Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doctor Proctor" data-source="post: 4662616" data-attributes="member: 78547">For those who miss the 9 alignments, ask yourself this...&nbsp; Why do you need them?&nbsp; To more easily identify the intentions of your players?&nbsp; I think that's not exactly a good thing...&nbsp; This is supposed to be a &quot;roleplaying&quot; game, but it's kind of hard to play that role when you're constrained in your actions.One of the things that I found annoying about 2e was the &quot;Nuetral/Nuetral&quot; alignment.&nbsp; It made it sound like you were almost supposed to balance good and evil actions to stay neutral... ie- Killing a random person in cold blood for every captive you save from the slavers or something.&nbsp; That's why I like the new &quot;Unaligned&quot; alignment...it gives the player more freedom.&nbsp; Now he's not &quot;Good&quot; because of a compulsion, but because it serves his wants and needs at the time.&nbsp; A &quot;Good&quot; character might not assassinate someone, for example, since that would be murder...even though it might be a better option in the long term to eliminate that person and save lives.The old alignments would take situations like that and almost dictate your path for you.&nbsp; Now, there's more ambiguity and thus more freedom to explore potential choices in the party.Not to mention the other problem of alignment incompatibility within the party.&nbsp; Say you have someone that's CE, LG, NG and NN.&nbsp; How could you even come to a consensus there about how to act?&nbsp; The LG guy won't want to assassinate him, but that would go against the notions of the NG guy who doesn't care about the law but just wants to save lives.&nbsp; The CE will probably be pitching an idea to go work for the evil guy you're trying to assassinate!&nbsp; How do you resolve such a thing, according to the old alignment rules?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doctor Proctor, post: 4662616, member: 78547"] For those who miss the 9 alignments, ask yourself this... [I]Why[/I] do you need them? To more easily identify the intentions of your players? I think that's not exactly a good thing... This is supposed to be a "roleplaying" game, but it's kind of hard to play that role when you're constrained in your actions. One of the things that I found annoying about 2e was the "Nuetral/Nuetral" alignment. It made it sound like you were almost supposed to balance good and evil actions to stay neutral... ie- Killing a random person in cold blood for every captive you save from the slavers or something. That's why I like the new "Unaligned" alignment...it gives the player more freedom. Now he's not "Good" because of a compulsion, but because it serves his wants and needs at the time. A "Good" character might not assassinate someone, for example, since that would be murder...even though it might be a better option in the long term to eliminate that person and save lives. The old alignments would take situations like that and almost dictate your path for you. Now, there's more ambiguity and thus more freedom to explore potential choices in the party. Not to mention the other problem of alignment incompatibility within the party. Say you have someone that's CE, LG, NG and NN. How could you even come to a consensus there about how to act? The LG guy won't want to assassinate him, but that would go against the notions of the NG guy who doesn't care about the law but just wants to save lives. The CE will probably be pitching an idea to go work for the evil guy you're trying to assassinate! How do you resolve such a thing, according to the old alignment rules? [/QUOTE]

Verification