What if we left behind the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axes, and instead defined a series of alignment traits that the character has, i.e. honest, pragmatic, greedy, faithful, selfish etc...
That's not alignment, that's 'describing my character's personality', which is what should be done instead of alignment. The use of words with definite definitions is far superior to nebulous terms that philosophers have been unable to define for millenia.
That's not alignment, that's 'describing my character's personality', which is what should be done instead of alignment. The use of words with definite definitions is far superior to nebulous terms that philosophers have been unable to define for millenia.
While the use of nebulous terms was a problem, agreed, the alignment system in D&D decided on its own objective definitions which were definite. It didn't really matter if philosophers couldn't agree for millenia, since D&D chose one interpretation (best matching Aristotle's) and did not leave it up to the minds of others. Those viewing the alignment system as subjective, rather than as an objective system that set its own definitions for subjective words, weren't using the alignment system.
I would prefer a return to the actual 9-alignment system, with tangible mechanical effects.
I want alignment as a roleplaying aid, not something that has mechanical results. Such a version of alignment would help people roleplay, especially would help the DM roleplay the NPCs.
On second thought, mechanical results (as in the case of a paladin) can be, but optionally.
I want to see the classic Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic / Good, Neutral, Evil alignment system return, and I want to see game mechanics in the standard game using these alignments.
Of course, if people do not want to use alignments in their games, the rules should permit a variant to allow them to do so.
I don't care what system is used, as long as it (along with any and all spells or abilities that interact with it) is strictly optional. If it conflates 'good' with 'lawful' in any way, I won't use it, although other people are welcome to.
Make it the good 'ol system with the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axises. No need to restrict it.
I would personally like some mechanical benefits to go along with it. Not enough to go "hmmm have to be Lawful Good so that I can maximize this and this and this" but enough to go "cool, with the power of good I can create a circle of Detect/Protect from Evil! Flavorific!"
I want to see the classic Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic / Good, Neutral, Evil alignment system return, and I want to see game mechanics in the standard game using these alignments.
Of course, if people do not want to use alignments in their games, the rules should permit a variant to allow them to do so.
You seem to be missing the idea of optional things. It's far simpler to add a new rule into the system than it is to extract it from the web of rules interactions that rely on it. What I mean is that optional rules should not generally take away things, they should add things. You seem to recognize that not everyone wants to play with alignment, yet fail to recognize that logically the addition of alignment should the optional rule rather than the other way around.
Corriver's Lantern - a D&D blog featuring the Frozen Over Campaign Setting. I am not anonymous. I am Colin B. Schaeffer.
That's not alignment, that's 'describing my character's personality', which is what should be done instead of alignment. The use of words with definite definitions is far superior to nebulous terms that philosophers have been unable to define for millenia.
Agreed. That being said, I don't care what alignment system DDN uses as long it has no mechanical weight to it.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
