Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 5777438" data-attributes="member: 16726">I'd like to see D&amp;D return to the iconic 9-position alignment system, but the designers do need to come up with a more coherent and consistent definition of what law and chaos actually mean.&nbsp; Is it modron-like rigidity versus anarchy?&nbsp; Is it &quot;having a code of conduct,&quot; no matter what that code says, versus &quot;not having a code of conduct&quot;?&nbsp; It it being honorable versus &quot;doing what's necessary&quot;?&nbsp; Is it a willingness to judge others when they fall short in their duties versus validating their behavior no matter what it turns out to be?&nbsp; Is it respecting authority figures and/or the law of the land versus flouting them?&nbsp; My opinion - alignment works best when it's a shorthand description of how characters will act regardless of the campaign setting into which they're placed.&nbsp; If I know that the members of a party are &quot;good,&quot; for example, I know they'll try to help people as best they can, even if they occasionally disagree amongst themselves over how best to do that.&nbsp; But if you instead tell me that the members of a party are &quot;lawful&quot; in the sense that they have codes of conduct and respect various authority figures, I don't have any idea how they'll respond to a given situation until someone specifies the configuration of authority figures to whom each character is accountable and the particular vagaries of each character's code of conduct.&nbsp; And that defeats what is (at least in my opinion) the main benefit of having an alignment system in the first place.Law = honor could work, I think.&nbsp; So could a system in which lawful characters favor order over individual freedom and chaotic characters favor the reverse.&nbsp; I suppose even Modron-type stagnacy versus nihilism would work, though such a system wouldn't be especially interesting.&nbsp; But codes of conduct and obedience to particular authority figures need to be handled outside of the alignment system, not within it.Those are my two cents, anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5777438, member: 16726"] I'd like to see D&D return to the iconic 9-position alignment system, but the designers do need to come up with a more coherent and consistent definition of what law and chaos actually mean. Is it modron-like rigidity versus anarchy? Is it "having a code of conduct," no matter what that code says, versus "not having a code of conduct"? It it being honorable versus "doing what's necessary"? Is it a willingness to judge others when they fall short in their duties versus validating their behavior no matter what it turns out to be? Is it respecting authority figures and/or the law of the land versus flouting them? My opinion - alignment works best when it's a shorthand description of how characters will act regardless of the campaign setting into which they're placed. If I know that the members of a party are "good," for example, I know they'll try to help people as best they can, even if they occasionally disagree amongst themselves over how best to do that. But if you instead tell me that the members of a party are "lawful" in the sense that they have codes of conduct and respect various authority figures, I don't have any idea how they'll respond to a given situation until someone specifies the configuration of authority figures to whom each character is accountable and the particular vagaries of each character's code of conduct. And that defeats what is (at least in my opinion) the main benefit of having an alignment system in the first place. Law = honor could work, I think. So could a system in which lawful characters favor order over individual freedom and chaotic characters favor the reverse. I suppose even Modron-type stagnacy versus nihilism would work, though such a system wouldn't be especially interesting. But codes of conduct and obedience to particular authority figures need to be handled outside of the alignment system, not within it. Those are my two cents, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification