On the marketing of 4E

[Tallifer]

"Change for the sake of change" means that someone changes something because they think new is always better, because he is bored with the old way. Like someone who changes the living room decor each year. While some few people may admit to such frivolity, almost everyone else will defend themselves, inventing spurious reasons for the change.

It is customary for people to use this idiom when they think that the other person did not have a sufficient reason for change. Again, very few will use this charge of change for the sake of change honestly, prefering to ignore any arguments in favour of change.

In short, the idiom is evocative and rhetorical, but it has little value in debate.

 

[MrMyth]

You forgot the "IMHO."

But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, why is it even a part of the game?

Because this game involves something called roleplaying, and Alignment provides guidance on a character's principles and how they interact with the rest of the world?

4E has a default alignment for those that want to use it, but the removal of the mechanical connections means that groups can go with the default or use their own as they see fit. It is two pages in the 'Roleplaying' section of the character creation chapter, and I think that is a perfectly fine amount of focus to devote to it. Note that there are then 2-3 pages on deities - which not every group will use, and countless home campaigns will throw out entirely.

That doesn't mean it isn't useful to have those ideas and basic elements there for those who do want to use them, or simply want to have a default to work from.

 

[Mallus]

But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, why is it even a part of the game?

I think it's as simple as this: some folks find alignment to be a handy tool when it comes to thinking about/defining the moral disposition of their characters (note: I'm not one of those people. Alignment offers me, well, zilch. I don't have trouble cooking up interesting characters and conflicts without it, but if some people find alignment helpful, cool.)

Frankly, so long as the official D&D alignment rules aren't as god-awful as the ones found in AD&D, which penalized character development --want a play out a redemption arc for your PC? It'll cost you XP!-- I'm a happy camper. I still can't quite figure out what the old alignment change rules where meant to accomplish.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"Change for the sake of change" means that someone changes something because they think new is always better, because he is bored with the old way. Like someone who changes the living room decor each year. While some few people may admit to such frivolity, almost everyone else will defend themselves, inventing spurious reasons for the change.

It is customary for people to use this idiom when they think that the other person did not have a sufficient reason for change. Again, very few will use this charge of change for the sake of change honestly, prefering to ignore any arguments in favour of change.

In short, the idiom is evocative and rhetorical, but it has little value in debate.

I wonder if your use of font is also a change for the sake of change, e.g. there is insufficient reason for it?

Spoiler

No disagreements with the content of your post.