Alignment as a Balancing Factor? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment as a Balancing Factor? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tequila_Sunrise
06-28-06, 05:02 PM Recently I've noticed a few posters mention alignment restrictions as being balancing factors in certain classes, especially the paladin.

I totally disagree, as I would much rather be a LG fighter than a paladin (at least in 3.x). I've always considered alignment restrictions to be a purely rp/traditional part of certain classes. Anyway, I'm interested to see whether I am in the minority or majority here.
Vaalingrade Ashland
06-28-06, 05:08 PM No, they really are supposed to be balancing factors.

They don't work of course, but the designers keep plodding away at it.
PoorHobo
06-28-06, 08:00 PM Reading through recent posts/threads you're probably in the majority. I am in the minorty. Unlike the real world where law, chaos, good, and evil are merely ideas and expressions in D&D these things are a tangible source of power and can be rather easily identified. Its like being an athiest in game, you can but it doesn't really work.

A paladin is a very hard class to play most people don't want to bother with it. So they play lawful neutral or chaotic good/neutral paladins with the words "Lawful good" written some where on their character sheet and then call it unbalancing.

Removing alignment is the min/maxers dream. Just a few trips to the CO boards will show you that.
wolfie-kun
06-28-06, 08:14 PM So far the only really, really good place alignment becomes a balancing factor is where Incarnum is involved.

Past that, it's a just a little something to help your rp situations. If a class is supposed to be a particular alignment, it means they're less likely to act outside of their alignment than someone who doesn't have a restriction like that. In other words, a LG Paladin is supposed to be more LG than a LG fighter, if that makes any sense.
Tony Vargas
06-28-06, 08:33 PM Alignment affects the character's choice/use of certain items & spells, and the effects of other spells and abilities upon him. So there are mechanical consequences to being of a given alignment. Changing alignment is also an event that can be forced, so any class that loses abilities when it changes to a proscribed alignment can be said to face a balancing factor of sorts, there. Finally multiclass (including PrC) choices can be restricted by alignment requirements.

For instance, you can't combine Barbarian Rage with Paladin abilities - because both face alignment restrictions with loss of abilities, if they change to the other's required alignments.

The idea that having to play a certain alignment is a balancing factor due to the behavior required by the alignment is a little more tenuous. Alignments are broad, and all allow the basic sorts of behaviors you'll find among adventurers - just with different 'targets' and 'hooks.' If your class requires a given alignment, you have less freedom to stray from it's normal behavior (for fear your DM will declare you've changed alignment, with attendant consequences). If your class doesn't require an alignment, finding you've changed alignment due to your actions isn't as big a deal (probably few if any mechanical consequences).
Vaalingrade Ashland
06-28-06, 10:37 PM Removing alignment is the min/maxers dream. Just a few trips to the CO boards will show you that.
No, It won't. A min-maxer will pay lip service to whatever alignment theit build requires. Alignment has very little to do with RP and everything to do with completely arbitrary mechanics.
Dolo
06-28-06, 10:57 PM Well That question can only be really answered by your DM and not by anybody on this board. When I play a LG or a Paladin I always ask where the lines are in respect to what they expect, cause all the DM's I have played with do enforce alignment and will strip you if all you doing is paying lipservice.

Like one of them said once"If you are supposed to be (Insert alignment here) then that is what I want to see, and if you are not sure on that then ask mewhat I think it is. If you don't I will take the toy away, and its your fault."

Being a Paladin is basically a Warrior for that God's point of view and sort of a advertisement that this god has powerand trust mortals with it. If a player is supposed to get all this power from said God and all you do "Talk it" instead of "Live it" then expect to get stripped and be a plain old fighter.

From what I have seen most people can't play Paladins, cause when you are held up to a higher standard, its not your opinon that counts its the people around you (IE: Your Diety) that matters. There is leeway in playing a Paladin though, you just have to be able to have a DM that sees them and dosent try to straght jacket you. In the 20+ years of playing I have played about 10 Paladins and the only trouble I have had was dealing with the Bad Guys wanting my head on a platter, or changing the sex of said character((that was annoying to say the least)).
Tequila_Sunrise
06-28-06, 11:15 PM Thanks for the responses, all! Maybe I should have asked if y'all think alignment is a balancing factor in terms of class POWER. I realize that alignment restrictions do unavoidably make a class unappealing to a certain percentage of gamers, making that class less often played.

The best argument that I've yet heard against me is that having an alignment restriction precludes the other party members from taking certain actions in the presence of said character that might greatly benefit the party. For example, if you lie in the presence of your paladin buddy you'd better make sure he don't know the truff either! Even this though, doesn't convince me that alignment restrictions are a balancing factor, as characters are constantly restricted from certain actions while in the presence of their companions (just as in real life). You want to harshly discipline a prankster in the presence of your chaotic-aligned jolly compatriot? Good luck! It's a matter of rping that any mix of classes and alignments face, unless of course every character in the group was raised in the same way, has the same personality and the same goals...
Dolo
06-28-06, 11:39 PM Actually the Paladins I have played would lie to a person, but it depends on why they are doing it. One Paladin I had infiltrated into a country that was controled by a Anti-Paladin((This goes way back to the old days)) and he usually kept his mouth shut, or would give half of an answer, knowing that stopping the badguy this time around meant being flexible. Now he was not going to sign off on murder, but if said person could have his memory "Adjusted"((Thank god for the Psionic in our party)) to forget us he was cool with it. He would also try to help out the people in that opressed country, he couldnt say that he was a Paladin but he could help and be one.

I thnk that the old DragonLance books had a fantastic system that could keep track of alignment and it gave you "wiggle Room" for the person to work with. Excluding extreme examples, you could have a whole range of reactions and not worry about dropping of the ledge...too much. Also if you had a fair DM they usually will give you a warning that you are a bit close to the edge.
JulesCARV
06-29-06, 12:27 AM Well, let's see.

Class Alignments allowed Power
Artificer 9 8.6
Barbarian 6 5.8
Bard 6 4.7 (heavily disputed)
Cleric 9* 8.6
Druid 5* 9.4
Favored Soul 9 7.5
Fighter 9 3.5
Healer 3 1.5
Hexblade 6 4.2
Marshal 9 4.0
Monk 3 5.4
Ninja 9 4.1
Paladin 1* 5.0
Psion 9 8.1
Psychic Warrior 9 7.5
Ranger 9 5.2
Rogue 9 5.9
Samurai 3* 2.4
Scout 9 5.5
Shugenja 9 6.6
Spirit Shaman 9 7.4
Spellthief 9 3.8
Sorcerer 9 6.4
Soulknife 9 2.4
Swashbuckler 9 3.7
Warlock 5 6.2
Warmage 9 6.5
Wilder 9 5.6
Wizard 9 8.6
Wu Jen 6* 7.7

* Contains restrictions beyond alignment -- i.e., cleric's piety and sticking within 1-step of their god's alignment, druid's reverence for nature, paladin's code, samurai's code, and wu jen's taboos.

The most restricted class -- paladin -- is toward the bottom, though not extremely low, in terms of power. The next most restricted class, the samurai, is weak. Monks are of moderate power, and healers are the weakest class in existence. The most powerful class -- the druid, somewhat diminished since the survey -- has a few alignment restrictions. The next most powerful class, the wizard, has none at all. The cleric is an in-between case: alignment affects the cleric, but clerics can be of any alignment. Artificers -- no alignment restrictions.

Power ratings come from Danielinthewolvesden's survey. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436) Whether you consider it a reliable source or not is up to you.

Certainly, at a first glance, there seems to be no connection between power and restrictive alignment. To make sure, though, I took a correlation of the number of allowed alignments -- taking classes with an asterisk to have one fewer allowed alignment than normal, so a cleric has 8 allowed alignments and the paladin 0 -- and the power score. A negative correlation coefficient would mean that restrictive alignment is correlated with power, while a positive correlation coefficient would mean that open alignment is correlated with power, and restrictive alignment is correlated with weakness.

As it turns out, the correlation coefficient is about +0.215. So going by that generally, alignment restrictions are attached more to weaker than stronger classes, the exact opposite of the "alignment restrictions are a balancing factor" view. However, the correlation is very, very weak, and, given the small sample size, probably statistically insignificant.
Devil Gnasher
06-29-06, 01:12 AM No, It won't. A min-maxer will pay lip service to whatever alignment theit build requires. Alignment has very little to do with RP and everything to do with completely arbitrary mechanics.

To me the reason why people only pay lip service to the alignments is because of the way that they are defined. In third Edition the alignments have been defined so loosely to become all but meaningless. An EN World member called Raven Cloakwing wrote this alignment system. It's closer to First and Second Edition than to the standard Third Edition version. Even if you won't use this alignment system at least read it and gives it a fair critique. I am asking you in the fashion of a true Chaotic Good, one who is willing to defend to the death, your right to disagree with him.

Chaotic Evil: The major precept of this alignment is that of personal freedom unshackled by responsibility. Whatever advantage can be taken should be taken, and the woe of others is to the benefit of oneself. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained, except where they can be paid lip service to one’s own benefit. Others’ lives have no value. Those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: Creatures of this alignment view personal freedom and flexibility of action as necessary to promote the life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is great, but individual freedom does not remove responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. Individuals are valued on the basis of their actions, rather than by their position in society.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places the personal freedom of each individual. Whether these individual choices lead to good results or ill, and whether or not those individuals then take responsibility for what they do, is beside the point. Chaotic neutral creatures disregard all authority unless compelled. Chaotic neutral is almost always a transitory alignment; few creatures remain this alignment for long.

Lawful Evil: Lawful evil creatures respect law and order, believing that the individual good of creatures is of no consequence compared to the strength of the group. Individual freedom is held as valueless, or at least scorned. Any cruelty or atrocity is justified if it serves the interests of the State, and the suffering of enemies is to be enjoyed. Truth is important, but only where it serves the group. These creatures place but scant value on individual lives – even their own lives. The goal of each individual creature is first to know its place in the group, and then to increase its station in that hierarchy. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Only through the group can any individual gain security and meaningful position. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view their group and its regulation as all-important. Whether any individual – or even large groups of individuals – benefit or are harmed by following rule and tradition, doing so is the responsibility of all creatures. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope resting upon law and order. Individuals exist only as parts of the whole. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for he seeks the greatest benefit both within the group and without it. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum benefit to himself.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world – the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

True Neutral: The “true” neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect – evil and good, chaos and law – of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces – such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action and ethical action are also true neutral.
PoorHobo
06-29-06, 01:37 AM No, It won't. A min-maxer will pay lip service to whatever alignment theit build requires. Alignment has very little to do with RP and everything to do with completely arbitrary mechanics.

The D20 is completley arbitrary too. Somone just decided to use a D20 instead of something else. But yes, I was talking about mechanics, without using alignment you can come up with some insane mutlticalssing the rocks the boat. That is the balancing factor. No paldin/blackgurads, no Dwarven defender barbarians etc... Throwing Gesalt is even worse but thats a variant rule to begin with. Definately for the min/maxer. That is the balancing factor.

Alignment mixing doesn't go over well on the CO board because they worship RAW over there, if a character breaks alignment to get into other classes its not RAW and doesn't qualify. Now just think if they didn't even have to find ways around alignment and could arbitrarliy stack special abilites from certain classes without alignment as a balancing factor.
Dolo
06-29-06, 04:45 AM Actually I think the D20 system is partly based on what WW did with their D10 system, but a LOT less broken. With all the flaws of the system, its still one of the best I have seen cause this system really puts the power in the DM/players hands. No matter what they have put out Rule 0 has ALWAYS been stated and put ahead of everything, no matter if it was AD&D, 2nd Edition or 3/3.5.

Heck I play Serenity and when we found out the fighting system was broken, we adapted it to the D20 system and we did it in less than a week. You can't say the same for really a lot of the other systems out there and I played a lot of them.
Vaalingrade Ashland
06-29-06, 05:45 PM To me the reason why people only pay lip service to the alignments is because of the way that they are defined. In third Edition the alignments have been defined so loosely to become all but meaningless. An EN World member called Raven Cloakwing wrote this alignment system. It's closer to First and Second Edition than to the standard Third Edition version. Even if you won't use this alignment system at least read it and gives it a fair critique. I am asking you in the fashion of a true Chaotic Good, one who is willing to defend to the death, your right to disagree with him.
There's no point in *me* critiquing it because I don't really see the point in having an alignment system. You can have a cosmic conflict between good any evil without drawing lines in the sand and forming 'teams'.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tequila_Sunrise 06-28-06, 05:02 PM	Recently I've noticed a few posters mention alignment restrictions as being balancing factors in certain classes, especially the paladin. I totally disagree, as I would much rather be a LG fighter than a paladin (at least in 3.x). I've always considered alignment restrictions to be a purely rp/traditional part of certain classes. Anyway, I'm interested to see whether I am in the minority or majority here.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-28-06, 05:08 PM	No, they really are supposed to be balancing factors. They don't work of course, but the designers keep plodding away at it.
PoorHobo 06-28-06, 08:00 PM	Reading through recent posts/threads you're probably in the majority. I am in the minorty. Unlike the real world where law, chaos, good, and evil are merely ideas and expressions in D&D these things are a tangible source of power and can be rather easily identified. Its like being an athiest in game, you can but it doesn't really work. A paladin is a very hard class to play most people don't want to bother with it. So they play lawful neutral or chaotic good/neutral paladins with the words "Lawful good" written some where on their character sheet and then call it unbalancing. Removing alignment is the min/maxers dream. Just a few trips to the CO boards will show you that.
wolfie-kun 06-28-06, 08:14 PM	So far the only really, really good place alignment becomes a balancing factor is where Incarnum is involved. Past that, it's a just a little something to help your rp situations. If a class is supposed to be a particular alignment, it means they're less likely to act outside of their alignment than someone who doesn't have a restriction like that. In other words, a LG Paladin is supposed to be more LG than a LG fighter, if that makes any sense.
Tony Vargas 06-28-06, 08:33 PM	Alignment affects the character's choice/use of certain items & spells, and the effects of other spells and abilities upon him. So there are mechanical consequences to being of a given alignment. Changing alignment is also an event that can be forced, so any class that loses abilities when it changes to a proscribed alignment can be said to face a balancing factor of sorts, there. Finally multiclass (including PrC) choices can be restricted by alignment requirements. For instance, you can't combine Barbarian Rage with Paladin abilities - because both face alignment restrictions with loss of abilities, if they change to the other's required alignments. The idea that having to play a certain alignment is a balancing factor due to the behavior required by the alignment is a little more tenuous. Alignments are broad, and all allow the basic sorts of behaviors you'll find among adventurers - just with different 'targets' and 'hooks.' If your class requires a given alignment, you have less freedom to stray from it's normal behavior (for fear your DM will declare you've changed alignment, with attendant consequences). If your class doesn't require an alignment, finding you've changed alignment due to your actions isn't as big a deal (probably few if any mechanical consequences).
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-28-06, 10:37 PM	Removing alignment is the min/maxers dream. Just a few trips to the CO boards will show you that. No, It won't. A min-maxer will pay lip service to whatever alignment theit build requires. Alignment has very little to do with RP and everything to do with completely arbitrary mechanics.
Dolo 06-28-06, 10:57 PM	Well That question can only be really answered by your DM and not by anybody on this board. When I play a LG or a Paladin I always ask where the lines are in respect to what they expect, cause all the DM's I have played with do enforce alignment and will strip you if all you doing is paying lipservice. Like one of them said once"If you are supposed to be (Insert alignment here) then that is what I want to see, and if you are not sure on that then ask mewhat I think it is. If you don't I will take the toy away, and its your fault." Being a Paladin is basically a Warrior for that God's point of view and sort of a advertisement that this god has powerand trust mortals with it. If a player is supposed to get all this power from said God and all you do "Talk it" instead of "Live it" then expect to get stripped and be a plain old fighter. From what I have seen most people can't play Paladins, cause when you are held up to a higher standard, its not your opinon that counts its the people around you (IE: Your Diety) that matters. There is leeway in playing a Paladin though, you just have to be able to have a DM that sees them and dosent try to straght jacket you. In the 20+ years of playing I have played about 10 Paladins and the only trouble I have had was dealing with the Bad Guys wanting my head on a platter, or changing the sex of said character((that was annoying to say the least)).
Tequila_Sunrise 06-28-06, 11:15 PM	Thanks for the responses, all! Maybe I should have asked if y'all think alignment is a balancing factor in terms of class POWER. I realize that alignment restrictions do unavoidably make a class unappealing to a certain percentage of gamers, making that class less often played. The best argument that I've yet heard against me is that having an alignment restriction precludes the other party members from taking certain actions in the presence of said character that might greatly benefit the party. For example, if you lie in the presence of your paladin buddy you'd better make sure he don't know the truff either! Even this though, doesn't convince me that alignment restrictions are a balancing factor, as characters are constantly restricted from certain actions while in the presence of their companions (just as in real life). You want to harshly discipline a prankster in the presence of your chaotic-aligned jolly compatriot? Good luck! It's a matter of rping that any mix of classes and alignments face, unless of course every character in the group was raised in the same way, has the same personality and the same goals...
Dolo 06-28-06, 11:39 PM	Actually the Paladins I have played would lie to a person, but it depends on why they are doing it. One Paladin I had infiltrated into a country that was controled by a Anti-Paladin((This goes way back to the old days)) and he usually kept his mouth shut, or would give half of an answer, knowing that stopping the badguy this time around meant being flexible. Now he was not going to sign off on murder, but if said person could have his memory "Adjusted"((Thank god for the Psionic in our party)) to forget us he was cool with it. He would also try to help out the people in that opressed country, he couldnt say that he was a Paladin but he could help and be one. I thnk that the old DragonLance books had a fantastic system that could keep track of alignment and it gave you "wiggle Room" for the person to work with. Excluding extreme examples, you could have a whole range of reactions and not worry about dropping of the ledge...too much. Also if you had a fair DM they usually will give you a warning that you are a bit close to the edge.
JulesCARV 06-29-06, 12:27 AM	Well, let's see. Class Alignments allowed Power Artificer 9 8.6 Barbarian 6 5.8 Bard 6 4.7 (heavily disputed) Cleric 9* 8.6 Druid 5* 9.4 Favored Soul 9 7.5 Fighter 9 3.5 Healer 3 1.5 Hexblade 6 4.2 Marshal 9 4.0 Monk 3 5.4 Ninja 9 4.1 Paladin 1* 5.0 Psion 9 8.1 Psychic Warrior 9 7.5 Ranger 9 5.2 Rogue 9 5.9 Samurai 3* 2.4 Scout 9 5.5 Shugenja 9 6.6 Spirit Shaman 9 7.4 Spellthief 9 3.8 Sorcerer 9 6.4 Soulknife 9 2.4 Swashbuckler 9 3.7 Warlock 5 6.2 Warmage 9 6.5 Wilder 9 5.6 Wizard 9 8.6 Wu Jen 6* 7.7 * Contains restrictions beyond alignment -- i.e., cleric's piety and sticking within 1-step of their god's alignment, druid's reverence for nature, paladin's code, samurai's code, and wu jen's taboos. The most restricted class -- paladin -- is toward the bottom, though not extremely low, in terms of power. The next most restricted class, the samurai, is weak. Monks are of moderate power, and healers are the weakest class in existence. The most powerful class -- the druid, somewhat diminished since the survey -- has a few alignment restrictions. The next most powerful class, the wizard, has none at all. The cleric is an in-between case: alignment affects the cleric, but clerics can be of any alignment. Artificers -- no alignment restrictions. Power ratings come from Danielinthewolvesden's survey. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436) Whether you consider it a reliable source or not is up to you. Certainly, at a first glance, there seems to be no connection between power and restrictive alignment. To make sure, though, I took a correlation of the number of allowed alignments -- taking classes with an asterisk to have one fewer allowed alignment than normal, so a cleric has 8 allowed alignments and the paladin 0 -- and the power score. A negative correlation coefficient would mean that restrictive alignment is correlated with power, while a positive correlation coefficient would mean that open alignment is correlated with power, and restrictive alignment is correlated with weakness. As it turns out, the correlation coefficient is about +0.215. So going by that generally, alignment restrictions are attached more to weaker than stronger classes, the exact opposite of the "alignment restrictions are a balancing factor" view. However, the correlation is very, very weak, and, given the small sample size, probably statistically insignificant.
Devil Gnasher 06-29-06, 01:12 AM	No, It won't. A min-maxer will pay lip service to whatever alignment theit build requires. Alignment has very little to do with RP and everything to do with completely arbitrary mechanics. To me the reason why people only pay lip service to the alignments is because of the way that they are defined. In third Edition the alignments have been defined so loosely to become all but meaningless. An EN World member called Raven Cloakwing wrote this alignment system. It's closer to First and Second Edition than to the standard Third Edition version. Even if you won't use this alignment system at least read it and gives it a fair critique. I am asking you in the fashion of a true Chaotic Good, one who is willing to defend to the death, your right to disagree with him. Chaotic Evil: The major precept of this alignment is that of personal freedom unshackled by responsibility. Whatever advantage can be taken should be taken, and the woe of others is to the benefit of oneself. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained, except where they can be paid lip service to one’s own benefit. Others’ lives have no value. Those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims. Chaotic Good: Creatures of this alignment view personal freedom and flexibility of action as necessary to promote the life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is great, but individual freedom does not remove responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. Individuals are valued on the basis of their actions, rather than by their position in society. Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places the personal freedom of each individual. Whether these individual choices lead to good results or ill, and whether or not those individuals then take responsibility for what they do, is beside the point. Chaotic neutral creatures disregard all authority unless compelled. Chaotic neutral is almost always a transitory alignment; few creatures remain this alignment for long. Lawful Evil: Lawful evil creatures respect law and order, believing that the individual good of creatures is of no consequence compared to the strength of the group. Individual freedom is held as valueless, or at least scorned. Any cruelty or atrocity is justified if it serves the interests of the State, and the suffering of enemies is to be enjoyed. Truth is important, but only where it serves the group. These creatures place but scant value on individual lives – even their own lives. The goal of each individual creature is first to know its place in the group, and then to increase its station in that hierarchy. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world. Lawful Good: While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Only through the group can any individual gain security and meaningful position. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view their group and its regulation as all-important. Whether any individual – or even large groups of individuals – benefit or are harmed by following rule and tradition, doing so is the responsibility of all creatures. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope resting upon law and order. Individuals exist only as parts of the whole. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation. Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for he seeks the greatest benefit both within the group and without it. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum benefit to himself. Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world – the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular. True Neutral: The “true” neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect – evil and good, chaos and law – of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces – such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action and ethical action are also true neutral.
PoorHobo 06-29-06, 01:37 AM	No, It won't. A min-maxer will pay lip service to whatever alignment theit build requires. Alignment has very little to do with RP and everything to do with completely arbitrary mechanics. The D20 is completley arbitrary too. Somone just decided to use a D20 instead of something else. But yes, I was talking about mechanics, without using alignment you can come up with some insane mutlticalssing the rocks the boat. That is the balancing factor. No paldin/blackgurads, no Dwarven defender barbarians etc... Throwing Gesalt is even worse but thats a variant rule to begin with. Definately for the min/maxer. That is the balancing factor. Alignment mixing doesn't go over well on the CO board because they worship RAW over there, if a character breaks alignment to get into other classes its not RAW and doesn't qualify. Now just think if they didn't even have to find ways around alignment and could arbitrarliy stack special abilites from certain classes without alignment as a balancing factor.
Dolo 06-29-06, 04:45 AM	Actually I think the D20 system is partly based on what WW did with their D10 system, but a LOT less broken. With all the flaws of the system, its still one of the best I have seen cause this system really puts the power in the DM/players hands. No matter what they have put out Rule 0 has ALWAYS been stated and put ahead of everything, no matter if it was AD&D, 2nd Edition or 3/3.5. Heck I play Serenity and when we found out the fighting system was broken, we adapted it to the D20 system and we did it in less than a week. You can't say the same for really a lot of the other systems out there and I played a lot of them.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-29-06, 05:45 PM	To me the reason why people only pay lip service to the alignments is because of the way that they are defined. In third Edition the alignments have been defined so loosely to become all but meaningless. An EN World member called Raven Cloakwing wrote this alignment system. It's closer to First and Second Edition than to the standard Third Edition version. Even if you won't use this alignment system at least read it and gives it a fair critique. I am asking you in the fashion of a true Chaotic Good, one who is willing to defend to the death, your right to disagree with him. There's no point in me critiquing it because I don't really see the point in having an alignment system. You can have a cosmic conflict between good any evil without drawing lines in the sand and forming 'teams'.