Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6189769" data-attributes="member: 4937">That's been the biggest problem with alignment since the beginning.&nbsp; The initial descriptions were very vague and even Gygax has some biases that negatively influenced how the alignments were perceived (you can see this come to its laughable fruition in the 4e alignment system).&nbsp; Worse, different writers have had entirely different takes on what the system describes or means, including some that are down right contradictory.&nbsp; All this inconsistency has increased the natural inconsistency you'd expect to see when people define the terms.&nbsp; I don't know that they are better, but they are at least described and an attempt to be consistent in the description is made.&nbsp; I have some quibbles with how they define 'neutrality'* and they like many others seem to have trouble grasping neutral evil's essential nature**, but on the whole, that is indeed a better job than D&amp;D has managed in any of its official works.*(So many writer's describing alignment get stuck on 'selfish'.&nbsp; Insane is another concept that causes many writers fits.)**(Simplified, LE: I'm destructive for the sake of my society.&nbsp; CE: I'm destructive for the sake of myself.&nbsp; NE: Who needs a reason to be destructive?)Most alignment restrictions end up coming from a 'alignment defines personality' mindset that I deplore, or else mistake the 'law vs. chaos' conflict for being 'man vs. nature' or 'civilization vs. barbarism' which is silly.&nbsp; I get rid of all alignment restrictions pretty much in my home brew, though some classes - notably Cleric and Champion have alignment dependent powers are must 'fix' their alignment to begin with based on their character building choices.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is because Cleric and Champion derive their power from championing a particular philosophical cause.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6189769, member: 4937"] That's been the biggest problem with alignment since the beginning. The initial descriptions were very vague and even Gygax has some biases that negatively influenced how the alignments were perceived (you can see this come to its laughable fruition in the 4e alignment system). Worse, different writers have had entirely different takes on what the system describes or means, including some that are down right contradictory. All this inconsistency has increased the natural inconsistency you'd expect to see when people define the terms. I don't know that they are better, but they are at least described and an attempt to be consistent in the description is made. I have some quibbles with how they define 'neutrality'* and they like many others seem to have trouble grasping neutral evil's essential nature**, but on the whole, that is indeed a better job than D&D has managed in any of its official works. *(So many writer's describing alignment get stuck on 'selfish'. Insane is another concept that causes many writers fits.) **(Simplified, LE: I'm destructive for the sake of my society. CE: I'm destructive for the sake of myself. NE: Who needs a reason to be destructive?) Most alignment restrictions end up coming from a 'alignment defines personality' mindset that I deplore, or else mistake the 'law vs. chaos' conflict for being 'man vs. nature' or 'civilization vs. barbarism' which is silly. I get rid of all alignment restrictions pretty much in my home brew, though some classes - notably Cleric and Champion have alignment dependent powers are must 'fix' their alignment to begin with based on their character building choices. This is because Cleric and Champion derive their power from championing a particular philosophical cause. [/QUOTE]

Verification