Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bullgrit" data-source="post: 4941817" data-attributes="member: 31216">LG = Would be highly upset and distraught over the situation.NG = Would be highly upset and distraught over the situation.CG = Would be highly upset and distraught over the situation.LN = Would be bothered by the situation.NN = Would be bothered by the situation.CN = Would be bothered by the situation.LE = Yay, someone will die!NE = Yay, someone will die!CE = Yay, someone will die!The alignment descriptions/definitions do not tell you how to solve philosophical questions. Just like the class rules do not tell you how to cut down a tree. (Although I’m sure someone will come along and describe, in a humorous fashion, how each class might cut down a tree.)Most of these hypothetical alignment tests are like:Statement: “Steel is a strong material.”Argument: “No it’s not. Watch as this huge machine easily bends that steel bar. And watch how easily I can bend this steel wire. See? Steel is weak, and we should not build anything out of steel.”As all the rules threads through the years has proven, all the rules in the D&amp;D books can be bent, broken, and blasted to pieces with the right situation. Just because you can come up with difficult moral quandaries doesn’t mean the definition of alignment in the D&amp;D books are bad. I can come up with impossible combat scenarios, but that doesn’t make the D&amp;D combat system bad.Bullgrit</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bullgrit, post: 4941817, member: 31216"] LG = Would be highly upset and distraught over the situation. NG = Would be highly upset and distraught over the situation. CG = Would be highly upset and distraught over the situation. LN = Would be bothered by the situation. NN = Would be bothered by the situation. CN = Would be bothered by the situation. LE = Yay, someone will die! NE = Yay, someone will die! CE = Yay, someone will die! The alignment descriptions/definitions do not tell you how to solve philosophical questions. Just like the class rules do not tell you how to cut down a tree. (Although I’m sure someone will come along and describe, in a humorous fashion, how each class might cut down a tree.) Most of these hypothetical alignment tests are like: Statement: “Steel is a strong material.” Argument: “No it’s not. Watch as this huge machine easily bends that steel bar. And watch how easily I can bend this steel wire. See? Steel is weak, and we should not build anything out of steel.” As all the rules threads through the years has proven, all the rules in the D&D books can be bent, broken, and blasted to pieces with the right situation. Just because you can come up with difficult moral quandaries doesn’t mean the definition of alignment in the D&D books are bad. I can come up with impossible combat scenarios, but that doesn’t make the D&D combat system bad. Bullgrit [/QUOTE]

Verification