Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RillianPA" data-source="post: 1901248" data-attributes="member: 12309">I think that the most basic issue with this system is the intensely subjective nature of Alignment.  While D&D makes some passing effort to explain what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, Neutrality and their combinations might mean, it in no way even begins to fully explore and explain.  Whole books can (and have) been written about these subjects.In addition, large numbers of actions must be defined based on the character performing them.  For example, for one character breaking a law might be a Lawful act (maybe the character has a Code of Conduct that requires the act), while for another it is a Chaotic act (he just doesnt care about the law).Also, the DM's understanding of what each alignment means, probably differs from each player's understanding.  At the very least, a system like this should be accompanied by a large document covering not only the basics of the DM's opinions on the subject, but also a fairly large number of examples of actions that would be scored for each alignment.  For example, while overtly Chaotic acts seem fairly easy to think of, what would an overtly Lawful act be?  Would simply refraining from doing Chaotic things be a Lawful act?  Is killing an evil creature a Good act?  Is killing an evil baby an Evil act?I would suggest that a careful noting of the event earning the alignment tally is necessary.  To begin with, this is the only realistic method for communicating to the players which acts are of which alignment, and helps to avoid arguments (DM: You now detect as Evil, Jake.  Jake: I do?? But I've done nothing but Good all campaign!?? You must have miscounted...or given me someone else's tallies!).  More, it seems that players should have the chance to lobby for alignment checks, because the DM may just miss them.</blockquote>

Verification