I hate alignment

[Umbran]

Yes, I'm sorry Talath, but you're simply off. Alignment isn't a straight jacket, because alignement in no way determines behavior. It is the other way around. Behavior determines alignment. Alignment does not in any way, shape, or form control character action or role play. PCs have free will.

There is no reason why the powers of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos have to exist in fantasy gaming, true. But, there's no reason why any game mechanic has to be the way it is in D&D. There's no reason why the magic system has to be vancian. Or why the damage system has to use hit points. There's no reason that you must use levels to describe fantasy characters.

Whenever you design a game, you must make some choices of mechanics. Some are made because they make sense to the designer. Some are made because the designer likes them. Some are made just because. No single choice is an end-all be-all of fantasy gaming, and that's okay.

Quite simply - if you don't like it, don't use it. But I'd prefer you not claim I'm doing damage (to my face, my person, my game, or whatever) just because I might have different preferences than you do. It is rather insulting.

 

[dead]

I AGREE with you, Talath. I might not be so harsh as to call it a "straight jacket", but I agree. Look at my thread: "Alignment. Who needs it?".

Why do people call Talath a "troll" just because he doesn't like alignment? He is just voicing his opinion about the game we all love and this brings out some great debate.

Is everybody who disagrees with the core rules a troll?

 

[Zappo]

Why do people call Talath a "troll" just because he doesn't like alignment? He is just voicing his opinion about the game we all love and this brings out some great debate.

Is everybody who disagrees with the core rules a troll?

That I agree with. I've seen a couple of threads recently (this included) where troll was shouted quite too early IMO. It's an old topic, but not necessarily a troll. Still, it would help the debate if some more evidence was presented to support the opinion that alignments are a straightjacket (besides gut feelings and problems-with-the-player-not-with-the-system). Otherwise, we're stuck with the usual "no it isn't, you're using it wrong, here's why and how", followed by silence.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Eh. Alignment works fine for some types of games. It isn't suited to many, though, which makes its presence as a default assumption for D&D somewhat annoying. In any event, it is only a problem if it is in a campaign and shouldn't be, for whatever reasons.

 

[tetsujin28]

As do I. It's been obsolete since RQI in '77. There are no rational arguments for keeping the system: it's an obsolete piece of baggage that's just still hanging around 'cause it's a sacred cow.

tetsujin28, D&D player since '76.

 

[Malk]

I AGREE with you, Talath. I might not be so harsh as to call it a "straight jacket", but I agree. Look at my thread: "Alignment. Who needs it?".

Why do people call Talath a "troll" just because he doesn't like alignment? He is just voicing his opinion about the game we all love and this brings out some great debate.

Is everybody who disagrees with the core rules a troll?

No, but i can see how some people took issue with the way that he expressed his opinions. Whether he meant to or not, he heavily insinuated that anyone who uses alignment is both lazy and a bad roleplayer. He also made several blanket statements that obviously are not true. Not everyone thinks that all LG chars are the same...as evidanced by the people who have explicitly stated that they do not. I think that disliking alignment is a perfectly valid opinion but i also think that Talath was rather....emotional....in his pronunciation.


That being said, i like alignment for no other reason than i think its cool.

 

[takyris]

An unfortunate truth here at ENWorld is the fact that we can't see you behind the screen, so if you post in such a way that you sound like a jerk, people tend to say, "Hey, you sound like a jerk."

It's horribly unfair and cruel, but try to avoid random blanket statements and implicit attacks upon people who believe differently than you do, or else you'll have to suffer through it.

 

[DaveMage]

Talath: Have you tried Arcana Unearthed? I believe there are no alignments in that game.

As for me, I like 'em!

 

[Zappo]

As do I. It's been obsolete since RQI in '77. There are no rational arguments for keeping the system: it's an obsolete piece of baggage that's just still hanging around 'cause it's a sacred cow.

The rational argument is that in D&D morality and ethics are cosmic forces on par with gravity or electromagnetism, and therefore you need a system to interact with them. You may agree or not with this, but it is an argument and it sounds fairly rational to me.

 

[Ibram]

Although I dont care for alignment I see nothing wrong with the system. In some campaign settings it works great (Greyhawk, FR) in others it may not work as well (Ravenloft, Midnight).

IMC I dont make great use of alignment. I base my villians actions on what they are trying to accomplish not two letters next to their name (Yes Dr. Fu is an evil psychotic whos killed hundreds over the past 200 years, but hes not going to go steping on kittens for no reason). My players understand this, and realize that I pay more attention to their actions then what they have written on their sheets (and I'm not about to tell someone if I think they have shifted off their alignment).

For the Monk, Barbarian, and Druid I dont realy care if the character driffs of their "official" alignment (as long as there are no Monk/Barbarians). Paladins are a different story, since they are closely tied to LG (generaly not a prob, since my players avoid the Pal like the plague). Spells that detect alignment dont work in my game, though I still make use of [Evil] and [Good] spells.