Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tom Cashel" data-source="post: 813225" data-attributes="member: 321">Or their importance downgraded a bit.&nbsp; In the Alignment Situations I, II, III, etc. threads, I thought that good characters would all try to achieve the same end (good) but they would go about it in different ways (law, neutrality, chaos).For example, take the scenario in which a bunch of murderous, (but also weak and outgunned) rogues attack the PCs at dusk outside a city. It goes without saying that all good characters should take prisoners rather than slitting the throats of men already bleeding to death, or simply letting them die.&nbsp; The lawful good character might want to bring the miscreants to justice, and see that they are prosecuted.&nbsp; The chaotic good character might want to leave the crooks with the watch and be off, or simply let them go and learn a lesson.&nbsp; The neutral good character might not care one way or the other.&nbsp; Or a hundred other outcomes, depending on the players involved!What is important is not the way they go about things; it's the fact that they didn't respond to the attack of desperate men (not orcs, not goblins, but men) with outright slaughter.&nbsp; What's important is the good or the evil.&nbsp; The things we can all agree on.&nbsp; The rest of it...the law, the chaos, the neutrality... all that should be considered window dressing.For a character whose ethos has a direct effect on their abilities, the player and the DM need to decide beforehand &quot;what it means&quot; to be that PC's alignment.&nbsp; Then the PC sticks to it, and the DM remains the arbiter of when the PC has stepped out of line.Wow...I just read back.&nbsp; That was all long-winded and imperious.&nbsp; Just an idea is all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tom Cashel, post: 813225, member: 321"] Or their importance downgraded a bit. In the [i]Alignment Situations I, II, III[/i], etc. threads, I thought that good characters would all try to achieve the same end (good) but they would go about it in different ways (law, neutrality, chaos). For example, take the scenario in which a bunch of murderous, (but also weak and outgunned) rogues attack the PCs at dusk outside a city. It goes without saying that all good characters should take prisoners rather than slitting the throats of men already bleeding to death, or simply letting them die. The lawful good character might want to bring the miscreants to justice, and see that they are prosecuted. The chaotic good character might want to leave the crooks with the watch and be off, or simply let them go and learn a lesson. The neutral good character might not care one way or the other. Or a hundred other outcomes, depending on the players involved! What is important is not the way they go about things; it's the fact that they didn't respond to the attack of desperate men (not orcs, not goblins, but [i]men[/i]) with outright slaughter. What's important is the [i]good[/i] or the [i]evil[/i]. The things we can all agree on. The rest of it...the law, the chaos, the neutrality... all that should be considered window dressing. For a character whose ethos has a direct effect on their abilities, the player and the DM need to decide beforehand "what it means" to be that PC's alignment. Then the PC sticks to it, and the DM remains the arbiter of when the PC has stepped out of line. Wow...I just read back. That was all long-winded and imperious. Just an idea is all. [/QUOTE]

Verification