Dead Scribe
First Post
Die in a fire. Alignment is more useful for online arguments than for D&D.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How about alignment?
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
"True Neutral," in some editions of D&D, really does mean something different than "Unaligned."
This is pretty much what I see happening, with the caveat that the 9 AD&D alignments are likely to be preserved from a This Is Iconic point of view.
Also, it's easy enough to collapse down from 9 to 5, 3, any lesser number. Harder to go the other way. Which is why the default will be 9 and there will be options for the other systems.
Is this true?
9-alignments rests on an assumption (controversial among real-world moral and legal theorists) that goodness is independent of social and/or personal orderliness ("lawful", in D&D, tends to straddle these two rather different phenomena).
On the other hand, 4e LG-G-U-E-CE correlates disorder with destruction and hostility to life (Slaads, Demons, Primordials all default to CE) and correlates order with life and wellbeing (hence LG is one way to be good). It is therefore closer to Moorcockian Law vs Chaos, although not identical, because leaving less moral room for the idea of "True Neutral" as a viable position - the Unaligned in the 4e scheme are still going to be hostile to CE, in a way that a Moorcockian True Neutral may not always be hostile to Chaos.
There is also the interesting feature of the 4e scheme that the Evil gods have more in common with the Good and Lawful Good gods than they do with the Chaotic Evil demons and primordials. In the classic Law vs Chaos scheme, these gods would therefore have to be rendered as Neutral - and the fact that that would not entirely work is a further illustration of the differences between these various alignment schema.
Anyway, while I think the 4e and original D&D schema are somewhat similar, although - as just explained - not identical, the AD&D 9-point scheme is something quite different, in my view, and not easily collapsed while retaining the same meanings for "Law", "Chaos" and "Evil". (The meaning of "Good" probably can be held roughly constant.)
From a game mechanics standpoint, yes- it's almost always easier to trim away things you don't like than it is to HR new stuff in.
If I don't want alignments in a game, I can easily excise everything that ties into it. If a creature has significant abilities tied to alignment, I can either chose to give the creature new ones or not use that creature.
If I want to add them to a game that doesn't have them, I have a lot of mechanical things to figure out, including assessing whether a bonus or penalty is sufficient, what creatures will have significant abilities tied into them, and so forth. (I've actually done this for a D&D-style game done in HERO.)
Last edited:
The Shadow
Hero
I have never understood at any point why some people attach such deep importance to alignment. It's a complete mystery to me; I have never found it to be an aid in roleplaying, or (as someone said above) one of the foundations of a character's personality, or anything like that.
The fact that such people do exist is a good argument for there being an alignment module. But the equally-attested fact that people like me who don't care exist and are numerous suggests that such a module should not be core.
The fact that such people do exist is a good argument for there being an alignment module. But the equally-attested fact that people like me who don't care exist and are numerous suggests that such a module should not be core.
This may be true - although I would argue that stripping the alignment-related magic out of 3E is not a trivial matter - but in any event seems a little orthogonal to my question.
I was asking whether, as the poster I replied to suggested, it is easier to collapse 9-point alignment into 4e of classic spectrum alignment, and giving some reasons why I thought not - for the reason, as I stated, that "Lawful", "Chaotic" and "Evil" have different meanings in each system (although much more closely related in 4e and classic Law vs Chaos, than in either of them compared to 9 point).
You might as well be asking whether it's easier to translate RIFTS alignment system into 3.5Ed's version or 4Ed's version.
3.5Ed's and 4Ed's alignment systems are different enough in assumptions & mechanics- one uses them all the time, while the other makes them virtually meaningless- that ultimately, my response is the only one that matters because it is functionally the same. It is easier to subtract mechanics than add them.
Even though I'm already declared as a "9 alignments + mechanics"-phile, I disagree. You'd have to swap out a couple of class abilities, but beyond that, you simply don't use those spells and items. As for creatures, again, substitute abilities- as per classes- or don't use the critters.
If you have a concrete idea of WHY you want to excise alignment, it probably won't take long.
3.5Ed's and 4Ed's alignment systems are different enough in assumptions & mechanics- one uses them all the time, while the other makes them virtually meaningless- that ultimately, my response is the only one that matters because it is functionally the same. It is easier to subtract mechanics than add them.
Even though I'm already declared as a "9 alignments + mechanics"-phile, I disagree. You'd have to swap out a couple of class abilities, but beyond that, you simply don't use those spells and items. As for creatures, again, substitute abilities- as per classes- or don't use the critters.
If you have a concrete idea of WHY you want to excise alignment, it probably won't take long.
Last edited:
Mattachine
Adventurer
I think part of the difficulty stems from the great importance placed on alignments in earlier editions, plus conflating alignment transgressions of all PCs with the code transgressions of paladins.
In some older editions, changing alignment meant losing a level. A serious penalty for "character personality". Likewise, LG paladins have always had harsh penalties for alignment mistakes--but other PCs generally weren't supposed to.
Alignment is useful for many players, but the restrictions and game mechanics are useful for less.
In some older editions, changing alignment meant losing a level. A serious penalty for "character personality". Likewise, LG paladins have always had harsh penalties for alignment mistakes--but other PCs generally weren't supposed to.
Alignment is useful for many players, but the restrictions and game mechanics are useful for less.
