|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 12:59PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
Killing a baby isn't always chaotic either.
When it's only for fun, it is. It's commiting a nontrivial act solely to rectify an impulse.
I meant to say in order to disrupt an official function. On the same token, disrupting an official function to postpone the death of someone who doesn't deserve it is chaotic, but much less so.
It's not necessarilly chaotic, either. The question would be if they're doing it impulsively or if they have a plan.
Which is why this new system is better. It's not only more concise, it doesn't require the debate to understand.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:13PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
Which is why this new system is better. It's not only more concise, it doesn't require the debate to understand.
Then why all the threads?
A 3 alignment system would be easy to understand. Good. Neutral. Evil.
The 9 alignment system is pretty easy to understand.
The current 4 1/2 alignment system is too arbitrary, and too restrictive to work properly with ethical and moral quandaries.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:21PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
Then why all the threads?
A 3 alignment system would be easy to understand. Good. Neutral. Evil.
The 9 alignment system is pretty easy to understand.
The current 4 1/2 alignment system is too arbitrary, and too restrictive to work properly with ethical and moral quandaries.
9 alignment system was not easy to understand. Nor was it even sensible. People constantly argued about Chaotic Bards and Barbarians and Lawful Rogues throughout several editions. And the Chaotic Good Barbarian was as close to the Lawful Good Palidin as the Chaotic Evil Demon, but the chances of the Paladin and Barbarian getting along are 10,000% more likely. Law/Chaos was a weak axis.
These threads aren't about any technical fault of the system. They're just offense at change, mostly. They seem to be filled with the notion that just because there is no "chaotic good" that Wizards is somehow saying that all good guys have to be Paladins or they're not good enough.
But yes, 3 alignments would be easy to understand. 9 alignments certainly wasn't for many. The 5 of this system is still easier to understand than the 9 by far. It's not confused by personal codes, respect for society, or the like. There's no need to debate what they mean.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:35PM
#14
|
|
|
This argument is getting downright silly...oh wait...these arguments were ALWAYS silly.
Not all conflict stems from misunderstanding and ignorance, the world is not so simple.
The 9 alignment system works far better for GameJunkie, and he either didn't have any of the problems other people had with it, or found them relatively minor. Thus, the 3.5 alignment system is superior for GameJunkie.
Manion found the 3.5, 9 point alginment system to be unnecessarily complex, disruptive to the natural flow of the game, and often times extremely problematic. He prefers the 4E alignment system for it's streamlined nature and elimination of redundant or confusing elements. This isn't because Manion is stupid and doesn't understand how to make the 3.5E alignmen system work, it's because the 3.5E alignment system is inappropriate for his style of play. He should be using an alignment system that fits his games.
I happen to hate BOTH of the alignment systems, though I prefer 4E's a bit as it's more low-key. I find other tools far more useful in fleshing out and defining a characters personality, and often find the alignment system in general is in direct conflict with these other tools I use. Thus, I should not use either of them, because they're both inappropriate for my games. If my players want to use either one, I don't care, they're perfectly free to, but I'm not going to use them as a DM, nor am I going to play in a game where I am required to use them.
They teach us these things in kindergarten, I suppose we just forget over the years.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:36PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
9 alignment system was not easy to understand. Nor was it even sensible. People constantly argued about Chaotic Bards and Barbarians and Lawful Rogues throughout several editions. And the Chaotic Good Barbarian was as close to the Lawful Good Palidin as the Chaotic Evil Demon, but the chances of the Paladin and Barbarian getting along are 10,000% more likely. Law/Chaos was a weak axis.
These threads aren't about any technical fault of the system. They're just offense at change, mostly. They seem to be filled with the notion that just because there is no "chaotic good" that Wizards is somehow saying that all good guys have to be Paladins or they're not good enough.
But yes, 3 alignments would be easy to understand. 9 alignments certainly wasn't for many. The 5 of this system is still easier to understand than the 9 by far. It's not confused by personal codes, respect for society, or the like. There's no need to debate what they mean.
It still takes a massive amount of shoehorning to get things in properly. Where does my lawful Evil BBEG fit in? Just evil? He's an extremely LAwful character. He has a strict code of ethics. His morals are downright deplorable.
He has a spot on the old alignment grid, and it's easy to track other alignments in relation to his. It's easy to track how much he has to do to redeem himself morally if needs be. It's easy to see the effect of a mental imbalance brought on by a mace to the face.
The 4E system is quite lacking to me. If it was feasible to use a 3 axis system on paper, it could open the way for an even more detailed alignment system, but for 2D the 2 axis system is tops.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:42PM
#16
|
|
|
4e covers a broader spectrum of characters, however I should note that alignment while silly sometimes should stay in the game, both because it is traditional and because there are strong arguments of objective evil and objective good as far a philosophy is concerned. The problem with 4e alignment was the law and chaos axis, no matter how much I wanted it to be just as important as the evil and good axis, it never was and never could be. That is why it was thrown out, instead we got three alignments and two sub-alignments that, while carrying the LAW and CHAOS tags do not actually buy in to the old flawed concept of Law v Chaos.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:43PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2008
|
He has a spot on the old alignment grid, and it's easy to track other alignments in relation to his. It's easy to track how much he has to do to redeem himself morally if needs be. It's easy to see the effect of a mental imbalance brought on by a mace to the face.
See that's where I have the issue with that system. It implies that if you are the kind of person that derives enjoyment from killing a baby for fun, that there would be some listed number of "good deeds" you could do to suddenly become good. It doesn't work for me. It implies that actions dictate morality.
Someone could dedicate his entire life to helping old ladies across the street and rescuing kittens, but if in his heart nothing brings more joy than the indrescriminate slaughter of innocents, he is still evil.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:44PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
It still takes a massive amount of shoehorning to get things in properly. Where does my lawful Evil BBEG fit in? Just evil? He's an extremely LAwful character. He has a strict code of ethics. His morals are downright deplorable.
He's simply evil. That's not shoehorned. A strict code of ethis doesn't even make you lawful. Chaotic Barbarians can have strict codes of ethics. Confusing those two is a commonly seen weakness of the old system.
Now it's simple. No need to debate that he's extremely lawful or try to justify what that means in his context. He's evil. His specific kind of evil doesn't need to be shown on a grid. "Just evil" isn't "just" anything. It's bloody evil. As you said, his morals are downright deplorable.
He has a spot on the old alignment grid,and it's easy to track other alignments in relation to his. It's easy to track how much he has to do to redeem himself morally if needs be.
Which is all bloody silly. You can't establish moral relationships like that. Trying to fit him into a grid is a shoehorn maneuver.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:49PM
#19
|
|
|
It still takes a massive amount of shoehorning to get things in properly. Where does my lawful Evil BBEG fit in? Just evil? He's an extremely Lawful character. He has a strict code of ethics. His morals are downright deplorable.
Not, he's just evil. Having a strict code of ethics is part of personality, not alignment.
He has a spot on the old alignment grid, and it's easy to track other alignments in relation to his. It's easy to track how much he has to do to redeem himself morally if needs be. It's easy to see the effect of a mental imbalance brought on by a mace to the face.
He has a spot on this alignment system too, it's called "evil" and redemption is a philosophical concept, giving "evil points" is beyond gamist and goes straight into the field of STUPID.
The 4E system is quite lacking to me. If it was feasible to use a 3 axis system on paper, it could open the way for an even more detailed alignment system, but for 2D the 2 axis system is tops.
Wrong, the second axis isn't a true alignment axis, it is merely a type of behavior that certain people are prone too.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2008 - 1:54PM
#20
|
|
|
To go on a bit of a tangeant, one of the main thing I like about the new alignment is how it plays off the new Gods in the book.
It always annoyed me to no end that the god of death was evil - is there something more natural then death? That Elonara (sp?) was essentially the goddess of the 'walt disney' forest (Obad'hai (sp) was fine however). That the god of the elves was Good.
Thank you for a much more sensible, much better crafted and designed pantheon... in no small part to them using so many Unaligned Deities.
I'm not a big fan of the whole Alignment system however. I still think the old World of Darkness Nature/Demeanor split was the best way to label a character's personality/ethics (That's not going to make me popular on those boards tho :P).
|
|
|
