Alignment changes ...

[Olgar Shiverstone]

From the news ... does "unaligned" = neutral?

With no mention of the law/chaos axis, does anyone think that the nine alignments of D&D are gone? While I agree with making the game less alignment dependent -- I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects -- this is another mechanical link do D&D's past.

 

[Xethreau]

Well, I can't speak officially, but here are my thoughts.

Neutral and Unaligned are very, similar in terms of how you would use it and where it would go, but there is a difference.

Neutral vs. "Unaligned" is like Zero vs. Null. Zero is the mid point of the number line. Null is a lot like zero, except instead of a 'neutral' value, there is 'no value.' Undefined, if you will.

So, an Unaligned character does not have an alignment, as opposed to the Neutral character, who's an alignment is somewhere in the middle of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects

I hope that's how most people use it, since that's exactly how it's described in the PHB.

 

[Rechan]

I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects

... and class abilities, class restrictions, magical items...

I've always hated alignment with the intensity of a thousand suns, and am now glad that the emphasis has been withdrawn to a few mitigating spells. Now morality is almost purely in the realm of the story, the context, and the DM's campaign setting where I like it.

 

[EvilPheemy]

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.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Or players use it as a weapon. The ever popular "I use my detect evil, and anyone who pops up on the radar is getting harassed/is the clear bad guy in this situation".

 

[Umbran]

I think the "unaligned" category is more for clarity, possibly to help dispel the last lingering remnants of the idea that neutral was an active balance you had to maintain.

I don't think the "Zero/Null" analogy works, unless Unaligned and Neutral are both allowed states. I'm expecting, instead, that unaligned is replacing what we used to call neutrality.

 

[Irda Ranger]

From the news ... does "unaligned" = neutral?

I wouldn't think so. If it was, they'd just call it "Neutral"

I think "unaligned" is what is says. "Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."

 

[Xethreau]

I wouldn't think so. If it was, they'd just call it "Neutral"

Agreed.

 

[MerricB]

Will we have alignment meaning an active swearing of an oath of fealty to the gods?

Cheers!