Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dead" data-source="post: 1765606" data-attributes="member: 18707">I think one of the major problems that a DM has such difficulty in adjudicating a situation where his player has a differing view of alignment is becaues WotC authors don't even agree@!!!!!In fact, the *same* author can, ofttimes, not be consistant.Look at you Draconomican as an example. Look at the example dragons in the back. Now, you'll notice that with each grouping of sample dragons, the alignment for a particular type will follow what is &quot;typical&quot; for its kind. For example, all the sample blue dragons are LE in their stat blocks (LE is the typical alignment for blue dragons). Nevertheless, when you read the decriptions of these dragons, their personalities sometimes struggle to be explained within the bounds of the alignment they are given. This is particularly true of the sample good dragons. Indeed, some good dragons sound more neutral, or even mildly malign, but they are still given the &quot;good&quot; alignment.I think to eliviate the whole alignment debate, WotC should come up with a *stricter* definition on what the various alignments exactly mean. Perhaps they could develop 5 or 6 *archetypes* for each alignment that pretty much cover most personality types. Then not only will WotC game designers be more consistant, but us DMs will have an easier time adjudicating . . . and if a player *still* argues, we can rub their noses in one of the archetypes that matches their character personality. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="dead, post: 1765606, member: 18707"] I think one of the major problems that a DM has such difficulty in adjudicating a situation where his player has a differing view of alignment is becaues WotC authors don't even agree@!!!!! In fact, the *same* author can, ofttimes, not be consistant. Look at you Draconomican as an example. Look at the example dragons in the back. Now, you'll notice that with each grouping of sample dragons, the alignment for a particular type will follow what is "typical" for its kind. For example, all the sample blue dragons are LE in their stat blocks (LE is the typical alignment for blue dragons). Nevertheless, when you read the decriptions of these dragons, their personalities sometimes struggle to be explained within the bounds of the alignment they are given. This is particularly true of the sample good dragons. Indeed, some good dragons sound more neutral, or even mildly malign, but they are still given the "good" alignment. I think to eliviate the whole alignment debate, WotC should come up with a *stricter* definition on what the various alignments exactly mean. Perhaps they could develop 5 or 6 *archetypes* for each alignment that pretty much cover most personality types. Then not only will WotC game designers be more consistant, but us DMs will have an easier time adjudicating . . . and if a player *still* argues, we can rub their noses in one of the archetypes that matches their character personality. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification