Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5817284" data-attributes="member: 92511">I would wager to say it is not so &quot;routinely&quot; ignored as you suggest. Whether or not it came into play, it was a part of the characters and system...even 4e, in a limited fashion.And yes, for a game that has always had an Alignment system, &quot;changing it&quot; IS &quot;un-D&amp;D.&quot;Then why are they not &quot;alignments&quot;...How is this any different? Other than some arbitrary semantic difference?You realize you're talking to the guy that suggested/posted a whole buncha different alignment-in-game &quot;options&quot;, right? As for the Detect alignment spells...who said anything about them?&nbsp; I have never, in my years of playing run into &quot;balance and plausibility issues&quot; because of Detect Evil...or Protection from Evil...or whatever.The rules are not responsibile for making the game idiot, powergamer, min-maxer, unimaginative, rules lawyer, bad-sport, immature or just plain stupid proof. That's the DM's job. Orrrr, preferably, with the new system, you could just &quot;opt out&quot; of alignment in your games from the get go. While others could use as many as they like. Poh-tay-to, poh-tah-toe.I honestly, and respectfully, disagree. &quot;as it's played&quot; by you, perhaps.Yes. Unequivocally. Yes, it would.Because, the D&amp;D game, from the dawn of its incarnation, has had XP. And, again, I question your assertion/definition of &quot;lots of people&quot;.Probably wouldn't. But that does not negate the fact that doing so is not D&amp;D. It is not necessary for a game that has &quot;alignment&quot; incorporated from its inception.Call it &quot;allegiance&quot; and everyone will feel all warm and fuzzy and not put upon by the ever-so constricting shackles of the wicked, nasssty, false &quot;alignmentsssessss&quot;?Nonsense. Nonsense, I say.--SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5817284, member: 92511"] I would wager to say it is not so "routinely" ignored as you suggest. Whether or not it came into play, it was a part of the characters and system...even 4e, in a limited fashion. And yes, for a game that has always had an Alignment system, "changing it" IS "un-D&D." Then why are they not "alignments"...How is this any different? Other than some arbitrary semantic difference? You realize you're talking to the guy that suggested/posted a whole buncha different alignment-in-game "options", right? As for the Detect alignment spells...who said anything about them? I have never, in my years of playing run into "balance and plausibility issues" because of Detect Evil...or Protection from Evil...or whatever. The rules are not responsibile for making the game idiot, powergamer, min-maxer, unimaginative, rules lawyer, bad-sport, immature or just plain stupid proof. That's the DM's job. Orrrr, preferably, with the new system, you could just "opt out" of alignment in your games from the get go. While others could use as many as they like. Poh-tay-to, poh-tah-toe. I honestly, and respectfully, disagree. [I]"as it's played"[/I] by you, perhaps. Yes. Unequivocally. Yes, it would. Because, the D&D game, from the dawn of its incarnation, has had XP. And, again, I question your assertion/definition of "lots of people". Probably wouldn't. But that does not negate the fact that doing so is[I] not [/I]D&D. It is not necessary for a game that has "alignment" incorporated from its inception. Call it "allegiance" and everyone will feel all warm and fuzzy and not put upon by the ever-so constricting shackles of the wicked, nasssty, false "alignmentsssessss"? Nonsense. Nonsense, I say. --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification