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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 5359486" data-attributes="member: 19998">Out of curiosoty, what version of D&D are you playing?I figured it wasn't a spoken language. The impression I got reading the Rules Cyclopedia was that you could communicate things to people of the same alignment without people of different alignments understanding. Is that how you've played?Interesting, so could someone tell what someone's alignment is by watching them "speak" their alignment language, or is it just by watching them act in general? Cause that's radically different from anything I've ever seen played before in AD&D 2e, 3.x, and 4e.It's definitely a larger part of older editions. One of the problems I've encountered is people wanted to apply relativistic morality to the game and alignments.Many years ago I was playing 3e and I had a friend who wanted play a Pale Mater, a prestige class that gave wizards more abilities to control undead. The class required a non-good alignment. I don't allow evil alignments in my game, and the player chose chaotic neutral. Things were going along fine until, at the request of a very bad efreeti (not that the PC or the player knew that), the PC killed a helpless innocent person. The player and the PC both knew he was helpless and innocent. Afterwords, outside of the game, I was talking to him that it was an evil act. He was surprised because, to his character, it wasn't evil. I explained to him that good and evil in the campaign world were real forces in this world and were objectively identifiable. This shocked him.A co-worker overhead this and said the idea of good and evil being forces of nature was unrealistic, he could see law and chaos being forces of nature, but not good and evil. I told him it was fantasy world. I'll never forget his sardonic response "And a very fantastic world it is."</blockquote>

Verification