Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pilgrimboy]

So you view the neutral alignment as pure, utter, selfishness?

[timferius]

See, this has always been my problem with the alignment system, and why I was glad when 4e simplified it. With the 9 alignments, people just assume that means there's exactly 9 characters to roleplay, and that, if I'm x/y then I must do z, in any given situation. Example, I had someone in a group once playing a Chaotic something character, so he figured it was his job to derail the adventure whenever possible. And since he was a bad roleplayer, this meant that he ended up ditching the party at one point to go raise an army or something. Needless to say, the game pretty much disolved at that point...
I just don't see the need of stuch a strong crutch.

[pisskop]

I feel I must finally learn this game.   learned some basics, but never learned to play.  ptw.

[Dutchling]

I thought there were essentially 10 possible alignments, as you can be neutral (not evil nor good, not chaotic nor lawful) or true neutral (like a druid, trying to balance everything)?

[timferius]

I thought there were essentially 10 possible alignments, as you can be neutral (not evil nor good, not chaotic nor lawful) or true neutral (like a druid, trying to balance everything)?

Not that I remember, maybe an older edition? (started at 3.0).

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Just to clear up this alignment stuff if it's confusing new people.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Before version four there was:

Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral
True Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil

9 alignments made up of two axes: good versus evil, chaos versus law. Note that you can be neutral in either good versus evil or chaos versus lawful. Being neutral to both axes is "True Neutral".

After version four it became:
Lawful Good
Good
Unaligned
Evil
Chaotic Evil

5 alignments no longer following a two axes system (debatable). This is one of the most debated and argued change in D&D history, as you can see from this thread.

I'm hoping the whole topic hasn't been derailed too badly. Although I suppose alignments will always be a big thing in D&D whether you like it or not.

[timferius]

So, I haven't been able to find anything, but do they have an approx. release date for Next? I'm pondering running a game again, but don't really want to pick up some new books if the new version is going to be out soon.

[sluissa]

So you view the neutral alignment as pure, utter, selfishness?

That's probably one way to play it, but I'd guess pure utter selfishness tends towards the evil end of the scale. Most characters, no matter their alignment will fight for their survival though. I don't consider that overly selfish or pushing towards any given alignment. The way I played it... The bard had made friends with the party. He wanted a good story, but really didn't want to see anything too terribly bad happen to his friends, so he tended to help out when needed. Especially in dire circumstances. In most cases he didn't particularly care if the party got to the end of quest and rescued x or collected y treasure. It was the journey, and the story. But there would be nobody to tell the story if the bard died... and aside from the desire to keep friends alive, the bard's best chance at survival was to keep the group more or less alive. He tended to stand back in battles and watch... and buff the group with songs. But there were a decent number of battles that he never even touched a weapon. Like I said, it was a fairly short lived, mostly ineffective excepting the few utility spells that came in handy. It was also difficult to play with certain types of people... Some went along with it, others just got pissed that my character wasn't willing to dive in and be 100% effective all the time... so I eventually parted ways with that group of players.

[Sensei]

So, I haven't been able to find anything, but do they have an approx. release date for Next? I'm pondering running a game again, but don't really want to pick up some new books if the new version is going to be out soon.

Did you see the link in the OP? You can get a test version of DnD Next right now! Which might justify calling it DnD Present, but whatever, marketing.

I thought there were essentially 10 possible alignments, as you can be neutral (not evil nor good, not chaotic nor lawful) or true neutral (like a druid, trying to balance everything)?

I don't think that's ever been the case before, but it does seem to be in the new version. Here a Neutral character is described as seeking balance, where an Unaligned character just DGAF. Of course, what you're really hitting on is that alignments can include a lot of different, mutually exclusive things, especially the neutral ones.

Incidentally, did they do away with the planar cosmology that had been established before 4e? A lot of that had to do with the alignment system.

Edit: Regarding actual 5e, I'm not fond of how they hand armor right now. Currently all Light armor gives you your full dex, medium gives you a max dex of 2, and heavy armor gives max dex of 0, strictly. There's not a lot of variation and most armor is absolutely just plain better than the other armor in its class if it costs more, with the exception of weight and check penalty. I kind of liked what they had going before where medium armor was half dex, so there was still a benefit to having a high dex mod and wearing medium armor. They've also done away with arcane spell failure and you just can't cast arcane spells in armor, which is kinda lame since I kind of liked seeing, say, sorcerors use armor and the risk of some failure.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Incidentally, did they do away with the planar cosmology that had been established before 4e? A lot of that had to do with the alignment system.

I'm not really versed in version 4 lore but it appears that a lot of the Planes have collapsed, either being destroyed or combining together. Pretty sure a whole bunch of deities offed each other as well. I honestly have no idea what happened the the "major planes" like the lower planes, Mt. Celestia or inner planes. Forgotten Realms seems to be the most damaged from the change to 4e.

[Mephansteras]

Has anyone played it much yet? Any real thoughts so far?

From what I've read, it seems to be pretty streamlined compared to 3.5. Quite possibly too streamlined. But I won't get a chance to actually play until after Christmas.

[timferius]

So, I haven't been able to find anything, but do they have an approx. release date for Next? I'm pondering running a game again, but don't really want to pick up some new books if the new version is going to be out soon.

Did you see the link in the OP? You can get a test version of DnD Next right now! Which might justify calling it DnD Present, but whatever, marketing.

Can you actually Gen a character right now? I remeber checking on this earlier in the year, and you just got character presets. And I know for a fact that anyone I'd want to play with would stick their nose up at pre-genned characters.

[Keshire]

It sounds like they decided to dip back into Alternity for some mechanics. Alternity being the precurser to D20.

[Jellycat12]

PTW.

[RedWarrior0]

I haven't read too much of it, but the non-magical stuff sounds basically like a really gimped Tome of Battle.