Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5359833" data-attributes="member: 65637">To copy-paste from paizo:I've gratefully and happily killed it in my games.&nbsp; It survived for x editions because of tradition.&nbsp; Flat out.&nbsp; A lot of&nbsp; things in D&amp;D exist purely on inertia, because for some people &quot;it&nbsp; just wouldn't be D&amp;D if it was gone.&nbsp; Hell, alignment was originally&nbsp; just &quot;Hey I really like Moorcock&quot; and had only lawful and chaotic,&nbsp; serving no purpose other then to declare &quot;HEY GUYS I READ ELRIC!&quot;&nbsp; Later&nbsp; it went into the nine squares, but even then it was more about being on&nbsp; a team then any actual morality - alignments had languages.&nbsp;&nbsp; Eventually it settled on being about morality, though it didn't really&nbsp; do it well.&nbsp; The 2e PHB talks about alignment, and it's probably the&nbsp; biggest &quot;don't use this&quot; ever that could be given.&nbsp; THe idea of chaotic&nbsp; neutral characters jumping off a bridge, or chaotic good characters more&nbsp; or less just being &quot;bad guys but they kill other bad guys&quot; can be found&nbsp; in those pages, along with the idea that neutral characters should&nbsp; literally attack their own team if they start to win (Yeah, that would&nbsp; make for a fun party).&nbsp; Then 3e came along and, while the nine square&nbsp; grid remained, what the alignments MEANT changed this time.&nbsp; So why has it changed so much?&nbsp; Because developers feel they need to&nbsp; keep it.&nbsp; Tradition.&nbsp; Because they feel it's what maeks D&amp;D&nbsp; &quot;D&amp;D,&quot; though if you gathered everyone who says this and ask them a&nbsp; question about alignment each would give you two different answers.&nbsp; So yeah, I've axed it, and I have to say, I've yet to miss it.&nbsp; Your blog - and this thread - asks &quot;What did alignments do for&nbsp; D&amp;D?&quot;&nbsp; The problem is, your example only seems to state &quot;Well, it&nbsp; almost starts stupid arguments in real life, and does start really&nbsp; stupid arguments in game.&quot;&nbsp; I'm...not seeing the positive, there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 5359833, member: 65637"] To copy-paste from paizo: I've gratefully and happily killed it in my games. It survived for x editions because of tradition. Flat out. A lot of things in D&D exist purely on inertia, because for some people "it just wouldn't be D&D if it was gone. Hell, alignment was originally just "Hey I really like Moorcock" and had only lawful and chaotic, serving no purpose other then to declare "HEY GUYS I READ ELRIC!" Later it went into the nine squares, but even then it was more about being on a team then any actual morality - alignments had [I]languages[/I]. Eventually it settled on being about morality, though it didn't really do it well. The 2e PHB talks about alignment, and it's probably the biggest "don't use this" ever that could be given. THe idea of chaotic neutral characters jumping off a bridge, or chaotic good characters more or less just being "bad guys but they kill other bad guys" can be found in those pages, along with the idea that neutral characters should literally attack their own team if they start to win (Yeah, that would make for a fun party). Then 3e came along and, while the nine square grid remained, what the alignments MEANT changed this time. So why has it changed so much? Because developers feel they need to keep it. Tradition. Because they feel it's what maeks D&D "D&D," though if you gathered everyone who says this and ask them a question [I]about[/I] alignment each would give you two different answers. So yeah, I've axed it, and I have to say, I've yet to miss it. Your blog - and this thread - asks "What did alignments do for D&D?" The problem is, your example only seems to state "Well, it almost starts stupid arguments in real life, and does start really stupid arguments in game." I'm...not seeing the positive, there. [/QUOTE]

Verification