came to take a shared responsibility in making some kind of reason for members to cooperate and support each other. In-party personality fights are keenly un-fun (for us) because it stops the exploring, searching, fighting, mystery-exposing scenes in the game, and it leaves N-2 players with literally nothing to do. In addition, it bleeds into real-life bad feelings, because you often can't tell where the character pissiness stops and the player pissines begins.

I remember action scenes, but I don't remember any details of in-party personality squabbles other than an overwhelming sense of anxiety, and people walking out of the room to do something else. Truly fascinating to learn that someone else can find that the *best* part of the game.