Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[erf_beto]

Seems to me most debates about Alignment revolve around the fact people have different ideas on *how much* aligned is a character. Some think anyone with an alignment hopes to be a Paragon or Champion of that alignment, while others mean their actions just steers in the direction that alignment's cause. This is clearer when it comes to True Neutral.
Perhaps we need to quantify alignment - something I'd rather not do.

 

[Balesir]

TN guy: "Ah, so you don't espouse the specific philosophies of law, of chaos, of evil or of good? Then you must be a Champion of the Balance! Welcome to our fellowship!"

Unaligned guy: "I'm a do- what, now? No, I'm not - p__s off!"

I agree with keeping Unaligned - as a 10th option, I think. For me, the "True Neutral" guy is, in modern world parlance, the guy pushing the political correctness agenda ("all alignments are uniquely valuable in their own way"), whil the Unaligned guy thinks PC is a steaming heap of... baloney (while not really caring what philosophy others espouse, as long as they don't harm him, personally).

 

[Incenjucar]

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".

This sounds more like Lawful Neutral. Maybe even Lawful Evil if he's willing to do horrible things when good gets too powerful.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This sounds more like Lawful Neutral. Maybe even Lawful Evil if he's willing to do horrible things when good gets too powerful.

That runs counter to how True Neutrality has traditionally been defined:

NEUTRALITY: Absolute, or true, neutrol creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary port or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order for chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this noturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations
except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. Absolute neutrality is in the central or fulcrum position quite logically, as the neutral sees all other alignments as parts of a necessary whole. This alignment is the narrowest in scope.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

 

[Andor]

I liked pretty much everything I read in that article.

Alignment (if it exists as a cosmological force) should have mechanical implementation, but not ones that pops up much in day to day life (unless, maybe, you are a Paladin.)

I like where they are going with the maneuver system. It's kind of like taking 4es martial powers/book of 9 swords maneuvers and deconstructing them.

So you'ld have a list of potential manuevers which you can build into your action for that round. At level 1 you only get one maneuver so you can hit someone or disarm them, but not both in one round.

At higher levels, rather than iterative attacks you can build more maneuver components into an action. Possibly with categories like 'damage, maneuver, status' to limit how much hurt or how many 'nad shots can be inflicted in one round, possibly not. So your high level fighter doesn't need to spend a round setting-up a full attack so he can hit twice and swiff three times, instead he leaps on to the dragon's back, stabs in the base of the wing, smacks it in the eye and hacks at it once for good measure. (hinder flight speed, inflict blindness, damage)

It does sound like your primary defense at higher levels is hit point inflation, which I don't really have a problem with, but does turn some people off.

 

[Incenjucar]

That runs counter to how True Neutrality has traditionally been defined:

It has traditionally been defined in an absurd way.

Balance is just a very specific form of order that orders chaos by controlling how much of it there is. That's just lawful without being entirely boring.

 

[keterys]

A million+ posts over the years, including a healthy number in this forum already, about how people don't understand alignment beg for alignment to be an optional module that folks can customize for their game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It has traditionally been defined in an absurd way.

Balance is just a very specific form of order that orders chaos by controlling how much of it there is. That's just lawful without being entirely boring.

I disagree. Lawfulness is about bringing everything, to quote the 1e PHB, "to predictability and regulation". Striking a balance between order and chaos does not achieve such a goal, because chaos is inherently unpredictable and unregulated. Hence, the distinction.

 

[El Mahdi]

This Rule of Three definitely inspired optimism on my part. I can't say if the mechanics will end up being what I want or not, but the direction and mindset they are taking seems to be exactly what's needed. For the most part, I think they are asking the right questions, and trying out some mechanics to see if they result in the effects they are looking for. Effects that support the idea of making a universally accepted D&D game (at least as much as possible).

Keep at it Monte and Company. I think you're on the right path.

 

[Andor]

It has traditionally been defined in an absurd way.

Balance is just a very specific form of order that orders chaos by controlling how much of it there is. That's just lawful without being entirely boring.

Balance is just a very specific form of chaos that permits some order by controlling how much of it there is. That's just chaotic without being entirely boring.

- Fixed it for you.

More to the point Lawful Neutral, or pure law is not originally based on any sort of human perspective. It's not alles in ordnung it's Moorcocks Law, perfect, crystalline, still, lifeless. Chaos is not freedom or libertarianism, it is a seething froth of change and formlessness, not dead perhaps but nothing we would enjoy as a life.

True Neutrality in the old school sense is is recognition that humanity cannot survive in the crystalline stillness of Pure Law nor in the shapeless morass of Pure Chaos. It is not a self-limiting from of government, it is self-preservation in the face of forces which would destroy the universe if one became ascendant.

Now those literary roots have been somewhat lost in recent editions but this is not mere human law vs lawlessness we are talking about in the grand cosmological sense. For example in Madeline L'Engles "A wrinkle in time" the world that had fallen to darkness was one possessed by law but not reduced to stillness because it was Lawful Evil and wanted something to rule. That's why you had streetfulls of kids all bouncing their balls in perfect synchronicity.

That is the kind of "Law" Mordenkainen opposes, not lawn watering regulations.