Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6311293" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't really agree, and as Dausuul points out, the current wording is somewhat ambiguous in that it doesn't say your behaviour changes. By breaking the link between behaviour and alignment, which imho, is putting the cart before the horse, one creates a confusing situation.Just as a side-matter, literally every single problem I've ever seen alignment cause, without exception, has been because of people taking an approach where they derive their PC's behaviour from their alignment, which is often narrowly defined (5E has pretty good, even great definitions, at least, except Neutral, which has dangerous-if-distant echoes of "TRUE NEUTRAL!!!"), rather than making a character with a personality, and then deciding what alignment would be appropriate. This is why so many Paladins caused problems - people saw the LG, and tried to work from that, rather than making a character who would naturally be LG. Well it's a long discussion and probably for another thread, but anyway, I think they'd be better off just removing that particular entry. Or just make it the "mechanical only" change - in that you continue to be you, but suddenly supernatural beings are reacting to you very differently. That seems more in-keeping with a Wild Mage anyway. If they don't remove I'll probably do one of those myself. I'm pretty sure that if I run 5E I have a player who will be irresistibly drawn to Wild Mage... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification