D&D General Which edition handled alignment best?

[Maxperson]

In my opinion modrons and slaadi are the lamest and least sensible complements for law and chaos in a dungeon grinding game.

What does that mean?

 

[Maxperson]

The point is terms.
To most humans law sounds reasonably good, but stasis does not thus a more evocative image, semantics do matter to a degree.

I think most humans look at law in legal terms, not in moral terms like D&D and Moorcock use them. That's why it would sound better to them than stasis.

 

[Minigiant]

You are arbitrarily limiting things. It's not relevant, because outsiders are not the only creatures with alignments. There are 9 NG monsters in the MM, plus every NPC since they can all be any alignment. There are 8 CG monsters in the MM, plus all NPCs. And you were wrong about no outsiders having NG or CG alignments. Empyreans are celestials in the 5e MM, making them a CG outsider

I again don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

The question was:
"3Which edition handled alignment best?"

And my answer is that in the most basic common form of D&D that It is designed for, which is dungeon crawling, most alignment do not factor in dungeon crawling because they are too in-depth in outside factors to matter within the basic occupation of dungeon crawling.

Only five of the alignments really have a true link to dungeon crawling because only those five alignments have a link to the base intereaction of adventurers, monsters, and non-player characters.

The difference between a neutral good hostage and a chaotic good hostage is almost negligible in the dungeon crawl scenario because all you're doing with either hostage is attempting to save them and then maybe attempting to escort them to the place that they want to be which is usually the exit.

In a dungeon crawling situation lawful evil and neutral evil are in the most basic sense extremely similar. Only chaotic evil branches out of this element because chaotic evil is too dangerous to let be free do their destructive nature of their alignment and unwillingness to honor agreements.

The 9 point alignment system of 3E or 2E might be better once you include the aspects of the game outside of the dungeon crawl. However every table does not put emphasis on parts not attached the dungeon crawl.

You see this in action due to TSR, WOTC, and most other 3PPs putting very little effort on NPCs and monsters of those 4 alignments not in 4e and leaving them as mostly background lore.

Nobody puts effort into archons or eladrin because no one really cares about the cosmic forces of CG or NG. Eladrin have been downgraded to being fey now.

 

[Clint_L]

I hear you, but I would subscrib to the theory that exceptions Do Not disprove the rule.

Of course there are exceptions...but i generally consider kicking a puppy to be mean.

You'd think it would be that simple, but Gary Gygax was able to argue that Lawful Good is fully consistent with paladins murdering babies, so...

Virtues ethics.

 

[SkidAce]

You'd think it would be that simple, but Gary Gygax was able to argue that Lawful Good is fully consistent with paladins murdering babies, so...

Virtues ethics.

Yeah. He would be wrong.

But I understand the concept you are laying out. Game on!

 

[CreamCloud0]

The point is terms.
To most humans law sounds reasonably good, but stasis does not thus a more evocative image, semantics do matter to a degree.

True, but you need a better idea to work from to make better enforcers of said idea.

looking at this from the other direction what if rather than making 'law' sound worse you made chaos sound better, if chaos was instead called 'liberty' or similar, 'law vs liberty' presents a duality which is much clearer to see the benefits of both sides.

 

[Maxperson]

I again don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

The question was:
"3Which edition handled alignment best?"

And my answer is that in the most basic common form of D&D that It is designed for, which is dungeon crawling, most alignment do not factor in dungeon crawling because they are too in-depth in outside factors to matter within the basic occupation of dungeon crawling.

Only five of the alignments really have a true link to dungeon crawling because only those five alignments have a link to the base intereaction of adventurers, monsters, and non-player characters.

The difference between a neutral good hostage and a chaotic good hostage is almost negligible in the dungeon crawl scenario because all you're doing with either hostage is attempting to save them and then maybe attempting to escort them to the place that they want to be which is usually the exit.

In a dungeon crawling situation lawful evil and neutral evil are in the most basic sense extremely similar. Only chaotic evil branches out of this element because chaotic evil is too dangerous to let be free do their destructive nature of their alignment and unwillingness to honor agreements.

The 9 point alignment system of 3E or 2E might be better once you include the aspects of the game outside of the dungeon crawl. However every table does not put emphasis on parts not attached the dungeon crawl.

You see this in action due to TSR, WOTC, and most other 3PPs putting very little effort on NPCs and monsters of those 4 alignments not in 4e and leaving them as mostly background lore.

Nobody puts effort into archons or eladrin because no one really cares about the cosmic forces of CG or NG. Eladrin have been downgraded to being fey now.

D&D hasn't been about dungeon crawling since 1e, and even then it wasn't always dungeon crawling. You've created a limitation that doesn't exist as anything more than just one part of the game among many, and therefore isn't a limitation.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D hasn't been about dungeon crawling since 1e, and even then it wasn't always dungeon crawling. You've created a limitation that doesn't exist as anything more than just one part of the game among many, and therefore isn't a limitation.

I'm not limiting it.

I'm listing it as the only major commonality of most tables.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not limiting it.

I'm listing it as the only major commonality of most tables.

It's a small fraction of the game for most tables and if you are reducing your view on alignment to to one small fraction of the game, it's a limitation. Your limitation that cannot possibly show you all of what alignment is about.

 

[Sulicius]

This topic is perfect for arguments, combining alignment and edition war.

I don't really see alignment as adding much to the game. Often times it's just a constraint and an arbitrary distinction that doesn't work in real life, which I try to emulate. It can help with role playing monsters, but not much beyond that.