I'll point out one additional disagreement, Mr. Seeger says:
Quote:
|
While I can live with the idea that NG/CG and LE/NE can be played in more or less the same fashion, the idea that Lawful Neutral, true Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral are essentially the same point of view is just plain stupid.
|
The whole point is that there's no longer a Lawful/Chaotic duality nor some cosmic force called 'Neutrality.' 'Unaligned' isn't meant to represent a single point of view, it's meant to represent a vast variety, viz. every POV that doesn't align with either of the two cosmic moral forces. It's not any more "stupid" than any other attempt to reduce the relevant moral codes of the universe to 5, 9, or 100 categories. As a philosopher, the alignment system always struck me as one of the more contrived and limiting aspects of D&D. The new system, which gives itself to a lot more ambiguity, is far more realistic in my view.
But again, this is another case of: "It's not like AD&D, therefore it's bad."
Why not review this game on its own merits? People who think 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition are perfect will play the system they find perfect. The purpose of 4th edition is to offer a new game for people who have grown tired of the prior 3 editions or found other systems that handle simulationist aspects far better than D&D ever could.