Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 5776206" data-attributes="member: 71756">This is true, a large part of the failures of alignment have been in explanation, I think.However, I'd disagree that the number of specific alignments doesn't entirely matter: I think the 5 alignments of 4e are still overly narrow and miss out on the rich law vs. chaos dynamic of previous editions. Although that's more of an issue regarding naming and theme than anything else, I suppose.&nbsp;QFT. Alignment shouldn't be a straight jacket - it should be an impetus for player action and a motivator for characters. It's supposed to be a tool for roleplaying, not a roadblock. This is one of the reasons why I've always supported the idea of allowing players to switch their alignments if their chosen one doesn't end up fitting them. Of course, divine characters sometimes get the shaft in this regard, though as a DM I'd grant them a warning period and the opportunity to switch gods if things get to troublesome.&nbsp;Making the meaning of alignments clear to players is a must, as you say, and equally the responsibility of the DM and the rules themselves. What you say about &quot;mission statements&quot; is also a very good one and is similar to an idea I read earlier on the WotC forums about rewarding players with XP or other prizes for following their alignment, rather than simply punishing them for deviations.In the end, the way alignment works should be, like many things, a kind of contract between the DM and the players. If the players act outside of their alignment, there are consequences, though hopefully they're minor enough that switching alignments isn't unquestionable. On the other hand, if the players act out their alignment and stick to their character, they're rewarded for their efforts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nivenus, post: 5776206, member: 71756"] This is true, a large part of the failures of alignment have been in explanation, I think. However, I'd disagree that the number of specific alignments doesn't entirely matter: I think the 5 alignments of 4e are still overly narrow and miss out on the rich law vs. chaos dynamic of previous editions. Although that's more of an issue regarding naming and theme than anything else, I suppose. QFT. Alignment shouldn't be a straight jacket - it should be an impetus for player action and a motivator for characters. It's supposed to be a tool for roleplaying, not a roadblock. This is one of the reasons why I've always supported the idea of allowing players to switch their alignments if their chosen one doesn't end up fitting them. Of course, divine characters sometimes get the shaft in this regard, though as a DM I'd grant them a warning period and the opportunity to switch gods if things get to troublesome. Making the meaning of alignments clear to players is a must, as you say, and equally the responsibility of the DM and the rules themselves. What you say about "mission statements" is also a very good one and is similar to an idea I read earlier on the WotC forums about rewarding players with XP or other prizes for following their alignment, rather than simply punishing them for deviations. In the end, the way alignment works should be, like many things, a kind of contract between the DM and the players. If the players act outside of their alignment, there are consequences, though hopefully they're minor enough that switching alignments isn't unquestionable. On the other hand, if the players act out their alignment and stick to their character, they're rewarded for their efforts. [/QUOTE]

Verification