The biggest problem with d&d axes is that people try to pick an alignment and then have their character’s actions come from it (and the resulting frequently induced cross-table talk with the eye-rolling phrase “a lawful/neutral/chaotic good/neutral/evil character wouldn’t do that! You’re X/Y, so you wouldn’t do that!”).
No real person has every action fall within one of the outlying boxes’ bounds. Actually ‘moving’ yourself from the neutral spot is (supposed to be) beyond most mortals.
In quite a few cases across the different editions, this behavior is enforced by class requirements. Though even then it’s still dumb to argue about that unless you’re at the point that the GM has to seriously consider changing your alignment because your actions are so far beyond your character’s on-paper alignment.
Yes, and that’s why there are so many in-person arguments about alignments. Too many groups that I’ve been in have socially enforced thinking about character actions, especially involving the stereotypical party-conflict-initiator, also known as the paladin. At least for the most part the hobby enjoyers have gotten away from the “you’re lawful, so you have to follow the laws even when you’re in an eeeeevil society!” thinking. It had gotten so bad that the game developers actually addressed it in one of the 3.5 splatbooks. Tome of exalted deeds, I think.
It also doesn’t help that the game designers go back and forth about it as well. Reading any of gygax’s diatribes about alignment just leads to conflicting statements and mental damage.
I remember a critique of DnD alignments for using ‘neutral’ instead of ‘selfish’ and this grid really proves that argument I think.
The biggest problem with d&d axes is that people try to pick an alignment and then have their character’s actions come from it (and the resulting frequently induced cross-table talk with the eye-rolling phrase “a lawful/neutral/chaotic good/neutral/evil character wouldn’t do that! You’re X/Y, so you wouldn’t do that!”).
No real person has every action fall within one of the outlying boxes’ bounds. Actually ‘moving’ yourself from the neutral spot is (supposed to be) beyond most mortals.
In quite a few cases across the different editions, this behavior is enforced by class requirements. Though even then it’s still dumb to argue about that unless you’re at the point that the GM has to seriously consider changing your alignment because your actions are so far beyond your character’s on-paper alignment.
Yes, and that’s why there are so many in-person arguments about alignments. Too many groups that I’ve been in have socially enforced thinking about character actions, especially involving the stereotypical party-conflict-initiator, also known as the paladin. At least for the most part the hobby enjoyers have gotten away from the “you’re lawful, so you have to follow the laws even when you’re in an eeeeevil society!” thinking. It had gotten so bad that the game developers actually addressed it in one of the 3.5 splatbooks. Tome of exalted deeds, I think.
It also doesn’t help that the game designers go back and forth about it as well. Reading any of gygax’s diatribes about alignment just leads to conflicting statements and mental damage.