Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dragonhelm" data-source="post: 5683082" data-attributes="member: 3867">This is a topic we discussed quite a bit over at <a href="http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/thepiazza/bb/viewtopic.php?f=36&amp;t=4772" target="_blank">The Piazza</a>. I find that I'm divided on the issue of alignment in 4e.&nbsp; I see why the designers did what they did.&nbsp; The new system is much simpler to grasp, and not having much of a rules impact is a huge bonus.&nbsp; I love that certain classes are not bound by alignment.&nbsp; Having paladins who aren't LG solves a lot of issues.&nbsp; At the same time, the old system is much more descriptive.&nbsp; The new system has Evil, but it doesn't have LE.&nbsp; Now, really, Evil is the same thing.&nbsp; But when I think of villains such as the Knights of Takhisis, I think LE.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also really dig the symmetry of the 9-alignment system.&nbsp; I like how certain alignments that were already close together got merged in the new system (i.e. NG and CG).&nbsp; I know that some folks feel that LE and NE were combined, but I see it as NE and CE being combined.I really like the new term Unaligned.&nbsp; It's simple to grasp, and doesn't have the baggage of some of the neutral alignments.&nbsp; LN just took orders.&nbsp; That's no fun!&nbsp; TN tended to be recorders of history, or would be obliged to maintain a balance, switching sides.&nbsp; Or they just sat on the sidelines.&nbsp; CN was the &quot;excuse to be a jerk while not evil&quot; alignment.&nbsp; Unaligned's stance of &quot;just let me go about my business&quot; covers a lot of ground.&nbsp; To me, the neutral alignments were the hardest to play.Alignment, to me, is a general guideline to help a person figure out their moral code.&nbsp; It's not a hard-and-fast rule, nor do I see it affecting how we play the game.&nbsp; It's not for everyone, and that's cool.&nbsp; But I like it as a legacy item.&nbsp; And while I've waffled some over which system to use, I find myself liking the simplicity of the 5-alignment system more and more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dragonhelm, post: 5683082, member: 3867"] This is a topic we discussed quite a bit over at [URL="http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/thepiazza/bb/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4772"]The Piazza[/URL]. I find that I'm divided on the issue of alignment in 4e. I see why the designers did what they did. The new system is much simpler to grasp, and not having much of a rules impact is a huge bonus. I love that certain classes are not bound by alignment. Having paladins who aren't LG solves a lot of issues. At the same time, the old system is much more descriptive. The new system has Evil, but it doesn't have LE. Now, really, Evil is the same thing. But when I think of villains such as the Knights of Takhisis, I think LE. I also really dig the symmetry of the 9-alignment system. I like how certain alignments that were already close together got merged in the new system (i.e. NG and CG). I know that some folks feel that LE and NE were combined, but I see it as NE and CE being combined. I really like the new term Unaligned. It's simple to grasp, and doesn't have the baggage of some of the neutral alignments. LN just took orders. That's no fun! TN tended to be recorders of history, or would be obliged to maintain a balance, switching sides. Or they just sat on the sidelines. CN was the "excuse to be a jerk while not evil" alignment. Unaligned's stance of "just let me go about my business" covers a lot of ground. To me, the neutral alignments were the hardest to play. Alignment, to me, is a general guideline to help a person figure out their moral code. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, nor do I see it affecting how we play the game. It's not for everyone, and that's cool. But I like it as a legacy item. And while I've waffled some over which system to use, I find myself liking the simplicity of the 5-alignment system more and more. [/QUOTE]

Verification