Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7975570" data-attributes="member: 18">Sure, but my experience is that behaviour is to do with the player more than the character and not tightly tied to alignment. CN characters in my experience generally say &quot;screw it, I'm going to go around the inn we're meeting to discuss plans in, and rob people's rooms!&quot; or &quot;screw it, I'm going to go and see if someone will sell me an owlbear cub so I can train it&quot;, rather than &quot;screw it, I'm going to do the mission that the DM laid out for us&quot;. Anything but the latter. That's why they picked it, in my experience. YMMV.Re: legitimate - no, that wasn't the intended implication - the intended implication is that NO government in a medieval era is particularly &quot;legitimate&quot;. Not that unjust ones are more or less legitimate. Unless there's literal divine right (extremely rare in D&amp;D, as one god backing a ruler when others may oppose them is clearly not divine right in the sense we mean it, not remotely - it could happen in an Arthurian campaign where the was but one god of course), it's likely to be a mess of claimed heredity (which is always a disaster). Ones with a solid legal basis and the consent of the ruled people are also likely to be relatively rare (not unheard of, even with monarchies, especially elective monarchies, but rare).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 7975570, member: 18"] Sure, but my experience is that behaviour is to do with the player more than the character and not tightly tied to alignment. CN characters in my experience generally say "screw it, I'm going to go around the inn we're meeting to discuss plans in, and rob people's rooms!" or "screw it, I'm going to go and see if someone will sell me an owlbear cub so I can train it", rather than "screw it, I'm going to do the mission that the DM laid out for us". Anything but the latter. That's why they picked it, in my experience. YMMV. Re: legitimate - no, that wasn't the intended implication - the intended implication is that NO government in a medieval era is particularly "legitimate". Not that unjust ones are more or less legitimate. Unless there's literal divine right (extremely rare in D&D, as one god backing a ruler when others may oppose them is clearly not divine right in the sense we mean it, not remotely - it could happen in an Arthurian campaign where the was but one god of course), it's likely to be a mess of claimed heredity (which is always a disaster). Ones with a solid legal basis and the consent of the ruled people are also likely to be relatively rare (not unheard of, even with monarchies, especially elective monarchies, but rare). [/QUOTE]

Verification