Shallown said:
I think this is a very good point. I think we too often overlook the "unwritten rules" of D&D. One of the most important of these is that players should defer (whenever possible) to the GM's storyline. The GM puts a lot of thought and work into the campaign. So a player shouldn't reject the GM's plotline/story goals except in extreme cases. I think that this unwritten rule stems from the nature of a cooperative game. The players are assembling to have some fun. The GM is trying to craft stories and encounters that will entertain the players. Hence, the players have some responsibility to accept the GM's lead in order to fulfill everyone's purpose in showing up. (A similar unwritten rule of the game is that players and their characters should cooperate and refrain from conspiring against each other. I think this unwritten rule also follows of the kind of game that is being played.)
Again, I do believe that sometimes as a player you just can't see your character participating in what the GM has planned. So in extreme cases, a player has a right (and perhaps a duty) to balk at what the GM has planned for the evening. However, this should be a rarity. For the most part, the GM's plot hooks should be gobbled up unless a player has very serious reservations.
If this line of thinking is correct, then we can definitely conclude that the problem is not the alignment but the player. As long as a player is willing to obey the "unwritten rules" of the game, any alignment should be playable. (It is just that certain alignments might impose more of a burden on the player to justify why the character would cooperate with other players and go along with the GM's plot hooks.)
A DM of a lawful character merely need invoke the heirarchy that the character respects, and the character is on the adventure. Your scenario would only hold any water if the DM willfully sabotages himself.
j/k
