Does anyone even read these? I think even I am getting on my nerves...Alignment
- Alignment, the backbone of character action, personality, identity, and decision-making, is Chapter 4. Take that as you will.
- "Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn't prevent a character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character.” We'll come back to this.
- The author asks you to picture law, neutrality, and chaos (and later, good, neutrality, and evil) as "points of a triangle, all pulling away from each other". This sounds similar to the cosmic assumptions of Dragonlance, where neutrality is an active force that balances two extremes. That said, neutrality probably should have been removed from the initial discussion and reserved for after the definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos.
- It's a noble effort to define all of human (and non-human) behavior into a 3x3 grid, but its oversimplification by necessity has caused alignment to be one of the most discussed and debated aspects of D&D, for good or ill. (As to why it doesn't work, see top of page). That said, the concept of alignment when paired with the "guideline" principle works as a good shorthand to loosely define how a given character can or will act. For player characters and BBEGs, full-fledged personality descriptions are never a bad idea, but there's nothing wrong with condensing it into two letters in a statblock.
- The alignment descriptions waffle between personal behavior and behavior of a society as a whole. Then again, due to the complexity of the subject matter, various interpretations are expected. I just like the 3e descriptions better.
- Lawful good characters "strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm". Now that's how you justify a villain!
- Seem like many, if not all, of the alignment descriptions rely on an "attribute vacuum" of sorts, as they don't take into account the potential intelligence of those who might belong to them. It's hard not to think of lawful neutral characters as complete morons, for example; believing in government with absolute control, without question, regardless of its intentions, is not something we normally attribute to smart people.
- Lawful evil is probably my favorite alignment, because you can act like a jerk but you can work well with others. There's a lot of potential to add subtle nuances to your character. DMs are still hesitant to let you, though, because of the E after the L on your character sheet.
- Neutral good, on the other hand, is probably my least favorite. It's very bland and ill-defined. However, you could probably make the case that Bill and Ted are both neutral good. That would be awesome; going around as a pair of NG bards, random air guitaring, spouting things like "Be excellent to each other!" and "Party on, dudes!"
- Because of the "active neutral" approach, true neutral gets a very nonsensical description. They're "compelled to side with the underdog", to the point that they switch allegiances at the drop of a hat to make sure neither side gets ahead. I keep getting the picture in my head of a druid setting off some trap to capture an adventuring party, then immediately letting them go because the group he works for suddenly has the upper hand. If you take what the book says as gospel, true neutral characters sound like the most dangerous things you can have in a party.
- Chaotic good could easily be the anti-hero alignment.
- Chaotic neutral, on the other hand, is the alignment jerks pick when the DM won't let them play anything evil. You can behead orphans all day and justify it with "I'm chaotic neutral lol!" To further cement this: Heath Ledger's Joker is chaotic neutral.
- The description for chaotic evil doesn't paint them as credible villains or threats. Basically, they won't cooperate unless forced, and then only until an opportunity presents itself to take power. While a fundamental part of Saturday morning cartoon villainy and technically true of the alignment et al, a group of chaotic evil characters/creatures can't, by definition, get anything done without backstabbing each other whenever possible. To go beyond basic fodder levels of competency and get anything diabolical done would require a neutral evil big bad at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment