Redemption Rules in Dragon 306

[Drakron]

It might be a game of dice but its being taken too far ...

Its not because a "evil" character does 7 "good" actions and makes a will save he sudden becames good aligned ... a character sould only shift aligment if he consistent acts over time against his listed character, it requires judgement on the part of the DM.

A DM that does not make judgements is not a DM, he is just someone that reads text and throws dices.

And I will pass on "Lady Despina's Virtue", I am not very keen on reading that type of things ...

 

[Kai Lord]

And I will pass on "Lady Despina's Virtue", I am not very keen on reading that type of things ...

Your loss.

 

[Crothian]

Its not because a "evil" character does 7 "good" actions and makes a will save he sudden becames good aligned ... a character sould only shift aligment if he consistent acts over time against his listed character, it requires judgement on the part of the DM.

A DM that does not make judgements is not a DM, he is just someone that reads text and throws dices.

Well, the DM can keep the points in secret and use them as a guide line instead of a hardfast rule. Also, it allows players to actually see a rule for their actions to matter instead of doing what they want and then argueing when the DM says their alignment has shifted. I've seen that happen and heard of it too often.

But the reason I like it is it's another option that people can use or not as they see fit. I perfer having an option I won't use then nom option at all.

 

[Kai Lord]

Well, the DM can keep the points in secret and use them as a guide line instead of a hardfast rule. Also, it allows players to actually see a rule for their actions to matter instead of doing what they want and then argueing when the DM says their alignment has shifted. I've seen that happen and heard of it too often.

But the reason I like it is it's another option that people can use or not as they see fit. I perfer having an option I won't use then nom option at all.

Exactly. Rules such as those are simply play-tested judgment calls, and give players and DM's alike a common ground for discussion and a level of credibility when it actually happens in play.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I agree that having the rules quantified to this point isn't the best way to play. I don't mind seeing rules for this type of thing as long as those rules don't turn a role-playing situation into a roll-playing situation.

Mr. Cagle and I will probably have a discussion about this article. Overall I think the article is a good one.

 

[Drakron]

I am sure players love to see their neutral PCs soon joining the ranks of the "Church of Goodness" or the "Church of Evilness" ...

Aligment was left vague because its on its very nature vague ... is not Star Wars d20 were they can gain DS points from doing such actions.

There will never be common ground, each person have their own idea of what is "good","evil" and "neutral" and since those concepts are hold dear by every one of us none of us is going to change your mind.

Also its rollplaying were actions became more and more the result of dice roll, next thing we see is "potty rolling" with we having to roll a wis check followed by a con check to see if the PC needs to go to the little boys/girls room because of a "call of nature" ...

 

[Darrin Drader]

Also its rollplaying were actions became more and more the result of dice roll, next thing we see is "potty rolling" with we having to roll a wis check followed by a con check to see if the PC needs to go to the little boys/girls room because of a "call of nature" ...

I've actually seen this done before, and it was actually in the years before 2nd edition. Basically what happened was that a thief was being pursued by his enemies. He climbed a tree, hoping to avoid them. The DM called for a save, which the character failed, resulting in his enemy being "rained on."

OK, it was immature, but what do you expect from a bunch of 12 year-olds?

 

[Kai Lord]

There will never be common ground, each person have their own idea of what is "good","evil" and "neutral" and since those concepts are hold dear by every one of us none of us is going to change your mind.

That's an issue to be taken up with the concept of Alignment altogether, not the rules presented in the Dragon magazine article.

 

[Crothian]

Mr. Cagle and I will probably have a discussion about this article. Overall I think the article is a good one.

You should ask him to stop by and post his opinions and to possible give some more insight into the whole thing.

 

[Wayside]

Aligment was left vague because its on its very nature vague ... is not Star Wars d20 were they can gain DS points from doing such actions.

There will never be common ground, each person have their own idea of what is "good","evil" and "neutral" and since those concepts are hold dear by every one of us none of us is going to change your mind.

Actually we were just talking about this over in one of the Paladin threads:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43707&pagenumber=2

And pretty much everyone is in agreement that, in vanilla D&D, good and evil and law and chaos are facts, not vague notions. Now, whether the alignments are well spelled out or not is another issue, but as long as they are meaningful in regards to the solid moral concepts of vanilla D&D, there's no room for interpretation from a rules standpoint. Of course characters are still free to disagree with what is good or evil; they're just wrong if they do.