Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5184572" data-attributes="member: 4937">Huh?&nbsp; This runs contrary to my experience, and I'm not exactly sure what the logic is.&nbsp; The basic jerk defense of, &quot;I am just playing my character&quot;, isn't system specific, nor does it depend on playing alignment.&nbsp; In games without alignment, you have just as much or more problems relating to taking disadvantages that have a role-playing component: &quot;My character is short tempered, impulsive, and has annoying personal habits (cannabalism). Says so right on the sheet.&quot;&nbsp; If you think a game without alignment discourages players randomly killing off innocents, stealing everything that isn't nailed down, eating the bodies of their victims, or (for example) taking captured female prisoners tying them up and hanging them upside down and... well, the rest is not EnWorld friendly but it involved playing with fire... then you are IMO very sheltered.&nbsp; I've ran into some real wierdos looking for new groups to play with in new cities.Alignment in my experience is actually a moderating factor in 'playing your character like a jerk'.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike disadvantages, there is generally not a strong mechanical reason for choosing a particular alignment, and the default assumptions of most settings tend to favor choosing good.&nbsp;&nbsp; In my experience, many groups that downplay or drop alignment from their setting do so because it removes any DM mechanical cludgel for playing the character in an anti-social manner.&nbsp;&nbsp; In other words, for groups that think murderous cannibalistic psychopath is a cool character concept, you are much more likely to see alignment dropped in their house rules because it is 'too constraining' and 'realistic characters don't have alignment'.&nbsp; Or to put it more bluntly, they want to play in a world where they can be murderous cannibalistic rapists without being labelled as 'evil'.&nbsp;&nbsp; But really, if a group wants to go there, they are going to get there with or without alignment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5184572, member: 4937"] Huh? This runs contrary to my experience, and I'm not exactly sure what the logic is. The basic jerk defense of, "I am just playing my character", isn't system specific, nor does it depend on playing alignment. In games without alignment, you have just as much or more problems relating to taking disadvantages that have a role-playing component: "My character is short tempered, impulsive, and has annoying personal habits (cannabalism). Says so right on the sheet." If you think a game without alignment discourages players randomly killing off innocents, stealing everything that isn't nailed down, eating the bodies of their victims, or (for example) taking captured female prisoners tying them up and hanging them upside down and... well, the rest is not EnWorld friendly but it involved playing with fire... then you are IMO very sheltered. I've ran into some real wierdos looking for new groups to play with in new cities. Alignment in my experience is actually a moderating factor in 'playing your character like a jerk'. Unlike disadvantages, there is generally not a strong mechanical reason for choosing a particular alignment, and the default assumptions of most settings tend to favor choosing good. In my experience, many groups that downplay or drop alignment from their setting do so because it removes any DM mechanical cludgel for playing the character in an anti-social manner. In other words, for groups that think murderous cannibalistic psychopath is a cool character concept, you are much more likely to see alignment dropped in their house rules because it is 'too constraining' and 'realistic characters don't have alignment'. Or to put it more bluntly, they want to play in a world where they can be murderous cannibalistic rapists without being labelled as 'evil'. But really, if a group wants to go there, they are going to get there with or without alignment. [/QUOTE]

Verification