Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The structure of the Alignments section

@Oknazevad: I changed the Alignments section to this version because previously the section only explained alignments in the 3rd edition and didn't explain how alignments are defined in the 4th and the 5th editions. As a reader who likes the 4th edition, I would like to know how alignments are defined in the 4th edition and how they are different compare to alignments in other editions. Hence the change I made.

Since you reverted my edits, please let me know how you think the previous version is better. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See my comments earlier on this page. While only the 3.5 books are quoted, over the 40+ year history of the game, the alignment system has been largely consistent, and the 4th edition variation is relatively minor in the history of things. The 5th edition version is intentionally identical to the older editions save the addition of unaligned for creatures that are purely animalistic. One sentence covers that, and already is in the article. They don't need a whole separate sections; that would fall under WP:UNDUE. oknazevad (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

I think the use of WP:UNDUE in this case is inappropriate. WP:UNDUE only applies to contents which are disputed and controversial. In this case, explaining how alignments are defined in various D&D editions has nothing to do with dispute or controversy. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that dwelling on the differences in 4e in a whole new section constitutes undue weight. I have added a few words to the lead section, as well as expanded the paragraph about 4e in the body of the article, to clarify the differences. That should be sufficient to satisfy those who like 4e. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the use of WP:UNDUE in this case is a wrong use because the content we are talking about is not a disputed content. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BALASPS is intended. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you guys are missing the point. Both my edits and the content itself have nothing to do with neutrality so neutrality-related policies should not be used in this case. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Its not about neutrality, it's about an excessive examination of minor details in a general-interest encyclopedia. Plus your additions were excessive in their quotations, coming too close to overuse if non-free content. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So please refrain from citing WP:UNDUE for this issue, which is not about neutrality. If it's about excessive quotations, what should have been done is reducing the quotations, not removing the content completely. I don't mind if you want to emphasize that 1e to 3e and 5e use a very close system, but 4e has its own unique system and should not be ignored purposely. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Its not ignored, it's covered in proportion to its long-term impact to the topic. oknazevad (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The article does not say its contents are included based on their long-term impacts. So I think the article needs to explain 4e's design of alignments, which is noticeably different compares to other editions, to readers. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also covered in proportion to the lifetime of 4e version versus the life of the game. Or in proportion to the number of 4e books that talk about it versus the total number of official books ever published. Any way you look at it, it's proportionally covered. There isn't really much more that needs to be said besides the paragraph we have on it in the History section. More detail would simply constitute WP:FANCRUFT. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear again that my proposal is making the section containing subsections so that readers can clearly learn the difference of the designs of alignments between editions. And that proposal has nothing to do with the lifetime of each edition. Anyway, I will respect the consensus. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Given there was harsh criticism of alignment even back in AD&D1 days which are still applicable to the current version that information should be here as well. Roger E. Moore "It's not easy being good" Dragon #51 (July 1981) and Paul Suttie "For king and country" Dragon #101 are two of the more referenced works in this regard. Suttie's comments are just as relevant now as they were then: "In the real world, good and evil are invented concepts. Societies label their own values as good, and those of the enemy (or the threatening or the unknown) as evil."; "No one has ever decided that certain values are good, and then chosen to oppose them and be consciously evil, and there is no possible reason why any sane person ever would, even if he is just a character in a game."; "No wonder characters who take on evil personae find themselves appalled by their own behavior"; "No wonder the typical paladin hypocritically preaches respect for all life, while a value system he would more realistically possess, that of religious intolerance, determines his actions. Subconsciously, if not consciously, we know that a paladin is not good in the sense of the definition we have been given"

Moore's example is anotehr issue with alignment: "Not all of the problems Paladin-players encounter in this area of whether killing is right or not are the player’s fault. Sometimes a DM will set up a situation in which, for example, the Lawful Goods have slain all the males of a tribe of Werewolves, and all that’s left are the females and young, who cower in the rocks and refuse to fight. Civilization is hundreds of miles away and no means exists at the moment to render the captives free of lycanthropy. If released, the young will grow up and terrorize the neighborhood again. If they are kept as captives, the party will be severely hampered and may meet new monsters at any moment. Killing the captives could well be the only alternative the Paladin is left with, yet if done the DM might say it was evil and remove the player’s alignment and status as a Paladin."

Alignment rather then a tool became a club dependent on what the DM felt was good, evil, lawful, and chaotic.--2606:A000:7D44:100:598C:4D4B:D063:3EA8 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be pointed out there are more recent internet articles which touch on the very same issues these old Dragon articles do. Hunter Royall "The Alignment Problem" and The Millionth Rant about D&D Alignment. The Goblins comic even has a satire about the warped logic that allowed some Paladins to go on killing rampages ala Kore the Paladin and still remain paladins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:7d44:100:152f:dc01:f863:bd51 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary Table?

Fellow Editors,

Given that there are a number of differences between the alignment systems for various versions of (A)D&D, I am considering that a brief summary table might be a worthwhile addition. This could include: version; # of alignments; list of alignments (LG, NG, LE, etc); notes (to cover anything version specific)

Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm somewhat ambivalent. Other than (post-Moldvay) Basic's retention of the one-axis alignments, and 4th's use of only five alignments, the system has been pretty consistent in all other versions since the two-axis system was introduced, experimentally in The Dragon (as it was then known) and formally in the Holmes Basic Set. And even then many players of the editions that differed still used the two-axis version in their own games. As such, I genuinely don't think there's enough variation from edition to edition to need a chart; indeed, it's been one of the most consistent parts of the game over the decades. I just don't see the "number of differences" you mention, and think the text covers the exceptions well enough. oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi oknazevad, Many thanks for the response. Appreciate it. There are other differences, which might be included, such as alignment / class restrictions which are present in AD&D 1st & 2nd ed., but not in some later versions; but I am happy to go with the consensus here.
And I was also thinking of the Additional alignments section of the article, which is written as generally applicable, but is certainly only in some versions. Which, I guess, leads on to... - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that there's been some variation on the exact definitions over the years, I feel like listing the definition of each alignment as in each edition might be useful. Nothing else, maybe just give a couple definitions under the ones that have changed the most - something like "the exact definition of True Neutral has changed between editions," idk. Ae3qe27u (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)