Five Alignments?

[Tervin]

I read "the good vs exil axis is what mattered from the start".

I think "So why not have a system that encourages diversity? If one part of a system is the popular one, should the other part be thrown away, or given some extra thought?"

I read "this system is how I always played anyway".

I think "But what about all these people here who seem to think differently? Even if you don't want to play things in a certain way, do you want it to be taken away from others? Even if they can keep theirs without you losing anything?"

I read "noone could agree upon exactly what certain alignments meant anyway".

I think "Does that matter? Every interpretation a player or DM makes helps them along in their creativity. If we think and imagine differently, we get more ideas and imagination. Alignments are there as tools to use in character building and story/campaign construction. A set of tools that can be used in many ways is then better than a set that is streamlined for a certain way. This is especially true if alignment no longer has gameplay significance."

I like almost everything I have seen about 4th Edition. But this? Not so much. This seems to be simplification that dumbs down when it streamlines. And that seems stupid to defend.

 

[Thasmodious]

"So why not have a system that encourages diversity?

9 is diverse, 5 is not?

do you want it to be taken away from others

Nothing was "taken away". The system was redesigned. That's like claiming, when served a pizza with sausage and mushrooms, that anchovies and green peppers were taken away.

This seems to be simplification that dumbs down when it streamlines

But 9 was a complex, worldly summation of morality and ethics, so succinct and all encompassing that it is a genuine surprise its not being taught as the standard in Philosophy courses?

Please, both are a simple, "dumbed down" descriptive framework for modeling characters in a fantasy game.

And that seems stupid to defend

It seems stupid to me for people to claim that having "only" five alignments means certain characters and villians are now "impossible" to make and that it limits what can be done. But here we are...

 

[pawsplay]

I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.

My Ethics professor said they were the same.

 

[Tervin]

Sometimes it feels like some people really work hard at not understanding what I mean. Or perhaps I was that unclear? In that case, I am sorry.

9 is diverse, 5 is not?

Having both a Good vs Evil conflict and a Law vs Chaos conflict independent of each other is diverse compared to only having a Good vs Evil conflict. Alignments are primitive and sometimes stupid tools, but that does not mean that they should be used as primitively as possible.

Nothing was "taken away". The system was redesigned.

Hmm both the earlier games and this one are called "Dungeons & Dragons" This one claims to be the new edition of it. In the old system the Law vs Chaos (independent of Good vs Evil) existed. Now it does not. The Good vs Evil existed before, and does now. Yes it is a redesign. And it is a redesign that takes something away.

But 9 was a complex, worldly summation of morality and ethics, so succinct and all encompassing that it is a genuine surprise its not being taught as the standard in Philosophy courses?

Of course not. It was bad. This is worse. Ok? As for why it is worse, see above.

Please, both are a simple, "dumbed down" descriptive framework for modeling characters in a fantasy game.

Yes, agreed. But the new system is more dumbed down. (See above.) And, once more, the interesting part is not just modeling individual characters, it is modeling trends in races, cultures, organizations as well as characters and monsters. Alignment is useful for story- and worldbuilding more than it is for character building.

It seems stupid to me for people to claim that having "only" five alignments means certain characters and villians are now "impossible" to make and that it limits what can be done. But here we are...

Well I could go through the whole concept of thinking bigger than just individuals again, but that seems unnecessary. Instead I will agree once more. It would be stupid to say it is impossible to do those things. It would be true to say it is harder to convey certain concepts when the shorthand for it is no longer there. No alignment system makes anything impossible. The new one suggests that certain concepts will not get the support they used to have, as WotC will create their products using their new dumbed down shorthand. And that is actually what I care about. Not what people get to write under Alignment on a character sheet, and what they mean by it.

 

[pawsplay]

My Star Wars alignments:

LN - Princess Leia, who sacrificed Dantooine for the Rebel cause, does the wrong things for the right reasons; Lando Calrissian, who despite his reputation as a "scoundrel," is a responsible leader and someone who pursues gain, but within certain limits of what is acceptable
LG - Yoda, who does the right thing in the right way; Padme, who believes in the system
NG - Kenobi, who follows his heart and does the right thing; Chewbacca, loyal, passionate, does not overthink the right thing to do
CG - Luke and Qui Gon, whose quest for good forces them in directions others don't understand
N - Han, "There's no mystical force that controls my destiny."
CE - Darth Vader, who knows what Vader wants and does what he does to get it, or does what he feels like instead, or occasionally thinks he is Good or Lawful
NE - Darth Sidious, devoted to power for its own sake, at any price; Jango Fett, a simple man just trying to make his way in the Galaxy
LE - Moff Tarkin, who believes in order and security, and too bad for those outside that order; Jabba the Hutt, whose bad side you don't want to get on, but is benevolent in his own, bullying, sociopathic way as an employer

 

[Spatula]

I read "noone could agree upon exactly what certain alignments meant anyway".

I think "Does that matter?"

Yes, it matters. What's the point of a rule if everyone interprets it differently? What do you do with printed products written by different authors that have different ideas of what the alignments mean - in relation to each other, nevermind to the reader?

Plus, hopefully this will spell the doom of the endless D&D alignment debates. Is Batman LG or CG?!? Should a paladin lose his powers when the DM puts him in a no-win situation?! Fie to all of that. They should have gotten rid of alignment entirely.

 

[Tervin]

Yes, it matters. What's the point of a rule if everyone interprets it differently? What do you do with printed products written by different authors that have different ideas of what the alignments mean - in relation to each other, nevermind to the reader?

Plus, hopefully this will spell the doom of the endless D&D alignment debates. Is Batman LG or CG?!? Should a paladin lose his powers when the DM puts him in a no-win situation?! Fie to all of that. They should have gotten rid of alignment entirely.

I have played D&D since the very early 80s and confess to never hearing a D&D alignment debate regarding a superhero till I read alignment discussions concering changes from 3.5 to 4... So, for me that has not been a problem for the game as such. Alignment debates I have heard though. Lots. And my view is that alignment debates can help creativity, that different interpretations means more new ideas for what kind of characters, ideologies, religions and organisations you can have in a fantasy world. Debate is healthy, everyone agreeing is stale.

As alignment (from what I understand) is more or less only fluff in 4ed, it does not matter if different authors see things differently. It could very well just make the end products more interesting.

Still, I agree that it would be better to take away alignment than to make this change. And in my home game it will be tweaked (into G, L, U, C, E) or removed entirely, the way it looks right now at least.

 

[Mallus]

Ah yes... another edition, another alignment system to more-or-less ignore. The more things change...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ah yes... another edition, another alignment system to more-or-less ignore. The more things change...

Yeah. It's a little bit more sad and surprising this time, because it's not just the "same 'ol, same 'ol", they actually went and modified the system and came up with something even more stupid, more 1950s comic book, and less in-tune with epic fantasy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My Ethics professor said they were the same.

And what did your Morals professor say on the issue?