Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6125666" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I agree it's a problem, and agree that if it's kept (even optionally, as I prefer), it should be cleaned up a bit.It does say that people don't understand how alignment swaps work well. To be fair, I'm not sure how well they're described, so I can't say I blame them completely (thus the "cleaned up a bit" sentiment). The 3.5 PHB says this, though:To me, at least, it seems clear that it's okay to act outside of your alignment from time to time. But, the "alignment change" rules are admittedly hazy (it basically leaves it up to the GM). At any rate, the "Batman is hard to pin down" isn't too bad once we start eliminating the extremes (like the Chaotic Evil one [probably entirely out of context]), correct certain things on that chart (like Neutral Evil; unless we're talking about torture, and then we're onto something, probably), etc.At any rate, alignment debates have gone on long enough to make many people argue -quite vigorously- over what they mean. When it's included (hopefully optionally), I do hope they try to clarify a bit (about acting outside alignment and alignment shifts in particular). As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>