Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4941296" data-attributes="member: 65637">That again sounds more like player - or rather, DM - problems then issues with actual alignment.&nbsp; Ideally, the players and DM talk about this and find out wtf was wrong.&nbsp; Unideally, the DM just laughs and tells them to suck it down.&nbsp; Also, you can easily have shifting alignment AND appropriate game world consequences you know ;pEach edition has instituted what I call &quot;Bad DM Insurance,&quot; and I think the removal/neutering of alignment in 4e was one such example of Bad DM Insurance.&nbsp; The paladin bit especially rang of &quot;Look, now a bad DM can't make you fall anymore!&quot;Because here's the thing: DMs don't need to make stupid and contrived reasons to force paladins to fall, as the cliche goes.&nbsp; They can just tell you &quot;Your paladin falls.&quot;&nbsp; When a DM puts you in a no-win situation like that, he's not doing it out of hate for paladins, and it's not because alignment is bad, he's doing it in a sad, pathetic attempt to express control and power.Also, the Code of Conduct isn't about being lawful, and it's a little about being good, but it's mostly about both.&nbsp; Killing the person in that situation only makes a paladin fall if your DM wants the paladin to fall.&nbsp; Otherwise, the paladin is doing what will save the most people the fastest.&nbsp; When it comes down to finding someone who's unrepentantly evil and shoving the good right down his slimy throat, ALL the Good alignments can agree.The LG character doesn't grab bad dudes and shuffle them into corrupt courts only to watch them go free.&nbsp; The CG character abolishes the courts entirely.&nbsp; The LG character changes and improves on them.&nbsp; Neither let the Bad Guy just walk off.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 4941296, member: 65637"] That again sounds more like player - or rather, DM - problems then issues with actual alignment. Ideally, the players and DM talk about this and find out wtf was wrong. Unideally, the DM just laughs and tells them to suck it down. Also, you can easily have shifting alignment AND appropriate game world consequences you know ;p Each edition has instituted what I call "Bad DM Insurance," and I think the removal/neutering of alignment in 4e was one such example of Bad DM Insurance. The paladin bit especially rang of "Look, now a bad DM can't make you fall anymore!" Because here's the thing: DMs don't [I]need[/I] to make stupid and contrived reasons to force paladins to fall, as the cliche goes. They can just tell you "Your paladin falls." When a DM puts you in a no-win situation like that, he's not doing it out of hate for paladins, and it's not because alignment is bad, he's doing it in a sad, pathetic attempt to express control and power. Also, the Code of Conduct isn't about being lawful, and it's a little about being good, but it's mostly about [B]both[/B]. Killing the person in that situation only makes a paladin fall if your DM [B]wants[/B] the paladin to fall. Otherwise, the paladin is doing what will save the most people the fastest. When it comes down to finding someone who's unrepentantly evil and shoving the good right down his slimy throat, ALL the Good alignments can agree. The LG character doesn't grab bad dudes and shuffle them into corrupt courts only to watch them go free. The CG character abolishes the courts entirely. The LG character changes and improves on them. [B]Neither[/B] let the Bad Guy just walk off. [/QUOTE]

Verification