Dungeons & Dragons C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. D&D to-do: view Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Merge : Various articles Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More... Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons) Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 November 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Just a small niggle - is Batman really a good example of a "Lawful Good" character? I think it is widely agreed that he is effectively a vigilante, who for the greater concept of good will break the rules and use his own means to achieve an objective, even if those objectives are not within the law. I would argue that he is probably better categorised as Neutral Good or even Chaotic Good, based on the definitions within the remainder of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanel76 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than relying on everyone's subjective interpretation (because we all might have different ideas about what alignment a character is), we need to cite what a source says. In this case, we have a source from the publisher of the game which identifies some examples and what those game designers thought of the characters, and we cite the book in question. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, which Batman are you talking about? Adam West's Batman? The Dark Night Returns? Batman Begins? DCAU Batman? Its a common joke in alignment discussions to find a version of Batman for every alignment. http://digitalculture-ed.net/tracys/files/2009/11/batman-alignment-1024x819.jpg Wardog (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for Chaotic Good. He's a vigilante, duh. Also, Spiderman may be Chaotic Good as well. Simoncpu (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree batman is a poor example of Lawful Good. One of the binding characteristics of him is he uses ruthless and underhanded means to deal with bad guys (chaotic), but also has a code (lawful). I think Superman is a much better example (Truth, Justice and the American Way) with the 'American Way' to be interpreted as what we all want to believe it is.

Spiderman has been known to co-operate with authorities (he is a member of the Avengers after all), so there are lawful aspects there.

Boba Fett is more of a Neutral Evil, as a Mercenary Assassin/Bounty Hunter. Magneto has some evil aspects, but he, like Prince Namor has been known to co-operate with others for the greater good. Why Darth Vader is not listed here, or Doctor Doom, I don't know. Vader has been known to break his word or negotiate in bad faith (chaotic), but does owe allegiance to his master (Lawful) so maybe he tends toward Neutral Evil.

Riddick? I saw Pitch Black and as I recall he used his abilities for the good of himself as well as the group. That is not Chaotic Evil in my mind. Now Mephisto, from Marvel, there is a CE if I ever saw one. Jokem (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement. Reddick is clearly an anti-hero (LE as listed in the book of vile darkness Page 187) Veterans of DND will be quick to point out that Reddik had no intention of destroying anything as per the nickname for CE being destroyer. Reddick expressed no pure evil traits in spite of his intimidation processes and the fact that he is a criminal. He was not concerned with politics, law or the affairs of other races. His entire expression though out both films had no implications of Evil at all. In D&D people are often forced to kill, even lawful good characters, Reddick killed to survive, not for joy as Chaotic Evil character are well known for. While being but simply wanted to be left alone to himself which expresses a Neutral characteristic and not evil as per his survival instincts and his entire character reflection. Reddick should be listed under either (Loosly) Chaotic good or Chaotic neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos Maxtor (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all entirely too subjective as to which character is which. That's why we can only allow sourced examples, and in each case the source should be listed; this needs to be corrected in any case where the source is not clearly identified. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no subjectivity in aligments, only in less informed minds on the characters. and having a source requirement for aligements is just redundant.

example:

So if i find a "source" where a journalist interviews a D&D VIP were he says "superman is chaotic evil".. does that make it true? nope.

Allsow, despite your erranours source requirement to make this article more reliable, it actually does the contrary, and this is one of many things which make wikipedia an unreliable source of information and damages it's reputation as a reliable good encyclopedia.

It's not a mather of subjectivity either; aligment is a summary of a character (actions/belife etc) not some D&D employe's personal opinion/thought on said character.

--Byzantios (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"So if i find"? Lets wait until you actually find it, then we can talk about something...a little more solid.

Funny enough, TV Tropes actually put it well why this articles need source instead of relied on "widely agreed" (AKA "me and my friends say this")

•He has a strict ethical code and in most incarnations obeys Thou Shalt Not Kill. He upholds the morals of society even when society itself fails them. Justice is his reason for existence. Sounds like Lawful Good. But wait...

•He flaunts and outright ignores the rules when they don't suit him. He's wanted by police for his brand of vigilantism. He's unquestionably moral but the individual freedom to carry out his crusade seems far more important to him than mere laws. Okay, that's Chaotic Good. But wait...

•He is brutally intolerant of villainy, in whatever form it may appear. There's no moderation; you're either on the side of Good or of Evil, and may the powers that be help you if Batman judges you evil. Good people aren't much better off, because if you aren't helping him, you're at best an obstacle and at worst an enemy as well. This is the behavior pattern of the Lawful Neutral Knight Templar.

It goes on. There's a reason someone created an alignment chart with Batman in each position — it's because characters are rarely so simplistic as to be easily assigned to a bucket on a 3x3 grid. Further, alignments only make sense for certain series where there is a neat sorting of good vs. evil (or order vs. anarchy). In works where morality is relative, or never discussed at all, even the definitions of the alignments are up for debate, never mind who qualifies.

L-Zwei (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the chart, L-Zwei. All of the Evil aspects suggest a ruthlessness, which is not in itself, Evil. I would have to see the context. Ruthlessness in the opposition of villainy is not necessarily evil. There is a reason the Paladin is given his smite power. Are any of these from any of the variant incarnations of Batman? Jokem (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is EXACTLY the point, the chart simplified Batman to make him fit into 3x3 alignment grids. Batman is character with long history, his characther has more depth that can't be fit in D&D alignment system. That being said, this is article about D&D so citing examples from D&D's official source is good enough. If it's really too absurd, then we should remove all examples or replace them with D&D characters. But switch Batman's alignment because uncitable "widely agreed" is out of question.L-Zwei (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It also took various incarnations of Batman to fit into the 3X3 grid. Since Batman has evolved over time, that can be interpreted to mean his alignment has changed over the same period. Jokem (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add some more controversy... I take exception to Robin Hood being defined as Chaotic Good. There are certainly some Chaotic aspects there, but he has a code also. His band does not molest members of the clergy, or women unless there is no other way. They do not recognize Prince John as legitimate authority either, so in that respect he is Lawful. Jokem (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's described as that based on the White Dwarf source. Maybe you can find another source putting him in a different category. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 'sourced' I refer to the Batman entry by Byzantios. Just because it is printed somewhere, does not make it so. Unless you mean I need to source his bands code regarding members of the clergy and women, as well as not recognizing Prince John. Jokem (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the sourced examples are this controversial, it's better to remove them all than try to guess. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again...this is article about D&D, so citing examples from D&D's official source is good enough. If things're really too absurd, then we should remove all examples or replace them with D&D characters (where it should fit much better). But switching characters' alignment because you disagree with the offcial source is OR. L-Zwei (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jokem -- In the D&D system, lawfulness generally seems to include some element of following the customary established rules just because they are the customary established rules, so it's difficult to see how Robin Hood could really be lawful. AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Robin, at least in legend, is loyal to Richard the LionHearted, that is lawful Jokem (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you start picking and choosing which laws to obey and which laws to disobey, then you're departing from the path of D&D-style lawfulness... AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Lawfulness is respect for LEGITIMATE authority. Robin Hood and his band did not consider Prince John to be the rightful ruler, and thus not legitimate. Also, Prince John used underhanded means (read opposed to the established conventions - Chaotic) to accomplish his goals, so thus did not live up to what a rightful ruler is expected to do. Jokem (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lawful good person can perfectly well disregard the evil decrees of an evil ruler, but a law against stealing is not an evil law in itself. There are going to be laws against stealing whether John or Richard is on the the throne, so stealing from semi-random rich people would not seem to be a lawful mode of rebellion... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to legend, the stealing was not done from random people. Those that made their living from legitimate sources, rather than abuse of power were left alone. Jokem (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're deciding for yourself when to obey and when not to obey a law which serves overall legitimate purposes, then it seems quite obvious that you're going beyond D&D-style lawfulness... AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again - D&D style lawfulness specifies respect for LEGITIMATE authority. That does not include obeying the laws made by some usurper to the crown. Jokem (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the fact that a law against stealing will continue to exist no matter who sits on the throne of England makes your argument largely irrelevant in terms of D&D style "lawfulness". Unfortunately, it seems that you can only try to approximate Robin Hood to lawfulness by starting from the most romanticized/bowdlerized version of the legend (adjusted to conform to Victorian ideas of heroism and what was considered suitable for children's literature), and even then it still doesn't really work... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a law exists does not make it legitimate. If the throne is occupied by someone who does not follow the law then the law is no longer legitimate. If you are robbed and the authorities do nothing about it, or are even complicit in the robbery; does that mean you cannot take back what was stolen and return it to the rightful owner? In any case, I was not trying to argue that Robin Hood was Lawful, but that he had Lawful aspects. I would place him in between Lawful and Chaotic. Jokem (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a traditional view of moral or political philosophy that if an illegitimate usurper ascends to power, then all laws must be invalidated, and society is left in a state of complete anarchy or Hobbesian war of all against all... AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although true, it is not, in fact, what I suggested. Jokem (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could a maliciously compliant bureaucrat be classified as Lawful Evil? Or Neutral Evil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably either if you wanted to cause yourself issues, I suppose. Technical 13 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL  :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself chaotic good... Who knows, depending on the crat, you may be paying them a compliment. Technical 13 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also make the argument for Lawful Neutral-- "I will comply with the regulation, common sense, consequences and end effect be damned" 19:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.17.152 (talk)

I think it's probably worth noting the fact that most alignments have two distinct interpretations. For example, neutral good can be "war against evil without remittance or mercy" OR "do the right thing, freedom and law are secondary" Chaotic Evil could be "Eff you I do what I want!" or "some men just want to watch the world burn". Even Lawful Good can be interpreted as "bash out the brains of orc children on rocks because they'll grow up to be evil goblinoids" but on the other hand be "Law must be tempered by mercy, for an eye take only an eye, not an eye and a limb"08:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.17.152 (talk)

As long as you can source it properly, go for it. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good place to discuss the validity of this edit, and the sources used therein. I contended that the DDO wiki is not an RS, as are the other sources used by JeffryBloom. I am also calling into question the wisdom of mixing DDO information in with D&D. I would invite Dhtwiki and Torchiest to comment as well. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if the current revision is better - the sources may not be of a high quality but even if this section of the article contained no sources I still feel as if the information should be kept. I don't feel as if it being WP:UNSOURCED is so likely to be challenged as if to justify removal. Citing an instruction manual could explain what the alignments mean. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the sources are lousy in that section; one is pointing to another article on Wikipedia. Also agree that at least some of the information here, such as the basic descriptions, is uncontroversial and doesn't need to be removed. And yes, the gamebooks have plenty of information on them and could be referenced. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the examples, which aren't really necessary and fall into WP:GAMECRUFT territory anyway. I also removed the information about damage modifiers, which are WP:GAMEGUIDE type facts and not appropriate for our article. A cursory search didn't find any alternate sources for weapon alignments online. I'm not sure if there's a rulebook with info about them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while there are a few ddowiki references they're all backed up with a dnd licensed ref https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/121279-Definitive-Static-Rewards-and-Unique-Loot-Thread?s=f9390caac1c5d869da31107e029a693f with over 100 pages of well versed persons corroborating every single letter in the reference. either the semantic "item" or "weapon" alignment, is fully supported in the hidden citation i presented next to "item" and or weapon. i left it a hidden reference as i cannot vouch for the copyright permission the pdf file uses/doesn't-use to be readily downloadable to all. Magical Item Alignment page 34 advanced dungeons and dragons dungeonmaster's guide http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/dmg.pdf

furthermore ddo is actually a licensed dnd game where as every other reference in this page is some gibberish from some "complete scoundrel" nonsense. while i dont think it should be removed it certainly sets the tone. the tone it sets is of a threshold well beneath even ddowiki.

finally, why a game narrated by both gary and dave and actually licensed to represent dnd, should be left out of an mmorpg list of games inspired by gary and dave, is wholly ridiculous at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffryBloom (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wpgamecruft argument. one example each does not seem excessive. i suppose the hit dice are less important but the mechanic that displays the meaning of the alignment is vital. however, "1d6" three letters are fully insignificant and hardly excessive. unless anyone has examples of these four alignments we run headlong into the basic argument: "dont make problems if you dont have solutions." the gamecruft of it would be going so far as explaining the negative levels one would take to use an item aligned contrary to their own alignment if that alignment wasn't even so contrary it was impossible. absolute law and total chaos are completely alignment restricted, no umd skill check to overcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffryBloom (talk • contribs) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Scoundrel was an actual book actually published by Wizards of the Coast for the actual D&D game, not a licensed computer version of the game, and is therefore not "nonsense", but a very relevant source for understanding alignment in the D&D game (as opposed to the very tangential DDO game). In case you didn't notice, this article is titled "Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)", not "Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons Online)", so there is no reason to assign WP:UNDUE weight by giving DDO equal time to D&D here. Please discuss this here to gain WP:CONsensus for your viewpoint, rather than continuing to WP:EDITWAR to try to force your preferred version upon everyone else. Also please try to understand that forum posts and articles from Wikis (including Wikipedia itself) are specifically disallowed as reliable sources because they are user-generated and not subject to editorial review. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, I agree with the edits made by Torchiest. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete Scoundrel was an actual book actually published by Wizards of the Coast for the actual D&D game." a bastardisation by a new owner in no way directly reflective of dnd. batman, Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones, Zorro, ect ad nauseam, simply are-not/nore-ever-will-be dnd. ddo, is. if you get batman to narrate original modules like Delera's Tomb as Gary did himself, you still wont have a valid point. JeffryBloom (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffryBloom (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

specific intellectually dishonest evocation, (and not limited to) rebuttal for "Also please try to understand that forum posts and articles from Wikis (including Wikipedia itself) are specifically disallowed as reliable sources because they are user-generated and not subject to editorial review." forum post, the format isn't enough weight to discount that it was either posted by staff or ratified and checked for accuracy for over 100 pages by experts; making the post fully recognised as a credible source directly representative of dnd in both spirit and license. more over it dates to "09-16-2007, 11:22 AM" almost a full decade. you're attempting to follow the letter, just to ignore the intent. your multiple evocations in such fashion display this in such a way as a trend. it is suspitious that your true motivations have not been forthcoming, 65.126.152.254 JeffryBloom (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts are never reliable sources. Period. And cut the edition warring stuff; you give away your hand when you calling offical 3.5 accessory a bastardization. Plus there's the blunt fact that this article is about the table top game (in all its incarnations), not the lightly played MMORPG. It's out of scope no matter what. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am not "edition warring" batman, Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones, Zorro, ect ad nauseam, simply are-not/nore-ever-will-be dnd. not only are all of these franchises not held by wizards of the coast they simply are not reasonably dnd, related. as such it sets a threshold for the tone of what constitutes an acceptable citation. you can say the expert and licenced person reviewed forum post doesn't stand if you like, however it links to jpeg images from a licenced host that corroborates the same information so the citation is still perfectly viable even if you want to abuse the letter to ignore the intent. the only "edition waring" here is yours and trying to prevent any citation of ddo. JeffryBloom (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JeffryBloom, my motives are clear and outlined above; I don't think anything you have added is acceptable, and should stay removed. The fact that the other people speaking in this thread agree more with what I am saying than with you are saying should tell you that maybe your position is incorrect. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"JeffryBloom, my motives are clear and outlined above" exactly, edition warring. "LOL. No thank you. Computerized DND is like masturbating with a cheese grater." - 65.126.152.254 going to come clean yet? JeffryBloom (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not entertain your ad hominem remarks, but just for clarity's sake, although I have never played DDO and have no opinion about it one way or another, let's keep in mind that D&D video games are an adaptation of the game which by necessity differs from the tabletop game. It is an adaptation just like the cartoon, the board games, the gamebooks, the novels, etc, although the video games are less distant adaptations than those others. I played and enjoyed the Gold Box games - Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, and Secret of the Silver Blades, but never made it to Pools of Darkness, although I really had a blast with Unlimited Adventures - and I have played one or both of the arcade games - Tower of Doom and Shadow over Mystara - and quite probably played some of the many other games at some point over the years. I love 'em, and I wish I had the time to play more of them. But, I would not feel it was appropriate to include any information on their differing gameplay within an article on D&D's gameplay. If you feel that information belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, put it on the Dungeons & Dragons Online article, although I will caution you that wikis and forum posts will still not be acceptable sources there either. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffryBloom:I removed the information about Gygax and Arneson being memorialized in the game. It's not in the scope of this article. I added the part about Gygax narrating to the Dungeons & Dragons Online article. It seems like your editing interests might fit better on that page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i think your last post should be altered to say "I will not admit to my own ad hominem remarks". ddo issue, i demonstrated the scope of the inspiration gary and dave provided to ddo far exceeded the scope of the whole document. whether or not the magnitude of the inspiration could be more beneficial to another page isn't my concern. i've already removed the proven examples of influence and replaced with simple ref links as to the same effect. when i can manage to put a perfectly true and applicable citation to a list where it fully belongs, i might consider contributing more to some other page. probably not this year. 4 simple, perfectly applicable, and referenced words with a link, already seem like an semi-insurmountable task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffryBloom (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be polite here, but the fact is, you're not adding information that fits in this article. A virtual grave in a video game has nothing to do with alignment. Nor does the fact that Gygax and Arneson had a huge influence on Dungeons & Dragons Online. Of course they did; it's based on a game they designed. But that doesn't tell us anything of significance about alignment in the D&D RPG. The point of that section is that the alignment system they devised was influential in other games, not that they were influential on a game explicitly based on their game. I was encouraging you to work on the DDO article because it seems to be the true object of your interest. I myself actually added something you originally added here to that article. I'm not trying to destroy your edits; I'm trying to improve the encyclopedia.

I see that you're new to editing, and I know it can feel very frustrating when people disagree with your ideas. Trust me, everyone who's been here for a while has had that feeling. But we're simply trying to follow policy. There's no need to make this personal, which you have done to at least two people now. I suggest reading WP:5P for starters, and digging into some links from there, to perhaps get a better idea of what we're about. Also, a lot of the stuff you want to include would probably fit better on the actual D&D wiki. This is for general interest readers, not hardcore D&D grognards. That's why we try to follow things like WP:FANCRUFT. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note: "Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, and Secret of the Silver Blades, but never made it to Pools of Darkness, although I really had a blast with Unlimited Adventures - and I have played one or both of the arcade games - Tower of Doom and Shadow over Mystara" none of these are mmorpg's and would not be aplicable to a list of mmorpg's JeffryBloom (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "A virtual grave in a video game has nothing to do with alignment." you're confabulating and you're intentionally disregarding that those references were made for the purpose of proving a level of "influence". note no such test was required for the other contents of the list which are only turfed by a completely unoriginal and possibly completely unrelated good vs evil cliche that has already existed for a minimum of three thousand years. simply good vs evil does not meet the test of proving "gary" type influence in the least. MORE OVER both comment lines narration AND graves have already been removed since everyone is FINALY ready to concede that point. JeffryBloom (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC) FURTHER MORE ddo is the only applicable mmorpg currently in that list that actually can be sourced as related to inspired by gary's alignment system. it takes wildly intellectually dishonest views to think it should be excluded. JeffryBloom (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The entire first paragraph in that section was extraneous. I checked the references, and neither mentions anything about alignment whatsoever. They're both just discussing D&D influencing video games in general, which, while interesting, doesn't apply here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sword of the old republic may have had characters with a gygaxian alignment designation only alterable good evil tho, as i recall there was a tool tip that had a gygaxian alignment reference. the assassin droid was lawful evil and one of the recruitable jedi were neutral/good/evil. you had to have a really high charisma to get the tool tip and the alignment info may have been deleted in dowloadable update due to copy write enforcement. might be worth looking into if their mmorpg has an alignment system. as it stands, returning the videogame refrence would be an improvment such as it was. removing it to exclude a perfectly good ddo cite was just stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.191.3 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of documents from www.adnd3egame.com

Fellow editors, Please note that the documents from www.adnd3egame.com do not appear to be genuine copies of the original TSR AD&D works, per my comments at WP:RSN:

I have access to physical copies of the original works, and can verify that the AD&D DMG & AD&D at www.adnd3egame.com are not copies of those works. They appear to be collections of "House Rules" based on those versions of the game, and formatted in a style akin to the original works. This is easily verified by the copyright notices on the title pages, which claim copyright by TSR Games, but for years (2011 & 2013) in which D&D was owned by Wizards of the Coast. Additionally, the page counts in these documents do not match those listed at Google Books for the ISBN numbers on the title pages. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that it is a scan of this: http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/original-dungeons-dragons-rpg 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least, that was my first impression. After re-reviewing, I agree with Ryk72 on what their contents are, although a lot of it is indeed copied directly from the books and therefore should not be used as a source per WP:COPYVIO. I may have been looking at something else previously that was a scan of the OD&D reproduction because this looks different than the other thing I was looking at. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering, looking over it, if we're not over stating the importance of these examples here. I know the purpose is to try to give examples of characters from outside D&D that fit into each alignment to provide context for readers that aren't familiar with the system, just as the examples in Complete Scoundrel are intended to. But we're essentially copying the whole of the examples here, and frankly some of their examples are questionable at best. So I think the article would actually be better served by the examples' outright removal. What say ye? oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with removing them as well, although I personally found their inclusion interesting. This article, like many D&D articles, seems to have been influenced by the time in which is was written; in this case, during 3.5, thus we have examples from a 3.5 book but not other editions. If we had more examples from other editions, that would make it more well-rounded. But then I have often wondered if the examples are too distracting, because alignment examples are subjective no matter what source they are derived from. All too often, someone will come along and change one of the examples to a different character, move a character from one alignment to another, remove or add more characters, and these changes are always based on that editor's personal viewpoint. Since they are a lightning rod for WP:OR, I unfortunately must agree that we are better off without them. Although it would be great if we could preserve them here on the talk page somewhere, just for historical sake.  :) 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Away they go. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i think they're okay. while they're unrelated to the dnd universe, the point is in showing the alignment system to those who don't already understand it. to explain something to someone who doesn't know your language, you have to use some of theirs. are they imperfect and an overall bastardisation? sure, but there's no reason to be excessively nit picky. JeffryBloom (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Adult gold dragon 17 (18,000 XP) Ancient gold dragon 24 (36,500 XP)" http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_303.pdf "Gold Dragon" is copywrited content of wizards of the coast. do not write purely copywrited content WP:OR. please find non-copywrited example.

Oh, please. The above quoted text is not part of the article in anyway. So your false accusations are obviously in bad faith and an attempt to disrupt this article because you didn't get your way. Using a referenced example (with nothing more than the name of the creature) is not a copyvio in any way.

However, edit warring to push in a bunch of dictionary definitions that are not from the game, especially when there are far more specific and relevant quotes from the actual game books is pure WP:SYNTH, clearly irrelevant, and disruptive in its purpose. Knock it off. oknazevad (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

simply combining Gold Dragon(dnd original concept creature) and lawful good is basis for WP:OR. there are plenty of lawful good creatures that arent original copywrited works. you're editing irrationaly and often very insulting. you're clearly intransigent so i'll drop this minor issue no matter how right i am, and i am. JeffryBloom (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do chaotic good (edit warring) here. Please work out disputes on the talk page rather than reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay ozvad(spelling sry) what are your compunctions about showing the alignment structure prefix/suffix? also, why so abusive in your edit summaries and refusing to talk about it on your talk page? JeffryBloom (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the question: where were the "prefix"es and "suffix"es used within a D&D context? Can you point me to a mention of a in-concordance-with-absolutes–paladin–pleasant or a disorder-assassin-cruel? Or was the section just meant to define the terms on the two axes? —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, multiple types of assassins would be lawful evil or lawful neutral as those types require levels of monk. trying to show assassins as inherently chaotic would be a flawed assertion. now prefix question, look at the components here, "lawful evil", "lawful"/"evil", prefix/suffix and the subject being the combination of the two. i can find multiple citations that describe it in this fashion but i'll admit i'd have to dig through a few pdf's to find rule based references as such. if not prefix and suffix what would you call this? absolute paladin virtuous would be written more like absolute virtuous paladin but not like this either as that would be redundant. paladin = absolutely virtuous. JeffryBloom (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I picked paladins as the easy example: they're lawful good. The alignment can be used to describe the character: a lawful-evil assassin specifies that the assassin is of lawful evil alignment. However, the alignment is not used as prefixes and suffixes, tacked onto the front or back of the class (which would be lawfulassassinevil, as prefixes and suffixes are added onto the beginning and end of words, respectively).

So, the section seems to just be providing definitions of the terms, which is already done in the #Axes section. Based on that, it's should be left out as redundant. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the alignment is not used as prefixes and suffixes, tacked onto the front or back of the class-C.Fred. that's not what i said and i dont know why you got that idea that's what was expressed. axes only references each in terms of how they would be regarded in combination with a suffix and does not describe them in terms of core essence. axes only draws out subjective behavioral implications. JeffryBloom (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JeffryBloom, While I am not certain that the description of alignments in terms of prefixes and suffixes is an improvement on what is currently in the article, I do feel that it would be better if it were backed by a source supporting the inclusion.
Are there any sources, either notable, independent, secondary sources or primary sources (rulebooks), which present alignment in this way - using the terms prefix & suffix? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i've found an abundance of users describing it this way but as far as official publications go, i'll have to look. but that's really only semantics. the use of prefix/suffix is merely to describe (first half/second half) and clearly it does as that's how everyone sees it. but if you think you have a better dichotomy than prefix/suffix, offer up. describing them separately and specifically as nouns rather than in purely subjective terms of how a character behaves, has not been presented thus far in the article. JeffryBloom (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JeffryBloom, While I feel sure that it was not the intent, given that it is one of the core principles (WP:5P) of Wikipedia, I am not sure that we should present verifiability (WP:V) as really only semantics. If there are no sources for the presentation of alignment in terms of prefix and suffix, then inclusion is not reasonably supportable.
W.r.t the dictionary definitions of lawful, chaotic, good, evil & neutral, the Axes and Alignments sections appear, to my mind, to provide adequate coverage of this aspect, with the advantage that the content is sourced.
I concur with other editors who suggest that these inclusions are unnecessary & do not improve the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Ryk72, those don't describe each as a specific principle. they only describe subjective behaviors of a character with that prefix/suffix, as was pointed out later in the article "lawful" doesn't necessarily apply only to the context of a player character and its behavior. the intent is to describe "lawful" not "lawful behavior specifically of a character." lawful might be drawn to describe anything, inanimate, non-corporeal etc. not just a paladin. i really feel you're "looking for excuses to find problems where there are none", and not at all, "finding solutions where they are abundant". it is semantics to oppose the description as a preffix/suffix dichotomy. does not "lawful" "chaotic" typically come first? does not "good" "evil" typically come second? it is common language in many contexts. are we saying common language doesn't apply to this one topic specifically because it's difficult to ref without violating copyright, linking a publication pdf? i would understand if you were suggesting an edit such as changing, "Prefixes and suffixes of the D&D alignment system" to "what can be described as a prefix suffix dichotomy of the D&D alignment system." gets a little excessively wordy imho but maybe someone has a suggestion? JeffryBloom (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to apologize to Jeff for my short temper. I was annoyed by the posts on my talk page, and frankly do feel that your posts were uncalled for. But I'm willing to drop it and address the meat of the issues. I think Ryk72 and C.Fred said better what I was trying to say. Firstly, the dictionary definitions were redundant, as the "Axes" section already summarizes the meanings of the terms in game, using game-specific references. That's the problem with the dictionary definitions; they're not game-specific, making the use of them a case of drawing original conclusions from unconnected sources, which isn't how we're supposed to do things on Wikipedia. As for the brief mention of the gold dragons as lawful good, that's a spcific cited example referenced by a specific game book. If anything, with its lack of actual quoted material it's less of a copyright issue than the quotes in the "Axes" section (though those are brief enough as to not be a problem either). So, again, I apologize for my less-than-courteous behavior and hope we can work together productively in the future. oknazevad (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the dictionary definitions were redundant, as the "Axes" section already summarizes the meanings of the terms in game," wrong. the axes is only describing the behaviors a character with that prefix or suffix would have as characteristics. axes describes a character, not the prefix itself. as such, those behaviors are just subjective and the basis for those behaviors has not yet been established. i've brought this point half a dozen times and everyone who's posted thus far has only deflected it. JeffryBloom (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "behaviors" are the definition given within the context of the game. If there is a separate definition of the term within the context of D&D, please provide a citation for that. A dictionary is not a valid reference; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred. subjective behaviors are not a definition as behaviors are contextual to only a character. each alignment is not, nor has ever been, within the dnd context as purely exclusive to characters. a list of common behaviours is not a definition of a prefix or suffix in, or out of, a dnd context. as for your rejecting dictionary references, do you have any evidence to support they used their own delusions as to what "lawful" "neutral" "chaotic" "good" "evil", mean? the list sourced is not nore was it ever intended to be a definition of each prefix and suffix, only a list of typical behaviours contextualy exclusive to characters JeffryBloom (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a better use of effort would not be to use excuses to find problems but instead use effort to find a perfected set of synonyms or explanations for each prefix and suffix that are universally true rather than contextually exclusive or subjective. Chaotic means "disorder, inexplicable, non-compliance". i'll admit, this isn't a perfect list save for "inexplicable" Xoriat disorder is supported even by this article itself as is non-compliance but they're not as perfect as inexplicable. there should be at least three terms to triangulate the meaning. i'm extremely confident i can find just about any relevant terms in the multitudes of dnd books to be had. any terms explaining xoriat would be perfectly relevant as xoriat is described as a plane that IS chaos(chaotic alignment as prefix and suffix). i'd begin on the others but so far i feel i'm talking to an irrationally intransigent wall (: JeffryBloom (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need synonyms for the terms? —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i explained that, "i'll admit, this isn't a perfect list" as to define the given prefix. short answer, betterment. i look for ways to make things better. if you have ideas i'd like to hear them. JeffryBloom (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is fine as it is. We have a definition of the term per the source. We don't need to rehash the dictionary or thesaurus. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with C.Fred on this point. Given that the alignments (lawful, chaotic, good, evil, neutral) are terms of art, with specific meaning in a D&D context, it is not particularly useful to the reader to include more general, dictionary based, definitions of those terms. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

never thought i'd see a twist of logic to scoff at a dictionary as if it was a legitamate argument. i did say i'd be able to source the terms used from publications etc. inexplicable is sorciable from any depiction of xoriat, for example. why you're both still trying to assert a list of character behaviors defines a prefix/suffix, i'd never find as reasonable. particularly missing is anything that defines chaotic as enabling something/someone chaotic to be neutral, lawful, chaotic, good, or evil, - lest it be formulaic, and chaos is rarely formulaic. lawful meaning "restricted to" in conjunction to any given suffix means complete dedication. lawful good meaning dedicated to good and incapable of evil. lawful evil meaning dedicated to evil and incapable of doing good. lawful neutral meaning dedicated to remaining neutral. while the list of character behaviors reflects that, it gives no indication as to why and that's what a definition each prefix and suffix would help explain. you cant say implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, blah, blah, blah, before you've shown the logical mechanic behind it, which is still completely absent. JeffryBloom (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fellow Editors, The Additional alignments section of the article is currently unsourced, and is written as being generally applicable to all versions, which is verifiably false. Unless sourcing can be provided for the contents, or there is significant objection here, I will remove this section later in the week. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. It seems it is primarily a mechanic from Dungeons & Dragons Online, based on the above discussion and recent edit history. If I am correct and it does apply only to that game, then that article is where it belongs, not here. oknazevad (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only editor interested in including it seems to have lost interest. Go ahead and remove it when ready. 2601:240:C701:45F0:ACF6:445B:84C4:5443 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ref added to support exclusive ALIGNMENT OF MAGICAL ITEMS. i see no reason to suspect the original re-editor has "lost interest." and the issue should be taken up with them rather than wantonly concluding. 166.175.190.198 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good ref, and good call. I'll remove the tag (and change the all caps, as that's unneeded.) oknazevad (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that first ref was just to turf the concept of "item alignments." "magical item alignments." 166.175.190.198 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i've found a Dungeons and Dragons Supliment "Magic Item Compendium" that could be used for ref. will look for better tho. 166.175.190.198 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the Magic Item Compendium (Andy Collins; 2007; ISBN 9780786943456), and there is no mention of any of the material included in the Additional alignments section. There's also nothing that I could find in the PHB or DMG for AD&D 1st Ed through 3rd Ed. Other editors may wish to confirm through their own searches. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Updated Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the Chris Perkins DMG (2011) can be used to verify this information. This is the same document discussed above in this thread. It appears to be collections of "House Rules" formatted to resemble an official product. The ISBN matches the 1st Ed DMG, which was published in 1979, and written by Gygax et al. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the Chris Perkins DMG does not contain material supporting the information in the Additional alignments section. There is no mention of True Good, True Evil, etc. On the basis that there is no reliable sourcing for this section, I have removed it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I should have checked the isbn; I had presumed based on the date and the name that it was a 4e ref, which would be legitimate, but it was just bs. Not sorry to see it go if it is just that. oknazevad (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Intentionally misrepresenting sources is a serious problem. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there is an Alignment of Magical Items section in both the Chris Perkins DMG and (more importantly) the official AD&D 2nd Ed. Revised DMG; with essentially the same text in both of them. But nothing that supports the information that was in the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the true alignment magical items is simply the result of the mechanic. in the case of non sentient items simply aligning something good would then result in the item being true good and not even neutral good as an un-self-aware item is incapable of choosing to remain neutral in any other respect. while the magical item compendium was flawed as a perfect source, it does hint the existence of a better source and DOES support the ad&d "Magical Item Alignment" ref in many multipal places. given the copious sources on ddo and that ddo predates the magical item compendium, itself, it's clear the magical item compendium was inspired by ddo's more comprehensive interpretation of the gygaxian alignment mechanic. there's insufficient grounds to remove it at this time. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... huh? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's polite to express the scope of your current understanding before saying "huh." 166.175.191.200 (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I had absolutely no understanding of anything you said there. You did get me curious, though; the way you write and the way you are so strongly arguing over this section is extremely reminiscent of JeffryBloom. Are you him, just editing logged out? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Align Weapon(PH p197) [Clr2] – Weapon becomes good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. many multipal "align weapon" spells D&D spell compendium ISBN: 0-7869-3702-5 First Printing: December 2005 ISBN-13: 978-0-7869-3702-8 Based on the original Dungeons & Dragons® rules created by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, and the new Dungeons & Dragons game designed by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, and Peter Adkison. This product uses updated material from the v.3.5 revision. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

questioning the suitability of this source "Accountants must have an intelligence of 13 or greater so they can learn numerous languages, the better to employ their widely feared Verbal Blast weapon (see below). Accountants are always lawful in alignment, most often neutral and only rarely of true good alignment." from http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg048.pdf search terms "true good". written by Roger E. Moore 166.175.191.200 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a section on a joke NPC class verifiably sources the information on Magic Item Alignments. Verifying the existence of official games rules for True Good, etc involves more than just finding documents where the words "true" and "good" are juxtaposed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The text which was reinserted is:

Additionally to the previous alignments, there are four "item alignments"[1][2]: True Good[3], True Evil, True Law[3], and True Chaos[3]. True Good and True Evil are distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, as neither is concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or remaining neutral to it. True Law and True Chaos are distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, as neither is concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or remaining neutral to it.

None of the sources provided supports the existence of True Good, True Evil, True Law, True Chaos. Additionally the Chris Perkins DMG is not a reliable source for official D&D game information, as discussed above. The ISBN provides matches the Gygax et al DMG 1979; the ISBN for the third source matches the Magic Item Compendium, not the PHB. And in any case using the spell description to verify the text above is a WP:SYNTHesis.
Per WP:UNSOURCED, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material; it is not incumbent on editors removing unsourced information to justify that removal. I am comfortable with including a section on Magic Item Alignments, but the content must reflect the information from reliable sources; this addition does not. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps so far "True Good" has not yet been established save for "True Good"He joined Wizards of the Coast in 1997 when TSR was acquired https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_E._Moore#Career http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg048.pdf 1981 but "truely lawful" or "simply lawful" are already turfed are already obvious via Xoriat and Mechanus respectively. arguing the exact semantics and capitalisation's is all you're really doing so far. that's not enough to turf either of your two rule evocations or complete deletion. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my local English vernacular, the verb to turf, means to throw away. The comment above does not make sense with this meaning. Would it be possible to provide an alternative verb, or an explanation of the intended meaning. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why turf would mean that in a dialect would be quite counter intuitive. does gang turf represent someplace a gang threw away? no i think not. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Chris Perkins DMG is not a reliable source for official D&D game information, as discussed above. by it's self perhaps but further suplimental v3.5 examples have been provided. unless you're presenting evidence that v3.5 has removed the concept of "magical item alignments" you're not presenting a valid argument to remove that ref or the portion for which it's used as a source. i've provided the v3.5 suplimental sources. your continued belaboring the previous "magical item alignment" did not by itself prove the point is therefore moot. if i provided the wrong isbn, that will be fixed. note, the provided isbn refrences a book that still contains the "magical item alignment" chapter, it's secondary to the point if the isbn refrences the chris perkens revision. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for lack of reliability for the Chris Perkins DMG 2011 is that it is not an official D&D rule book. It is a collection of house rules. Notwithstanding this, the text of that document's Alignment of Magical Items section (p. 34), is:

Certain powerful magical items, particularly intelligent ones, have alignments. Alignment in these cases is not an indication of the moral properties of the item. Rather, it is a means of limiting the number and types of characters capable of using the item - the user's alignment must match the item's alignment for the magic to work properly. Aligned magical items, usually weapons, were created with a specific ethos in mind. The item was attuned to this ethos by its creator.
Aligned items reveal their true powers only to owners who share the same beliefs. In the hands of anyone else, the item's powers remain dormant. An extremely powerful item may even harm a character of another alignment who handles the item, especially if the character's alignment is opposed to the item's. Aligned magical items should be rare. When an item has an alignment, it is a sign of great power and purpose. This creates opportunities for highly dramatic adventures as the player characters learn about the item, research its history, track it across the country, discover its ancient resting place and overcome the guards and traps set to protect it.

which does not support the information which was included in the article. There is no mention in this section of True Good, True Evil, etc, nor is there any mention in the corresponding sections of actual official products. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you clearly did not actually look at it before you deleted it. in addition to the chris perkins collections, multiple citations were added. if you disagreed with a single source that should not have formed the whole basis to delete the entire section. and for the facts of it "True Good, True Evil, True Law, True Chaos" was not what that section contained in that it wasn't asserting the specific "True etc" but rather "simply etc" as the caps were removed so as to no longer contain the idea of specifically "True etc." please delete what you say you're deleting when you delete what you're saying you're deleting, or better, don't be so deletion happy (: 166.175.191.200 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the aspersions included in the comment above, neither of the other sources provided contains any text which supports the included information. Editors who believe that those sources do provide such support are invited to detail the supporting text here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fact, all of the sources depicted an item or a concept of items that were aligned. particularly the cleric spell to make an item simply aligned to one specific alignment, as either singly as with a prefix or with a suffix without either a respective prefix or suffix. nail in coffin, your argument is buried. what's the epitaph? 166.175.191.200 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I am comfortable with including a section on Magic Item Alignments, but the content must reflect the information from reliable sources; this addition does not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay, well why not then restore it with your prefered name change? 166.175.191.200 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is with the section content, not only the section title. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

explain

Additional alignments
Additionally to the previous alignments, there are four "item alignments"[1][2]: true Good[3], true Evil, true Law[3], and true Chaos[3]. True Good and true Evil are distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, as neither is concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or remaining neutral to it. True Law and true Chaos are distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, as neither is concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or remaining neutral to it.

what's wrong with it? isbn 0-935696-02-x? 166.175.191.200 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source which verifies any of "item alignments", "T|true Good", "T|true Evil", "T|true Law" or "T|true Chaos" as in game terms - which is how they are presented in that content. There is no source which verifies the second and final sentences. The section is written as being generally applicable to all versions of the game, which is verifiably false.
If we were to include a section on Alignment of Magic Items, based on the extract from the DMG 2nd Ed (functionally the same as the Perkins extract above, if not verbatim), then we would simply have something like Alignments can also be applied to powerful, magical items - in this case, they do not represent the items ethos or morals, but are used to provide a limitation on which characters can make use of the item. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

from mechanus "purely lawful aligned plane of existence" so within the D&D universe is clearly supported the possibility of simply prefix lawful. the referenced cleric spell fully conforms and that the cleric can cause an item to be purely lawful or simply lawful. so where lawful items are concerned, we already have perfectly rule bases sourcing from perfectly valid publications. same for can be said for "simply chaos". perhaps there is nothing wrong at all with this section? "The section is written as being generally applicable to all versions of the game, which is verifiably false." you're right, only second and current. "which is how they are presented in that content. wrong, thats how they WERE presented in previous context. "in this case, they do not represent the items ethos or morals, but are used to provide a limitation on which characters can make use of the item it's secondary to the point whether or not a lawfully aligned item can be used by a non lawful character. what's primary to the point is that an item can have purely a prefix or purely a suffix and therefore axiomatixaly be unconcerned with neutrality as a non self aware item. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an WP:OR or WP:SYNTH leap of logic to use the existence of a "plane" or "spell" to "verify" the existence of a tenuously related game mechanic. Editors who wish to include information should find sources which directly verify that information. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"spell"that's where your argument falls apart completely since is sorced the aligned weapon is the result of the spell. again you're conflating. you're literaly trying to argue supportic citations constitute wp:synth. 166.175.191.200 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i think you're conflating that alignment must purely be the realm of the "self aware" within the dnd universe. non-sentient items can have an pure p/s alignment and be incapable of an ethos. so can places, see mechanus xoriat 166.175.191.200 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this cris perkins fellow is very widly published, are you sure he's not a licenced dnd author? https://www.google.com/search?num=50&q=d%26d+pdf+chris+perkins&oq=d%26d+pdf+chris+perkins&gs_l=serp.3...5483.13965.0.14465.16.16.0.0.0.0.362.2480.0j8j2j2.12.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..11.5.1162.LOplFCrzNJI 166.175.191.200 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks legit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Perkins_(game_designer) 166.175.191.200 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "Chris Perkins" exists and was a game designer at WotC. A "Chris Perkins" exists, and runs the website http://www.adnd3egame.com/. They are not the same person. The website hosts documents which appear in the format of D&D materials, but are not official documents; these are described on that website as:

AD&D 3 Player's Handbook* - My take on what 3rd edition should have been!  It borrows heavily from C&C, D&D 3.X, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (both 1st & 2nd Edition).   I do not claim to be the original author of all of this document's content.
AD&D 3 Dungeon Master's Guide* - Here is my completed DMG.

Notwithstanding that a person with the same name as a WotC employee produced these documents, there is no evidence to suggest that they are official WotC D&D materials; they have not been published by either TSR or WotC.

Notwithstanding that they are not official materials, they also do not include any text which reliably verifies the information which has been repeatedly inserted in this article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]