Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 8923782" data-attributes="member: 6796661">I've always seen alignment as factions on the cosmological level. Further, if I a faction boots a PC becaue of the PC's actions, isn't that also the DM changing what's written on the player's character sheet?I don't see it as telling a player that they are playing wrong just that based on the PCs action they are seen as being another alignment based on the setting. If using alignment in your game is seen as engaging in bad-wrong-fun, why wouldn't faction rules, codes of chivalry, and rules of religious orders be seen as the same?  In any event, I don't see alignment as the DM policing other players in the game. Saying a character is not acting in accordance with a specific alignment is not saying that the player in playing wrong. If there is an argument between DM and player, then there is a disagreement over the game world or poor communication on the DM's part. This is why I think more mechanics for alignment can help. I agree that players should not be surprised when their characters are no longer considered to be of a particular alignment. In my game, the players will see changes to faction points, concordance, plus there is role playing of NPCs reacting to them and their actions. I'm not pulling rugs from under the players.Zero impact?  The fact that it has experienced such a slow death and that many players still fight to keep it in the game makes that a bit of an overstatement. It increasingly has been stripped of more and more of its mechanical tethers to the game, but remains part of the games DNA and culture.I'll agree that it isn't needed, but it remains important to many fans of the game. If the game can make feats optional to accommodate different preferences, I don't think asking to keep alignment as an optional part of the game is too big of an ask.</blockquote>

Verification