The Gaming Den

A Man In Black wrote:Nor do I particular see any reason that a druid should have to be neutral, and the bard and barbarian alignment restrictions were always insane.

Yes I agree on this however sometimes you can find alignment fanatics who don’t want to house rule this insanity.

To sum it up, Good and Evil can usually be agreed upon by the group with little arguments, but law and chaos is basically "whatever the DM says it is", because any viewpoint could be argued because the terms aren't well defined. I agree totally the real problem are not the good Vs evil ax...

Anyhow, alignments are just generalized labels and no longer have any gameplay ramifications. It's pretty unimportant. Really that’s new to me? So every alignment can be a: Druid Barbarian Paladin Can I play a Chaotic Evil Paladin? If not how is it going to impact the game play if the GM has radica...

Mrzero, you made one of the classic blunders! The first is obviously never start a land war in asia. However, only slightly less well known is that you never argue something in PALLADIUM is far superior! Well I don’t play Palladium however after I looked their morality system its far less ambiguous...

Why alignment in D&D sucks : 0. The descriptor neutral both in the L-C and G-E is confusing and shows the laziness of the creators how difficult is it to invent another word that is not "neutral" in the L-C ? How about balanced ? Is this really so difficult ? 1. Law and Chaos makes no ...