Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Refs

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to get this one improved? :) I think I'll have a look at my 1E, 2E, and 3E PHBs for some ideas there. I'm sure some Dragon magazine articles would help, but I don't have an index handy or anything. BOZ (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. It's a high visibility game mechanics article, after all. If you want an assignment, grab one of the above refs and summarize it. I think this one can be very secondary sourcish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll try to get something done later this evening, or maybe during the week. BOZ (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

I've been bold and created an editnotice for this page to try and stop the continual addition of unsourced content... it seems more appropriate to me than indef semi-protection in this case. If it's a bit to glaring or you think that it's just a bad idea, feel free to revert. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perfect! Several people are watching this page anyway, so nothing unsourced really sticks around for long. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; my feeling is that even with people watching it, it's better to just try to stop it in the first place. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the introduction

The reason people keep trying to adapt all manner of examples other than those from the books themselves is because of a fundamental misunderstanding about alignment-as-roleplaying-tool vs alignment-as-ethos. The books give guidelines and examples as tools. In contrast, OR examples are no longer tools but translations: *this* is how *I* understand good/evil/law/chaos. For this reason, I propose adding the following paragraph to the end of the introduction, just before the table of contents.

The good-evil and lawful-chaotic terms used in the Dungeons and Dragons game should not be confused with the the way the same terms are used outside the D&D fantasy realm. Within the D&D world, they are best understood as a constructed character element designed to help a player or dungeon master roleplay a character by defining in general terms what guides the character's actions. Outside the roleplaying environment, such roleplaying constructs have no function. Instead, they are replaced by various ethical, religious, or philosophical approaches which try variously to describe or explain a person's motivations, perceptions, and actions in individual, societal, or absolute terms.

What do you think? - Tenebris

I'd say that that could be put in the editnotice, but using it in the article itself could be considered WP:OR without a source. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Half of the source is that part of either the Players' or GM's Handbook that talks about alignment as a tool. I think I may have actually paraphrased it. The other half comes directly from dictionary definitions. Plus, this article notes where Gygax himself mentions that Law-Chaos is based entirely on two fantasy series (ie. not real life), and the game goes on to explain about how you are playing characters in a story. That is about as non-OR as it gets. - Tenebris

Tenebris, if you can source it properly with citations, I say go for it. However, I can almost guarantee that won't stop people from adding or removing examples! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If we can get this article up to a high standard, we can keep it there. Getting it there is another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

External Link

Please consider adding an external link to my extensive website on the alignment system in Dungeons and Dragons. I've included information from AD&D1, AD&D2, D&D3, Dragon magazines, Hackmaster, and other game systems. The information there contains a great amount of detail that hasn't been integrated into the Wikipedia article on Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). I'm not selling anything, have no advertisements, and I'm not trying to promote my website. I was dissatisfied with the lack of information available online for the D&D alignment system, so I created these pages. It is part of my personal website, but the alignment pages are self-contained and all links pertain only to Dungeons and Dragons.

Alternatively, consider using my site to update the Wikipedia article on Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). I think you'll find it a useful source.

http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

Easydamus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Axes

I'm switching the order the axes are presented in, and I think I have some decent reasons. Please discuss here with me before reverting.

First of all, the "Law vs. Chaos" axis played a much more key role in the early history of the game, as this section admits. "Good vs. Evil" wasn't even introduced until a couple years later, when AD&D came about, and as far as I am aware the basic D&D game never even adopted it.

My other reason is more arbitrary. When you speak your character's alignment, you'd say "Lawful Good", not "Good Lawful", right? ;) The word that comes first is the one that draws your attention.

Now, one might argue that since 4E has significantly downplayed the Law/Chaos axis with its radical restructuring of alignment, the current version of the game holds the Good/Evil axis as much more important. While true, I don't think that matters much to the overall history of the game.

So, I say have "Law vs. Chaos" first, and "Good vs. Evil" second. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt at ethics

This is the talk page, and I am talking. I'm not about to put this on the article itself, so we don't need to be reminded that it doesn't belong there.

I suggest that

• Good: altruism, that the weak are right to take from the strong
• Neutral: individualism, that nobody has a right to claim anyone else's goods
• Evil: that the strong are right to take from the weak

• Lawful: strong adherence to an ideology
• Neutral: weak adherence to an ideology
• Chaotic: no adherence to any ideology

xod (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Which book does that summary come from? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New External Link

I added a link to a site that contains a large amount of alignment information gleaned from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition D&D. It is much more comprehensive than the second external link (which is now broken). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.129.195 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 April 2010

Thanks, but that page you linked comes straight out of the SRD without attributing where it comes from. I have replaced the link with one that contains identical content but attributes it to the SRD. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The link that you replaced it with does not have identical content. It only contains the 3rd edition versions of the alignment. I think that an article about alignment in Dungeons and Dragons would benefit from an external link describing alignment as it appeared in different versions of D&D. The site has a bibliography (which lists the Player's Handbook 3.5 as a source, in essence, the SRD) and the individual alignment descriptions cite their references. It is much more comprehensive than the previous (now removed) link, judging by the archived page I viewed earlier. I will hold off on reinstating the link to wait for more discussion about what should and should not be an external link for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.209.162 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 April 2010

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

I deleted two links - one dead (with an archive link to a page that didn't seem to add value to this article), and one with unattributed content that was added by 205.56.129.195. I replaced them with one link that attributed the content.

Between the link I deleted and the link I replaced, the material about alignments was identical, word for word. I checked it carefully. The only difference is the link added by 205.56.129.195 did not give proper attribution to the source, therefore it is inappropriate to include. The link I replaced it with does. There are plenty of SRD sites one could also use that give proper attribution:

• http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment (the one I added)
• http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 (official WOTC site, but the content of the alignment document is in rtf, not html)
• http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html (Official OGF site)
• http://dmreference.com/srd/Characters/Description/Alignment.htm (hyperlinked articles)
• http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Alignment (a Wiki based on the SRD)

...and others

All of those give proper attribution to the fact that the material comes from the System Reference Document covered under the Open Gaming License. Any of them would be better than what was posted.

I also caution about posting something that is "much more comprehensive" than what is written in the official sources. Such "much more comprehensive" information amounts to self-published original research on the part of the author, which wouldn't be appropriate to include as a link in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But you still haven't addressed whether this article would benefit from having an external link which also includes alignment information from 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. This is what makes it more comprehensive. Yes, you've provided a better link for all alignment information in the SRD (which is definitely what this article needed). The website that I posted attributes each paragraph in the detailed alignment descriptions to a game source (examples: 2nd edition AD&D, the Paladin's Handbook, etc.). I'm not going to change anything any more, but it seems odd that you're only concerned with alignment as found in the SRD. Have you checked each page on the site that I posted? (I hope I get this tilde thing right) 205.56.129.195 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll address it: Yes, this article would benefit from including alignment information from the 1st and 2nd editions, provided such information is different or contradictory from later editions. I don't agree that this needs to be in an external link. The landing page of the website you posted made no attributions at all, yet the text was copy and pasted straight out of the SRD.

The other pages do have references, but certain key items on those pages aren't referenced at all, and may consist of original research on the part of the author (like the 10 commandments or personal codes for each alignment). I don't see any such thing in the 2nd edition books I have. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dual interpretations

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)

Bureaucrats

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Batman - Lawful Good?

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)

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)

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)

+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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

• • 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)

Robin Hood

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Complete Scoundrel

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Reliable sources and adding DDO to this article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gold Dragon

"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)

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)

Article fully protected, three days

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Legacy

The D&D alignment system is occasionally referenced as a system of moral classification in other contexts. For example, Salon.com television critic Heather Havrislesky, reviewing the HBO television series True Blood, analyzed the program's characters in terms of D&D alignments and identified protagonist Sookie Stackhouse as chaotic good, her vampire boyfriend Bill Compton as lawful neutral, Eric Northman as lawful evil, and Lafayette Reynolds as chaotic neutral.

- Seriously? A link to a site about a TV show. Remove this whole section apart from, "the D&D alignment system is occasionally referenced as a system of moral classification in other contexts." from this page as it will inform people, instead of persuade people through fiction.

72.208.234.69 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Showing that part of the game has meaning outside the game speaks to notability and importance. Using examples of references outside the game does just that. It's what makes this an encyclopedia, not a game manual. Kindly chillax, and stop shouting. We will not remove the only actual, sourced example of the purpose of the paragraph and leave it as original research. That said, we do need more and better material in the section. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

this section is utterly meaningless with just one single citation to back it. 166.175.62.102 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

barring many multiple citations this section should be renamed from "legacy" to "an anecdotal mention google once found but no one ever read." 166.175.62.102 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Chaotic Evil

Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups, as they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative.

one of the resident pedants might know, is the comma in that line necessary? my opinion is that i don't think it is. 166.175.63.147 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of sentence to do completely without a comma, and the "as..." clause, which is complicated in itself, is parenthetical. I'd leave it in. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at MOS:COMMA (and various external guides), I would consider that two commas are desirable: one in the location above and another after "orders". The phrase, which would then be between the commas, is parenthetical; it will be easier for the reader if it is separated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

a comma infront of an adverb looks strange to me. you dont put a comma infront of a verb. i guess it's just an added functionality of an adverb. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/as ctrl+f ", as" multipal citations. btw: bonus points for admitting to be resident pedants without resorting to rhetoric. 166.175.56.43 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the usage in the sentence above is as a conjunction, replacing because. On reflection, desirability of a second comma depends on whether the clause do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative is considered to be further explanation of do not work well in groups, or an additional description of CE characters. The former does not require a second comma; the latter does. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional alignments - unsourced

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

it's also impolite to lie. since you're repeatedly being rude and havent managed anything relivant to ask, i'll just disregard you. 166.175.62.102 (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict)The text which was reinserted is:

Additionally to the previous alignments, there are four "item alignments": True Good, True Evil, True Law, and True Chaos. 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.

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

explain

Additional alignments
Additionally to the previous alignments, there are four "item alignments": true Good, true Evil, true Law, and true Chaos. 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

the refrences on the page seem to indicate he's known by both chris perkins and chistopher perkins and that he was employed by wizards of the coast through 2013 who he published with(has not been shown) does not discredit him as an expert source "d&d creative manager" quite impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.57.226 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References on which page? If Christopher Perkins (game designer), how does that relate to a document collated by another person (who may happen to share the same name)? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"who may happen to share the same name" you're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here, so far, it's not worth much explaining. what's your basis that these are different people? while it might be difficult for me to find a source that shows the same George Lucas was behind each movie of starwars, that does not then make a substantial argument each one was a different George Lucas. 166.175.57.226 (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It makes not a lick of difference if they're the same person (and they're not). The material you keep trying to push as a source is not an official publication. No matter who created it. It is a fan work, and no my an acceptable source. Period, end of story. (That parts of it may be cooyvios makes it worse.) Add in the false ISBN and frankly my good faith is gone. Oh, and there's nothing in the Magic Item Compendium, either. But to add something and then say "can you guys check for me" is unacceptable; if you can't check it, don't put it in the article. It's okay to ask if someone can check on the talk page, but that must be done first. The whole section has shown no value at this point, and I do not believe it should be re-added. oknazevad (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

the incorrect isbn was in no way intentional and was the result of not being able to find it due to a lack of knowledge of where to find it. just like you, i thought the pdf was the actual dungeon masters guide. http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/dmg.pdf who'd have guessed 325 pages wasn't the actual dm's guide which turns out is only 236 pages? i had to google the isbn which was from what i thought i was looking at. besides that, you simply asserting it isn't the exact same chris perkins that held the position at both tsr AND wotc is just as baseless as asserting the exact same george lucas wasn't behind the last six starwars movies.... show your evidence! oh i suppose you dont have to show any evidence they werent 6 different geoge lucas's..... Magic Item Compendium, either. that's a lie! how about "axiomatic" pg240 "anarchic" pg240 "holy" pg242 "unholy" pg243? talk about lack of good faith! forget you man... you're intransigently arguing and twisting rules to refute what YOU KNOW FULL WELL AND GOOD, is overwhelmingly obvious! 166.175.58.235 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

PAGE 1 "REVISED BY CHRIS PERKINS 2011 - TSR GAMES" 166.175.58.235 (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a fake! - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

what's your proof! https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=isbn+0-935696-02-x 166.175.58.235 (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?isbn=isbn+0-935696-02-x&mode=isbn&st=sr&ac=qr 166.175.58.235 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see here, and the extensive discussion above. Please also note that it does not matter, as the text of the document does not support the information that was being added to the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

there has been no logical dispute that within the D&D universe Magical Items cant have alignments. for fact, all "intelligent" magical items are required to have an alignment(ISBN 0-935696-02-4) pg166 http://s11.postimg.org/9edq1lr9f/1025151956.jpg if you had a bunch of old d&d books in front of you, you should have actually looked in one. the results of the cleric spell i referenced earlier that non-intelligent magical items can be singularly aligned has overwhelmingly been shown. your argument that a non-sentient item does not then have an ethos is secondary and superfluous to the point. there is no logical basis to delete this section. it's perfectly well sourced. you're argument that each and every ref doesn't reflect the whole of the section is completely pointless. the references were used where and when they reference each place they're placed. that's how references are used, are they not? if i was presenting one source that reflected the whole of the section i would put it all the way at the end of the whole section, would i not? do you know how to place references or are you just "conveniently forgetting" just to twist a rule as needed? yes it's a rhetorical question. 166.175.58.235 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

the cleric spell is not the only spell that creates singularly aligned items in the spell compendium, either. 166.175.58.235 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the official D&D rules, in various editions, provide support for magical items being "aligned", but that is not what was added to the article - which was that: a) an additional 4 alignments exist; b) they are termed collectively "magical item alignments"; c) that they are named "T|true|simply Good", "T|true|pure Evil", "T|true|absolute Law", "T|true|total Chaos"; d) that they are distinct from the alignments Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral; e) something about Xoriat & Mechanus; f) something about a non-sentient item axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between.
None of that is included in the sources provided; nor does it naturally emerge from those sources, without some synthesis.
I have no issue with including a section on Magic Item Alignments, but the content must reflect the information from reliable sources.
On a separate note, I note that you have now made several comments w.r.t the intent of my comments here. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA, and focus on content not contributors. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

you're quibbling what they're named when NO ONE is asserting what they are named..... i even went so far as to change each one from uniformly saying "true" capped or not and you're still asserting each one is capped or still saying "True etc"! you wont be satisfied until they're not described in the least, even clinically as a prefix or suffix! could you truly be any more irrational and intransigent? i have to wonder. i clearly offered for you to replace it, named how YOU saw fit, which was an opportunity you clearly ignored for many hours. the only effort you're so far able to put forth is to argue incessantly with every baseless argument you can come up with. how exactly are you pretending to be anything but completely unproductive? None of that is included in the sources provided; nor does it naturally emerge from those sources, without some synthesis. the claim of synthesis you're making pertains to the bulk of this whole article any time a ref isn't placed at the end of each section. for fact, you decided to attack this section after i corrected two synthetic AND erroneous assertions found in chaotic good and chaotic evil subsections. "ideals of greater good" and "only respond to punishment" you're just edit warring. the difference between you and me is that i correct what's already present, you just flagrantly delete whole sections and perfectly logical edits. you know full well i can show non-intelligent magical-items can be aligned, you're just being intellectually dishonest. you even quote a section from 3.5 dm's guide that says it plainly. though it goes on to discuss and describe only how intelligent items are treated. i've shown multiple citations of spells that only apply either a prefix or a suffix to any item without an alignment which can only be non-intelligent-items because only non-intelligent-items do not already have an alignment! i've already proven that conclusivly pg166 and cleric spell Align Weapon clr2: Align weapon makes a weapon good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, as you choose. This spell has no effect on a weapon that already has an alignment. it's not synthesis, it's just that it's hard to find other than in ddo where it describes it all in one place. ddo which you're intransigently refusing any inclusion what-so-ever. you're even destroying a whole section that couldn't be left without it and still have any relevance what-so-ever. i'm not complaining, but what is this garbage you guys replaced it with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Legacy just go away, you're editing information you're determined not to understand. 166.175.58.235 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"a non-sentient item axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Good or Evil" explain how that doesn't "naturally emerge", explain, i cant wait to hear it. how can something that cannot precieve or think then precieve or think(looks at both of you quizzically)? hmm? aspirations civil etc. there's no way to describe: out right, bold faced, lies, without making some implications. when you stop lying i'll stop pointint it out. 166.175.58.235 (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(cur | prev) 23:45, 3 November 2015‎ Ryk72 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,196 bytes) (-2,973)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 166.175.62.102 (talk): Rv; no consensus for these changes; active discussion on Talk. (TW)) (undo)" ok ryk, what's your flimsy argument this time? 166.175.62.102 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits are still full of WP:SYNTH and reliant on illegitimate sources. No one else agrees with its inclusion. Please drop the stick. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with any of the sources listed. you simply saying they're illegitimate doesn't present a valid argument. since you probably didn't even read it since your last arbitrary slash and burn edit i'll post it here. and Argumentum ad populum is a registered fallacy. you're going to have to come up with a valid argument.

At least two panes Mechanus-absolute Law, Xoriat-total Chaos, and non-intelligent magical items may have singular autogamous prefix/suffix alignment: singular purely Good, singularly simply Evil, singular absolutely Lawful, and singular totality Chaotic. This section should not be confused for attempting to assert D&D technical terms but rather presenting depictions of singular term alignment. Distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, purely Good and simply Evil are only found on non-sentient items so axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it. Distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, absolutely Lawful and totally Chaotic are on non-sentient items and axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it.

here, maybe you can articulate a coherent argument for once. 166.175.62.102 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Your edits still include references to the illegitimate, fake, copyright violating "AD&D3e" fan rules. That is unacceptable. A short sentence along the lines of "some magic items may have an alignment, with only one of the axes represented" with the Magic Item Compendium source, that might be acceptable if others agree. But no reference to the fan-made version can be accepted, as it's not actually part of D&D. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the above comments by Oknazevad. And would also not oppose a short inclusion along the lines mentioned. The inclusion quoted above is in parts nonsensical, parts undue, parts poorly sourced, parts WP:SYNTH, parts unrecognisable as English, and wholly unworthy of inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

there's nothing synth about it and everyone with a license to represent d&d depicts it the same way. the english, not everyone speaks your version of it or find any value that it should be spoken in your british dialect. if you have specific citations of how you would rephrase something then do it. other than twaddling in pedantics, you have no argument just a long string of baseless dated fallacious conclusions and unsubstantiated accusations. 166.175.62.102 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

there's nothing fan made(was unproven then and still unproven now, tho moot. the portion you're speaking about isn't present.) about "Magical Items may have alignments. ISBN 0-935696-02-x and pg166 Table 2 Sword Alignment" which proves items may have alignments, again you fail to review before speaking. the following magic item compendium source depicts single alignments of items "Premium 3.5 Edition Dungeons & Dragons Magic Item Compendium, "Axiomatic", "Anarchic", "holy", "unholy", ISBN-10: 0786964499" then followed up with the clr spell and it's the final nail in your argument. continuing followup with fallacious argument will only be tolerated for 2 days at most. after that it goes back up and i feel i'm being excessively magnanimous given that it shouldn't have ever been challenged and removed in the first place. take some time to work on that utter abomination single source legacy section you and okavase put up for meaningless reasons. gee look, you love argumentum ad populum fallacy so much it turns out there's an ip from a whole other continent complaining about how worthless it is. 166.175.62.102 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t questions of the reliability of the Chris Perkins DMG (2011), please see WP:BURDEN & WP:ONUS. The obligation is not for editors to show that this is not a reliable source (although I believe that has been clearly demonstrated), but for editors wishing to use it to show that it is a reliable source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

please actualy look at the source you're talking about before blithering on about it. "Magical Items may have alignments. ISBN 0-935696-02-x and pg166 Table 2 Sword Alignment" i even linked a picture of the page as i held it in my own hands. if these editors are going to continuously disregard what they're actually talking about, i dont see why anyone should regard what they have to say in the very least. you both should just be barred from editing this page. 166.175.62.102 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

here ya go again http://s11.postimg.org/9edq1lr9f/1025151956.jpg still going to challenge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.62.102 (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone here may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffryBloom. 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC) i'll entertain any investigation particularly to prove i'm not this 72.208.234.69 found in the legacy discussion section. accusing me of socking is rediculous. 166.175.61.37 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of inserted content

The most recently inserted content for this section was:

At least two panes Mechanus-absolute Law, Xoriat-total Chaos, and non-intelligent magical items may have singular autogamous prefix/suffix alignment: singular purely Good, singularly simply Evil, singular absolutely Lawful, and singular totality Chaotic. This section should not be confused for attempting to assert D&D technical terms but rather presenting depictions of singular term alignment. Distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, purely Good and simply Evil are only found on non-sentient items so axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it. Distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, absolutely Lawful and totally Chaotic are on non-sentient items and axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it.

References

The issues as I see them are:

• References malformed; do not allow reader to verify information.
• Mechanus / Xoriat - not mentioned in sources provided; milieu specific; undue for general coverage of alignment.
• non-intelligent magical items may have singular autogamous prefix/suffix alignment - not verified by sources provided; Table 2 Sword Alignment covers intelligent magic items only, covers dual axis alignments only;
  • "autogamous" - self-fertilization in flowering plants??!!
  • "prefix/suffix" - no support for this phrasing/terminology in sources.
  • "singular autogamous prefix/suffix alignment" - phrasing is confusing to the reader.
• singular purely Good, singularly simply Evil, singular absolutely Lawful, and singular totality Chaotic - not mentioned in sources provided.
• This section should not be confused for attempting to assert D&D technical terms but rather presenting depictions of singular term alignment - content should be clear without needless meta discussion.
• Distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, purely Good and simply Evil are only found on non-sentient items so axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it. Distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, absolutely Lawful and totally Chaotic are on non-sentient items and axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it - no sourcing provided; phrasing is confusing to the reader.

I welcome thoughts from other, uninvolved, editors. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The highlighted blockquote is barely readable. If what we're talking about is simply weapons that respect character alignment, working well for co-aligned characters and poorly—or "blasting", to use the term I'm familiar with from playing Nethack—the cross-aligned, but respecting only one axis (say, lawful-neutral-chaotic) while being unconcerned with the other(s) (good-neutral-evil), then that is a valid concept and worth explaining, but one which can be stated a lot more simply and carefully than what I'm reading above. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "Mechanus / Xoriat - not mentioned in sources provided; milieu specific; undue for general coverage of alignment." i suppose it could be explained more fully that when something is aligned it means to be aligned with these planes mechanus(is a purely lawful aligned plane of existence... first sentance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanus) and xoriat. that these two planes are innately singular prefixed respectivly. neither plane are innately good, evil, or neutral; they're only purely chaotic and purely lawful respectivly. but how would you rephrase? they are essentialy their own respective prefix themselves. still no answer still nothing constructive to offer? typical... 166.175.58.10 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As above, Mechanus & Xoriat are milieu specific terms, isolated to particular campaign settings; inclusion here is undue, and not productive of reader understanding of alignment. Suggestion is to rephrase by subtraction, omitting these entirely. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

i disagree completely that these are purely for specific campaign settings as planar monsters and npc's will emerge from them regularly throught-out many multiple campaigns. beholders and some types of golums most notably invincables are of xoriat and mechanus respectively. on top of that a character's patron deity may reside in either and summon the character at will to those realms to face judgment, which could happen at any time regardless of the campaign. nor would i find it a valid argument even if you had a point. they are the chaotic and lawful axis themselves, regardless of the fullness to which they're included in campaigns. anytime you discuss any chaotic axis alignment you're discussing the properties of the plane of xoriat. anytime you discuss any lawful alignment you're discussing the properties of the plane of mechanus. these should not be excluded from this section, but rather, their reference should be made ubiquitous throughout the whole of the article. 166.175.61.75 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which supports such an inclusion? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

yes it's called d&d... 166.175.56.135 (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• • non-intelligent magical items may have singular autogamous prefix/suffix alignment - not verified by sources provided; Table 2 Sword Alignment covers intelligent magic items only, covers dual axis alignments only; nss(why do you continue belaboring an irrelivant point?), that's why there's a second source. while that particular line, that far, discusses non-intelligent items, there's very little that isn't defined by it's mirrored contrast(antonym). after that there's the fact it shows a very old concept of items having alignments, which you both vehimently resisted for weeks. again in complete contrast, intelligent=prefix and suffix alignment ~vs~ non-intelligent/=prefix and suffix alignment. as i said it's common language for a two term dichotomy mechanic, do you really need a lmgtfy link? 166.175.58.10 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

will deconstruct the rest of your post later 166.175.58.10 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t "prefix/suffix" as a description, if this is a common terminology, it should be easy to provide independent sources which use it. If such sources cannot be found, it is not sufficiently common and inclusion is not justified. W.r.t "source describes intelligent items; non-intelligent items logically follow" or similar, this is textbook OR/SYNTH. Antonym and dichotomy as used above are not understandable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

i could cite hundreds of thousands of decades old with this terminology many of which would be directly related to d&d alignment with just a simple lmgtfy link... but i think what you're getting at, without actually managing to be constructive in any way, is that you'd prefer "single axis alignment" which i will grudgingly accept even tho you weren't actually able to suggest it. 166.175.56.135 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• • ""singular autogamous prefix/suffix alignment" - phrasing is confusing to the reader." no suggestions nothing constructive to offer, typical. 166.175.58.10 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion is to use simpler phrasing. It is not obvious what the meaning of the phrase used is intended to be; consequently, no explicit alternate phrasing can be suggested. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

i could cite hundreds of thousands of decades old with this terminology many of which would be directly related to d&d alignment with just a simple lmgtfy link... but i think what you're getting at, without actually managing to be constructive in any way, is that you'd prefer "single axis alignment" which i will grudgingly accept even tho you weren't actually able to be productive for once. 166.175.56.135 (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "autogamous" - self-fertilization in flowering plants??!! i suppose if one wanted to be a liar and depict "autogamous" was exclusive to flowring plants you might say something like this. for everyone else that instead chooses to know what's in a dictionary you'd know why your pigeonhole(let me guess, in your vernacular this means to throw something away? ctrl+f "turf") was much too small http://www.britannica.com/science/autogamy. 166.175.58.10 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Autogamy per the Britannica reference provided still refers to self-fertilisation. It is not clear how this relates to D&D alignment. Suggestion is that this word is confusing to the reader, and should be removed, in favour of simpler words.- Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

i think what you're getting at, without actually managing to be constructive in any way, is that you'd prefer "single axis alignment" which i will grudgingly accept even tho you weren't actually able to suggest it. 166.175.56.135 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• • This section should not be confused for attempting to assert D&D technical terms but rather presenting depictions of singular term alignment - content should be clear without needless meta discussion. it clearly is clear but for some odd reason you and another continuously intentionally misinterpret as you see fit to fit whatever baseless accusation and frivolous argument you can muster. you made it necessary and then you complain about it. typical intransigence. i figured out a nice source for depicting the lawful evil alignment, YOU (: 166.175.58.10 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If simpler, clear phrasing is used, meta discussion should not be required. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

if simpler, clearer phrasing could have been used before now then this wouldn't have had to have been added at all! i take this as an admission of guilt that you're finally able to drop this frivolous claim you or ozhogma made, in the first place! 166.175.56.135 (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, purely Good and simply Evil are only found on non-sentient items so axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it. Distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, absolutely Lawful and totally Chaotic are on non-sentient items and axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it - no sourcing provided; phrasing is confusing to the reader. 'self-evident' is it's own source. 166.175.58.10 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Self-evident is it's own source" is textbook OR/SYNTH. The information presented is also internally logically inconsistent. Suggestion is to source or remove this section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

do tell, how is an inanimate object to be "concerned" with anything, let alone any conflict, remaining neutral to it, or with anything what-so-ever beyond it's proven single prefix/suffix(proven conclusively after a mountain of intellectually dishonest accusations) alignment? hmmmm? your other irrational claim, what's "logically inconsistent" about it, hmm? it's only perfectly self-evident. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material ctrl+f "self-evident", no results. ctrl+f "self evident", no results. are you just making yet another intellectually dishonest claim or can you possibly learn not to vomit hyperbole at some point...? you routinely make this claim and you routinely fail to substantiate it. it's your responsibility to substantiate your arguments. from what i've gone already above and beyond to show, it's baseless at best and hyperbole worst. 166.175.60.186 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read the introductory section at WP:OR - Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. .... If there are no reliable, published sources which support this idea, then it is original research. If you would like additional opinions, suggest posting something on the Original research noticeboard. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"If there are no reliable, published sources which support this idea" really, you're trying to say there's no reliable source that inanimate objects aren't concerned with the troubles of existence? the depths of that intellectual dishonesty are unfathomable. the items can be only as the rules say and i've conclusively shown, by the rules, that there are items that exist in the d&d universe that have single prefix/suffix alignment and are non-intelligent. why did you change from wp:synth to wp:or? lol, you cant even decide what bull pucky you wanna fire. just load them all up in a shotgun load, fire, and hope something hits, hmm? there's nothing original about any of it, it's all sourced and emerges overwhelmingly on its own. there's no reason why the ddo sources should be excluded, they show this conclusively in a single source but you want to keep them out as if this article was supposed to only portray one representation. if you want to keep out the source that shows it, all in one place, then don't complain that the original fragmented rules are collected in a perfectly well sourced section. why do you like big heaps of garbage with only a single source anyway?(see legacy section for details.) 166.175.60.186 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that there is no reliable source for Distinct from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, respectively, purely Good and simply Evil are only found on non-sentient items so axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Chaos and Law or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it. Distinct from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively, absolutely Lawful and totally Chaotic are on non-sentient items and axiomatically cannot be concerned with the conflict between Good and Evil or with actively or inactively remaining neutral to it. If an editor believes that this can be verified by a reliable, published source, they should provide that source. Collecting multiple sources to support something which none of them supports individually is WP:SYNTH.
No editor, including myself, has made any objection to including mention of alignment of magic items, including that they may be aligned on a single axis only, but the information above is not that; and it is pure nonsense. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

sourced lie, ctrl+f "13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)" 166.175.56.135 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Collecting multiple sources to support something which none of them supports individually is WP:SYNTH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources they all support each aspect as i've stated. if it were the case that multiple citations negate an article or section as synth then there would be very little of wiki left. you only prove your intransigence. if your interpretation of synth is to be so all inclusive that only one source should ever be used, then all you have to offer this article is a complete lack of understanding(intentional) and twaddling in pedantics, go away. wiki needs constructive editors. Align Weapon(PH p197) [Clr2] – Weapon becomes good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. many multiple "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. is good for a primary source, the rest of the cites simply flushes out the rest of it. No editor, including myself, has made any objection to including mention of alignment of magic itemsincluding that they may be aligned on a single axis only, but the information above is not that; and it is pure nonsense so much lie.... , but the information above is not that; and it is pure nonsense i wonder how people came to depict "overwhelmingly obvious" as "pure nonsense"166.175.58.10 (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC) 166.175.56.172 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Insulting everyone and engaging in WP:IDHT behavior is really not going to sway people to agree with you. I don't care how right you think you are, Wikipedia works on consensus. And so far there has been absolutely no consensus to add this, because others believe you are engaging in WP:SYNTH. (Frankly, that your writing, both in the article and on the talk page is incomprehensible junk isn't helping). It's not argument ad populam, it's a fundamental principal of this place. Maybe Wikipedia editing isn't for you. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Insulting everyone and engaging in WP:IDHT behavior is really not going to sway people to agree with you. you insult yourselves. even admitting that you're completely unpersuaded by reason and logic as much as pretentious braying...? this betrays the fact that all you're doing is trying to run off anyone who tries to add perfectly well sourced material. i'll even take your rebuttal as an open admission to this as fact; that you're intentionally being intransigent just to force out that which you can take offense to. intransigence, lies, intellectually dishonest: can all be taken as offencive or insulting, however they're all perfectly truthful descriptions. WP:IDHT cannot be used to make it impossible to truthfully describe your behaviour. as i posted before on the sock puppet investigation page one of you intellectually-dishonest marginalising/maligning/malignant/-liars(take yer pick) started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JeffryBloom#lies is this all you like to do all day? revel in pedantics and try to manipulate avenues of structural violence? "see, this is why we cant have nice things." start being constructive and maybe you "editors"(rly just butchers) wont feel insulted everytime someone is truthful in their assesments of your editing and lack of aptidude for honesty. 166.175.58.10 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC) 166.175.61.162 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC) 166.175.63.20 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC) 166.175.60.186 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Content Reversion: 8/12/17 UTC

Hi, Dhtwiki! Thank you for reverting my edit!

I wanted to apologize for the edit. I understand that quotes are not supposed to be changed without a very good reason to do so; however, I did not realize that I was editing a quote, so thank you for pointing that out! I will try to remember to look out for quotes in the future.

Thanks again for the edit reversion!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 03:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary. When you mentioned editing for consistency, I thought that you might not be correcting according to the text quoted. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)