Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 7979341" data-attributes="member: 61529">I hated 4E's system because it no longer made sense; it omitted combinations which clearly existed and basically turned &quot;lawful&quot; and &quot;chaotic&quot; into intensifiers; lawful good was just &quot;more-gooder&quot; and chaotic evil just &quot;more-eviler&quot; without actually making sense.I remember interminable flame wars over the 3E system, which mostly revolved around people trying to argue whether or not killing was innately evil. My personal favorite was the guy who absolutely insisted that the rules explicitly stated that alignment had to do with how you decided that actions affecting sapient life were evil or good... But that it had no impact at all on decisions about actions affecting animals, because such actions could never be evil or good. The weird part wasn't that he stated this; it's that he insisted that the rules stated it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 7979341, member: 61529"] I hated 4E's system because it no longer made [I]sense[/I]; it omitted combinations which clearly existed and basically turned "lawful" and "chaotic" into intensifiers; lawful good was just "more-gooder" and chaotic evil just "more-eviler" without actually making sense. I remember interminable flame wars over the 3E system, which mostly revolved around people trying to argue whether or not killing was innately evil. My personal favorite was the guy who absolutely insisted that the rules explicitly stated that alignment had to do with how you decided that actions affecting sapient life were evil or good... But that it had no impact at all on decisions about actions affecting animals, because such actions could never be evil or good. The weird part wasn't that he stated this; it's that he insisted that the rules stated it. [/QUOTE]

Verification