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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 9750633" data-attributes="member: 2209">I think there is a qualitative difference in the DM player relationship based on the alignment mechanics.In OD&D to 3e for example the paladin mechanics had the DM review whether the paladin made a prohibited alignment action (chaotic act for OD&D, evil acts for the other editions) or not and provided punitive mechanics for single actions that cross the line. Alignment definitions being something that can vary this structurally puts the DM in the role of judging how the player plays their PC according to the DM's view of how a paladin should act and imposing mechanical consequences for failure to do so until the character atones for their violation. In good faith a DM and player can vary in their interpretation of what constitutes a prohibited alignment action, so this structurally puts the player in the role of trying to play according to the DM's view of the situation instead of their own if they want to not be mechanically sanctioned.In 1e this is similar for all characters with the DMG DM alignment tracking of the PCs and level loss for if the DM thinks there is alignment drift.In 4e and 5e where there is alignment but no real alignment mechanics it does not set up such a player-DM dynamic. The player just plays their character how they feel is appropriate according to their views of it and the DM does not mechanically supervise their players' roleplay. Alignment is left as a general narrative descriptor that can be used or not by players and DMs as possible characterization hooks for the characters they are playing (PCs or NPCs). There is no default system of the DM reviewing the player's roleplay and judging it according to their view of alignment or imposing mechanical consequences for what the DM views as alignment violations.</blockquote>

Verification