Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alignment restrictions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 5899905" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>I like alignment.</p><p></p><p>For those that don't: Do you object to alignment for outsiders and other exemplary types, or just for mortals?</p><p></p><p>I have a suspicion that much of the alignment hatred is actually a response to changes in culture since the days of AD&D. We have a *lot* more anti-heroes in our entertainment. There are a lot more shows, movies, etc, where it's less "good vs. evil" and more simply "us vs them." As often as not, the "good guys" are only good because they are on the side that is killing the really bad guys.</p><p></p><p>Now, I'm not saying I can't enjoy shows and movies like that. I actually do enjoy some of them. But you see, that's a different level/class of entertainment. D&D has traditionally been about good vs. evil, and should stay that way.</p><p></p><p>I do think better alignment descriptions would be nice though. 3e actually did a pretty good job of describing the different alignments, but you had to read a couple of different places to really "get it." They should make sure the alignment descriptions are quite clear. For instance, it is stated 3e alignment system that the boundary between good and neutral is that a good person will risk their life for someone they have no personal connection to, while a neutral character needs a reason. The context also strongly implies that the boundary between neutral and evil is that an evil character would commit murder if he thought it was expedient, while a neutral character wouldn't...but that implication isn't clearly stated.</p><p></p><p>In other words, make sure it's idiot-proof. Tall order, but they've had 30 years to work it out, so I think we should be able to come up with descriptions that are broad enough and clear enough that you can see where different characters should fall. And I have absolutely no problem with alignment overlaps, where a character can be interpreted a few different ways based on what's going on inside their personality.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 5899905, member: 6677017"] I like alignment. For those that don't: Do you object to alignment for outsiders and other exemplary types, or just for mortals? I have a suspicion that much of the alignment hatred is actually a response to changes in culture since the days of AD&D. We have a *lot* more anti-heroes in our entertainment. There are a lot more shows, movies, etc, where it's less "good vs. evil" and more simply "us vs them." As often as not, the "good guys" are only good because they are on the side that is killing the really bad guys. Now, I'm not saying I can't enjoy shows and movies like that. I actually do enjoy some of them. But you see, that's a different level/class of entertainment. D&D has traditionally been about good vs. evil, and should stay that way. I do think better alignment descriptions would be nice though. 3e actually did a pretty good job of describing the different alignments, but you had to read a couple of different places to really "get it." They should make sure the alignment descriptions are quite clear. For instance, it is stated 3e alignment system that the boundary between good and neutral is that a good person will risk their life for someone they have no personal connection to, while a neutral character needs a reason. The context also strongly implies that the boundary between neutral and evil is that an evil character would commit murder if he thought it was expedient, while a neutral character wouldn't...but that implication isn't clearly stated. In other words, make sure it's idiot-proof. Tall order, but they've had 30 years to work it out, so I think we should be able to come up with descriptions that are broad enough and clear enough that you can see where different characters should fall. And I have absolutely no problem with alignment overlaps, where a character can be interpreted a few different ways based on what's going on inside their personality. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alignment restrictions?
Top