When the players act out of alignment

>when the players act out of alignment
>when the players don't even understand what alignment is for

So just adjust their alignment, its descriptive not prescriptive

Unless you're a Paladin, Druid, Barbarian, or Monk who wants to keep his class features.

Then remove their class features. What exactly is the difficult part to understand?

You either play with alignment and screw over characters for doing things that make sense to them, or you don't. Why are you complaining on Veeky Forums about it?

If they were to complain, then sure, but if they don't complain because you're too cowardly to do anything except whine on a parmesian cheese cutting board about your imaginary players then you're just shitting up the place with your own gutlessness.

I'm saying alignment is prescriptive for those classes you bitter mongoloid.

So the party I GM for is mostly Chaotic Good. The Druid is CN.
I didn't see a problem with it, but another GM I know thinks that slitting sleeping Goblin throats is evil? I figure if the party is smart enough to sneak into the goblin fort while some of them are sleeping and take those ones out, that should be fine. They were going to fight them anyway.

So adjust their alignment, because it's not prescriptive, it's still descriptive.

Their alignment is DESCRIBED by their actions, you cunt-sucking asphyxiated retard, and if you DESCRIBE their alignment as different from what their class can have, they lose their fucking class features.

You don't say "oh, you can't do that, you're a monk", you say "if you do that, you'd be going against your tenets as a monk, which is fine but you'd lose access to your class features".

Or possibly "eh, cool, I'll roll with it" because fuck alignments.

In non-shit edition it isn't.

Why don't you toss out alignments in the first place?

>alignments
>being used for anything that personality descriptors

I think you missed Reddit, OP.

>a faggot who can't see "alignment" without shitposting with his forced meme, regardless of how off base he is

Holy fuck, you can't make this level of faggotry up.

>Person complaining about alignments
>Bitches about people calling him an idiot for using alignments

>alignment
meh

He's bitching about people not knowing how to use alignments, not alignments in general.

But, you were too eager for any excuse to keep forcing your idiotic meme to actually read anything except for your trigger word.

Holy shit, and you even tried to defend your asspained shitposting. What a fucking faggot.

>using alignment at all ever
lol

>play your character the way I think you should or become a commoner with more hp
you sound like a miserable chode.

Fuck alignments. A stupid idea to begin with

HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?

HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?

>be a Paladin or something
>want to do thing
>can't do that because it'll change my alignment
Ergo, prescriptive.

Why not indeed.

>just use alignment for describing personality
No reason for an alignment system at all, at that point.

>being this triggered

You can justify any behavior under any alignment.

>not ditching the druid and barbarian alignment restrictions because they are retarded and nonsensical.

HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?

The idea is that the goblins wouldhave died on their feet with a chance to fight back. The idea of 'good' is really flavored by whether it's good, chaotic, or neutral, with chaotic being the more pragmatic designation.

Personally, killing a goblin in it's sleep is evil because it'a not fair, but my personal good/evil compass is weird so YMMV.

Yes, but I like D&D, and pretty much evertone is willing to play it so I play it.

*Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic

That's literally how the system works, though.

Admittedly I would be, if I thought alignments were useful. I personally ditched alignments.

>be a Paladin or something
>want to do thing
>can't do that because it'll change my alignment
>Ergo, prescriptive.

You can do the thing, as long as you're aware of the consequences.

>be a hero
>want to heroically sacrifice myself
>can't do that because I'd die and the character can't do anything else

>be an everyday citizen
>want to break the law
>can't break the law because I'd become wanted by the law

If a paladin wants to rape 200 babies in order to summon a nightmarish evil god into the world, sure! Just note that your god won't be too happy about it.

HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?
HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING D&D?

>57662934
Oh I get it, instead of intending that as a genuine suggestion you are just posting to annoy those who play a game that you personally dislike

That's always what it is when someone posts that. If they were offering a genuine suggestion, they'd instead offer a different system instead of just crying about people playing something that is popular, and it's particularly absolutely mindless to tell people to not play D&D because of alignment since it's easily removed/altered.

It's just blatant shitposting.

Yes, I played WHRPG and hated every moment of it.
Monks don't lose access to their features. They just can't advance as monks anymore. Same for Barbarian but they can't rage anymore either. A "fallen" barbarian would still probably be better than a fighter, now that I think about it.

It's a moot point anyway, since even worst edition have ways of mimicking classes/archetypes without fucking with alignment. You can't fall out of being an Unarmed Swordsage or a Brawler.
Monks being lawful only is comlete horseshit if Wizards get to be any fucking alignment. You're telling me "punch good and fast" somehow requires such extreme fucking discipline and monastic commitment it forces people to be Lawful, but creating entire fucking planes of existence through fucking formulae doesn't. Fuck off.

>>just use alignment for describing personality
>No reason for an alignment system at all, at that point.
Yet that's been the extent of it's use for two editions now. Alignment is worthless and unwanted and WotC knows it

No you can't, you clearly don't understand the concept of alignment.

Actions cause alignment, not the other way around.

>not reading the thread
It's prescriptive for players who want their Paladin to stay a Paladin., and you're not being pedantic over the technical difference between "cannot do thing" and "can do thing but at such a high cost that most players most of the time will avoid it".

>Playing 3.PF
The absolute state of some people

>Be Paladin of Goody-Two-Shoes
>All my powers come directly from the contract I made with Shoes
>Do something Shoes doesn't like breaking the contract I had with him
>He cuts me off from the Smite Juice
>Go on Veeky Forums and scream about how alignment doesn't make sense because I exclusively learnt to play from the SRD instead of the source material

That's not a thing anymore, that was removed in 4th edition.

...

So you agree that it's prescriptive.

>playing the 2nd most popular game

Oh no, how uncontrarian of them. Us shitposting trolls should shitpost all the harder to show our displeasure.

Funny, that's exactly what i wanted to do when i learned my DM still cares about alignments.

>If it's popular it must be good!
Uh oh someone just outed themselves as retarded

Lol so true. Also I go against my alignment every once in a while because in-game actually shifts take time and usually go one step each shift. You can be CE and do a few CG or LG stuff, it won't affect anything non-local. But you can do some hugely LG actions that don't change your alignment solely because the ends are to further your own CE goals

No one said that.
What people have pointed out is that the only reason you shitpost so much about the game is because it's popular and that offends your itty bitty sensibilities.

Awww, poor baby. Your subjective opinion about a game's quality belongs to that of a small minority, awww.