Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 4229488" data-attributes="member: 36160">Muffin_of_chaos' point -- that the new scale is way better for per-action rather than overall-mental-justification measuring -- is probably apt here.So, too, is that this cuts down on a lot of alignment debate (I take this as a good in-and-of-itself, though of course you're free to disagree) -- I believe we have a fundamentally easier time sorting Good from Evil behavior (even when it's complex, it's a lot easier to use common terms and come to a coherent argument with respect to this axis, while the Law versus Chaos axis inevitably descends into turmoil about definitions-- perhaps due to several thousand years of accumulated philosophical thought on one of the two dimensions?).Similarly, if you don't care very much about alignment, easier is better. It is more satisfying to have an epic struggle of Good versus Evil, and this system seems to fundamentally be precisely that, with an additional focus on the alignments of demons and of paladins (which is part of a pretty common trope in both D&D and fantasy roleplaying; while it's somewhat arbitrary, it's also not ridiculous or harmful to retain).Yes, CG and LE are gone. But as Khur said upthread (in one of these threads, anyway!), it becomes hard to differentiate CG from NG -- and I agree. It is hard to differentiate, and I believe it's fundamentally not useful to do so, anyway. If the difference between NG and CG is the degree of goodness expressed -- the willingness to accept harm as a side effect of greater good -- then I believe it's fair to file that particular reading of CG under "less than good" and therefore "unaligned". Sure, they value individualism, and this alignment descriptor doesn't indicate that. It also doesn't indicate how active they are in its pursuit, how trusting they are, or a score of other personality facets.Side contention: CN and NN are the same alignment, and CN is also the same alignment as NE. Read the descriptions -- being unable to commit to a side can be either of CN and NN (and is the defining trait of CN!), while being fundamentally out for the individual good, and fundamentally out for one's own good, are not very far apart either! Similarly, LN and LE blend together at the edges, and I have never liked the Yugoloth focus on pure evil (feeling that this is a niche better given to the more mythological Devil than the upstart Yugo -- sorry, Shem!) as trumping that more Lawful bent of Devils.These are weak reasons, though, so I don't raise them as part of my overall argument, and instead more of an impassioned plea for people to agree with me on my personal merits <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I believe that the degree of precision afforded by nine alignment buckets was not helpful. The two-axis system was an inaccurate and hard to use tool for miscommunication and argument, not providing enough specifics for roleplay for that to be a redeeming factor.The five factor system does not provide the same misleading appearance of comprehensitivity, while still being a good metric for telling stories about Good versus Evil.Sure, it punts on Law versus Chaos, civilization versus barbarity. I am okay with this punt, because while that would be an excellent alignment system for a game, it's hard to reconcile that with a Good versus Evil system, at the core; I'd rather have a series of different mechanics (Honor --> dishonor! Allegiance! Religion!) to model campaigns that center around non-moral strife.A game with angels and devils, paladins, and clerics, though? Good versus Evil in the core rulebooks, please.Better? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification