Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[whydirt]

Alignment seems like the poster child for being an optional modular mechanic. WotC is welcome to put the traditional 9-point system, OD&D's Law vs. Chaos, or d20 Modern's allegiances system in, but I see no reason why any of them should be baked into the core game.

 

[n00bdragon]

As usual, most people missed the real zinger in today's column, notably the implication that paladins cast spells because that's what people expect them to do rather than as a way to differentiate them from other classes. Those of you who might remember the origins of the paladin class may note that it was in fact a different special kind of fighter given powers only for the fact that he is different. There is no fantasy lore anywhere to suggest that paladins have magic powers. D&D just made that stuff up out whole cloth because it's more fun that way.

Some of you may think I'm being particularly pedantic about these few sentences but this is all the insight we get into the design process, and from what I see the designers want to make a game that's more D&D than any edition of D&D ever was. It's become a ridiculous parody more than actual game.

 

[Mark CMG]

There is no fantasy lore anywhere to suggest that paladins have magic powers.

In some versions of Arthurian Legend, Lancelot has healing powers that are seemingly divinely granted.

 

[Kynn]

I disagree. I think True Neutral definitely has a place in the alignment system. The figure who acts to maintain balance between other powers is a good example of this.

Why would such a figure be a particularly good moral archetype for a fantasy roleplaying game?

Do such entities exist in the related fantasy fiction? Is it fun to play? Does it open up a set of gaming options that might not otherwise exist?

If you ask me, the "maintain the balance" alignment isn't an alignment at all. It's either a character quirk or some kind of neurosis, but there's no need to hardcode either into an alignment system.

 

[Iosue]

What do you mean one man holds off an entire scenarios don't end well.

Jet Li in Hero begs to differ... oh right ... that didn't end well.

Step along, nothing to see here.

Jet Li in [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owYk4TOddYY]the One[/ame] on the other hand, does beg to differ.

 

[ggroy]

None of the last 2 descriptions of Chaotic Neutral are what I fully see all of Chaotic Neutral as, and are generally coloured by a bias against the alignment. It's many things, and a variety of personality types in much the same way other alignments also cover a variety of personalities. Chaotic Neutral also isn't completely a single political political ideology, as there clearly can be chaotic neutral or any sort of alignment on both sides of the political spectrum.

I thought Chaotic Neutral was somebody like Beavis & Butthead.

 

[Hassassin]

Only problem is, Hassassin is wrong. CN is a conscious choice for one. For another, CN also embodies irresponsibility and being fickle. Neither of those things are present in the example. CN is not simply, "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, but, what I want to do is be a team player and be totally responsible all the time". CN is a jerk. He's the guy who falls asleep or wanders off during a watch. He cannot be trusted. Ever. That's what irresponsible means. Sure, he's not malicious. He doesn't want to dominate you like a CE would. But, OTOH, he's the guy who you would never, ever consider asking to watch your house for the weekend because you KNOW he'd have half a hundred of his "best friends" over to party and stick you with the mess and the $2000 noise compaint.

That's not what my definition of CN says. Unpredictable? Yes. Unreliable? Not necessarily. Jerk? Definitely orthogonal to alignment.

Anyway, each alignment is a large pool of different outlooks. Somewhere between the "extremes" of TN and CN there is that guy who is individualistic, somewhat unpredictable, still a good buddy, but who doesn't really care about strangers. Whether you say he's TN or CN is a judgement call.

(Ps. Most of my CE guys don't want to dominate anyone. More like make sure there's no one who can dominate them.)

 

[Mattachine]

One of the most iconic D&D characters, perhaps THE iconic D&D wizard, Mordenkainen, was True Neutral--as seeker of balance, of cosmic order. Definitely not "unaligned".

I consider one of the original D&D characters as least as iconic (if not more so) than a character from a 1950's or 1960's fantasy novel I never read.

 

[erleni]

One of the most iconic D&D characters, perhaps THE iconic D&D wizard, Mordenkainen, was True Neutral--as seeker of balance, of cosmic order. Definitely not "unaligned".

I consider one of the original D&D characters as least as iconic (if not more so) than a character from a 1950's or 1960's fantasy novel I never read.

The God Gilean in Dragonlance is another example.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why would such a figure be a particularly good moral archetype for a fantasy roleplaying game?

Do such entities exist in the related fantasy fiction? Is it fun to play? Does it open up a set of gaming options that might not otherwise exist?

Yes, keepers of balance do exist in fantasy fiction. Several posters in this thread have mentioned examples. As to whether it's fun to play, I'd say that it's more commonly an NPC alignment, but the same applies to Chaotic Evil IMO.

It most definitely opens up a set of gaming options that wouldn't otherwise exist. If you want to preserve the balance, you aren't good or evil, lawful or chaotic. You'll ally yourself with any side that's become the underdog, in order to restore balance. That's most certainly different than what a differently aligned party/character would do.

If you ask me, the "maintain the balance" alignment isn't an alignment at all. It's either a character quirk or some kind of neurosis, but there's no need to hardcode either into an alignment system.

If you ask me, the concept of alignment probably arose from the struggle between Law and Chaos seen in books like Zelazny's Amber series and Moorcock's Elric series. In those books, certain individuals are aligned with one philosophy or the other, and struggle against opposing aligned individuals. Their struggles are part of a greater cosmic struggle.

In that type of setting (which D&D, with it's Great Wheel of philosophies as existent planes, arguably is) it's not a quirk or neurosis to seek balance between the two. Without those opposing forces, the universe as we know it ceases to exist. Wanting to preserve the known universe doesn't make one crazy, it makes one a hero. However, this is a very peculiar hero in that he's just as likely to ally himself with demons as with angels, dependent on which side is losing.

In all fairness, this is the most legitimate critique, IMO. However, this definition of Neutrality has been part of the game for a long time now. If they're bringing back alignment for the sake of tradition, then there's certainly an argument to be made for the tradition of preserving the balance.

All I'm saying is that there's very little in common between someone dedicated to Neutrality in the sense of maintaining a balance, and someone who chooses not to participate in the "alignment wars". The first is driven by a strong sense of philosophical purpose. You're not likely to bribe him into betraying his ideals. The second is more like a mercenary. There will be some things they're unwilling to stoop to, but beyond that they probably have a price. In a sense, the latter is driven more by practicality than purpose.

Removing preserver of the balance from the alignment mix certainly is an option, however.

Explain to me this. Assuming we want to preserve the keeper of the balance concept, what harm is there in making the distinction?