Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4937671" data-attributes="member: 3192">Good and Evil are not used as a default system in OD&amp;D, but can be included as long as they don't interfere with the Alignment relationship map.&nbsp; This is primarily because moralities vary widely while order and chaos are regarded as universally guessable concepts. Neither are Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral alignments &quot;play your character this way&quot; admonitions in OD&amp;D, but rather team designations like Red team, Blue team.&nbsp; Depending on one's behavior a PC or NPC can be kicked off a team or join the opposing team.&nbsp; Think of it as a 2-player game of Risk. Two teams are opposed on the board, but a neutral, primarily inactive set of troops in a third color populate the map as well.&nbsp; In Risk, these only defend and never attack.&nbsp; In OD&amp;D they generally behave the same way, but can also be hirelings or henchmen to either side with Loyalty scores, Morale, and other factors adding into their behavior during play.The alignment descriptor (e.g. lawful, chaotic) does hint at the likely tactics of NPCs who are on those teams, but alignment and its description is never a restraint on PCs or Players' choices.&nbsp; Players must be capable of attempting any action they desire or I don't think OD&amp;D could rightly be called a game.&nbsp; As such there is no such thing as &quot;playing your character wrong&quot; by a Player.&nbsp; As you say, it would be nice to see previous alignment rules brought back into D&amp;D.&nbsp; By my reading I think 4E's currently published version of alignment has no mechanical ramifications at all on the game.&nbsp; I may be wrong though as I haven't read all the books on the game.&nbsp; But bringing back Alignment and Attitude tracking would help immensely in returning at least one element of the core game rules of previous versions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Game Turns, time tracking, scenario determination, and campaign world as dungeon design could actually make D&amp;D a strategy game again, but I'm not holding my breath for those either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4937671, member: 3192"] Good and Evil are not used as a default system in OD&D, but can be included as long as they don't interfere with the Alignment relationship map. This is primarily because moralities vary widely while order and chaos are regarded as universally guessable concepts. Neither are Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral alignments "play your character this way" admonitions in OD&D, but rather team designations like Red team, Blue team. Depending on one's behavior a PC or NPC can be kicked off a team or join the opposing team. Think of it as a 2-player game of Risk. Two teams are opposed on the board, but a neutral, primarily inactive set of troops in a third color populate the map as well. In Risk, these only defend and never attack. In OD&D they generally behave the same way, but can also be hirelings or henchmen to either side with Loyalty scores, Morale, and other factors adding into their behavior during play. The alignment descriptor (e.g. lawful, chaotic) does hint at the likely tactics of NPCs who are on those teams, but alignment and its description is never a restraint on PCs or Players' choices. Players must be capable of attempting any action they desire or I don't think OD&D could rightly be called a game. As such there is no such thing as "playing your character wrong" by a Player. As you say, it would be nice to see previous alignment rules brought back into D&D. By my reading I think 4E's currently published version of alignment has no mechanical ramifications at all on the game. I may be wrong though as I haven't read all the books on the game. But bringing back Alignment and Attitude tracking would help immensely in returning at least one element of the core game rules of previous versions of D&D. Game Turns, time tracking, scenario determination, and campaign world as dungeon design could actually make D&D a strategy game again, but I'm not holding my breath for those either. [/QUOTE]

Verification