Alignment changes ...

[The Ubbergeek]

I just hope, strongly, that Chaos, order/Law, Good and Evil will still exist...

 

[Agamon]

Ding dong, the witch is dead!

I just hope, strongly, that Chaos, order/Law, Good and Evil will still exist...

Personally, I'd rather see chaos, law, good, and evil...IYKWIM.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Ding dong, the witch is dead!



Personally, I'd rather see chaos, law, good, and evil...IYKWIM.

IYKWIM?

 

[Jhulae]

I'll be so glad to see the alignment system gone. It's always annoyed me.

Chaos is not the opposite of Law! It's the opposite of Order. The opposite of Law is Anarchy! Gahh!

 

[Stone Dog]

I'm hoping that alignment has nothing to do with your outlook or behavior, but is merely an indicator of which side you are on in the end.

IYKWIM?

If You Know What I Mean.

 

[TerraDave]

Just to summarize, I think they have all but confirmed four alingments:

Good
Evil
Lawful
Chaotic

All of which are optional. It may also be possible to take two, so you could be Lawful and Good. But there really aren't 9 alingments or any "neutrals".

But we still don't know what it means. Is it just for things with a divine association? Does it still have a mechanics role? for example, no class has to be of a particular alingment, but all divine class charecters must be aligned? Will there still be some spells and items that involve alingment? We don't really know.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

And what of active, pro NeutralitY?

 

[JohnSnow]

And what of active, pro NeutralitY?

Please explain how active, pro-Neutrality is something a rational person would support. An active pro-Neutral would agree with the following statement.

"If Good gains the advantage, Evil will suffer! That would be awful!"

Excuse me???

Please elucidate.

 

[Tewligan]

Alignment is perhaps the rule that is most improperly used in D&D. For decades, poor GMs have used it like a hammer, and for every bad experience that comes from "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Crazy", the impression that Alignment is a straightjacket is reinforced. So much so that now, even if you point to the text that states how Alignment should be used as a guideline, the response is often "but no one I know plays alignment that way". It's like "Vancian Magic" in a way. Enough players have had bad experiences (or have been convinced that the experience of others have been horrible) that the myth has replaced history (so to speak).
Personally, I like Alignment as a tool. It helps new players retain continuity in their characters' personalities. And it provides a crib note for GMs to keep track of NPCs and Adversaries.

In 1e, it WAS a straitjacket. Changing alignment meant a loss of experience. That's not myth, that's btb.

 

[The Shadow]

Please explain how active, pro-Neutrality is something a rational person would support. An active pro-Neutral would agree with the following statement.

"If Good gains the advantage, Evil will suffer! That would be awful!"

Excuse me???

Please elucidate.

You said it much more succinctly than me. Kudos!

There are some qualities to the human being that are inherently Evil, but are nonetheless needed to round out an individual. Greed is bad, but a small portion of it makes you cherish your achievements and strive for more. Hatred is bad, but a small portion of it is necessary to rile up a person to stand up against something (like an injustice).

I couldn't disagree more. I submit that you are using words (such as 'hatred') equivocally.

There is no such thing as an 'inherently Evil quality', in human beings or anything else. Evil has no positive existence of its own; it is always a distortion, a perversion, of something good. Good has no need of evil, but evil has need of good; it is a parasite.

Anything that supports virtue - such as a hatred for evil-doing - is by definition good. It becomes evil only when distorted by being directed to the wrong object - to persons rather than deeds. As for 'greed', I think you're actually using the same word for two very different things.