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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 3832918" data-attributes="member: 55846">I agree that there should be the implicit assumption and encouragement of white-hat, heroic play in the core books of D&D.  Even "bad boy" races and classes like tieflings and fiend-powered warlocks should have an underlying subtext that these will be used for dark heroes that struggle against their natures.  This doesn't mean that evil adventuring should be disallowed (how could it, practically?), but the core books and most adventures should definitely encourage playing the good guys.I don't know if we need an alignment system of the Lawful-Chaotic, Good-Evil sort to do this, though.  If the players want to play destructive, evil characters, I have a hard time believing that telling them no "Evilly aligned characters allowed" will have much more effect than telling them "no evil characters allowed".  If you can't tell them without alignment, I don't think telling them with the mention of alignment will do the job.As to simplifying the alignment system to just Lawful/Chaotic, as in the early D&D games, I really don't see the appeal.  It's even *less* descriptive than the two axis system.  I'm a DM using an adventure that notes that a merchant is Chaotic.  What do I do with this information?  Is he more likely to cheat the adventurers?  Is he some kind of rebel or freedom fighter?  If the merchant across the way is noted as Lawful, are they somehow opposed to each other?  Is the rebel leader of a small band of men fighting a Lawful theocracy Chaotic?  What if he has a large army?  What if he's the king of a smaller kingdom?  If you're an absolute dictator who can make all the laws in the kingdom and demand that all obey your every whim, are you Lawful or Chaotic?  What if you believe strongly in freedom and individuality for your race, but slavery for lessers?   It's got all the problems of Good/Evil, just fewer people bothering to argue about it.</blockquote>

Verification