Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cryptos" data-source="post: 4380834" data-attributes="member: 58439">Agreed, agreed, and agreeeeeeed!I think that WotC seriously chickened out on alignment.&nbsp; They removed it entirely from game mechanics, and in most of the game, if something didn't serve a game mechanics purpose, they left it out of the game.&nbsp; They didn't with alignment because they didn't want to turn people off with too much change.&nbsp; Alignment in D&amp;D 4.0 is a marketing decision, and for all the debates and disagreements it can spawn, that's just shameful.As for the gods, I've always felt that it was difficult to simulate faith exactly, as we understand it, when there is proof of gods' existence.&nbsp; Add to this a certainty that your god is good, and you've got the potential for all kinds of ugliness.&nbsp; My god is real + my god is good + I follow all the tenets of my faith = I can do no wrong.&nbsp; It's no longer roleplaying, it's a checklist of things to do.After playing around with different campaign world ideas for months in preparation for 4th, and then several weeks after its release, I'm starting to feel like perhaps I'm just not a D&amp;D player.&nbsp; I've followed it from Red Box to the present, and dabbled in it for a few games here and there, sometimes for months at a time.&nbsp; But it doesn't quite &quot;do it&quot; for me no matter how hard I try.&nbsp; I like the game well enough and many of the concepts, but I just don't buy into the setting assumptions and their conceits all that much, and anything that I make tends to either bore me to death as being too formulaic of D&amp;D, or does not look like D&amp;D.&nbsp; I've yet to find a setting that really makes me feel like someone's got it right.I think a lot of this has to do with the way I feel about the divine aspects of it, and alignment, and the immorality of moral certainty.&nbsp; (Although I also have trouble wrapping my head around having so many intelligent humanoid civilized races develop on the same world, some considered &quot;monsters&quot; and others considered &quot;people.&quot;)&nbsp; I guess I'm just not a medieval fantasy person.I think that any system that tries to simulate the faithful in a situation where there is proof of gods and they are color-coded and broken up into teams for your convenience is going to be rife with problems.I could just try banning divine classes and getting rid of alignment, I suppose, or emphasizing that divine classes are getting their power from a church rather than a god.&nbsp; I wonder how many D&amp;D players would want to play in such a setting, however.&nbsp; That might be poll-worthy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cryptos, post: 4380834, member: 58439"] Agreed, agreed, and agreeeeeeed! I think that WotC seriously chickened out on alignment. They removed it entirely from game mechanics, and in most of the game, if something didn't serve a game mechanics purpose, they left it out of the game. They didn't with alignment because they didn't want to turn people off with too much change. Alignment in D&D 4.0 is a marketing decision, and for all the debates and disagreements it can spawn, that's just shameful. As for the gods, I've always felt that it was difficult to simulate faith exactly, as we understand it, when there is proof of gods' existence. Add to this a certainty that your god is good, and you've got the potential for all kinds of ugliness. My god is real + my god is good + I follow all the tenets of my faith = I can do no wrong. It's no longer roleplaying, it's a checklist of things to do. After playing around with different campaign world ideas for months in preparation for 4th, and then several weeks after its release, I'm starting to feel like perhaps I'm just not a D&D player. I've followed it from Red Box to the present, and dabbled in it for a few games here and there, sometimes for months at a time. But it doesn't quite "do it" for me no matter how hard I try. I like the game well enough and many of the concepts, but I just don't buy into the setting assumptions and their conceits all that much, and anything that I make tends to either bore me to death as being too formulaic of D&D, or does not look like D&D. I've yet to find a setting that really makes me feel like someone's got it right. I think a lot of this has to do with the way I feel about the divine aspects of it, and alignment, and the immorality of moral certainty. (Although I also have trouble wrapping my head around having so many intelligent humanoid civilized races develop on the same world, some considered "monsters" and others considered "people.") I guess I'm just not a medieval fantasy person. I think that any system that tries to simulate the faithful in a situation where there is proof of gods and they are color-coded and broken up into teams for your convenience is going to be rife with problems. I could just try banning divine classes and getting rid of alignment, I suppose, or emphasizing that divine classes are getting their power from a church rather than a god. I wonder how many D&D players would want to play in such a setting, however. That might be poll-worthy. [/QUOTE]

Verification