Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How about alignment?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 5821872" data-attributes="member: 16726"><p>I think alignment should be a separate "module" that provides no mechanical benefits or penalties whatsoever. No preventing lawfuls from being bards because the bardic wanderlust could never be felt by a lawful individual. No hamstringing good-aligned characters by making them more vulnerable to key attacks from evil monsters. And absolutely no level or XP losses from the "trauma" of changing alignment. </p><p></p><p>Once that point is out of the way, we can talk about how to make alignment an enjoyable addition to the game rather than the straitjacket it sometimes became in the past. </p><p></p><p>And on that point, I'd like to see D&D return to the iconic 9-position alignment system. It has entered popular culture; it harkens back to the Gygax/Moorcock roots of the AD&D alignment system; but most importantly, it helps even novice players understand that not all flavors of good are alike. Over the years, I've seen how that last point makes for a a richer experience around the gaming table, and it's something that I hope will be considered as the new edition takes shape.</p><p></p><p>But, I do think the 5e team needs to think more carefully about what "law" and "chaos" mean. 3e told us that lawful characters keep their word, judge those who fall short in their duties, respect authority, tend to lack creativity, refuse to use poison, and have a code of conduct. This definition combines ethical precepts (keeping one's word), personality quirks (judging others), and aptitudes (lacking creativity) with the notion that one is somehow bound by what others say (respecting authority). When one compares that to the relatively simple and streamlined definition of goodness as "willing to make sacrifices on behalf of others," the contrast is clear. </p><p></p><p>What I mean by that is, alignment works best when it serves as a shorthand for how characters will act regardless of the campaign setting into which they're placed. If I find out that a particular character is good-aligned, for example, I know immediately that she will generally try to help people, even if two different good-aligned people might disagree on exactly how to do that. But if I find out she's lawful, I need an allegiance-style breakdown of exactly which laws or authorities or codes of conduct she respects before I can say what her general inclinations will be, which defeats the main purpose of having an alignment system in the first place.</p><p></p><p>This is not to say an allegiance-type system is "bad" -- we've informally used it for years in the 4e campaign I run as well as the Pathfinder campaign in which I participate. But it isn't, and can't be, a substitute for a simple two-word phrase that gives you a setting-free idea of the values for which any given character stands. This might be based on social order versus individual freedom. It might be whether the ends justify the means. It might even be whether one desires modron-like stagnancy or abyssal instability (though I wouldn't personally prefer this). But it has to be something.</p><p></p><p>With those caveats in mind, I'm hoping for a new and improved 9-position alignment system for 5e.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5821872, member: 16726"] I think alignment should be a separate "module" that provides no mechanical benefits or penalties whatsoever. No preventing lawfuls from being bards because the bardic wanderlust could never be felt by a lawful individual. No hamstringing good-aligned characters by making them more vulnerable to key attacks from evil monsters. And absolutely no level or XP losses from the "trauma" of changing alignment. Once that point is out of the way, we can talk about how to make alignment an enjoyable addition to the game rather than the straitjacket it sometimes became in the past. And on that point, I'd like to see D&D return to the iconic 9-position alignment system. It has entered popular culture; it harkens back to the Gygax/Moorcock roots of the AD&D alignment system; but most importantly, it helps even novice players understand that not all flavors of good are alike. Over the years, I've seen how that last point makes for a a richer experience around the gaming table, and it's something that I hope will be considered as the new edition takes shape. But, I do think the 5e team needs to think more carefully about what "law" and "chaos" mean. 3e told us that lawful characters keep their word, judge those who fall short in their duties, respect authority, tend to lack creativity, refuse to use poison, and have a code of conduct. This definition combines ethical precepts (keeping one's word), personality quirks (judging others), and aptitudes (lacking creativity) with the notion that one is somehow bound by what others say (respecting authority). When one compares that to the relatively simple and streamlined definition of goodness as "willing to make sacrifices on behalf of others," the contrast is clear. What I mean by that is, alignment works best when it serves as a shorthand for how characters will act regardless of the campaign setting into which they're placed. If I find out that a particular character is good-aligned, for example, I know immediately that she will generally try to help people, even if two different good-aligned people might disagree on exactly how to do that. But if I find out she's lawful, I need an allegiance-style breakdown of exactly which laws or authorities or codes of conduct she respects before I can say what her general inclinations will be, which defeats the main purpose of having an alignment system in the first place. This is not to say an allegiance-type system is "bad" -- we've informally used it for years in the 4e campaign I run as well as the Pathfinder campaign in which I participate. But it isn't, and can't be, a substitute for a simple two-word phrase that gives you a setting-free idea of the values for which any given character stands. This might be based on social order versus individual freedom. It might be whether the ends justify the means. It might even be whether one desires modron-like stagnancy or abyssal instability (though I wouldn't personally prefer this). But it has to be something. With those caveats in mind, I'm hoping for a new and improved 9-position alignment system for 5e. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How about alignment?
Top