Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 8443647" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!As usual, someone is misinterpreting how Alignment works in AD&amp;D (and I guess D&amp;D, by proxy), again. Well, according to how I've always seen it since day 5 or 6 back in December of 1980. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The video in question claims D&amp;D is a &quot;restrictive&quot; system. It isn't. That's not how it works. It's more like a combination of Restrictive and Cumulative. Your AL in D&amp;D is what you &quot;fall into&quot; based on your actions. You can do, and are expected to do, whatever your PC, well, would do. It's that whole &quot;would do&quot; that people get confused on. FAR too many people think &quot;I want to kick her in the teeth!...but My PC is NG, so I'll just shove her to the ground and threaten to call the watch&quot;. Which is fine, if you are interested in playing the &quot;maintain my current alignment&quot; part of the game. BUT... it's just as &quot;correct&quot; to just up and kick the thief/thug/whatever in the teeth because it suits that particular characters personality of having an absolute LOATHING of thieves/thugs from something in their past/background. The DM then notes this down and the Player keeps playing. It is only when multiple actions (or a handful of 'big' actions) that go directly against the stated AL of the PC that the DM then steps in and says &quot;Er...your character isn't NG anymore after that last little 'incident'. The one involving you pushing the beggar into the well...where he drowned. You're TN now&quot;. That's why I find it strange hearing anyone playing D&amp;D saying &quot;You wouldn't do that! You're [insert AL]&quot; as some sort of immutable rule that precludes a character from doing ABC or XYZ. The PC can do whatever they want. It's their ACTIONS that determine their ALIGNMENT...not the other way around.Hence... AD&amp;D alignment is a &quot;base&quot; of Restrictive, with actual &quot;play&quot; being Cumulative.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 8443647, member: 45197"] Hiya! As usual, someone is misinterpreting how Alignment works in AD&D (and I guess D&D, by proxy), again. Well, according to how I've always seen it since day 5 or 6 back in December of 1980. ;) The video in question claims D&D is a "restrictive" system. It isn't. That's not how it works. It's more like a combination of Restrictive and Cumulative. Your AL in D&D is what you "fall into" based on your actions. You can do, and are expected to do, whatever your PC, well, would do. It's that whole "would do" that people get confused on. FAR too many people think "I want to kick her in the teeth!...but My PC is NG, so I'll just shove her to the ground and threaten to call the watch". Which is fine, if you are interested in playing the "maintain my current alignment" part of the game. BUT... it's just as "correct" to just up and kick the thief/thug/whatever in the teeth because it suits that particular characters personality of having an absolute LOATHING of thieves/thugs from something in their past/background. The DM then notes this down and the Player keeps playing. It is only when multiple actions (or a handful of 'big' actions) that go directly against the stated AL of the PC that the DM then steps in and says "Er...your character isn't NG anymore after that last little 'incident'. The one involving you pushing the beggar into the well...where he drowned. You're TN now". That's why I find it strange hearing anyone playing D&D saying "You wouldn't do that! You're [insert AL]" as some sort of immutable rule that precludes a character from doing ABC or XYZ. The PC can do whatever they want. It's their ACTIONS that determine their ALIGNMENT...not the other way around. Hence... AD&D alignment is a "base" of Restrictive, with actual "play" being Cumulative. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification