Alignment changes ...

[Klaus]

This is precisely how I see the new alignments. Except I do not believe there will be an allegiance to Neutrality. It's simply that there are 4 major powers in the universe: Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. You can declare that your character has an allegiance to one or more of them(but likely not opposing ones).

Or you can declare that your character doesn't feel strongly about promoting any of them.

I don't know, I think a commitment to Balance has anchors in D&D (Mordenkainen, for one; druids, for another) and I think it deserves a place.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem is that alignment has always tried to have it both ways.

D&D is supposed to be a world where absolute good and absolute evil exist and you can detect such a thing via spells. However, Evil people can act good all they want, since alignment isn't a straightjacket.

And that's the problem. Alignment is supposed to describe the way someone acts. But they don't have to act that way. So it doesn't mean anything at all unless they act the way their alignment describes.

It creates a circular argument whereby either characters have to be forced to act within their alignment or you have to change their alignment with nearly every action to properly reflect how they are acting. Neither of which is a good answer.

Well, I usually think that the problem is really that gamers only see 2 ways Either they try to play 100% according to their alignment, or they don't like alignments in the game.

So if I want to play a Lawful character that tells lies, the gamer type 1 will tell me "no, you MUST not tell a lie, or the DM should strip you of your Lawfulness", and gamer type 2 will say "see, alignments are a straightjacket, let's ditch them!". However, who is the straightjacket really? "Lawful" written on my PC sheet, or the DM type 1?

I can understand the type 1 when dealing with Good vs Evil, that if you're Good you shouldn't make exceptions when it's convenient, but I think it's a special case. Lawful vs Chaotic is more liquid, there are 100 different individual things that are either Lawful or Chaotic: loyalty, sincerity, not breaking the law (but whose laws may depend), respect authority (but there can be many), traditionalism, moral standards, etc. Why should a PC abide to each of them? Why cannot someone choose the lawful way for 80% of the topics, and still qualify as "Lawful" for game purposes?

 

[Drammattex]

Very happy about these changes.

Let those who want to work to be GOOD be good, those who want to work to be EVIL be evil, and let everybody else do as they will. Personally, I think "unaligned" will help players create more complex characters without the 16 ton weight of alignment hanging over their heads.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I think of Unaligned as Han Solo in Star Wars. At first, he's simply trying to do the best he can for himself in a tough world. This doesn't mean that he's not good at heart, but that he hasn't really had an opportunity to explore that side of himself. As the films progress, he becomes Good.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that alignment has always tried to have it both ways.

D&D is supposed to be a world where absolute good and absolute evil exist and you can detect such a thing via spells. However, Evil people can act good all they want, since alignment isn't a straightjacket.

Um, this last isn't exactly true. Alignment isn't a straightjacket in that the DM can't say, "you are LG, so you cannot take that action". You can take whatever action you want, and it may have consequences - alignment change may be one of them.

An Evil character can, in the short term, act in a Good fashion, sure. Because Alignment is (at least to me) a long term thing, a summation or averaging of your behavior. So, what you do this instant doesn't matter - but if you make a habit of it, it does matter.

This way, there's nothing circular about it - it just says that there's some inertia in alignment, and you usually need to supply sufficient force to it before it changes.

 

[KingCrab]

I think of Unaligned as Han Solo in Star Wars. At first, he's simply trying to do the best he can for himself in a tough world. This doesn't mean that he's not good at heart, but that he hasn't really had an opportunity to explore that side of himself. As the films progress, he becomes Good.

Well didn't he start out kind of nice? I mean, it's not like he would have shot Greedo first.

 

[Nebulous]

So are we certain that "Detect Evil" is gone as a spell? Good gods i hope so, i absolutely hated the use of that. I would much rather it be relegated to a special power or talent that can only detect demonic presences, not your average bartender who sleeps with the barmaids and cheats his patrons out of gold.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I hope the 2D grid of Good/Evil and Chaos/Order(Law) remains, as neutrality, somehow...

No, I can't see just two.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Well, I usually think that the problem is really that gamers only see 2 ways Either they try to play 100% according to their alignment, or they don't like alignments in the game.

So if I want to play a Lawful character that tells lies, the gamer type 1 will tell me "no, you MUST not tell a lie, or the DM should strip you of your Lawfulness", and gamer type 2 will say "see, alignments are a straightjacket, let's ditch them!". However, who is the straightjacket really? "Lawful" written on my PC sheet, or the DM type 1?

I can understand the type 1 when dealing with Good vs Evil, that if you're Good you shouldn't make exceptions when it's convenient, but I think it's a special case. Lawful vs Chaotic is more liquid, there are 100 different individual things that are either Lawful or Chaotic: loyalty, sincerity, not breaking the law (but whose laws may depend), respect authority (but there can be many), traditionalism, moral standards, etc. Why should a PC abide to each of them? Why cannot someone choose the lawful way for 80% of the topics, and still qualify as "Lawful" for game purposes?

I agree with you, but I will also take the arguement that you can even do this with Good and Evil. Good people can knowingly do bad things, the difference is that they probably need more justification and they are more likely to feel remorseful for what they have done. "I didn't want to kill him, but it is for the greater good."

 

[Li Shenron]

So are we certain that "Detect Evil" is gone as a spell? Good gods i hope so, i absolutely hated the use of that. I would much rather it be relegated to a special power or talent that can only detect demonic presences, not your average bartender who sleeps with the barmaids and cheats his patrons out of gold.

The fact that it detected the average bartender is not a bug it's a feature