Ampersand Sneak Attack: Alignments

[Frostmarrow]

We know that the minis game uses Good, Evil, and Unaligned. We also know that something has changed with the definition of Chaotic.

Who knows? Going off of broader uses of the ideas of Order and Chaos, maybe it is like this:

Unaligned
Good
Lawful Evil
Chaotic Evil

Good is the state of balance and harmony, and evil is the state of either imbalance towards chaos or imbalance towards order.

I like this.

But I'd rather get rid of alignment all together. Having an alignment from the get go is like picking treasure before going after it. Alignment is the stamp you get when you check out.

 

[Mercule]

I've been under the impression that it'll work passably close to what I've been doing. Which is to say, use a modified allegiance that includes good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality (in addition to gods, nations, etc.). In this context, good and evil stand out as being the biggest allegiances and are often inherited by proxy for clerics and faithful. Law and chaos can still have some meaning, but are not as common. Allegiance to neutrality is rare in the extreme among the PC races.

So, terms like "chaotic evil" still have meaning, but "neutral evil" is an oxymoron. Even "chaotic evil" would be significantly more rare than just plain "evil".

 

[I'm A Banana]

They said that well before they let us know that the only alignments would be Good, Evil, and Unaligned, so it's possible that Law/Chaos are not in the game. The reason we keep seeing stuff like "chaotic evil" mentioned in places is because it's been ingrained in our skulls for almost 30 years.

Does the Rogue preview not discuss Chaotic rogues?

Sounds like Law/Chaos made it into 4e from that.

 

[Steely Dan]

Sounds like Law/Chaos made it into 4e from that.

I'm kind of bummed about Law and Chaos still being alignments in the game, well, it works well in my current Planescape campaign, but in general D&D I figure you should have Good and Evil, or Law and Chaos (Moorcockian), but not both.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm kind of bummed about Law and Chaos still being alignments in the game, well, it works well in my current Planescape campaign, but in general D&D I figure you should have Good and Evil, or Law and Chaos (Moorcockian), but not both.

All of 2e and all of 3e (and a chunk of 1e) would pretty much disagree with your experiences. You can have both. In fact, it can be more exciting to have both. Law and Chaos may have started in the Moorcockian sense, but it's kind of become as D&Dized as chromatic dragons by this point, and has been boiled down to a general "the bonds of social ties" or "freedom and individuality" kind of argument, coupled with a sort of Conan "society vs. wilderness" kind of thing.

It's useful to have these archetypes in the game, though I confess I had thought that Law and Chaos would have been early candidates for execution in 4e's design process due to the problems that crop up with them ("Law means you always follow the rules!" "Chaos means you're a gibbering lunatic!") that don't creep up as much as the Good/Evil debate.

 

[Steely Dan]

1.) All of 2e and all of 3e (and a chunk of 1e) would pretty much disagree with your experiences.


2.) You can have both.

1.) What experiences?


2.) I know, as I currently do in my current Planescape campaign (as I previously said) – did you even read what I posted?

 

[I'm A Banana]

1.) What experiences?


2.) I know, as I currently do in my current Planescape campaign (as I previously said) – did you even read what I posted?

Simma down, son. The upthrust is that it's perfectly sensible to have core D&D have a law/chaos axis, even though I'm personally a little pleasantly surprised by the descision.