Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RAXXAR 12-23-06, 10:53 PM	For anyone who has ever rolled the dice it is a well known fact that there are 1,001 different interpretations of alignments. In every campaign I have ever been involved with (either as a PC or a DM) the general consensus has always been that alignments are a general guideline or rule set that your character lives by. This works fine towards the beginning of the campaign as everyones mind is still fresh with their newly created character. However, as the PC's advance in level and the story goes on, alignment can fall by the wayside. Case in point, Bob makes a level one LE wizard that will be working with a (mostly) CG party. Bob tells me that his wizard will eventually betray the PCs once event X occurs. This is a wonderful idea with plenty of role playing opportunities, however, the downfall is that many times event X is far off in the future and by the time the PCs get to it, Bob has formed a strong bond with his fellow players and decides that his wizard will stick with the PC's. At this point, the entire motivation of Bob's character needs to be taken into account. Did Bob's wizard actually do anything that ever warranted him as evil? Lawful? Or did he just go along with what the other PC's were doing all in his "master plan to deceive them?" The point that I'm trying to make is that by that point it either becomes impractical to do a character audit of every action the wizard has ever made in an attempt to justify that the wizard was indeed LE. That, or the wizard leaves the party and becomes an NPC and poor Bob is forced to make a new character. Both solutions have happened more times than I personally care to remember, and as a result I have decided to attempt to introduce a new way to keep a players alignment in check. Instead of just saying "my character is chaotic evil so he naturally does this..." I was thinking of using a scale and having a numeric value for the players alignment. The PC's would always be aware of their alignment and would be informed when they gained/lost points based on their actions. Heres what I have come up with so far: A 0 to 32 Evil 33 to 65 Neutral 66 to 98 Good killing in cold blood -5 killing to further a just cause +5 helping others +1 extorting others -1 B 0 to 32 Chaotic 33 to 65 Neutral 66 to 98 Lawful overthrowing local government/rulers -5 establishing local government/rulers +5 obeying local laws/customs +1 disobeying local laws/customs -1 For example, suppose Bob's level 1 LE wizard has a score of 70 (B) and 28 (A). The party decides to assassinate the ruling noble to free his enslaved serfs. When all is said and done Bob's wizard would receive +6 to his A score (+5 for killing for a just cause, and an additional +1 for helping others) and a -5 to his B score for overthrowing the local rulers. The net change in his alignment would be 34 (A) and 65 (B) thus making him Neutral, Neutral (True Neutral). Bob might want this, if he decides that his wizard is going to eventually convert to being CG like the rest of the party. Or Bob might want to stick to his original plan of betrayal and would need to come up with some way to avoid getting those alignment points (for example warning the noble and having a decoy in his place, then the noble would return and exact his revenge on the PCs). I find this to have several advantages of the existing alignment system. 1) It allows for gradual alignment shift without the need for drastic measures. Ex)A paladin who accidentally kills an innocent man would still be LG if he had enough points. 2)It ensures that players are constantly aware of their PC's wants, desires, and motivations. 3)It helps in PC interactions with other PCs and NPCs My overall goal is to find a way to keep characters within the boundaries of the alignment they have chosen and not to bog down play with another statistic. Perhaps it makes things a little more black and white, and that might not necessarily be a bad thing. I would greatly appreciate suggestions, comments, critique, and more situations for assigning points of the A and B scales. Thanks in advance!
CryoSilver 12-23-06, 10:57 PM	Handling alignment is pretty simple without being harsh. Whenever your player does something compromising, say "would a good character do that?" Give the player a moment to consider. When I use alignment (which is rare) I tend to keep notes of significant things each character has done, and each time they level, I decide if they shift alignment. Almost never do they do so.
Masterfulks 12-23-06, 11:20 PM	I hate alignment as a whole. I like it in broad terms, but good people are not always good. That doesn't mean they are evil at times, but not everyone should be forced to rush into the burning building, to save a baby, because they are "good". It's needed for some spells and abilites like turning vs rebuking undead, but I don't like all the breakdowns.
zae 12-23-06, 11:30 PM	I'm not sure how useful it is, really. In general, if you want to pay that much attention to it, just monitor their actions a bit and look for tendencies. My trick is to let people write down whatever alignment they want, then ignore it (except for "Detect/Smite ______" spells), so that they can exist within the rules, but just play their characters without worrying about interpretations, contrived justifications and all the rest. So you have the Chaotic Good Warlock (because Warlocks have to be Chaotic or Evil) who happens to obey the law. They're Chaotic because they just happen to be. Their soul is tied into Chaotic planes, but doesn't influence their actions. This really does avoid a lot of the issues that arise from monitoring alignments. However, if you want to use a point system, because you like having alignments hat are linked to actions, and that change over time, a few suggestions... 1. Have a decently sized scale of things. So... Killing (unprovoked) an Archon, Paladin or other agent of Good: -3 (fairly evil, but they're probably going to attack you anyway. These things live violent lives, and violent deaths are somewhat expected.) Killing a defenceless innocent: -5 (they would not have attacked you. There is no self-defence here, you just stamped out some innocence.) This lets you put things into perspective, thus defining actions a little better, so that players can get a good feel for what you think is good, evil, lawful or chaotic. 2. *Really* make sure that you define Law and Chaos. After all, the D&D rules make a rather poor effort there. It's annoying for a player when they write "Chaotic" because they are free-spirited, creative and unorthodox in their styles, and you assume that they're law-breaking criminals - or vice versa. 3. There should be different thresholds. You can't just steal one GP from a million people and become the epitome of Chaos, likewise you won't be 100% Lawful just because you always put your rubbish in the bin. So if you're at +10 (Good), then doing any +1 Good deed won't have an effect - it's assumed that you do that anyway. If you reach +90 (Good), then you can only increase it by doing the most noble of things. 4. Just a personal opinion here, but "Helping others" needs clarification. Let's say Barry and Rodders, the union workers, are sawing farmer joe in half. If Paladin Trevor goes and assists them, then yes, he is taking a negative for an Evil action like that (he's probably also just said goodbye to his powers), but by the way you worded that, he also gets a point back for helping. So it should be a little more diverse: Assisting another in accomplishing any task: +1 Lawful (teamwork/organisation) Aiding a community who needs your help: +3 Good (or Lawful) Being an accomplice to another alignment-shifting action: +1 or +2 for that alignment. Removing a disease, curse or poison: +2 Good This should make it more diverse. And between you and me, it's not a great idea to encourage "Killing is Evil, UNLESS you do it to the baddies! Then it's Holy and Noble!" in a game where alignments matter. By including alignments, you're already quantifying morality and virtue, thus paying attention to them and making them relevant to the game. Because of this, you've wasted all your time if all you then do is say "Ok, now go kill those orks and steal their treasure... FOR GREAT JUSTICE!" Don't get me wrong, ridding the world of a major Evil being should certainly give a few Good points, but not as many as if they had converted him (removing Evil AND increasing Good, as well as showing mercy and forgiveness. That's a huge victory to Good), and probably less than the other actual goal. Example, a red dragon is holding a family captive. The players kill the dragon. They gain a couple of Good points for removing a great Evil, but get even more Good points for rescuing innocents who could not save themselves. This way, it's not the killing that's the Good deed, it's the end result. I hope that helps.
efraker 12-23-06, 11:35 PM	While Cryosilver's way is certainly one interpretation, I think that it essentially pigeonholes a character into their alignment. I like the OPs idea; it mechanically represents the fact that characters can and should be able to change alignment. In my opinion, the DM should never do the Regis "is that your final answer?" thing and second-guess a character's counter-ethical action. The way I see it, it's quite reasonable to think that most people from a basically Good society would start out as basically Good; but when they find themselves adventuring, far from home, stressed out and in constant danger, it should be no surprise to find that some may drop the ethics of their home when inconvenient. Not every Lawful Good warrior is a paladin... and just like veterans of foreign wars in real-life, I'm sure a lot of adventurers come home with a lot of stories they would never tell their families.
CryoSilver 12-23-06, 11:36 PM	While Cryosilver's way is certainly one interpretation, I think that it essentially pigeonholes a character into their alignment. It's just a reminder that the character is good and should generally do good things. I don't force them to choose any particular course of action.
theotherdraxen 12-23-06, 11:52 PM	Here's the real question: can good and evil be quantified?
CryoSilver 12-23-06, 11:53 PM	In D&D, sure. IRL, no.
a_psh 12-24-06, 12:17 AM	2)It ensures that players are constantly aware of their PC's wants, desires, and motivations.No, it ensures that players are constantly aware of what you think of their PCs' wants, desires, and motivations. That's rather taking away their desire to decide for themselves. Just look at your example... If the guy goes along with the plan, you're telling him that he ceases to be a "Lawful Evil" character. Regardless of how he thinks about his character's motivations or defines "Lawful Evil", only your definition has a big effect on the game. Your moral judgement is the one true way. Why even bother asking moral questions if you already know all the answers?
JulesCARV 12-24-06, 01:18 AM	Well, your system seems to imply that killing for a good cause is better than achieving the same good cause without bloodshed (say, a well-placed sleep spell), which I find... hmm... very problematic. Anyway, though, I developed a system of "obligation ratings" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=692478) which rate what people are doing on various moral dimensions. It's a bit like the Vampire: the Masquerade "humanity/path" system, except that instead of just following one path, you follow them all simultaneously, although you may have low ratings in some paths and high ratings in others (the rating is from 0 to 3).
efraker 12-25-06, 01:08 AM	In my opinion, I believe that morality-in-practice has a lot to do with a sort of siege mentality. People tend to divide the world into an us-vs.-them situation. I often describe this to my students as "red team vs. blue team" mores, wherein the ethical import of an act has less to do with what is done then to whom it is done. Obviously this is a terrible way to live, and the cause of most of life's problems; but it is far more important to see things they way they truly are then it is to imagine things the way they should be.
CryoSilver 12-25-06, 01:20 AM	Except that in D&D, red vs blue is exactly how it works. Something is either good or evil, if it isn't neutral, but you can ask the gods themselves "is X good?" and you'll get a definitive answer.
High Octane 12-25-06, 01:20 AM	This sounds just like light side and dark side points from Knights of the Old Republic Star Wars game. Definitely a valid way for alignment to be run. But you will most certainly have to play test it a bunch to get used to judging it.
Rerecros 12-25-06, 02:00 AM	If your system brands a player's character as chaotic, and they don't tear up their charcter sheet and storm off, than they are definitely lawful :P Your system is only applies to those of the lawful stupid alignment, where you can commit mass murder for the cause of good, but using lies and poison if off limits. What if a character overthrows a psychotic democracy, and replaces it with a benevolent dictatorship? A character's Alignment should only be changed forcefully if said PC is grossly off the mark, and trying to exploit some alignment restricted class. A simple way to tell alignment is best. Good helps others whenever possible Neutral helps others when it suits him evil will only help others when it's beneficial to him Knowing your limits, like not fighting an monster well beyond you skill to save a villager does not warrant an alignment change, neither does not stopping your quest to prevent the apocalypse to rescue a cat out of a tree. Chaos/Order is a bit more esoteric, but generally; Lawful characters pursue goals his society sets for him Neutral characters feel some obligation to their society, but it doesn't count too much Chaotic characters set their own goals Disregarding the rules of any culture you are not apart of is not chaotic. Though lawful character tend to follow foreign laws to not bring dishonor to his own people.
Mitchell 12-25-06, 05:58 PM	So my character burns down an orphanage containing 24 children. Under your system, picking it apart, if I save 20 of these kids (helping others, +1 good point), I can let four burn to death (cold blooded murder, -5 points) and stay exactly the same on the good-evil axis. Here's the thing. It isn't about whether a good character would betray the party, it is about whether Bob will still betray the party. If he does, then he moves towards evil, regardless of his current alignment. If you use ask the question "Would a good character do that?", the answer is probably no. The thing is, if that is ultimately determining what actions you can or cannot (or will or will not if you want to act like they have some measure of free will), then you are using alignment as a straightjacket, every character must represent exactly what the alignment stereotype represents, and there won't be any shifting at all. Bob isn't chaotic good, they never were. They were just acting so as to further their goals. Or were they? This single moment will determine that. This is the problem I have. You can't predict the future. Someone casts detect evil and you have no reason that Bob would show as being evil. They have helped the party and fit right in. If it turns out that it wasn't an act, fine, but if it was? He has been plotting their death for a year and cursing in his mind every old lady he helped across the street, yet you can't know this. Someone casts detect evil and you have only his actions to go on, and they have been good. But that is a lie.
MechMage 12-28-06, 09:15 PM	So my character burns down an orphanage containing 24 children. Under your system, picking it apart, if I save 20 of these kids (helping others, +1 good point), I can let four burn to death (cold blooded murder, -5 points) and stay exactly the same on the good-evil axis. I'd rule that your character is willingly putting others in a posision that will probable result in their death, so thats 24 instinces of cold blooded murder. He saves 20, he, having about 35 hp, is not risking his own safty, so is not risking anything, so only gets +1 each. But, he destroys anything they might have, and their only shelter, harming them for easily -4 each, including the 4 that died, because their things would have gone to the next batch of orphanes. Thats a net -196. It was on an impulse, so he gets -1 lawful, but his evil is now off the charts. If your dm is stupied, and only counts the lose of life, and not property damage or willingly risking others, then he is at net 0, but if ran properly, this system is fine. It mimics that used by many RPGs. If you are going to use alinements, this is the way to do it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-28-06, 11:00 PM	Handling alignment is pretty simple without being harsh. Whenever your player does something compromising, say "would a good character do that?" Give the player a moment to consider. The problem I have with this is that it ignores the far more important question of "would this character do that?". An alignment shift shouldn't be a punishment or penalty ever. Roleplaying means not playing directly from your stats, but from the character's history and personality.
efraker 12-29-06, 02:55 AM	An alignment shift shouldn't be a punishment or penalty ever.How do you mean? Isn't someone whose class (paladin, blackguard, assassin, etc?) dictates their alignment severely punished when their alignment shifts?
Mitchell 12-29-06, 03:38 AM	Efraker:They are the exception, and it is a built-in mechanic that does exactly what it does, whether that be prohibit advancement, strip powers, or whatever else it says in the description. The statement involved, I believe, the idea of hitting players with an XP penalty or something similar if they behave in a manner not consistent with their stated alignment. MechMage: I don't disagree, but nowhere does the OP state that there has to be risk involved in helping people. I put forth an absurd (in my mind) scenario to demonstrate what I see as flaws in this system. In the end, I contend it comes down to one thing and one thing only; Does Bob betray the party? If they do, then they are evil regardless of whatever alignment the OP thought they were, and if they don't, then they may well be the CG that they have been acting like. The question of whether a good character would or wouldn't do anything is irrelevant to me. If Bob does it, then they obviously aren't good, so what a good character would do and what Bob would do are two different things. Let the characters determine their alignment through their actions. Don't let their alignment force their actions. :cool:
MechMage 12-29-06, 10:38 AM	I was only saying that the consept was good, tracking alinement by points. The system originally posted was way to vague to funktion. Also, although the system doesn't mention it, helping an old lady across the street is just common curtesy. If your helping an old lady across a street through 7 layers of the 9 hells, than you're risking your life to help someone without any reward, so you get a boast toards good, depending on the risk. Also in helping saw someone in half, your killing in cold blood, so your at a net -4 from the prototype system.
Anaxander 12-29-06, 11:08 AM	Alignment Points can be useful system to keep up with small decisions which, over a long time, affect the alignment of a player. On the other hand, some severe actions would imply an immediant change of alignment: when a lawful good guy kills a child, without motive, only for a sudden urge of pleasure, he becomes chaotic evil. When, e.g., Darth Vader redeems himself by saving Luke and killing the Emperor, he leaves the path of evil and becomes good.
MechMage 12-29-06, 11:49 AM	Such actions would have a modifire of + or -50.
OravennasBrother 12-29-06, 12:26 PM	Any point based system is subject to severe abuse. Look I give money to the needy because I am so rich, but as a sideline a Torture and kill innocent children. However I can make sure I remain "good" by virtue of having enough money to throw at the poor. Yeah.
CryoSilver 12-29-06, 12:28 PM	The problem I have with this is that it ignores the far more important question of "would this character do that?". An alignment shift shouldn't be a punishment or penalty ever. Roleplaying means not playing directly from your stats, but from the character's history and personality. See, but the question isn't a penalty. It's just a reminder that you are playing a good character, and that while you don't always need to do the Good thing, you generally should. As I've said, I assess alignment at each level, which means once every 6-8 sessions, which usually equals once a month in game. When possible, I sit down with my group and discuss it with them. Mind you, though, that most of the time,I don't even use alignment. I only use it when I DM outside of my homebrew setting.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-29-06, 01:15 PM	See, but the question isn't a penalty. It's just a reminder that you are playing a good character, and that while you don't always need to do the Good thing, you generally should. Alignment is supposed to reflect the character, not the other way around. You shouldn't have to remember you're playing a good character, because that's not how it should be looked at. Rather, it should be noted that the way you've been playing your character has designated him as 'Good'. Of course this all falls apart with the cosmic loser-fulness of the Great Wheel, but ignoring that for anything but Planescape is best anyway. How do you mean? Isn't someone whose class (paladin, blackguard, assassin, etc?) dictates their alignment severely punished when their alignment shifts? Playing a paladin or Blackguard is pretty much having your character dictated to you anyway. Also, nothing happens to the Assassin if he shifts. He just has to be evil and randomly murderous to enter the class. There is no Ex-Assassins entry.
a_psh 12-29-06, 04:14 PM	Also, nothing happens to the Assassin if he shifts. He just has to be evil and randomly murderous to enter the class. There is no Ex-Assassins entry.Unless you go by the Completes' "lose the prereqs, lose the abilities" prestige class rule interpretations, but those cause so much confusion, nonsense, and problems that you probably shouldn't.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-29-06, 04:44 PM	I always loved the concept that you can lose abilities like the ability to tie someone up quickly because you overcame your obessive compulsive disorder.
efraker 12-29-06, 11:33 PM	I'm sorry, I'm primarily a resident of the CharOp boards, home of the One True RAW, and did not realize that there was anyone, anywhere who played 3.5 yet didn't utilize what we lovingly refer to as Rule #16. Yea and verily, I shall explicate it unto thee:If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided.Then there is of course the CharOp corollary, that anyone may take levels in a prestige class, purchase a feat, or learn a spell at any time, even if they don't meet the requirements. They simply may not use it until they meet those requirements. To be honest, I can't see how that's any more prone to cause confusion or problems than any other rule in D&D. But of course, all material in all D&D books is optional, for as the saying goes, "it's YOUR game!".
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-29-06, 11:52 PM	Its just a surpemely assinine rule and thankfully in a splat too. Unless a class specifically says what happens to you if you screw up, you lose nothing from shifting. This is very important for things like virtual feats and permenant ability score adjustments -- not to mention gross physical changes. Plus its just common sense in a lot of cases. An assassin is not going to be suckier at sneak attacking because he's not evil anymore. This 'Rule 16' is laughable.
Reversefigure4 12-30-06, 02:09 AM	If the guy goes along with the plan, you're telling him that he ceases to be a "Lawful Evil" character. Regardless of how he thinks about his character's motivations or defines "Lawful Evil", only your definition has a big effect on the game. Ding! We have a winner! What matters is Bob's motivation here. "The party decides to assassinate the ruling noble to free his enslaved serfs." OK, let's say a CG action. Except... Bob's only going along with it because he wants into the pants of one of the serf girls and figures this is the funniest way. Or he wants to overthrow the noble and rule himself. Or he loves the idea of killing people, especially when he can do it in the guise of "helping". Or he wants bards to sing his praises. Or he wants to capture the noble's soul in a bottle, believing his dark overlord Kazar the Devourer prefers wealthy souls. All the same action, wildly different reasons.
a_psh 12-30-06, 03:08 AM	All the same action, wildly different reasons.I think there's more to it than that, even. Why is it only the GM who sits in judgement over his character as a moral being? I mean, Bob made the character up, right? And Bob's playing the character. So, why isn't it up to Bob to determine what kind of statement he wants to make with his character, then? Why is it the GM and not Bob who gets to say "okay, he's greedy and self-serving, and that makes him an evil person"?
efraker 12-30-06, 05:35 AM	Plus its just common sense in a lot of cases. An assassin is not going to be suckier at sneak attacking because he's not evil anymore.I started to write a retort about how changes in an individual's psychosocial environment often find themselves reflected in negative performance of behaviors and skills associated with the previous lifestyle... its unequivocal, straight textbook. Every first year psych student reads the case study about the alcoholic championship bowler who gives up alcohol and suddenly finds himself unable to throw the ball straight. But that way lies madness. Rejecting a rule in D&D because it strikes one as unrealistic is hypocritical (unless you apply that standard to every rule), and defending a rule for its verisimilitude is the past-time of idiots and children. The only valid analysis of a rule is "is it fun?". I do understand that to you this rule is unpalatable though... and that in and of itself is the best reason not to use it in your own games...
Anaxander 12-30-06, 07:57 AM	Such actions would have a modifire of + or -50. The question is: do you have to quantify certain alignment deviating behaviour? Some deeds never will accumulate into a drastic change of alignment. If you want to, you could remind your players of their alignment choices by an in-game reputation system. Not in the sense that players gain reputation points, but that they will be confronted by NPC with their acts. "Look, there's the thief that stole my horse" is a better indicator of alignment than a +2 for chaotic behaviour because a player stole a horse to quickly inform the king of a conspiracy to murder him.
Anaxander 12-30-06, 07:58 AM	Its just a surpemely assinine rule and thankfully in a splat too. Unless a class specifically says what happens to you if you screw up, you lose nothing from shifting. This is very important for things like virtual feats and permenant ability score adjustments -- not to mention gross physical changes. Plus its just common sense in a lot of cases. An assassin is not going to be suckier at sneak attacking because he's not evil anymore. This 'Rule 16' is laughable. I think it's a useful rule to consider the impact of level draining effects.
efraker 12-30-06, 12:43 PM	If you want to, you could remind your players of their alignment choices by an in-game reputation system. Not in the sense that players gain reputation points, but that they will be confronted by NPC with their acts.There has got to be more to it than that, eh? If the system is entirely based upon witnesses, than are you suggesting that a character can murder as long as there are no witnesses? At that point I'd say your game has no alignment system, only a reputation system... which would be situational and morally ambivalent, as opposed to the D&D system of rigid moral guideposts (e.g., "torture is always evil").
Anaxander 12-30-06, 01:08 PM	There has got to be more to it than that, eh? If the system is entirely based upon witnesses, than are you suggesting that a character can murder as long as there are no witnesses? At that point I'd say your game has no alignment system, only a reputation system... which would be situational and morally ambivalent, as opposed to the D&D system of rigid moral guideposts (e.g., "torture is always evil"). No, I did not suggest to do away with the objective alignment system, but to supply it with an informal reputation system, in order to warn or inform the character of his moral choices through a subtle, in game, way.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-30-06, 01:48 PM	I started to write a retort about how changes in an individual's psychosocial environment often find themselves reflected in negative performance of behaviors and skills associated with the previous lifestyle... its unequivocal, straight textbook. Every first year psych student reads the case study about the alcoholic championship bowler who gives up alcohol and suddenly finds himself unable to throw the ball straight. But that way lies madness. I am familiar with the case and I'm sure you're also familiar with the counter that the alcohol suddenly being removed from his diet threw off his brain chemistry. Unless you fel being evil is a chemical imbalance, that has nothing to do with this case. Rejecting a rule in D&D because it strikes one as unrealistic is hypocritical (unless you apply that standard to every rule), and defending a rule for its verisimilitude is the past-time of idiots and children. 'Realistic' and 'makes sense' are two different things. If these were supernatural effects only that were being lost, that would be unrealistic, but still make sense. But losing nasic knowledge makes no sense in total. Especially in the case of the Assassin, who had sneak attack dice to start with and would have gained those sneak attack dice from training as a rogue anyway. He earns the Asassin SA for being a different kind of rogue, not from mystic Assassin enhancements. The only valid analysis of a rule is "is it fun?". The answer here also being 'no' in the case of Rule 16 as its essentially a random, non-sensical punishment for not following WotC's flavor text.
efraker 12-30-06, 07:24 PM	re: brain chemistry... It is relevant, because the cause of the lapse in bowling aptitude is irrelevant. The fact is, there was a structure of behaviors which reinforced a skill set; remove the structure of behaviors, and you weaken the skill set. Are you seriously saying that a malignant will to do harm couldn't make one better suited to murder, and that the subsequent removal of that malicious tendency reduce ones ability to sneak up on someone and jab a knife in their back? Do you suggest that there is some moral relativism at work here, that it is not whether we jam knives into unsuspecting strangers backs that makes one evil, but to whose spine we traumatize that determines our moral bearing? re: non-sense I can see the distinction between "makes sense" and "realistic". In other words, you are suggesting that there is a chain of inductive reasoning that leads you to believe that: If [one retires from being an assassin] Then [one does not lose the ability to assassinate] based upon a premise that [the ability to assassinate is innate and permanent]. You are not saying that it is only realistic that the above argument is valid, because you realize you are not playing a simulation, instead you are saying that you perceive this to be logical, ergo it is true. The problem with inductive logic is that the veracity of the argument only ever follows from the veracity of the premise. The premise is unverifiable, because it says nowhere in the Assassin description from what source their power comes from, though it does state that you must be Evil to acquire the power. Since the premise is unverifiable, the truth value of the derived statement is undefined. I do apologize for paraphrasing you, and am open to correction.
a_psh 12-30-06, 07:34 PM	Such actions would have a modifire of + or -50.So we have a numeric scale but the modifier for each action is completely arbitrary? Sounds like you've made the system more complex without actually making it any clearer or less subjective. What's the point?
Forged_Fury 12-30-06, 07:39 PM	FYI, I seem to recall 1st Edition Dragonlance utilizing a points-based alignment system. Maybe check on the DL boards for someone who remembers it. -Forged_Fury
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-30-06, 08:02 PM	re: brain chemistry... It is relevant, because the cause of the lapse in bowling aptitude is irrelevant. The fact is, there was a structure of behaviors which reinforced a skill set; remove the structure of behaviors, and you weaken the skill set. That wasn't what that example was about. Alcohol wasn't responsible for his bowling skill, but it had become part of his baseline. When he changed his baseline brain chemistry, how he had learned to bowl no longer 'synced' with how his body reacted and thus, he was impared by lack of alcohol. The premise is unverifiable, because it says nowhere in the Assassin description from what source their power comes from, though it does state that you must be Evil to acquire the power. Since the premise is unverifiable, the truth value of the derived statement is undefined. The premise is verifiable because we do know that his Sneak attack is an Extraordinary ability and not a Supernatural one. Thus, it is something he learned to do, not a metaphysical change. But as I stated earlier, that's not the fun bit. The fun bit is things like your AC bonus from scarrification, or your basic understanding of the application of poison disappearing because you changed the way you look at the world. The concept of Rule 16 applying universally to all PrCs creates vast in character inconsitancies because of wholly metagame issues.
efraker 12-30-06, 11:39 PM	re: bowling & beer I see what you're saying. There's that old psychiatric tip: "if you lose your keys while drunk and can't find them while sober, try getting drunk again". It's definitely easier to recall memories while in a physiological state similar to the way they were stored. That isn't what I'm talking about though. What I'm trying to say is that if doing x helps you do y, then no longer doing x hurts your ability to do y. The identity of x is absolutely irrelevant, whether it be wearing black, animal sacrifice, or in this case having an Evil alignment. For some irrelevant reason it helped you do y, as is demonstrated by the fact that your capacity for y is reduced. re: (Ex) abilities So why is it that scarification increases your AC anyway? Are we to understand that your scars become thick enough and cover your body to the degree that they ward off blows as well as armor? Could be! Or is it instead that the confidence one gains in dealing with pain allows one to manage the effects of violence on the body better? Could be! It is incontrovertible that these issues are wholly metagame, but there is nothing new in that. A D&D game without metagame reasoning would probably play a lot like The Sims, because no-one in their right mind would go adventuring. To some degree we all must build characters that want to participate in the campaign, instead of just sitting in the tavern drinking beer all day. No DM alone can force a player to participate, it must be a mutual thing. This is a metagame consideration and yet necessary. So then, if your group plays with Rule 16, you have to ask yourself, "of the reasons my fantasy-honed imagination can come up with for this (Ex) ability, shall I adopt one that makes no sense if it should disappear, or instead choose one based on the transient elements of a character?". This is a wholly metagame decision, but can you honestly tell me that your games are devoid of them? Do your characters always act with perfect internally-contained rationality, while yet adhering to the idiosyncrasies of their backgrounds and upbringings?
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-31-06, 12:28 AM	No, you should probalby taunt and boo whoever in your group is trying to pull such a stupid rule over on everyone. Stooping to thier level won't help the group learn.
efraker 12-31-06, 05:20 AM	To each their own! :)
MechMage 12-31-06, 06:02 PM	I think my point was completely missed. The point base alinement system is a good one. Motivation should be considered, and, in fact, the back bone of the system. When determining alinement, the world should be considered as the character sees it. If a character knocks down a tree to kill the cat in it, and hits an assassin that he didn't see, he still becomes a little more evil. Also, a LG fighter who kills a king he thinks is corrupt, but isn't, then his alinement shifts a bit towards good. Also, if a character is torturing children, but giving out coin to fly under the detect evil radar, both torturing and donating put him towards evil. The donations not because they're donations, but because they are used to create a false image. As for rule 16, I think that it logicly applies when you lose the prerequisites for a bonus feat granted by the class with the same prerequisites, loses the an ability that powers another ability, such as channling turn attepts, or loses favor with the source of the ability, such as divine spell casting. In the case of alinement restrictions, the class feature force you into that alinement, such as an assassin's poison use. If the character changes alinement, then they can't use such class feachers without reverting.
makeshiftwings 01-01-07, 12:18 AM	I don't like alignment, so my opinion is undoubtedly biased. Regardless: the whole problem with alignment for me is that it usually ends up causing huge arguments between the DM and a player who is getting screwed for doing something the DM considered out of alignment. In normal D&D, this argument only happens on certain rare occasions, like when the PC is a paladin, or when the PC does something so out of alignment that the DM decides to switch him an entire alignment step right then and there. Still, it comes up enough that people argue about it constantly on the boards. With a point system like this, you will be having this argument every five minutes. Like so: Player: "OK, I go over and search through the drawers." DM: "OK. You just got 1 Chaos point." Player: "What?! How is searching through the drawers chaotic?" DM: "Don't worry, it's just 1 point. You need like 39 more before you lose all your monk abilities." Player: "That doesn't even matter! Why should I get a chaos point just for searching through the drawers?!!" So yeah, I personally would rather stab myself in the face than try to run a game where I have to keep updating the players in real time on the ethics of every little thing they do.
a_psh 01-01-07, 12:48 AM	MSW hit upon something very important here: So yeah, I personally would rather stab myself in the face than try to run a game where I have to keep updating the players in real time on the ethics of every little thing they do. Why is it actually desirable to define the exact moral consequences of every single trivial action?
efraker 01-01-07, 04:15 AM	re: trivial actions This is precisely the dilemna described by MakeShifts hilarious one-act comedy. "Trivial" is an extremely relative term... and not everyone will agree on what is a trivial action, and what isn't. This is made particularly difficult by the fact that the usual moral schema we employ is based upon things like working an 8-5, driving a car, and walking your dog... whereas an adventurer, being most concisely described as a murderous hobo, may have a radically different idea of right and wrong.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-01-07, 08:10 AM	That's pretty much the problem. We *can't* say for certain what's trivial or not, yet there's actual, concrete game statistics that despite all reasoning depend on one's alignment and this system bogs everything even *further* into pointless minutia by trying to assign point values to every meaningless moral decision a character makes.
Kresalak 01-01-07, 08:22 AM	The Page 16 Rule doesn't actually work. Look at the Ur-Priest. It actually disqualifies itself from entering at first level. That's not the only PrC that literally breaks when you apply that rule.
efraker 01-01-07, 01:40 PM	I'm not sure I agree that this is the case with Ur-Priest... but there are PrCs which disqualify themselves if the rule is applied, such as the PrC that requires one not to have the dragon type to take levels in it, yet changes one's type into Dragon at first level. This is a demonstration of why D&D is better than any computer game could ever be; its logic is adjudicated in real-time by a DM with the ability to apply rules as intended, when they are inscrutable as written.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-01-07, 02:09 PM	That's one that should have been caught before going to print though. "Say Bob... this rule doesn't make any sense, is made obselete (sp?) by the Sx-PrC entries and if applied will break a number of PrCs by design -- why the hell did you write this?" "Because I hate Prestige classes, Tim. Also players."
a_psh 01-01-07, 03:25 PM	This is a demonstration of why D&D is better than any computer game could ever be; its logic is adjudicated in real-time by a DM with the ability to apply rules as intended, when they are inscrutable as written.Yeah. Having a GM to try to interpret a nonsensical mess is much better than beta testing, patches, and QA. :rolleyes:
efraker 01-01-07, 04:46 PM	re: beta testing & patches ...are for CRPGs. The DMs task is adjudication, and little else. p.s., I've always wondered a psh, what does your sig mean?
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-01-07, 05:28 PM	The DMs task is adjudication, and little else. The game designer's task is to ensure that his product is playable.
a_psh 01-01-07, 07:52 PM	p.s., I've always wondered a psh, what does your sig mean?If the GM is the arbiter of morality, then you can't actually explore moral issues in your game. Because he's already answered all the moral questions before you start. The quote's not about alignment but GMing style: if you have a forgone conclusion about what's right and wrong and push it on the players, they're stuck parroting you instead of actually making their own statements through their characters. Simple as that. I picked it specifically because it applies to any issue: if your way is the right way, then you can't actually explore that issue in play.
a_psh 01-01-07, 07:54 PM	re: beta testing & patches ...are for CRPGs.And they work better than having a human interpret intent. You can't release the a video game without tons of glitches and holes being fixed. It just won't run at all. But you can release an RPG book without ever testing any of it.
efraker 01-01-07, 11:41 PM	re: a psh thanks for the explanation. :) re: glitches One of the funniest things I learned on the /co/ boards is that D&D is a world of conflicting certainties. Every table seems to have its own ecosystem, wherein things may be ridiculously abusable, whereas at other tables they would be mediocre tactics. One of the best examples was a recent thread where someone asked how to prepare for a great wyrm red dragon... the first three respondents talked about different ways of getting fire immunity... the fourth respondent said "a great wyrm dragon will always use energy substitution on his breath weapon, and will never use the obvious energy type. Fire immunity is the one thing you can be certain will be useless". He then went on to say disparaging things about the previous respondents, and so the thread degenerated into a flamewar. The fact is, probably all the respondents were right, relative to the tables they play at. Personally, every table I've ever played at was run by a DM who liked to modify material to fit his own sense of balance and his world's storyline. In fact, I even took this as a given before I started posting here; I have come to realize that many DMs just play "out of the box", unmodified D&D, and seem to miss the many pages and paragraphs in every book suggesting how to modify things to work best at your table, which is at the very least an implicit encouragement that you modify things to work best at your table. So yeah, in my experience, D&D has no "bugs", because the people I play with have always put the mechanics into context. When problems do come up, they are adjudicated, and if a consensus can't be reached then DM fiat is always there. Despite this, I do understand from the one short year that I've been browsing here that there are plenty of people who choose to play the material as if it were unalterable... and if one were so inclined, then I can understand how it could be extremely frustrating sometimes.
Always-Late 01-01-07, 11:43 PM	And they work better than having a human interpret intent. You can't release the a video game without tons of glitches and holes being fixed. It just won't run at all. But you can release an RPG book without ever testing any of it.On the contrary. Just because it runs doesn't mean you don't accidentally get game errors when a guy's feather fall runs out when he's floating down the cliff, or when you take a certain feat sequence and action sequence the damage runs into infinity.
a_psh 01-01-07, 11:55 PM	Just because it runs doesn't mean you don't accidentally get game errors when a guy's feather fall runs out when he's floating down the cliff, or when you take a certain feat sequence and action sequence the damage runs into infinity.Well, here's the flip side: When a video game crashed, it usually takes mere seconds for it to die. When a pen-and-paper game crashes, it tends to take hours. ;)