Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8328346" data-attributes="member: 87792">Having a quick classification of monsters in no way makes 9 point alignment a good classification of monsters. It's a pretty awful one. If it's choices for what to populate dungeons with alliances would be better. 4e did things better in the MM for this by having the monsters with suggested encounter groups. Alliances would do better with what you're suggesting than alignment does. So for that matter would natural environments.And then there's people not understanding a basis for the Blood War (&quot;We're evil like this. They're evil like that. So we should fight to the death.&quot;) because of the seeming symmetry of the alignment chart. 4e on the other hand, by switching to 3+2 alignments made the whole thing make sense.So even at what you are claiming alignment is good at the main thing to be said for is that it's better than nothing.I seriously find the idea that it's only a couple of letters therefore shouldn't be a problem to be ridiculous. And I homebrew most of my monsters because monster design (and with it monster fluff) fell a long way between 4e and 5e although still remained better and richer than the prosthetic forehead wizards of 3.X. And to me that's a minimum. As I've said if you want to declare people like Strahd, Acecerak, Lolth, Bane, and their devout worshippers evil it's fine with me. It's also entirely possible to declare Far Realm entities neutral and their prime material cultists evil. Declaring entire humanoid races evil on the other hand is toxic.And that's entirely without getting into universe specific badness like Dragonlance's &quot;The balance between good and evil should be maintained&quot; (an actively evil idea) or the way supposedly good gods in the Realms were fine with The Wall of the Faithless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8328346, member: 87792"] Having a quick classification of monsters in no way makes 9 point alignment a [I]good [/I]classification of monsters. It's a pretty awful one. If it's choices for what to populate dungeons with alliances would be better. 4e did things better in the MM for this by having the monsters with suggested encounter groups. Alliances would do better with what you're suggesting than alignment does. So for that matter would natural environments. And then there's people not understanding a basis for the Blood War ("We're evil like this. They're evil like that. So we should fight to the death.") because of the seeming symmetry of the alignment chart. 4e on the other hand, by switching to 3+2 alignments made the whole thing make sense. So even at what you are claiming alignment is good at the main thing to be said for is that it's better than nothing. I seriously find the idea that it's only a couple of letters therefore shouldn't be a problem to be ridiculous. And I homebrew most of my monsters because monster design (and with it monster fluff) fell a long way between 4e and 5e although still remained better and richer than the prosthetic forehead wizards of 3.X. And to me that's a minimum. As I've said if you want to declare people like Strahd, Acecerak, Lolth, Bane, and their devout worshippers evil it's fine with me. It's also entirely possible to declare Far Realm entities neutral and their prime material cultists evil. Declaring entire humanoid races evil on the other hand is toxic. And that's entirely without getting into universe specific badness like Dragonlance's "The balance between good and evil should be maintained" (an actively evil idea) or the way supposedly good gods in the Realms were fine with The Wall of the Faithless. [/QUOTE]

Verification