Five Alignments?

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm... I probably be a New Yorker... Well... New York nowadays or like 60-80's New York? I'd be nowadays.

 

[Tervin]

I'll give an example for why I think it matters.

One person is playing a LE monk. Returning with his party to another country in which murder has been done, they are met with border guards. Someone fails their will save against zone of truth and admits that the party is "the wuns what done it". Party decimates the guards and decide to cut their losses and go to a different country instead.

DM tells player of LE monk that he is going to lose his LE alignment (and thus lose the ability to progress as a monk) because a LE character must obey the laws of the land (!)

This difference in interpretations on what constitutes LE, effectively flagged up "LE" as a bizarrely unplayable alignment in that DMs campaign - but too late to help the player of the monk.

The other thing I'd say on the issue of alignment is that this thread is the first one I can remember where some people are actively defending the idea of the 9 way alignment system. Pretty much every other thread about alignment in ENworlds history has largely been about the problems it causes, and even amongst those who espouse it there is very little agreement about what it actually means.

Cheers

Your point is valid in a 3.x context. Not in a 4 context, where they have claimed that alignment doesn't have technical application like that. I was talking about alignments in 4th edition

By the way, I don't really support the 9 alignments. My own take on alignments is that they are useful as story and world building tools, but that Good, Lawful, Unaligned, Chaotic and Evil would probably be enough.

PCs don't really need alignment though, and for many players I think they are in the way of building an interesting character.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Your point is valid in a 3.x context. Not in a 4 context, where they have claimed that alignment doesn't have technical application like that. I was talking about alignments in 4th edition

OK, fair enough

 

[Plane Sailing]

Incidentally, under by "interpretation", I wouldn't be surprised to see Devils classified as 'evil' while demons are classified as 'Chaotic evil' because the former want to control everything but the latter just want to destroy.

I'm not suggesting that is the real actual way things will turn out mind, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Cheers

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Incidentally, under by "interpretation", I wouldn't be surprised to see Devils classified as 'evil' while demons are classified as 'Chaotic evil' because the former want to control everything but the latter just want to destroy.

I'm not suggesting that is the real actual way things will turn out mind, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Cheers

I think that's how it will turn out.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I know it's old hat to the point of cliche to make this argument...but here it goes. "We need to wait until the books are out before making a judgement." I dont think a single version of DnD has EVER kept the EXACT same alignments. Sure, they may have kept the actual labels, but the meaning behind the labels have often shifted. We dont know how the new version of alignment is divided, so any argument based on previous versions is a bit premature.

 

[Clavis]

I like that.

A lot.

A virtue-based alignment system. Like virtue-based ethical, kicks the crap out of this polar duality business.




*sniff*

I'm an immoral, unethical individual.

Polyamory immediately excludes me from morality, and therefore, ethicality, eh?

By the standards of the larger society, yes. But you can still be both Moral and Ethical by Poly standards. For instance, it is moral in a Poly community to take other lovers. It is unethical, however, to ask your lovers to choose between yourself and another lover, or deceive lovers about your lifestyle or intentions.

 

[TheWyrd]

So far all of the Devils we have seen had 'Evil' in their stat block.

 

[Clavis]

Hmm... I probably be a New Yorker... Well... New York nowadays or like 60-80's New York? I'd be nowadays.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Sure, nobody misses the crime.

People do miss the artists, the rents you could sometimes actually pay, the authentic culture, people with actual new ideas, and a city that wasn't completely based around the desires of the ultra-rich and yuppy transplants from the mid-west.

Oh, and when the pizza, pretzels, and hot dogs were still good in Manhattan.

To keep on the alignment point, people miss the City when it was Chaotic.

 

[La Bete]

The only facts you have are that Lawful Good and Good exist.

You also have a playtester/freelancer winking and nudging at my ideas saying that something that at least shows the idea of the way alginments have shifted and my ideas are nothing like your understanding.

Try this one. There are two poles of Cosmic Philosophy, good and evil. "Alignment" means you have taken an interest in devoting yourself to acheiving the goals of that pole. The are two Sub Categories. "Lawful" Good is a subcategory for people who are good, but tie themselves to a defined code. "Chaotic" Evil is the subcategory of Evil that are beyond selfishnes and into raw destruction.

Order and Chaos are awesome for use as cosmic poles, but only in a relativistic G/E framework. Good and Evil at the same time higlight the alieness of these poles and ruin their applicability.

Charwoman Gene speaks much wisdom. Well, this time at least. If CE follows on from the hints we've got (cosmology, etc), it should actually be very cool. I'm very curious now to see what LG will be - I'm unconvinced that the description above is completely correct.