Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8048255" data-attributes="member: 6779196">But from there you can easily see where a desire for a secondary axis might arise, yes? Civilization (Law) vs. The Wilds (Chaos) is a clean, appealing narrative, and leaves room for evil people within civilization and good people within the wilds. But in leaving that space, it creates a desire to explore said space. What about a campaign where Lawful heroes must overthrow a Lawful tyrant?I think what we see in the old lawful/chaotic/neutral system is an artifact of D&amp;D’s wargaming roots. A way to sort out which units are allowed to be in which armies. This explanation also sheds light on the rigidity of alignments. Goblins are always Chaotic, not as a statement about the essential moral character of goblins as a people, but because goblin units aren’t allowed in the same armies as the Lawful humans, elves, and hobbits.Furthermore, I think this way of looking at alignment helps explain why alignment feels so vestigial to many players today. It’s been a long time since D&amp;D was a game of armies vs. armies. These days it’s a game of individual heroes and the adventures they face. There’s no longer a need to classify which “team” a given character is on, as they’re all ultimately on the team of their fellow adventures in their party. And in that context, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say that a goblin can’t fight for that team because goblins are on the Chaotic team. In that context, the idea of immutable teams feels super weird, and does seem to imply unsavory things about the moral character of peoples who are universally of any one alignment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8048255, member: 6779196"] But from there you can easily see where a desire for a secondary axis might arise, yes? Civilization (Law) vs. The Wilds (Chaos) is a clean, appealing narrative, and leaves room for evil people within civilization and good people within the wilds. But in leaving that space, it creates a desire to explore said space. What about a campaign where Lawful heroes must overthrow a Lawful tyrant? I think what we see in the old lawful/chaotic/neutral system is an artifact of D&D’s wargaming roots. A way to sort out which units are allowed to be in which armies. This explanation also sheds light on the rigidity of alignments. Goblins are always Chaotic, not as a statement about the essential moral character of goblins as a people, but because goblin units aren’t allowed in the same armies as the Lawful humans, elves, and hobbits. Furthermore, I think this way of looking at alignment helps explain why alignment feels so vestigial to many players today. It’s been a long time since D&D was a game of armies vs. armies. These days it’s a game of individual heroes and the adventures they face. There’s no longer a need to classify which “team” a given character is on, as they’re all ultimately on the team of their fellow adventures in their party. And in that context, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say that a goblin can’t fight for that team because goblins are on the Chaotic team. In that context, the idea of immutable teams feels super weird, and does seem to imply unsavory things about the moral character of peoples who are universally of any one alignment. [/QUOTE]

Verification