NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tervin" data-source="post: 4229251" data-attributes="member: 66491">Well, I think examples of those differences have been shown time and again in the alignment discussion threads. To me, there is no smaller difference between NG and CG than between LG and NG (or between any two alignments next to each other on the chart). To give an  example I myself try to be an NG person. I believe thinking of others is important. I believe that society and civilization are good things, and that laws are necessary - but I also believe that we need to make our own decisions, and realize that laws are less important than what is good for people, even if those laws are written with the best of intentions. On the other hand, other people I know believe that laws stand in the way of good, and that for good to prevail we need to act outside of the norm. They are the activists, the modern Robin Hoods. I see myself as as close them as to the system builders who try to find general soultions that will be good for as many as possible. As I have not seen the new alignment system apart from the name of the five alignments to choose from, I can of course not discuss this topic on an equal level. One thing annoys me with the change, though. The game does now no longer give support to people who want to create campaigns based on conflicts based on ideas, where it is not easy to spot who is right and who is wrong. I have never really been a alignment fan, as it often is an invitation to clichés. Still, I see it as a shortcut that makes it easier to understand general ideas for players and DMs. For example, seeing the alignment of a monster makes it easier for me to see where it would fit when I write a story or a campaign. And right there is my problem with the new system. When all "lawful" monsters are good and all "chaotic" are evil, I can no longer as easily create interesting conflicts where heroic characters have problems choosing between two sides that both have their good and their bad points. Security vs Freedom is an exciting concept, perfect to build civil wars around, for those of us who like to make campaigns that force people to think. 4th Edition will be the first D&D that doesn't help you write those stories. And that, I feel, is a shame.  I see the point in wanting to cut away unnecessary complications, and almost all the time I applaud that. In this case I think you are making a mistake, and that it would have been better to take away alignment altogether.</blockquote>

Verification