(Discussion) General Part IV

[WizWrm]

Then according to Creamsteak's proposal, we should get rid of viewpoints, too, because it would make the game easier if nobody's player character had a point of view or an idea that conflicted with that of somebody else's player character. See where this is heading? Wouldn't you rather just play the game?

That's not the proposal at all. The proposal is to remove the mechanics for alignment. That's all.

Here's what I'm saying: If PCs conflict with each other, that's the problem, not the alignment system. If it's having a dysfunctional effect on the game, the DM should be dealing with the situation however the DM sees fit, not nerfing alignment. If it were my game, I'd make the rolls, and either this plays out and somebody fills out a new sheet, or it gets solved elsewise, but always in-game.

I don't know about "nerfing" alignment. Alignment isn't having a dysfunctional effect on the game; there are just a few situations Creamsteak feels would be better resolved without the concerns of alignment - a paladin taking Dragon Discple of an evil dragon, for one.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that removing alignment would mean out-of-game conflict resolutions, which is what you seem to be implying. Creamsteak is not considering a removal of alignment in order to remove character conflict; that's not the motive here.. Only the mechanics are being considered for removal, to facilitate smoother role-play, and the question up for discussion right now is whether this would indeed turn out to be the effect.

Furthermore, I would think that such a town as Orussus ought to have a Town Watch, a Town Magistrate, and a Town Lockup, being composed as it is of PCs of mixed alignments. And that Gods ought to weigh in from time to time when something is happening in Their World that pleases or displeases them.

There are lots of ways to deal with this problem, but this proposal, in my humble opinion, is among the worst.

What's the problem you're referring to? Character conflicts? Opposing alignments are not what leads to character conflicts; it's the opposing viewpoints, which have no relevance to this discussion. The proposal is simply to remove alignment mechanics in order to make roleplay easier on players.

 

[Uriel]

CS, there really isn't a need to Judge the Delmon's aid adventure, as it is going to flow in to the Monestary Adventure (hopefully) by the end of the night.

On second thoughts, I'll keep it in the current thread, so I guess it does need a Judge

 

[Creamsteak]

Judges, I also wanted to make sure 3/4 of us agree to accept Gnomeworks final proposal for his character's feats. I'm OK with them, I believe.

I'll also address that i support scent, and since GaryH supports it, we only need one more vote to allow Scent, though we would still need to make some specific criteria. Obviously races like Gnomes and Half-Orcs could choose it, what other races, wis 11+ or 13+?

 

[dpdx]

I don't know about "nerfing" alignment. Alignment isn't having a dysfunctional effect on the game; there are just a few situations Creamsteak feels would be better resolved without the concerns of alignment - a paladin taking Dragon Discple of an evil dragon, for one.

Huh? I said the intra-party knife fights of enemy PCs were having a dysfunctional effect on the game, not alignment. Anyway, I thought that's what I said. You're supposed to be arguing with me.

Anyway, I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of why alignment change is being proposed, and I'm even more glad that it's mostly because of PrC restrictions and not because of intra-party knife fights in the street, that is, if that's truly why Creamsteak proposed it. I originally asked 'why?' in the post I lost.

That said, I'm still like, critically against removing alignment from the game, as in, I'll retire from LEW if this goes through, and devote more time to the Actual Real DnD that is played in my regular PbP games. Too much of the game is built for it, and like I said before, I'm accepting no substitutes, especially if same are readily available in the SRD. Judges and DMs alike will be wasting time 'modifying' central concepts of the game when they could be building a world to encompass and make moot the problems.

Ishmael can't be a blue Dragon Disciple unless he's evil? For god's sake, make a blue dragon that he CAN be a disciple of, then! Does Ishmael's player like the bennies of blues, or does he want to go bad and toss Chain Lightning at the boy scouts? I think nimisgod said he wanted the color to go with his eyes. I present, therefore, for LEW Judge approval:

The Light Blue Dragon
Per Blue Dragon in the MM, except it's aligned Neutral, and goes better with Ishmael's eyes.

or its alternative:

Make the Blue True Neutral.

I expect immediate approval will allow us to move past this ridiculous discussion of getting rid of the mechanics of alignment, and move onto what's really annoying me, which is:

Why do we have to steal from Pratchett? Can't our world be round, er, spherical?

 

[Creamsteak]

I'm still able to work with the round-world concept. Thing is that not enough players get involved in the proposals and discussions on such matters when they are up.

Which is one reason why I'm glad your getting involved with the alignment discussion. That's at least one more person being vocal... er... writting loudly?

 

[WizWrm]

No, he can be a blue dragon disicple and still be LG. I had just suggested that it might make IC sense if a blue dragon ancestor would affect him mentally as well as physically; if he's sprouting blue scales and dragon claws, wouldn't it follow that he also starts taking on some of the mental traits?

But no, there is no mechanical limitation that prevents a paladin from being a disciple of an evil dragon.

[Edit]: Honestly, I would also prefer a flat or round world; or maybe a Ringworld/Sigil/HALO or something that has some loose justification, physics-wise.

 

[dpdx]

Yeah, my bad, I joined late, when Uriel invited me. So blame him.

Lemme just ask: why ARE we talking about ditching alignment?

 

[dpdx]

As for Ishmael, I'm not his player, but wouldn't it be cool if:

The mental trait showed itself as a desire to fry PCs who didn't walk the straight and narrow path of LG? Just the desire.

'Ishmael feels his hair stand on end as the rogue picks the lock on a chest that is clearly not his own, and struggles to keep his fingers from forming a complete electrical circuit.'

I dunno if blues are electric or not, I'm just sayin'...

 

[Creamsteak]

The key thing I was thinking about when I prosed the alignment question was a combination of these reasons:

1) People have such varied degrees of belief in alignment. 3e has made most people more agreeable, but people still want to argue semantics (sp? right word?).

2) Alignment restrictions for certain classes bother me. Monk more than Paladin (though I would like to see someone attempt what Uriel mentioned above, champions for each alignment or diety). I can see how a character could train much like a monk without using a code. Prestige classes as well. I just have something against choosing alignment because it's a requirement.

3) Well, although I think it's obvious that Always chaotic evil means "Mostly" chaotic evil... I don't like arbitrating exceptions to the rules. Also, theres always the chance of too many exceptions... it's a general thing.

It's a combination of these three reasons and 50 other little things that make me at least consider (don't assume I'm going either way, I'm CONSIDERING all options) dropping alignment. I want to know what's best for everybody. I don't pay much, if any, attention to alignment unless it's called for. It's an aspect of the game that I absolutely ignore until detect-evil or such is cast, so I don't have any personal problems with dropping alignment.

Edit: and I'm caught up on my first game! Whoohoo! Uriel, the only comment I have concerning that game is such: do you have excel? If you do, I can teach you how to make quick maps if you want, though your methods is fine, I guess (try using the {code}{/code} script to keep it more shapely).

 

[Uriel]

Judges, I also wanted to make sure 3/4 of us agree to accept Gnomeworks final proposal for his character's feats. I'm OK with them, I believe.

I'll also address that i support scent, and since GaryH supports it, we only need one more vote to allow Scent, though we would still need to make some specific criteria. Obviously races like Gnomes and Half-Orcs could choose it, what other races, wis 11+ or 13+?

Yes to Scent, my other fave feat (besides Leadership).
I'm ok with Gnoems and Half-Orcs (as far as PH races).

One option would be to make it accessibly to Druids, Barbarians and Rangers at a certain Level, since they are the least 'civilized'.Say, 5th or 6th?

I asked this in the other thread, but what was the final ruling on gaining HPs, 1/2? 3/4?

-Uriel