Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 4939597" data-attributes="member: 32740">I, and those I've gamed with, have never had a significant problem with alignments though I could always see how others did because they have never been properly explained and positioned to be used for what they really are best at doing.&nbsp;Biggest reason we never had issues was perhaps even because it WAS so poorly defined. When first introduced it really had no reason to be there - it was just an idea that was deemed cool enough to adapt from fiction and really served very little function. In AD&amp;D it was expanded and refined a bit. As we played it we DID try to keep close to the alignment RAW but found that doing THAT was what really created what problems we had with it. When we treated it casually and more as a descriptor it was useful - when we treated it formally and as a dictator of &quot;You must do this/you must NOT do that,&quot; it caused people to butt heads over strict interpretations and pointlessly Draconic enforcement. Eventually, we treated it much as 3E treated it - but only by unspoken, informal agreement based on past experiences with it.&nbsp;3rd edition did formally reduce it to a &quot;descriptor&quot;, but still failed to properly explain why it was USEFUL description, and how that description was best applied. Alignment is first and foremost ROLEPLAYING advice, but it is still given certain in-game restrictions and effects. 4E's reduction of choices is, IMO, pointless. It neither improves nor detracts from how I still see and use alignment, so naturally I still use the iconic AD&amp;D trappings.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 4939597, member: 32740"] I, and those I've gamed with, have never had a significant problem with alignments though I could always see how others did because they have never been properly explained and positioned to be used for what they really are best at doing. Biggest reason we never had issues was perhaps even because it WAS so poorly defined. When first introduced it really had no reason to be there - it was just an idea that was deemed cool enough to adapt from fiction and really served very little function. In AD&D it was expanded and refined a bit. As we played it we DID try to keep close to the alignment RAW but found that doing THAT was what really created what problems we had with it. When we treated it casually and more as a descriptor it was useful - when we treated it formally and as a dictator of "You must do this/you must NOT do that," it caused people to butt heads over strict interpretations and pointlessly Draconic enforcement. Eventually, we treated it much as 3E treated it - but only by unspoken, informal agreement based on past experiences with it. 3rd edition did formally reduce it to a "descriptor", but still failed to properly explain why it was USEFUL description, and how that description was best applied. Alignment is first and foremost ROLEPLAYING advice, but it is still given certain in-game restrictions and effects. 4E's reduction of choices is, IMO, pointless. It neither improves nor detracts from how I still see and use alignment, so naturally I still use the iconic AD&D trappings. [/QUOTE]

Verification