Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guilt Puppy" data-source="post: 475751" data-attributes="member: 6521">On one hand it says they are guidelines, on the other hand it treats them as physical absolutes. I have no problems with using them as guidelines -- although I think it's fairly narrow in that regard -- but treating them as physical absolutes I don't like. For demons, celestials, yes, good and evil are intrinsic to their being... But to the NE Assassin? By the rules, it's more than a guideline for him -- it's a part of his person, as real as his height or eye color, in that he becomes vulnerable to holy weapons, detect evil, et cetera... This is what I don't like, and you'll see in my post that this is what I wanted to change.That's assuming the players are bad roleplayers. If they have a concept of their character, they know what they will and will not do -- if they don't, then they don't. I don't see why they need a game mechanic to help them with that -- is there a mechanic for how much they value their family, how much risk they're willing to take in combat, or any other of the role-playing details which you suggest will immediately fall into chaotic inconsistency without a game rule to guide them?In short, I don't think they need to be forced into being consistent -- in either case, if they're inconsistent, I'd just tell them that they'd become CN or N. I just don't think that being inconsistent should be some tangible part of a character in the physics of the world (making you vulnerable to lawful weapons, et cetera.)First, I don't think it's that easy to define good and evil. "Racism is evil," for instance... That means Thomas Jefferson was Evil, Henry Ford was Evil, D.W. Griffith was Evil, et cetera... Of course, when you actually look at them, it's more an issue of ignorance, naivety, et cetera... And really, similar could be said of many of the things you defined as "evil."Of course, in the real world this doesn't matter... Calling someone evil doesn't actually effect who they are, just how they're perceived. In D&D, however, by those definitions Thomas Jefferson had better stay away from people with holy weapons and paladins, because they are more potent against him. I'm not sure if that's directed at me or not. In my post, all statements I made were expressing my personal opinions... I'm not sure how I can be uneducated regarding my own opinions. If you're saying the personal opinions themselves are uneducated, I wonder why you came to that conclusion. An opinion is the comparison of two things: Personal taste, and factual information. Unless you know my personal tastes, you cannot say that I should have arrived at a different opinion based on the factual information.---Yes, you can do that, but I'd rather no go to the trouble. If I think something is wrong and my players think it is right (or vice versa), I don't feel it should have any tangible effect on them -- I think it ought to be up to the player to decide what their character thinks is right and wrong, without having the whole game world stand up and disagree.---Everyone else:Thanks to those who pointed out the Allegiance system -- as a role-playing aid, it seems much more flexible that the alignment grid. I think I'll adopt it to replace character class prereqs (and similar things), because I do like the flavor the prereqs enforce. Alignment will remain, but only in cases where it is a fundamental quality of some thing (be it a demon, an evil spell, whatever). Likewise, it is only in these cases that things like detect evil, unholy weapons, et cetera will work.BTW, to those who have run games using a similar system (it sounds like there are a few of you out there), did you feel alignment-based effects needed to be made cheaper or more powerful to compensate for how much more rare their usefulness becomes? For instance, changing holy weapons to +1 equivalent, making the Paladin's smite evil more powerful somehow, et cetera?Also, which creatures should be considered intrinsically their alignment? Alignment-embodying outsiders for sure, and undead should probably be evil (which makes trouble for liches who try to become good, although it opens up some interesting things), but what about certain aberrations, that sort of thing? Humanoid races I would never give a concrete alignment... Only things where good/evil/law/chaos is incorporated into their being. (For that reason, I'd make tieflings and aasimar inherently evil and good, although I would not force players to roleplay them that way -- just tell them that they felt a certain tug in one direction, and that this force was still a basic part of them.)</blockquote>

Verification