Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should classes retain traditional alignment restrictions in 5E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5799330" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think that's true, but personally I'll take the loss of the great wheel as a fairly easy price for going back to alignments closer to Basic - only instead of L - N - C we have L - G - N - E - C, which is to say the spectrum is the same but the gradation more subtle.</p><p></p><p>What I like about Basic/4e alignment (if it's going to be in the game at all) is that it presents a particular take on moral/ideological affiliation intended to support a certain flavour of fantasy RPGing. It makes no sense, for example, to ask where Joseph Stalin or Winston Churchill fits in these alignment systems, because neither is a figure in a heroic fantasy story.</p><p></p><p>Whereas the 9-alignment system purports to be a general system of moral/ethical categorisation, even though as such a thing it is obviously crap. (Evidence: of the many systems of moral evaluation that human beings have produced and defended, and sometimes fought and died for, none of them resembles D&D's 9-alignment system.)</p><p></p><p>Perhaps, but as another poster noted this provokes endless debates about what "Lawful" means. A handful of the endless tedious examples:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">*an early White Dwarf article classified Samurai as "Chaotic [whatever]" because they are individualists in their orientation. Whereas OA classified them as "Lawful [whatever]", because they are disciplined; </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*one could generalise the question to zen buddhism (either in its real life form or its fantasy RPG form);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*is Calvinist Christianity chaotic (because individualist, and arguably a cultural driving force behind capitalist social systems and the US as a political entity) or lawful (because Calvinists are very disciplined and, historically, have produced some cohesive and powerful societies)?<p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I'm not saying we need to answer these questions - even to try and do so would break board rules - but the mere fact that they arise is evidence of the deep problems and divisions to which alignment classifications, and especially ones involving mechancial adjudication by the GM, give rise.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I'll answer a strong yes to the second - mechanical alignment is a needless source of game-ending fights - but also yes to the first - if a player wants to try out the idea of a scruffy, disorganised knight errant who, through his adventures, brings much-needed chaos and levity to the world (paladin of Olidammra?), why should anyone playing the game at any other table give a toss?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The main argument I would see againt this thought is that, by saying that all paladins must be lawful - and thereby, in effect, defining "lawful" as the outlook of (semi-)honourable knighthood (even black knights only strike peasants from behind!), you introduce some content to what you want "lawful" to mean in the game. But on yet the third hand (!), doing this would likely to be controversial to that group of players who already think that they know what "lawful" means, and that it is a distinct notion from that of "honourable".</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Sure, but isn't this primarily a table-by-table thing?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I mean, those involved in organised play are presumably obliged to suck up a somewhat incoherent story - that would seem to just go with the territory.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">A concluding thought - I suspect that alignment may be a much bigger component of world-building than of play - being a handy shorthand by which GMs especially, but players also, can conceive of the moral topography of the shared imaginary space. And on the basis of this suspicion I have another one, that the popularity of alignment corresponds, to an extent at least, with the phenomena of RPGs as fiction to be read, rather than games to be played - instead of finding out whether demons hate devils love warlocks hate paladins <em>in play</em>, the alignment rules create a fiction we can read in advance of, or independently of, play, in which that question is already answered.</p> </p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5799330, member: 42582"] I think that's true, but personally I'll take the loss of the great wheel as a fairly easy price for going back to alignments closer to Basic - only instead of L - N - C we have L - G - N - E - C, which is to say the spectrum is the same but the gradation more subtle. What I like about Basic/4e alignment (if it's going to be in the game at all) is that it presents a particular take on moral/ideological affiliation intended to support a certain flavour of fantasy RPGing. It makes no sense, for example, to ask where Joseph Stalin or Winston Churchill fits in these alignment systems, because neither is a figure in a heroic fantasy story. Whereas the 9-alignment system purports to be a general system of moral/ethical categorisation, even though as such a thing it is obviously crap. (Evidence: of the many systems of moral evaluation that human beings have produced and defended, and sometimes fought and died for, none of them resembles D&D's 9-alignment system.) Perhaps, but as another poster noted this provokes endless debates about what "Lawful" means. A handful of the endless tedious examples: [indent]*an early White Dwarf article classified Samurai as "Chaotic [whatever]" because they are individualists in their orientation. Whereas OA classified them as "Lawful [whatever]", because they are disciplined; *one could generalise the question to zen buddhism (either in its real life form or its fantasy RPG form); *is Calvinist Christianity chaotic (because individualist, and arguably a cultural driving force behind capitalist social systems and the US as a political entity) or lawful (because Calvinists are very disciplined and, historically, have produced some cohesive and powerful societies)?[indent] I'm not saying we need to answer these questions - even to try and do so would break board rules - but the mere fact that they arise is evidence of the deep problems and divisions to which alignment classifications, and especially ones involving mechancial adjudication by the GM, give rise. I'll answer a strong yes to the second - mechanical alignment is a needless source of game-ending fights - but also yes to the first - if a player wants to try out the idea of a scruffy, disorganised knight errant who, through his adventures, brings much-needed chaos and levity to the world (paladin of Olidammra?), why should anyone playing the game at any other table give a toss? The main argument I would see againt this thought is that, by saying that all paladins must be lawful - and thereby, in effect, defining "lawful" as the outlook of (semi-)honourable knighthood (even black knights only strike peasants from behind!), you introduce some content to what you want "lawful" to mean in the game. But on yet the third hand (!), doing this would likely to be controversial to that group of players who already think that they know what "lawful" means, and that it is a distinct notion from that of "honourable". Sure, but isn't this primarily a table-by-table thing? I mean, those involved in organised play are presumably obliged to suck up a somewhat incoherent story - that would seem to just go with the territory. A concluding thought - I suspect that alignment may be a much bigger component of world-building than of play - being a handy shorthand by which GMs especially, but players also, can conceive of the moral topography of the shared imaginary space. And on the basis of this suspicion I have another one, that the popularity of alignment corresponds, to an extent at least, with the phenomena of RPGs as fiction to be read, rather than games to be played - instead of finding out whether demons hate devils love warlocks hate paladins [I]in play[/I], the alignment rules create a fiction we can read in advance of, or independently of, play, in which that question is already answered.[/indent][/indent] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should classes retain traditional alignment restrictions in 5E?
Top