Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5817256" data-attributes="member: 17106">A couple of issues first. D&amp;D has alignment, but it's pretty routinely ignored, so changing it is not necessarily un-D&amp;D. We're not talking about fighters with powers here!Second, I'm advocating expanding it, not taking away. All the original alignments remain possible allegiances.Third, the detect alignment spells and their ilk cause all kinds of balance and plausibility issues and have started many arguments and I think making them officially optional would make plenty of long-time D&amp;D-ers happy.Fourth, if I were stuck with alignment, I would advocate the nine alignments and just go back to ignoring them most of the time and referring to alignment subtypes, the way I have been. Why not build this approach into the rules, since people are doing it anyway. In essence, D&amp;D as it's played has a lot more in common with the &quot;other system&quot; then you seem to be suggesting it.Would an XP-less option be similarly a misguided attempt to bring in elements of another un-D&amp;D game? Lots of people play D&amp;D without experience points, but it's presented as dogma in the rules.I don't think an allegiance system would unreasonably change the fundamentals of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5817256, member: 17106"] A couple of issues first. D&D has alignment, but it's pretty routinely ignored, so changing it is not necessarily un-D&D. We're not talking about fighters with powers here! Second, I'm advocating expanding it, not taking away. All the original alignments remain possible allegiances. Third, the detect alignment spells and their ilk cause all kinds of balance and plausibility issues and have started many arguments and I think making them officially optional would make plenty of long-time D&D-ers happy. Fourth, if I were stuck with alignment, I would advocate the nine alignments and just go back to ignoring them most of the time and referring to alignment subtypes, the way I have been. Why not build this approach into the rules, since people are doing it anyway. In essence, D&D [I]as it's played[/I] has a lot more in common with the "other system" then you seem to be suggesting it. Would an XP-less option be similarly a misguided attempt to bring in elements of another un-D&D game? Lots of people play D&D without experience points, but it's presented as dogma in the rules. I don't think an allegiance system would unreasonably change the fundamentals of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification