Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="questing gm" data-source="post: 4376059" data-attributes="member: 24003">In 3.x, alignment was a creative and immersive character building tool because of the two axis (law vs. chaos &amp; good vs. evil) involve in determing your character's alignment. Neutral alignments could have been used for the undecided or players who didn't want their characters to stand in either side of the black &amp; white areas while prefering to be on the grey side. This created relatively complex characterisation as different mixes of the two axis generated different personalities and behaviors expected from the character and served as a guideline for players on how to roleplay their characters (and a guideline for DMs on how their characters would act). Alignments back then even had a mechanical function (for spells in particular).In 4E, now that they have downsized the alignment mix and with the PoL setting design and the high heroic fantasy that the gameplay has become, it seems to me that the alignment is pointing toward creating stereotypes. Wizard: 'Why kill this guy?'Paladin: 'Because the cleric of the death cult is evil'It reduces the complexity of characterisation, indepth psychology and character building.&nbsp; High action kick butt adventure where heroes defeat their enemies for the sake of it means more fun and achievement for players. Humanitarian arguments on the table in mid game is not for 4E. Simply put,3.xE alignment system = good as an immersive storytelling tool (both DMs and players) with mechanical functions.4E alignment system = good as a quick and dirty reason/excuse to kick butt and have fun (both also for DMs and players).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="questing gm, post: 4376059, member: 24003"] In 3.x, alignment was a creative and immersive character building tool because of the two axis (law vs. chaos & good vs. evil) involve in determing your character's alignment. Neutral alignments could have been used for the undecided or players who didn't want their characters to stand in either side of the black & white areas while prefering to be on the grey side. This created relatively complex characterisation as different mixes of the two axis generated different personalities and behaviors expected from the character and served as a guideline for players on how to roleplay their characters (and a guideline for DMs on how their characters would act). Alignments back then even had a mechanical function (for spells in particular). In 4E, now that they have downsized the alignment mix and with the PoL setting design and the high heroic fantasy that the gameplay has become, it seems to me that the alignment is pointing toward creating stereotypes. Wizard: 'Why kill this guy?' Paladin: 'Because the cleric of the death cult is evil' It reduces the complexity of characterisation, indepth psychology and character building. High action kick butt adventure where heroes defeat their enemies for the sake of it means more fun and achievement for players. Humanitarian arguments on the table in mid game is not for 4E. Simply put, 3.xE alignment system = good as an immersive storytelling tool (both DMs and players) with mechanical functions. 4E alignment system = good as a quick and dirty reason/excuse to kick butt and have fun (both also for DMs and players). [/QUOTE]

Verification