Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8729672" data-attributes="member: 18">They absolutely do not have to be. There's nothing about those alignments which compels you to play them in any way antisocially (to the rest of the party, at least). It's trivial to think of examples of totally obnoxious LG and even NG PCs, and friendly and helpful CE ones. There's a ton of advice on this on the internet, for example: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/9y1nsb/how_to_play_a_chaotic_evil_character_and_be_the/" target="_blank">How to play Chaotic Evil and be the Party Favourite</a>You're confusing correlation and cause, in the end. Players who want to play antisocial or difficult characters often pick Chaotic alignments because they (mistakenly, in my view) perceive them as an opportunity to be be antisocial/difficult based on the vague/limited descriptions of those alignments. Some editions of D&amp;D have been much worse at describing alignments, too, of course. Anyway the alignment is merely an excuse for behaviour, not a cause of it.Equally, players want to player a character who is antisocial in a bossy, pushy and/or bullying or pigheadedly stubborn way (often correlating with their RL personality to a greater or lesser degree) often pick the Lawful alignments, particularly Lawful Good, which combined with who Paladin rules used to work, lead to a lot of &quot;Lawful Stupid&quot;.(When I reflect on the worst behaviour I've seen in person in D&amp;D groups, where alignments was cited as an excuse, it's LG and CN. LG because people want to be totally pig-headed (why isn't it like, mule-headed? Surely they're less cooperative? Mulish is a thing I guess) and anti-cooperative, CN because some people believe it gives them an excuse to be sO r4nd0m LoLzzz and just do whatever ridiculous thing comes to mind. Almost all of it was from players under 20 I note!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8729672, member: 18"] They absolutely do not have to be. There's nothing about those alignments which compels you to play them in any way antisocially (to the rest of the party, at least). It's trivial to think of examples of totally obnoxious LG and even NG PCs, and friendly and helpful CE ones. There's a ton of advice on this on the internet, for example: [URL='https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/9y1nsb/how_to_play_a_chaotic_evil_character_and_be_the/']How to play Chaotic Evil and be the Party Favourite[/URL] You're confusing correlation and cause, in the end.[I] Players [/I]who want to play antisocial or difficult [I]characters[/I] often pick Chaotic alignments because they (mistakenly, in my view) perceive them as an opportunity to be be antisocial/difficult based on the vague/limited descriptions of those alignments. Some editions of D&D have been much worse at describing alignments, too, of course. Anyway the alignment is merely an excuse for behaviour, not a cause of it. Equally, players want to player a character who is antisocial in a bossy, pushy and/or bullying or pigheadedly stubborn way (often correlating with their RL personality to a greater or lesser degree) often pick the Lawful alignments, particularly Lawful Good, which combined with who Paladin rules used to work, lead to a lot of "Lawful Stupid". (When I reflect on the worst behaviour I've seen in person in D&D groups, where alignments was cited as an excuse, it's LG and CN. LG because people want to be totally pig-headed (why isn't it like, mule-headed? Surely they're less cooperative? Mulish is a thing I guess) and anti-cooperative, CN because some people believe it gives them an excuse to be sO r4nd0m LoLzzz and just do whatever ridiculous thing comes to mind. Almost all of it was from players under 20 I note!) [/QUOTE]

Verification