Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8335985" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'm impressed, you can tell how long someone has been playing DnD just from their username? See, because one person I'm pretty sure you responded to was [USER=7023887]@AcererakTriple6[/USER] who if memory serves me has said that they started DnD with the start of 5th edition. They would be a new player. Also, how many people you responded to started in 4e?And I would argue that there is a negative, adding information which many of us have no use for, all under the call of people who don't need that information.And here is the rub, isn't it? You can't accept that alignment can be confusing and hard for people to understand (which is weird because you want more alignment text to explain 5e alignment for people who don't understand it) but in reality you are convinced that the people who claim that position are acting in bad faith. That they could understand and utilize the system, but refuse to do so. It is far easier to dismiss their expierence and opinions when you can claim their motives are rotten.It is relevant. If alignment is neccessary for the game to function, then it is much more important. If it is not necessary for the game to function, then why should we bother to expand them? It is a very relevant pointInteresting. So, back to point #3, is alignment vital to a proper functioning of DnD? Because if it is, then we could surely all agree on when alignment wasn't flawed. However, there are many posters that have claimed alignment is flawed... from its inception in 2e when the 9-point alignment system was introduced. So, if you bought a flawed tool, which you replaced with a flawed tool, which you replaced with a flawed tool.... maybe at some point you stop looking for the better version of that tool and just accept that it is a flawed tool? Anecdotal, but I found alignment flawed in 3.5 when I got the books for christmas and tried to make a character. It confused me utterly, and eventually I just stopped paying attention to it, because I found I didn't need the tool. So, 5e alignment is flawed, 3.X alignment is flawed, 2e alignment is flawed. 1e didn't have 9-point alignment and neither did 4e. So, where is the non-flawed version of alignment?It appears that way to you, because you dismissed a lynch pin point and refuse to see the other side as anything more than bad actors. Your biases are vast in this matter. And since I'm sure you dismissed my last section by claiming that it is only my opinion that 2e or 3.X were flawed... I'd like to remind you that it is only your opinion that 5e alignment is flawed and inadequate. I accepted your premise, but you refuse to accept mine.</blockquote>

Verification