Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3679412" data-attributes="member: 4937">That's not entirely true.&nbsp; I believe much of the angst about alignments comes from one of the three following things:1) DM's who use alignment as an excuse for playing the the PC.&nbsp; 'No, you can't do that because you're Chaotic Good' or worse yet, &quot;Because you are Chaotic Good, you do this.&quot;&nbsp; 2) The old first edition occurance of a DM springing on the player that his actions constituted an alignment change, and therefore he's lost a level.&nbsp; 3) In any edition, DM's springing on the player that his actions constitute an alignment change, and now he's just lost all paladin/barbarian/druid/cleric/whatever class abilities.After a player gets burned by that, or maybe he just lives in the paranoid fear of that, he tends to look on alignments as a bad thing.&nbsp; Most of these problems can be overcome by maintaining the separation between what the DM controls (everything but the PC), and what the player controls (the PC), and by better DM communication and a little less DM big stick.Personally, I get sick and tired of hearing players whine about alignment.&nbsp; Virtually every system has an alignment system of some sort.&nbsp; D&amp;D's just happens to be abstract and suited to high fantasy.&nbsp; I've heard complaints about how you shouldn't have alignment so many freaking times, that I could probably classify the sort of players that always bring it up.&nbsp; If you don't like the restrictiveness of D&amp;D alignments, play a neutral.&nbsp; If you claim that 'in the real world people don't have alignments', realize that that is in itself an alignment stance corresponding to an alignment.&nbsp; If you think you're characterization is too complex to classify, explain it to me, and I'll asign something to you and leave you to your characterization (generally, its a neutral).&nbsp; If you don't like the idea of actions having predictable consequences in a fantasy game, find someone else to DM.&nbsp; Otherwise, don't let it worry you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3679412, member: 4937"] That's not entirely true. I believe much of the angst about alignments comes from one of the three following things: 1) DM's who use alignment as an excuse for playing the the PC. 'No, you can't do that because you're Chaotic Good' or worse yet, "Because you are Chaotic Good, you do this." 2) The old first edition occurance of a DM springing on the player that his actions constituted an alignment change, and therefore he's lost a level. 3) In any edition, DM's springing on the player that his actions constitute an alignment change, and now he's just lost all paladin/barbarian/druid/cleric/whatever class abilities. After a player gets burned by that, or maybe he just lives in the paranoid fear of that, he tends to look on alignments as a bad thing. Most of these problems can be overcome by maintaining the separation between what the DM controls (everything but the PC), and what the player controls (the PC), and by better DM communication and a little less DM big stick. Personally, I get sick and tired of hearing players whine about alignment. Virtually every system has an alignment system of some sort. D&D's just happens to be abstract and suited to high fantasy. I've heard complaints about how you shouldn't have alignment so many freaking times, that I could probably classify the sort of players that always bring it up. If you don't like the restrictiveness of D&D alignments, play a neutral. If you claim that 'in the real world people don't have alignments', realize that that is in itself an alignment stance corresponding to an alignment. If you think you're characterization is too complex to classify, explain it to me, and I'll asign something to you and leave you to your characterization (generally, its a neutral). If you don't like the idea of actions having predictable consequences in a fantasy game, find someone else to DM. Otherwise, don't let it worry you. [/QUOTE]

Verification