Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rasyr" data-source="post: 2658988" data-attributes="member: 2855">Personally, I see no reason for them to exist. To me, they are limiting, at least in some cases. For example, I don't view a Paladin as needing to be Lawful Good. I see him as needing to follow a set of rules as determined by his religion. Something like a &quot;Code of Chivalry&quot;, only geared to the specifics of the deity worshipped.The same applies to Monks. Monk require discipline, not a lawful nature.On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Chaotic Neutral, which too many players think is a license to do whatever they want.&nbsp; I have seen comments/complaints about this alignment too many times.Remember, mechanics are meant to simulate things. You can have descriptors without mechanics.The best alignment system I have ever seen is in the Palladium system. It uses alignment as a method of describing certain character traits. In D&amp;D, it, more often than not, is used to restrict a character from performing certain actions, or tries to fit character types into a generic mold. It also tends to prevent the inclusion of cultural differences (see below).You can still have law, chaos, good, &amp; evil without alignment mechanics. Of course, things will be a bit more fuzzy, as what one culture considers to be evil may not be considered to be evil in another culture. For example, you might have a culture where necromancy (or necromantic magics) are considered ok, but the next country over might consider interaction with the dead to be extremely evil.Personally, I think that while alignments can be useful, they should be determined by character's actions, not some arbitrary definitions that can restrict actions.For example, it could list &quot;Evil&quot; as actions that intentionally hurt others (that are not in self defense, or the defense of another), greed, etc. Characters who perform such actions or have such atitudes/traits, would then show up as &quot;evil&quot; for a &quot;Detect Evil&quot; spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rasyr, post: 2658988, member: 2855"] Personally, I see no reason for them to exist. To me, they are limiting, at least in some cases. For example, I don't view a Paladin as needing to be Lawful Good. I see him as needing to follow a set of rules as determined by his religion. Something like a "Code of Chivalry", only geared to the specifics of the deity worshipped. The same applies to Monks. Monk require discipline, not a lawful nature. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Chaotic Neutral, which too many players think is a license to do whatever they want. I have seen comments/complaints about this alignment too many times. Remember, mechanics are meant to simulate things. You can have descriptors without mechanics. The best alignment system I have ever seen is in the Palladium system. It uses alignment as a method of describing certain character traits. In D&D, it, more often than not, is used to restrict a character from performing certain actions, or tries to fit character types into a generic mold. It also tends to prevent the inclusion of cultural differences (see below). You can still have law, chaos, good, & evil without alignment mechanics. Of course, things will be a bit more fuzzy, as what one culture considers to be evil may not be considered to be evil in another culture. For example, you might have a culture where necromancy (or necromantic magics) are considered ok, but the next country over might consider interaction with the dead to be extremely evil. Personally, I think that while alignments can be useful, they should be determined by character's actions, not some arbitrary definitions that can restrict actions. For example, it could list "Evil" as actions that intentionally hurt others (that are not in self defense, or the defense of another), greed, etc. Characters who perform such actions or have such atitudes/traits, would then show up as "evil" for a "Detect Evil" spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification