NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6078817" data-attributes="member: 336">I find the alignment restrictions fall into a similar bucket as the level restrictions for demihumans.  In campaigns where you never reached those levels the restrictions were not really a restriction - therefore not a problem.  In campaigns where the table had no problem with "opinions" of alignment the alignment restrictions pose no problem.  But alignment has been one of the most debated, if not the most debated system in D&D since its inception.  The fact that table A has never had a problem with the system says nothing about the viability of the system.  It just says that table A has no problem with it.  As soon as table B reports problems with it, then the system should, at least, be examined in light of the information from table B.  If the system cannot be improved based on the information from table B, that's fair enough.  It does not mean that it should not be looked at, with at least a critical eye.  If it can be done better, then the game designer should try to make it better.In matters of flavor, I prefer when the system is not mechanically restrictive and mostly stays out of the way.  In that manner I can take or leave flavor and it doesn't impact my game (little to no work).Example:Race A is chaotic. Their outlook in life is chaotic.  Their way of life is chaotic.  Their system of government, if you can call it that, is chaotic.  Monks can only be lawful.Based on the flavor for a race, and a restrictive flavor mechanic I've closed up avenues for players to play what they want.  The player has an RP flavor that he likes and wants to emulate (chaotic race).  It fits well with his idea for the PC.  Then he has a restriction that he can't play a monk, his favorite class.  Why is the monk lawful?  Is it a mechanical balancing issue?  No, it's entirely a flavor issue.  In this case flavor is dictating for flavor's sake, not because there is a good mechanical reason for it.If the player wants to play a race A monk he has to be lawful.  He likes the flavor of the race and has a good concept for his PC, but he can't play his desired class RAW.  If the DM is willing to work with it and lifts the restriction, no problem.  But what if the DM does not like changing the rules?  For whatever reason, asshattery to lack of experience?  It doesn't matter what the reason, a flavor only restriction has now become a problem.If on the other hand, the rules are silent on the alignment of a monk.  However, there is a "flavor sidebar" that explains that some campaigns may decide to impose alignment restrictions to get certain flavor.  This sidebar can show example of a lawful monk, a lawful good paladin, a chaotic rogue, a neutral druid, etc.  There can be another sidebar that talks about enmity between certain races for flavor.  In this case, the general rule is non-restrictive.  The DM can consciously make it more restrictive, and the sidebar shows him some examples.  But the player is not automatically prevented from his desired choices.  This is similar to "opting-in" to a particular option rather than being automatically forced to that option, with additional work if you want to opt-out.</blockquote>

Verification