Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Bring back alignments?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5634526" data-attributes="member: 1165"><p>A lot of players and DMs (I blame the PH 2e) didn't see it this way. They saw alignment as a "straightjacket". It didn't help that 2e had punitive rules for changing alignments (even going from "neutral good" to "lawful good", or that real-life people are not always consistent in any aspect of behavior).</p><p></p><p>Making matters worse, alignment is always subject to interpretation. And whose interpretation is important? The DM's, as they're the only person who can "punish" a PC for acting "out-of-alignment". This meant that whatever two letters you wrote on your character sheet could be "wrong". IMO, the DM should write down your alignment, not the player, and only after a few sessions of play. After all, what a player thinks is "lawful good" might not match a DM's definition.</p><p></p><p>You could be told "you shouldn't do that, you're lawful" or even players tell themselves "I shouldn't do that, I'm evil".</p><p></p><p>And <strong>worse</strong>, when alignment was part of some classes, like paladins and monks. It's a bigger deal if the player and DM don't agree on alignments then. I thought the paladin should be a PrC, where the player has to "prove" they can meet paladin ideals before taking that class, due to this issue. (And that's aside from the paladin code, which had issues beyond alignment.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You can play a character like that without an artificial, out-of-character structure that can be misinterpreted (sparking arguments), shackled to you by a DM, thrown away because the DM doesn't care, etc.</p><p></p><p>This was my problem with alignment interpretation:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's from TVTropes, and they list all nine alignments there - I just chose lawful evil. Why are they describing alignments better than TSR and WotC?</p><p></p><p>Never mind that, maybe my mind just needs a cane to understand WotC's incomplete explanations. Instead, look at how they have three different ways of being lawful evil.</p><p></p><p>And because they clarify it this way, I can then clearly state that I like types 2 and 3, but don't think type 1 is, in fact, lawful evil.</p><p></p><p>It was pretty hard to argue with a DM without this kind of baseline. But is there even a point? Maybe it's better to take away the philosophical battles unless you're playing Planescape.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 5634526, member: 1165"] A lot of players and DMs (I blame the PH 2e) didn't see it this way. They saw alignment as a "straightjacket". It didn't help that 2e had punitive rules for changing alignments (even going from "neutral good" to "lawful good", or that real-life people are not always consistent in any aspect of behavior). Making matters worse, alignment is always subject to interpretation. And whose interpretation is important? The DM's, as they're the only person who can "punish" a PC for acting "out-of-alignment". This meant that whatever two letters you wrote on your character sheet could be "wrong". IMO, the DM should write down your alignment, not the player, and only after a few sessions of play. After all, what a player thinks is "lawful good" might not match a DM's definition. You could be told "you shouldn't do that, you're lawful" or even players tell themselves "I shouldn't do that, I'm evil". And [b]worse[/b], when alignment was part of some classes, like paladins and monks. It's a bigger deal if the player and DM don't agree on alignments then. I thought the paladin should be a PrC, where the player has to "prove" they can meet paladin ideals before taking that class, due to this issue. (And that's aside from the paladin code, which had issues beyond alignment.) You can play a character like that without an artificial, out-of-character structure that can be misinterpreted (sparking arguments), shackled to you by a DM, thrown away because the DM doesn't care, etc. This was my problem with alignment interpretation: That's from TVTropes, and they list all nine alignments there - I just chose lawful evil. Why are they describing alignments better than TSR and WotC? Never mind that, maybe my mind just needs a cane to understand WotC's incomplete explanations. Instead, look at how they have three different ways of being lawful evil. And because they clarify it this way, I can then clearly state that I like types 2 and 3, but don't think type 1 is, in fact, lawful evil. It was pretty hard to argue with a DM without this kind of baseline. But is there even a point? Maybe it's better to take away the philosophical battles unless you're playing Planescape. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Bring back alignments?
Top