Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2664316" data-attributes="member: 18280">The problem with this argument is that it applies to everything.  Some DM's define ranger slightly differently.  There are lots of ranger re-designs to demonstrate this.  Some DM's define Speak With Dead slightly differently.  I can point you to the thread.  Do the combat rules define things that should be indefinate?  Again, I can point you to threads that include arguments that they do (the claim being, invariably, that some DMs see this aspect of combat or that aspect of combat slightly differently).There is nothing in the game to which your general argument does not apply.When WotC overhauled AD&D 2nd Ed to create 3.0, they didn't say some rule X "won't be very useful at all to a DM that doesn't agree with their definition" of Y.  They said instead, "Here is our definition of Y.  Here is our rule X.  You are allowed to change it if you like."Go back to the 1st Ed ranger.  What should a ranger be like?  There's very little defined, so you're pretty open to interpret the rules however you like.  3.X is a lot more codified.  Things are far better defined.  In fact, where 3.X is weakest as a ruleset is where the authors have avoided strict definition.  This definately includes the alignments.Whether you like the idea of a tighter alignment description linked to mechanical benefits or not, surely you can see that the more clearly laid out a ruleset (or portion thereof) is, the easier it is to modify to your individual needs....or, at least, the easier it is to modify well.A more codified, better integrated alignment system would also lower the need for the DM to make judgment calls, right?  Of course, once alignment was codified as well as everything else, tinkering and tweaking the alignment rules might be seen by some as a vanity, not a nessecity, and players may be reluctant to sign up for something that they may hate just because some guy really likes his own little defintions of good and evil.   If you have someone who thinks lack of compassionate as a defining characteristic of evil is unrealistic and you show them a game using the All Alignments Are Exactly Equal system, they might be intrigued.  But for the majority of players, if it ain't broke...*****  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> It is interesting that you bring up the Book of Erotic Fantasy as a defense for your position.  As I am sure is obvious, the reason that the BoEF is controversial at all is because it deals with subject matter that makes some people uncomfortable.  It is almost as though you are suggesting that alignment definitions be dropped from the game because it makes some people uncomfortable.Again, this is an argument that can be applied, to varying degrees, to anything in the game.  Violence (i.e., combat) is offensive to some.  A whole whack of people exist to whom anything resembling magic or a spellcasting system is abhorent.  Or the suggestion of even fantasy "gods"."Some people don't like it" is, once more, simply not a compelling argument against anything, because it applies to everything.RC</blockquote>

Verification