Oh wow mine got removed and it wasn't even sniping, it was a (futile?) attempt at bringing peace back to the galaxy, and some of the sniping remained untouched!
At least MrSin preserved it and endorsed cookies & hugs, which should be something we can all get behind.
Alignment does not provide a clear, non-contradictory answer to every conceivable situation (or even most) so it is HIGHLY subjective so people bring their own views on morality in to say what the alignments are. It isn't objective.
And?
There's no part of the game that's meaningfully objective.
Alignment isn't everyone's cup of tea, but that owes more to individual experiences with awkward GMs than to the rule itself.
It works fine at most tables, I think. It works very poorly on internet forums which like to pick things apart.
Eh, in this hobby social awkwardness seems to be a common gig. Would stereotypes be another sacred cow?For better or worse probably not because that's an out-of-game thing.
Sounds like a good enough reason for cookies and hugs to me btw, but its hard to argue with free food.
I'ma bake a fresh pan of oatmeal cookies in about 1 hour.
Anyone who finds me gets one free!
Oh wow mine got removed and it wasn't even sniping, it was a (futile?) attempt at bringing peace back to the galaxy, and some of the sniping remained untouched!
At least MrSin preserved it and endorsed cookies & hugs, which should be something we can all get behind.
Yours got removed because it was a response that quoted the removed post. If you have questions or concerns about moderation decisions, please contact a moderator. This thread is not the appropriate channel for discussion about moderation policies.
If you feel there are other posts that violate the messageboard rules, feel free to flag them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding: it's okay to dislike the alignment rules. I once did myself. But like vancian casting, I found the simplest solution is to just go play something else. There are lots of great games that deserve paying. When I want to play a game with vancian magic and alignment, I play Pathfinder (or 3.5, or OD&D or what have you).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It works fine at most tables, I think.
I agree; sometimes it's nice to have a 2-letter shorthand for "will this monster keep a deal with us, or just slobber and try to eat our brains." Then again, removing alignment altogether works perfectly fine as well, which I can attest. It's solely a personal preference kind of thing.
Yours got removed because it was a response that quoted the removed post.Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.
If you feel there are other posts that violate the messageboard rules, feel free to flag them.
nah, I'm not a flagger, I'm a cookier (make cookies, not flame wars, I always say). I only brought up the "other posts" 'cause mine got deleted, but I'm satisfied with the explanation.
Thanks though.
Alignment isn't everyone's cup of tea, but that owes more to individual experiences with awkward GMs than to the rule itself.
Well, its not just the GM sometimes. One time it was a guy who wasn't playing our game but regularly came into the store. He was the GM's friend so he let him sit and comment(much against my will...) but my gosh, he liked to ask "What is your alignment?" and say "You can't do that" because he thought he had to police it. I thought it was disruptive myself. A few regulars at the PFS events I've been to, GM or player, have also acted like that. Its not awkward sometimes either, sometimes they think that's just how you do things.
Its definitely only been at certain places, but it does become a problem often enough I've just removed it when I run. YMMV, but the internet is good at having horror stories.
I'ma bake a fresh pan of oatmeal cookies in about 1 hour.
What? I thought I could request!
Well, its not just the GM sometimes. One time it was a guy who wasn't playing our game but regularly came into the store. He was the GM's friend so he let him sit and comment(much against my will...) but my gosh, he liked to ask "What is your alignment?" and say "You can't do that" because he thought he had to police it. I thought it was disruptive myself. A few regulars at the PFS events I've been to, GM or player, have also acted like that. Its not awkward sometimes either, sometimes they think that's just how you do things.
Kibitzers like that are bad in general, outside people who say you're doing it wrong; it doesn't have to be alignment, it can be class, race, actions you're taking (and what DC checks the DM allows), and so on.
Observers should observe. If they want to give their two coppers they should play. I accept that people watching will have things to say (within reason), asides, observations, humorous & otherwise.
But if it gets disruptive like that, then they should be asked politely to pipe down and if they don't or can't, to please go. It should be a table rule.
I'ma bake a fresh pan of oatmeal cookies in about 1 hour.What? I thought I could request!
Sure, far be it from me to be inflexible!
Alignment is useful to define how a character/monster/NPC will act in broad strokes. It is fairly subjective, but I still consider it useful as a guideline, not a straitjacket.
I would think its hard to do a lot of things in a straightjacket. Rolling D20s would be really hard, but I guess you could get someone else to do it for you.
|
Fireballs that fill available volume, like in narrow hallways.
Lightning bolts that fork and bounce.
Magic missiles that pick off mirror images and are fast enough to disrupt enemy spellcasting.
Ranges that get tripled outdoors.
Fireballs thing, why? It's not an emanation, it's a burst, plus, that would be bothersome to calculate.
Lightning, the same. Who would want to bother calculating forking and deflections? Plust it would make both 3rd level spells too powerful for level 3.
I like the magic missile idea.
I like the ranges idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fireballs thing, why? It's not an emanation, it's a burst, plus, that would be bothersome to calculate.
Lightning, the same. Who would want to bother calculating forking and deflections?
It's old-school. People used to get singed all the time for miscalculating.
I'm not saying it should be that way. I'm just saying it was. And it was lulz.
True story, bro.Alignment is useful to define how a character/monster/NPC will act in broad strokes. It is fairly subjective, but I still consider it useful as a guideline, not a straitjacket.I would think its hard to do a lot of things in a straightjacket. Rolling D20s would be really hard,
but I guess you could get someone else to do it for you.
They'd have to touch my dice then. >_<
(Or roll theirs for me. Either way, no wai!)
|
|
Fireballs thing, why? It's not an emanation, it's a burst, plus, that would be bothersome to calculate.
Lightning, the same. Who would want to bother calculating forking and deflections?
It's old-school. People used to get singed all the time for miscalculating.
I'm not saying it should be that way. I'm just saying it was. And it was lulz.
I don't like lulz if we're not messing about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works in more than simplistic situations, if you're intellectually capable of handling it. Which I do think you are (no slight intended at all).
It's easily possible to have alignment and complexity, if you're willing to. Of course, if you insist it can't be done, then you won't be able to.
But I and many other people have been in campaigns which are not simplistic and use the alignment system.
I don't like lulz if we're not messing about.I don't disagree: "I'm not saying it should be that way. I'm just saying it was."
I believe that Ultimate Campaign has provided a pretty nice clarification and expansion on alignment.
That's true, it's pretty good, if one is able to recognize the limitations of any game materiel.
If someone insisted upon finding fault with it and reading it in such a way as to support their preconceived notions against the alignment system, though, they will be able to do that even after reading UC on alignments, though.
|
|
Ok, I'm quoting the book. Mods, if this is not allowed, please delete my post. I don't want to damage you on purpose in any way.
This is from LG
Justice is all. Honor is my armor. He who commits a crime will
pay. Without law and truth, there is only chaos. I am the light,
I am the sword of righteousness. My enemy shall pay in the end.
Right is might. My soul is pure. My word is truth.
Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property,
responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness
And there is a wall of text after that, explaining things. Every alignment gets covered like this.
What book is that? I have nothing like that in mine.
I should specify not being simple by having complex characters. As in the PM we discussed I'll include it here:
And I answered that, at length, and with complexity (along with the fact that I'm agnostic on democracy, in the sense that it in and of itself is just a system, and is not a-good-in-and-of-itself), and the fact that whether racism and ethnic cleansing is an evil has little to do with a particular perspective ("But it depends on who you ask," you say. I say, no, it doesn't "depend upon who you ask" and as I said no one *operationally* behaves as if this were the case; to paraphrase G. A. Cohen, because it is put so well, "If you are indeed so convinced, then do not blame me for thinking otherwise … do not, indeed, blame, or praise, anyone for choosing to do anything, and therefore live your life, henceforth, differently from the way that we both know that you have lived it up to now."). I certainly don't think the people who are invoking Jackson have no personal position on the expulsion of Indians, and believe any and every opinion on acts such as that are equally worthy of moral respect.
IMO you invoked a lot of inapt examples in those PMs I initiated hoping to find common ground and comity, but comity which is why I didn't bring them up here. Anyhow this particular example like saying any mechanic is flawed and should be tossed because it doesn't capture the full complexities IRL in a paragraph in the gamebook.
That argument is bad, and I'm not afraid to call it what it is. It's never a sufficient argument, in-and-of-itself, on any rule.
We may need a separate thread for alignment.We probably do, but I guess I won't jump at starting it. I'll let someone else have those honors (and I'll make this promise if they do, which might be incentive for some to doo eeet: I promise to stay out of the discussion). But I will do this:
Bonus digital hugs for anyone who starts that thread, or returns to the discussion of sacred cows. My last contribution to the list of sacred cows was skills. Here is the thread I mentioned, discussing profession (engineer) vs. knowledge (engineering) http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ppur&page=1?Profession. I think physical skills could be based off of CMB, and some skills could be combined or updated. The skill system works pretty well, except for the arguments about fighters not getting enough skill points and the abovementioned thread about overlap. But skills could be further streamlined, imo.
The skill system could probably be updated & refined.
I also think some classes need a skill-bump, especially in areas you'd think they'd be good at (fighters, for example, usually have too few skill points to become skilled at athletic-things they should probably excel at, once they devote their few skill points to maxing things like Perception. . .which they don't even have as a class skill but is needed for any adventurer worthy of the name).
I couldn't come up with a good mechanic on my own (it's easier for me to recognize flaws & pitfalls, and maybe finding houserule tweeks, but I'm no game designer who could come up with a better skill system as a whole). But you've certainly put your finger on something that could be improved.
PF did improve on 3.5 some, but you're right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like saying any mechanic is flawed and should be tossed because it doesn't capture the full complexities IRL in a paragraph in the gamebook.
Any model that conflicts with reality more often than it reflects it is probably a bad model for that reality. Alignment is a very handy game tool -- as quick shorthand for how critters are likely to react to stereotypical circumstances. But it does NOT reflect any sort of moral or ethical considerations that apply to living people.
But paladins have the code which explicitly states that they must be lawful and good.
And yet, the Code makes little mention of Law beyond that.
If their code says they must be "lawful" then that means they have to obey the laws of where they currently are. This could easily conflict with their own code of good as in the example I gave.Now, that's the simplistic view. The alignments as described are not that simplistic at all. Certainly Lawful Good, for example, as an alignment isn't described in the actual rulebooks in such a simplistic fashion.
Porphyrogenitus: Ok good racism and ethnic cleansing are bad. Then I'm sure you make sure that the orcs or goblins you are attacking are in fact "evil" before you invade their camp or dungeon and don't just kill them on the basis that they are a certain race.
Meow!
But we got you to concede that, contrary to your previous unsupported assertions, morality isn't simply a matter of subjective perspective after all.
And there is nothing "inapt" about the examples as they provide perfect examples of how morality and people don't fit neatly into these little categories.They don't do that, actually.
And just because I don't like alignments doesn't mean "any mechanic is flawed and should be tossed because it doesn't capture the full complexities IRL in a paragraph of a gamebook".It's true they I already cited how the WoD was better IMO. No morality system is going to be perfect because its for a GAME, but one as bad as alignment should be replaced by something far better.
Again, tons of people are able to play and have complex, sophisticated games with them. It's one of the YMMV things that I mentioned wholistically earlier; you happen to not like the alignment system and think it's so bad it should be thrown out. But you keep insisting that you are right in this, and other people are wrong to think it's a functional part of the game, and they need to be repeatedly instructed to that effect, until we all learn that the morally complex & sophisticated experiences we have been having in our games, using the alignment system, are wrong.
There's a bit of irony here that I think you can see.
Now, for something I was wrong about: Awhile back I mentioned a cat being let loose in the thread. I think it was a horse, and that poor horse has been beaten to death. But we can keep going around and around in this thread if people want to, or someone can take ParagonRacoon's sage and wise advice, and the only "loss" would be you wouldn't have to be subjected to my side of this particular discussion anymore, because I pledged to stay out of a new thread on the same horse.
I think physical skills should be based on CMB, like PF did with Use Rope. Mostly I'm arguing that PF should continue moving in the direction they're already moving.
That might work, hopefully they'll play around with the idea. I'd prolly have to play around with it to see if I liked it. :p
CMB was new when they started PF and they might not have wanted to tie it to too many things early on.
I think the skill system works fairly well but it could use some tweeking, especially to improve the capabilities of what used to be 'low-skill classes" but which prolly should be good at these physical skills, and which are hardly "overpowered classes" right now.
As for CMB/CMD themselves, it might be fun to playtest around with the whole Combat Maneuver system and make it more, I dunno; useful isn't the right word. But, you know. Anyhow it would be fun to tweek.
I think it might be cool if physical skills were based on CMB, maybe with an option to increase them with skill points. It would make martial classes good at physical skills, which they don't always have skill points to increase.
The only potential problem with this that I can think of - and IMO it's not an automatic problem - is that then they all go up automatically (or not for low CMD classes), which some people will really like and some people might not really like.
You're right though that it is potentially a way to make low-skill classes finally good at some of the things they might be considered good at, without changing the amount of skill points they get.
D&D is a Role Playing Game.
You don't in checkers say "My checker wouldn't do that, or it isn't realistic that the checker would move diagonally backwards like that." You're playing a simple game with a few simple rules.
In an RPG you are playing a PERSON in a WORLD so in many ways its a simulation of our own reality with certain expectations. The character talks like you can, walk like you can and do pretty much anything a person can and isn't limited to being a game piece that goes left or right. THis is largely why we play RPGs. Thus, its expected that certain things follow like you don't walk forward and suddenly end up 300 miles away, that rabbits don't just fall out of the sky, that people don't suddenly turn 95 when they were just 14 etc. The normal rules of our universe generally apply until said otherwise. And even in this there is often some type of "logic" involved in it.
Rabbits only fall if the great wizard harnesses the arcane powers he has developed to manipulate them in this way. The man teleported 300 miles after a deity from the Outerrealms used his powers to take him away etc. etc. Logic, to an extent, follows even in a fantastical setting.
Yep. Dragging this world into that should be kept to a minimum, helps to avoid metagaming, distraction and facilitates immersion.
Adding: it's okay to dislike the alignment rules. I once did myself. But like vancian casting, I found the simplest solution is to just go play something else. There are lots of great games that deserve paying. When I want to play a game with vancian magic and alignment, I play Pathfinder (or 3.5, or OD&D or what have you).
I'm running a game with no alignment at the moment. Npcs fit into archetypes and what I've seen before (it is a game in a game--sword art online). For example: pvpers, thieves, heroes, norms, strategists, followers, cowards, loyal helpers, jokers that sort of thing. Very Jungian meets online gaming.
Now I was in another game where the dm chucked out alignment, and the game lost something. He didn't have anything to fill the gap, so the players that went along with it, seemed to lack a bit of character, to just be pragmatic ars*holes (or to be playing PAs). My character concepts still stuck to the alignment idea, so they seemed more real and fitting into the fantasy setting. They weren't just a pair of flip flops (Australian sandals) that did whatever they needed to do with no bearings. I like jobbers, but jobbers that only care about jobbing, stealing and crafting are pretty flatline in a character sense.
In a fantasy game where the forces of light on the hill civilisation can be against ogres, orcs, demons and insane wizards, law, chaos, good and evil make sense.
Short races are silly. Halflings are the size of todlers, so how are they able to throw a rock farther than Randy Johnson? But we got to have them. Short races should have like a STR of 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I was in another game where the dm chucked out alignment, and the game lost something. He didn't have anything to fill the gap, so the players that went along with it, seemed to lack a bit of character, to just be pragmatic ars*holes (or to be playing PAs). My character concepts still stuck to the alignment idea, so they seemed more real and fitting into the fantasy setting. They weren't just a pair of flip flops (Australian sandals) that did whatever they needed to do with no bearings. I like jobbers, but jobbers that only care about jobbing, stealing and crafting are pretty flatline in a character sense.
Isn't it possible that the other people were the problem? More so if its their first time playing a game where they aren't told who to be or what to do? That can actually be a pretty big shock depending on who you are. I run games without alignment. I don't tell people what to do, but I might strongly suggest not doing something against the group and take actions if it becomes a problem. My experience is actually the opposite, people don't lack anything, they gain independence and have to think about the actions at hand, rather than have a non answer of "my alignment would do x".
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal though. I'm sure there's a lot of YMMV. We have a new alignment thread btw!
They were mostly vets, and one follower. This is a direction gaming has been going in for a while. Rollplay stuff-questors without substance in game.
Allegiances can also be substituted for alignment. If someone says, I believe only in myself, that type of NE attitude can have in game consequences, and they had better hope their bluff is high (or many will not be impressed they don't server Andoran/the king/the good people Liniea.
This whole post leads me to believe you can't follow my posts in the slightest nor follow a sequitur train of thought. You're going to continue arguing with yourself about what was never said or implied. I'm not going to waste any more time on this with you.That's the civility & comity that makes you so lovable.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal though. I'm sure there's a lot of YMMV. We have a new alignment thread btw!Yup, now some can make their unsupported assertions, boil down, say, Lawful Good to a simplistic formula of their own invention not found in the actual game's treatment of, say, Lawful Good:
If their code says they must be "lawful" then that means they have to obey the laws of where they currently are.
and then claim that the game's treatment of alignment is too simplistic to be useful.
Someone invoked 'circular argument' earlier in the thread, but this is the prime example of it.
Pathfinder's treatment of the alignments is much more sophisticated than that, and throwing a fit and saying they won't deal with arguments that point that fact out is not a refutation.
Even a casual reading of the game's description of Lawful Good, or a knowledge of the variety of Lawful Good gods & empyreals would show that if anyone has a simplistic & poor understanding, it's not me.
It's like saying any mechanic is flawed and should be tossed because it doesn't capture the full complexities IRL in a paragraph in the gamebook.Any model that conflicts with reality more often than it reflects it is probably a bad model for that reality. Alignment is a very handy game tool -- as quick shorthand for how critters are likely to react to stereotypical circumstances. But it does NOT reflect any sort of moral or ethical considerations that apply to living people.
And I wasn't the one who insisted on dragging IRL examples into the discussion; I simply responded to the ones others dragged into it.