Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 3160284" data-attributes="member: 29398">There's 2 overlapping ways of looking at alignment.&nbsp; One is an objective universal view that says some acts are good, some evil, lawful, chaotic, etc. and that builds a being's alignment as a sum of actions.&nbsp; Two is a subjective view from the being of how that being thinks, as well as what it does...the Kobolds probably think the PC's invading their lair are evil, for example, while said PC's probably think the same of the Kobolds.Where it gets interesting is when there ends up being a wide variance of alignments within the same party, due to what the players happen to have as their PC's at the time.Where it gets annoying is when players (and DM's) don't allow for shades of gray, and assume that because someone professes to be a certain alignment they will always behave a certain way, usually exactly what is described in whatever edition PH is being used at the time...sigh.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 3160284, member: 29398"] There's 2 overlapping ways of looking at alignment. One is an objective universal view that says some acts are good, some evil, lawful, chaotic, etc. and that builds a being's alignment as a sum of actions. Two is a subjective view from the being of how that being thinks, as well as what it does...the Kobolds probably think the PC's invading their lair are evil, for example, while said PC's probably think the same of the Kobolds. Where it gets interesting is when there ends up being a wide variance of alignments within the same party, due to what the players happen to have as their PC's at the time. Where it gets annoying is when players (and DM's) don't allow for shades of gray, and assume that because someone professes to be a certain alignment they will always behave a certain way, usually exactly what is described in whatever edition PH is being used at the time...sigh. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification