Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 2664115" data-attributes="member: 2067">And there's nothing wrong with that in your own campaign. Feel free to design and use rules with that in mind. However, it certainly isn't a universal fact. It is open to interpretation. It should be. MoI attempts to define it more. If you like their definition, by all means, use the book, but that doesn't mean that they did the right thing by defining alignments more, either by the usefulness of the book itself or by how that book contributes to the D&D game as a whole.Maybe it will make your campaign better, and that's good. But that doesn't mean that it's good for the book to exist, anymore than it's good for the Book of Erotic Fantasy to exist just because it helps some people's campaigns. Which, btw, falls into the same trap of "defining things that should be left indefinate."You don't need to accept that evil can be compassionate. All you need to do is accept that some DM's define evil slightly differently, and we can agree that MoI won't be very useful at all to a DM that doesn't agree with their definition of alignment. Along with which, I'd argue that most DM's don't use the same definitions of alignment, so MoI will mesh up only with the handful of DM's that do.Not so much. Because in that scenario it's pretty obvious how, if it suited your campaign's needs, to change the Crusader so that a Good one got a +2 bonus to damage rolls. Or a Neutral one. Or whatever. How that ability fits in, power-wise, with the system is very clear and only tangentially linked to the alignment, not exclusively. Anyone can get that +2 enhancement bonus to damage, there's just a flavor reason why an evil Crusader would be encouraged to get it. You could replace it with a Bonus Feat, or some spell-like ability of equal power, and be on the same page. Effectively, in that case, it's easy to file off "evil" and just say "a crusader gets this bonus feat at this level," if the DM wants. I don't have a big problem with it.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. Or whatever. The flavor is in place, and it's easy to change depending upon what kind of campaign you'd like and is limited only by your imagination. He probably won't be a follower of Nerull, but he could be (Playing a priest of Nerull cursed with antithetical domains would make for an interesting character, and an even more interesting villain; playing a neutral priest of "life and healing" is also a valid choice). It turns out that the "best healer" could be anyone who really cares to be come the best healer, because healing was balanced with the rest of the game without considering who would be using it for what ends. 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 alignment powers are more of their abilities. From the description of the Incarnate: "How you engage in combat is almost directly a function of your alignment." And that's not the only time that they are pretty much defined by alignment. Soulborns recieve immunity based on their alignment (though they are less defined by it than incarnates, by virtue of them not using as many soulmelds). Thus, you run into possible balance problems by allowing mixing and matching of powers (which doesn't happen in the core rules). You have to carefully adjudicate how you allow them to choose powers. You could still do it with "four different paths," but then why they can't choose to mix and match isn't very clear, from a verisimiltude standpoint.It's more difficult becuase being Good gives you benefits that being Evil doesn't, and vice versa. Thus, unless you can think of a reason to forbid certain paths, allowing them to mix and match may be like allowing a Psion to use every exclusive power for free -- it gives them too much access to too many powerful abilities. In principle, like allowing a rogue to turn undead for free.</blockquote>

Verification