Community

Jul 19, 2012 -- 1:26PM, Salla wrote:

Do you *really* think you can't have a struggle of good vs evil without writing one of those two words down on a sheet of paper?

Really?

You obviously can't. See, the moment you try to bring forth a conflict between good and evil without alignment, the D&D Police will storm your house and burn it down, or at least the books. This is why every other game in existance that deals with good and evil is required to have it. Don't you see alignment all around, in all the stories that pit good against evil?!

Oh, wait...

Jul 20, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Duskweaver wrote:

Would that be OK with everyone?

Really, that's pretty much all the "alignment sucks!" contingent is asking for.

Jul 14, 2012 -- 11:08PM, Eric888 wrote:

I don't know. Some of the alignments never made much sense. I still don't understand the difference between LE and NE.

The law/chaos axis decides how a character observes the law, how they respect legitimate authority and how important they consider things like honour, trustworthiness etc. A lawful character would accept a challenge and engage in honourable combat, while a chaotic character would pretend to accept the challenge then strike below the belt. A neutral character would be somewhere in between...they'll take basic steps to maintain a reputation, but won't go out of their way to do so.

The good/evil axis decides how a character feels towards helping or harming others. A good character will go out of his way to help others, while an evil character will work to their own personal gain, not caring who suffers as a result of his actions. A neutral character would be somewhere in between...they'll take basic steps to avoid harming others, but won't go out of their way to help them (unless they stand to gain in some way - whether that gain is monetary or for reputation, or simply to help a close friend).

Lawful Evil means a character is evil, but still respects the law, authority, and notions of honour and trustworthiness. He never lies and defers to his superiors, but exploits the law for personal gain, not caring who suffers for it. Corrupt politicians, businessmen etc are lawful evil. Adolf Hitler could be described as lawful evil, because while what he did was unmistakeably evil, it was within the boundaries of the law.

Neutral evil means a character is evil, but neither pays much attention to, nor disobeys, the law. He obeys legitimate authorities, but has no real respect for them, and may sometimes lie and cheat, but won't generally hit below the belt, and will generally seek to maintain society (preferably with them at the helm).

Chaotic evil means a character has no respect for society or authority whatsoever, and will, quite literally, do whatever he feels like in order to advance his own ends. He will stab in the back, hit below the belt and, quite literally, do whatever it takes to survive, and if the whole of civilisation crumbles then so be it.

And CN always struck me as a cover for players who wanted to play evil and just say they were crazy instead. Also Unaligned is a far more sensible and rational alignment than neutral.

It is often played that way, unfortunately, but it isn't supposed to be. A chaotic neutral character is one who disregards the law and works for themselves and their own personal gain, but isn't completely selfish, or insane. CN characters will be motivated by personal friendships, and won't have much use for honour, or respect for authority, etc. If someone plays a CN character as evil, a good GM should shift his alignment to evil.

CG was always a fun alignment that had serious distinctions from NG, and the clear dileanation between the good/evil axis and the law/chaos axis drew distinction between your goals and your methods, which the simplified 4e rules sorrowly lacked.

QFT.

I just hope they do a better job of describing exactly what each alignment means, or different things that it can mean, in a way that resolves my issues with the old system. 

I do too. Being chaotic was too often represented as "I'm cool because I'm a rebel, and lawful people are boring stick-in-the-mud types!" but it should also have repercussions. If you are chaotic, it should mean that you are a known rebel, liar and cheater, and that people will not trust you, even if your ultimate results are for the good. Therefore, when a chaotic character says "I swear to you that I will bring it back!", anyone with any sense will say "Um...yeah, whatever. Sir Gallafred, noble paladin, I will trust this task to you only!"

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:37PM, Azzy1974 wrote:

Jul 19, 2012 -- 7:25PM, bone_naga wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 8:14PM, Azzy1974 wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 6:20PM, ChaoticBlue wrote:

Speaking for my self, I have never had any problem with alignments.  Nor has any one I've played with.

Same here.

And my group has.

I think we've already established that there are those such as yourself that have had problems with aignment. However, the point of saying that I (and other like me) haven't is to show that the problem is not universal.

My anecdotal evidence is better than yours.

Or just louder and with more reverb.

For a more serious response, I don't think any problem is truly universal. I think you can single out any issue and there will always be people on both sides of the fence. There are even people that will defend THAC0 against positive attack and AC bonuses. However, I also think that the more hotly contested some items are (like alignment), the more reason there is to make them easily insertable/removable.

And it doesn't even have to be a module. As long as the alignment mechanics aren't as fully intertwined with the game like they were in 3e and earlier (with class alignment restrictions, especially when that was part of the balancing of the class, alignment spells, etc), anyone can remove them on their own and other players won't complain that alignment isn't part of the core game.