Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5684248" data-attributes="member: 22424">See the 3.5e PHB p.103 and the DMG p.134.&quot;A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.&quot;&quot;Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character.&quot;&quot;Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types...&quot;&quot;In addition, few people are completely consistent.&quot;&quot;Alignment change is gradual.&quot;&quot;Time requirements...&quot;There's plenty of stuff there. There's then more in-depth discussion in the &quot;Book of Vile Darkness&quot; and the &quot;Book of Exalted Deeds&quot;.&nbsp;Correctly. The rules state this in black and white.See above about general trends and incomplete consistency - casting it once is an evil act, but almost certainly doesn't warrant an alignment change. Repeated use would indeed warrant such a change, just as with any other repeated action.Over time, a consistent pattern of lawful actions will indeed make you lawful. And a character who is lawful may well obey the law.However, a character who is chaotic may well also obey the law - especially if those laws happen to line up well with &quot;what I was going to do anyway&quot;. Being chaotic doesn't make you an idiot.&quot;Indecisiveness indicates neutrality&quot; - DMG p.134. Seems pretty clear.See above. Also, see the note about a general pattern of behaviour.Sure. And, as I noted in my first post on the thread, I think 4e would have done well to drop alignment entirely. However, in this instance I stand by my assessment that the DM probably didn't understand alignment.(Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many, or probably even most, people didn't actually bother to read what the books actually said on the topic. But if that's the case then the system really isn't to blame.)The books don't do that. In fact, they explicitly state otherwise (see my quote about straightjackets, above). However, where the DM is in charge is in how the PC's alignment possibly shifts in light of the actions the PC takes. The DM doesn't control the act; the DM controls the consequences. Big difference.Not true. There have been alignment arguments in 4e. They're less frequent, but largely because most people either ignore alignment completely or choose &quot;Unaligned&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5684248, member: 22424"] See the 3.5e PHB p.103 and the DMG p.134. "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment." "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character." "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types..." "In addition, few people are completely consistent." "Alignment change is gradual." "Time requirements..." There's plenty of stuff there. There's then more in-depth discussion in the "Book of Vile Darkness" and the "Book of Exalted Deeds". Correctly. The rules state this in black and white. See above about general trends and incomplete consistency - casting it once is an evil act, but almost certainly doesn't warrant an alignment change. Repeated use would indeed warrant such a change, just as with any other repeated action. Over time, a consistent pattern of lawful actions will indeed make you lawful. And a character who is lawful may well obey the law. However, a character who is chaotic may well also obey the law - especially if those laws happen to line up well with "what I was going to do anyway". Being chaotic doesn't make you an idiot. "Indecisiveness indicates neutrality" - DMG p.134. Seems pretty clear. See above. Also, see the note about a general pattern of behaviour. Sure. And, as I noted in my first post on the thread, I think 4e would have done well to drop alignment entirely. However, [i]in this instance[/i] I stand by my assessment that the DM probably didn't understand alignment. (Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many, or probably even most, people didn't actually bother to read what the books actually said on the topic. But if [i]that's[/i] the case then the system really isn't to blame.) The books don't do that. In fact, they explicitly state otherwise (see my quote about straightjackets, above). However, where the DM [i]is[/i] in charge is in how the PC's alignment possibly shifts in light of the actions the PC takes. The DM doesn't control the act; the DM controls the consequences. Big difference. Not true. There have been alignment arguments in 4e. They're less frequent, but largely because most people either ignore alignment completely or choose "Unaligned". [/QUOTE]

Verification