Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 6048049" data-attributes="member: 5889">I would disagree that turning fluff into mechanics is silly...in fact that is what the majority of mechanics do. Most mechanics exist to craft the imagined schema we have for things (aka the fluff) and craft it into a form of reality.Now that said, the problem I have with alignment restrictions is I feel that their fluff doesn't match the general audience. As people have said, they can see monks as lawful or even chaotic.Now poll people and ask if fighters should cast spells (not powers, but truly magical spells). The general answer would likely be no. Hence, fighter mechanics do not use magical spells.But for alignments there is not the same consensus, and when it doubt, leave the flavor open. If people want to have lawful only monks in their game, they can restrict it. But why force a game to remove a restriction that many don't agree with in the first place?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 6048049, member: 5889"] I would disagree that turning fluff into mechanics is silly...in fact that is what the majority of mechanics do. Most mechanics exist to craft the imagined schema we have for things (aka the fluff) and craft it into a form of reality. Now that said, the problem I have with alignment restrictions is I feel that their fluff doesn't match the general audience. As people have said, they can see monks as lawful or even chaotic. Now poll people and ask if fighters should cast spells (not powers, but truly magical spells). The general answer would likely be no. Hence, fighter mechanics do not use magical spells. But for alignments there is not the same consensus, and when it doubt, leave the flavor open. If people want to have lawful only monks in their game, they can restrict it. But why force a game to remove a restriction that many don't agree with in the first place? [/QUOTE]

Verification