Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5165588" data-attributes="member: 4937">Agreed.  I don't think the problem here is the house rules so much as an egotistical DM.That's even worse.  If the DM didn't like the character, he should have never approved it.Alignment can add a lot to the game, but only in certain circumstances. There has been pretty poor support for alignment over the years in the books, and many DMs simply lack the education to pull off a consistent moral ethos. Plus, modern American cultural ethos tends toward relativism, which leaves people in tension with the described D&D world. I'm impressed by Rich from OotS as a writer in the community that consistently gets alignment.The secrets to running D&D alignment successfully are:1) Having a group, both players and DM, that understand that the D&D alignment does not need to be commentary on how the real world works. If you can understand that in the D&D world there are 4 elements and no 'Sodium Elementals', then you are off to a good start.2) Having a DM who has worked out an internally consist description of the alignments. This is more than most writers for TSR/WotC have managed. I'm still appalled by the number of TSR/WotC products that try to define evil as 'selfish' and good as 'selfless', and then try to define the disagreement between 'chaos' and 'law' in basically the same terms.3) Having a DM who doesn't try to surprise the player with the consequences of there action. I'm appalled by stories where the player takes some action and the DM says something like, "Ok, now you are evil, lose your paladinhood." If your interpretation of what is evil and what isn't differs from the player, you have a responsibility as a DM to forewarn the player of any severe transgression from their stated alignment. Leaving alignment ought to be an act of player choice, not something sprung on them like a trap.4) Understanding that even if alignments are absolute and consistent, it doesn't mean that mortal members of those alignments need necessarily be so. The assumption is that for mortals at least, no one is perfectly consistent and everyone departs from their own deeply held beliefs at least occasionally. The player needs to be given some flexibility to make choices outside of their stated ethos in order to play complex characters. The trick is in how the player role plays their response to their characters hypocrisy and failures.I'm not sure.  Honestly, of the three DMs you've described, he sounds like the one with the most problems.  On the other hand, he sounds like he might be the least jerk, so he might be the only one you could actually approach and achieve a positive result.Make sure you do it in private.  Don't challenge the DM publically and in front of his other friends.It sounds like the DM has alot of problems:1) He's got you on a railroad.  He is unwilling to let the players make their own story and own choises.  When you take away the players ability to fail, you've taken the player out of the story and made them pure observers.  Freedom of action must include the oppurtunity to fail.2) He's unable to make balanced encounters.  He's trying to bring the awesome, but doesn't know how to do it in a way that doesn't result in deaths.  He's trying too hard to impress the players.3) He's afraid of offending the players.  He's probably deep down embarassed and feeling guilty, and desparately trying to hide his own failures.  Make sure you are sympathetic.  Make sure you find something about the game to praise.  But also be honest about what you find to be a problem.</blockquote>

Verification