Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6122941" data-attributes="member: 13107">To reply to an earlier post: Multiple pages can be viewed as much as evidence of stubborn intransigence as it is taken as evidence of the difficulty of a question.  YMMV.To continue getting back to basics, is there any real disagreement that:*) The original 1E game strongly put forth that Paladins were LG only, and that there were clear actions (murder, theft, lying to a just authority, lawbreaking, ignoring the plight of an innocent) which would cause a paladin to lose their powers?*) That there are clear game editions (Eberron, 4E) which did not have a strict alignment system. (Eberron because alignment was largely a social issue: You got your powers regardless.  4E because alignment is subsumed by non-interpreted power key words.)*) That some of the alignment rules can be a bit wonky (Poison, Positive and Negative Energy tied to alignment, Angel/Devil cross breeds).*) GMs could play a game of gotcha (community rules prevent me from using a "properly descriptive" term for said GMs).*) Equally, players could play a game of shrill munchkinism / power gaming / gimme gimme gimme (similar descriptive terms can be applied to said players).*) There is enough space in the range to allow for quite a variety of games.*) In the end, the key is a game which empowers and encourages players and GMs to work together to mutual enrichment, and players and GMs have a healthy attitude and respect for each other and the game.One of the questions that seems to lurk in the discussions is what sort of rules should the proposed new edition have?  If the discussions are telling me anything, its that there needs to be room for many styles of play, and "one true rule-ism" is quite counterproductive.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

Verification