Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ydars" data-source="post: 4567037" data-attributes="member: 62992">Sinecure; now I don't agree with you. If your character sheet says lawful good and you kill any monsters that don't actively threaten you or someone else, you are not roleplaying; you are just acting like a machine and ignoring what your character would do.&nbsp;D&amp;D has always had alignment and this means that smartplay and roleplaying do not always co-incide, in the game as written. I have read that Gygax only wanted Law and Chaos and did not want to include concepts of good and evil but this is not how D&amp;D is written today. Alignment tells us that at least someone wanted us to include the morality of our characters as part of the way we play.&nbsp;Presumably you would see no reason to ever play a good character as it would inhibit smart-play? In my game, if a PC who is good does not act selflessly and without regard for himself. then they are punished with XP penalties. &nbsp;I think your definition of &quot;winning&quot; in an RPG is extremely narrow.&nbsp; It reminds me of a blind man trying to describe the sun. Older versions of D&amp;D actually disputed that there was such a thing as winning in an RPG and explicitly stated that this was not the point of the game. I agree that no version of the game has ever rewarded Roleplaying well enough, but this is easily house-ruled.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ydars, post: 4567037, member: 62992"] Sinecure; now I don't agree with you. If your character sheet says lawful good and you kill any monsters that don't actively threaten you or someone else, you are not roleplaying; you are just acting like a machine and ignoring what your character would do. D&D has always had alignment and this means that smartplay and roleplaying do not always co-incide, in the game as written. I have read that Gygax only wanted Law and Chaos and did not want to include concepts of good and evil but this is not how D&D is written today. Alignment tells us that at least someone wanted us to include the morality of our characters as part of the way we play. Presumably you would see no reason to ever play a good character as it would inhibit smart-play? In my game, if a PC who is good does not act selflessly and without regard for himself. then they are punished with XP penalties. I think your definition of "winning" in an RPG is extremely narrow. It reminds me of a blind man trying to describe the sun. Older versions of D&D actually disputed that there was such a thing as winning in an RPG and explicitly stated that this was not the point of the game. I agree that no version of the game has ever rewarded Roleplaying well enough, but this is easily house-ruled. [/QUOTE]

Verification