Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4272540" data-attributes="member: 42582">I know that the offical doctrine of 3E is that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Nevertheless 3E alignments are also prescriptive GM-empowerers, for a couple of reasons:*Many classes (6 of 11 in core 3E) need to satisfy alignment requirements if they are to keep their abilities.*Many GMs disallow evil characters (and the PHB encourages this by describing an evilly-aligned person as an adversary rather than a protagonist) or even non-good ones.I don't particulary see how it helps things to describe prescriptive alignment as a system limit on my character. The AD&D prohibition on monks using flaming oil is a system limitation on the character. The all-editions prohibition on paladins using poison is a system limitation on the character. The AD&D suggestion that the use of poison is a non-good act is not a system limitation on the character, it's an invitation to player/GM conflict, especially given that a good number of potions that come up on the random treasure table are in fact poisons.Let's suppose we agree with the reasons that Gary Gygax puts forward in the PHB for not wanting to encourage poison use: it's mechanically unhappy, it introduces unwanted complexity into combat, it's a bit icky. Then why not just be upfront about it and state that this game proceeds on the assumption that heroes don't use poisons. And take the poison potions of the treasure tables.Instead we get the pseudo-mechanical attempt to achieve the same outcome via the alignment text. How is the incoherence here helping rather than hindering?But in fact neither AD&D nor 3E states this. Nor does either give any advice on how to handle such issues. Contrast (for example) the very upfront discussion in the Dying Earth rulebook about how to handle the fact that losing a Persuasion contest means that a PC has to act contrary to the player's preferences. Again, how is the incoherence here helping rather than hindering?</blockquote>

Verification