Why is it wrong to make alignment matter?

[Knight Otu]

Not so much. The best healer in D&D might be a follower of Pelor (just using the Core). The best healer might also be a follower of Hextor who gains power from worshiping the concept of healing (and uses it to power evil). Or a nature cleric who worships the forces of life.

I concede that a cleric who follows a philosophy instead of a god can be just as good as a healer as a cleric of Pelor. But just using the core, there is no way a cleric of Hextor can get the Healing domain, which immediately makes him not the best healer.

It's part of 3e's "don't give mechanical adjustments for RP effects." And it's one of the many, many reasons that the alignments should stay vague.

The design philosophy you're referring to seems to be the one that says "Don't give mechanical advantages for roleplaying drawbacks" - which essentially boils down to - "since the characters are always in trouble anyway, giving them the drawback to be always in trouble is meaningless."
Mechanical adjustments for RP effects - well, those are more or less in play. The choice of deity determines which domains are available. The choice of alignment can impact on domains, spells, prestige classes, normal classes, the effects of various abilities on the character, etc.

In principle, like allowing a rogue to turn undead for free.

The odd thing is, some of your comments made me think that this is what you want. No difference between the alignments, no difference between gods, I was almost tempted to think you want choices to be consequence-free. I was sure it wasn't the case, though, and now I can see it isn't, and I apologize for even thinking that.


I'd just like to formulate my current opinion on the matter, as I think some of it might have been lost in translation.

Allegiances can be tough. Pelor/Nerull, Good/Evil, Thor/Loki, Day/Night, DMs use them in sometimes subtly different ways. But we do get some information on what they are meant to be in the PHB (or whatever setting book is being used). We can find out easily that battling the undead/raising the undead, helping others/hurting others, thunder and lightning/trickery and deceit, the reveiling light/the conceiling dark are part of what defines that allegiance.

Mechanics on the other way, are relatively straightforward. Heal spells/inflict spells, improved aid another/improved damage, electricity damage/illusions, bonus to Sense Motive/bonus to Hide, every DM uses them in roughly the same way. Every character (or at least those with proper training) can make use of those. But we can also see some connection to those allegiances.

It isn't much of a stretch, then, in my opinion, to say "Those allegiances are obviously different. Why not give the option for characters to obtain powers related to those allegiances, so that the characters can be more integrated, and give more flavor to the world." No matter how flawed Magic of Incarnum is or is not, I personally do not consider the basic idea of "Allegiance Matters" to be flawed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The odd thing is, some of your comments made me think that this is what you want. No difference between the alignments, no difference between gods, I was almost tempted to think you want choices to be consequence-free. I was sure it wasn't the case, though, and now I can see it isn't, and I apologize for even thinking that.

I still believe that this is part of what is being advocated. No consequences for any choice that I am likely to make, where I am likely to dislike the consequences.

Or, look at it this way. Let's say that we create a class with four opposed factions called Nog, Sisko, Quark, and Odo. If of the Nog faction you get Power Set A. If of the Sisko faction you get Power Set B. If of the Quark faction you get Power Set C. If of the Odo faction, you get Power Set D. You get to choose your faction.

At this point, I imagine that there's very little problem. Why? Because the faction doesn't change based upon your actions. You can still do anything you want, and claim to be in any faction you want. And here, I think, is the root of KM's problem. Good alignments impose limitations on your behavior, and they impose a certain responsibility. Some might see those as being "not fun" and hence to be shunned in a game.

Why must you act Nog to gain the powers of Nog? Why can't Nog just be something nebulous that doesn't interfere with my choices, or my ability to have "fun" (however I perceive it).

This is a recurrent theme, and I think it is exactly why there is an objection to any abilities being linked to specific alignments.


RC

 

[genshou]

I'll leave the bigger discussions to those who have more inclination and aren't overflowing with brevity (for once in my life I am).

All I will say here is that I do not use alignment for non-outsiders anymore, but if I ever start again, this thread has enough good stuff to inspire me to that end.