Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Grainger" data-source="post: 6460492" data-attributes="member: 6779234">I've always ignored alignment in BECMI, because I think it's stupid. This was never a problem there, so I'm really pleased that it takes such a back-seat in 5e. Sure, if a player wants to think of his/her character as &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;good&quot;, or whatever, and if it helps them role-play, that's fine by me, but the actual alignment part of it has zero effect on the game (the character's thoughts and actions emerging from this are another matter, of course). The player doesn't ever have to tell me their character's alignment - it's what they say and do that matters.I just think alignment is a hugely problematic concept, as it can easily get you into the sort of debates that philosophers have wrestled with for centuries, and aren't going to be resolved around the RPG table. If this sounds hypothetical, I'd give the example of executing &quot;evil&quot; prisoners; I'd say that's an evil act, pure and simple and that a &quot;good&quot; character shouldn't be doing it. Gary Gygax said it's unequivocally a good act (ISTR he even went as far as saying that a Paladin &quot;should&quot; do it!). Without alignment, none of this debate matters, since the characters do what they do, and the DM isn't passing judgement and penalising the PCs for &quot;not obeying their alignment&quot;*. If a player thinks they're playing in character, who am I to argue?So hurray for 5e's approach.*and even if we're saying that alignment is merely descriptive, one player/DM is going to think the PC is good, while the other insists he/she is evil. Which is pointlessly divisive. Why not accept that different people have different ideas of &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot;, and move on?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grainger, post: 6460492, member: 6779234"] I've always ignored alignment in BECMI, because I think it's stupid. This was never a problem there, so I'm really pleased that it takes such a back-seat in 5e. Sure, if a player wants to think of his/her character as "evil" or "good", or whatever, and if it helps them role-play, that's fine by me, but the actual alignment part of it has zero effect on the game (the character's thoughts and actions emerging from this are another matter, of course). The player doesn't ever have to tell me their character's alignment - it's what they say and do that matters. I just think alignment is a hugely problematic concept, as it can easily get you into the sort of debates that philosophers have wrestled with for centuries, and aren't going to be resolved around the RPG table. If this sounds hypothetical, I'd give the example of executing "evil" prisoners; I'd say that's an evil act, pure and simple and that a "good" character shouldn't be doing it. Gary Gygax said it's unequivocally a good act (ISTR he even went as far as saying that a Paladin "should" do it!). Without alignment, none of this debate matters, since the characters do what they do, and the DM isn't passing judgement and penalising the PCs for "not obeying their alignment"*. If a player thinks they're playing in character, who am I to argue? So hurray for 5e's approach. *and even if we're saying that alignment is merely descriptive, one player/DM is going to think the PC is good, while the other insists he/she is evil. Which is pointlessly divisive. Why not accept that different people have different ideas of "good" and "evil", and move on? [/QUOTE]

Verification