Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8616779" data-attributes="member: 22779">Look, let's be honest here.&nbsp; I doubt there is anything in the game that has caused more fights at the table than alignment.&nbsp; Would anyone disagree with that?&nbsp; The idea that you can define good and evil, in a couple of paragraphs, in a game book and everyone would be groovy with that is a bit optimistic.&nbsp; There's been a lot of minds a whole lot smarter than any of us who've spent ridiculous amounts of time trying to answer this question and haven't been able to do it.So, right off the bat, alignment was always something of a problem.&nbsp; It was defining something that was guaranteed to piss off a lot of people no matter how you defined it.&nbsp; And, we have decades of alignment wanks both in person and online to prove it.5e went the route of making alignment pretty much a simple descriptor.&nbsp; It doesn't have any mechanical heft anymore.&nbsp; Dropping it out of the game wouldn't really matter to the game very much, but, as a shorthand it does do the job.&nbsp; This NPC is bad because it says CE under alignment.&nbsp; Probably not 100% necessary all the time - since simply reading the description of the NPC would do the trick, but, like people say, it's a shorthand.So long as it remains that way - a simple short hand for describing a particular NPC, then no problem.&nbsp; What becomes a larger issue though is when you want to apply that to groups.&nbsp; It becomes really sticky because, unlike an NPC which is likely only going to be on screen for a very short period of time (barring NPC's that join the group anyway - the vast majority won't get too much screen time) an organization may very well appear multiple times, in multiple contexts and in multiple ways.So, when you have things like color coded wizards who play for team Alignment, it gets problematic.&nbsp; The shorthand gets in the way and becomes less useful.Like any tool, alignment can work fine.&nbsp; But, I think, and this is just my 2cp, that applying alignment beyond individuals is a mistake.&nbsp; It causes more problems than it solves.&nbsp; Can cultists of some evil demonlord do anything good?&nbsp; Or must they always do the evil thing, even when it's counter to their own self-interests?&nbsp; &nbsp; And, if they can act good sometimes, how useful is it to say that this organization is evil?&nbsp; The short hand becomes less useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8616779, member: 22779"] Look, let's be honest here. I doubt there is anything in the game that has caused more fights at the table than alignment. Would anyone disagree with that? The idea that you can define good and evil, in a couple of paragraphs, in a game book and everyone would be groovy with that is a bit optimistic. There's been a lot of minds a whole lot smarter than any of us who've spent ridiculous amounts of time trying to answer this question and haven't been able to do it. So, right off the bat, alignment was always something of a problem. It was defining something that was guaranteed to piss off a lot of people no matter how you defined it. And, we have decades of alignment wanks both in person and online to prove it. 5e went the route of making alignment pretty much a simple descriptor. It doesn't have any mechanical heft anymore. Dropping it out of the game wouldn't really matter to the game very much, but, as a shorthand it does do the job. This NPC is bad because it says CE under alignment. Probably not 100% necessary all the time - since simply reading the description of the NPC would do the trick, but, like people say, it's a shorthand. So long as it remains that way - a simple short hand for describing a particular NPC, then no problem. What becomes a larger issue though is when you want to apply that to groups. It becomes really sticky because, unlike an NPC which is likely only going to be on screen for a very short period of time (barring NPC's that join the group anyway - the vast majority won't get too much screen time) an organization may very well appear multiple times, in multiple contexts and in multiple ways. So, when you have things like color coded wizards who play for team Alignment, it gets problematic. The shorthand gets in the way and becomes less useful. Like any tool, alignment can work fine. But, I think, and this is just my 2cp, that applying alignment beyond individuals is a mistake. It causes more problems than it solves. Can cultists of some evil demonlord do anything good? Or must they always do the evil thing, even when it's counter to their own self-interests? And, if they can act good sometimes, how useful is it to say that this organization is evil? The short hand becomes less useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification