Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3829891" data-attributes="member: 24970">Personally, I'd be into the idea of having certain monsters (outsiders, or whatever they're called in 4e, and undead and so on) have definite Alignments, and humans not necessarily having definite alignments. The idea that most human behavior is ambigious, BUT there are also Supernatural Forces of Good and Evil above it all. I certainly think that alignments are useful for NPCs and monsters in a game of Gods and supernatural powers. So if it's something like that -- you have the option of making your character Devoted To The Forces of Good, or you can just be a normal person of ambiguous morality -- then I could get behind that, I guess.Speaking of past editions, I think 3.x has probably done the most to enforce group cohesion by technically not allowing PCs to be of evil alignments. If you look at 1e and 2e, they do say vague things like "It's probably best if the PCs are of similar alignment", but then they have those lists of examples of how a "theoretical" party composed of 9 characters of different alignments would act if they were together. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The biggest alignment-based intra-party action I've ever been involved in was attacking another PC because he was going to kill a prisoner. I believe I did land a blow on him. Then the DM intervened somehow, I forget how, and the prisoners ended up getting away and we didn't kill eachother any more. It was a nice tense moment, though.Personally, I would be very into a D&D campaign where the characters start out in a group and then end up on potentially different paths as the game progresses, and maybe even become enemies, due to their differing goals and morality. (But then it involves splitting the party up, of course... so that's a whole 'nother issue...)</blockquote>

Verification