Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5364844" data-attributes="member: 2067">I see this more as a &quot;table problem&quot; than a &quot;system problem&quot; (though I know -- especially before 3e -- the two certainly reinforced each other). The right answer to the question is one of two things:The things:&quot;It doesn't matter what it would theoretically be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, you only have to decide how your character reacts to this character's actions. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. It has no bearing on the game. Shut up and roll dice.&quot;or:&quot;It doesn't matter what you think it might be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, it is up to the DM to decide what it means, not your character. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. Your Smite Chaos isn't working, and you need to figure out how your Judge is going to deal with this. Now shut up and roll dice.&quot;People like to define things. Nerds especially like to define things. Alignment is too often used as a way to say &quot;HERE ARE MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHICAL FEELINGS ABOUT EXISTENCE LISTEN TO THEM IN OUR LEISURE TIME ABOUT PRETENDING TO BE ELVES&quot; and then launch into a big debate when all it really needs to say is &quot;Universe works like this. You figure out how your character deals with that fact.&quot;It doesn't matter if you agree or not. It doesn't matter if the DM says the guy killing orphans is not Evil in this context.Which is kind of why I don't like tying big mechanical effects to your abilities. I'd rather have Paladins who SMITE their enemies than paladins who SMITE EVIL, because the former is up for the player to decide, while the latter is under the DM's control. And a cleric who has to make a hard moral choice shouldn't be punished, mechanically, for doing something.Now, story-wise, it's fair game. If the Paladin kills orphans, have their god visit them in their sleep, and send Angels to punish them, and whatever. But then you're making it part of the gameplay, and not just a player-punishment.Alignment is still useful to get a handle on where your character sits in the eternal struggle for souls and whatnot, and adds a clear dimension of the fantastic to the game. 3e did a pretty good job for the most part, though it kept some &quot;falling from grace&quot; mechanics in the classes. 4e's alignment is pretty fine, though I still don't grok why they ditched CG and LE (or, to be more precise, renamed CG &quot;good&quot; and LE &quot;evil,&quot; for some reason).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5364844, member: 2067"] I see this more as a "table problem" than a "system problem" (though I know -- especially before 3e -- the two certainly reinforced each other). The right answer to the question is one of two things: The things: "It doesn't matter what it would theoretically be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, you only have to decide [I]how your character reacts to this character's actions[/I]. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. It has no bearing on the game. Shut up and roll dice." or: "It doesn't matter what you think it might be. LE or CE or NE or CG or LG or whatever you think he is, it is up to the [I]DM[/I] to decide what it means, not your character. It's not your place to determine their cosmic standing. Your [I]Smite Chaos[/I] isn't working, and you need to figure out how your Judge is going to deal with this. Now shut up and roll dice." People like to define things. Nerds especially like to define things. Alignment is too often used as a way to say "HERE ARE MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHICAL FEELINGS ABOUT EXISTENCE LISTEN TO THEM IN OUR LEISURE TIME ABOUT PRETENDING TO BE ELVES" and then launch into a big debate when all it really needs to say is "Universe works like [B]this[/B]. You figure out how your character deals with that fact." It doesn't matter if you agree or not. It doesn't matter if the DM says the guy killing orphans is not Evil in this context. Which is kind of why I don't like tying big mechanical effects to your abilities. I'd rather have Paladins who [I]SMITE[/I] their enemies than paladins who [I]SMITE EVIL[/I], because the former is up for the player to decide, while the latter is under the DM's control. And a cleric who has to make a hard moral choice shouldn't be punished, mechanically, for doing something. Now, story-wise, it's fair game. If the Paladin kills orphans, have their god visit them in their sleep, and send Angels to punish them, and whatever. But then you're making it part of the gameplay, and not just a player-punishment. Alignment is still useful to get a handle on where your character sits in the eternal struggle for souls and whatnot, and adds a clear dimension of the fantastic to the game. 3e did a pretty good job for the most part, though it kept some "falling from grace" mechanics in the classes. 4e's alignment is pretty fine, though I still don't grok why they ditched CG and LE (or, to be more precise, renamed CG "good" and LE "evil," for [I]some reason[/I]). [/QUOTE]

Verification