Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4265533" data-attributes="member: 42582">Alignment in 4e is not a descriptor of a character's personal morality or ethics. It records a character's relationship to certain moral and religious conflicts that are central to the play of the game.But in 4e alignment is not a descriptor for a character's innate personality. You might disagree with that implementation of alignment, but given that implementation, the team-choosing language is quite apt.The player chooses that his or her PC will be unaligned. The player has made a metagame choice. The PC has made no choice. The PC may never have been confronted by a choice (eg no cleric, angel or demon ever made an alignment proposition to the PC)."Unaligned" incorporates Mordenkainen-style neutrality, and indeed the extract says that this is the typical view of unaligned gods.If we take as a premise the 4e notion that there are only 4 teams - G, LG, E and CE - then it is a pretty basic deduction to work out that someone who is not a member of any team is unaligned, regardless of whether that status reflects indifference, or committed neutrality.My own view is that it demonstrated numerous philosophical confusions, including (but not limited to) confusions between descriptive and normative concepts.I don't know Mage but otherwise QFT. Planescape Factions, in particular, have not really impressed me in my reading of them.</blockquote>