Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5426900" data-attributes="member: 65637">Are you really going to argue that sticking your hand in the demon's mount is a moral decision?My problem with alignment is this: It breaks down potential grey areas into black and white, which throws a wrecking ball through drama and complex characterization.&nbsp; Even with no mechanics attached, you are creating a black/white spectrum.&nbsp; You are stating that actions and/or creatures and/or ideals are always, always, always evil, or always, always, always good, with &quot;neutral&quot; lying between the two.Awhile back I was listening to a panel Obsidian did for their game Alpha Protocol, and they mentioned that having a &quot;karma meter&quot; of any sort makes it automatically a focus.&nbsp; That if you had a meter for counting how often a player lied, they would instinctively try to game the system.&nbsp; Just by having the count, people would begin to act differently then they normally would, due to awareness of the number of &quot;lies&quot; being counted.&nbsp; In having alignment, you are creating a basis for &quot;Act this way.&quot;&nbsp; People second guess their actions and pause to look at what their alignment is and ponder if that's something a character of their alignment would do.That's basically the opposite of what I want in a game.I prefer characters to play out naturally.&nbsp; If a character suddenly acts radically different, then there should be an in-game response, not an out of game reprimand.&nbsp; If a holy warrior of whatever deity commits a heinous act that others hear about, then their reputation suffers immensely.&nbsp; If nobody finds out, then who knows what happens?&nbsp; Maybe the paladin has inner turmoil over it.&nbsp; Maybe they don't and commit later horrible acts that do get caught.&nbsp; That's part of the excitement!Moral choices should have consequences, but those consequences should be reflected in the play of the game, not in the mechanics.&nbsp; Perhaps acting evil makes a fight harder.&nbsp; Or better, perhaps it makes a fight easier.&nbsp; I never understood how evil actually survives in any D&amp;D setting seeing as how the mechanics that support the forces of good are so much laughably better and more powerful; kinda hard to be tempted into evil when the cost is losing your sweet powers.&nbsp; But in a game without a mechanical reason to stay on the hard line, you get much more dramatic choices.Nobody wants their character to suddenly become a worthless pile of junk who lost all their mechanics.&nbsp; Supposedly this makes paladins make &quot;hard choices.&quot;&nbsp; I'd argue that it does the opposite - it either makes no hard choices because &quot;I don't want to lose my powers,&quot; or it sets up for terrible GM traps and &quot;Gotcha!&quot; moments.To put it another way - for every one story I hear about a cool and epic and dramatic paladin moment involving potentially falling and moral choices, I hear hundreds of bad ones.&nbsp; And the good ones typically would've been better without the mechanics for falling, too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 5426900, member: 65637"] Are you really going to argue that sticking your hand in the demon's mount is a [I]moral[/I] decision? My problem with alignment is this: It breaks down potential grey areas into black and white, which throws a wrecking ball through drama and complex characterization. [I]Even with no mechanics attached[/I], you are creating a black/white spectrum. You are stating that actions and/or creatures and/or ideals are always, always, always evil, or always, always, always good, with "neutral" lying between the two. Awhile back I was listening to a panel Obsidian did for their game Alpha Protocol, and they mentioned that having a "karma meter" of any sort makes it automatically a focus. That if you had a meter for counting how often a player lied, they would [I]instinctively[/I] try to game the system. Just by having the count, people would begin to act differently then they normally would, due to awareness of the number of "lies" being counted. In having alignment, you are creating a basis for "Act this way." People second guess their actions and pause to look at what their alignment is and ponder if that's something a character of their alignment would do. That's basically the opposite of what I want in a game. I prefer characters to play out naturally. If a character suddenly acts radically different, then there should be an in-game response, not an out of game reprimand. If a holy warrior of whatever deity commits a heinous act that others hear about, then their reputation suffers immensely. If nobody finds out, then who knows what happens? Maybe the paladin has inner turmoil over it. Maybe they [I]don't[/I] and commit later horrible acts that [B]do[/B] get caught. That's part of the excitement! Moral choices should have consequences, but those consequences should be reflected in the play of the game, not in the mechanics. Perhaps acting evil makes a fight harder. Or better, perhaps it makes a fight [I]easier. [/I]I never understood how evil actually survives in any D&D setting seeing as how the mechanics that support the forces of good are so much laughably better and more powerful; kinda hard to be tempted into evil when the cost is losing your sweet powers. But in a game without a mechanical reason to stay on the hard line, you get much more dramatic choices. Nobody wants their character to suddenly become a worthless pile of junk who lost all their mechanics. Supposedly this makes paladins make "hard choices." I'd argue that it does the opposite - it either makes no hard choices because "I don't want to lose my powers," or it sets up for terrible GM traps and "Gotcha!" moments. To put it another way - for every one story I hear about a cool and epic and dramatic paladin moment involving potentially falling and moral choices, I hear [B]hundreds[/B] of bad ones. And the good ones typically would've been better without the [I]mechanics[/I] for falling, too. [/QUOTE]

Verification