Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8563963" data-attributes="member: 7025508">How?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="o_O" title="Er... what?&nbsp; &nbsp; o_O"&nbsp; data-smilie="12"data-shortname="o_O" />&nbsp; You said it is 'descriptive'. Descriptions only make sense if they convey information. Alignment really doesn't. If I want a character to be a traditionalist, I just say that they are. if I want them to be logical and organised, I say that they are. Lumping both of these under 'lawful', and then lumping impulsiveness and iconoclasm under 'chaotic,' doesn't to me in any way improve communicating the information, especially as the system sets chaotic and lawful as opposites, even though all of their composite aspects most definitely aren't. A person can easily be an impulsive and reckless and still greatly respect traditions for example. To me the alignment merely obfuscates and confuses things.OK. But you could use Pokémon types as cosmic poles. I simply do not see what this step adds. I can see how there could be some cosmic metaphysical groupings, but those groupings could be based on completely different things in different settings. Sure.Thank you as well! And I get your cosmic factions thing, and from the little snippets it sounds cooler that the default D&amp;D cosmology. But I simply do not believe alignment should be any longer be part of the default assumptions of D&amp;D. Personal alignment for PCs isn't needed. As I said earlier, there could be a line for 'nature' or some such, and then with the other examples of what one could put there, there could be some side box that explained the traditional alignments. But it wouldn't really be a rule, and you could just write anything you want on that line. &quot;Stubborn, brave and kind&quot; and &quot;Neutral Good&quot; would be equally valid choices. As for cosmic forces and such, alignment based cosmology could be one of the examples in DMG of how one could set up their cosmology, but just one among many others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8563963, member: 7025508"] How? o_O You said it is 'descriptive'. Descriptions only make sense if they convey information. Alignment really doesn't. If I want a character to be a traditionalist, I just say that they are. if I want them to be logical and organised, I say that they are. Lumping both of these under 'lawful', and then lumping impulsiveness and iconoclasm under 'chaotic,' doesn't to me in any way improve communicating the information, especially as the system sets chaotic and lawful as opposites, even though all of their composite aspects most definitely aren't. A person can easily be an impulsive and reckless and still greatly respect traditions for example. To me the alignment merely obfuscates and confuses things. OK. But you could use Pokémon types as cosmic poles. I simply do not see what this step adds. I can see how there could be some cosmic metaphysical groupings, but those groupings could be based on completely different things in different settings. Sure. Thank you as well! And I get your cosmic factions thing, and from the little snippets it sounds cooler that the default D&D cosmology. But I simply do not believe alignment should be any longer be part of the default assumptions of D&D. Personal alignment for PCs isn't needed. As I said earlier, there could be a line for 'nature' or some such, and then with the other examples of what one could put there, there could be some side box that explained the traditional alignments. But it wouldn't really be a rule, and you could just write anything you want on that line. "Stubborn, brave and kind" and "Neutral Good" would be equally valid choices. As for cosmic forces and such, alignment based cosmology could be one of the examples in DMG of how one could set up their cosmology, but just one among many others. [/QUOTE]

Verification