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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5827548" data-attributes="member: 95493">I tried for you, and apparently, neither can I.But I think this is my problem with the 5 alignment "axis" that was described in 4e. You have Good, Neutral and Evil. Then you have wishywashy, I mean, unaligned. But I'll deal with that last.So far with good-evil axis we don't have a problem. We GET a problem when you make "super-good" via LG and "super-evil" via CE. Chaos is not necessarily Evil anymore than law is necessarily good. It is a broken 9 alignment system where 4 are merged into 2 - via CG and NG being G and LE and NE being E.It is the "points of light" non-setting specifics of "gods vs. primordials" which gets me. Non-specific, but gods vs. primordials? Gods are of course good, except the evil ones, and they aren't just a little evil they are majorly evil and that means "super-evil" or CE. But then ALL primordials are CE already... wait... what?It just boggles the mind that the flavour of the decades old war between good, chaos, law and evil was rewritten and rewritten poorly to create the dichotomy of gods against primordials.Oh, and "unaligned" - just commit already. Be small G good, be small E evil, be small N neutral, just pick something so we don't have to have 2 shades of grey. 5 alignments is tricky enough, but 6 is annoying. Were we really confused that unaligned applied to most N's of the 9 alignment system? That there were very few who were NEUTRAL, not because they were unaligned but because they abhorred the whole double axis system (or some variation on this idea)?Just my 2 cents.</blockquote>

Verification