Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="scott2978" data-source="post: 6272604" data-attributes="member: 6667922">I don't know much about 4e, but what's the difference between unaligned and neutral? Choosing an alignment that's not an alignment just sounds munchkin to me. I know a guy who runs his 3.5 game with no alignments. It works for him most of the time but it takes constant reworking of the rules, and game balance is often skewed because alignment is also a game balance tool. With complex systems like 3.5 it's often a slippery slope changing things and alignment isn't as insignificant as it may seem at first. Without getting too far off topic into a discussion of what alignments mean, I'll say it would be nice to have more definition in the rules as to just how to apply it to common situations. The ubiquitous scenario "Do you kill the baby orcs?" comes to mind. But I digress... changing stuff, especially iconic stuff like alignment, so drastically in 4e does seem to be driving all the "does it still feel like D&D?" questions coming from 5e development. My playgroup didn't think about changing editions until years after Pathfinder had come out, but it was that exact thing that made PF much more appealing than 4e. And I think brand identity in the internet age is worth a lot less than the bean counters think. Branding didn't stop eveyone I know from choosing Pathfinder instead of a less attractive "D&D" branded option. That said, not many of us were happy about that either, so maybe brand identity does count for something... just not what they think.</blockquote>

Verification