They Killed Alignment

[Fundin Strongarm]

Near as I can tell, E=LE and G=CG. For the amount of time alignment will matter in my game the new system works well enough for me.

 

[Hussar]

Near as I can tell, E=LE and G=CG. For the amount of time alignment will matter in my game the new system works well enough for me.

This.

Actually, to expound on that a bit. E=everything evil that isn't specifically CE. Same as G=everything good that isn't specifically LG.

It's not that LG is more good than G. Or that CE is more evil than E. What means is there are some specific traits that fit better in LG or CE than in the more general E or G.

LN would likely simply be rolled in G honestly. Most of the time, they're pretty indistinguishable. You want an orderly society, but you aren't willing to slaughter people who disagree with you, or chuck them in jail on the slightest of pretexts or things like that. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[ryryguy]

They didn't say that. They just felt that the difference between lawful good and other kinds of good is more clear and significant than the difference between neutral good and chaotic good. And so forth for chaotic evil and other evil. I tend to agree, insofar as I spend any time thinking about alignment. (But really I'm just happy that my group can keep ignoring alignment but now not even have to ignore certain spells or powers to do so.)

Yeah, well said.

Each alignment is basically a bucket that holds a loose set of philosophies, tendencies, and behaviors. I think the designers looked at them and said, "OK, we want to reduce the number of buckets. Along the evil axis, the NE bucket is easily the smallest. CE is probably a bit bigger than LE, so let's combine LE and NE. We could call the combined bucket LE, but then NE would basically be lost - it would seem like you have to be lawful or chaotic. So let's just call it plain Evil. LE stuff is still distinct enough that it won't be lost with the name change."

Also, not that CG/LE are "illegitimate" or anything, but I do think that Law always tended to play a little bit nicer with Good, while Chaos always tended to play a little bit nicer with Evil. Yes, yes, many players are able to keep all 9 of the old alignments very distinct and play them with gusto. But not everyone can, and for those who can't, I think the confusion and blurring tends to be Law -> Good and Chaos -> Evil. That's one more reason why keeping only LG and CE distinct makes sense.

Of course these are subjective matters. But it makes sense to me. And as stated, since they are pretty well divorced from the rules you can easily play it however you like.

 

[ryryguy]

An additional thought. The symmetry of the 9-square grid always seemed a bit off to me, in that the moral component usually had more "weight" than the ethical component. That is, LG and CG forces would be more likely to cooperate than LG and LE, or CG and CE. (Or if not actively cooperate, at least not actively oppose each other.) Again, this is not something universally true for all players and campaigns, or all groups within a given campaign. But that always seemed to be the tendency.

In the 9 square grid, the ethical neutrals (LN and CN) helped to mitigate this a little bit. LN provided a bit of "glue" on the law axis - LG and LE might not get along, but LN could generally get along with either. If they'd dropped the ethical neutrals and gone with the 5 square grid, I think that stress would be enhanced.

 

[Propagandroid]

Say, when y'all say "alignment is divorced from the rules," how does that take into account things like alignment-based weapons? Or alignment-based effects that they mention in the Alignment sidebar on p. 19?

Just trying to get a handle on the new rules.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I get my books tomorrow morning (3rd shift lifestyle, sigh), but if there is no reason to keep alignments in game, I'll just remove them all together.

The 5 alignment model is much clunkier than the 9 alignment model.

 

[Vanuslux]

Didn't DDM just kill alignments too?

Did they? I haven't bought anything DDM since War of the Dragon Queen, so I'm pretty out of the loop as far as any new development since then. D&D 4th is kind of bringing me out of a gaming hibernation, so I've not even been popping into ENWorld again until just recently.

 

[Surgoshan]

Say, when y'all say "alignment is divorced from the rules," how does that take into account things like alignment-based weapons? Or alignment-based effects that they mention in the Alignment sidebar on p. 19?

Just trying to get a handle on the new rules.

There aren't any alignment-based weapons... yet. As for the sidebar... in the PHB? That's just a role-playing tip.

 

[Jack Colby]

They killed it and it's beautiful. My players and I are finally satisfied with Alignment in D&D. Thanks WotC!

 

[NMcCoy]

I was dubious about this "alignment-killing" thing at first, but after thinking about it some I'm actually pretty enthusiastic. In fact, in my own campaign I've not only killed alignment, I've taken all its stuff.

...anyone in the market for some used Goods?