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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4230788" data-attributes="member: 18280">One could, of course, make the same argument about stats.  The differences between Intelligence and Wisdom, for example, are as fuzzy and generic as that between CG and NG.  Why not simply use two stats, Physical and Mental?  It would certainly make the game easier.The problem with this (and also the problem with dropping certain aspects of alignment) is that in so doing you are dropping a measure of texture from the game for little benefit.  I would agree that alignment is relatively fuzzy given WotC's treatment of it; Gygax was far more direct about what alignment meant in 1e.  That doesn't mean that the "Nine Alignement" system is bad; it means that making it wishy-washy is bad.And what is the benefit of preserving keywords in a system where alignment is mostly dressing (having little or no actual game effect)?  Why not have "good" demons or "evil" paladins?  That certainly seems to be the direction in which WotC is taking the game.Of course, I cannot (for obvious reasons) reprint the article I wrote for Dragon Roots here, but it seems clear to be that even without assuming game effects for alignment, and even assuming alignment is dropped from the game completely, the nine-alignment system has been (and can certainly continue to be) a fantastic tool for the DM (if not the players) to quickly determine how a creature is likely to act, as well as to quickly determine what attitudes, institutions, and ceremonies a religion or society is likely to have....as well as how often they will bend to accommodate the needs of individuals (including PCs).IMHO, of course.</blockquote>

Verification