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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 7742803" data-attributes="member: 46713">No real person is always good or always evil.No real person is always lawful or always chaotic.Real people don't commit evil acts because they're 'Evil'. They always rationalize their actions in some way. If your 'Evil' character commits atrocious acts for no reason other than being 'Evil' what is she?What you (well, at least myself) really want, is players describing their goals and motivations, their personality traits. Following these will result in actions that others may consider good or evil.Likewise the lawful/chaotic axis is way too one-dimensional:You ask: "Do they obey the law, even if they think the law is wrong?" I ask: How does your character feel about law "X"? How about law "Y"? It's not about 'the law' it's about specific laws. The stance towards each law can and will vary for an individual person.You ask: "Or do they follow a personal code?" I ask: "Well, what IS your personal code?"Describing a character's personality means to look at what drives them, and that simply isn't an abstract alignment.And that's not even getting into the issues how alignment is used mechanically in D&D. Because in (almost) all editions and settings your alignment choice is tied to potential consequences. Classes you can't choose (or class abilities you risk losing), spells and magic items you can't use, etc.And then, worst of all are the (misguided) expectations of many players and GMs:For players it's an excuse to have their character act like a jerk, and for GMs it's a means to dictate the actions of the player characters.I'm absolutely convinced the world (of roleplaying games) would be a better place if D&D had never had an alignment system.</blockquote>

Verification