| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I'm sure you know there are a myriad of role playing systems with significantly less history in them that do just fine without alignment.
I think that just goes to show how useful alignment really is. D&D keeps it around for tradition's sake and no one else bothers with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally feel it helps make it unique. Just because other things don't have something doesn't mean it doesn't have a place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then don't play pathfinder?
Pathfinder without alignment tied to mechanics is still pathfinder.
Or at least dont play any system with D&D inspiration that has alignment in it.
That's what I'm TRYING to do by advocating for dropping alignment from the new version of the game.
Like I'm sure you know there are a myriad of role playing systems with significantly less history in them that do just fine without alignment.
That's REALLY not a productive post. We are in a section of the board specifically made for the new game in the works, so you SHOULD know we are all talking about that new game: saying 'if you don't like it, hit the road' doesn't move the debate forward and is rude to boot.
And you feeling that it shouldn't exist is fine. If you don't want it don't use it. But I want it. And I use it.
As of now. Pathfinder has it because it's based off of dnd. If you don't like that there are many other games that you can use that don't have it.
I personally feel it helps make it unique.
And that's fine. That's productive, while being dismissive of others feelings isn't.
Just because other things don't have something doesn't mean it doesn't have a place.
That's a debate too: Does it HAVE to be front and center? How about an optional rule [to add or remove]? Is it still unique if it's removed from mechanics and left for descriptive reasons?
That's REALLY not a productive post. We are in a section of the board specifically made for the new game in the works, so you SHOULD know we are all talking about that new game: saying 'if you don't like it, hit the road' doesn't move the debate forward and is rude to boot.
Intent is hard to read in text but I assure you I'm not telling you to hit the road. I'm telling you that to me pathfinder should have alignment. And if you feel strongly that it doesn't need it then you might want look towards other games.
Quote function messed up there apparently.
If you want it as an option you already have that power. Run a game without it at base I want it in the system because I believe it's history as a dnd inspired system is worth keeping.
I believe that alignment and actions that specifically use the system as written are fun and engaging and can make for interesting situations and encounters. Removing it cheapens the history behind it and risks making another fantasy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you feeling that it shouldn't exist is fine. If you don't want it don't use it. But I want it. And I use it.
You talking like it's already set in stone for the new game: it isn't as teh dev's have said everything is up for change. So it might be YOU left with 'is you don't want to use it, fine'.
As of now. Pathfinder has it because it's based off of dnd.
If we are going what it's based on, then the alignments would be lawful, neutral and chaos...
If you don't like that there are many other games that you can use that don't have it.
I could say the same right back to you. They could give me my no alignment and you could find another game: in the grand scheme of things they didn't lose a customer as they gained me and lost you. How did that accomplish anything?
And if you feel strongly that it doesn't need it then you might want look towards other games.
Again, telling someone to "look towards other games" is kind of rude IMO. It's telling me that my opinions don't mean anything in shaping the new game because you're are more important. So PLEASE stop it with the 'go play something else' posts.
If you want it as an option you already have that power.
Actually, no I don't. I play online and don't have the same DM or players from one game to the next, so I'm NOT in control of using alignment. Secondly, because of HOW poorly defined the alignment system is, I no longer play a game with a paladin in the game because of recurring issues with their alignment restriction. Where you see an "inspired system", I see a never ending parade of issues. That said, I not against an option for you to still have your alignment: I just want it to be an option and not core as core is the most often used default in games.
Might I recommend running a game then? If you feel that alignment is pointless no one is really stopping you from not using it.
As to alignment issued among paladin that stems more from bad gm and a lack of discussion as to what sort of paladin code you would want to follow
That's a user issue not a system issue.
I personally feel it helps make it unique. Just because other things don't have something doesn't mean it doesn't have a place.
And? A broken glass sandwich is unique.
Don't get me wrong, I don't run into alignment issues at my tables either. But that's because we have an unwritten rule not to talk too much about alignment or analyze it too closely because every time we do, it breaks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might I recommend running a game then?
Do to my medical issues there are times I unexpectedly end up in the hospital: as a player, the game moves along but as a DM the game grinds to a halt.
If you feel that alignment is pointless no one is really stopping you from not using it.
AGAIN, that isn't realistic. It's like telling someone playing PFS to 'change the rules'.
As to alignment issued among paladin that stems more from bad gm and a lack of discussion as to what sort of paladin code you would want to follow
It really isn't: sometimes it's about the player thinking the DM is stifling his RP, someth=imes it's the DM thinking the player is trying to get away with something and the majority of the time it's a genuine issue with two people disagreeing on what alignment an action because the system is SUPER, SUPER vague with non-tagged actions. Both can make a legitimate case for different alignments and the result can remove a players abilities.
Secondly, it's NOT the code that's EVER the issue but the 'evil act' that is. If you are NOT playing a starkly black and white game, it's really hard on the paladin to not step over the line into what someone might think is even slightly evil.
That's a user issue not a system issue.
Disagree: Paladin falls from evil act. No two people will EVER agree 100% on what is evil or not. This insures that no matter how compatible the player and DM's thinking is, they will eventually disagree on what alignrmtn an action is. that's NOT idea when a code system could be put in place instead with black and white requirements: I KNOW id my character is wearing white or has eaten pork for instance.
If you feel that alignment is akin to broken glass you will consume for some reason that's on you. You found a work around with the rules as presented. We work within the alignment system.
If you find it virulent enough to demand it's removal then don't play with it. But as of now if you want to play pathfinder you have alignment. I and others like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
don't play with it
And that's your 3rd strike. I've asked you not to reply like that but as you continue I'll not reply to your posts anymore. It's clear you don't want to debate or have a dialog.
Player and GM disagreement is a user issue. Not a system issue.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I hesitate to ask. But do you have a specific example that would come up where there is no room for either side to discuss?
don't play with itAnd that's your 3rd strike. I've asked you not to reply like that but as you continue I'll not reply to your posts anymore. It's clear you don't want to debate or have a dialog.
Didn't say don't play pathfinder. Said don't use alignment.
Also wasn't a respond to your comment. As should be obvious that it mentions broken glass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like "Subjective Morality" and I really don't like how so many people (incorrectly) consider morality a subjective topic when that is a theory and by no means any kind of law.
Not necessarily. Look, I'm a Catholic, I'm quite far into Objective Morality. But why I prefer in my RPG have things murkier. For various reasons. First of all Good and Evil are RL terms of certain weight.
Considering I do not agree all PF Good is Good, not to mention Law - Chaos axis is non-existent in my Objective Morality, I'd prefer murkier fantasy background.And I'm quite sure lot of proponents of in game Subjective Morality are not Subjective Moralists, they just do not want to you know cope with old, quite clunky, philosophicaly let's say kindergarten system. Because when player in RL hears good and evil, they can have their own assumption. Not necessarily in line with Pathfinder, or worse written such way it's hard to say.
That is a very complicated situation... Objective morality says otherwise...
Objective morality:
Saving a child = Good.
Using Infernal Healing = Bad.The two actions are not directly related. Chances are, such a thing wouldn't cause an alignment shift, though would still make a Paladin fall... If the Paladin somehow had access to Infernal Healing.
In fact by RAW rare usage of opposite alignment spells and magical abilities should not call Alignment Change.
So let us say that in the kingdom of Alamat (a place I just made up) slavery is legal. There are many ways to become a slave in Alamat. The first is to sell yourself into slavery for a period of service in order to pay off a debt. The second is to be convicted of a crime such as theft. It is illegal in Alamat to force someone not convicted of a crime into slavery.
So - I have set up the city of Alamat above, and we have the rules... Is the city of Alamat evil?
Under objective morality probably not - Slavery is a form of legal punishment (we do this in modern day countries all the time by making inmates perform labor) or a legal status that someone enters into willingly.
Under subjective morality it is absolutely evil - Why? Well the prisoners who were convicted of crimes and are being enslaved because of it don't want to do the labor. Thus, from their perspective, it is being forced on them and thus, since it negatively impacts them, it is evil.
Eeeee... no?
What you described are two different sets of Objective Morality each having different notions of what is Accepted and what is Rejected (to not use Good and Evil, which in Pathfinder are Cosmic Forces).In fact two good guys could have drasticaly different notions - I can easily see Chaotic Good guys being vehemently against such laws and working to undermine them (because it's better to kill evil people, than enslave them because FREEDOM PRINCIPLE).
Now TBH in Faerun there were LG-LN country with slaves owned by churches namely Mulhorand, but I'm not really sure if in Pathfinder slavery wasn't moved under totally evil. Would have to check or ask James Jacobs.
In fact there is no good or evil possible under subjective morality.
Sure but... you cannot also choose individualism over collectivism and fight against this slavery if you go full subjectivism. Full subjectivism leads to moral agnosticism.
Maybe slavery is good, maybe it's bad, I don't know.If you claim it's good or evil, either way - you are some kind of objetivist.
A serial killer who murders women who have red hair because red hair reminds him of his mother. His mother used to beat him and as such he believes that all red haired women are evil and a threat to society and everyone around them. He is protecting others from these evil people.Is the serial killer evil?
Under objective morality he is absolutely evil.
Under subjective morality he is not evil, at least not to him, because he has justified his behavior. He may be incorrect in his assumption that red hair on a woman marks them as evil, but he is genuinely acting out of a belief that he is protecting people. Thus under subjective morality he is not an evil person.
Under objective morality this man is True Neutral, and innocent because he is clearly criminally insane, and lacking possibility to use powers of will and reason as healthy individual.
A slaver may believe that enslaving others is not wrong, because those others are not him, but he will believe being enslaved himself is wrong because it negatively affects him.Thus the theory of subjective morality hinges on the concept that morality is not a thing.
Yeah, sort of yes. But it isn't why it's problem in game.
A slaver may believe that enslaving others is not wrong, because those others are not him, but he will believe being enslaved himself is wrong because it negatively affects him.Thus the theory of subjective morality hinges on the concept that morality is not a thing.
In truth I belive - no, they aren't.
Just because there are All Powerful Cosmic Forces In Constant Struggle Trying to Judge Mortals doesn't mean one have to accept them.Sure they work in certain way - but thats... physics... not necessarily axiology, and you could clearly concieve axiological concept of morality independent of Big Four, and condemning all of them for trying to impose False Morality over mortals.
I think something like Jainism could work that way.
This is also why, in Golarion, it is so welcoming to people of every gender and orientation.
In real life the social contract humanity had once believed that homosexuality was evil at worst, and at best a psychological problem... One that could be fixed by a lobotomy...
That is because we had no way to measure, in real life, if homosexuality was evil or not. In Golarion, you call your local Paladin, or local Cleric, and say, "Hey. Is this evil?" On augury later and the issue is put to bed. No fuss, no muss, no years of abuse and horrible treatment until the social contract changed... We have an authority that we appeal to who can give us a clear and correct answer.
And still you can disagree with it.
That's the point.The reason why so many people want subjective morality in their games is because, truly, they do some things that, by the game world's definition, is evil. They don't like the idea of being evil, and they truly see no issue with the behavior, so they feel a compulsion to try to justify that in the game. The easiest way to do this is to remove morality from the game. The game can't call them evil if the game no longer has a definition for evil after all.
Quite possible. If players disagree that something game call evil is really evil - like making non-sentient zombies from willing corpses... then surely they would not like to have it called evil deed.
And that's because Evil and Good are Real World words that for almost every human being hold some often dear and sensitive notions on.
Ergo it's annoying on subconciouss level.
I, personally, prefer objective morality. I also don't believe in the theory of subjective morality and feel it is a load of bunk.
Sure but what would you do if your RL objective morality clash with Golarion's objective morality?
And if it doesn't matter because it's fictional universe... then why even bring serious Moral Theories about RL morality into game?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're getting hung up on the idea that a game system not having alignment mechanics means morality is subjective in that system.
In a way it is, at least on epistemic level.
Let's say for simplicity sake rename Golarion's good and evil into Radiance and Darkness (shut up Torag!)Now for a many people Radiance will be generally good force they agree with and want to cooperate, while Darkness kinda nigh.
But obviously other theories are concievable.
Because you know it's dualistic... in fact double dualistic system, when you choose sides of eternal conflict. There is no RIGHT WAY. There is eternal struggle that shall never end. It's not like Good is Default and Evil is just fallen Good like in Catholicism, it's not like one side really hold World's fate in hands, and other not.
Those forces are equal.
SO if inflicting pain is evil, all should be evil but aren't. This means there must be a subjective reason to have one evil and the others not and the whole thing isn't absolute/objective.
Not necessarily even in objective morality. That's why temperance is a virtue in classic philosophy - sometimes inflicting some pain can be good, but over some level it can be vile torture.
Get that alignment nonsense out of the game! If I never have to endure a "you can't do that because my interpretation of your alignment says so" debate, there will be many more sunny days in my future.
Just ban it on your table?
Just like I am all for CG variant of Paladin, and TN Pharasma paladin (yeah they can be named differenly doesn't care - names are just words, and all words are empty lies), I also prefer for AL rules to be in a game.
Because it's easier to cut them off game, than to add them.
Just like it's easier for HWalsh to ban Pharasma undead hunter paladin variant than for me to make it myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily even in objective morality. That's why temperance is a virtue in classic philosophy - sometimes inflicting some pain can be good, but over some level it can be vile torture.
But as I pointed out, it was the lesser pain that was evil and the torturous ones that weren't.
Just ban it on your table?
Not possible for some as explained above. For instance, PFS society players have no say in it and myself would have to advocate for its removal every time I join a game: So IMO, it's a LOT harder for me to continuously try get it removed and impossible for me and others to consistently [or ever for some] to get it gone, while it only takes once for those in a home game that what add it. Secondly, there is pathfinder classic that did ALL the work for you making it easy to add it to the new version.
It's not possible for you due to specific situations. Your situation doesn't dictate everyone else's.
I really think you should find a better groups to play with. No gaming is better than bad gaming. Whatever your definition of bad gaming is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just ban it on your table?Not possible for some as explained above. For instance, PFS society players have no say in it and myself would have to advocate for its removal every time I join a game: So IMO, it's a LOT harder for me to continuously try get it removed and impossible for me and others to consistently [or ever for some] to get it gone, while it only takes once for those in a home game that what add it. Secondly, there is pathfinder classic that did ALL the work for you making it easy to add it to the new version.
This same argument is true in reverse. If they remove alignment from the game a lot of us who love it will no longer be able to use it. The thing is, if you're in a home game anything can be added/removed.
Seek perfection find the game and gaming group that you want to exist.
Fight for the removal of alignment since that is what you want.
I will fight to keep it in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This same argument is true in reverse. If they remove alignment from the game a lot of us who love it will no longer be able to use it. The thing is, if you're in a home game anything can be added/removed.Just ban it on your table?Not possible for some as explained above. For instance, PFS society players have no say in it and myself would have to advocate for its removal every time I join a game: So IMO, it's a LOT harder for me to continuously try get it removed and impossible for me and others to consistently [or ever for some] to get it gone, while it only takes once for those in a home game that what add it. Secondly, there is pathfinder classic that did ALL the work for you making it easy to add it to the new version.
Yep, but that just underscores why 'you can just change your game if you don't like it' isn't a satisfying answer/reply to almost ANY of these debates. It's almost as bad as 'just go play another game'.
It's why I wouldn't mind alignment staying as long as it had no mechanical impact. It's a MUCH less heated debate if you aren't arguing about keeping your class abilities or losing them.
But as I pointed out, it was the lesser pain that was evil and the torturous ones that weren't.
I misread then.
In such situation I'd say... it's... weird? Like powers and results...Or maybe I should go more Catholic on that - Evil deserve bigger PAIN because they are EVIL. Burn them! ;)
Not possible for some as explained above.
Negotiate with your co-players and GM to ban them?
Because you know - if they love AL so much, they can houserule it back into PF2 or just keep playing PF1 till the 2048...And about PFS... well it's PAIZO thing... I honestly never find it so compelling.
What would you remove to do that.
It's why I wouldn't mind alignment staying as long as it had no mechanical impact. It's a MUCH less heated debate if you aren't arguing about keeping your class abilities or losing them.
If not by alignment per se still divine classes will have some code of conducts and there will be possibility of losing class abilities.
Sure with monks, barbarians they should go of, but divine classes, or even witches are depended on higher powers to grant them this.
You can say cleric of Iomedae will be alignment independent - he will still be dependent of Iomedae will, and in practice if he do something evil or chaotic she would still smack him for it.
I have never understood this line of argument. Most stories in most settings do not have alignment, yet good & evil exist and can even be objective. For what reason would Angels suddenly cease to be benevolent outsiders because they no longer have Good as an explicit label and measurable physical property stuck to them by a game system?
You clearly misunderstood it then because I already addressed that in my post. If you want everything to stay the same, why change it then? If you want evil angels, you still need a baseline of angel, because there is no such thing as default concept of "an angel".
Alignment is a perspective, you must have a perspective, even if you remove alignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Negotiate with your co-players and GM to ban them?
Most people set up a game and THEN invite players to join: alignment is far reaching enough it's a REALLY big ask to remove it when they already have everything set to go. It's only really feasible if you can get in on on the planning stage but that's rare at best. That said, I walk if there is a paladin playing as I've seen WAY too many games explode from there alignment issues.
And about PFS... well it's PAIZO thing... I honestly never find it so compelling.
Of I agree 100%: it's NOT my thing. It's just the first example that came to mind of people that don't get an option to alter the game as they wish.
If not by alignment per se still divine classes will have some code of conducts and there will be possibility of losing class abilities.
I have NO issue with power loss. What I have issue with is people being on the same page. A code with a list of easily understood do's and don't is MUCH preferable. I KNOW if my character is wearing white or eating pork.
My issue with the current cleric is that the deities alignments don't often match with the tenets of the god. IMO the tenants SHOULD trump alignment every time. As such, I'd be THRILLED to see tenets/codes expanded and alignment mechanics go.
Most people set up a game and THEN invite players to join: alignment is far reaching enough it's a REALLY big ask to remove it when they already have everything set to go. It's only really feasible if you can get in on on the planning stage but that's rare at best. That said, I walk if there is a paladin playing as I've seen WAY too many games explode from there alignment issues.
Really? I always had more notion that there is some group, they decide who will GM, and then negotiate details before GM go deep into a fissure of campaign.
My issue with the current cleric is that the deities alignments don't often match with the tenets of the god. IMO the tenants SHOULD trump alignment every time. As such, I'd be THRILLED to see tenets/codes expanded and alignment mechanics go.
That I generally agree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I'm sure you know there are a myriad of role playing systems with significantly less history in them that do just fine without alignment.I think that just goes to show how useful alignment really is. D&D keeps it around for tradition's sake and no one else bothers with it.
No one else is even remotely as successful a game either.
Most people set up a game and THEN invite players to join: alignment is far reaching enough it's a REALLY big ask to remove it when they already have everything set to go. It's only really feasible if you can get in on on the planning stage but that's rare at best. That said, I walk if there is a paladin playing as I've seen WAY too many games explode from there alignment issues.Really? I always had more notion that there is some group, they decide who will GM, and then negotiate details before GM go deep into a fissure of campaign.
For the most part, each game is a new set of players and DM's where DM set up a game and look for players. Generally the only time it works your way is if you go all the way through a game like I described, the group likes each other and decide to make a new game after that: it doesn't happen often though, with callback to a new already made game much more common.
Now, this is just from my perspective from where I play. There MAY be places that work like you say online but they aren't the places I game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seek perfection find the game and gaming group that you want to exist.
Fight for the removal of alignment since that is what you want.
I will fight to keep it in.
That is what we're doing, isn't it?
If you feel that alignment is akin to broken glass you will consume for some reason that's on you. You found a work around with the rules as presented. We work within the alignment system.
If you find it virulent enough to demand it's removal then don't play with it. But as of now if you want to play pathfinder you have alignment. I and others like it.
Don't read too much into the analogy. The point is that being unique isn't a good thing in and of itself.
I have never understood this line of argument. Most stories in most settings do not have alignment, yet good & evil exist and can even be objective. For what reason would Angels suddenly cease to be benevolent outsiders because they no longer have Good as an explicit label and measurable physical property stuck to them by a game system?
You clearly misunderstood it then because I already addressed that in my post. If you want everything to stay the same, why change it then? If you want evil angels, you still need a baseline of angel, because there is no such thing as default concept of "an angel".
Alignment is a perspective, you must have a perspective, even if you remove alignment.
Because I don't want everything to stay the same. You can have objective morality without alignment as a mechanic. If you want to describe angels in your setting, whether they're pure goodness incarnate, or well-meaning authoritarians, or whatever, just describe them. The same goes for characters. No reference to a mechanical system of alignment is necessary.
And I suspect many of the people who think alignment isn't a problem think so because they've already removed most of its teeth. "Actions determine alignment", I'm always told, "not the other way around." Unless I'm playing an alignment-restricted class, what is alignment at that point if not a mere descriptor?
People have asked "what does it mean to be good" since the beginning, and neither modern philosophy nor the great thinkers of old have come up with a final answer. Most everyone can agree on the obvious (murder is evil, charity is good, etc.), and it's quite telling that these easy examples are what proponents of alignment always go to—often with the additional claim that without a system of objective morality, people would go out and commit atrocities and we'd have no grounds to denounce their behavior as wrong. But when things get complicated (which is to say, interesting) and people disagree, players will have to swallow either the DM's or the developers' arbitration as inarguable, objectively correct, universal law. And that's without getting into the quagmire that is Law vs. Chaos.
Edit: The back-and-forth on the previous page between graystone and KujakuDM exemplifies this part of the problem perfectly. Alignment is presented as the absolute truth of the universe, yet it's rarely applied consistently, for example Pain Strike is Evil and Inflict Pain is not. To us, the players, this is inconsistent because the developers forgot to add the [evil] tag to the latter. In-universe, this is inconsistent for no reason at all. "That's absolute morality for ya! Rule Zero it or find a new system." I thought that roleplayers hated cartoonish adherence to RAW.
So it's at best superfluous, and at worst a catalyst for intractable arguments. Hence, an RPG system without alignment is mechanically simpler and leads to fewer arguments, at no loss in flavor or depth. In fact, I personally feel that alignment "played straight" actually detracts from a setting's verisimilitude because its far-reaching implications for ethics and society are never explored. That is why most systems eschew it and even D&D is now trying to shrink its influence.
Honestly, while I would prefer alignment to be completely removed in PF2 I very much doubt that will be done. But if its influence is walked back it'll be a step in the right direction.
No one else is even remotely as successful a game either.Like I'm sure you know there are a myriad of role playing systems with significantly less history in them that do just fine without alignment.I think that just goes to show how useful alignment really is. D&D keeps it around for tradition's sake and no one else bothers with it.
You have all your work ahead of you to show that such is the case because D&D has alignment and the others don't.
And D&D 5e pushed alignment to the very fringes of the game's mechanics, having gone one stop short of removing it entirely, and it's the most popular edition to date. By this logic, they'd be even more successful if they removed alignment in its entirety.
The world of golarion has absolute morality. Evil acts are always evil.Even if I except that as true, it requires fallible people to extrapolate that absolute morality in a subjective way: This makes the distinction between an absolute and a subjective morality moot in all but the extremely few cases called out as aligned. Add to that the 'toss a dart at the dartboard' results of some of the listed aligned actions and it puts a serious 'dent' in any absolute morality assertion.
Example: If a paladin casts: Pain Strike [racks the targeted creature with agony], they fall. But if they cast Howling Agony [wracking pains through the targets’ bodies] or Inflict Pain [wrack the target’s mind and body with agonizing] a thousand times, they are just fine. This puts the entire concept of absolute morality in question as there is no rhyme or reason involved.
Not 100% Pathfinder, but there's some old books like "Book of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness" that straight up have the full compiled list of all actions that are good/evil objectively. It was with those books that I figured out these games assume objective alignment.
For the most part, each game is a new set of players and DM's where DM set up a game and look for players. Generally the only time it works your way is if you go all the way through a game like I described, the group likes each other and decide to make a new game after that: it doesn't happen often though, with callback to a new already made game much more common.
Now, this is just from my perspective from where I play. There MAY be places that work like you say online but they aren't the places I game.
What about seeking GM as a player who would like to go with aligment-less D&D campaign - and will seek other players?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you will House Rule it bro. Good Night.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've already said that the new edition will still have Alignment (though detect evil and the like will be less reliable).
They've also already said they'll have specific and codified mechanical guidelines on how to remove it if you don't want it.
I'm...rather deeply unclear on how this doesn't solve everyone's issues and thus make everyone happy.
It does solve mine issues.
Although still not support for importing MtG alignment to Golarion, so I call it half-win ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They've already said that the new edition will still have Alignment (though detect evil and the like will be less reliable).
They've also already said they'll have specific and codified mechanical guidelines on how to remove it if you don't want it.
I'm...rather deeply unclear on how this doesn't solve everyone's issues and thus make everyone happy.
Solves my issues. I didn't know they were going to do that. I still stand by everything I said about alignment though.
You have all your work ahead of you to show that such is the case because D&D has alignment and the others don't.
And D&D 5e pushed alignment to the very fringes of the game's mechanics, having gone one stop short of removing it entirely, and it's the most popular edition to date. By this logic, they'd be even more successful if they removed alignment in its entirety.
I don't intend to waste my time on that. You equally have your work cut out for you proving that a lack of it has led to the success of those games.
also d+d5e has the might of hasbro behind it and is quite possibly the most heavily advertised and mainstreamed edition of the game at a time where being a geek/nerd/gamer is more acceptable than ever before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't intend to waste my time on that.You have all your work ahead of you to show that such is the case because D&D has alignment and the others don't.
And D&D 5e pushed alignment to the very fringes of the game's mechanics, having gone one stop short of removing it entirely, and it's the most popular edition to date. By this logic, they'd be even more successful if they removed alignment in its entirety.
Shocker.
You equally have your work cut out for you proving that a lack of it has led to the success of those games.
Burden of proof is on the positive claim, friendo. You suggested implicitly that D&D is successful because it has alignment. I claimed that isn't necessarily the case.
also d+d5e has the might of hasbro behind it and is quite possibly the most heavily advertised and mainstreamed edition of the game at a time where being a geek/nerd/gamer is more acceptable than ever before.
Those all sound like more plausible explanations for 5e's success than "it has alignment and its competitors don't".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make it even more convoluted in a nod to the 1st ed. AD&D PHB. Let's make it a total of 14 alignments.
- 1. absolute lawful good
- 2. neutral good lawful
- 3. neutral good
- 4. absolute good chaotic
- 5. chaotic good neutral
- 6. neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy)
- 7. chaotic evil neutral
- 8. absolute chaotic evil
- 9. evil chaotic neutral
- 10. absolute (neutral) evil
- 11. lawful evil neutral
- 12. absolute lawful evil
- 13. absolute (neutral) lawful
- 14. neutral good lawful
:P
Make it even more convoluted in a nod to the 1st ed. AD&D PHB. Let's make it a total of 14 alignments.
- 1. absolute lawful good
- 2. neutral good lawful
- 3. neutral good
- 4. absolute good chaotic
- 5. chaotic good neutral
- 6. neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy)
- 7. chaotic evil neutral
- 8. absolute chaotic evil
- 9. evil chaotic neutral
- 10. absolute (neutral) evil
- 11. lawful evil neutral
- 12. absolute lawful evil
- 13. absolute (neutral) lawful
- 14. neutral good lawful
:P
The absolute madman!
The absolute madman!Make it even more convoluted in a nod to the 1st ed. AD&D PHB. Let's make it a total of 14 alignments.
- 1. absolute lawful good
- 2. neutral good lawful
- 3. neutral good
- 4. absolute good chaotic
- 5. chaotic good neutral
- 6. neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy)
- 7. chaotic evil neutral
- 8. absolute chaotic evil
- 9. evil chaotic neutral
- 10. absolute (neutral) evil
- 11. lawful evil neutral
- 12. absolute lawful evil
- 13. absolute (neutral) lawful
- 14. neutral good lawful
:P
15th alignment: absolute lunacy? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They've already said that the new edition will still have Alignment (though detect evil and the like will be less reliable).
They've also already said they'll have specific and codified mechanical guidelines on how to remove it if you don't want it.
I'm...rather deeply unclear on how this doesn't solve everyone's issues and thus make everyone happy.
That sounds like a good start but I'd prefer it flipped around: no base alignment and "have specific and codified mechanical guidelines on how to" add it.