|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
We are discussing why people fight it. What about the idea of defined evil/dishonorable actions drives people to rebel against them.
There are two reasons, why I fight it:
1. I consider the D&D alignment system the most stupid thing ever invented in roleplaying history. There is way too much abstraction and details breaking my suspension of disbelief (see Ashiel's posts for some good examples) and no official interpretation or ruling has succeeded in making it playable for us. That brings us to the second point.
2. I'm european (or more specifically, german) and while I have a lot of respect and sympathy for my american friends, it seems that we have very different ideas about what is good and evil in the real world. That's part of the problem in so far as the D&D alignment system is very much influenced by the american view of things. I have yet to play in a D&D group where this didn't led to problems because someone had problems accepting at least part of the rules definition of alignment.
What flabberghasts me is why anyone would have a problem with not having a character who is Good.
Because that's what I wanna be when playing roleplaying games. Even when playing an anti-hero it would basically come down to play someone with a heart of pure gold (just not showing it for whichever reason). That's even true when playing games where you're by definition a bad guy (Vampires, Shadowrun). I strive to be a good person in real life (and I fail often enough), so I can really do without the failing part when playing games.
So an alignment system telling me that I can't be good for reasons that would be considered as being good in real life, or worse, defines things as good I consider as evil? Just doesn't translate with me.