Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5851814" data-attributes="member: 2067">Look, I think it's important to note that in this -- like in many D&amp;D debates -- there is no one true right answer. The people that don't like alignment don't like it for some pretty good reasons. The people that do like alignment do like it for some pretty good reasons. A rational person could do either. There is no convincing the other party, because there is no one right answer -- just a preference.To me, part of the fun of alignment is its inherent ambiguity (something Planescape taught me). Bastard angels (which D&amp;D has a tradition of dating back to 2e at least) and Batman being all alignments are examplars of this ambiguity: Lawful Good doesn't mean nice. Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't save an orphanage. In Planescape, the Harmonium was a group of mostly lawful-good folks, some of who wanted the world to look like an Orwellian police state (while still being Lawful Good). The Doomguard is a group of people who believe that the ultimate fate of everything is to be destroyed (like 4e's demons), but you didn't need to be Chaotic Evil to believe that. Alignment is a lot of fun for me on that deep, ambiguous level. You can't determine where someone stands on the cosmic scale very easily from a limited example of their actions. It's a more &quot;social science-y&quot; tendency. 5e seems to be predicated on the idea that you can use your preferences to build a game that YOU want. Becuase someone could like alignment or not, I imagine the basic rule books will contain options for both gameplay. Arguing over which one is &quot;core&quot; and which one is &quot;add-on&quot; is pointless validation-seeking. It doesn't matter. What is core is what you say is core in your games. Play What You Want (tm). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5851814, member: 2067"] Look, I think it's important to note that in this -- like in many D&D debates -- there is no one true right answer. The people that don't like alignment don't like it for some pretty good reasons. The people that do like alignment do like it for some pretty good reasons. A rational person could do either. There is no convincing the other party, because there is no one right answer -- just a preference. To me, part of the fun of alignment is its inherent ambiguity (something Planescape taught me). Bastard angels (which D&D has a tradition of dating back to 2e at least) and Batman being all alignments are examplars of this ambiguity: Lawful Good doesn't mean [I]nice[/I]. Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't save an orphanage. In Planescape, the Harmonium was a group of mostly lawful-good folks, some of who wanted the world to look like an Orwellian police state (while still being Lawful Good). The Doomguard is a group of people who believe that the ultimate fate of everything is to be destroyed (like 4e's demons), but you didn't need to be Chaotic Evil to believe that. Alignment is a lot of fun for me on that deep, ambiguous level. You can't determine where someone stands on the cosmic scale very easily from a limited example of their actions. It's a more "social science-y" tendency. 5e seems to be predicated on the idea that you can use your preferences to build a game that YOU want. Becuase someone could like alignment or not, I imagine the basic rule books will contain options for both gameplay. Arguing over which one is "core" and which one is "add-on" is pointless validation-seeking. It doesn't matter. What is core is what you say is core in your games. Play What You Want (tm). ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification