[Venting] I feel a bit dirty...

[PhantomNarrator]

So you're saying you never said alignment wasnt restrictive? Thats pretty funny, because I quoted you saying exactly that. Alignment IS restrictive. Thats ALL it is actually. If you want to backpedal, feel free. But I'm attacking something you said.

I'm not backpedalling at all. Alignment is *not* restrictive, it is defining. It doesn't *prevent* you from doing anything your character is capable of at all - it is there to determine what the *consequences* of your actions will be. You can call that restricting, if you like, but alignments are not meant to determine the player's behavior, they are there to label his character's general moral and ethical outlook. Incentives and consequences are not the same as restrictions.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I would prefer to see an evolutionary change, not a radical one. That's what variant and house rules are for.

But what do you consider a evolutionary change as opposed to a radical one?

1. Elimination of combat matrixes to determine if you hit?

2. Elimination of Thaco?

3. Elimination of % Strength and unifying stats so that an 18 was the same in all of them?

4. One XP Table for all the classes?

5. Unlimited level advancement for non-humans?

6. Easy multi-classing? (i.e. Dual Classing from back in the day.)

There are so many BAD mechanics banished to the realms of the joke and old foggy that I'm hopeful that WoTC will continue the process of streamlining things and making the system better. (Heck, I don't love True 20, but I love how they do stats.)

 

[PhantomNarrator]

But what do you consider a evolutionary change as opposed to a radical one?

I quote my earlier post:

My fundamental point is that certain things about D&D make it D&D. I would put classes, certain iconic monsters, polyhedral dice, Vancian magic, and yes, alignments in that category.

Those are my sacred cows, plus a few others that escaped me at the time, like levels and the six stats. Give me options, but don't reinvent the wheel.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

You can have a classless system already in place but simply give prebuilt classes as the standard for the game. DMs and groups can then choose one of several options:
1) Go with the recommended prebuilt classes.
2) The DM creates his own classes and may or may not use the recommended ones in addition.
3) The DM allows players to create their own classes with his/her approval.
4) The DM allows classless leveling up level to level with his/her approval.

I stress the DM approval thing in options 3 and 4 and the DM deciding if he is comfortable with a totalling classless game or not.
This would accomodate those who want a classless game and those who want tradditional classes. There would be a chapter of the PHB (or maybe DMG instead) devoted to the classless system and creating classes.

Edit: I would probably still be interested in 4e if they went with just traditional classes. A classless system could relegated to a supplement, or to my own or someone else's ingenuity. But for there to be a 4e they need to change/add something to the game I'm not sure what.

 

[GreatLemur]

What I think we need is a more robust alignment system, perhaps rated by degree, so that adhering to alignment is more important for certain characters than others. Combined with a loyalty and reputation system, this should solve most of the more ambiguous points.

I could almost agree with this, since a greater degree of detail in the alignment system would probably clear up a lot of contentious issues. But the question that really stands out for me is why do we need an alignment system at all? You can describe a character's moral outlook a lot better just by describing in than by picking options from a list.

The only thing we need an actual codified alignment system for is alignment-related game mechanics. And, I realize this is a personal preference, but I really dislike alignment-related game mechanics. Chaotic-aligned swords. Spells that don't effect evil people. Training and abilities that are available only to people with a specific worldview. Detect alignment. Stuff like this has always annoyed me, and I'd really like to see it go away.

 

[geosapient]

P.s. I have people in my profession like this..they want everyone else to conform to their revisionist belief system and because they are loudmouth's they think they are right.

You must be in the same line of work as me...

D&D is a game of imagination (with guidelines). It would still be a game of imagination even if it didn't have the name. D&D itself has survived for 30+ years because it is a familiar name. I daresay that everyone knows the name D&D for some reason. Whether it be that the person plays, has heard about it in the media for some murder / cult ties or just knows someone who knows somebody whose uncle likes to talk about the good ol' days when he use to play.

Personally, I've come to hate a lot of what D&D is or has become.

I've never liked or even understood the alignment system.

Paladins and monks have to be lawful? Whose law? The law of the community? Their own personal code of conduct? Maybe they have to follow the views of their order or monestary. People are people and no one will really follow anything 100% (75% is a stretch). If it were possible then communism would truly be a viable government.

Rangers have to be good (I think it was good)? What, a person can't be capable in a wilderness setting if they aren't good at heart? You can't learn to track or hunt if you aren't nice to others and respect your surroundings? (In case they had to be chaotic...) They couldn't belong to an order of rangers that helped others or hunted together for the sake of their order?

Proficiencies and skills?

I kind of liked proficiencies but they were poorly implemented. Anyone could become good at something regardless of class. I think that's the way it should be.

I like the way the skill system is set up but I hate that your class dictates what you can be good at.

Just because a person learns to use a sword that person is likely not going to be able to speak different languages? Just because a person spends time in a library means that he'd be able to more quickly pick up new languages?

Cross-class was a horrible decision. It locks people into certain stereotypes and makes it near impossible to be different (without multiclassing).

The discrepency of skill points between the classes is also horrible. Does learning how to swing a sword and improving ones body take that much more time than learning anatomy and training to avoid traps that a fighter is only allowed 2 points and a rogue 8?

Races and racial traits

Combat and damage

The list goes on...

It seems though, that they are listening to people and that may just be another problem. They keep putting out more and more material with more and more specific archetypes to the point where there is no imagination involved in the game. If you want something all you have to do is look it up. Games have come to depend on the company for the ideas that the players have already been throwing around.

So now I have some questions. Ones for imagination. What if... D&D ceased to exist? What if WotC stopped producing material?

 

[Greg K]

I like the way the skill system is set up but I hate that your class dictates what you can be good at.

Just because a person learns to use a sword that person is likely not going to be able to speak different languages? Just because a person spends time in a library means that he'd be able to more quickly pick up new languages?

Cross-class was a horrible decision. It locks people into certain stereotypes and makes it near impossible to be different (without multiclassing).

The discrepency of skill points between the classes is also horrible. Does learning how to swing a sword and improving ones body take that much more time than learning anatomy and training to avoid traps that a fighter is only allowed 2 points and a rogue 8?

In all fairness, the phb does have the section on customizing characters which provides an example of a variant fighter with more skill points and a few extra skills. The problem, imo, is that too many DMs and players did (do) not use it. Then, there was Urban Ranger which appeared in a 3.0 producted. The urban ranger provided an example of exchanging wilderness skills for urban skills so it was not much of a stretch to apply it to the druid or barbarian or even reverse it for the rogue (Hell, I and others were doing this right after the PHB was released).

 

[Arkhandus]

Tell that to anyone wanting to use an aligned weapon, spell, feat, etc. Tell that to the bard who has a chode DM who insists his behavior is too lawful. Paladin threads. Nuff said. Alignment has NEVER added anything positive. Continue to be blinded by nostalgia if you want.

Just keep telling yourself that, berk. I've not once had an alignment problem in my games nor seen a single problem crop up with alignment in games I've watched or played in. I clarify paladin codes and such when needed, and I'm not draconian about it; I don't tell the player he's lost his paladinhood and here's why, I tell him hey, y'know, that might not be very honorable, are you sure ya wanna go ahead with that? I don't rudely assume that anything a player says reflects what his PC is going to say/do right away without thought, because, in-character, he or she might hesitate and remember that it isn't the kind of thing someone of his/her religion/knighthood/intellect/sensibility would usually do.

I've played under bad, rat bastard DMs, and I've played under good DMs, and I've played under novice DMs. Unless your group's a bunch of tight-arses, or your DM is a belligerent jerk in general, you shouldn't be running into too many alignment problems. And those are only because of DM fiat or poor alignment definitions at present (which are easily remedied by even a halfway competent DM making spot decisions or giving it some forethought).

Chaotic neutral doesnt accurately describe most people. In fact, alignment doesnt. Ask 10 gamers to name alignments for Indiana Jones, Batman, Han Solo, Carmella Soprano, etc. You'll get 10 different lists. Lumping them all into CN doesnt really make sense, does it, despite all of them having ambigious morals at times. Alignment is garbage.

Yes, alignment does. Alignment just hasn't been as tightly defined as it should have been, as designers keep glossing it over rather than taking it seriously as a game mechanic, even though it's important to D&D. Most people just want to argue their own ethical views of what each alignment means, rather than accepting the DM's judgment on them (as the DM is referee and arbiter of disputes). Since the game designers left alignment too open-ended in its definitions, arguments come up now and then amongst groups who can't handle it maturely (most gaming groups have at least one or two immature people; our hobby encourages it more than many other hobbies, so it's normal).

Indiana Jones is Chaotic Good; Batman is anywhere from Lawful Good to Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil depending on who's writing the comic/show at the time, but generally Neutral Good, with lawful neutral leanings but nothing more; Han Solo is Chaotic Good, but with neutral leanings (anyone who thinks 'chaotic just equals crazy' is a fool; that's a remnant of 2E's poor definition of CN, not part of 3E); I'm not familiar with the last one you mentioned, but I assume it's from the Sopranos, and I don't watch that kind of drek. Sure, most normal people are kinda tough to peg with an alignment, but not too hard, and fantasy characters should be much easier to pin down. I'm neutral, with strong lawful good leanings, but too many jerks around me (making me too cynical, frustrated, and depressed).

 

[RFisher]

There's more to it than just checking what alignment a character is when he's hit with a dictum spell though. There's also alignment as a form of damage reduction, meaning that'd have to be recalculated into some other form of DR. Alignment traits from planes would be gone, making them somewhat more bland unless replacement traits were made. Things like "smite evil" would need to be retooled, etc.

Let me put it another way:

(1) The Knaves of the Dinner Table hate alignment for all the normal reasons.

(2) They could remove alignment from the game, but that would involve the kinds of changes you mention.

(3) Instead, they just ignore alignment. The players don't really consider it when choosing their actions. The DM never questions a PC's actions based on alignment or tells the player that an action will change his PC's alignment. The DM uses his discretion to keep alignment from coming up where that is easy. (e.g. Deities might not make the Dictum spell available.) When it does come up mechanically, they just use what the player wrote on his character sheet w/o questioning whether the PC has actually been living up to it.

See? You essentially have the best of both worlds. Alignment doesn't have an impact on roleplaying, but you didn't have to mess with house ruling it out.

If it were truly mediocre, as you say, I'm betting we wouldn't still be playing it 30+ years later.

Nobody has been playing 3e for 30+ years. I am playing classic D&D more than 20 years later, though. But then, I see the differences as significant enough to consider them different games. YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

There was an interesting alignment thread recently on rpg.net.

It does highlight one implication of the D&D alignment system: it is tricky to properly classify the alignment of someone who is strongly in-group loyal, but out-group hostile.

A heroic campaign world like Forgotten Realms deals with this problem by making all the out-groups Evil also (Orcs, Red Wizards, Bane-ites etc), so that the hostility of the Noble Knights towards their enemies doesn't raise doubts about those characters' goodness. This sort of campaign world ignores the real-world grittiness of racism, xenophobia, the tendency of Knightly armies to rape and pillage, etc.

The movie Excalibur offers a similar model of how Good can be handled.

A campaign world like Greyhawk tries to handle the issue by making everyone much more neutral than other worlds. But many see this as less heroic, and the default D&D module seems to peg the average person as Good rather than Neutral. I think the easiest way to develop a gritty game is just to drop alignment.