D&D General How welcome would a wordy and somewhat philosophical treatment of alignment be here? [Thread resolved, thank you.]

[Enrico Poli1]

I'll be happy to read and cordially debate!

 

[Umbran]

It is awesome to open with recognition that the piece is long.

In terms of effectiveness - you might want to see if it breaks naturally into smaller essays - a place like this works a lot like a conversation. You don't get great conversation by opening with a nine-page speech.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

I have my own version - not quite 9 pages but you can always post. Just don't expect everyone to agree, alignment has always been a bit nebulous and has different meanings to different people.

 

[aco175]

I would read a paragraph on each and maybe skip the 'hidden' text. You know, the Cliff Notes version.

 

[DammitVictor]

Amen.

Where were you at last night's dinner party?

Sounds like he was avoiding your guest speaker.

And yeah, I'd totally welcome a nine-page dissertation on the alignment system, but I would also attack it mercilessly... and point out what should be obvious, that if you need more pages of apologia to justify the rules than the rules themselves contain, that in itself is proof the rules are bad.

 

[Esker]

I'd definitely start reading it, and might even finish if I find it compelling. It's bound to be more fun than grading undergrads' papers (not a high bar). I'll respectfully disagree with @Umbran and say that I don't mind if you share it all at once rather than breaking it up; any discussion of what an alignment means has to be taken in the context of what other alignments mean, so it probably doesn't lend itself to posting about one at a time. That said, if you can structure it in a way that makes it easy to get the main points across (one key paragraph per page, say), all the better. Better as a link or a "resource" than dumping nine pages directly into a forum post, though.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think it would be better if you summarise the key points, around one paragraph per alignment. That would be about the maximum reasonable length for a message board post.

 

[Umbran]

and point out what should be obvious, that if you need more pages of apologia to justify the rules than the rules themselves contain, that in itself is proof the rules are bad.

That would first require laying out which rules. In 5e, for example, alignment has no mechanical impact whatsoever.

 

[ccs]

Nine pages. One for each alignment?

Post away.
Afterall, there's dozens of pages arguing over how people are arguing over why/why not you need a class for every aspect imaginable....
It's gotta be more interesting than that.

I may or my not read i though. And if i do i doubt it'll change how alignment works in my groups.