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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haradim" data-source="post: 1514497" data-attributes="member: 8468">Alignment and personality are intended to go hand-in-hand. If you are Good, you get a G on your character sheet. If you are Evil, you get an E. Where the problem arises is in how the players understand the DM's alignments, and if they invest more importance into alignment than is intended. It's supposed to be not much more than a tag, and a very changable one at that.I don't see a problem here. Much of what you refer to arises from someone posting a moral issue onto the Internet, where of course all the people commenting on the matter will have different interpretations. There is no alignment in our world to base things on, so naturally everyone will have their own criteria for what is what.Alignment is meant to be molded around the style and theme of the campaign/setting, and for the ins and outs of alignment to be defined by the DM. It is also something that is influenced by the GMs personal interests and outlook. Solid, thorough rules on alignment aren't necessarily useful to publish in the rulebooks (and would probably require significant space), especially since what is currently in the PHB is perfectly servicable if you aren't *really* that concerned about the complexities of morality (which is probably what is assumed to be the 'default' way of playing DnD); the rest, though, is just best left to the DM, to get what he wants from his own specific setting or interpretation of an existing setting.That's my 2 bits anyway <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification