Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 8183014" data-attributes="member: 6750908">That's really nowhere near the same thing as being good. There are a lot of other game concepts that were introduced between OD&D and AD&D that were just plain terrible, inexcusably bad, that were thankfully removed much earlier than racial ASIs and the alignment rules. Exceptional Strength. Separate Strength maximums for female characters. The weapons vs. armor tables. Training rules.The Lawful <-> Balance <-> Chaos alignment system of Moorcock is weirdly specific compared to non-Moorcockian fantasy but at least it's a consistent and coherent system.Adding the Good <-> Evil axis forces it to break down entirely, especially when you try to retain the concept and value of Balance between Good and Evil, which some AD&D (and later) material tries to flirt with. Then there's the fact that almost all AD&D (and later) material directly states that Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are equally good, then heavily implies that Lawful Good is the "greater good" of Good alignments, and then in practice in most D&D settings established that Lawful Good is an oxymoron.No, it's not hyperbole. The rules and mechanics surrounding the nine-axis alignment system in AD&D (and later) have always been a treacherous mess because they're built on a foundation of absolute goddamned nonsense.If we're going to start resurrecting incoherent jank from last century's D&D, why can't we start with multiclassing or something? Those rules were bad, but at least they did what they were supposed to do and they're better than we have now.You don't need the existing alignment rules for this. You especially don't need someone to bring them back for this.Does the item have an ethos? Does the player fit that ethos? Done. Simply having that conversation with the player, on a case by case basis is simpler, easier, and more fair than trying to lump every sentient being in your world into that ridiculous 3x3 grid.So... to be clear, the reason that everything in the game world needs to be assigned an arbitrary spiritual/ideological category pertaining to the metaphysical underpinnings of the cosmology... is because you don't want your game to be bogged down in a bunch of philosophical minutia? Is that really an accurate summary of the position you're taking here?Sure. I agree with this. But that means that the alignment rules need to be marked (optional) the way feats and multiclassing are, and the list of D&D settings that use those rules wouldn't be "all of them". They shouldn't even be in the core rulebooks, because if multiple settings are going to be based on such a weird and specific and frankly boring and awful concept, they should at least do it differently.</blockquote>

Verification