Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
My Special Rules for Nine Alignments in 4E
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="Fox Lee" data-source="post: 5389696" data-attributes="member: 4346"><p>There are a few interpretations that fit with CN as described; "freedom is more important than everything, even if morality matters too", "freedom is important and I don't care about morality", or perhaps even "freedom is important and morality is a false dichotomy/a construct that's not actually valid". And in any of those, you could replace "freedom is important" with "structure is dangerous" for a more pro-active chaotic. Lots of fun interpretations that make for interesting characters who aren't freaking nuts.</p><p></p><p>I think part of the problem is people taking the term literally instead of considering what it means in an alignment context. "Chaotic", outside of <em>D&D</em>, could mean "random", "thoughtless", "unpredictable", "uncontrolled"... lots of things that are perfectly reasonable interpretations, if you don't read the D&D definition.</p><p></p><p>Now combine this with the concept of "neutral" as being not "doesn't care", but "deliberately maintains balance between good and evil". That's definitely not supported by 3e, unless perhaps you are a lawful neutral with your own personal philosophy, but I have heard 2e players espouse the idea time and again (even outside of druids). I imagine if you're the kind of player who views alignments as being a static guide for how you <em>should</em> act, rather than a dynamic reflection of how you <em>do</em> act, it would be easy to fall into that mindset.</p><p></p><p>If you put the two together, you have "random and uncontrolled" coupled with "making sure neither good nor evil gets a leg-up". And right there, there's your "insane bastard" chaotic neutral player. They do random crap and might actively try to hinder you if you're winning, and then they justify it with "I'm just playing my alignment". Oh, and of course there's the player who just reads both "chaotic" and "neutral" as "I do whatever I want". Le sigh.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, for my money, I reckon that's how it happens: outdated interpretations, or not bothering to read/process the definitions. And the desire to play a jerk.</p><p></p><p>I find that really interesting, because I interpreted the removal of chaotic good to mean that in its purest form, good <em>is</em> chaotic, and law is just an add-on that you have to specify <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting, but as Camelot notes, "anarchistic and "ordered/oppressive" may as well be lawful and chaotic. Also, I think removing the neutral alignments loses compelling character ideas; every PC should be made to cooperate with the group for some reason, sure, but they shouldn't be forced to be good-aligned. I've made more than one character who started off as lawful or chaotic neutral, explicitly because their development over the story would lead them to a higher ideal. I'd hate to lose the opportunity to play such a character because the system says heroes always have to be good.</p><p></p><p>By the same token, your villain alignment choices are also passing over many interesting villain motivations. Oppressive Iron Fist or Random Destruction are very big, obvious, super-villain kinds of evil, but often subtle villains are more interesting. A villain doesn't have to pursue either dictatorship or destruction to be evil; simply being profoundly selfish also serves that purpose. And what about the tragic well-intentioned villain who thinks he's doing the right thing? Both of these are well-used villain archetypes, but your system seems to have no place for them.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I'm not saying this a total do-over, but I guess what I am saying is that I can't see why you would go up to seven alignments, but not all the way to nine. It has all the complication of houseruling, but still misses out on most of the opportunity provided by the 9-point system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fox Lee, post: 5389696, member: 4346"] There are a few interpretations that fit with CN as described; "freedom is more important than everything, even if morality matters too", "freedom is important and I don't care about morality", or perhaps even "freedom is important and morality is a false dichotomy/a construct that's not actually valid". And in any of those, you could replace "freedom is important" with "structure is dangerous" for a more pro-active chaotic. Lots of fun interpretations that make for interesting characters who aren't freaking nuts. I think part of the problem is people taking the term literally instead of considering what it means in an alignment context. "Chaotic", outside of [i]D&D[/i], could mean "random", "thoughtless", "unpredictable", "uncontrolled"... lots of things that are perfectly reasonable interpretations, if you don't read the D&D definition. Now combine this with the concept of "neutral" as being not "doesn't care", but "deliberately maintains balance between good and evil". That's definitely not supported by 3e, unless perhaps you are a lawful neutral with your own personal philosophy, but I have heard 2e players espouse the idea time and again (even outside of druids). I imagine if you're the kind of player who views alignments as being a static guide for how you [i]should[/i] act, rather than a dynamic reflection of how you [i]do[/i] act, it would be easy to fall into that mindset. If you put the two together, you have "random and uncontrolled" coupled with "making sure neither good nor evil gets a leg-up". And right there, there's your "insane bastard" chaotic neutral player. They do random crap and might actively try to hinder you if you're winning, and then they justify it with "I'm just playing my alignment". Oh, and of course there's the player who just reads both "chaotic" and "neutral" as "I do whatever I want". Le sigh. Anyway, for my money, I reckon that's how it happens: outdated interpretations, or not bothering to read/process the definitions. And the desire to play a jerk. I find that really interesting, because I interpreted the removal of chaotic good to mean that in its purest form, good [i]is[/i] chaotic, and law is just an add-on that you have to specify :p Interesting, but as Camelot notes, "anarchistic and "ordered/oppressive" may as well be lawful and chaotic. Also, I think removing the neutral alignments loses compelling character ideas; every PC should be made to cooperate with the group for some reason, sure, but they shouldn't be forced to be good-aligned. I've made more than one character who started off as lawful or chaotic neutral, explicitly because their development over the story would lead them to a higher ideal. I'd hate to lose the opportunity to play such a character because the system says heroes always have to be good. By the same token, your villain alignment choices are also passing over many interesting villain motivations. Oppressive Iron Fist or Random Destruction are very big, obvious, super-villain kinds of evil, but often subtle villains are more interesting. A villain doesn't have to pursue either dictatorship or destruction to be evil; simply being profoundly selfish also serves that purpose. And what about the tragic well-intentioned villain who thinks he's doing the right thing? Both of these are well-used villain archetypes, but your system seems to have no place for them. Anyway, I'm not saying this a total do-over, but I guess what I am saying is that I can't see why you would go up to seven alignments, but not all the way to nine. It has all the complication of houseruling, but still misses out on most of the opportunity provided by the 9-point system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
My Special Rules for Nine Alignments in 4E
Top