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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1908138" data-attributes="member: 7240">In the thread discussing the relationship between combat tactics and mental attributes, one poster observed that the efficacy of a group of opponents in combat is, to an extent, conditioned by their alignment. A chaotic alignment, the argument goes, circumscribes as NPC's capacity to act rationally and efficiently in pursuit of his goals. In balance-obsessed D&D 3.5, this strikes me as a real problem. If chaotic NPCs are inherently less capable of making a plan and working in a cohesive efficient manner towards its completion, shouldn't being chaotic function mechanically as a disability rather than as simply descriptive? If alignment is essentially a character's political views, shouldn't chaotic characters be just as capable as lawful characters of working together over an extended period to achieve a more chaotic world? If a chaotic evil group of NPCs wanted to exterminate all viable heirs to the throne so that an extended civil war could take place, isn't it unfair to force them to betray eachother before their plan can be brought to fruition?On the other hand, if chaos is a pathology and not a political ideology, why should people who have trouble cooperating and lack impulse control not be allowed to believe in strict laws, stable monarchies and inflexible social standards? I don't see, in real life, any particular connection between people's behaviour and psychology and their political goals. Some of the most disciplined political actors I have met have applied that discipline and structure to the promotion of anarchist or libertarian politics. And vice-versa.More than the good-evil axis, D&D's theory of law and chaos seems severely incoherent to me. Does anyone want to take a stab at defending this nonsense or is there some general agreement here?</blockquote>

Verification