Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5435375" data-attributes="member: 54877">I think the disagreement is in the practical nature of alignment versus &quot;GM-enforced&quot; alignment.&nbsp; As I read you in this topic, &quot;GM-enforced&quot; alignment is:&nbsp; Someone has to make that final call on alignment, eventually.&nbsp; That person will inevitably be the GM.&nbsp; If the GM has to make the call, this runs a risk of being counter to how the player sees the ethics involved.&nbsp; Disagreement ensues.&nbsp;Whereas, I don't see alignment that way.&nbsp; I already said that its a jargon.&nbsp; Jargon is shorthand, and useful only so long as people know that it is shorthand.&nbsp; As soon as people forget that, it stops being useful.&nbsp; This is no different than, say, the stereotype of dwarves as greedy, taciturn, gruff, etc.&nbsp; It's useful for communicating in broad strokes, actively harmful if slavishly followed for all dwarven characterization.&nbsp;Alignment is also a marker.&nbsp; That is, it is a canary in the coal mine.&nbsp; If someone gets too bent out of shape about a particular alignment question, then they've definitely forgotten that it is a shorthand, and there may be other, more serious interpersonal issues to address.&nbsp;Jargon and Markers are not GM-enforced mechanics, but they do add something useful to the game--or can, anyway.&nbsp; Depends on the game.&nbsp; That's why my objection to D&amp;D alignment (pre 4E) has been not that it existed, but that it was too tangled with things it didn't need to be tangled with.&nbsp;And just to be clear, I don't object to, say, 1st ed. Paladin LG behavior restrictions tied to mechanics for the same reason you do (if I read you correctly).&nbsp; That is, if the character is tied to a diety in the setting such that the diety expects certain behavior, you can bet your boots that I and the player are going to work out the broad parameters of this before play starts--even if we are mostly &quot;develop in play&quot; in our approach.&nbsp; I do it in D&amp;D.&nbsp; I do it in Fantasy Hero with social disadvantages.&nbsp; I'd do it in a homebrew with a hand-crafted and ad hoc code.&nbsp; No, my objection to those mechanical ties is that I and the player might be in agreement that we wanted to do something else, and the ties make that hard to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5435375, member: 54877"] I think the disagreement is in the practical nature of alignment versus "GM-enforced" alignment. As I read you in this topic, "GM-enforced" alignment is: Someone has to make that final call on alignment, eventually. That person will inevitably be the GM. If the GM has to make the call, this runs a risk of being counter to how the player sees the ethics involved. Disagreement ensues. Whereas, I don't see alignment that way. I already said that its a jargon. Jargon is shorthand, and useful only so long as people [B]know[/B] that it is shorthand. As soon as people forget that, it stops being useful. This is no different than, say, the stereotype of dwarves as greedy, taciturn, gruff, etc. It's useful for communicating in broad strokes, actively harmful if slavishly followed for all dwarven characterization. Alignment is also a marker. That is, it is a canary in the coal mine. If someone gets too bent out of shape about a particular alignment question, then they've definitely forgotten that it is a shorthand, and there may be other, more serious interpersonal issues to address. Jargon and Markers are not GM-enforced mechanics, but they do add something useful to the game--or can, anyway. Depends on the game. That's why my objection to D&D alignment (pre 4E) has been not that it existed, but that it was too tangled with things it didn't need to be tangled with. And just to be clear, I don't object to, say, 1st ed. Paladin LG behavior restrictions tied to mechanics for the same reason you do (if I read you correctly). That is, if the character is tied to a diety in the setting such that the diety expects certain behavior, you can bet your boots that I and the player are going to work out the [B]broad[/B] parameters of this before play starts--even if we are mostly "develop in play" in our approach. I do it in D&D. I do it in Fantasy Hero with social disadvantages. I'd do it in a homebrew with a hand-crafted and ad hoc code. No, my objection to those mechanical ties is that I and the player might be in agreement that we wanted to do something else, and the ties make that hard to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification