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

[see]

It is relatively trivial to restore the nine alignments if you want, or expand to twenty-five, or simplify to three or zero. After all, there are virtually no mechanical effects.

 

[Lizard]

Well, once again, the explanation for "why we did it" has absolutely no resonance with me; Chaotic Goods in my games were the people who'd rush to save the princess/overthrow the evil overlord without waiting for a "plan" or "more information", not s, and Paladins didn't go around whomping party members as if they'd read their character sheets. Chaos in D&D means placing the individual ahead of the collective, not random disorder and insanity.

I can't help but think that the problem of "Some D&D players are real jerks" will not be solved by changing alignment rules.

And, again, I never heard of/experienced anyone bitching about taking excess damage from evil-aligned weapons and people sure liked dealing out extra smackdown with good-aligned ones.

Lastly, anyone who thinks "alignment=personality" just needs to read some OOTS, and compare Roy, Durkon, Miko, and Hinjo. All lawful good. All very different people.

Fortunately, this is about the easiest change to ignore; since alignment no longer has mechanical meaning, restoring the classic moral/ethical axis is trivial.

 

[Ipissimus]

It is relatively trivial to restore the nine alignments if you want, or expand to twenty-five, or simplify to three or zero. After all, there are virtually no mechanical effects.

Yup, and probably exactly what I'll be doing, but it would have been nice (or would be nice in the future) for them to include 'advanced alignments' in the core game to introduce a new generation of players to philosophical concepts like I was while I was growing up.

Lizard: Exactly what I thought reading the article.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

This is a perfect example of something that is enabled by an artificial alignment system and doesn't really make sense for me. Maybe a character that aims for "balance" between good and evil can exist in the real world or in literature, but he is plainly misguided. If you willingly promote evil to counter good (and not just to enable a greater good), you're not acting neutral, you're evil. You willingly hurt someone for your own personal gains or interest (in this case, your interest in neutrality).

It just doesn't work for me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, once again, the explanation for "why we did it" has absolutely no resonance with me; Chaotic Goods in my games were the people who'd rush to save the princess/overthrow the evil overlord without waiting for a "plan" or "more information", not s, and Paladins didn't go around whomping party members as if they'd read their character sheets. Chaos in D&D means placing the individual ahead of the collective, not random disorder and insanity.

Maybe I am lawful good, but I do not really see "rushing" without a plan or more information as an philosophical trait, but a personality aspect, most likely a flaw. (But then, I would also say that desperately trying to work with a system even if it doesn't give results and only prolongs suffering of people not as a philosophical stance, but an error in judgment and quite possibility a personality flaw.) I am not saying that flaws are bad (in-game, in real life, they are), but do they constitute an alignment?

If you want to play such a character, give him a low INT or WIS (never sure which ability is the best one for this. Probably both. Inability to plan can be due to sheer incompetence (INT) or due to lack of willpower
(Wis) to focus on planning).

And, again, I never heard of/experienced anyone bitching about taking excess damage from evil-aligned weapons and people sure liked dealing out extra smackdown with good-aligned ones.

In our Shackled City campaign, I considered my Fighter turning from Neutral to Neutral Good, since he always fought the good side in the end. But every time we where hit by one of this anti-good spells, I decided to delay the turn a little further.

Hey, if you're still fighting evil, why does it matter if your character sheet says neutral good, heh? It only matters because actually being good is more dangerous, even if you do exactly the same things.

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw. Being good should protect from evil, not make it stronger against you.

Fortunately, this is about the easiest change to ignore; since alignment no longer has mechanical meaning, restoring the classic moral/ethical axis is trivial.

That's true.

 

[Derren]

The new alignment system is probably the worst thing WotC could have done. Renaming neutral into unaligned is ok (although smells like a placebo to me), but why this unsymmetric system? Why does LG have to be different than G or CG? And why is CE special compared to normal or LE? (Insert you favorite real world example here).

But the big question is, why have an alignment at all? When there really are no mechanics tied to it and you can't even reference it in game with detect spells then having an alignment is pointless and will never be used again after the character creation.
But I guess all this mechanical alignment effects will be added to 4E by a splatbook sooner or later.

 

[Jack Colby]

2. Half of the alignments have names that imply that additional alignments should exist.

Incorrect. Your way of thinking is a holdover from the previous edition. Law is good, chaos is evil. There is no implication of other alignments in 4E.

 

[GravyFingerz]

After reading this excerpt, I must say that I enjoy this new incarnation of the alignment system. Even though I understood the 9 alignment axis system of previous editions (but enjoyed the Moldvay Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic system), I think the new incarnation is a step in the right direction - so much that I decided to add to the conversation.

The old alignment system struck me as overly cumbersome, and in a world where you are killing orcs and trolls for some gold, the alignment system was needlessly complex. In such a world, having three distinct responses to moral quandries (good/neutral/evil) is enough for most peoples tastes, and I think that was what the 3-tier alignment system was all about. When adventurers are disconnected from the mainstream of society, making their means by risking their lives and rejecting most conventional ideas of social classes, why are they consciously thinking of how they fit into a society that they don't belong to in the first place? Why should they care, unless lives are at risk? There is no need for an ethical axis.

I think a 5 alignment system is just balanced enough between complex (9 alignments) and simple (3 alignments) that it works for me. It preserves quite a bit of flavor from the previous systems while not being as overly cumbersome.

And alignment is almost non-essential for the function of most mechanics, which is something I wanted in 3e but did not get.

 

[hong]

There's a similar thread on RPGnet, on the difference between evil and unaligned:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=397495

Peter Schaefer pokes his head in with a comment:

Many people play mercenaries, unintentional heroes, and hardened adventurers doing good more because it's there than because it's good. Unaligned is for them. It carries fewer troublesome connotations that Chaotic Neutral.

Which makes sense. Alignment should be understood in narrative terms, not as trying to model real-world ethics and morality.

 

[Stogoe]

the old alignment system gave DnD a philosophical depth

I disagree vehemently. Tens of thousands of posts on the internet about whether a paladin would kill orc babies is not philosophical depth, it's nerdrage at its most banal.