Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8641782" data-attributes="member: 87792">The fundamental problem of alignment is that it's a generalised two axis alignment system rather than a setting specific one axis alignment system.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">In the Keep on the Borderlands pseudo-Western setting Law (representing the forces Back East and &quot;civilisation&quot;) vs Chaos (representing the orcs/folks in the Caves of Chaos) makes perfect sense, with the Neutrals liking that they live in &quot;free&quot; or &quot;balanced&quot; territory and wanting survival but not law. Good vs Evil is secondary to the great clash.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">In the Dragonlance setting there is a bright Good (metallic dragons, Paladine, white robes) vs Evil (chromatic dragons, Takhsis, black robes) clash with the sides coming colour coded for your convenience and the morality of a Saturday morning cartoon. And law vs chaos isn't really a thing.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">In the Eberron setting morality is shades of grey. And the Lawful Good Queen is the person who is most keen on restarting the Last War while the evil vampire usurper king is the royal most keen on saving the world from the horrors of another war.</li>
</ul>In all these cases having the right alignment system really accentuates the themes of the setting (in Eberron's case by subverting it and showing how even someone who follows Lawful Good tenets can be a real danger to everyone, emphasising that the entire setting is shades of grey). So the problem is that the alignment mechanics shouldn't be designed for D&amp;D. They should be designed for each separate D&amp;D setting and applied to that setting. Or possibly for each separate campaign or subsetting within one of the larger settings, like the Realms. An adventure set in and around Waterdeep dealing with protecting people from raiders and one set in and around Menzobarranzan dealing with house politics might want entirely different alignment systems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8641782, member: 87792"] The fundamental problem of alignment is that it's a generalised two axis alignment system rather than a setting specific one axis alignment system. [LIST] [*]In the [I]Keep on the Borderlands[/I] pseudo-Western setting Law (representing the forces Back East and "civilisation") vs Chaos (representing the orcs/folks in the Caves of Chaos) makes perfect sense, with the Neutrals liking that they live in "free" or "balanced" territory and wanting survival but not law. Good vs Evil is secondary to the great clash. [*]In the [I]Dragonlance[/I] setting there is a bright Good (metallic dragons, Paladine, white robes) vs Evil (chromatic dragons, Takhsis, black robes) clash with the sides coming colour coded for your convenience and the morality of a Saturday morning cartoon. And law vs chaos isn't really a thing. [*]In the [I]Eberron[/I] setting morality is shades of grey. And the Lawful Good Queen is the person who is most keen on restarting the Last War while the evil vampire usurper king is the royal most keen on saving the world from the horrors of another war. [/LIST] In all these cases having the right alignment system really accentuates the themes of the setting (in Eberron's case by subverting it and showing how even someone who follows Lawful Good tenets can be a real danger to everyone, emphasising that the entire setting is shades of grey). So the problem is that the alignment mechanics shouldn't be designed [I]for D&D[/I]. They should be designed [I]for each separate D&D setting[/I] and applied to that setting. Or possibly for each separate campaign or subsetting within one of the larger settings, like the Realms. An adventure set in and around Waterdeep dealing with protecting people from raiders and one set in and around Menzobarranzan dealing with house politics might want entirely different alignment systems. [/QUOTE]

Verification