In regard to alignment, I think they were trying to simplify the system by highlighting the most important and noticeable distinctions between alignments.
When you think of the height of good you usually think about the knight in his shining armor who never lies and takes his promises very seriously. He's like the paragon of good!
Same goes for Chaotic Evil. A horrible twisted soul who kills and destroys for its own sake, driven by rage and hate and cruelty.
Some of the other alignments, like Chaotic good, do fit archetypes, but generally not as strongly. Like, is the dashing rogue with a heart of gold chaotic good, neutral good, chaotic neutral, or true neutral? I don't know!
Also some of the alignments are truly boring. Maybe it's just because they stuck neutral in front of it, but neutral good and neutral evil never excited me. So I'm neutral good... so that means I like to help people but I'm not as stuck up as a lawful guy or crazy as a chaotic guy? I guess... And lawful neutral seem more like an academic exercise than an actual character concept.
I agree with cutting out neutral, I do. Largely for the same reason I favor cutting out half-races - the players should have to make a choice. But I really, really, really think you should have to choose Good vs. Evil, and then, independently, Lawful vs. Chaotic.
Then you only have four choices. I would argue that all of them describe equally interesting, different, and well-known archetypes.
Chaotic Good = thieves/rogues with hearts of gold; Robin Hoods; White Hat hackers; idealistic Marxists; fun-loving pranksters; hippies who chain themselves to trees
Lawful Good = paragons of wholesome goodness (paladins, etc.); non-renegade law enforcement; sweet-tempered non-boat-rocking milquetoasts
Chaotic Evil = nadirs of vile darkness; evil geniuses; demonic minions; rageaholics; raisers of dead for non-emotional reasons
Lawful Evil = profit-driven captains of industry; sociopaths; cruel, calculating villains in positions of power a la Cardinal Richelieu
Agree completely that adding a neutral option for both the law/chaos and the good/evil slot create too many options many of which are samey, but I think for most if not all players, choosing one of the above options would provide enough rigidity to add definition to their characters while being diverse enough to describe most characters. If necessary, just adding a single fifth alignments-- a general 'unaligned'-- as a catch-all would be sufficient.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: D&D!
When you think of the height of good you usually think about the knight in his shining armor who never lies and takes his promises very seriously. He's like the paragon of good!
Same goes for Chaotic Evil. A horrible twisted soul who kills and destroys for its own sake, driven by rage and hate and cruelty.
Some of the other alignments, like Chaotic good, do fit archetypes, but generally not as strongly. Like, is the dashing rogue with a heart of gold chaotic good, neutral good, chaotic neutral, or true neutral? I don't know!
Also some of the alignments are truly boring. Maybe it's just because they stuck neutral in front of it, but neutral good and neutral evil never excited me. So I'm neutral good... so that means I like to help people but I'm not as stuck up as a lawful guy or crazy as a chaotic guy? I guess... And lawful neutral seem more like an academic exercise than an actual character concept.
Re: D&D!
My alignment house rule proposal
Then you only have four choices. I would argue that all of them describe equally interesting, different, and well-known archetypes.
Chaotic Good = thieves/rogues with hearts of gold; Robin Hoods; White Hat hackers; idealistic Marxists; fun-loving pranksters; hippies who chain themselves to trees
Lawful Good = paragons of wholesome goodness (paladins, etc.); non-renegade law enforcement; sweet-tempered non-boat-rocking milquetoasts
Chaotic Evil = nadirs of vile darkness; evil geniuses; demonic minions; rageaholics; raisers of dead for non-emotional reasons
Lawful Evil = profit-driven captains of industry; sociopaths; cruel, calculating villains in positions of power a la Cardinal Richelieu
Agree completely that adding a neutral option for both the law/chaos and the good/evil slot create too many options many of which are samey, but I think for most if not all players, choosing one of the above options would provide enough rigidity to add definition to their characters while being diverse enough to describe most characters. If necessary, just adding a single fifth alignments-- a general 'unaligned'-- as a catch-all would be sufficient.