Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8446514" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Like probably almost every concept in the game, people have been using them in different fashion even over a single edition. Look at hit points and the concept of "meat", every single edition has had debates about it. So it's not a proof, sorry.No. Simply not. It was just magical, the link to the plane where your soul would end up. Are you now arguing that having a language or not is a major power that overturns the game ? Especially since very few people I know (and I played AD&D for something like 20 years, extremely intensively) actually used it. It's barely a footnote in the history of alignment.And this is just for people arguing against alignment without even bothering to read the rules, once more, from the 1st edition PH: "Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its “true” neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other."But note that it's exactly the same in 5e. A devil who is not consistently lawful evil is simply not a devil. A god of good which is not actually doing good is simply not the god of good, just as a god of farming who spends his time fighting is probably not a god of farming either. I don't see what is shocking there, or what has changed over time.And again, I read the descriptions of alignment from the books from edition to edition, and I find that there are always 9 alignments (even 4e who only has 7 acknowledges the presence of the grid by the very name it is using), and that they are conceptually consistent.</blockquote>

Verification