The Final Preview - Alignment (Is this really the first thread?)

[ProfessorCirno]

Occam's Razor. Make things as complex as they have to be, then stop. Since you don't lose anything with the new LG/G/U/E/CE alignment line that you had under the box of 3e (as you just stated) why would you go beyond the line?

Make it as complex as you have to, then quit.

No, I'm saying you don't GAIN anything with the new alignment Z that you had with the grid. You do lose things.

The idea that evil characters can NEVER EVER work with a good party is simply incorrect. I can't even think of a witty remark to make; it's just factually wrong.

 

[Blackeagle]

You know, people have been complaining about how lawful evil and chaotic good have disappeared, but reading this it seems to me like LE and CG aren't gone. They just killed NG and NE and took their stuff.

Good is all about freedom and kindness, and protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them. Sound like CG to me. Similarly Evil is about tyranny and hatred and supporting institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. Sounds like LE to me.

 

[Tervin]

Occam's Razor. Make things as complex as they have to be, then stop. Since you don't lose anything with the new LG/G/U/E/CE alignment line that you had under the box of 3e (as you just stated) why would you go beyond the line?

Make it as complex as you have to, then quit.

Why did they make it unneccessarily complicated then?

The LG and CE don't add anything more than several other alignments would have. Simple C and L would in fact have added more. But, I will try not do the old discussion all over again. The system is there, and I guess I can just ignore it.

Their explanations in the artcle did not really explain anything to me, possibly because the problems with the old system they were talking about were not alignment system problems to me.

First example simply describes players and groups that don't seem to have realised why they were playing, or who had chosen to play that WotC don't intend. The number of different alignments did not cause the problem, if anything a general article to introduce alignments in the PH might have done it.

Second example also says nothing about why they changed this system, simply talks about that they didn't like it that there could be downsides to be good when you fought demons. To me that was one of the good things of the old system - no reason why "good" should never be a downside. The change here is basically deciding that alignment has no technical implications like that, changing the alignments themselves have nothing to do with it.

Last example is just a statement without backing, so I won't bother examining it further.

 

[theNater]

Quite frankly, the alignment hasn't been improved at all. It just went from a grid to a vaguely Z-shaped...thing.

LG NG CG
LN TN CN
LE NE CE

Was how it used to be. Now:

LG G- --
-- U- --
-- E- CE

How about we make it vaguely X-shaped?

LG -- -G
-- U- --
E- -- CG

X's are cool, right?

 

[see]

How about we make it vaguely X-shaped?

LG -- -G
-- U- --
E- -- CG

X's are cool, right?

Holmes, I missed you!

(LG, CG, N, LE, and CE were the five alignments in the 1977 Holmes D&D Basic Set.)

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't like the entire "choosing teams" language being used throughout the excerpt. It seems like one of the worst kinds of analogies to use for something that is pretty much a descriptor for a character's innate personality more than anything else. All it does is confuse the issue. Also, the quick summaries of the individual alignments are pretty bad. Beyond that though, the actual alignment system and the full descriptions for the five alignments are all pretty good. The whole thing is a lot better than the old alignment system.

I was surprised, though, to see that despite all the talk about alignment having no effect there is a reference to some magic items only working if you have a certain alignment.

The impressive thing about the article is that the "Chaotic Evil" alignment description was evocative enough to remind me of a particularly vile villain from a videogame I played a while ago. That is the first time that has happened while reading alignment descriptions.

 

[Lurker37]

"Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you."

Completely incorrect. I've played and seen plenty of evil character that didn't cause any strife in the group.

Were they novice players?

I'm taking that bit as more of the 'advice to the new players we're hoping to attract.' In that context, I'd even agree to it. 90% of novice players would cause party friction if their first ever character was an evil character in anon-evil party. And most Novice DMs would have trouble dealing with that. Such things can easily sour games, and WoTC doesn't want alignment issues to disrupt anyone's first gaming session to the point where they don't play another.

LG G- --
-- U- --
-- E- CE

I see it more as

LG G- --
-- -- -- ..........................................U
-- E- CE

but that's just me.

If they wanted to simply make alignment non-mechanical, they could've easily done that. I don't see the reason for ripping out half the grid though. And the idea of rogues pushing people off good because "I'm CG!" is dumb. That type of character is STILL THERE. Now they say "I push him off a bridge because I'm unaligned."

Again, I think it was because those alignments were either not different enough, or else caused issues in play, especially when new players kept mistaking 'Chaotic' for 'Prone to Being Random and Mildly Insane'. Just like Robin Hood (the archetypal CG character) wasn't.

Now that behaviour is a personality trait which players can choose to have or not to have, rather than something they (mistakenly) feel obliged to be because of their alignment.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or the fact that the alignment thing has been discussed to death and there's no new info here.

Or that we can wait the six days to read it for ourselves.

Fitz

Without the leaked PDFs and the "premature" release by some retailers (or even FLGS), I think we would still have a lot of discussion going on.

This is also the first time that everyone has access to the details of the alignment system.

From my view, I like the system. Coming from 3E, the names somehow feel a little wrong, but I think these 4-5 alignments cover all the alignments that seem actually reasonable and are distinguishable enough.

 

[Ipissimus]

Just about the only change I don't like about the new edition. I can work with it, yes, but the old alignment system gave DnD a philosophical depth that every other game lacked.

I rejoiced when they talked about adding Unaligned. It gave people who didn't want to bother with alignment an option other than Neutral and gives an option for people who just don't think about morality, all they do is what they must to survive. Essentially it gave everyone an 'opt out' option which would have been a good addition to the system.

Rolling NG and CG together then doing the same to NE and LE might be a nice way to make things simple for the 12 year olds. I get that WOTC wants to make the game more accessible and understanding the old Alignment system is a bit of a stumbling block for newbies.

BUT there's a big difference between a the ideals of a revolutionary and those of a philanthropist. Compare Che Guaevara and Norman Borlag. There's also a big difference between Neutral and Unaligned. Unaligned people just don't care, Neutrality takes work and commitment. Besides, a big part of the fluff for Mordenkainen was that he seeks a karmic balance between the four polarities, making him Unaligned seems like a big kick in the face to his character. The same goes for Druids who seek to balance themselves with the force of nature. The same also goes for LN - you can't really call Judge Dredd 'unaligned'.

I like cutting out the whole 'aligned weapon vs. DR' sthick and I disagree that 4e has really been dumbed down for the most part, but if anything deserves the title it's the new alignment system.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

Neutrality takes work and commitment. Besides, a big part of the fluff for Mordenkainen was that he seeks a karmic balance between the four polarities, making him Unaligned seems like a big kick in the face to his character.

Okay you've just sold me on the new system totally. Anything that kicks that jerk in the face is fine by me.