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".
I didn't make the positive claim duder, you brought up many other games that don't have it at all. Which would be fine, but all of them are less successful than even the second best seller and both the top two have it. "mimic the less successful" isn't a wise business strategy.
| 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
Do you still lose 1 level of experience for changing alignment? Gotta drive them home!
Or it could be changed into 5x5 alignment chart with weaker mortal versions and absolute ones - like AXIOMATIC - LAWFUL - BALANCED - ANARCHIC - CHAOTIC.
In such situation various detect and smite abilities would work only on extreme beings.
That's a pretty good idea, though I would swap the positions of anarchic and chaotic. Jumping from nine to twenty-five alignments would take some getting used to though. Perhaps for the Good/Evil axis we could add Virtuous and Nefarious.
Do you still lose 1 level of experience for changing alignment? Gotta drive them home!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
Only in HackPathfinder. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't make the positive claim duderI 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".
Sure you did, buddy. Otherwise what was the point of that first post?
you brought up many other games that don't have it at all. Which would be fine, but all of them are less successful than even the second best seller and both the top two have it. "mimic the less successful" isn't a wise business strategy.
I didn't say anything about how commercially successful those games were. I mentioned them for two reasons, the first being that those games felt no need to include an alignment system—apparently, mimicking this one aspect of the more successful never caught on. The second was that games that lack alignment mechanics, for all their other faults, and other reasons for being less popular than D&D (being newer, lacking that brand recognition, not having Hasbro money, etc), don't descend into nihilism the way some alignment proponents fear.
"But 4e did this, and remember how that went?"
nod, wink
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would if they explained, explicitly, what this means. Instead we get small articles about elves and dwarves. Alignment and it needs to have teeth this time, needs an article.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.
Well they teased some paladin info. ;)
Okay, you can find the Know Direction Paladin clip HERE (starting around 1:14:37). Here's a quick transcript.
Would I be able to play a Chaotic-Good Paladin of Milani?Note, of course, that 'Paladins still have to pay attention to alignment' is NOT the same as 'Paladins can only be Lawful-Good'. Jason might have very artfully dodged the 'Chaotic-Good' part of the question ...[Laughs] Boy that Paladin argument. Every single time. People love to get into very vicious debates about Paladin alignment. I’m going to say this. Alignment is still a thing in the game. Paladins still have to pay attention to alignment. That’s still something that’s important to them.
I think the thing that I’m most excited to talk to people about is how we have modified the Paladin’s Code to actually speak to reality and not be so inflexible that the characters are a pain at the table. I can’t tell you how excited I am about how that Code is written to the point.
And this is what I’ll leave you with. A Paladin can lie if he has to. If it will save people’s lives, if it is for the greater good, he can look you straight in the eye and lie. And it’s awesome.
It all comes down to the Code. And you have to follow the Code. The Code is the way that you live. But that Code now actually has guidance and it isn’t just a bunch of strictures that just say, ‘Nope you have to do this! You can never lie, you can never talk to an evil person, you can never’, you know ... There were a whole ton of things that you couldn’t do. Like, ‘Oh, I can’t associate with an evil person’.
Well, that made a lot of stories not work. It’s like, ‘Well, I have to go into Cheliax and I have to negotiate with these people. Drawing out my sword and murdering everyone is not really an option. I have to negotiate with these guys so I guess I’m going to need an atonement after this’ — was never really an acceptable way to run a Paladin.
So I’m really excited about that and I don’t want to spoil any more than that. There’s lots of great stuff about the Paladin but that’s one of the things that I’m most excited about, by leaps and bounds. It is great. I love Paladins and I always have. And this makes them really fun and dynamic to play.
If nothing else it's good to see the code fixed. If paladins can lie and other things 'for the greater good', I might allow paladins in my games again... I'll have to see how generic alignments go though.
BrushWacker [to Pathfinder as Hackmaster is to early D&D]Only in HackPathfinder. ;)Do you still lose 1 level of experience for changing alignment? Gotta drive them home!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
Sounds good to me. :D
Sounds good to me. :DBrushWacker [to Pathfinder as Hackmaster is to early D&D]Only in HackPathfinder. ;)Do you still lose 1 level of experience for changing alignment? Gotta drive them home!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
I use 17 alignments. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use 17 alignments. :/Sounds good to me. :DBrushWacker [to Pathfinder as Hackmaster is to early D&D]Only in HackPathfinder. ;)Do you still lose 1 level of experience for changing alignment? Gotta drive them home!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
Is absolute lunacy one of the additional three, did you go with Pokelignments, or shall we fulfill the 21-alignment request? :D
Well, we could add Fairy but we already have one flaming alignment in fire...
Thought Fairy-aligned critters were more inclined towards prismatic fabulous-ness than doing the Tiberium Candle Dance? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use 17 alignments. :/
if it doesn't easily fit on a d100 chart, i don't want to look at it. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use 17 alignments. :/if it doesn't easily fit on a d100 chart, i don't want to look at it. :P
You can fit any gradiation of 100 or fewer items on a d100 chart. It'll be fine. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
I've got lost...
That's a pretty good idea, though I would swap the positions of anarchic and chaotic. Jumping from nine to twenty-five alignments would take some getting used to though.
Oh, most definitely not my friend.
Anarchic is mortal, mundande emanation of Eternal Chaos, just like Law is emanation of Eternal Order.You can rename axiomatic into ordered... but yeah on a linguistic level I'd definitely push it that way.
TBH on level of GE I'd simmilarly push differently with
EXALTED - GOOD - NEUTRAL - CORRUPTED - EVIL.
Break the symmetry. Crush estabilished notions! Dogs and cats living together!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can fit any gradiation of 100 or fewer items on a d100 chart. It'll be fine. :PI use 17 alignments. :/if it doesn't easily fit on a d100 chart, i don't want to look at it. :P
Not evenly! ;)
There also isn't an amoral alignment in there. Some people just don't CARE.
You can fit any gradiation of 100 or fewer items on a d100 chart. It'll be fine. :PI use 17 alignments. :/if it doesn't easily fit on a d100 chart, i don't want to look at it. :PNot evenly! ;)
There also isn't an amoral alignment in there. Some people just don't CARE.
LoL - there was no requirement that it be distributed evenly .. where's the fun in that? (Do we really want NPC alignments being equally as likely to generate an ECN sociopath as a NGL good samaritan?)
Update:
15. Absolute lunacy.
16. Absolute indifference (amoral).
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think players should be the arbiters of PC alignment and the DM should just slap an insanity tag on the PC, if necessary, but leave PC alignment aloneI just disagree. I think this is an important DM tool. It isn't irreplaceable, but it's important.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. I imagine the difference comes down to respect for player agency. In my game, players choose their characters’ intentions, not me. That is my social contract with my players. Their social contract is that they read what it means to have the alignment they choose to ensure they have picked the alignment they want and agree to abide by alignment-agnostic codes of conduct, which for me are no PCs are allowed to rape anyone (and I also don’t allow NPCs to rape PCs), you cannot intentionally have your PC harm a fellow PC in a manner that impacts resources (e.g., hit points, items, etc.), and party resources are divided evenly (though you can still play a thief who steals trinkets from other players or steals treasure with the understanding you need it to be discovered and distributed). If your argument is, “but I’m CE, so rape is a natural consequence of that,” then my reply is, “you are breaking your social contract with me; you need to come up with a CE character concept that doesn’t rape, imagine you do it off camera when nobody is looking and never mention it to anyone (including me), or change alignment to something you can play without violating our social contract.” I’ve had PCs pull blasters on one another, punch each other in the face (cinematically for zero damage, but leaving a bloody nose), and take all kinds of other antagonistic actions, all with the understanding players knew they had to figure out a satisfying reason for it all to work out (sometimes with my help) in accordance with their social contract. Because of the social contract, I am able to trust my players to take complete agency of their characters and they generally get to do a lot more crazy things to each other without anyone getting their feelings hurt.
You remove player agency when you say, “this is the best chef in the world, you love their food.” As DM, I might lead with something like that, too, but the player can always say, “my character doesn’t like it.” Usually I will just say, “OK,” but if it matters, I might ask, why not? And I will generally assist the player in coming up with reasons like “it’s spiced perfectly for a normal palate, do you like your food to taste like salt? Is it the ambiance?” Eventually you might come up with an interesting reason for that PC to not like the food that everyone else in the world seems to like. As a bonus, it opens up options for the DM and the player when the chef comes running out of the kitchen screaming at your stupid character to get out of the restaurant or takes the character on as a challenge and tries to cook something else until it is just right. You might agree with me so far, but you don’t as soon as opinions regarding cuisine turns to questions regarding alignment.
To fulfill my social contract with my players, I believe I have to carefully codify what it means to be Good/Evil, Lawful/Chaotic. If the player finds a loophole, that’s perfectly fair. It’s a contract and I am the person with the power to write it how I like, so the responsibility is with me to ensure the players know what will cause them to shift alignment. That said, most of the time NPCs don’t know PC alignment, so they can only react to what PCs do. If they see you murdering an innocent child, they might attack (even though you, whether you are correct or incorrect, think the child is a demon in disguise). Some fun villains are Good (because they will always risk their lives to save innocent beings), but are insane (and are deluded into believing some innocent beings are Evil). Does a Paladin kill them because they are a risk to other innocent beings or insist on trying to cure the affliction? I don’t know; that’s player agency... and I actually have philosophical opinions about the treatment of the mentally ill like anyone else; I just don’t force them on my players. Advantageously, the alignment-agnostic social contract trumps insanity; alignment has nothing to do with restricting player behavior.
As a nod to the lore, I include aligned auras that are not associated with intent, but rather the source from which the power is drawn, which is why non-sentient undead radiate evil and necromancers, even when they have good intentions, can cast evil spells. I do not allow spells to distinguish them because the spell is Detect Evil, not Detect Evil Intentions, but the players (not necessarily PCs) know a necromancer might register as evil when casting a spell, but actually be good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just put codes of conduct like the Paladin/anti paladins codes that are specific for each god in the Companion line. Do a code for each god, or monastic order, or cavalier order or Druid circle or whatever.
Write a few guildelines about the code (like druids have to respect nature) an then the player describe the specific. Like 2-3 rules for a code. It will give inspiration for the DM for an NpC organization, and freedom for the players to play in an ethical way. And they can choose a code that does no harm to the group.
Just like the Ronin and the Knight Errant in PF1.
Just put codes of conduct like the Paladin/anti paladins codes that are specific for each god in the Companion line. Do a code for each god, or monastic order, or cavalier order or Druid circle or whatever.
Write a few guildelines about the code (like druids have to respect nature) an then the player describe the specific. Like 2-3 rules for a code. It will give inspiration for the DM for an NpC organization, and freedom for the players to play in an ethical way. And they can choose a code that does no harm to the group.
Just like the Ronin and the Knight Errant in PF1.
I just think it works better to let your players know what you find to be unacceptable. I think the blurb about a DM is free to restrict players to a particular alignment right before the alignment section in the D&D3e DMG was a mistake. What they should have included is a paragraph about the social contract between the DM and the players and between each of the players. I personally have three clauses I always use and sometimes I throw in a "no racists" clause, as well, but the line begins to blur when it relates to racial supremacy, racial pride, etc., particularly when it comes to anti-elf sentiment. I hate those damn dwarves! Oops. Violated my clause. Yeah, that's why I haven't been using that clause much. No rape, no harm, and shared resources all work well, though.
I still limit alignment, but I do so by saying, "is anyone going to be Good?" If somebody says yes, nobody gets to play Evil. A friend of mine who loves playing Evil, suggested we flip a coin for Good/Evil (if it lands on Good, but nobody wants to play a Good character, everyone can be Neutral or Evil, and vice versa), then flip a coin for Law/Chaos. Those restrictions are not in place to restrict players, but rather to ensure a player can realize his or her character concept. You simply cannot go from 1st to 20th Level with Good and Evil in the same party without stunting the narrative so badly that it makes no sense (or making the Good character look like a damn fool for not realizing the smart Evil guy is Evil). Whether Lawful and Chaotic can manage to get along will depend upon how you define them. If it is just discipline v. emotion, they can be in the same party.
Makes about as much sense as any other 17 point 'alignment' concept
Why. So. Serious.
:P
Intent was to water down the grar so far in advance of the playtest when we have actual new rules stuff to grar over.
Which is how I view the Pokelignments. Any port in a storm. *grin*
You simply cannot go from 1st to 20th Level with Good and Evil in the same party without stunting the narrative so badly that it makes no sense (or making the Good character look like a damn fool for not realizing the smart Evil guy is Evil).
The clueless goody-two-shoes being outwitted by the evil, manipulative genius is a pretty common way to address it. However, I think there is another way around it (though it doesn't seem to get much love). It seems to me equally possible to have the good within the party hold sway. Basically have the evil PC too cowardly or too outnumbered to enact their evil schemes. The good player doesn't have to be the dupe - they can also be the dominant party member keeping evil in check.
Irrespective, in a party with a good and an evil PC, I think it's important the players are on the same page and plan on working together to progress the story (even though the PCs will frequently be at loggerheads).