Talk:Sin, Virtue, Anarchy and Order (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings
== Resource Management: The Game ==

Apart from my dislike that this is just adding another resource or number for you to keep track of in a game where you have to keep track of a million and one resources at any one time, I don't really... get it. I understand the mechanics, but I don't get why. Like what happens if you have Charisma and Wisdom 10. Does this mean you somehow start off as non-virtuous? or non-complete-dickbag?

This is just another thing for a DM to keep track of, really. What's the point? --TK-Squared 14:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Intended as more a tool for the players and GM to cooperate on. It is more or less a compromise between the extremes of "alignment dictates action" GM control issue bullshit and "alignment is just a tag" player weaseling bullshit. It is intended to be a score that both the player and the GM can look at to decide if the player is going darkside or lightside. It also answers the time-old question "can paladins kill baby kobolds?" Yes, but at the cost of their divine status unless they were irredeemably good before. As for the question, it is up to the players and how they spend their points.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Prehaps I should clarify on your question. If your wisdom and charisma are 10, then you have 10 points to spend on both the Sin/Virtue and the Anarchy/Order axis. These points may be freely spent between the two opposing forces, thus literally any range of alignment is possible. Indeed, the only Time you could have issues is if you had a starting wisdom or charisma of 2, which would force neutrality.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooooor your DM could realize that alignment is a reflection of outlook and not a means of control. Instead it is a description no more controlling that writing "red hair" on your character sheet.  If your DM does not current do this, teach him, and you will have a better DM for it.
 * ...nah, too simple. Quick, add more rules! -- Eiji-kun 01:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hah. What Eiji said--I find the best way to use alignment is to deepen characters, where the current motif is to limit characters, making them more shallow with the current law/evil/good/chaos axes. The alignment system I've found to be thus best for deepening characters thus far is the Color Wheel, players choosing specific colors as starting points for both positive and negative character traits for their characters as a jump-off point to building a more complex character. --Ghostwheel 07:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I do like that system. If anything this is as I labeled it- a bastard child of the WoD Morality system and the SWd20 Force rules. Whether it is right for your play style is up to you.
 * As for Eijis comment, I agree that is way better. Unfortunately, not every GM is that emotionally mature, as I'm sure nearly everyone has experienced.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Final Pair of Ducks
Spaz you dunderhead, ye didn't understand the point in what you're quoting. I'm saying 'I save puppies from trees, ergo I am lawful good' and not 'I am lawful good, therefore I must save puppies from trees'. What a character sees himself as has nothing to do with it, since the D&D universe doesn't care. In fact, D&D has absolute morality since good and evil are practically elemental forces that happen to align with saving puppies and eating babies, so a guy can claim he's good all he wants... he's still gonna be associated with elemental Evil when it comes to how spells and stuff interact with him. Your point is silly and you take 10d6 shame damage. -- Eiji-kun 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You were distinctly saying the latter. From the quote, you have stated that "alignment is a reflection of outlook". Your words, not mine. Outlook based alignment is the alignment dictates action end of the spectrum, or "I am lawful good, therefore I must save puppies from trees" end as you put it. If alignment is as you describe at the end of your remark, then your privious quote and statement are contradictory. Good and evil are absolutes, as my rant descibes and as you (I think) agree.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)