Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4371222" data-attributes="member: 4937">My experience with tables without alignment is that characters all end up as unaligned/neutral by default.&nbsp; If there is no in game reminder and no implicit ethical contract with the DM, then players take one of several ultimately similar positions.&nbsp; Either they think, consciously or unconsciously, &quot;Alignment has no role in this game.&nbsp; Hense, the proper way to play is to maximize my chances of success and reduce my difficulties without regard to particular ethical concerns.&quot;&nbsp; Or else they think, consciously or unconsciously, &quot;My character obeys certain standards of behavior, but as thier is no particular consequence to failing to obey those standards I can always treat them as mere whims and discard them if they are ever burdensome in a particular situation.&nbsp; If necessary, I can always rationalize this to myself and others by saying that realistic characters are never entirely predictable.&nbsp; Afterall, its not like we are playing in ones of those games were alignment is a straightjacket.&quot;I'm sure there are exceptions and that there are tables without alignment where because everyone is such a skilled roleplayer and has drawn thier characters beliefs so clearly that they are willing to accept difficulties and burdens for the sake of continuing to portray thier character according the characters stated ethical nature, despite the fact no simple marker for that nature exists.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I've never encountered one.&nbsp; Invariably, every player and table I've ever encountered that whined about alignment, the argument about alignment was a proxy argument for, &quot;I want to use my character as a game peice which helps me win the game.&nbsp; I don't want to have to have my roleplaying potentially impact my success in the game.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Which if you think about it, is very similar to an alignment position itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4371222, member: 4937"] My experience with tables without alignment is that characters all end up as unaligned/neutral by default. If there is no in game reminder and no implicit ethical contract with the DM, then players take one of several ultimately similar positions. Either they think, consciously or unconsciously, "Alignment has no role in this game. Hense, the proper way to play is to maximize my chances of success and reduce my difficulties without regard to particular ethical concerns." Or else they think, consciously or unconsciously, "My character obeys certain standards of behavior, but as thier is no particular consequence to failing to obey those standards I can always treat them as mere whims and discard them if they are ever burdensome in a particular situation. If necessary, I can always rationalize this to myself and others by saying that realistic characters are never entirely predictable. Afterall, its not like we are playing in ones of those games were alignment is a straightjacket." I'm sure there are exceptions and that there are tables without alignment where because everyone is such a skilled roleplayer and has drawn thier characters beliefs so clearly that they are willing to accept difficulties and burdens for the sake of continuing to portray thier character according the characters stated ethical nature, despite the fact no simple marker for that nature exists. However, I've never encountered one. Invariably, every player and table I've ever encountered that whined about alignment, the argument about alignment was a proxy argument for, "I want to use my character as a game peice which helps me win the game. I don't want to have to have my roleplaying potentially impact my success in the game." Which if you think about it, is very similar to an alignment position itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification