Search results

While I haven't seen the "merge good an evil" argument, there is a difference between the two -- there really isn't that much which (in the rules as writ) separates NG from CG; there is a lot which separates G from E. So, basically, those people are wrong :) You can make a nine-bucket alignment...

Hey, man, it's not just me. Check out the SRD, specifically the section on Chaotic Evil -- not just "doesn't" form groups, but can't, and when it manages to put one together through main force, it's slovenly and disorganized. And let's not forget the "driven by urges" part -- so they're low Int...

Valdrax: Everything you've just described as "LE" was also just-plain-evil; while, sure, descriptively it was indeed within the laws of the society in which it occurred, it may also have occurred on a Tuesday. It's legal status is incidental and in no way interesting to (me, at least). What...

I know they're just examples, but a lot of them hinge on a society that accepts slavery as lawful but blank on the scale between Good and Evil. This is D&D, where there was a series of modules, Against the Slavers. Sure, there are societies where slavery is tolerated and not big-E evil, but...

Again: Calling LG out is not a snub against civil disobedience: it's a recognition of the place of the Paladin in fantasy lit'rachur. I maintain that by folding CG in with NG (which is presumably what's happened), they argue that civil disobedience is in line with that which is good by default...

3) Chaotic Evil is a type of Evil -- just calling it Chaotic reads badly, though. I mean, why not? Now, why not have other types of evil too, would be my next question. I don't have as glib an answer yet, though :) I could conceive of having "Evil like an Old One" and "Evil like a demon" be...

Because they're chaotic and evil, mebbe? I mean, if it were just "Chaotic", it would imply no evil at all, and that seems wrong.

You, sir, are a smart cookie.

Firstly, thank you. I've used systems very like this in my previous campaigns -- I believe I hijacked another thread with a lengthy post describing mine -- and it's all thanks to you. Secondly: I've never liked the alignment names you chose. Sorry. :) Thirdly: I think you're being unfair to 4e...

But by that token, 4e:Good is 3e:Chaotic Good. No, really -- the value you grew up with as a believer in personal liberty over societal conformity tells you that to be moral:good is to be moral:good regardless of societal pressure. Mazel Tov. However, this definition of moral:good is clearly...

Oh -- hey. So I hear that there are no evil gods in the PHB? (or rather, that this was being discussed, with the ultimate result being that the good gods get a lot more detail in the PHB.) Where'd the alignment debate come from?

Muffin_of_chaos' point -- that the new scale is way better for per-action rather than overall-mental-justification measuring -- is probably apt here. So, too, is that this cuts down on a lot of alignment debate (I take this as a good in-and-of-itself, though of course you're free to disagree)...

You've seen the books, I haven't. But Paladins need an alignment (er, as in, the Good kind of Paladin) that is distinct from reg'lar old good. There are a few ways of making it distinct -- double-plus good, Lawful Good, Paladin-flavor good -- but if you have an alignment system, the trope of...

"Sounds good to me" :D

Sort of a tangent. Actually, just a tangent -- this is purely an alignment debate, and therefore Godwinned from the start. :) In my last campaign, I used a five-fold alignment system (sixfold, actually), which fit my needs perfectly. It basically divorces the "team" aspects of alignment from...

Uh, okay. I can tell you this thing. By the way, I was reading the 1st ed monster manual, and the 2nd ed monster manual kind of spoiled us. Then I contrasted it with the BD&D tables... I've come to the realization that, if Dragon publishes a ton of ecology articles (as I can't help but imagine...

Don't worry, you're wrong. :) Reasoning: The difference between the rogue and the fighter in 3x is fluff, as is the difference between the cleric and the wizard. Luckily... :)

I enjoy your policy :) I'm not convinced that that specific ranger ability would enmonkey the designers, though -- I'm perfectly okay with the ranger under its influence being a mook-free-zone.

Do all your wizards end up with the same spells known now (Mine don't)? Especially ignoring fireball and magic missile? Because if they don't, the limit is likely to be the same (gold, opportunity cost) as it is now; an arbitrary rate limiter rather than a total cap. If yours do, then there's...

Welcome to house ruling. :) Irda: I think you have an excellent handle on the game-and-statistic-aspects of this issue. I'm not sure that I understand why you're worried about the melding of the gritty (they don't feel that gritty to me, but whatever!) and the superheroic; can you elaborate on...