Quote from: Warthur;608423Well, OK, then what's wrong with designing a setting with an eye to supporting power-behind-the-throne adventures, and as part of that process deciding that detect alignment spells aren't part of that setting?

Because a referee with two neurons to rub together and a pulse should be able to run that same scenario with the alignment rules and the spell lists intact.

I'm all for modifying the game to suit the particulars of a campaign - I do it for every campaign I run. At the same time, if I sit down to play a particular game, then I expect to play that game, which means in the case of D&D I expect alignment and divination spells to be part of the setting. If you can't run intrigues with alignment and detect evil, are you also going to nerf augury? What about divination? Or commune? Or speak with dead?

At what point do you ask yourself, if this is the kind of campaign I want to run but all these spells are problematic, why the hell am I playing D&D at all?

I would much rather a referee say that divination magic is not part of the setting than nerf particular spells to make a scenario work, but, in my experience, both of those are inferior solutions to playing the ball where it lies and working with the implied setting of the rules.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608479I would much rather a referee say that divination magic is not part of the setting than nerf particular spells to make a scenario work, but, in my experience, both of those are inferior solutions to playing the ball where it lies and working with the implied setting of the rules.

So if you're dealing with a published game you look down on people who don't work with the implied setting of the rules, am I right?

Well, by that logic, if someone has a homebrewed system which they built themselves from scratch, and they run a game in the implied setting of those rules - which is often the specific, explicit setting they were designed for - then provided that the referee lets you look over their system before you commit to their game so you know what you're sitting down to play that's also cool, right?

Now, supposing someone had a homebrewed variant of D&D - say, close enough to D&D that you can recognise that they took some edition of it as a starting point, but at the same time homebrewed enough that the implied setting has noticeably drifted. Would that also be OK - again, assuming the referee gave you a chance to look over their homebrew first so you know what you're getting into?

If it is OK, what's wrong with a homebrewed version of D&D where the implied setting doesn't include alignment and/or alignment detection spells, or indeed any other subset of the spell list?

If it isn't OK, why isn't it OK and where exactly is the line drawn?

Quote from: Warthur;608502*snipped*

You really expect me to waste my time answering this nonsense?

In the Ravenloft setting, where there is a lot of monster hunting going on, they tweaked the effects of detect alignment and of certain other spells to help maintain the mood. They didn't chuck alignment altogether, they simply made it detect just detect law, chaos and neutrality. For certain types of games, I think adjusting that stuff can work and help with the setting. In a more standard D&D game it gets much harder to do so IMO.

I have noticed though that alignment is one of those things that divides a lot of folks. I never really had an issue accepting that the alignments are constructs for a fictional setting, so you can embrace the rulebook definition of lawful good, chaotic neutral or chaotic evil, without worrying if it intrudes on your own realworld morality. I don't think alignment is something fantasy RPGs have to have though.

Quote from: Warthur;608502So if you're dealing with a published game you look down on people who don't work with the implied setting of the rules, am I right?

Uh, what?  Do I look down on you if you don't play D&D in Greyhawk?

No.

Quote from: Warthur;608502Well, by that logic, if someone has a homebrewed system which they built themselves from scratch, and they run a game in the implied setting of those rules - which is often the specific, explicit setting they were designed for - then provided that the referee lets you look over their system before you commit to their game so you know what you're sitting down to play that's also cool, right?

I don't play "homebrewed" games.  No one runs a homebrew here, and I won't run one either.

Quote from: Warthur;608502Now, supposing someone had a homebrewed variant of D&D - say, close enough to D&D that you can recognise that they took some edition of it as a starting point, but at the same time homebrewed enough that the implied setting has noticeably drifted. Would that also be OK - again, assuming the referee gave you a chance to look over their homebrew first so you know what you're getting into?

You mean homebrewed SETTING, not RULESET...but this isn't really implied in your question.

I'm good with homebrew settings, but not rulesets.

Quote from: Warthur;608502If it is OK, what's wrong with a homebrewed version of D&D where the implied setting doesn't include alignment and/or alignment detection spells, or indeed any other subset of the spell list?

If it isn't OK, why isn't it OK and where exactly is the line drawn?

The setting doesn't really matter, it comes down to the game you are playing.  You know, whether or not there's a spot for "Alignment" on my character sheet.

Quote from: The Butcher;608271The arguments against keeping alignment are legion, and I'm all too familiar with them. I myself downplay alignment immensely; I mostly play BECMI/RC and keep the Law-Chaos axis mostly out of flavor, as a "cosmic team jersey" rather than a hard-and-fast descriptor of behavior.

I'd like to hear arguments for keeping alignment. What does the pro-alignment crowd feels it brings to the game table? What interesting things have happened because of it?

Anyone? Bueller?

Quote from: The Butcher;608573Anyone? Bueller?

For me, it is a clear demarcation that can be referenced to illustrate acceptable behavior for a particular campaign/game.

Quote from: The Butcher;608573Anyone? Bueller?

I think one area where it is handy, is when you have weapons or items that are only supposed to be used by good or evil characters. For stuff like that, I did feel alignment added mechanical support to an important flavor aspect of the game.

Just because I don't really use alignment does not mean I can't make an argument for using it.



Alignment is useful for new roleplayers to help describe a character.

It is quicker to tag something with an alignment than to deduce approximate alignment by in depth analysis.

Useful tool for clarity in game mechanics; what works with or against what.

Tons and tons of existing dnd material use it.

Many players like Alignment.






Evilest female name ever....

Celene



CE LE NE

Back in Challenge Magazine they had a parody Star Trek the Next Generation rpg.  In addition to the Irritate Everyone skill, the Obnoxoid (Betazoid) race had the State The Obvious skill.

That's how I look at Detect Evil.  For the most part though I don't think run of the mill humans should read for any alignment except perhaps selfish and confused.

Evil can be pleasant. Good can be a dick.

Quote from: Blackhand;608538Uh, what?  Do I look down on you if you don't play D&D in Greyhawk?

I was specifically responding to Vulmea, whose position in this thread I find truly difficult to understand, but there you go.

That said, this is interesting:

QuoteI don't play "homebrewed" games.  No one runs a homebrew here, and I won't run one either.

What exactly is the objection to homebrew rulesets where you are?

As an old-schooler, I kinda have to have the evil be objective.

I mean, otherwise there's the whole "we're sneaking into creature's homes, killing them, and taking their stuff" issue that gets to be problematic if the creatures are not objectively things that "need to be killed."

The certainty of an reduces some morality questions, to be sure, but it's just more fun if nobody has to worry about baby orcs growing up to to do nice things.

Quote from: Doom;608699As an old-schooler, I kinda have to have the evil be objective.

I mean, otherwise there's the whole "we're sneaking into creature's homes, killing them, and taking their stuff" issue that gets to be problematic if the creatures are not objectively things that "need to be killed."

The certainty of an reduces some morality questions, to be sure, but it's just more fun if nobody has to worry about baby orcs growing up to to do nice things.

A rabid dog isn't evil. Neither is a cockroach. Both need to be killed.

Quote from: Warthur;608694I was specifically responding to Vulmea, whose position in this thread I find truly difficult to understand, but there you go.

That said, this is interesting:


What exactly is the objection to homebrew rulesets where you are?

It's funny, I have an objection to the generic at my table.  To each their own, but I consider home brew settings and rules that match them the pinnacle of the hobby.