Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 5432569" data-attributes="member: 40166">What good means in the context of the alignment rules. Any player who can't handle polysemy is in trouble in AD&amp;D. (&quot;We go up a level! No, we're going down a level!)&nbsp;At some level, you've got to agree on what your characters should be doing. If you're a (D&amp;D) good party, and can't agree on what good means in this case, how long were you going to be able to play even without alignment.I've played part of B1 with a DM wanting to run it old school, me and the rest of the players running characters who weren't willing to kill a kobold for being a kobold, and a player running a character who wanted to kill them and take their stuff. Alignment never came into play, and yet that lack of agreement on what was good made it unsatisfactory for me and I believe the rest of the people at the table.The GM is always the default. As I've said several times, when the GM is running a god, then he's playing them like any other NPC, which is in the heart of the game.You don't want the game to punish those who switch alignments just because they switch alignments, I'll agree with that. You think that games involving moral conflict work better without alignment, I have no dog in that fight. But I still see no reason why characters that make a pact with NPCs for power shouldn't have to follow that pact to continue to get power.* And I don't agree that the type of game I play would be improved by the removal of the structure of alignment, or improved for me by having the type of drama you enjoy added.* On one hand, having arbitrary, complex, even contradictory rules applied harshly seems right in line for many gods. On the other, being too quick to strip their clerics of their power can hurt a god; communicating to the priest or paladin first that their behavior is not up to standards is a smart thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="prosfilaes, post: 5432569, member: 40166"] What good means in the context of the alignment rules. Any player who can't handle polysemy is in trouble in AD&D. ("We go up a level! No, we're going down a level!) At some level, you've got to agree on what your characters should be doing. If you're a (D&D) good party, and can't agree on what good means in this case, how long were you going to be able to play even without alignment. I've played part of B1 with a DM wanting to run it old school, me and the rest of the players running characters who weren't willing to kill a kobold for being a kobold, and a player running a character who wanted to kill them and take their stuff. Alignment never came into play, and yet that lack of agreement on what was good made it unsatisfactory for me and I believe the rest of the people at the table. The GM is always the default. As I've said several times, when the GM is running a god, then he's playing them like any other NPC, which is in the heart of the game. You don't want the game to punish those who switch alignments just because they switch alignments, I'll agree with that. You think that games involving moral conflict work better without alignment, I have no dog in that fight. But I still see no reason why characters that make a pact with NPCs for power shouldn't have to follow that pact to continue to get power.* And I don't agree that the type of game I play would be improved by the removal of the structure of alignment, or improved for me by having the type of drama you enjoy added. * On one hand, having arbitrary, complex, even contradictory rules applied harshly seems right in line for many gods. On the other, being too quick to strip their clerics of their power can hurt a god; communicating to the priest or paladin first that their behavior is not up to standards is a smart thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification