Most superfluous rule?

[mvincent]

Looking at what you wrote on your piece of paper to determine your alignment rather than your behavior was never the intent of the rules from what I can tell.

I believe that it is definitely the current intent of the rules.
(I'm not so sure about earlier additions, and I agree that the concept was likely completely superfluous when it was originally invented).

 

[lukelightning]

So alignment isn't so much an abstract reflection of one's general behavior (which could be entirely different at times), but more a belonging to certain 'group'.

Good observation; after all the term is "alignment", as in "you are aligned with this side." It's not called "personality" or "morals" or "behavior."

 

[mvincent]

after all the term is "alignment", as in "you are aligned with this side." It's not called "personality" or "morals" or "behavior."

Sorry about taking the thread completely off-topic here: but I've had LG NPC paladin's that were complete Jerks, and LE devil's that actually behaved quite nice (i.e. they were smart enough to realize how this could be advantageous).

 

[Mistwell]

I believe that it is definitely the current intent of the rules.
(I'm not so sure about earlier additions, and I agree that the concept was likely completely superfluous when it was originally invented).

No, I think it is still the intent of the rules, but a lot of people ignore those rules.

The PHB says "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment".

The DMG then says "Alignments aren't commitments, except in specific cases. Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment."

The DMG then goes on to give an example of alignment change based on the characters behavior by the second playing session.

The DMG then says "You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, "My neutral good character becomes chaotic good," the appropriate responses from you is "Prove it". Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players."

It sure SEEMS highly redundant to me. If your actions and not what you write on your character sheet dictate alignment, and the DM decides what your alignment is based on your actions, and alignments change over time based on your actions, what is the point of writing it on your character sheet?

 

[mvincent]

If your actions and not what you write on your character sheet dictate alignment, and the DM decides what your alignment is based on your actions, and alignments change over time based on your actions, what is the point of writing it on your character sheet?

I've never seen a DM adjust a characters alignment for them. Heck, I've only ever heard of a DM once warning a player that their behavior will eventually lead to a change.

Even if this occured, the player could just get an atonement and be back to where he was.

Heck... I've had players use atonement just to bypass some damage from a Forbiddance. My own character went to the opposite alignment (CN to LN) without changing my behavior much (my motivations changed considerably, but not my actual actions).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So that you know whether or not you are fully effected, partially effected, or not at all effected by unholy blight, etc.

Sure, you could try to figure it out every time an ally or opponent casts a spell or uses an alignment keyed ability, but that's a lot more work than having it written on the character sheet and just referencing it when necessary. Alignment does indeed change in the course of play (at least for some characters) but I don't think a well role-played character should change alignment so regularly that there's no point to having it written down on his character sheet.

It sure SEEMS highly redundant to me. If your actions and not what you write on your character sheet dictate alignment, and the DM decides what your alignment is based on your actions, and alignments change over time based on your actions, what is the point of writing it on your character sheet?

 

[Mistwell]

I've never seen a DM adjust a characters alignment for them. Heck, I've only ever heard of a DM once warning a player that their behavior will eventually lead to a change.

I know. Which is why I said most people ignore this rule. But, that is the rule.

Even if this occured, the player could just get an atonement and be back to where he was.

Atonement is based on magical changes to your alignment generally, not natural ones. To "fix" natural changes: "...you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.". And of course if you continue the natural behavior that changed your alignment to begin with, it will just go back to what it was before the spell.

 

[Mistwell]

So that you know whether or not you are fully effected, partially effected, or not at all effected by unholy blight, etc.

Sure, you could try to figure it out every time an ally or opponent casts a spell or uses an alignment keyed ability, but that's a lot more work than having it written on the character sheet and just referencing it when necessary. Alignment does indeed change in the course of play (at least for some characters) but I don't think a well role-played character should change alignment so regularly that there's no point to having it written down on his character sheet.

Well, it still could be useful but redundant. I write some things twice on my character sheet for ease of use. The double-writing is still redundant.

 

[Destil]

A ranger can not choose his own race as his favored enemy unless he is evil.

About the worst of the worst right there, right up there with paladin/monk multiclass.

 

[James McMurray]

A ranger can not choose his own race as his favored enemy unless he is evil.

About the worst of the worst right there, right up there with paladin/monk multiclass.

That rule was so blatantly crappy they removed it from 3.5.