D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[Aldarc]

This is EN World, we dont do figurative.

Perhaps Greyhawk wasn't the best example, then. My exposure to it has always been as a lower-magic somewhat gritty setting, as opposed to FR which is the higher-magic less-gritty one, which is why I put it as a contrast to magic-everywhere Eberron.

Eberron calls itself "wide magic." It takes the conceit that lower level magic is more prevalent in the world while also generally lacking the EPIC magical npcs of settings like Forgotten Realms (e.g., Elminster) or Greyhawk (e.g., Mordenkainen).

 

[haakon1]

This probably should have been a “+” thread.

The OP asked why people LIKE alignment, and at least on the first two pages, most posts were about what people DON’T LIKE about it.

 

[payn]

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my experience the DM also hosts, almost without exception other than one-offs.

Which is just ignoring the question. Kinda funny to say "hey you ignored the context" in your literally immediately previous post, only to then do that to my own.

If someone wants something that far different from what I'm already running then they can DM it. If I'm invited to play, I'll then accept or decline.

Typical completely useless "advice". Not worth further response.

Hypothetical: a player insists on Eberron as the setting but the DM has no use for the primary elements that make Eberron what it is and instead has put effort into modifying Greyhawk into a quasi-homebrew.

Now what?

One v one? Odd group, considering that means the singular player really is exactly as essential as the GM.

Hypothetical: three out of five players are really really jazzed about Eberron and have specifically made clear numerous times in the past (since you demand that we only consider the tiny slice of the hobby that constitutes a stable 20-year-plus group) that they think Greyhawk is not a particularly good setting. The GM, however, thinks it's the best thing ever written and thus has tried, for (say) the tenth time, to make Greyhawk But Homebrewed So Everyone Should Love It. The other two players aren't opposed, but aren't compelled either.

Now what? Seems to me this is far more like a thing that would actually happen with the GM who adamantly refuses to ever consider the players' interests because "it's my campaign".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is just ignoring the question. Kinda funny to say "hey you ignored the context" in your literally immediately previous post, only to then do that to my own.



Typical completely useless "advice". Not worth further response.


One v one? Odd group, considering that means the singular player really is exactly as essential as the GM.

Hypothetical: three out of five players are really really jazzed about Eberron and have specifically made clear numerous times in the past (since you demand that we only consider the tiny slice of the hobby that constitutes a stable 20-year-plus group) that they think Greyhawk is not a particularly good setting. The GM, however, thinks it's the best thing ever written and thus has tried, for (say) the tenth time, to make Greyhawk But Homebrewed So Everyone Should Love It. The other two players aren't opposed, but aren't compelled either.

Now what? Seems to me this is far more like a thing that would actually happen with the GM who adamantly refuses to ever consider the players' interests because "it's my campaign".

How does the GM feel about this Eberron idea some of their players want? Are any of them willing to GM?

 

[Maxperson]

It had to do with the Balance card from the Deck of Many Things. I knew the card existed from previous encounters (he was one of those DM's who loved using the Deck, no matter how many times it blew up in his face, and got irritated when players got "too powerful" as a result). So since I'd picked up the item in an adventure he ran, I decided to consult it before drawing any card, and when I actually drew Balance, he refused to allow any "take backs".

In his opinion, the Phylactery is supposed to warn the wearer about actions that would cause their alignment to shift normally, like a veritable angel on your shoulder saying "oh, but if you murderhobo those goblins, you'll turn evil!", not "I put on a cursed helmet and I'm evil now". He started saying that even if it did work the way I thought it did, it was obviously too powerful, since it could apparently predict the result of any action I took with 100% accuracy, and all divination effects in the game are balanced by having failure chances or countermeasures.

Then he shifted to how long a "moment" is, saying that if I wanted to use the item it would take up my actions so anything I did would take twice as long, since obviously I need to constantly consult the item as "the future is always changing". Then he finally said "well, all of your previous draws are negated, since there was always a possibility of drawing Balance, and the Phylactery would have told you not to draw any cards".

I mean, he was the DM, so I had to abide by his rulings. I can't imagine what he would have said if I'd decided to memorize a stack of Augury spells before drawing from the Deck! I stopped using the Phylactery since apparently it didn't do anything common sense wouldn't do.

I start off agreeing with him. The intent behind the phylactery seems to me to be about moral decisions you make, not the drawing of cards or putting on a helmet. However, he quickly loses me when he gets petulant and throws a small tantrum. Ugh!

 

[James Gasik]

The Deck would trump the Phylactery were I ruling on it.

The Phylactery can warn you of unfavourable alignment effects of intended deliberate (and maaaaaybe even unintended or accidental) actions on your part but can't warn you about something random: it has no way of knowing whether you'll draw Balance as opposed to any other card.

Add to that the magic of the Deck itself that prevents divinations from telling you what you'll draw and yeah, the Phylactery loses this battle every time.

Where does it say the Deck is immune to divinations? I've heard people claim this before, but at least as presented in the 1e DMG, nothing is said about it. I guess there's an argument for later editions when it's classified as a "minor artifact". Now again, if the DM wants to rule that it is so it can't be cheesed (though I'm amused at the idea of trying to balance something that is unbalanced by it's very nature), that's certainly their prerogative. But as near as I can tell, that's a ruling, not a rule (which, granted, some would say is a distinction without a difference).

Again, your ruling is as absolute as my DM's was, my main complaint with him was how he went about it. I pointed out to him I had a magic item that plainly says it does a thing, he cycled through several reasons why he felt it shouldn't do that, before finally saying "you know what, it did warn you, so you would have been warned not to draw any cards".

 

[James Gasik]

This probably should have been a “+” thread.

The OP asked why people LIKE alignment, and at least on the first two pages, most posts were about what people DON’T LIKE about it.

It was a + thread when I made it.

EDIT: it's against the site rules to discuss it, but it's explained on post #93.

 

[Maxperson]

Where does it say the Deck is immune to divinations? I've heard people claim this before, but at least as presented in the 1e DMG, nothing is said about it. I guess there's an argument for later editions when it's classified as a "minor artifact". Now again, if the DM wants to rule that it is so it can't be cheesed (though I'm amused at the idea of trying to balance something that is unbalanced by it's very nature), that's certainly their prerogative. But as near as I can tell, that's a ruling, not a rule (which, granted, some would say is a distinction without a difference).

Again, your ruling is as absolute as my DM's was, my main complaint with him was how he went about it. I pointed out to him I had a magic item that plainly says it does a thing, he cycled through several reasons why he felt it shouldn't do that, before finally saying "you know what, it did warn you, so you would have been warned not to draw any cards".

I just looked up the phylactery, and it says any action or item(I didn't know about items), but it also says that you have to take a moment to contemplate the action. Did you do that before drawing?

 

[James Gasik]

I just looked up the phylactery, and it says any action or item(I didn't know about items), but it also says that you have to take a moment to contemplate the action. Did you do that before drawing?

I did, which led to a debate about how much time a "moment" is (the DM tried to say it would take my entire round at one point during the "debate"). My character knew about the Balance card since it was drawn by someone else in a previous encounter, so I said I was using the Phylactery before each draw. When I actually drew Balance, suddenly he had a problem with it.