LogFAQs > #911167447

darkknight109 posted...

The annoying part about alignments is that certain classes require you to have certain alignments and if you act against them, you can lose the benefits of that class.

That's not a thing any more. Mainly because of the potential for misuse you're implying.

But thematically, it makes sense regardless. "Hey, I'm a Paladin, a traditional paragon of nobility and grace, the whitest of white knights, saving maidens and bringing peace and justice to the land. Also, I'm Chaotic Evil!" It doesn't really make sense, no matter how kewl the player thinks it would be.

The real sticking point is once people start asking questions like "Well, can I be a Paladin of an Evil god?" or "Why would my Chaotic god expect me to be Lawful?" Which is why the rules eventually adapted to incorporate the "one-step" rule (where your Alignment has to be mostly the same as your god, with enough wiggle room to be one step away - so a Cleric of a Chaotic Evil god could be Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil, but you can't be Lawful Good without annoying your god).

Eventually they just dropped restrictions like that entirely under the assumption that DM's can adjudicate things like that themselves, while still opening the door for a player to be devoted to the ideals of their god without necessarily being in lockstep with their worldview. But the DM can still tell you to fuck off if you're trying to be a Chaotic Evil Paladin of Lathander.



I_Abibde posted...

Most of the D&D players with whom I have recently played default to Chaotic Neutral in order to not have to think too hard about alignment. Their characters just do what is expedient, though I do have one player who is purposely playing Lawful Good in the same group in order to see whether or not he can stick to it.

Arguably, that would just make them True Neutral, which is the default Alignment of 90% of the normal population.

True Neutral is basically the person who is mostly just trying to get by, willing to take shortcuts or break minor laws to benefit themselves, but who also feel guilty about hurting other people so try to avoid exploiting or abusing other people TOO much. They react to pretty much every situation or scenario by evaluating the cost/benefit transaction (even if only unconsciously), and tailor their reactions to the specific case (so they can be vengeful to assholes, but also occasionally kind to strangers if it doesn't cost too much, willing to commit "victimless crimes" if they think they can get away with them, but most of the time they follow the rules to avoid rocking the boat).

Heroes are legendary figures who tend more towards extremes (it takes a lot of individualism and a bit of crazy to be the sort of person who decides to strap a sword on your hip and wander off to murder monsters and crawl around in old tombs for coin), so they're more likely to react to things in more archetypal/mythic ways, but the average person isn't going to be a saint or a sociopath, but just Joe McEverydude. Adventurers are more inclined to be noble paragons or impulsive thrillseekers than the guy who spends all his time farming potatoes or serving drinks in the tavern.



LinkPizza posted...

In my games, we blow a lot of things up. One of my characters was addicted to explosions, though.

Sounds like my college RP group. They were the sort to bungie jump in through the skylight of local vampire wizards in an attempt to steal their magic books, and once murdered a bunch of thugs from a street gang, then went bowling with one of their heads and a bunch of empty beer bottles in an alley.

Was tons of fun, though.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family