Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lotuseater" data-source="post: 4940629" data-attributes="member: 27029">this thread is testament to not only the fact that alignments lend themselves to be argued about, but that many people enjoy debating and arguing (or at least feel compelled to do it).&nbsp; similar endless debates can be found on here about all sorts of topics.but i think the original thrust of the post has to do with the differences between the old and new alignment system.&nbsp; i like the old system better, at least when we are speaking about the descriptors. i think they cover all the different categories nicely, but are still broad enough for individual interpretation, as long as you don't have a dm who is a complete stickler for following the descriptions exactly.&nbsp; i think the 9 alignments provided a nice symmetry.&nbsp; i think the new categories fail to cover all the bases, and feel rather pointless. would it not have been better to get rid of alignment as a game mechanism all together?&nbsp; that's my opinion about them anyway, and i still prefer to think in the old manner about alignment.that being said, i think both systems lend themselves to these endless arguments.&nbsp; in the end, people and groups can (and do) play alignments in whatever manner suits them.&nbsp; but even if the game designers left out alignment completely, people would still find plenty of things to have arguments about.to summarize, my opinion is the old alignment system worked more smoothly, and i enjoyed it more, than the new system.&nbsp; and if you disagree with me, you are not only wrong, but clearly stupid and have an inferior genetic code.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lotuseater, post: 4940629, member: 27029"] this thread is testament to not only the fact that alignments lend themselves to be argued about, but that many people enjoy debating and arguing (or at least feel compelled to do it). similar endless debates can be found on here about all sorts of topics. but i think the original thrust of the post has to do with the differences between the old and new alignment system. i like the old system better, at least when we are speaking about the descriptors. i think they cover all the different categories nicely, but are still broad enough for individual interpretation, as long as you don't have a dm who is a complete stickler for following the descriptions exactly. i think the 9 alignments provided a nice symmetry. i think the new categories fail to cover all the bases, and feel rather pointless. would it not have been better to get rid of alignment as a game mechanism all together? that's my opinion about them anyway, and i still prefer to think in the old manner about alignment. that being said, i think both systems lend themselves to these endless arguments. in the end, people and groups can (and do) play alignments in whatever manner suits them. but even if the game designers left out alignment completely, people would still find plenty of things to have arguments about. to summarize, my opinion is the old alignment system worked more smoothly, and i enjoyed it more, than the new system. and if you disagree with me, you are not only wrong, but clearly stupid and have an inferior genetic code. [/QUOTE]

Verification