Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="edemaitre" data-source="post: 3117717" data-attributes="member: 3372">AlignmentsYes, for a more realistic game, you can just not use alignments, as many D20/OGL settings have done. However, in a world where multiple deities exist, Clerics heal, Paladins smite, and Necromancers pervert the natural order by raising and controlling undead, it's hard to use the D&amp;D3.5 conventions without having alignments.I usually recommend to my role-players that a new party of good and neutral characters is more likely to be successful than one with evil ones, but once they start adventuring, they're free to choose what to do, which is then reflected in my assessment of any alignment shifts. Most groups eventually have to deal with the ethical issues of slavery, privacy (via mind reading), the use of poison or torture, and whether to grant surrendered opponents mercy. As the real world has shown, even honorable organizations and people with good intentions can make horrible mistakes or deliberately compromise their values.For characters other than Clerics, Monks, Druids, and Paladins, alignment doesn't restrict their behavior much. In my world, Barbarians can be lawful, and Druids and Rangers only need to have Neutral as part of their alignment (NG, CN, NE, LN, not just TN). A game based on cooperation, heroic goals, and defeating monsters and villians should encourage moral behavior, in and out of character. I didn't like the censoring of &quot;demons&quot; and &quot;devils&quot; from AD&amp;D2, but in order to recruit younger players into our hobby, we should be aware of the sensibilities of parents and the general public.However, not every game must do so (I've enjoyed the occasional evil party in D&amp;D, the World of Darkness, or cyberpunk/Paranoia). It depends on the Game Master and player preferences...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="edemaitre, post: 3117717, member: 3372"] [b]Alignments[/b] Yes, for a more realistic game, you can just not use alignments, as many D20/OGL settings have done. However, in a world where multiple deities exist, Clerics heal, Paladins smite, and Necromancers pervert the natural order by raising and controlling undead, it's hard to use the D&D3.5 conventions without having alignments. I usually recommend to my role-players that a new party of good and neutral characters is more likely to be successful than one with evil ones, but once they start adventuring, they're free to choose what to do, which is then reflected in my assessment of any alignment shifts. Most groups eventually have to deal with the ethical issues of slavery, privacy (via mind reading), the use of poison or torture, and whether to grant surrendered opponents mercy. As the real world has shown, even honorable organizations and people with good intentions can make horrible mistakes or deliberately compromise their values. For characters other than Clerics, Monks, Druids, and Paladins, alignment doesn't restrict their behavior much. In my world, Barbarians can be lawful, and Druids and Rangers only need to have Neutral as part of their alignment (NG, CN, NE, LN, not just TN). A game based on cooperation, heroic goals, and defeating monsters and villians should encourage moral behavior, in and out of character. I didn't like the censoring of "demons" and "devils" from AD&D2, but in order to recruit younger players into our hobby, we should be aware of the sensibilities of parents and the general public. However, not every game must do so (I've enjoyed the occasional evil party in D&D, the World of Darkness, or cyberpunk/Paranoia). It depends on the Game Master and player preferences... [/QUOTE]

Verification