|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:05PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2002
|
Well, officially D&D has cut it's alignments down to five: Good, Evil, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and Unaligned.
Now then, who's planning on ignoring the official alignment rules and just continue to have the Nine Alignments anyway?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:06PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
Well, officially D&D has cut it's alignments down to five: Good, Evil, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and Unaligned.
Now then, who's planning on ignoring the official alignment rules and just continue to have the Nine Alignments anyway?
I've kept the previous 9 alignments.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:27PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
The question becomes "why?" They have no mechanical relevance.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:29PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
The question becomes "why?" They have no mechanical validity.
If the only thing you used in a game of D&D were things that had mechanical validity, you'd have a pretty poor game.
That aside, alignment can make a difference in my campaigns, and I find the 9 alignments cover the spectrum better than the 4E RAW alignments.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:30PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
I'm dropping it down to 3. The Good Evil axis has a point still in my campaign world.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:46PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
I am. Yep, like always, just two. At least so far it appears in 4e I do not have to make a number of changes to spells to make it function. Yay for less work.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:16PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
I've boiled it down to three: Good, Unaligned, and Evil. Everything else is flavor. If I were to allow a Lawful Good, then I would have to allow a Lawful Evil. If I allowed the Lawfuls to be present, I would, in turn, be expected to allow the Chaotics. It's just too much work and too much trouble for nothing more than something to write on a CRS. They have no real mechanical relevance in-game. If one of my players wants his PC to be Lawful or Chaotic Good, he can just pick Good and role play the Lawful or Chaotic part. Same for Neutral. If a PC is Lawful, True or Chaotic Neutral, he can just be Unaligned and RP the rest. He can write CN on his CRS if he wants to, but it won't grant him anything that simply putting Unaligned wouldn't.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:18PM
#8
|
|
|
I am happy with the current alignment system.. i found that there was so little difference between how my group played NG/CG or LE/NE (and don't even get me started on the N alignments) that the new system does not affect how my group plays all that much.
If i was to house rule it i would actually go with the Palladium system or Principled, Unprincipled, Miscreant etc etc
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:18PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
Cutting it down the 1.
Don't like alignment, don't care about alignment, and now I don't even have to pretend I do in other people's games. Viva Unaligned.
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 27, 2008 - 8:06PM
#10
|
|
|
Cutting it down the 1.
Don't like alignment, don't care about alignment, and now I don't even have to pretend I do in other people's games. Viva Unaligned.
Agreed.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
