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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1911897" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>aaack! aputter!!letme be clear... if you consider the difference between the position of because of your alignment, you cannot choose these actions" and "choose whatever actions you wish and your alignment will reflect those choices of actions" as the core of the alignment system to be "hair splitting", we are so far apart in the games were run that we might as well be speaking different languages with narry a rosetta stone in sight.technically, alignment is not proscriptive. the paladins CODE is proscriptive.As differentiated from alignment, a paladin's code absolutely prohibits any single evil act without repercussion.the usual alignment system does not do that and thus is not proscriptive.Note "consistently". The barbarian class requires you not go lawful and going lawful would require consistently being more lawful than neutral or chaotic. Its not going to be a "ooops, one slip or two" whammy, but a repeated and significant series of actions/choices.Again, not proscriptive in any given case or instance. however, if the characters choices are consitently over time best represented by lawful, he won't fit that class requirements. It restricts your choice of CHARACTER. A bard can do lawful acts. A cleric of pelor can do evil acts. etc etc... What cannot happen is there cannot be an EVIL cleric of Pelor. There cannot be a lawful bard. etc.Thats a huge difference.The above is ignoring whether or not i agree with or use many of the class alignment restrictions in my games. i actually only use the ones which are religious in nature, the divine casters thingy.none of them appear in my DND games, so ... no.again, we come from different worlds.if your problem stems from the premise, flawed premise, that alingments are going to dictate actions then the solution to your problem is to let that false premise go and let alingments derive from actions. Actually, honestly, the term actions is IMO inappropriate... it should be replaced with "choices." The alignment system is not self-contradictory. There is nothing within the alignment section that is contradictory.the fact that a character can be who possesses both chaotic and lawful traits is not an indication that the alignment system is contradictory. it is a sign that the system does not require characters to be totally polarized.One can pursue lawful goals using chaotic means... and if those are relatively evenly weighted in your character's choices, i would judge that neutral.and thats not a contradictory thing either.the perception that i keep getting from this is that IF one makes the alignment system the driving element (as opposed to the character) and a controlling factor (instead of a reflective one) and/or if one wants characters to be totally polarized by their alignments, then the alignment system can be seen as a problem. none of these are BTW supported by the rules for alignment.to which my answer is, just like the apocryphal doctor said to the guy who raised his arm and said "when i do this, it hurts!", ...Don't do that![/QUOTE]

Verification