The Final Preview - Alignment (Is this really the first thread?)
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Maybe the inability to agree on something means that is "philosophical"?med stud said:
At the very least, it was impractical, since if disagreement happens during play and affects what your character can do or how he is affected by other effects, you create a player-vs-player or player-vs-DM conflict.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Well, not everything from the Great Wheel was bad.malraux said:
I hope there will be an Astral Dominion that can cover something like Mechanus. The idea of a "clock-work" plane has its appeal to me...
But I don't really need the Lawful Neutral alignment here...
malraux
First Post
Agreed. And with Sigil still in the DMG, there's hope that we'll see a planescape CS sometime down the line.Mustrum_Ridcully said:Well, not everything from the Great Wheel was bad.
I hope there will be an Astral Dominion that can cover something like Mechanus. The idea of a "clock-work" plane has its appeal to me...
But I don't really need the Lawful Neutral alignment here...
lutecius
Explorer
This is just what I thought when the names were leaked…
clunky: the names LG and CE suggest the existence of Law and Chaos as independent concepts that bizarrely can only work with Good and Evil, respectively.
Either they are unrelated so they should work with Good or Evil indifferently,
or LG and CE are but types of Good/Evil and having them besides just "Good" and "Evil" is confusing.
fence-sitting: they should have gone for just good/unaligned/evil or scrapped alignment altogether.
I don’t think "preserving the system so players could still talk about their lawful good paladin or the chaotic evil demon" will satisfy those who were attached to the old system anyway.
not really useful: Law/Chaos never really worked for me as alignments but, if anything, Lawful Evil (a villain you can trust to follow at least some rules or code of honour) is more distinct from Just Evil thanVerychaotic Evil is.
inconsistent: how do "organized extraplanar monsters" like the archons, mostly used as "militaristic, single-minded" servants and guardians who "don’t mind waiting centuries for interlopers to come along" fit "Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power", or any conventional definition of "chaotic"?
Had the definition been "ultimately serving the forces of chaos" it would have made sense, but the thing is they still haven’t decided if alignment was a personal or a cosmic thing.
clunky: the names LG and CE suggest the existence of Law and Chaos as independent concepts that bizarrely can only work with Good and Evil, respectively.
Either they are unrelated so they should work with Good or Evil indifferently,
or LG and CE are but types of Good/Evil and having them besides just "Good" and "Evil" is confusing.
fence-sitting: they should have gone for just good/unaligned/evil or scrapped alignment altogether.
I don’t think "preserving the system so players could still talk about their lawful good paladin or the chaotic evil demon" will satisfy those who were attached to the old system anyway.
not really useful: Law/Chaos never really worked for me as alignments but, if anything, Lawful Evil (a villain you can trust to follow at least some rules or code of honour) is more distinct from Just Evil than
inconsistent: how do "organized extraplanar monsters" like the archons, mostly used as "militaristic, single-minded" servants and guardians who "don’t mind waiting centuries for interlopers to come along" fit "Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power", or any conventional definition of "chaotic"?
Had the definition been "ultimately serving the forces of chaos" it would have made sense, but the thing is they still haven’t decided if alignment was a personal or a cosmic thing.
Last edited:
Mercule
Adventurer
More like Murphy's Razor. Make things as crappy as they have to be, then stop.baberg said:
This system isn't as bad as saying "Good + Law == extra Good" but it's no better than the old system. Okay, adding "unaligned" is great thing, but that's independent of LG and CE.
Pointless symmetry is indeed a bad thing. But so is pointless dis-symmetry. They say Lawful and Chaotic mean different things than in 3e, but I only half agree. LG doesn't appear to have changed significantly. CE may have changed, or it may just have been codified to reflect the fallacy of "chaotics are slobbering nutters" from prior editions.
The older alignment system was deeply flawed, but so is this one. It's just flawed in new and shiny ways. But, as Hong said, I can still house-rule it out and will be doing so.
chaotic:
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.
4. Mathematics A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete An abyss; a chasm.
lawful:
1. Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent.
2. Established, sanctioned, or recognized by the law: the lawful heir.
3. Obeying the law; law-abiding.
(law:
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2. <redacted>
)
"Chaotic" does not mean "free".
"Lawful" does not mean "despotic".
(edit: out of misplaced symmetry:
[sblock]
Good: (heavily edited!)
1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
2.
1. Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
3. Not spoiled or ruined: The milk is still good.
4. In excellent condition; sound: a good tooth.
5. Superior to the average; satisfactory: a good student.
10. Valid or true: a good reason.
11. Genuine; real: a good dollar bill.
16. Ample; substantial: a good income.
17. Bountiful: a good table.
19. Propitious; favorable: good weather; a good omen.
20. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
21. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
22. Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.
23. Well-behaved; obedient: a good child.
24. Socially correct; proper: good manners.
Evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
[/sblock]
Even the dictionary agrees!)
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.
4. Mathematics A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete An abyss; a chasm.
lawful:
1. Being within the law; allowed by law: lawful methods of dissent.
2. Established, sanctioned, or recognized by the law: the lawful heir.
3. Obeying the law; law-abiding.
(law:
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2. <redacted>
)
"Chaotic" does not mean "free".
"Lawful" does not mean "despotic".
(edit: out of misplaced symmetry:
[sblock]
Good: (heavily edited!)
1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
2.
1. Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
3. Not spoiled or ruined: The milk is still good.
4. In excellent condition; sound: a good tooth.
5. Superior to the average; satisfactory: a good student.
10. Valid or true: a good reason.
11. Genuine; real: a good dollar bill.
16. Ample; substantial: a good income.
17. Bountiful: a good table.
19. Propitious; favorable: good weather; a good omen.
20. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
21. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
22. Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.
23. Well-behaved; obedient: a good child.
24. Socially correct; proper: good manners.
Evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
[/sblock]
Even the dictionary agrees!)
Last edited:
Blackeagle
First Post
Derren said:
The new system is still symmetrical, it's just bilaterally symmetrical, rather than radially symmetrical.
I think the new system oversimplifies for no reason. It doesn't make sense to redo any part of the game unless it makes the game better. The alignment excerpt summarizes each new alignment with a pair of adjectives:
LG-civilization and order
G-freedom and kindness
E-tyranny and hatred
CE-entropy and destruction
[Unaligned=benign, no alignment]
The previous system could have been summarized using the same adjectives:
LG-civilization
NG-kindness
CG-freedom
LN-order
CN-entropy
LE-tyranny
NE-hatred
CE-destruction
[N-balance]
Other than favoring grouping over splitting, the only real change is the replacement of neutral alignment with unaligned.
For me, alignment is mostly a descriptor and I've always minimized the mechanical effects of alignment. Fourth edition makes the mechanical effects smaller than ever before, if not non-existent. That's good. But for a system that's mostly a stereotypical shorthand for describing the ethics of each character, it is no better and arguably worse because it's less specific.
What I wish they had done was present three basic approaches to alignment:
1. Strict alignment--everyone has an alignment. Preferred for beginning groups learning the game.
2. Selective alignment--most characters are unaligned, but certain characters and enemies (clerics, paladins, evil priests, angels, gods, devils, demons) follow a specific alignment. Unaligned characters can select an alignment as roleplaying shorthand, but are not required to strictly follow that alignment. This is for a more experienced group playing a game where the good vs. evil struggle is still a major component.
3. No alignment--everyone is unaligned, and characters act according to individual personalities and complex moral and ethical considerations. Recommended only for experienced groups that agree that they prefer this style of play.
Then, lay out a number of alignment systems:
1. Simplified: good vs. evil, with neutral for uncommitted or conflicted characters.
2. Simplified: law vs. chaos, with neutral for those favoring balance.
3. Classic: two-dimensional 9-alignment system. This is the default for official tournament play.
4. Factional: characters identify with particular groups in the game, which vary depending upon the details of each campaign.
Then lay out the options for any mechanical effects of alignment for each of these basic options, if any, and end by stressing that the DM has final say and any system that is amenable to the group is possible.
LG-civilization and order
G-freedom and kindness
E-tyranny and hatred
CE-entropy and destruction
[Unaligned=benign, no alignment]
The previous system could have been summarized using the same adjectives:
LG-civilization
NG-kindness
CG-freedom
LN-order
CN-entropy
LE-tyranny
NE-hatred
CE-destruction
[N-balance]
Other than favoring grouping over splitting, the only real change is the replacement of neutral alignment with unaligned.
For me, alignment is mostly a descriptor and I've always minimized the mechanical effects of alignment. Fourth edition makes the mechanical effects smaller than ever before, if not non-existent. That's good. But for a system that's mostly a stereotypical shorthand for describing the ethics of each character, it is no better and arguably worse because it's less specific.
What I wish they had done was present three basic approaches to alignment:
1. Strict alignment--everyone has an alignment. Preferred for beginning groups learning the game.
2. Selective alignment--most characters are unaligned, but certain characters and enemies (clerics, paladins, evil priests, angels, gods, devils, demons) follow a specific alignment. Unaligned characters can select an alignment as roleplaying shorthand, but are not required to strictly follow that alignment. This is for a more experienced group playing a game where the good vs. evil struggle is still a major component.
3. No alignment--everyone is unaligned, and characters act according to individual personalities and complex moral and ethical considerations. Recommended only for experienced groups that agree that they prefer this style of play.
Then, lay out a number of alignment systems:
1. Simplified: good vs. evil, with neutral for uncommitted or conflicted characters.
2. Simplified: law vs. chaos, with neutral for those favoring balance.
3. Classic: two-dimensional 9-alignment system. This is the default for official tournament play.
4. Factional: characters identify with particular groups in the game, which vary depending upon the details of each campaign.
Then lay out the options for any mechanical effects of alignment for each of these basic options, if any, and end by stressing that the DM has final say and any system that is amenable to the group is possible.
Similar Threads
