Template talk:Alignment grid

Format problems
I tried using this template with the Deity template to show cleric alignments. The grid ended up breaking the other template. Any ideas on how to fix the problem? Thanks.--Ebakunin 08:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. A lot of the templates here have been developed using an HTML hack which is not compatible with the grid as a parameter. Here's the first line of the alignment parameter, as it is at the moment on a lot of templates:
 * |-class="hiddenStructure"
 * This is a throwback from the old days of MediaWiki when the #if: directive wasn't in use. The way to fix it to be compatible with the template is:
 * I have made this fix on the {tl|Deity}} template, but there might be others that need it too. Fw190a8 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made this fix on the {tl|Deity}} template, but there might be others that need it too. Fw190a8 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried using embedding the template again with no luck. I might be using it wrong. Here's what I'm coding:


 * worshipers       = Assassins, fighters, rogues, seekers of retribution
 * cleric alignments =
 * domains          = Fate, Law, Retribution, Travel
 * Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I fixed the "alignments" parameter but not the "cleric alignments" one. I have fixed both now, so feel free to try it again. Fw190a8 20:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alignment of alignment
Original comment copied from Talk:Tempus. Err, aren't the alignments mis-aligned (non pun intended)? chaotic should be vertical.. Zerak talk 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really couldn't remember whether good should go along the top or whether lawful should go along the top. If the source material has it as good along the top, it can be changed, but the templates might need to be changed anywhere it's used, too! Fw190a8 06:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only ever seen is at Lawful+Chaotic as horisontal rows, and evil + good as vertical rows Zerak talk 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll make the change. Probably better it's made sooner rather than later, otherwise changing all the places where it's used would have been a nightmare! Fw190a8 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually used this template three times and never noticed that I used it as if good was across the top already, I cannot believe I missed that. Great template by the way. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

5e (and 4e sort of) alignments
I was wondering if perhaps it's time to update the alignment grid. This didn't come up much in 4e and I didn't push it when he had the big edition switch in 2008 on account of the fact that 4e's alignment system was basically a simplified version of 1e-3e's: CG and NG were combined into "Good," LE and NE were combined into "Evil," and all the neutral alignments (with respect to good and evil) were codified as "unaligned." This matched up pretty neatly with most of the creatures and characters who were in both 3rd edition and 4th edition: formerly LE creatures were almost all evil, formerly CG characters like Drizzt were listed as good, and those that were neither good nor evil were coded as unaligned, with no distinction between law and chaos.

However, things have changed in 5e. In 5e we're back to the nine traditional alignments... with one major difference. That difference is that "unaligned" is now a separate alignment from the LN/N/CN. It's basically the alignment for creatures with no will of their own, who are incapable of making a moral choice (like most animals as well as constructs like golems). A druid - or so the idea goes - chooses to be neutral. However, a wolf does not choose to be unaligned... it just is.

So I thought it might be worth adding unaligned as another option, separate from the traditional nine. The placement I had in mind was below the 9 alignments as another row, but after playing around with the grid on my own on my profile I haven't been able to figure out to how make it work (It just ends up filling one box instead of the space of three). I'm open to other possibilities though.

The other option is to forgo including it and to just note "unaligned" whenever it's relevant... after all, a creature that's unaligned (in 5e) cannot by definition also be any of the nine traditional alignments, since that means they've made a moral decision (and therefore can't be unaligned). Niirfa-sa (talk) 07:52, October 7, 2014 (UTC)