Well, let's see if I can shed a little bit of light on why I'm not a big fan of the alignment-centric MoI idea.
First, let me state that by FAR my biggest problem is the fact that it seems made with the idea to sell more minis in mind. The idea to make the Soulborn and the Incarnate so dependant on alignment seems to have nothing to do with the logic of Incarnum itself (which, just being "soul energy," wouldn't appear to care one way or the other which use it was indended for). There's no reason for a person who uses spiritual energy to HAVE to have any certain alignments, at least as far as I can logically see. The fact that it hinges on alignment is not nearly so annoying as the idea that MoI was designed, transparently, with the minis game in mind. The book was not purchased so it could give me minis ideas, it was purchased for my home game, and it needs to be useful first and foremost THERE.
Making the classes so intensely focused on alignment actually makes it much LESS useful in my home game, for a number of reasons.
#1: Parties usually include a diversity of alignments. But the Incarnum classes, almost by definition, can't tolerate much in the way of diversity. Thus, to play your character means to get into a LOT of debates about alignment at the table with others in your party. This problem is exacerbated by including more than one Incarnum character in your party with different alignments, since it's like pushing together two opposing magnetic poles (even if the alignments aren't entirely opposite). An LG Soulborn and an LN Incarnate played to the hilt by players heavy into character development will CONSTANTLY have issues. Those debates bog down play and annoy the heck out of those not involved in them. In the core game, the only character with this level of devout adherence to alignment would be the Paladin (and, arguably, the Cleric). How many games do you think have been disturbed by Paladin Problems? How many DM's ban the class or reconsider alignments entirely based on these debates? A curosry glance at these boards is probably enough to let you know. Extreme adherence to alignment causes problems. While in a normal game, it can be handled deftly (a devout paladin and a selfish rogue *can* exist in the same party without many issues with a skillful DM and willing players), the problem increases exponentially when you hinge mechanics and bonuses on it (the devout Soulborn and the extremist Incarnate could *cripple* their party with in-fighting, because both fear the loss of their powers if they give an inch).
#2: If your party is all one alignment (and it's a situation I've never come accross), the mechanical bonuses become redundant and dull. A party that uses MoI who includes Good characters will beef up their AC. A party that has Chaotic characters will be mobility monsters. This is all well and good, but it forces specialization, and that is BAD, in a party. It's why having a party of all fighters or all sorcerers is generally bad news: you loose out on what you can't do. An increased AC is fine, but if EVERYONE has an increased AC, you'll find that battles will range from "can't touch any of us!" to "can't miss any of us!" without much of a contiuum in the middle, just like a party with all sorcerers would range from "we kill them all in the first round" to "they kill us all in the first round" without much of a contiuum in the middle. If everyone is mobile, either everyone is mobile, or everyrone isn't. If everyone can hit well, either everyone hits well, or no one does. It forces a binary extreme to encounters that isn't very satisfying. A party is most viable when its' members all have something different to contribute: the fighter has a high AC (good), the sorcerer can kill a lot of critters (evil), the cleric can make everyone better at what they do (lawful), the rogue can flank and drop individuals (chaotic). A game using MoI where everyone has the same alignment makes every member contribute the exact same thing.
Law is gaining a bonus to attack
Chaos is gaining a bonus to speed
Good is gaining a bonus to AC
Evil is gaining a bonus to damage
Do those abilities fit the alignments? If not, why not?
No, they don't. Because every alignment wants a bonus to attack and every alignment wants a bonus to speed and every alignment wants a bonus to AC and every alignment wants a bonus to damage. It's like saying "Fireball is evil, because it uses fire and fire comes from HELL!" Yes, sure, fine, but fire is a tool -- these bonuses are tools -- and it can be used for different ends depending upon
the motive of the wielder, NOT the nature of the tool.
It's a simplistic definition that forces certain easy tactics when ALL of those tactics are viable for ANY alignment. Good and Evil should give you the same powers because that allows each individual character to interpret how this is used for himself. Ambiguity and lack of definition is a VERY valuable thing in alignment, and one of the only things that stops it from being a straightjacket and allows it to be a useful descriptor in the game. Alignment should never be something you are DEFINED AS, merely something you happen to be. Evil can be just as defensive as Good. Chaos can be just as obsessed with accuracy as Law. Because MoI forces the definition otherwise, it hurts the ability of alignments to be defined in terms of the campaign at the table. It creates a false association. "Obviously this mobile, agile race is Chaotic! Chaos is mobile and agile!" Why can't law be just as mobile -- MORE mobile? Why can't Law focus on mobility?
Furthermore, those above definitions don't mesh with how the aligments look from the Core Rules. By that book, Law means mobility (Monk), Chaos means damage (barbarian), Good means healing (Cleric), Evil means undead (Cleric), and Lawful Good means healing and protection (Paladin). Law obviously *is* mobile, Chaos obviously *is* damage, evil obviously *is* pets and save-or-die effects. But any alignment can do any of that -- evil can heal just as well as good, chaos can become just as mobile as law, you can deal heavy damage just as easily Good or Evil. So you can't say law *is* one thing when it is manifold and multifaceted and
it should be. To say it's not, to define it as A, when it can be A, B, Z, or X, is harmful to the party, to the story, to the setting, and to the game.
Creating a class where the choice lies between mobility, accuracy, AC, and damage is not nessecarily a bad idea -- it hits the four major archetypes, after all. However, linking it to alignment IS nessecarily a bad idea, because the four major archetypes are meant to work together, not be in conflict. And the alignments are meant to be in conflict, not work together. If every Rogue had to be Chaotic, every Fighter Good, every Cleric Lawful, and every Sorcerer Evil, it would be the same problem, and it would be the same complaint from me: alignment should
describe the world, not
define the world.
