Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="am181d" data-source="post: 6042547" data-attributes="member: 3576">The problem with early versions of the D&D alignment system was that they tended to assume there were only 9 possible responses to any situation and that they would fit neatly into a three-by-three grid.In a more realistic approach, there are a near infinite range of personalities that might be mapped to the grid, and you might see a wide range of behaviors all falling under Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, etc. Two Lawful Evil characters might have little in common and respond completely differently to the same situation.Similarly, there may be times when a Chaotic Evil character might behave in a way that's more Good or Lawful. That might be because the CE character has some moral exception (say to spare children) or more devious motives (sparing children to bamboozle a paladin). None of this requires an alignment shift, because the character's personality ON BALANCE hasn't changed.The problems you run into come when the DM tries to micromanage ethics. There will always be black-and-white cases (e.g. the paladin who goes on a bloody rampage through town unprompted), but generally DMs should give players the benefit of the doubt that their characters' alignments are correct.I know this goes against how alignment is written by-the-RAW in some editions, but alignment (like experience point gain) is one of the rules of the game that's best left arm-waived.</blockquote>