Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4230356" data-attributes="member: 5122">I'm sure this has been said, but it makes much less sense to eliminate LE than it does to eliminate CE.&nbsp; NE and CE are, as far as I've ever seen or heard, almost indistinguishable.&nbsp; LE, on the other hand, is probably the most interesting and distinct alignment of all of them.My favorite treatment of LE was in the Scarred Lands setting, where the ruler of Calastia (Virduk) was undeniably a tyrant, undeniably evil, yet absolutely put the well-being of his kingdom and subjects above everything.&nbsp; He was also beloved of his people.I've got no problem with five alignments, but IMO it should have gone LG-G-U-E-LE.&nbsp; Or G-LG-U-LE-E, if you subscribe to the &quot;hourglass&quot; model instead of the linear model.&nbsp; (Why not Chaotic?&nbsp; Because I think the Chaotic alignment, in general, is kinda redundant.&nbsp; Nobody sane believes in unfettered freedom for everyone, and nobody sane believes that their own freedom should be unfairly curtailed.&nbsp; To the extent that freedom overlaps with Good, everybody Good is already there, really, and ditto for Evil ... you really can't tell me an Evil -- just Evil -- guy doesn't believe he should be free to do whatever he wants.)Anyway, no way to say for sure until the full text is out, but this sure looks like a bad change.&nbsp; It would've been better, IMO, to just have Evil-Unaligned-Good, with the two extremes being those creatures which, in 3.5 terms, would have the [evil] or [good] descriptors.&nbsp; Refine those creatures -- and define everybody that's Unaligned -- by personality notes: &quot;Devils tend to be hidebound and hierarchical.&nbsp; They will usually adhere to a struck bargain, but will also usually do their best to subvert its spirit.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4230356, member: 5122"] I'm sure this has been said, but it makes much less sense to eliminate LE than it does to eliminate CE. NE and CE are, as far as I've ever seen or heard, almost indistinguishable. LE, on the other hand, is probably the most interesting and distinct alignment of all of them. My favorite treatment of LE was in the Scarred Lands setting, where the ruler of Calastia (Virduk) was undeniably a tyrant, undeniably evil, yet absolutely put the well-being of his kingdom and subjects above everything. He was also beloved of his people. I've got no problem with five alignments, but IMO it should have gone LG-G-U-E-LE. Or G-LG-U-LE-E, if you subscribe to the "hourglass" model instead of the linear model. (Why not Chaotic? Because I think the Chaotic alignment, in general, is kinda redundant. Nobody sane believes in unfettered freedom for everyone, and nobody sane believes that their own freedom should be unfairly curtailed. To the extent that freedom overlaps with Good, [i]everybody[/i] Good is already there, really, and ditto for Evil ... you really can't tell me an Evil -- just Evil -- guy doesn't believe he should be free to do whatever he wants.) Anyway, no way to say for sure until the full text is out, but this sure looks like a bad change. It would've been better, IMO, to just have Evil-Unaligned-Good, with the two extremes being those creatures which, in 3.5 terms, would have the [evil] or [good] descriptors. Refine those creatures -- and define everybody that's Unaligned -- by personality notes: "Devils tend to be hidebound and hierarchical. They will usually adhere to a struck bargain, but will also usually do their best to subvert its spirit." [/QUOTE]

Verification