Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thunder Brother" data-source="post: 8288406" data-attributes="member: 6984475">I would disagree that bonds and flaws are as up for interpretation as alignment. Traits such as bonds generally deal with things immediately relevant to a PC (bonds to a mentor, a city, a kingdom). These are things that can be tested, that provide interesting story hooks for a DM to work with. Alignment is too general. Outside of planar entities (do I need to be told that demons are evil?), the argument over alignment gets blurry, and in my opinion doesn't add much too play.What exactly is lawful? Lawful to an organization? a kingdom? a personal creed? What does it mean to be &quot;lawful&quot; in a society not your own? Is one person's Lawful Good simply another's Chaotic Good? You can ask the same question for each axis. A system meant to sort entities into a cosmological scheme doesn't work at the ground level, in my opinion.Then you get into the whole meta aspect of it. Is a PC aware of their alignment? Are they aware of a monster's? Is it okay to mercilessly kill a civilized creature that's considered evil within this cosmic schema, such as a goblin or orc? If a PC does something that changes their alignment, does it really matter? Should they act on this change, or is it simply meta knowledge that their not supposed to interact with?It's cool if it works for other people and other tables, but at the end of the day I just find it to a be lamer version of Myers-Briggs. I'm glad that 5e has no mechanics tied to it, as it allows me to ignore it when I run a campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thunder Brother, post: 8288406, member: 6984475"] I would disagree that bonds and flaws are as up for interpretation as alignment. Traits such as bonds generally deal with things immediately relevant to a PC (bonds to a mentor, a city, a kingdom). These are things that can be tested, that provide interesting story hooks for a DM to work with. Alignment is too general. Outside of planar entities (do I need to be told that demons are evil?), the argument over alignment gets blurry, and in my opinion doesn't add much too play. What exactly is lawful? Lawful to an organization? a kingdom? a personal creed? What does it mean to be "lawful" in a society not your own? Is one person's Lawful Good simply another's Chaotic Good? You can ask the same question for each axis. A system meant to sort entities into a cosmological scheme doesn't work at the ground level, in my opinion. Then you get into the whole meta aspect of it. Is a PC aware of their alignment? Are they aware of a monster's? Is it okay to mercilessly kill a civilized creature that's considered evil within this cosmic schema, such as a goblin or orc? If a PC does something that changes their alignment, does it really matter? Should they act on this change, or is it simply meta knowledge that their not supposed to interact with? It's cool if it works for other people and other tables, but at the end of the day I just find it to a be lamer version of Myers-Briggs. I'm glad that 5e has no mechanics tied to it, as it allows me to ignore it when I run a campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification