|
Post by Demogorgon on May 27, 2011 9:38:59 GMT -5
I'm considering using the old alignment system in the game.
Any thoughts or concerns?
I think it might help people RP their character actions a little more. Personally, I think the unaligned option isn't helping.
|
|
|
Post by maketasty on May 27, 2011 13:22:03 GMT -5
What is the old system?
|
|
|
Post by Demogorgon on May 27, 2011 19:00:54 GMT -5
the old system is the 9 alignments.
|
|
|
Post by maketasty on May 27, 2011 19:27:36 GMT -5
Ok. I got ya. I never really followed 4e's alignment anyway. I've always used the 9 alignments and I've always thought of the alignment system as being there to help players out with role playing. I've rarely seen DMs take advantage of a player's alignment, i.e axiomatic weapon, protection spells, etc.
I get the feeling you are trying to accomplish something very specific with changing these rules. What's the issue? Maybe the group can work it out.
|
|
|
Post by Demogorgon on May 29, 2011 20:20:28 GMT -5
Yes I agree that the 9 alignment system is a guide to help players figure-out what their character would do. It also helps to identify actions that would be completely against your characters personality. I think the 4e alignment system isn't helpful in that regard. I mean what is "unaligned anyway?"
I do see a few in the group being True Neutral and some even with Chaotic tendencies (Zissren). Overall, the party is really more of a neutral party anyway and that's how I'm playing things out. It also helps me identify who is RPing their character well enough to earn XP.
|
|
|
Post by insanity on May 29, 2011 21:19:01 GMT -5
Unaligned is True Neutral I guess.
I do think having more alignments is better, but at the same time, alignment is a guide.
If using the 9 alignments, Thrrdon would likely be Chaotic Neutral. He would respect Bakali authority well, but likely completely disregard non-Bakali, seeing most as untrustworthy.
|
|
|
Post by maketasty on May 30, 2011 10:19:24 GMT -5
Reading the Bakali introductions I would almost peg them as Lawful Neutral. Both Bakali mentioned pacts with the swampers, being extremely loyal to allies, and both having very specific goals. They also have a culture that suggests order and structure. The have never done something just to do it, they both had reason to act the way they have- assuming a Bakali's hunger is something that must be immediately attended to, and is overwhelming, I don't see anything they have done as chaotic. Ziss's beating down the door was in following with Ylric's order.
If anyone in this group is chaotic it is Ylric. I think he is on the verge of chaotic evil, lol. I mean who just runs in someone house and burns their bow?
I think the average alignment of the group is neutral stupid =P judging by the stats we have. Bono is the black sheep of the group =). I like how Ylric and Bono are friends, but they are like Ying and Yang.
|
|
|
Post by Kelgate(Tom) on May 30, 2011 10:59:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I've mostly been using the nine alignments in fourth Edition as well in most cases. I know in George's campaign, I actually had Lawful Neutral in, instead of Unaligned. I prefer the use of the alignments rather then the 4th edition ones. And yes... Foosa is something Zissren will not go without . You promise foosa you betta give Foosa xD.
|
|
|
Post by Demogorgon on May 30, 2011 11:59:42 GMT -5
ok thanks for the update on your character's personality. If we were playing with the 9 alignments I wouldn't be guessing. Maybe I'm just stuck in my old ways of playing, but that's just how I think now. Alignments are a great tool that I've always used. The only problem I have with CN is that many people play it as Chaotic Insane. It's true that insane people fall into that category, but as long as you don't play it that way I'm cool with it. I do agree that the Bakali seem to hold honour and keeping their word in high regard. That suggests a lawfull component. The way we used to play is with the 9 alignments and a tendency in brackets. So your alignment might look like CN(G) or TN(L). That will help describe those situations were you make an exception for whatever reason. Of course, the tendency shouldn't be two removed from your alignment components. For example, LG(E) wouldn't work unless you're a schizo or you have a damn good reason. As for the Bakali, I was reading that they were at one time a very advanced race of people, but have since fallen into tribalism. That might affect how you view your character a bit.
|
|
|
Post by maketasty on May 30, 2011 12:09:03 GMT -5
Dartingclaw would be considered TN(L). A view of natural law rather than civilized law.
|
|
|
Post by insanity on May 30, 2011 18:54:14 GMT -5
I would agree with the Bakali being Lawful I suppose. Thrrdon does respect the ways of his people, but other non-Bakali authority would have to prove their right to that authority.
Don't follow a warrior who can't fight or lead.
|
|