|
One thing I have noticed over the years is how different good characters can be even though they are all under the mantle of "good". Being paladin good is not the same as being Robin Hood good and I think some people look at it with too much of a gamist view. Like say for instance there is a starving family in the city. The Robin Hood type of character would go and steal from the rich and give the money to the family. Now the paladin character would not do this because it's stealing, even though it is for a good cause. They would find a way to obtain the money in a fair and legal way.
Someone in another thread mentioned charging more money for a service because of WBL. I think it's attitudes like this that take away from the alignment system in general, even more sowhen it comes to good characters. People talk about how much they hate the alignment system but I think the fact of the matter is, they just don't play it correctly. Alignment can be a challenging thing but part of that challenge is staying with in that alignment no matter how bad our real life attitude or nature wants to intercede.
I don't cause paladins to fall every chance I get, but in my games you will see the difference between a paladin and other good characters.
The problem with alignment is that there is no unified opinion on what is good and what is evil. Everyone has their own interpretation of the alignment system, and will gladly argue for it online. Many people also (at least in my opinion) overlook NPC reactions based off reputation and alignment. Why would anyone distrust a Paladin, for example? These guys are basically forbidden of lying, and are expected to behave like decent folk pretty much 24/7. Then again, one needs to be able to distinguish between a Paladin and a Cavalier...
|
The problem with alignment is that there is no unified opinion on what is good and what is evil. Everyone has their own interpretation of the alignment system, and will gladly argue for it online. Many people also (at least in my opinion) overlook NPC reactions based off reputation and alignment. Why would anyone distrust a Paladin, for example? These guys are basically forbidden of lying, and are expected to behave like decent folk pretty much 24/7. Then again, one needs to be able to distinguish between a Paladin and a Cavalier...
I agree with all this.
On the very last part, in my game, Orders of Paladins are quite well known and are VERY protective of their reputation. Someone trying to impersonate one of them will end up facing a very stern version of justice VERY quickly.
Everyone does things differently. Is that a problem?
Or, as I call them in my games, "lunchmeat."
Why lunchmeat?
Because he's of the impression that people who would like a game and not a set of guidelines for GMs to use or abuse are incapable of playing the game right, and he will go out of his way to kill their characters until they submit to his almighty wisdom, as he's stated before.
aw, man, that's harsh.
|
|
I think the Alignment system provides an excellent short hand for a PC character, and an NPC character's "morals" personality and tendencies.
A Paladin is Lawful Good. This tells me the character tends to have a respect for the law, and tends to try to make the world a better place by helping others.....The Paladin part tells me that the character will tend to defend the weak protect the innocent etc....
The Robin Hood is Chaotic Good. This tells me that the character would be willing to "go around" or "break the law" especially if it is oppressive.....they tend to value individual freedom. and that Oppressive Sherif who is taxing the country side into starvation, well he really didn't need those coffers of gold, there are lots of starving people who do.....
Everyone has their take on both alignment, how restrictive it is, and good, evil, law, chaos and neutrality.
Alignment is what you make of it in your game.
At least that is my understanding of Alignment etc....
Alignment should be subjectively defined and objectively applied.
WBL in an alignment fight? Huh? Did I miss something in one of the threads I don't follow?
There are threads you don't follow, oh now I must shun you, wait, what thead is this again...
People talk about how much they hate the alignment system but I think the fact of the matter is, they just don't play it correctly.
The only way to play with the alignment system is to NOT play with it at all.
By doing so you move past 2 dimensional characters and roleplaying, and past players alignment misconceptions in general. It was only meant as a quick shorthand, not a way to judge and guide every PC action.
Why would anyone distrust a Paladin, for example?
I would distrust a Paladin because they have their own concept of good, they're righteous, and they often see themselves as judge, jury and executioner. Not all Paladins are the same, some can be pricks.
"Well meaning" doesn't always mean "well meaning" for you.
People talk about how much they hate the alignment system but I think the fact of the matter is, they just don't play it correctly.The only way to play with the alignment system is to NOT play with it at all.
By doing so you move past 2 dimensional characters and roleplaying, and past players alignment misconceptions in general. It was only meant as a quick shorthand, not a way to judge and guide every PC action.
A better way to use alignment would be to have the player describe how he intends to play the character as best he can then the GM assigns that an alignment. If during play the character does stuff to warrant a different alignment then he gets a different one. The alignment isn't a straight jacket it is a descriptor.
For many people, alignment is a straightjacket. "No, you're playing CG wrong. No you're not playing LG right."
It shouldn't be, but it is for many people. Which is why I say the alignment system should be disregarded altogether.
I've removed it in my last 2 campaigns with good results.
The problem is that this allows players to start off with a destructive sociopath and then accept a zero-effect label for it after the fact... a label with no teeth. It would open the door to evil PCs, basically--and they're enough of a problem even with an alignment system that specifically outlaws them ahead of time.
Sure, I can kill the evil PC in-game and punish the player for it after he's had several sessions to get attached to his little murder-psycho... but why go through all that trouble when we've got a preset system available to prevent him from existing in the first place?
Are you saying that removing alignment opens the door to evil PCs?
Not really, it just allows the players to play the PC they want to play, without labels. If they want to play evil, go for it.
The labels aren't important, the actions are. Any good GM holds actions accountable. Like real life, sometimes (evil PCs) will get away with it, sometimes not so much.
With regards to the OP, I don’t believe that being “good” impacts the WBL much. You can be good without spending all of your money helping the poor.
Also, please keep in mind that if you can’t spend a few hundred gold (over your career where you are bathing in gold) helping a society or people in crisis, then you aren’t really that good either. Selfishness is not good, at least how it’s defined in this game (but also imo). In any case, at higher levels it should be nearly negligible.
A better way to use alignment would be to have the player describe how he intends to play the character as best he can then the GM assigns that an alignment. If during play the character does stuff to warrant a different alignment then he gets a different one. The alignment isn't a straight jacket it is a descriptor.
A problem with this approach is that alignment is too baked into the mechanics of the game. And not just in minor ways. A compounding problem is that people differ greatly in how they interpret in-game morality. It doesn't help that there is a lot of overlap in alignment. I can think of characters of every alignment who would go out to save the young child kidnapped by halflings. Their motivations would differ, but that doesn't have much impact in the situation you are describing. If the DM looks at character action and assigns alignment, unless the players tell them the motivation behind their characters actions, they obviously cannot use that to judge alignment.
Put these two problems together and you end up with things like a player being told her character loses his druid abilities because he's acting LG. It would be fine if he were just acting lawful, or just acting good, but not both. Or you could have someone get told their character can no longer take levels of monk because she's NG, not LG. Or being told the barbarian character cannot rage any more, etc. It's not fun to be told you cannot play your character any more because you and the DM interpret alignment differently.
A way around this problem is to limit the effect alignment has on the game. If alignment restrictions are lessened or just don't exist, they lessen the chance such a conflict comes up. Of course, if you do this enough, you may get to the point where you ask why even continue to have alignment? If it's not being used for anything important mechanically or roleplaying-wise, then why keep it around?
The biggest problem, as I see it, is the way alignment is tied to spells, items, and the planes (and the creatures from those planes). With these hard wired game mechanics it is perhaps disingenuous to eliminate the alignment from all player characters. I would be unhappy, as a Generic Dungeon Master, if a player were to suggest to me that because the character is “alignment-less” that they should have access to all spells equally. How do you decide what kind of energy your clerics channel?
I would be unhappy, as a Generic Dungeon Master, if a player were to suggest to me that because the character is “alignment-less” that they should have access to all spells equally. How do you decide what kind of energy your clerics channel?
Erm, this is exactly how the rules already work for neutral casters. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. A neutral caster can summon creatures of any alignment and choose whether to apply the celestial or fiendish template. Neutral clerics of neutral deities pick an energy type at first level to channel and then it's fixed.
Oh, well, there that sounds like an easy fix, Okay, everybody is neutral
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For many people, alignment is a straightjacket. "No, you're playing CG wrong. No you're not playing LG right."
It shouldn't be, but it is for many people. Which is why I say the alignment system should be disregarded altogether.
I've removed it in my last 2 campaigns with good results.
Alignment is supposed to be a straight jacket, to a certain extent.
The point of playing an alignment is to try and stick to it and it's limitations.
In all my years of playing, I have seen lots of players trying to play themselves. Playing with particular beliefs, morals, etc is all a part of the fun.
Oh, well, there that sounds like an easy fix, Okay, everybody is neutral
Works for me! Neutral is the power gaming alignment anyway if I remember correctly.
I usually link to this blog when people talk about removing alignment. There are a few dozen ways to do it. Personally I play without it myself because I'm not interested in it and I find it leads to too many arguments and it gets used as a straightjacket a little too often, and I like giving players a feeling of freedom, especially of choice.
Alignment is supposed to be a straight jacket, to a certain extent.
That's an opinion that could warrant a reaction. Personally, I try to be the opposite way and get people to act in a wider variety of ways rather than telling them to stick with limitations. I think being able to act in a variety of ways helps create a 3 dimensional character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, wait, wait just a minute...are some of you suggesting that there is more than one way to play this game, and still have FUN, no, no, this cannot be.
|
|
Wait, wait, wait just a minute...are some of you suggesting that there is more than one way to play this game, and still have FUN, no, no, this cannot be.
LOL
Careful this might just turn into another thread where players are portrayed as being spoiled, over-entitled and just playing to cause problems to a DM.
Alignment is a bit like the Force.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
Alignment is supposed to be a straight jacket, to a certain extent.
The point of playing an alignment is to try and stick to it and it's limitations.
In all my years of playing, I have seen lots of players trying to play themselves. Playing with particular beliefs, morals, etc is all a part of the fun.
You can play alignment as a straightjacket, but I've found it's more fun and the players make more interesting characters when alignment is removed. How interesting can the characters be when all LG characters act the same way and make the same choices? YMMV.
The actions of real and fictional people rarely fit into the alignment system (as a straight jacket). Take our two favorite alignment characters (Batman and Dexter), the alignment debates surrounding them are ridiculous.
Removing alignment removes alignment debates, which is a fun killer. Yay, no more alignment debates!
The biggest problem, as I see it, is the way alignment is tied to spells, items, and the planes (and the creatures from those planes). With these hard wired game mechanics it is perhaps disingenuous to eliminate the alignment from all player characters. I would be unhappy, as a Generic Dungeon Master, if a player were to suggest to me that because the character is “alignment-less” that they should have access to all spells equally. How do you decide what kind of energy your clerics channel?
In my experience (2 campaigns) alignment is rarely an issue when it comes to mechanics. It has really required only a few small changes, which comes up on a case-by-case basis.
Alignment is a bit like the Force.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
When do I start using my LG alignment to shoot lightning bolts at people?
When do I start using my LG alignment to shoot lightning bolts at people?Alignment is a bit like the Force.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
Lawful Evil gets that I'm afraid.
Lawful Evil gets that I'm afraid.When do I start using my LG alignment to shoot lightning bolts at people?Alignment is a bit like the Force.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
Well I'm going to be whatever Darth Treya was.