Friday, 6 June 2008

also, about alignments

Shamefully lifted directly from a slashdot thread:

New alignment system: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil.

um, no.

I would have respected the choice to get rid of alignment, but this is a boneheaded move. The problem with alignment (with bad role players anyway) is that it reinforces trite stereotypes. This just gives you fewer trite stereotypes to choose from.

There are so many possible changes to alignment that could have been improvements on the old system (not that I minded the old system, but once in a while it led to stupid arguments). This is not one of them. Even to 'simplify' things, this is stupid. If you want to make things simple, why not just say GOOD and EVIL and leave it at that?

Even the originalD&D set of 'Lawful' 'Neutral' and 'Chaotic' was better than this... since it explained that 'Chaotic' was probably but not necessarily evil and mostly just untrustworthy. Making it far simpler to have a Chaotic party member. Does anyone really want to have someone labeled CE in the party? But with 'Chaotic', lots of people could be just a bit dodgy. Almost any rogue would be.

No comments: