Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Robert Ranting" data-source="post: 3886955" data-attributes="member: 28906">I think that the question has probably been suitably answered at this point.&nbsp; Thanks for all who posted.Also, as a note, much of what I said in my opening post was playing devil's advocate for a style of play that I do not practice.&nbsp; Most of my characters are morally ambiguous, and generally tend towards True Neutral (which, according to about 6 of those online tests, is my own alignment).&nbsp; I have in fact played in games with Good aligned tieflings, evil necromancers, and gothic elf anti-heroes as player characters.&nbsp; Generally, speaking, I would much rather have a generic human fighter, wizard, rogue, or cleric, and then through the action of the campaign, have them deal with moral quandries and hard decisions.&nbsp; I think it is much more interesting to put your wizard into a situation where he needs to bargain with a devil to get something he needs *during the story* than to simply have an entire class of people who conveniently made that decision before they gained their first character level.&nbsp; In short, I would rather that D&amp;D start off as generically neutral, and then over time and in-game choices, you choose whose side you are on and what you are willing to do get achieve your goals...but really, that's never been the way the game's core assumption works, so I don't know why it should change now.&nbsp; Maybe I am playing the wrong game.Thanks for your time, and please remember that I'm not condemning anyone, I'm just concerned with the direction that my hobby is going in and soliciting other people's opinions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Robert Ranting, post: 3886955, member: 28906"] I think that the question has probably been suitably answered at this point. Thanks for all who posted. Also, as a note, much of what I said in my opening post was playing devil's advocate for a style of play that I do not practice. Most of my characters are morally ambiguous, and generally tend towards True Neutral (which, according to about 6 of those online tests, is my own alignment). I have in fact played in games with Good aligned tieflings, evil necromancers, and gothic elf anti-heroes as player characters. Generally, speaking, I would much rather have a generic human fighter, wizard, rogue, or cleric, and then through the action of the campaign, have them deal with moral quandries and hard decisions. I think it is much more interesting to put your wizard into a situation where he needs to bargain with a devil to get something he needs *during the story* than to simply have an entire class of people who conveniently made that decision before they gained their first character level. In short, I would rather that D&D start off as generically neutral, and then over time and in-game choices, you choose whose side you are on and what you are willing to do get achieve your goals...but really, that's never been the way the game's core assumption works, so I don't know why it should change now. Maybe I am playing the wrong game. Thanks for your time, and please remember that I'm not condemning anyone, I'm just concerned with the direction that my hobby is going in and soliciting other people's opinions. [/QUOTE]

Verification