Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6620133" data-attributes="member: 6786252">Alignment, within the context of the D&amp;D game, is an objective force.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is literally a power akin to raw elemental forces of Fire, Earth, Water, Air.&nbsp;&nbsp; What the alignment means between table to table can change; hells, between campaign settings the meaning can change.&nbsp; However, once inside the game, there's no dispute.&nbsp; You have beings literally comprised of Good, Law, Evil, and Chaos.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no philosophical debate over what is, or is not, Good - you can objectively prove it through the Outer Planes.&nbsp; You can make experiments that demonstrate it beyond the shadow of a doubt.What this means is that, if the GM says that certain actions are Evil or Chaotic in his game, then that is a literal, inarguable truth about the world, just as if she had said that there are three moons that control wizardly magic instead of a Weave of magic.Outside the game, we can argue it about how different tables interpret it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Inside, though, we have to go with what the DM, the final arbiter of the rules and setting, says.&nbsp;Ideally, you are correct.&nbsp; Realistically, however?&nbsp; The DM can overrule the entire table if they want something, and the only alternative is to walk away from the game.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example - when 5e first came out and we were still arguing if elves got the benefit of a full rest in four hours thanks to Trance, the DM said no.&nbsp; We at the table disagreed, then, instead of arguing, the entire group asked for a house rule to change it.&nbsp; We were shot down.&nbsp; Were we upset and frustrated?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp;&nbsp; Did we have any choice other than quitting the game?&nbsp;&nbsp; Not really.&nbsp;This and what I said have nothing to do with each other.&nbsp;&nbsp; I said the player would be the one trying to change it specifically against GM wishes.&nbsp;Irregardless, if that's how the setting is designed, and the gods of assassination is an Evil force, then within the setting we have an objective definition.&nbsp; Just because you disagree with it as a player doesn't give you the power to change that definition.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you were the DM, you have that power.&nbsp;&nbsp; You might consider it a necessary evil, but that's the funny thing about necessary evils.&nbsp;&nbsp; They have evil in the name because its still evil, no matter how necessary.In fact, balancing Good and Evil is often a theme in a lot of D&amp;D games.&nbsp;Strawman.&nbsp;&nbsp; You are well within your rights to say that as the DM.&nbsp;&nbsp; As a player, you don't get to - you follow what the setting establishes.&nbsp;the PC is willing to kill anyone for the right price, negating your whole &quot;the right targets&quot; argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6620133, member: 6786252"] Alignment, within the context of the D&D game, is an objective force. It is literally a power akin to raw elemental forces of Fire, Earth, Water, Air. What the alignment means between table to table can change; hells, between campaign settings the meaning can change. However, once inside the game, there's no dispute. You have beings literally comprised of Good, Law, Evil, and Chaos. There is no philosophical debate over what is, or is not, Good - you can objectively prove it through the Outer Planes. You can make experiments that demonstrate it beyond the shadow of a doubt. What this means is that, if the GM says that certain actions are Evil or Chaotic in his game, then that is a literal, inarguable truth about the world, just as if she had said that there are three moons that control wizardly magic instead of a Weave of magic. Outside the game, we can argue it about how different tables interpret it. Inside, though, we have to go with what the DM, the final arbiter of the rules and setting, says. Ideally, you are correct. Realistically, however? The DM can overrule the entire table if they want something, and the only alternative is to walk away from the game. For example - when 5e first came out and we were still arguing if elves got the benefit of a full rest in four hours thanks to Trance, the DM said no. We at the table disagreed, then, instead of arguing, the entire group asked for a house rule to change it. We were shot down. Were we upset and frustrated? Yes. Did we have any choice other than quitting the game? Not really. This and what I said have nothing to do with each other. I said the [I]player[/I] would be the one trying to change it specifically against GM wishes. Irregardless, if that's how the setting is designed, and the gods of assassination is an Evil force, then within the setting we have an objective definition. Just because you disagree with it as a player doesn't give you the power to change that definition. If you were the DM, you have that power. You might consider it a [I]necessary evil[/I], but that's the funny thing about necessary evils. They have [I]evil[/I] in the name because its still evil, no matter how necessary. In fact, balancing Good and Evil is often a theme in a lot of D&D games. Strawman. You are well within your rights to say that as the DM. As a player, you don't get to - you follow what the setting establishes. the PC is willing to kill anyone for the right price, negating your whole "the right targets" argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification