Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8336029" data-attributes="member: 23751">Or their words.&nbsp; Whether he's a new user or not, he is aware of and has knowledge of the older editions, as does everyone else I've been talking to.Information that a minority of people have no use for and a majority do, is not a negative.&nbsp;&nbsp; You don't want to use it, don't.Because it's easy, that's why.No.&nbsp; I want it for the people who have limited use because of the limited 5e language.&nbsp; For those of you who refuse to understand it, I don't really care if you read the new text or not.Their experience is 13+ years old.&nbsp; That was the last time alignment could be used negatively.&nbsp; Since 4e, alignment isn't the problem, bad DM's and bad Players are.&nbsp; Without alignment, they'd just use some other excuse to be abusive.&quot;Necessary&quot; is a Red Herring.&nbsp; Nothing in the game is necessary to play.&nbsp; It can all be removed completely or re-worked in another manner.&nbsp; Hit points?&nbsp; Not necessary.&nbsp; Armor class? Not necessary.&nbsp; Class?&nbsp; Not necessary.&nbsp; Monsters?&nbsp; Not necessary.&nbsp; Experience?&nbsp; Not necessary.&nbsp; Treasure?&nbsp; Not necessary.&nbsp; And so on.Who said that?Alignment as it was used in 3e(minus 3e's alignment mechanics) is not a flawed tool at all.&nbsp; There are only people who misuse the tool, making it a people problem, not an alignment problem.What confused you about it?&nbsp; It's not as if it was a straightjacket.&nbsp; It's just a tool to aid in roleplay.&nbsp; Use what parts of it you like and ignore the rest. And 1e did in fact have 9 point alignment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8336029, member: 23751"] Or their words. Whether he's a new user or not, he is aware of and has knowledge of the older editions, as does everyone else I've been talking to. Information that a minority of people have no use for and a majority do, is not a negative. You don't want to use it, don't. Because it's easy, that's why. No. I want it for the people who have limited use because of the limited 5e language. For those of you who refuse to understand it, I don't really care if you read the new text or not. Their experience is 13+ years old. That was the last time alignment could be used negatively. Since 4e, alignment isn't the problem, bad DM's and bad Players are. Without alignment, they'd just use some other excuse to be abusive. "Necessary" is a Red Herring. Nothing in the game is necessary to play. It can all be removed completely or re-worked in another manner. Hit points? Not necessary. Armor class? Not necessary. Class? Not necessary. Monsters? Not necessary. Experience? Not necessary. Treasure? Not necessary. And so on. Who said that? Alignment as it was used in 3e(minus 3e's alignment mechanics) is not a flawed tool at all. There are only people who misuse the tool, making it a people problem, not an alignment problem. What confused you about it? It's not as if it was a straightjacket. It's just a tool to aid in roleplay. Use what parts of it you like and ignore the rest. And 1e did in fact have 9 point alignment. [/QUOTE]

Verification