Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1132868I must have missed the bit in the DMG where they talked about running medieval fantasy campaigns in mid-20th century Europe.

It's called a simile, a metaphor...

Quote from: Omega;1132878God not this old fallacy thread... again.

I agree.

Alignment is a fallacy!

Geeky, another reason I use Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil is that players for whatever reason feel the

It is interesting that Gamma World 1e does not have alignments. TSR kept that concept only within D&D.

It's especially interesting if alignment did evolve due to "asshats at the table." Why would that behavior exist in D&D, but not GW?

Anyone know why Jim Ward didn't include alignment in GW?

Quote from: Reckall;1132827Exactly. Let's not forget how from the "broken" D&D aligment they created Planescape - one of most complex philosophical (in a good sense) settings around.

For me the real genius of Planescape was making so the planes can be easily associated to abstract concepts like madness, apathy, rage, stasis, movement, glory, etc. Which makes them more interesting than the original (and shallow, IMO) model.

Quote from: Brad;1132835Link to game..? Never heard of it.
 

Age of Sigmar is what replaced Warhammer Fantasy.

It had one of the worst launches of any game ive ever seen

Its did recently get an RPG in Soulbound but i havent looked at it.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/303936

Imo its not a very good setting but it does have some cool models,.

This is a game that abstracts a lot of things. Hit points, armor class, levels, all that jazz.

Alignment is a convenient shorthand for abilities and spells to key off of, and a way to determine the general attitude of an NPC with a simple two words.

Aside from that, I take it as a declaration of the character's general attitude towards law/order good/evil. Not a set-in-stone you-must-act X at all times thing.

The prime example is the dick GM who strips a Paladin of his powers with some assinine "Gotcha!" alignment test.

A lawful character should be able to break the rules occasionally without the GM going "Gotcha!". Or a good character gets into a morally murky situation and does something shady without that dick GM going "Gotcha!"

I'm not going to argue that there's a right way to play, and that everybody better use aligment or I'll come over and beat them with a DMG. Admittedly, alignment rarely even comes up in my games. I just have a philosophy about how to apply it if it ever does.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1132895Geeky, another reason I use Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil is that players for whatever reason feel the

It is interesting that Gamma World 1e does not have alignments. TSR kept that concept only within D&D.

It's especially interesting if alignment did evolve due to "asshats at the table." Why would that behavior exist in D&D, but not GW?

Anyone know why Jim Ward didn't include alignment in GW?

"...players for whatever reason feel the..." The What?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132884It's called a simile, a metaphor...

And it's a shitty one. Any roleplaying game tries to represent some particular kind of world, and its mechanics are built around that. Complaining that D&D's alignment system does not simulate 20th century morality is like complaining hit points and saving throws don't simulate infectious diseases - that's not what it's for.

As Ratman says, it's an abstraction. As are all elements of all games.

Quote from: Itachi;1132897For me the real genius of Planescape was making so the planes can be easily associated to abstract concepts like madness, apathy, rage, stasis, movement, glory, etc. Which makes them more interesting than the original (and shallow, IMO) model.

I also liked the idea of having various factions based around various philosophies dealing with different takes on the nature of reality. Not only did I like the idea of factions in general, and having clearly defined groups that were prevalent in the setting, characters could belong to and added an additional layer of intrigue to the setting. But I also loved how none of these factions seemed to imply or be built around any specific alignment. Even when some of them might impose certain alignment restrictions, the underlying idea behind the faction wasn't about alignment, but some attitude or belief about the nature of reality or its purpose that transcended alignment itself.

Granted, some of them may have been silly or not very deep, but the core idea itself was pretty good. And it helped reinforce that the theme of the setting wasn't about alignment, but rather belief. And the biggest draw of the planes wasn't alignment (which was completely secondary even when related to the nature of a plane), but the wacky nature of the planes and the weird stuff that could go on in them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1132909And it's a shitty one. Any roleplaying game tries to represent some particular kind of world, and its mechanics are built around that. Complaining that D&D's alignment system does not simulate 20th century morality is like complaining hit points and saving throws don't simulate infectious diseases - that's not what it's for.

As Ratman says, it's an abstraction. As are all elements of all games.

The complaint isn't that alignment doesn't simulate 20th century morality, but that it's subjective garbage that doesn't actually aid RP (what it purports to do) but rather hinders it by becoming a straight jacked and getting in the way. You could get rid of it and it would not affect game play in any way, save for a few alignment-specific spells and such that you could also easily remove as well. Try removing HP, and you better get ready to design something new in its place because as garbage as HP can also be, at least they do something objectively useful and necessary in the game. Alignment, however, is useless fluff. Which how 99% of game that aren't D&D can operate without it, or even a substitute for it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1132909And it's a shitty one. Any roleplaying game tries to represent some particular kind of world, and its mechanics are built around that. Complaining that D&D's alignment system does not simulate 20th century morality is like complaining hit points and saving throws don't simulate infectious diseases - that's not what it's for.

As Ratman says, it's an abstraction. As are all elements of all games.

Because that's exactly what I'm saying...

Are you this stupid and dishonest always or just on days that end in a Y?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132912The complaint isn't that alignment doesn't simulate 20th century morality, but that it's subjective garbage that doesn't actually aid RP (what it purports to do) but rather hinders it by becoming a straight jacked and getting in the way. You could get rid of it and it would not affect game play in any way, save for a few alignment-specific spells and such that you could also easily remove as well. Try removing HP, and you better get ready to design something new in its place because as garbage as HP can also be, at least they do something objectively useful and necessary in the game. Alignment, however, is useless fluff. Which how 99% of game that aren't D&D can operate without it, or even a substitute for it.

It's worst than that, if anything I'm saying it doesn't simulate medieval morality at all, back then it was Good or Evil, Black and White God vs the Devil.

I think the self proclaimed high-minded hack isn't high-minded at all but a total hack.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1132895Anyone know why Jim Ward didn't include alignment in GW?

I would guess that the reason is probably because he did not want Gamma World to be as successful as DnD.

I mean there was everything else, even Yeti Swarms.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132912The complaint isn't that alignment doesn't simulate 20th century morality, but that it's subjective garbage that doesn't actually aid RP (what it purports to do) but rather hinders it by becoming a straight jacked and getting in the way. You could get rid of it and it would not affect game play in any way, save for a few alignment-specific spells and such that you could also easily remove as well. Try removing HP, and you better get ready to design something new in its place because as garbage as HP can also be, at least they do something objectively useful and necessary in the game. Alignment, however, is useless fluff.

Just so that I can get this argument straight, Alignment is useless subjective fluff that does not affect game play in any way and at the same time is a straight jacket that gets in the way.

Yeah, thats a real head scratcher that one.

QuoteWhich how 99% of game that aren't D&D can operate without it, or even a substitute for it.

99% of games can operate without it and none of them is as popular as DnD.

Coincidence?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132794What the tin says.

The first problem is with making an alignment based of Order (Law) and Chaos, those aren't moral choices per se, imagine you're in Nazi Germany, there's an order/law that puts Jews, Gypsies, Gays and other people the government deems undesirable into concentration/extermination camps. A revolt (chaos) would be  good thing as long as you don't target innocent people. On the other hand obeying the law (following orders anyone?) would be a bad thing.

So they should have started with Good vs Evil and no, you can't be neutral here, you can be mostly one or the other falling occasionally on the other side because you're only "human".

Were all Germans the same alignment during WW2?  I would say no, and yet you could easily classify the country as a whole as being LE.  Could you have LG characters acting within it?  What about famous ones like Oskar Schindler or Erwin Rommel you could advance an argument that they were LG.  Certainly they were not killed when Indy opened the Arc of the Covenant.