Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 4941685" data-attributes="member: 32740">I'd risk suggesting that this is because you want alignment to explicitly define a character for you, and that you think a character can and/or should BE defined explicitly by alignment.&nbsp; But alignment isn't supposed to be applied that way.&nbsp;There's no doubt that aligment is problematic.&nbsp; It has never, EVER had it's purpose for being present in the game properly, clearly defined.&nbsp; Largely because of this it is an interpretational nightmare because people try to make it do things it really shouldn't do, or CAN'T do.&nbsp; Even at that, it is by necessity vague in many ways.&nbsp; It can neither fully define, nor fully describe a characters motivations, personality, religion or philosophy, and collapses utterly the closer you get to making it do just that.&nbsp;What it CAN do, imo, is to provide some roleplaying guidance, or possibly even some roleplaying substitution, for players who cannot or will not do so otherwise.&nbsp; Obviously then, the better and more dedicated players are to roleplaying the less it is needed or even wanted.&nbsp; Then the problem still remains that alignment has so many tendrils reaching into the game (at least for older editions - I don't really know from 4E).&nbsp;Certainly if you're going to be paying any attention to alignment at all the DM needs to have a conversation with the players explaining in as much detail as possible how his players are then expected to deal with alignment - how strictly he intends alignment to inform how their characters behave, whether he intends to provide any warnings before he hits you with penalties for alignment &quot;infractions&quot;, and of course how HE personally expects a character of a given alignment to behave and why.&nbsp; Just having the DM TALK to the players about his/her own interpretations of alignment rules and subtleties before it has a chance to come up in the game solves tons of issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 4941685, member: 32740"] I'd risk suggesting that this is because you want alignment to explicitly define a character for you, and that you think a character can and/or should BE defined explicitly by alignment. But alignment isn't supposed to be applied that way. There's no doubt that aligment is problematic. It has never, EVER had it's [I]purpose[/I] for being present in the game properly, clearly defined. Largely because of this it is an interpretational nightmare because people try to make it do things it really shouldn't do, or CAN'T do. Even at that, it is by necessity [I]vague[/I] in many ways. It can neither fully define, nor fully describe a characters motivations, personality, religion or philosophy, and collapses utterly the closer you get to making it do just that. What it CAN do, imo, is to provide some roleplaying guidance, or possibly even some roleplaying substitution, for players who cannot or will not do so otherwise. Obviously then, the better and more dedicated players are to roleplaying the less it is needed or even wanted. Then the problem still remains that alignment has so many tendrils reaching into the game (at least for older editions - I don't really know from 4E). Certainly if you're going to be paying any attention to alignment at all the DM needs to have a conversation with the players explaining in as much detail as possible how his players are then expected to deal with alignment - how strictly he intends alignment to inform how their characters behave, whether he intends to provide any warnings before he hits you with penalties for alignment "infractions", and of course how HE personally expects a character of a given alignment to behave and why. Just having the DM TALK to the players about his/her own interpretations of alignment rules and subtleties before it has a chance to come up in the game solves tons of issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification