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="Celtavian" data-source="post: 946668" data-attributes="member: 5834">ReI have never had any trouble with the alignment system. The system seems like a general way to determine the basic nature of your character and is not a straitjacket.Right now, in my campaign there is a CG Ranger/Cleric of Shaundakul. She has an adventurous spirit and a strong sense of individual justice. Yet, she strongly believes in marriage, chastity until marriage, following the local laws though she doesn't like to stay confined in cities and towns, and being a good person. She follows alot of the teachings of Torm when it comes to loyalty, duty and friendship.Why? She was raised in a family of Tormites and Tyrrans, which affected her personality, but not her general nature. She ran away from home and rebels against social convention and authority figures who try to force social convention upon her, but not necessarily laws and rightful, just authority figures. I also have a Lawful Neutral drow Fighter/Monk in my campaign who follows a personal code strictly, yet he could care less about human laws or for the most part societies laws. He follows the laws of his own personal philosophy to the letter. He neither goes out of his way to break laws or follow them. If they get in the way, he breaks them, if they don't he follows them. You will not find him breaking his personal code which is rather rigid.I fail to see how the alignments are anything other than the basic nature of an individual. Chaos and Law, Evil and Good are supposed to natural forces in the world of D&D, and your basic nature puts you in alignemnt with one or more of these forces which various deities and creatures embody in a purer form. Too many folks are into moral relativism, thinking that moral absolutes do not exist. Personally, I think a great majority of people in most nations are basically good. They want to help their fellow man and want to see good done in the world. Evil is evil because of intent, not because of action. That is where the moral relativists begin painting a false picture. They forget about intent and try to paint a simplistic picture based only on action lacking intent and motivation. Personally, I can think of many folk who are absolutely good. They are not Paladins, but they are good people having never intentionally or willingly done harm to others and always doing their best to do what they can for the community. Most people if given the choice will do a good act over an evil one. It is the nature of man and the reason why we admire so many good people or try to paint folk in a good light. Humans prefer goodness over evil because they are good. Atrocities only happen because humans are also fearful and ignorant creatures often manipulated by the whims of madmen.</blockquote>

Verification