Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4662729" data-attributes="member: 12377">Back in 2e, alignments dictated behavior.&nbsp; Everybody hated it* -- it felt too restrictive, the 9 alignments aren't adequate to describe human behavior, and it led to pointless arguments in which the DM tried to tell you how to play your character.But that way of using alignment died with 3e.&nbsp; In 3e, it was your character's actions that dictated alignment, not the other way around.&nbsp; Consider the rules for changing alignment.&nbsp; In 2e, they carried a nasty XP penalty.&nbsp; In 3e, the DM just sort of erased your old alignment, filled in the new one, and the game went on.&nbsp; A character wasn't chaotic good because that's what was on his sheet; he was chaotic good if that's how the player acted, and the sheet would be updated to reflect that.&nbsp; There's no reason not to interpret 4e alignment this way.Of course this is terribly subjective, so what's the point?&nbsp; The point is that, in the traditional fantasy genre, Good and Evil are cosmic forces external to your character.&nbsp; Think about the word &quot;alignment;&quot; it indicates which side of the great conflict you are on.&nbsp; It isn't necessarily a conscious choice -- most evil characters don't think of themselves as evil, and yet Evil appreciates their support nonetheless.&nbsp; Sure, in the real world, morality is relative.&nbsp; But in many fantasy settings, Good and Evil are actual, tangible substances, absolutes that can be bottled in a phial or forged into a ring.I love the way alignment works in 4e -- you can ditch it without breaking the system, appeasing all the people who prefer complex shades of gray -- but the basic framework is also there for people who want to deal with the clash of cosmic forces.&nbsp;-- 77IM* No offense meant to those people who actually like restrictive alignments -- but studies have shown that the vast majority of role-players do not like them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 4662729, member: 12377"] Back in 2e, alignments dictated behavior. Everybody hated it* -- it felt too restrictive, the 9 alignments aren't adequate to describe human behavior, and it led to pointless arguments in which the DM tried to tell you how to play your character. But that way of using alignment died with 3e. In 3e, it was your character's actions that dictated alignment, not the other way around. Consider the rules for changing alignment. In 2e, they carried a nasty XP penalty. In 3e, the DM just sort of erased your old alignment, filled in the new one, and the game went on. A character wasn't chaotic good because that's what was on his sheet; he was chaotic good if that's how the player acted, and the sheet would be updated to reflect that. There's no reason not to interpret 4e alignment this way. Of course this is terribly subjective, so what's the point? The point is that, in the traditional fantasy genre, Good and Evil are cosmic forces [i]external[/i] to your character. Think about the word "alignment;" it indicates which side of the great conflict you are on. It isn't necessarily a conscious choice -- most evil characters don't think of themselves as evil, and yet Evil appreciates their support nonetheless. Sure, in the real world, morality is relative. But in many fantasy settings, Good and Evil are actual, tangible substances, absolutes that can be bottled in a phial or forged into a ring. I love the way alignment works in 4e -- you can ditch it without breaking the system, appeasing all the people who prefer complex shades of gray -- but the basic framework is also there for people who want to deal with the clash of cosmic forces. -- 77IM * No offense meant to those people who actually like restrictive alignments -- but studies have shown that the vast majority of role-players do not like them. [/QUOTE]

Verification