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: 1914327" data-attributes="member: 7240">That's a good point you raise.First off, you're right. This is a problem I have with the good/evil axis. As barsoomcore so eloquently put it, villains who do terrible things for good reasons are the best kind and the alignment mechanic really problematizes this. So I cope with it in a few ways: (a) I'm very lax with enforcement of the good/evil thing when it comes to PCs; basically, I just assume that whatever their take is on being good today is good. It produces inconsistencies but at a manageable level.(b) there are certain kinds of NPCs (especially villains) I just don't make in D&D because their motivations and actions cannot be mapped onto alignment. I use other rule sets when I want to have campaigns that include those kinds of NPCs. As someone said earlier, D&D is about moral absolutes so I'm already inclined to make my D&D NPCs rather more two-dimensional than NPCs I would run in another game.(c) I try to use the Star Trek theory of good and evil -- that risking the whole to save the one will always pay off and is always the morally superior choice. This is essentially a genre convention of much sci-fi and fantasy; again, when I want to operate outside this genre convention, I use other game systems. Essentially, I remodel risk and causality in my world in order to better accommodate the alignment mechanic.As you can see, I already engage in significant limitations and contortions to make just a part of the alignment mechanic function in my games. And that's the more consistent and logical part.</blockquote>

Verification