Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8921057" data-attributes="member: 23751">Except that isn't the case.&nbsp; In Gygax's game those things were lawful good as part of a universal definition of what lawful good is.&nbsp; In my game it wouldn't be.&nbsp; Just because that DM over there has a different universal definition of law or evil, doesn't mean that universal definitions don't exist.&nbsp; They just mean that different DMs will set different definitions for their personal games.You are correct that this is where many, if not most alignment arguments come from, though.&nbsp; The DM just can't make the players aware of where all actions fall and so there will be differences of opinion there. That's the main reason I don't like alignment to have mechanical teeth.&nbsp; We can have differing views without causing any sort of friction. There's no point in my saying, &quot;Hah!&nbsp; That's evil!!&quot; or &quot;Your alignment is now LN, not LG.&quot; if there's nothing mechanical attached to it.&nbsp; I haven't seen any of these since 3e, and then far fewer than in 1e/2e.&nbsp; This is because mechanical consequences have been declining over the editions.&nbsp; I've seen none in 5e at all.&nbsp; Outside of forum arguments anyway.This hasn't been the case since at least 5e, and maybe 4e. Without a house rule placing some sort of mechanical consequence or penalty for alignment deviations into the game, it doesn't matter what the DM says or does about alignment.&nbsp; There's no way by RAW for the DM to impose that way.This much is true.&nbsp; Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't give a fig what the PC's alignment is, or even if he has one.&nbsp; The world is going to be looking at the PCs actions and responding(or not) to those.&nbsp; For the PC side of things it's simply a tool in the chest for a player to use if he wants to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8921057, member: 23751"] Except that isn't the case. In Gygax's game those things were lawful good as part of a universal definition of what lawful good is. In my game it wouldn't be. Just because that DM over there has a different universal definition of law or evil, doesn't mean that universal definitions don't exist. They just mean that different DMs will set different definitions for their personal games. You are correct that this is where many, if not most alignment arguments come from, though. The DM just can't make the players aware of where all actions fall and so there will be differences of opinion there. That's the main reason I don't like alignment to have mechanical teeth. We can have differing views without causing any sort of friction. There's no point in my saying, "Hah! That's evil!!" or "Your alignment is now LN, not LG." if there's nothing mechanical attached to it. I haven't seen any of these since 3e, and then far fewer than in 1e/2e. This is because mechanical consequences have been declining over the editions. I've seen none in 5e at all. Outside of forum arguments anyway. This hasn't been the case since at least 5e, and maybe 4e. Without a house rule placing some sort of mechanical consequence or penalty for alignment deviations into the game, it doesn't matter what the DM says or does about alignment. There's no way by RAW for the DM to impose that way. This much is true. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't give a fig what the PC's alignment is, or even if he has one. The world is going to be looking at the PCs actions and responding(or not) to those. For the PC side of things it's simply a tool in the chest for a player to use if he wants to. [/QUOTE]

Verification