Rich Baker Blog on Monsters

[FadedC]

It would seem that while we could get rid of alignments for players, the concept of things being innately good and evil is such a classic part of both D&D and most high fantasy that it would be silly to expect it removed. There will always be good dieties and diobolical forces, and there should be some interplay between say holy and good spells and innately evil creatures.

Or to put it another way if you find a holy sword, it's handy to know who it made to smite.

 

[Najo]

By that argument, though, Basic D&D wasn't D&D, and neither was the original D&D that predated AD&D 1E.

The former only had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The latter had (IIRC) Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral.

Very little is as intricately tied to D&D as people think.

That is how I remember it too Mouse

 

[Baby Samurai]

When I asked David Noonan about alignment over here in London on Open Game Day, he told me a DM doesn't really need to deal with alignment, but a player might have it on his character's sheet.

 

[Sammael]

When I asked David Noonan about alignment over here in London on Open Game Day, he told me a DM doesn't really need to deal with alignment, but a player might have it on his character's sheet.

That's a non-answer if I've ever seen one.

For the love of... give us ONE solid fact. Not a "may," "might," "maybe," "perhaps,", "possibly." The non-commitment is really starting to get on my nerves. I'd rather they didn't say anything.

 

[Baby Samurai]

That's a non-answer if I've ever seen one.

For the love of... give us ONE solid fact. Not a "may," "might," "maybe," "perhaps,", "possibly." The non-commitment is really starting to get on my nerves. I'd rather they didn't say anything.

Yeah, I know, but they have to be vague and cryptic.

He also made a strange allusion to their "Magic Spreadsheet" with the entire 4th Ed math laid out.

 

[Sammael]

Yeah, I know, but they have to be vague and cryptic.

No, they don't. It's a form of marketing strategy which I really disagree with. It makes me less likely to buy products. I do not want to be spoon-fed mysterious hints - I make my choices based on information, not rumors.

Major parts of the system (which alignment is) must be finalized by now, and they should only be working on ironing out the bugs and doing some light re-balancing. There is NO TIME for any major changes; my liberal estimate is that the PH must go out to the printers in February to meet the June deadline (because of the huge number of copies printed for the 1st edition - I'd wager they have at least 2,000,000+ copies planned initially.

 

[Klaus]

That's not true. Everyone knows that chaotic beings are the ones that think more about themselves, while lawful ones seek the greater common good.
Unlike evil characters, most good ones see good as something more important than law/chaos. Elandrins would side with Archons against Devils, but they wouldn't side with Demons against the lawful Archons.

Think of a Big Brother-style government that provides food, shelter, health care, education and all that. But it has very strict set of rules. Cursing, loitering, being unkind to others, having unauthorized children, are all punishable by indoctrination. That might be a LG society (the closest I can think are the society in Demolition Man and in the Simpsons special when Flanders rules the world thanks to Homer's time travels). But it would be stifling to a CG character.

I think an alliance between Archons and Devils to stamp out chaos could exist, if the archons believe chaos to be winning and on the verge of undoing existence, and that they can establish an enlightened dictatorship that could sway the devils to a Good behaviour (of course, the devils would work towards infesting any such society with corruption). Eladrins would have nothing of that, believing each should choose their own way of life, and not have it imposed on anyone. If the Lawful Alliance becomes successful to the point of advancing over the Chaotic planes, the Eladrin might be willing to side with the demons, using them as a hunter would use a savage dog to bring down a prey.

 

[Baby Samurai]

No, they don't. It's a form of marketing strategy which I really disagree with. It makes me less likely to buy products. I do not want to be spoon-fed mysterious hints - I make my choices based on information, not rumors.

You're probably right, if I recall, at this point in 3rd edition's pending release, we had a lot more juice to go on.

 

[Najo]

When I asked David Noonan about alignment over here in London on Open Game Day, he told me a DM doesn't really need to deal with alignment, but a player might have it on his character's sheet.

For every player who hates a cryptic answer, there is one who loves it. It gives us a puzzle to figure out. Instead of the forums being full of people cheering and complaining over everything, we also have a huge chunk of discussion of people trying to put the pieces together. This is probably intentional to create the sense of wonder and mystery around the game that was there when we first started playing. Answers are coming soon enough, and alot of the tidbits and direction are out there.

Now, for this alignment thing. If anything this supports exactly what I said the are likely doing. Alignment is gone, with good and evil (and maybe chaos and law) being descriptive states of being that are affected by magic effects. So PCs are rarely truely evil, while demons and devils always are. Evil then is affected by Protection spells and such.

This approach makes a lot of sense and is much less akward for new players, it allows for better roleplaying, it keeps the important functions of alignment in the game without shoe horning players into predetermined moral/ ethical roles. Players can just play their character concept as they wish. Much better I say.

 

[Baby Samurai]

So PCs are rarely truely evil, while demons and devils always are.

But if you'll notice there is no mention of alignment or evil anywhere in the Spined Devil's stats.