Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 2:04:45 GMT -5
The switch to 3.0 was worse, for a number of reasons. 1) It was the first system released after the collapse of TSR. WotC was an entity that many of us were dying to reject (especially since at the time they were only known for the evil that is Magic the Gathering). 2) Most of us had been playing 2nd edition for a decade or so when 3.0 came out. It was not uncommon for every group of players to have created our own house supplementals which did not translate well into 3.0. (Actually, I had downloaded a really cool home brewed sourcebook known as Tome of the Damned, Vol. 1.666). 3) We had assembled 11 years worth of TSR source material. My own personal library of material was worth about $200, but the family (husband, wife, 3 of 4 kids, and future son-in-law) that I normally played with had a library that was easily worth $500+. Never before had any of us been asked to accept that much source material to be made useless. 4) While 2nd ed had gone through some significant updates over the years, none of them massively changed the gameplay. 3.0 truly changed things, and it did not seem that necessary at the time (even though it made the game more accessible for new players). Sure, I'll admit that those views were wrong, but at the time it seemed wrong. 5) While it should not matter, let us not forget that 3.0 was co-packaged with that horrid movie (which was truly stupid since they owned the rights to several classic stories (especially the Dragonlance stories). I definately see your point, especially with the Dungeons and Dragons movie! (Why have the STILL not brought Raistlin, Drizzt, or Elminster to the big screen yet? And I'm not talking about that lame ass cartoon that was released for Dragonlance a year or so back) My thing, though, is 3rd edition didn't get to have that long a life span, yet I have thousands of dollars invested into it (the miniatures were made virtually essential when 3.5 rules came out...2nd edition didn't need them). But 2nd edition had a lot of rules that were extremely broken and needed badly to be fixed. "Sorry wizard, you can swing that staff, but don't even think about picking up that club and swinging it! It's just too different for you to use!" "Ok wizard, you casted a spell...you get 100 experience times the level of that spell...fighter, you actually killed the monster so you get experience for the HD of the monster...thief you climbed that wall, so that's 200 xp for you...cleric...you didn't convince anyone in this dark dank stinky cavern to worship your god. All your friends already worship him/her that gave you xp early on...but those drow might have changed their minds before the party killed them...NO XP FOR YOU!" That is the fault of the DM then. I always gave a base set of points for the adventure, plus the players all got a chance to argue that they did something above and beyond for extra points. Any creative use of skills or interesting character development earned then extra points. If they were interesting while playing, as opposed to being a lump, they were rewarded. I always hated the idea of one player getting all the points for a kill (especially for something particularly large) if the whole party slugged away at the damned thing.
|
|
|
Post by MiLo Duck on May 25, 2009 2:32:05 GMT -5
Hey, have any of you guys tried any of the "make your own Super Hero/Comic Book Character/Anime Character" RPGs yet? My local game store has a lot of books like these and they seem interesting, and most of them are d20 systems. I've tried a few. White Wolf's "Aberrant" was my favorite. It didn't hurt that I was already familiar with the White Wolf style, but I found it the most balanced of what I played outside of GURPS. Mutants and Masterminds was the worst of them. It is broken in so many ways from out the gate that it is just ridiculous. In that system it is better for the players to describe what type of hero they want and the ST just write it up. Otherwise watch out for a ton of broken combos. As far as Anime goes, the best I've come across is something called "Hong Kong Action Theater". It fits with action cinematic EXTREMELY well and you can just have it be an Anime instead of an action flick if you want. For the truly extreme, just use whatever superhero game you prefer to blow up your planets IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 2:42:22 GMT -5
I finally understand how the 2nd edition players felt when 3rd came out, except its even worse. I liked 3.5; I had few problems with the system and could teach people to adequately play it in about 20 minutes. It didn't need a change, IMO. The switch to 3.0 was worse, for a number of reasons. 1) It was the first system released after the collapse of TSR. WotC was an entity that many of us were dying to reject (especially since at the time they were only known for the evil that is Magic the Gathering). 2) Most of us had been playing 2nd edition for a decade or so when 3.0 came out. It was not uncommon for every group of players to have created our own house supplementals which did not translate well into 3.0. (Actually, I had downloaded a really cool home brewed sourcebook known as Tome of the Damned, Vol. 1.666). 3) We had assembled 11 years worth of TSR source material. My own personal library of material was worth about $200, but the family (husband, wife, 3 of 4 kids, and future son-in-law) that I normally played with had a library that was easily worth $500+. Never before had any of us been asked to accept that much source material to be made useless. 4) While 2nd ed had gone through some significant updates over the years, none of them massively changed the gameplay. 3.0 truly changed things, and it did not seem that necessary at the time (even though it made the game more accessible for new players). Sure, I'll admit that those views were wrong, but at the time it seemed wrong. 5) While it should not matter, let us not forget that 3.0 was co-packaged with that horrid movie (which was truly stupid since they owned the rights to several classic stories (especially the Dragonlance stories). I agree with all your points but one thing made the switch from 3.0/3.5 to 4th worse than the shift from 2nd to 3rd: games like World of Warcraft infiltrated D&D and shaped the game for the worse. At least when you went to 3.0, you had guys like Monte Cook to keep up the quality control and you had enough older players from 2nd edition willing to play 3rd to help the new generation keep the hobby alive. 4th edition? You don't have anyone like Cook around to guide it, nor do you have seasoned vets around to keep it going, not on the level that you had with 3rd. Also, if you wanted to put the effort into translating the 2nd edition material to 3rd and vice versa, you could do it. I haven't seen much in the way of doing that with 4th.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 25, 2009 5:48:59 GMT -5
I love table top RPGs, even though my recent group has broken up due to a fight I had with one of the players. I'm a huge fan of D&D 3.0/3.5, as well as Star Wars Saga Edition RPG, Vampire: The Masquerade, DC Super Heroes RPG (Mayfair system) and Marvel RPG (TSR version with the "unearthly" and "Incredible" stats) I absolutely hate 4th edition D&D. While I know that 3.5 books were cranked out to make money, I feel that 4th is doing so 5 times worse. I like the art in the books, but I hate that they screwed with the alignment system the way they did. Angels, certain gods, elves, and other beings who are pretty much ALWAYS some sort of good are now "unaligned" while Demons, Devils, and other creatures that are pretty much ALWAYS evil, remain ALWAYS evil. If you want to dump/change the alignment system, fine, but do it for everyone. I can't help but feel that with the inclusion of the "unaligned" alignment and so many good creatures and raced being changed to unaligned, that 4th edition was created by the same sort of loser players that love playing "chaotic neutral" in campaigns, so that they can actually play chaotic evil.Getting off that rant, I always here how great Champions, WEG Star Wars, and Shadowrunner are, but I just don't like any of them. I can't stand d6 games, and find such games subpar. One game that is horribly under rated is the DC Super Heroes Mayfair RPG. That game really allowed a lot of leeway for players to alter the game with hero points and the like...I just thought it was great...probably the best super hero RPG ever made (and I'm a Marvel fan who hates Batman and Superman!) Dude...it doesn't really even matter. 4E essentially made it so alignment means nothing in the game anyway. There's no longer any meta-game reason to pick one...no classes or races require any specific one, things like detect evil are gone, etc. So you don't need to worry about which ones do and don't exist...they're pretty much just pure flavor now...which means your character is simply what you play him or her as. I don't see how this "ruins" anything...things like detect evil were stupid and storybreaking anyway, and having to be a certain kind of character to play the class or race you want is dumb. The WOW comparisons are stupid. Yeah, the powers might resemble video games in a way. But it's not like with 4th Edition the game suddenly became an experience grind. It's still as much of a roleplaying game as 3rd was.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on May 25, 2009 6:47:10 GMT -5
Vampire: the Masquerade represent! Old World of Darkness for life yo! Much like D&D 4th edition I honestly don't know what the new stuff is like nor do I really care to. Me and my friends have huge libraries of the old stuff and are at the point were we just have no real practical need to buy new stuff other than the occasional one shot novelty RPG system like the Serenity or Dune system that is just self contained little one book deals. Hell, I'm almost out of space as is. I have a waste high stack in the corner of stuff that doesn't fit on my bookshelf. From what I can tell the big major difference between old world of darkness and new world of darkness is the emphasis on mortals. So yeah if you want a world of darkness game that gives mortal characters something to do then it's worth it, but other then that you can probably still stick with old world of darkness.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 12:59:14 GMT -5
The switch to 3.0 was worse, for a number of reasons. 1) It was the first system released after the collapse of TSR. WotC was an entity that many of us were dying to reject (especially since at the time they were only known for the evil that is Magic the Gathering). 2) Most of us had been playing 2nd edition for a decade or so when 3.0 came out. It was not uncommon for every group of players to have created our own house supplementals which did not translate well into 3.0. (Actually, I had downloaded a really cool home brewed sourcebook known as Tome of the Damned, Vol. 1.666). 3) We had assembled 11 years worth of TSR source material. My own personal library of material was worth about $200, but the family (husband, wife, 3 of 4 kids, and future son-in-law) that I normally played with had a library that was easily worth $500+. Never before had any of us been asked to accept that much source material to be made useless. 4) While 2nd ed had gone through some significant updates over the years, none of them massively changed the gameplay. 3.0 truly changed things, and it did not seem that necessary at the time (even though it made the game more accessible for new players). Sure, I'll admit that those views were wrong, but at the time it seemed wrong. 5) While it should not matter, let us not forget that 3.0 was co-packaged with that horrid movie (which was truly stupid since they owned the rights to several classic stories (especially the Dragonlance stories). I agree with all your points but one thing made the switch from 3.0/3.5 to 4th worse than the shift from 2nd to 3rd: games like World of Warcraft infiltrated D&D and shaped the game for the worse. At least when you went to 3.0, you had guys like Monte Cook to keep up the quality control and you had enough older players from 2nd edition willing to play 3rd to help the new generation keep the hobby alive. 4th edition? You don't have anyone like Cook around to guide it, nor do you have seasoned vets around to keep it going, not on the level that you had with 3rd. Also, if you wanted to put the effort into translating the 2nd edition material to 3rd and vice versa, you could do it. I haven't seen much in the way of doing that with 4th. Perhaps, but I must say that no one had as much time to get as attached to 3.0/3.5 than 2nd ed. That is the result of trying to squeeze maximum coinage at the expense of customer loyalty. What is worse, it sounds to me as though the new game is geared in a way that will attract the power players, who sap the fun out of the game for a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 25, 2009 14:19:56 GMT -5
I love table top RPGs, even though my recent group has broken up due to a fight I had with one of the players. I'm a huge fan of D&D 3.0/3.5, as well as Star Wars Saga Edition RPG, Vampire: The Masquerade, DC Super Heroes RPG (Mayfair system) and Marvel RPG (TSR version with the "unearthly" and "Incredible" stats) I absolutely hate 4th edition D&D. While I know that 3.5 books were cranked out to make money, I feel that 4th is doing so 5 times worse. I like the art in the books, but I hate that they screwed with the alignment system the way they did. Angels, certain gods, elves, and other beings who are pretty much ALWAYS some sort of good are now "unaligned" while Demons, Devils, and other creatures that are pretty much ALWAYS evil, remain ALWAYS evil. If you want to dump/change the alignment system, fine, but do it for everyone. I can't help but feel that with the inclusion of the "unaligned" alignment and so many good creatures and raced being changed to unaligned, that 4th edition was created by the same sort of loser players that love playing "chaotic neutral" in campaigns, so that they can actually play chaotic evil.Getting off that rant, I always here how great Champions, WEG Star Wars, and Shadowrunner are, but I just don't like any of them. I can't stand d6 games, and find such games subpar. One game that is horribly under rated is the DC Super Heroes Mayfair RPG. That game really allowed a lot of leeway for players to alter the game with hero points and the like...I just thought it was great...probably the best super hero RPG ever made (and I'm a Marvel fan who hates Batman and Superman!) Dude...it doesn't really even matter. 4E essentially made it so alignment means nothing in the game anyway. There's no longer any meta-game reason to pick one...no classes or races require any specific one, things like detect evil are gone, etc. So you don't need to worry about which ones do and don't exist...they're pretty much just pure flavor now...which means your character is simply what you play him or her as. I don't see how this "ruins" anything...things like detect evil were stupid and storybreaking anyway, and having to be a certain kind of character to play the class or race you want is dumb. The WOW comparisons are stupid. Yeah, the powers might resemble video games in a way. But it's not like with 4th Edition the game suddenly became an experience grind. It's still as much of a roleplaying game as 3rd was. Dude, Alignment was a MAJOR part of all previous editions. It forced you to actually, you know, ROLE PLAY. Having a lack of solid alignments means you can go from doing something Chaotic Evil(such as killing a small innocent child) to doing something Lawful Good(preventing the rest of the party from torturing a captured enemy for information) within seconds of each event happening. It makes all characters schizophrenic! We need Alignment because it restricts how you play, but in a good way. It makes you have to think. Lord knows I refuse to play any game that allows a Paladin or a Cleric lift up their weapon and do their best Leroy Jenkins impersonation.... In fact, if anything, taking away solid defined alignments kills D&D, because without the solid alignments, and thus a strict universal guideline to base your actions on, D&D becomes nothing more than a video game without the video game part. Case in point, my favorite 3.5 character I created is a Chaotic Good Fighter/Cleric/War Priest. He can do "bad things" but only if they have a "good consequence." Essentially, my character is an Anti-Hero/Utilitarian(doing things for the "greater good"). But despite me being able to do technically evil things like say burn down a village, I can't do it as long as the villagers are in there. I CAN, however, do it if we evacuated the villagers and it is just the villains we were trying to kill left in the village. I can't be like Richard from Looking For Group and go around Fwooshing anything in my sight. Then again, LFG is loosely based on World of Warcraft where anyone, no matter what alignment, can do whatever the hell they please. So to conclude my rant, making the alignments liquid instead of solid has ruined the game. I'm all for allowing new players into the game, but not at the cost of the heart and soul of the game.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 15:06:25 GMT -5
Dude...it doesn't really even matter. 4E essentially made it so alignment means nothing in the game anyway. There's no longer any meta-game reason to pick one...no classes or races require any specific one, things like detect evil are gone, etc. So you don't need to worry about which ones do and don't exist...they're pretty much just pure flavor now...which means your character is simply what you play him or her as. I don't see how this "ruins" anything...things like detect evil were stupid and storybreaking anyway, and having to be a certain kind of character to play the class or race you want is dumb. The WOW comparisons are stupid. Yeah, the powers might resemble video games in a way. But it's not like with 4th Edition the game suddenly became an experience grind. It's still as much of a roleplaying game as 3rd was. Dude, Alignment was a MAJOR part of all previous editions. It forced you to actually, you know, ROLE PLAY. Having a lack of solid alignments means you can go from doing something Chaotic Evil(such as killing a small innocent child) to doing something Lawful Good(preventing the rest of the party from torturing a captured enemy for information) within seconds of each event happening. It makes all characters schizophrenic! We need Alignment because it restricts how you play, but in a good way. It makes you have to think. Lord knows I refuse to play any game that allows a Paladin or a Cleric lift up their weapon and do their best Leroy Jenkins impersonation.... In fact, if anything, taking away solid defined alignments kills D&D, because without the solid alignments, and thus a strict universal guideline to base your actions on, D&D becomes nothing more than a video game without the video game part. Case in point, my favorite 3.5 character I created is a Chaotic Good Fighter/Cleric/War Priest. He can do "bad things" but only if they have a "good consequence." Essentially, my character is an Anti-Hero/Utilitarian(doing things for the "greater good"). But despite me being able to do technically evil things like say burn down a village, I can't do it as long as the villagers are in there. I CAN, however, do it if we evacuated the villagers and it is just the villains we were trying to kill left in the village. I can't be like Richard from Looking For Group and go around Fwooshing anything in my sight. Then again, LFG is loosely based on World of Warcraft where anyone, no matter what alignment, can do whatever the hell they please. So to conclude my rant, making the alignments liquid instead of solid has ruined the game. I'm all for allowing new players into the game, but not at the cost of the heart and soul of the game. I agree with you, if for no other reason that a lack of alignment makes deities and demigods useless. One of the most amusing things that my party ever went through involved a lack of following alignment. We were traveling by boat. We were attacked by pirates. Our wizard repeatedly shrank the pirate boat, so all we needed to do to eliminate the danger of the pirates was to gang up and pitch them overboard, which was much easier than to fight them off. That was simple, but I saw the opportunity for even more XP. I pulled out my bow and started feathering the pirates as they floundered helplessly in the water. Not wanting to be left out of the fun, most of the rest of the party joined in the fun. Problem was, my character was the only chaotic character doing this. The rest were paladins, rangers, white robed wizards, and clerics. Needless to say, only I could do what I was doing. The others should not have done so. In fact, most should have tried to stop me from doing it. The moment that the last pirate died, the entire pary was teleported to some unknown dimension. We were then engaged by an avatar of the god that most of the party worshiped. Needless to say, we got our asses whooped badly. Once we all "died", we then woke up in a temple in the city that we started our trip in. Everyone except me and the one cleric who was trying to save pirates suffered not only the penalties of being resurrected (this was in 2nd ed., mind you), but they each lost two levels as well (I actually gained a ton of XP, so I leveled as a result. ;D)
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on May 25, 2009 16:01:44 GMT -5
Hey, have any of you guys tried any of the "make your own Super Hero/Comic Book Character/Anime Character" RPGs yet? My local game store has a lot of books like these and they seem interesting, and most of them are d20 systems. goldenbane has already mentioned the DC Superheroes RPG, and I have a friend who can vouch for it, but I think that it is unfortunately out of print. As far as d20 goes, Mutants & Masterminds; accept no substitutions. As mentioned before though, I prefer the HERO System, which used to be Champions. I'm pretty sure that in all three cases you generally get to design your own powers as opposed to picking from a menu (I can vouch for Champions where this is completely true and for M&M where it is mostly true, but I have never played DC Heroes before so I cannot say. Does that help at all?
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 16:51:59 GMT -5
I have another example of where alignments enhanced gameplay. I played a home-brewed race of "giant" called Legarians (this was back in 2nd ed., in which size categories did not exist, but playable races were limited to creatures 7'6" or shorter). Legarians were obligated to be lawful good, but I wanted to play a scary as hell version of one. As a result, he wore black armor and cape that had symbols of death all over them. He collected interesting skulls (including those of a few evil individuals that he had been forced to kill), many of which he wore as decorations around his belt. He wore a hill giant's skull as a helm, and underneath that painted his face to look like a skull.
The funniest thing was how he would interact with individuals. He had a magical device that allowed him to have an "Undertaker entrance" whenever he arrived somewhere. Since he could not torture anyone to get information from captives, so he would instead psyche them out. We captured a kobold that tried to sabotage our boat (different boat and party), and to get him to spill his guts I freaked him out. He was being interrogated by other party members when I silently came up, forced them to leave with just a look, and then started feeling the kobold's skull as though I was determining if I wanted to add it to my collection.
He could not talk fast enough to tell us what we wanted, so long as the party would save him from me.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 25, 2009 17:35:16 GMT -5
I have another example of where alignments enhanced gameplay. I played a home-brewed race of "giant" called Legarians (this was back in 2nd ed., in which size categories did not exist, but playable races were limited to creatures 7'6" or shorter). Legarians were obligated to be lawful good, but I wanted to play a scary as hell version of one. As a result, he wore black armor and cape that had symbols of death all over them. He collected interesting skulls (including those of a few evil individuals that he had been forced to kill), many of which he wore as decorations around his belt. He wore a hill giant's skull as a helm, and underneath that painted his face to look like a skull. The funniest thing was how he would interact with individuals. He had a magical device that allowed him to have an "Undertaker entrance" whenever he arrived somewhere. Since he could not torture anyone to get information from captives, so he would instead psyche them out. We captured a kobold that tried to sabotage our boat (different boat and party), and to get him to spill his guts I freaked him out. He was being interrogated by other party members when I silently came up, forced them to leave with just a look, and then started feeling the kobold's skull as though I was determining if I wanted to add it to my collection. He could not talk fast enough to tell us what we wanted, so long as the party would save him from me. I don't see how any of this needs an actual alignment system. What about this character would not be doable in 4th edition? Nothing. Alignments are just a crutch. Anyone who's actually serious about roleplaying a character doesn't need to have to scribble "lawful neutral" on his character sheet to play a character of that type. You're too hung up on the rules. Alignment is something that doesn't NEED rules. Saying you need alignment "to actually, you know, ROLE PLAY" is a complete farce. If anything, removing the importance of alignment on game mechanics INCREASES the ability to roleplay. It should be up to the players to craft what kind of character their PC is, and up to the DM how their actions will effect them. Having a bunch of rules about it is just needless restriction when that kind of stuff should be handled by just good old creative thinking and good DM'ing. 4th Edition basically removed alignment because it's something that doesn't need any kind of complex rules. Rules should govern if and how a character can perform actions...they shouldn't govern how a character ACTS. That is something that should be purely up to the player. If you can't play a complex character with a defined moral system without some sort of arbitrary rule set for it, that say more about your inability as a player than it does about the faults of the system. Roleplaying is about imagination and creativity, roleplaying shouldn't be about rules.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 18:25:04 GMT -5
I have another example of where alignments enhanced gameplay. I played a home-brewed race of "giant" called Legarians (this was back in 2nd ed., in which size categories did not exist, but playable races were limited to creatures 7'6" or shorter). Legarians were obligated to be lawful good, but I wanted to play a scary as hell version of one. As a result, he wore black armor and cape that had symbols of death all over them. He collected interesting skulls (including those of a few evil individuals that he had been forced to kill), many of which he wore as decorations around his belt. He wore a hill giant's skull as a helm, and underneath that painted his face to look like a skull. The funniest thing was how he would interact with individuals. He had a magical device that allowed him to have an "Undertaker entrance" whenever he arrived somewhere. Since he could not torture anyone to get information from captives, so he would instead psyche them out. We captured a kobold that tried to sabotage our boat (different boat and party), and to get him to spill his guts I freaked him out. He was being interrogated by other party members when I silently came up, forced them to leave with just a look, and then started feeling the kobold's skull as though I was determining if I wanted to add it to my collection. He could not talk fast enough to tell us what we wanted, so long as the party would save him from me. I don't see how any of this needs an actual alignment system. What about this character would not be doable in 4th edition? Nothing. Alignments are just a crutch. Anyone who's actually serious about roleplaying a character doesn't need to have to scribble "lawful neutral" on his character sheet to play a character of that type. You're too hung up on the rules. Alignment is something that doesn't NEED rules. Saying you need alignment "to actually, you know, ROLE PLAY" is a complete farce. If anything, removing the importance of alignment on game mechanics INCREASES the ability to roleplay. It should be up to the players to craft what kind of character their PC is, and up to the DM how their actions will effect them. Having a bunch of rules about it is just needless restriction when that kind of stuff should be handled by just good old creative thinking and good DM'ing. 4th Edition basically removed alignment because it's something that doesn't need any kind of complex rules. Rules should govern if and how a character can perform actions...they shouldn't govern how a character ACTS. That is something that should be purely up to the player. If you can't play a complex character with a defined moral system without some sort of arbitrary rule set for it, that say more about your inability as a player than it does about the faults of the system. Roleplaying is about imagination and creativity, roleplaying shouldn't be about rules. I'll tell you some of the reasons why it disturbs some of us for alignment to be eliminated. 1) Most of us has had experience playing in groups that wanted to do away with those pesky rules. They were usually populated by power gamers, who are amazingly annoying in large groups. Your insistence that alignment isn't needed might remind some of us of those guys. Not your fault, I know, but still. 2) Alignment in general was not a true issue, but for a few classes it is important. Clerics and especially paladins were broken classes without the major restrictions that enforcing alignment supplied. Honestly, those classes and druids were the only classes in which alignment was critically important (though few people truly played druids properly, in my opinion). I cannot imagine playing with characters in those classes for which by-the-books DMs don't have rules to force them to role play properly does not appeal to us. 3) Not everyone would be familiar with it, but it was a favorite trick of mine to use as a DM. The ability to detect evil (particularly with paladins) was a powerful tool for creative DMs. Paladins were not just good, but lawful, which meant that they had to respect legitimate authority. If you introduced a lawful evil high level noble/bureaucrat that the party had to interact with, it provided several opportunities for a DM. He could be the open villain in your adventures that the party cannot prove is the villain, or he can be a red herring to distract the party. The possibilities were abundant, and you are saying that this particular DM tool is now gone. 4) If the gods were highly active in your adventure, alignments were a good indication of who that deity would accept as a worshiper and who the deity would actively oppose. If you only have a couple of deities active in the game, then it would not be an issue, but if religious sects abound in the game, it is not so simple. I admit that I have not played the newer system, but I would miss having deities mettling everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 25, 2009 18:46:56 GMT -5
I don't see how any of this needs an actual alignment system. What about this character would not be doable in 4th edition? Nothing. Alignments are just a crutch. Anyone who's actually serious about roleplaying a character doesn't need to have to scribble "lawful neutral" on his character sheet to play a character of that type. You're too hung up on the rules. Alignment is something that doesn't NEED rules. Saying you need alignment "to actually, you know, ROLE PLAY" is a complete farce. If anything, removing the importance of alignment on game mechanics INCREASES the ability to roleplay. It should be up to the players to craft what kind of character their PC is, and up to the DM how their actions will effect them. Having a bunch of rules about it is just needless restriction when that kind of stuff should be handled by just good old creative thinking and good DM'ing. 4th Edition basically removed alignment because it's something that doesn't need any kind of complex rules. Rules should govern if and how a character can perform actions...they shouldn't govern how a character ACTS. That is something that should be purely up to the player. If you can't play a complex character with a defined moral system without some sort of arbitrary rule set for it, that say more about your inability as a player than it does about the faults of the system. Roleplaying is about imagination and creativity, roleplaying shouldn't be about rules. I'll tell you some of the reasons why it disturbs some of us for alignment to be eliminated. 1) Most of us has had experience playing in groups that wanted to do away with those pesky rules. They were usually populated by power gamers, who are amazingly annoying in large groups. Your insistence that alignment isn't needed might remind some of us of those guys. Not your fault, I know, but still. 2) Alignment in general was not a true issue, but for a few classes it is important. Clerics and especially paladins were broken classes without the major restrictions that enforcing alignment supplied. Honestly, those classes and druids were the only classes in which alignment was critically important (though few people truly played druids properly, in my opinion). I cannot imagine playing with characters in those classes for which by-the-books DMs don't have rules to force them to role play properly does not appeal to us. 3) Not everyone would be familiar with it, but it was a favorite trick of mine to use as a DM. The ability to detect evil (particularly with paladins) was a powerful tool for creative DMs. Paladins were not just good, but lawful, which meant that they had to respect legitimate authority. If you introduced a lawful evil high level noble/bureaucrat that the party had to interact with, it provided several opportunities for a DM. He could be the open villain in your adventures that the party cannot prove is the villain, or he can be a red herring to distract the party. The possibilities were abundant, and you are saying that this particular DM tool is now gone. 4) If the gods were highly active in your adventure, alignments were a good indication of who that deity would accept as a worshiper and who the deity would actively oppose. If you only have a couple of deities active in the game, then it would not be an issue, but if religious sects abound in the game, it is not so simple. I admit that I have not played the newer system, but I would miss having deities mettling everywhere. 1.) I understand that people like this are annoying, but honestly, these people are going to do this stuff wether or not there's an official system. Crappy players are crappy players. 2.) Removing alignment as a requirement doesn't make the clerics and paladins broken in 4th. While it may in 3rd, one of 4th Edition's biggest strengths is balance. Neither class is broken in any way in 4th. What i really hated about Paladin alignment restrictions is that it made no sense that a chaotic evil god or a neutral good god wouldn't have Paladins of the same alignment. Paladins are basically holy soldiers, spreading the dogma of their faith...I don't see why lawful should be a requirement unless the God is lawful. Would a chaotic evil god not have his own paladins leading the slaughter? In 4th these classes are still expected to act like their faiths desire them to, they just don't lose their powers after an alignment change(the idea being they are given their powers when they first become their class in a ritual). So now it's possible to say, have a corrupt cleric who is living a lie and pretending to be a follower, but secretly using the church and it's divine powers for his own selfish ends. I'd say removing the "change alignments and lose everything" mechanic allows for more interesting characters, especially when it comes to NPCs. If the DM sees the player actively acting outside of his faith, it's not hard to have the other members of the church, or even the deity itself, take notice and try to do something about it. 3.) The thing is this character is still completely doable in 4th. The only difference is the party's Paladin can't just walk around casting detect evil on everything to know who's corrupt and who isn't. Now it's possible for a lawful evil character to actually decieve a party that has a paladin or cleric. It's potentially storybreaking to have a walking evil detector with the party at all times. 4.) Well there's still the looser alignments that can act as a rough guide as to what a diety looks for. But really, the deities still have writeups that say what they govern and what they stand for. So it's not really any harder to say "this guy doesn't make sense as a follower of Kord" or anything like that.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 25, 2009 19:49:29 GMT -5
I'll tell you some of the reasons why it disturbs some of us for alignment to be eliminated. 1) Most of us has had experience playing in groups that wanted to do away with those pesky rules. They were usually populated by power gamers, who are amazingly annoying in large groups. Your insistence that alignment isn't needed might remind some of us of those guys. Not your fault, I know, but still. 2) Alignment in general was not a true issue, but for a few classes it is important. Clerics and especially paladins were broken classes without the major restrictions that enforcing alignment supplied. Honestly, those classes and druids were the only classes in which alignment was critically important (though few people truly played druids properly, in my opinion). I cannot imagine playing with characters in those classes for which by-the-books DMs don't have rules to force them to role play properly does not appeal to us. 3) Not everyone would be familiar with it, but it was a favorite trick of mine to use as a DM. The ability to detect evil (particularly with paladins) was a powerful tool for creative DMs. Paladins were not just good, but lawful, which meant that they had to respect legitimate authority. If you introduced a lawful evil high level noble/bureaucrat that the party had to interact with, it provided several opportunities for a DM. He could be the open villain in your adventures that the party cannot prove is the villain, or he can be a red herring to distract the party. The possibilities were abundant, and you are saying that this particular DM tool is now gone. 4) If the gods were highly active in your adventure, alignments were a good indication of who that deity would accept as a worshiper and who the deity would actively oppose. If you only have a couple of deities active in the game, then it would not be an issue, but if religious sects abound in the game, it is not so simple. I admit that I have not played the newer system, but I would miss having deities mettling everywhere. 1.) I understand that people like this are annoying, but honestly, these people are going to do this stuff wether or not there's an official system. Crappy players are crappy players. 2.) Removing alignment as a requirement doesn't make the clerics and paladins broken in 4th. While it may in 3rd, one of 4th Edition's biggest strengths is balance. Neither class is broken in any way in 4th. What i really hated about Paladin alignment restrictions is that it made no sense that a chaotic evil god or a neutral good god wouldn't have Paladins of the same alignment. Paladins are basically holy soldiers, spreading the dogma of their faith...I don't see why lawful should be a requirement unless the God is lawful. Would a chaotic evil god not have his own paladins leading the slaughter? In 4th these classes are still expected to act like their faiths desire them to, they just don't lose their powers after an alignment change(the idea being they are given their powers when they first become their class in a ritual). So now it's possible to say, have a corrupt cleric who is living a lie and pretending to be a follower, but secretly using the church and it's divine powers for his own selfish ends. I'd say removing the "change alignments and lose everything" mechanic allows for more interesting characters, especially when it comes to NPCs. If the DM sees the player actively acting outside of his faith, it's not hard to have the other members of the church, or even the deity itself, take notice and try to do something about it. 3.) The thing is this character is still completely doable in 4th. The only difference is the party's Paladin can't just walk around casting detect evil on everything to know who's corrupt and who isn't. Now it's possible for a lawful evil character to actually decieve a party that has a paladin or cleric. It's potentially storybreaking to have a walking evil detector with the party at all times. 4.) Well there's still the looser alignments that can act as a rough guide as to what a diety looks for. But really, the deities still have writeups that say what they govern and what they stand for. So it's not really any harder to say "this guy doesn't make sense as a follower of Kord" or anything like that. Without the alignment system, seriously fantastic stories, such as the rise and fall of Raistlin or Darth Vader can no longer take place. Are you really going to be as shocked and saddened by a character who was never officially "good" to begin with, suddenly start being evil? I find without an alignment system, these sorts of stories go from one guy being the special turn-coat villain, to pretty much the entire party turning to evil. (Before you say anything, yes, I realize Star Wars doesn't have an "alignment system" but it does have the Dark side system, which pretty much does the same thing." 3rd edition had optional rules for chaotic evil, lawful evil, and chaotic good paladins (Book of Unearthed Arcana, Chaotic evil were Slayers, Lawful evil were Tyrants, and Chaotic good were Liberators). Also, paladins turned to evil were more than welcome to enter into the Blackguard prestige class. Clerics weren't crippled like paladins were at all, and could change evil when ever they wished and would just worship a different god. The detect evil spell is probably one of the must misused and abused spells out there. When a Paladin or Cleric uses that spell, they really aren't supposed act like some stooge in the sky just said "Yup, he's evil alright, ya might wanna kill him." They get more of a gut feeling of dread...dramatic stuff like that...not the stupid "HIM EVIL HIM DIE!" stereotype. Besides that, a smart villain would just use detect good and use Hide alignment to conceal him/herself anyway. Clever DM's can also use detect evil to teach the players a lesson in not trusting such spells so implicity. A repentent evil character will still detect as evil until he/she makes an official alignment change. Characters attacking this person will suffer whatever punishments the DM wishes to inflict upon them. Alignment is a very particular and fragile kind of rule. Players and DMs need to be careful in it's use, but overall, it does increase roleplaying and creativity. The above example of the pirates getting killed by good characters IMO, is an example of the system being abused. How bad and evil were these pirates? Were the neutral good characters punished just as harshly as the lawful good ones? Were the pirates still attacking, despite being in the water? Did the pirates attack first? Again, IMO, the chaotic good player was shown huge favortism by the DM. Attacking the pirates in the water, if they were "helpless" was not an act of law, neutrality, or chaos, but of good, neutral, or evil. The chaotic good character "murdered" (an evil act, not a chaotic one) these supposedly "helpless" pirates just as much as the lawful and neutral ones did, and should have been punished just as harshly.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 19:57:59 GMT -5
I'll tell you some of the reasons why it disturbs some of us for alignment to be eliminated. 1) Most of us has had experience playing in groups that wanted to do away with those pesky rules. They were usually populated by power gamers, who are amazingly annoying in large groups. Your insistence that alignment isn't needed might remind some of us of those guys. Not your fault, I know, but still. 2) Alignment in general was not a true issue, but for a few classes it is important. Clerics and especially paladins were broken classes without the major restrictions that enforcing alignment supplied. Honestly, those classes and druids were the only classes in which alignment was critically important (though few people truly played druids properly, in my opinion). I cannot imagine playing with characters in those classes for which by-the-books DMs don't have rules to force them to role play properly does not appeal to us. 3) Not everyone would be familiar with it, but it was a favorite trick of mine to use as a DM. The ability to detect evil (particularly with paladins) was a powerful tool for creative DMs. Paladins were not just good, but lawful, which meant that they had to respect legitimate authority. If you introduced a lawful evil high level noble/bureaucrat that the party had to interact with, it provided several opportunities for a DM. He could be the open villain in your adventures that the party cannot prove is the villain, or he can be a red herring to distract the party. The possibilities were abundant, and you are saying that this particular DM tool is now gone. 4) If the gods were highly active in your adventure, alignments were a good indication of who that deity would accept as a worshiper and who the deity would actively oppose. If you only have a couple of deities active in the game, then it would not be an issue, but if religious sects abound in the game, it is not so simple. I admit that I have not played the newer system, but I would miss having deities mettling everywhere. 1.) I understand that people like this are annoying, but honestly, these people are going to do this stuff wether or not there's an official system. Crappy players are crappy players. 2.) Removing alignment as a requirement doesn't make the clerics and paladins broken in 4th. While it may in 3rd, one of 4th Edition's biggest strengths is balance. Neither class is broken in any way in 4th. What i really hated about Paladin alignment restrictions is that it made no sense that a chaotic evil god or a neutral good god wouldn't have Paladins of the same alignment. Paladins are basically holy soldiers, spreading the dogma of their faith...I don't see why lawful should be a requirement unless the God is lawful. Would a chaotic evil god not have his own paladins leading the slaughter? In 4th these classes are still expected to act like their faiths desire them to, they just don't lose their powers after an alignment change(the idea being they are given their powers when they first become their class in a ritual). So now it's possible to say, have a corrupt cleric who is living a lie and pretending to be a follower, but secretly using the church and it's divine powers for his own selfish ends. I'd say removing the "change alignments and lose everything" mechanic allows for more interesting characters, especially when it comes to NPCs. If the DM sees the player actively acting outside of his faith, it's not hard to have the other members of the church, or even the deity itself, take notice and try to do something about it. 3.) The thing is this character is still completely doable in 4th. The only difference is the party's Paladin can't just walk around casting detect evil on everything to know who's corrupt and who isn't. Now it's possible for a lawful evil character to actually decieve a party that has a paladin or cleric. It's potentially storybreaking to have a walking evil detector with the party at all times. 4.) Well there's still the looser alignments that can act as a rough guide as to what a diety looks for. But really, the deities still have writeups that say what they govern and what they stand for. So it's not really any harder to say "this guy doesn't make sense as a follower of Kord" or anything like that. 1) I never said that it was a good excuse. Actually, it isn't. It just is a knee-jerk reaction that does play a role in the reluctance to accept a change. 2) I stated a few times that I have never played the 4th ed., so I do not know how alignment works in the new system. As far as non lawful good paladins go, I can tell you that in previous editions that anti-paladins, dark paladins, scourge knights, and blackhearts popped up in about nearly every set of house rules long before the blackguards were officially introduced. Hell, I created a homebrew class called The Sons of Aries. They were essentially paladins in the service of Aries. They lost a few paladin ability, but the ceremony to introduce them to the sect turned them into minotaurs (albeit with a ram's head as opposed to a bull's head). The challenge to play a Son of Aries is that alignment is variable because every one of them is schizophrenic. The ceremony that makes them a "ramotaur" also splits their psyche. This is because the sole mission of a Son of Aries is to incite large scale armed conflict wherever they may roam. Since the various reasons that war is waged is diverse, so must the Sons of Aries be. Sometimes they need to be lawful good, prompting the masses to rise against an evil ruler. Sometimes they needed to be lawful evil, prompting nobles with even a minor claim to a throne to take their "rightful place" by force. Sometimes they needed to be chaotic evil, inflaming the bloodlust of a local goblin horde. Whatever the reason needed to prompt war, a Son of Aries had a unique personality that could get the job done. The challenge for the player was to surround themselves with a party that could tolerate all of the different personalities. 3) The point is that the only reason that the noble would be suspected would have been the detect evil ability. It is a forced political intrigue for a group of individuals who are not exactly the best capable of handling it, but feel that they must do so because no one else can see the noble for what he truly is. 4) The deities themselves were never truly the issue. Even the lowest level quasi-deity understands the nature of all individuals better than any mortal could hope to. It is their followers, who not only lack that understanding but also are too fanatic to understand that their deity of choice might choose to show mercy to certain individuals for any number of reasons beyond mortal comprehension. Detection spells triggered the more fanatical sects to do all sorts of things. Sure, you can still have them do those same things, but without the rules forcing it, you might not get your players to do the same things.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 25, 2009 20:25:37 GMT -5
2.) I don't really see how that kind of character needs a full alignment system to function. I mean just because you don't have to worry about alignment changes from a game mechanics POV, doesn't mean personality changes are restricted and players and NPCs won't have to deal with character behavior.
As far as Paladins go, I personally prefer just having a base paladin class that can be any alignment than have to use a bunch of house rules, prestige classes, etc. to do the same thing for other alignments. In the case of your example of the schizo minotaur either edition would require heavy amounts of houseruling and improv either way.
3.) This can easily be handled by the DM dropping some sort of hint of the noble's true intent. That's more interesting than someone just magically being able to know anyway. Besides, what if the DM doesn't want his players to know the noble is evil, and plans to make it a big plot twist to surprise the PCs? Detect evil can completely ruin that.
4.) I just think that in a narrative sense, you can do more without a strict alignment system. I'd rather the players and NPCs discover these things through more natural means.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 20:33:55 GMT -5
Alignment is a very particular and fragile kind of rule. Players and DMs need to be careful in it's use, but overall, it does increase roleplaying and creativity. The above example of the pirates getting killed by good characters IMO, is an example of the system being abused. How bad and evil were these pirates? Were the neutral good characters punished just as harshly as the lawful good ones? Were the pirates still attacking, despite being in the water? Did the pirates attack first? Again, IMO, the chaotic good player was shown huge favortism by the DM. Attacking the pirates in the water, if they were "helpless" was not an act of law, neutrality, or chaos, but of good, neutral, or evil. The chaotic good character "murdered" (an evil act, not a chaotic one) these supposedly "helpless" pirates just as much as the lawful and neutral ones did, and should have been punished just as harshly. I will defend my DM for those actions for a number of reasons. 1) My character was the lone chaotic neutral character in the party. I always had to try to sneak my less than honorable actions, and more than once I had the party draw their weapons against me because they (rightly) thought that I was about to do something completely against their morals. The conflict of good and almost evil in our party had become a major theme for our adventures, as half of the party wanted to save me from making that leap to evil and the other half of the party only followed me around because they felt that I needed to be contained and no one had witnessed me do anything that would earn me being locked up or executed.....yet. 2) Our DM tried to stay historically accurate whenever possible. Historically speaking, mid-evil sailors were weak swimmers, if they could swim at all. The pirates in the water were struggling mightily. They were no threat any longer. Even if they could get back to ship, their weapons had sunk to the bottom of the sea. Killing them was unnecessary, and in our game unnecessary killing was an affront to the chief god of good in our game. Not to mention, they were all dishonorable kills. That was fine for my character, but the rest of the party were followers of a god who did not tolerate such behavior. What they should have done was to stop me from killing the helpless pirates, save the pirates from drowning, and turn them over to the proper authorities so that they could stand trial. Sure, the pirates would have then been executed, but it would have been done the legal way that way. 3) My character was not punished because they would have been executed anyways, so I was merely carrying out their punishment early. It was not legal, but not evil either. Therefore, I bucked the legal system (a chaotic act) rather than committing an evil act.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 21:11:38 GMT -5
2.) I don't really see how that kind of character needs a full alignment system to function. I mean just because you don't have to worry about alignment changes from a game mechanics POV, doesn't mean personality changes are restricted and players and NPCs won't have to deal with character behavior. As far as Paladins go, I personally prefer just having a base paladin class that can be any alignment than have to use a bunch of house rules, prestige classes, etc. to do the same thing for other alignments. In the case of your example of the schizo minotaur either edition would require heavy amounts of houseruling and improv either way. 3.) This can easily be handled by the DM dropping some sort of hint of the noble's true intent. That's more interesting than someone just magically being able to know anyway. Besides, what if the DM doesn't want his players to know the noble is evil, and plans to make it a big plot twist to surprise the PCs? Detect evil can completely ruin that. 4.) I just think that in a narrative sense, you can do more without a strict alignment system. I'd rather the players and NPCs discover these things through more natural means. 2) Oh, I know all that. I will repeat that I do not know much about the 4th ed. Most of those things that I mentioned did require house rules. I have no problem as a GM to create my own house rules to deal with anything that I fell is missing (including any alignment rules that I feel are truly necessary (which I admit most were not, but they could be easily enough worked around). 3) Actually, in most instances the noble in question would have a hide alignment spell in place. If I as DM were to drop hints to the players that the guy was evil, those same hints should also be recognized by others, and the point was to have the party realize that he is evil and no one else would know based on evidence that no one else can witness. 4) True, most character classes would work just as well without any alignment rules. I have no argument with that. It is only when select classes are involved that it should matter in the slightest. Clerics (dependent on their specific deity), paladins, rangers, and cavaliers (an early 2nd ed. class) all had a specific set of codes that needed to be followed in return for the special abilities granted them. Now, perhaps these classes are no longer that special and therefore no longer need to be balanced that way. I don't know. 5) New point that I just thought of, but without alignment there are no longer alignment-associated magic items (as in Jack's paladin took damage by merely picking up that sceptre that was in the dragon's hoard). How many times had anyone actually when on an adventure to be able to get something for that powerful magic item that no one in the party can use because their alignment was wrong? It is another tool for a DM, provided the DM is creative.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 25, 2009 22:50:39 GMT -5
Alignment is a very particular and fragile kind of rule. Players and DMs need to be careful in it's use, but overall, it does increase roleplaying and creativity. The above example of the pirates getting killed by good characters IMO, is an example of the system being abused. How bad and evil were these pirates? Were the neutral good characters punished just as harshly as the lawful good ones? Were the pirates still attacking, despite being in the water? Did the pirates attack first? Again, IMO, the chaotic good player was shown huge favortism by the DM. Attacking the pirates in the water, if they were "helpless" was not an act of law, neutrality, or chaos, but of good, neutral, or evil. The chaotic good character "murdered" (an evil act, not a chaotic one) these supposedly "helpless" pirates just as much as the lawful and neutral ones did, and should have been punished just as harshly. I will defend my DM for those actions for a number of reasons. 1) My character was the lone chaotic neutral character in the party. I always had to try to sneak my less than honorable actions, and more than once I had the party draw their weapons against me because they (rightly) thought that I was about to do something completely against their morals. The conflict of good and almost evil in our party had become a major theme for our adventures, as half of the party wanted to save me from making that leap to evil and the other half of the party only followed me around because they felt that I needed to be contained and no one had witnessed me do anything that would earn me being locked up or executed.....yet. 2) Our DM tried to stay historically accurate whenever possible. Historically speaking, mid-evil sailors were weak swimmers, if they could swim at all. The pirates in the water were struggling mightily. They were no threat any longer. Even if they could get back to ship, their weapons had sunk to the bottom of the sea. Killing them was unnecessary, and in our game unnecessary killing was an affront to the chief god of good in our game. Not to mention, they were all dishonorable kills. That was fine for my character, but the rest of the party were followers of a god who did not tolerate such behavior. What they should have done was to stop me from killing the helpless pirates, save the pirates from drowning, and turn them over to the proper authorities so that they could stand trial. Sure, the pirates would have then been executed, but it would have been done the legal way that way. 3) My character was not punished because they would have been executed anyways, so I was merely carrying out their punishment early. It was not legal, but not evil either. Therefore, I bucked the legal system (a chaotic act) rather than committing an evil act. D'OH! I have no idea how or why I got this impression, but I thought your character was chaotic good when I first read your post. If he was chaotic neutral, than he would be fine with the actions he took and not need to be punished (playing alignment). I must ask, though, when your party was teleported to the god of good's home plane, did they try to fight? Because if they didn't, then I think the DM should have been a bit easier on them, especially if any of them tried to plead their case or beg for forgiveness or something like that. If the god just dropped some uber avatar on them that was an unreasonable killing machine, I have to question the god of good's ethics on this.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 25, 2009 23:09:14 GMT -5
There actually IS alignment still in 4th, so it's still possible to have items like that. I'm pretty sure there are official items that are keyed to alignments. There are just very, VERY few game mechanics that actually bother with alignment, and it's streamlined a bit. Basically alignment is mostly there for flavor now.
You are correct, 4th edition does balance things a lot dfferently. Every class gets the same number of powers and gains them at the same levels, barring an exception here and there. And no class is more powerful than the others. So forcing two classes to play with the risk of losing all their powers while the others do not would be pretty unfair. It's basically assumed that when the cleric/pally first becomes their class, they are granted their powers in a special ritual, and then they always have them. If they ditch their faith, they still have them...but they probably just pissed off a lot of the church, an maybe even the diety itself. So like I said above, alignment is still there, but it's been changed from a mechanical thing to a flavor thing.
|
|