Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why Did They Get Rid of the Law & Chaos Alignment?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nichwee" data-source="post: 5161326" data-attributes="member: 84242"><p>TBH I was glad to see Alignment take a major back seat.</p><p></p><p>It was silly, imo, assuming a person radiated a fixed alignment signature all the time, and it could show up regardless of current actions or intentions.</p><p></p><p>Plus I hated the fact that Law & Choas were considered opposed. Law is the opposite of crime, order is the opposite of Chaos. You could argue that they used Lawful as Orderly but they didn't in 3rd Ed. The Arcane Trickster had to be non-lawful as it was a arcane criminal, but I always liked playing a very ordered and merticulous rogue/wizard I had invented - but he could never take the Arcane Trickster prestige class just cos my guy was by no means Chaotic - in fact he hated the idea of chaos in anything he did (precision, planning and preperation were his most important ideals).</p><p></p><p>Law and Evil are perfectly connectable, as are Good and Chaos (Evil/Good are about intents, Law and Choas are about methodology so no reason they limit each other) but the need for them to be fixed in stone is silly. </p><p>An action can be Lawful or not, Evil or not, etc. A person is just a person. At times their intents and actions are one thing or another, but they just are. </p><p>Imo alignment could be reduced to "Nice Guy", "Average" and "Git" and be just as valid and useful. The world shouldn't need your alignment to function so why should it matter how it is labeled. </p><p></p><p>I think next edition (or as a suggested varient in 4th Ed) they should have the PCs pick from a group of descriptors instead of picking an alignment at all. Then you wouldn't get "Good" you'd get, for example, "Self sacrificing", "Nervous", "Studious" and "Methodical". </p><p>This would do a lot more to help define how someone reacts but still leave more than enough room to cover "special cases" where the nervous bookworm acts rashly couragous cos the situation requires it - then spends the next 10 mintues shaking like a leaf muttering to himself along the lines of "I can't believe I did that. I could have made things even worse. I think I need to sit down for a minute".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nichwee, post: 5161326, member: 84242"] TBH I was glad to see Alignment take a major back seat. It was silly, imo, assuming a person radiated a fixed alignment signature all the time, and it could show up regardless of current actions or intentions. Plus I hated the fact that Law & Choas were considered opposed. Law is the opposite of crime, order is the opposite of Chaos. You could argue that they used Lawful as Orderly but they didn't in 3rd Ed. The Arcane Trickster had to be non-lawful as it was a arcane criminal, but I always liked playing a very ordered and merticulous rogue/wizard I had invented - but he could never take the Arcane Trickster prestige class just cos my guy was by no means Chaotic - in fact he hated the idea of chaos in anything he did (precision, planning and preperation were his most important ideals). Law and Evil are perfectly connectable, as are Good and Chaos (Evil/Good are about intents, Law and Choas are about methodology so no reason they limit each other) but the need for them to be fixed in stone is silly. An action can be Lawful or not, Evil or not, etc. A person is just a person. At times their intents and actions are one thing or another, but they just are. Imo alignment could be reduced to "Nice Guy", "Average" and "Git" and be just as valid and useful. The world shouldn't need your alignment to function so why should it matter how it is labeled. I think next edition (or as a suggested varient in 4th Ed) they should have the PCs pick from a group of descriptors instead of picking an alignment at all. Then you wouldn't get "Good" you'd get, for example, "Self sacrificing", "Nervous", "Studious" and "Methodical". This would do a lot more to help define how someone reacts but still leave more than enough room to cover "special cases" where the nervous bookworm acts rashly couragous cos the situation requires it - then spends the next 10 mintues shaking like a leaf muttering to himself along the lines of "I can't believe I did that. I could have made things even worse. I think I need to sit down for a minute". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why Did They Get Rid of the Law & Chaos Alignment?
Top