Personally I believe that having a moratorium on new alignment threads just proves what some people have been saying for a long time - alignment is majorly broken and needs to be put out of its and everybody else's misery. Otherwise if alignment was 'easy to understand' as some claim, then you would not need to have a moratorium on new threads (which ironicly includes ones that might actually salvage the mechanic)
Well, it took only six replies to turn the "moratorium on alignment threads" thread into another alignment thread. :D
Otherwise if alignment was 'easy to understand' as some claim, then you would not need to have a moratorium on new threads (which ironically includes ones that might actually salvage the mechanic)
The number of times a thread has been answered through a quick Google search or page-flip on these boards makes me think that it really doesn't matter how easy it is to understand.
The number of times a thread has been answered through a quick Google search or page-flip on these boards makes me think that it really doesn't matter how easy it is to understand.
This assumes alignment issues and problems have been answered which given results both and google and here they clearly have not been. Even Michael A. Stackpole who tore Pulling's insane claims about D&D to shreds called alignment both silly and an impediment to play. Problems seen in previous versions of the game regrading alignment come up again for D&D 3.x in Cocytus's "When The Moral Compass Goes Haywire: The Trouble With D&D Alignments" so nothing has really been answered regarding problems with alignment.
Perhaps in a future product or edition of the game, Alignment will be explained in a fashion that makes sense to (most) everyone. Maybe it'll be abolished altogether - who knows? The only thing I do know is that DMs have the power and right to decide, with their players of course, whether or not it makes sense to have a Lawful Evil Paladin of Vecna or a Chaotic Monk. The Alignment system stands as a guideline to a character's actions and past, not an absolute rule, and should be treated as such.
'Nuff said.
-Geregald
Regdar tells me that he has seen enough alignment threads for awhile. No new alignment threads will be approved and posted, though you are welcome to continue to respond to any of the 300+ alignment articles already here.
That assumes those threads contain the understandings or discussion you are interested in, and that you can do any good by adding more pages to them. All that happens is apposite analysis (to whatever you want to understand) becomes lost in the mire of posts.
-vk
Even WotC devs openly state, in various places, that "It's never recommended for PCs to be Evil." That suggests that there's obviously something wrong with the alignment system. The problem may not be in the system itself so much as people's perception of it. However, after perusing some of the more-heavily replied-to Alignment threads, it hasn't gotten anyone anywhere.
Perhaps in a future product or edition of the game, Alignment will be explained in a fashion that makes sense to (most) everyone. Maybe it'll be abolished altogether - who knows? The only thing I do know is that DMs have the power and right to decide, with their players of course, whether or not it makes sense to have a Lawful Evil Paladin of Vecna or a Chaotic Monk. The Alignment system stands as a guideline to a character's actions and past, not an absolute rule, and should be treated as such.
'Nuff said.
-Geregald
Without an alignment system, it would still be a bad idea to have PCs that are evil be in a party with heroic PCs. This is because heroes in D&D do a lot of villain-smiting and if their friends are villains, too, bad stuff will happen. Also because it's much easier to motivate selfless characters over selfish characters, and because evil characters are less trustworthy in an adventuring party.