Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 2658355" data-attributes="member: 3586">For 30 years, D&D has had an alignment system. Originally just Law, Chaos and Neutrality (very obviously based on the Michael Moorcock books), it moved to the more complex scheme of nine alignments on two axes that we have today.In the AD&D Monster Manual, the alignments of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil were the best defined by the Devils and Demons - the difference in their personality and appearance descriptions gave a real interest to those creatures. Then came the Slaadi and the Modrons in Monster Manual 2, and Chaos and Law got some very interesting creatures.However, somehow, there's rarely been a real mechanical meaning to any of the alignments. I don't mean in the sense of "act your alignment or lose a level", but more that, "You have walked well in the path of Good, so Good will reward you in a manner that follows its precepts."These are primal forces of the multiverse! Why are Good and Evil exactly the same mechanically?Now, there are a couple of exceptions. You get some variance through the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds, and a couple of other books. However, these changes are rarely applicable or noticable to the regular player. (Indeed, BoED will *never* be seen by the average player). More noticable are the various forms of Blasphemy, Word of Chaos, Holy Word and suchlike. They're not big changes, but they *do* distinguish the alignments.The most important effect of alignment can be seen from the clerics who Cure or Inflict damage. However, "Alignment matters" has been seeping into newer books.Again, the Celestials and Fiends lead the way. Damage Reduction based on alignment is something very interesting for 3.5e. It isn't just DR 5/good, but also the movement of silver to being something that overcomes Law, and cold iron to being something that overcomes Chaos. This isn't *quite* exact. Lawful Good requires only needs evil-aligned weapons to overcome, but CG and CE are sometimes affected by cold iron, and LE has the silver problem. Still, the Favoured Soul class gets DR based on the Law/Chaos descriptor.So, along comes Magic of Incarnum. One of the things it does is tie two of its classes to alignments and says, "Alignment Matters Mechanically". The result? It gets attacked for it.Putting aside the question of the miniatures game for a moment, why is it wrong to say a champion of good should be distinguishable from a champion of evil?There's a certain role-playing element in the choice of alignments, but for the most part, a standard D&D game doesn't notice it all that much. Everyone is too busy killing monsters and overcoming other challenges. Surely, it would be better if the choice of alignment actually mattered from a game mechanics point of view?I mean, what are these game mechanics in Magic of Incarnum that are so problematic?Well, there's an aura for one of the classes. It affects each alignment differently:* Good (defender of the weak) gets an AC bonus* Evil (ravager of the weak) gets a Damage bonus* Law (perfection and order) gets an Attack bonus* Chaos (freedom) gets a Movement bonusThere's more abilities linked to alignment than that, but it's by no means an overwhelming number. Call me silly, but doesn't that distinguish the classes with something that relates to the core of what the alignment stands for? I'd have thought so. Apparently not. Now, Kamikaze Midget's linking of these bonuses to the Miniatures Game isn't without foundation. In D&D Miniatures, to make the game more than just a random collection of figures, they link all figures to one (or more) of the four extreme alignments. So, LG figures are known to be slow-moving and have high ACs, and the CE figures deal lots of damage, have low AC, and move quickly.However, apparently this is a bad idea. Alignment should be something that is there purely to cause friction at the game table, and should not have any game effects at all.</blockquote>

Verification